Att kayak fishermen

[BLUE]

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.s...now_off-l.html

[keakar]

so what are they saying? we cant fish any marsh south of la1 from fourchon to grand isle now??

[duckman1911]

IMO if a person owns a piece of property they should have equal ownership of it whether its dry land or flooded land. Its their property even if its flooded by the tide.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

IMO if a person owns a piece of property they should have equal ownership of it whether its dry land or flooded land. Its their property even if its flooded by the tide.

I would agree as long as what they are blocking off is not naturally created tidal canals and its not state owned (which is public owned) leases that are blocking off access to natural public fishing grounds used for years that has only recently decided to be leased out.

public waters should not be reinvented as private canals just because a lease is signed for the LAND

in this case I don't think there is any question its all privately owned land that is nothing but tidal flats and washed out marsh so its not like they are closing public access areas even though it has become a popular area for small craft fishing to use.

im my opinion it cant be private and restricted unless it has been barricaded and gated to prevent public access or accidental egress.

the argument that they don't have to post it or put up barricades is bogus and got through the courts only because they paid people off to get the ruling but you cannot in any reasonable means of common sense, expect someone to know where a restricted boundary is or isn't unless its clearly marked or blocked off.

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by keakar

I would agree as long as what they are blocking off is not naturally created tidal canals and its not state owned (which is public owned) leases that are blocking off access to natural public fishing grounds used for years that has only recently decided to be leased out.

public waters should not be reinvented as private canals just because a lease is signed for the LAND

in this case I don't think there is any question its all privately owned land that is nothing but tidal flats and washed out marsh so its not like they are closing public access areas even though it has become a popular area for small craft fishing to use.

im my opinion it cant be private and restricted unless it has been barricaded and gated to prevent public access or accidental egress.

the argument that they don't have to post it or put up barricades is bogus and got through the courts only because they paid people off to get the ruling but you cannot in any reasonable means of common sense, expect someone to know where a restricted boundary is or isn't unless its clearly marked or blocked off.

I agree.
If a piece of private land blocks access to public land there should be a way of passage to the public land. If said passage has to go through private property I think the owner should be able to deny fishing until the fisher has reached the public land.

[Clampy]

They been kicking people out of the best spots for years. One day while arguing with port police they told all that marsh was private but where I was at was the only place they enforced.

[1fastmerc]

I don't think tidal marshes should be private. Why is that any different than saying a tidal lake or river runs through your property and saying that it is yours and is private.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

[Duck Butter]

Most the canals in question are not natural watwerways, they were dug so now they are tidal. Only people that have a right to be in there are the oil/gas company and the landowner and whomever he/she grants permission.

The other issue is erosion. Many of the places that were pristine marsh are now open water, however the survey lines will still show that the landowner still owns that property even though it is now water. They still pay taxes on that and will ultimately be liable if someone was to get hurt on that property. Just because you can float a boat in there does not mean you can hunt and fish in there.

This has always been private property, and the landowner never enforced or cared about people being in there. A few bad seeds were stealing crabs and crab traps and vandalizing his property so he put an end to that. I think we would all do the same in his situation.


That being said, there are some places that are natural bayous and waterways that adjacent landowners have placed posted signs and gated that should not be gated, this is not one of those though.

My two favorite lakes off the Oua****a River had this very thing happen. There was one entrance into them (even at pool stage) and the landowner(s) placed in a levee and culverts there, the culverts too small to get a boat into, so now he has his own little paradise back there that no one can fish/hunt

[eman]

A lot of this land is the Cheramie property in what used to be called Dos Gris.
Most folks know the area by the cell tower by the road.
At one time there was maybe a dozen homes / camps along w/ a bar - cafe there.
In the early to mid 70's i duck hunted this area and we could walk to most of the blinds.
For many years i had permission to fish the area from the older generation of the family. But now the later generations have said no. i know a couple of reasons why they have stopped letting most folks fish their But they happened years ago.
I have sent e mails offering to pay a fair price yearly to be able to fish it again and to sign a hold harmless agreement and have not gotten a reply.
So maybe it is they are afraid of being sued who knows?