Please Sign In


New To Sportsman Network?

House Bill 391 and the CCA

Reply
 
I just wanted to take a second to say how disappointed I am at the CCA.... I thought you stood for conservation for the common man. It seems like you stand more for the conservation of the private interests of the wealthy and selfish individuals whose money I can only assume keeps your association afloat. I read the CCA's recommendation to squash House Bill 391 and implement some type of study and cringed. The CCA has been silent for years when it comes to water access and now only when real progress is being made they want to recommend a study. What exactly is there to be studied? If it has flow, we should be able to go.

CCA should be shunned by all Louisiana sportsman who care. They pretty much come around once a year with their crappy star tourney and push conservation. I wish they would have truly walked the walk and backed the bill. I plan on showing face at the capital and I hope you all do too.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
I will not participate in CCA if this is true and I'm not doubting you, but it's just hard to believe. Sad
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Don't waste your money on CCA join LASC.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
It seems like which ever side has the most money is the side that the CCA is going to back. It's hard to call Louisiana the 'sportsmans paradise' anymore with all the posted signs everywhere. I have a duck lease down in point la hache and don't have a problem with respectable sportsmen. Lots of people fish my ponds, just not during duck season. Common courtesy goes a long way.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
If any of you had any knowledge of Louisiana law you would understand that the bill is an unconstitutional taking and CCA merely sided with the law. The bill would have been defeated in court and CCA understands this,
No matter how bad you want to fish another mans land it just isn't going to happen. The owners would have eventually damed off every canal on their property, as is their right, and we would all be worse off. There has to be a better way. Try something else.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
I never saw anyone fish on land the fish are in the water. If the land owners want to block the ponds where the tide cannot enter go for it. That's the legal way. What the land owners are doing is unconstitutional & greedy.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Is that all you got, lol.

The landowners own the canal and the land under it. Well established law were the canal was dug by the landowner to access his other land or by someone else with a contractually relationship with the landowner such as an oil lease.

You have probably heard this before, my driveway connects to a state road but you do not have the right to use my driveway without my permission. It is a very simple concept.

Speaking of greedy, you wish to fish over land you do not own, do not pay taxes on , and do not carry liability insurance on.
Just for the record, I don't own any of the subject lands but respect their rights
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
I understand that they own/ lease the land next to and under the waterway but that does not mean they own the water FLOWING in that canel. Nor do they own the fish, crabs, shrimp or whatever else is found in that waterway!! How can you compare a roadway to a FLOWING BODY OF WATER?!? A LOT OF THESE CANALS WEREN'T DUG OUT BUT ARE NATURAL WATERWAYS.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Vatican, I have no problem staying off waters that cover privately-owned water bottoms, I just can't tell where waters covering state-owned property ends and water covering privately-owned property begins. I fish the Cocodrie area and all the waters look the same. Private land owners that have tidal waters covering their land should be required to post their property. If they don't, then it should be open to all. And as far as your driveway, I bet I could tell where a state road ends and your driveway begins!
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Phild, you can find all the state owned water in the original township plats found at the state land office website. http://www.doa.la.gov/Pages/osl/Index.aspx. The waterways are clearly depicted on the maps.

In 1812 Louisiana was admitted to the union; upon admission to the union the state acquired title to all lands below the ordinary high water mark of navigable waters by virtue of the Equal Footing Doctrine.

Navigability is not about a recreational fishing vessel. Highway analogy is correct because the waterways were used as highways back before automobiles.

The rule laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States, and followed in LA, is that streams, lakes, and other bodies of water that are navigable in fact are navigable in law, and, to be navigable in fact, it is necessary that they either be used or be susceptible of being used 'in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.' (The Daniel Ball v. United States). THis is the condition of 1812 not 2018.

another question who is responsible for the land loss? THink about it??? only natural conditions can change property ownership. If yall are blaming the oil companies for digging canal and causing land loss. And the mississippi river levee then ownership does not change. The lawyers will destroy this bill in court and yall will lose a lot more access than you currently have.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Saw the maps before that you're talking about. They are somewhat helpful, and if my boat was equipped with surveying instruments, I could probably better define where the private properties are.

As far as lawyers destroying this if it comes into law, I know every other state bordering the Gulf of Mexico has passed a similar law, & it has held up in court.

And if it means property owners being forced to post their properties, that would be great, at least we'll know where private property begins.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Don't forget witch Reps. vote for & against HB 391 next election .We will get our turn to vote.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
well guys , to take this gated off canal thing in a different direction. VANDALISM !! we finally put a gate across a dead end canal on our lease( with permission from the owners) and guess what ? no more broken in or shot up camps ..and we've had a problem with poaching deer from the canal.So that should stop also . So for those reasons I am against this bill.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
dredger - by that logic, we need to make guns illegal. A gun was used to kill one of my family members so now, ALL guns need to be illegal. Let's punish all gun owners!!!!
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Vatican - you are correct, you own the land under the water. And the land surrounding that water. The moment I step foot on your land, PLEASE press charges on me. I will go quietly and even tell the judge that I was trespassing on your land and that I deserve whatever punishment I receive. When I am on the water, I am on state property. Just curious, do you allow planes or helicopters to fly over your property? Or do you prevent them from trespassing too?
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Another question for the people against this bill. What are your opinions on fishing piers, seawalls or any other man made structure in public water? If I own land and I build a seawall or pier, and it is connected to my property, that is mine. Should you be allowed to cast a bait under it?
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
You are incorrect JB,

Not only would I own the land around and under the waterway but I would also own the right of ingress and egress on the water over my land where the canal is man made by me or someone I authorize to do so, such as an oil company.

You guys can make all kinds of absurd comparisons but it doesn't change the underlying law and you are going to lose this one either in the legislature or in court.

Before you all start bashing CCA you should thank them for the wonderful coastal fishery we have and their efforts to preserve it. Without CCA the commercials would have destroyed our fishery by now.

I have fished many of these types of canals and will miss the access but I respect the landowners right to do so and will resist the knee jerk reaction of many others to have something I did not earn and do not own, simply because I have fished there for decades. Things change. Move on. Miami Corp. sells fishing permits on their canals and closes them to fishing during duck season. That is a reasonable solution in my opinion.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
I am not incorrect.
You still do not own the water. The public owns the water, you own the land, whatever is left of it. Nice deflection of my questions BTW. I really didn't expect you to answer them anyway. And yes, it will most likely be defeated. I am not clueless to the fact that big money will always prevail. And in absence of big money, permission to hunt/fish in all of these 'Private' areas to the right people will keep the public choking on the Big Ole D. Thanks for that. But again, I tell you and others like you. Eventually someone with more money will come along and either buy you out or offer you so much money that you can't turn it down. And when that happens, open wide. That Big Ole D gets bigger and bigger.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
And if you dig your own canal, I will give you that. I know the law. It is wrong but it is the law. My main issue is with the people that DO NOT dig their canals or points of ingress/egress. Ever been to Golden Meadow? I do not know who owns Catfish Lake, or claims to own it, but I am pretty certain they did not dig that lake. The Braud Canal in Lake Verret, Troy Landry did NOT dig that canal, but he sure did put a gate across it. The Crawford Canal out of Bayou Black, I know they dug that but they still should not be able to keep people out. You want to dig a canal, dig it. But keep the state water from filling it. Fill it with your own water or rain water. If you use state water to fill it, you should have to dam it off once it is full. You should not benefit from the ebb and flow of the tide.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
HB 391 if passed would simply advance Socialism. Is that a path we want to go down?
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
How is that kenspeck?
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
It is called skin in the game. Landowners pay taxes, liability insurance and any associated costs of upkeep. This bill would potentially allow anyone to benefit from their investment but no have financial interest. That is a form of Socialism ( taking what is rightfully someone's and giving it to someone else to spread among the community ) I don't feel some wealthy guy should let me on his property if I have no skin in the game.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Go to Google earth . Look at any coastal land from atchafalaya river eastward. On top there is a clock . Click on it and go back 10 years . In 10 more years it will be worse than it is now. It will all be gone and there will be no such thing as a landowner along the coast.....
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
This bill will never pass the way it is written.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
kenspeck - I agree with you completely. My issue is the water. The water is public if it flows with the tide. You may own the water bottom or the exposed land. The issue isn't with the land, it is with the water. If you are a landowner and you want to claim the canal bottom as yours, dam it off, pump out the water, refill it with your own water and landlock the canal. Be my guest. But do not use a loophole to create your own paradise with the continuing use of public resources. And by 'you', I mean a landowner, not necessarily you.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Use link below to see how they voted so you can make a decision on who to vote for next election.

https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1087581
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Never had a chance to pass. We elect lawmakers to uphold the law not bend it till it breaks.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Lafayette Parish Representatives had 7 of 8 vote against. Even the 2 Democrats voted nay. Only the young (30) and ignorant Julie Emerson voted yes. She will be remembered as a Republican who voted with the socialists. Not good for her.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Ignorant? Socialist? You obviously know nothing about her voting record. Speaking of ignorance.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
I was speaking to her vote on this issue.
The rest of the Lafayette Parish delegation voted the other way. The bill was doomed to failure, so maybe she should have consulted with folks that understood the issues.
BTW, I know about the law than she will ever know.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Maybe she did consult folks on this issue. Maybe she has many friends on both side of this issue. Maybe you should travel further east and understand the issue a little more. The circumstances you speak of above on Miami Corp property are a little different than the circumstances you would face if you fished in southeast LA. You may know the law, if so you understand the complexity of this issue. If you have such a clear understanding then you would understand that the amendment she proposed would have been a clear compromise to get this at least moving fwd. The land owners do not want compromise. They do not want this to move fwd. In any fashion.............. I challenge you to fish southeast LA and tell me when you are actually on private land. MUCH different scenario than property with Miami Corp.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
I have fished all over southeast Louisiana, the basin too, and know the situation, but the location of the problem doesn't change the landowner's rights. I have been a Louisiana freshwater and saltwater fisherman for over 50 years.
An Amendment in the form of a compromise is still unacceptable if it erodes landowners rights, no matter how well intentioned.

This is not a 'feel good' issue.
The legislature had the wisdom to recognize this bill for what it was.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
After reading most of the comments here there was one thing not many people are talking about is the tax payers money that is spent on saving all this private land that is owned by private citizens. If it was not for money being spent to save this land they would not have any property to fight over. Just a thought though !!!
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
vatican - again, you have every right to keep people off of the LAND you own. I applaud you for doing that and would do whatever I could to help you out in doing that. The water that flows through your land is not land!! Here is a question, on your 'land', can you keep whatever fish and however many fish you want? Or do you have to abide by the established state laws and regulations?
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
All in all, the bill failed... Next year we will try again... I do not support CCA. I am a coalition supporter and excited about the work they have done. My money and my vote are valuable and the nay voters may not feel my impact singularly.... But they will feel our votes and dollars as a whole....

Last thing ill say is this, if i cant travel state waters to access state resources, my state tax dollars should not go to the restoration of these areas...

So you can keep yor pretty little duck ponds private as long as my tax dollars didnt pay for the rock jetties arent protecting them somwhere up the bayou.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Well that just don't make any sense.... If that's the case why even try to reverse any coastal erosion, or fight it for that matter. All coastal protection efforts benefit all coastal land owners(houma, dularge and below, S. Lafourche, etc), not just duck ponds.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Vatican, I own a 60' x 300' lot with a camper in Theriot and pay about $ 750.00 a year in property taxes. I was at the capital yesterday and talked to a tax assessor. I was told some of theses multi millionaire property owners that are leasing their land to hunt & fish for about $4000 a year per person are only paying about 45 cents an acre for property taxes for the land and pay nothing for the water .
The State is also spending billions of dollars on costal restoration to build up these land owners property. Now I see why the State is so for in debt.
Why should we not be able to fish on water that surround the land that us tax payers are spending billions of dollars on.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Jason - I can answer that question fairly easily. We cannot fish in public water because some, not all, of these 'landowners' allow certain people to utilize the 'land' so long as they keep voting a certain way.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
This State is broke because it does a very poor job of managing the money it gets. Louisiana doesn't have a money problem it has a spending problem. Ag and Marsh lands have low tax rates because their value as compared to commercial lands, etc. is low and the lands don't require much in the way of services, such as fire protection, drinking water, roads, to name a few, from government.
The landowners do pay state and federal income taxes on the revenues the land generates and if the landowner is fortunate enough to have oil or gas production on his farm or marsh land the state takes a huge amount of unearned money, in addition to income taxes, in the form of severance taxes, which is high compared to other states. Also, if there are oil or gas production facilities on the landowner the parish charges confiscatory ad valorem taxes for those sites, for basically nothing in return. Landowners make their contribution to this state, which is more than I can say for the huge population of non producers in this state.

You want to balance the books of the state, get rid of the homestead exemption so that everybody using government services has some skin in the game. That would bring the howls.

Cheers
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Paying taxes is skin in the game. Buying hunting and fishing licenses are skin in the game. Supporting hunting and fishing is skin in the game. Do you think that just because you own 'land' that you are the only one with 'skin in the game'? You continually refer to people that do not own 'land' as do nothing democrats but yet taxes that are collected from these so-called democrats are spent to restore marshland and conserve the wildlife in these marshlands.
Just do me a favor....admit that you are taking advantage of the system and that because you own 'land' you will do whatever it takes to have your own paradise that only those you deem appropriate can use. Just admit it and I will concede. And actually, will respect you for doing so.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
JB, you are partly right but it is the level of skin in the game that is critical. If a citizen buys a fishing license and hunting license does that give him the right to chase those fish or that deer wherever he chooses? The answer is clearly NO ! But if you own land you should be able to govern that land the way you see fit. This is common sense for the most part, right ? With that being said , HB 391 is dead for now but I am sure another law maker will try to bring it back to life in 2019.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
kenspeck - When I am on public water, I am not on land. When I am on public water, I am on just that...public water.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
JB, you are 100% right looks like some people don't know the difference between land and water.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Good question zgisclair.... i have no interests there besides the water.... i dont much need the land... (sarcasm)...

Thats just the feel of the attitude the land owners give off....
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Someone said it best earlier in this post. They pay taxes on the land they own by the acre, not the water. If you want to own the water as well you should be taxed on it. You should also have to purchase the free flowing tidal water from the state for your private use. If these so called owned canals are gated off and deemed private some of you who have called people democrats or ignorant won't be able to get to your own gate. If I was Bob at Bayou Black Marina its very simple, no work boats or crew boats are allowed to launch anymore and use his facilities. He should place a gate over his land, water, dock, and road. If they are closing him down he should close down for them. Man ran a business for many years and a lease of maybe 200 yards will close him down. Also what is the cost for leasing fishing and hunting rights on your non tax paid water. If any of you great sportsman invite or bring these so called law makers hunting or fishing on this leased property for free, you have broken the state of louisiana ethics laws. Saints games tickets cost more than allowed by the ethics board so I'm sure that lease right does too; both are entertainment.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Fairfisher... Landowners do pay taxes on the whole tract of land.... I you own 100 acres and 40 acres are under water, the state does not subtract the taxes for the 40 acres. You are taxed on the whole 100. This is probably one of the main sticking points of the bill. If it would have passed then you would have had tons of land owners filing to have their taxes amended to exclude land that were then deemed public, thus the state losing millions!
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
ZGisclair.. you've made the best point i've read so far ...well done
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
And again....they pay taxes on LAND. How am I on your LAND when I am in public WATER? I do not know for a fact, but I am pretty sure the entire water bottom of the Mississippi River just in EBR parish is not public land. Why is it that nobody is claiming their portion is private and the work boats are not allowed to traverse the river? Maybe because nobody wants to fish the Mississippi River. Maybe too because the state would NEVER allow that to happen. Again, you have every right to keep people off of your land and I applaud you and support you in doing that. The issue had nothing to do with your land, it is with public water.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
You pay taxes on the land under the water. Not the water you also make money on the mineral rights, If they strike oil on your water bottom.You should pay taxes on all of your land & water bottom . You people don't know the difference between public water & water bottoms, thats the problem.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Let's look at this a different way, in strict regards to LAND. Let's say I own a 50 acre tract of land and the Amite River, which is public, runs through the middle of it. Behind my 50 acres is 1000 acres that is state land. This state land can only be accessed from the Amite River. Is it legal for me to claim that 1000 acres of state land as MINE? Go ahead....I will wait
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Zgisclair is exactly right. As a said 2 days ago, the bill as it was written had no chance to pass and I said it before the vote even took place.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Just because it was destined to fail, whether because of how it was written or any other reason, does not mean it is right. People are claiming that they own public water!! And unfortunately, the powers that be are siding with the money instead of the public.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
JB, you seem like a good American. Bottom line : Interpretation of right or wrong is a matter of opinion and you are entitled to yours. The bill ,right or wrong is what matters at present and it did not pass. People on here can piss and moan all they want and it won't change a thing. We are a country of laws and we have a process by which laws are created. If a liberal state Rep would author a less ambiguous bill that does not threaten property owner's perceptions then maybe it would have a chance to pass. Until then all those who favored HB 391 can pound sand or just take a big Yoga breath about the whole thing.

PS - I am fully aware of the difference between land and water but the current laws tells me where I can and cannot go.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
All,

Last summer, the Louisiana Legislature directed Louisiana Sea Grant to facilitate a study of the coastal access conflict. The study resolution (HB 178) required that Sea Grant facilitate input and ideas on voluntary options to increase recreational access. The resolution instructed the focus of the study to be on options that would not impede private property rights or commerce.

I've included a press release and link (below) for anyone who would care to read it. This report has not been discussed much, likely because of the attention focused in the past month on HB 391.

We're more than happy to answer any questions that might arise about the study, the process, and our role.

Thanks,

Rex Caffey
225-578-2393
rcaffey@lsu.edu

Louisiana Sea Grant Examines History and Options of Coastal Access Conflict
March 12, 2018

A new report from the Louisiana Sea Grant College Program (LSG) examines the growing conflict over public and private access claims to the state’s coastal waters.

The report, Preliminary Options for Establishing Recreational Servitudes for Aquatic Access over Private Water Bottoms, was completed in early March. The document emanates from a 2017 legislative mandate (HR 178) that directed LSG to study and make recommendations on recreational access in coastal waterways. This ongoing conflict is primarily between private landowners and recreational fishermen, and it involves disputes over what water areas are considered private and what water areas are open for public access.

Jim Wilkins, Professor and Director of the Sea Grant Law and Policy Program, served as lead author of the study. “The coastal access conflict has been with us since the early 1970s” said Wilkins, “…but it has really ramped up in recent years.”

A guiding principle imposed by the 2017 study resolution was to limit the analysis to voluntary actions that would not impinge on individual property rights or impede commerce. In preparing the study, LSG convened stakeholder meetings with fishermen, landowners and state agencies to hear concerns and identify potential options.

The final report provides a general overview of the context, history and drivers of the coastal access issue; describes the process utilized for soliciting stakeholder input; and details economic and legal considerations for ten preliminary options that could be used to partially mitigate this conflict. Louisiana Sea Grant does not oppose nor endorse any of the options, said Wilkins, who describes the report as a compilation of “suggestions that stakeholders and policymakers can use in future discussions of possible solutions.”

A full copy of the report and a list of frequently asked questions is available online at: http://www.laseagrant.org/sglegal/publications/other/
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Vatican, Kenspeck, Gisclair, Manchac -I respect your knowledge of the issue and ability to present it in a concise logical manner so I will ask: Why is Louisiana different? Why is the public access law different for all the other states with respect to flowing waters? Do they all have a different Supreme Court ruling? Different interpretations where they all have it wrong and Louisiana is correct? Do they all have different tax laws? Are all those states' landowners suckers? Are they all ignorant of the law? Are they all kindhearted bumkins? So rich they don't want to make money leasing their land or water? Socialists?
I sincerely ask to please explain why we are different from every other state-both from a legal standpoint and a common sense standpoint. Thanks in advance, I await your reply.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
'all those who favored HB 391 can pound sand'

Or just say the heck with it a fish wherever...that catch me if you can attitude.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Ok gentlemen, you responded to the tax on land vs water. If you own land you must pay tax also on what is on the land correct. Do you guys pay tax on the free access of fish and other aquaculture stock. If you hand a land locked pond you would have to stock it at a charge, property value would increase, and tax would go up. Next no one addressed the what if you got gated in. Access to your land was gated off by the owners of the land around you. What if someone like Bob knows who you are and refuses you access to his launch, it is his right correct. Last nobody addressed the ethics laws of our state. I know that is hard to understand but I promise you that is a fact. Before you guys call me a socialist, Democrat, liberal, free loader, and whatever else I'm a Republican. You simply can't own water, can you own air, can you own your neighbors tree because it hangs over your yard. Do you own your mandatory servitude of your land. The state's coastal restoration dollars can solve this greatly. Our erosion is caused by the many dug canals. This creates more surface area for saltwater intrusion and erosion. Also for every mile of marsh we can reduce 1 foot of storm surge. If your neighbor does something on his land that causes problems to yours or your home you can win in court correct. Well, fill in your man made canals, clear the spoilage from dredging them so water can disperse to its proper place, and our marsh can return to health of natural waterways and protect all of our land from storm surge. I know it's not acceptable and won't happen but that is 100 percent accurate on erosion. Last but not least. When your land completely erodes away do you still own it and how do you gate that part of the lake or bay off.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
fairfisher - When land erodes, they still claim ownership of the water bottom. Look at catfish Lake in Golden Meadow. You can have your boat, on it's trailer, on the ramp and it is fine. As soon as your boat enters the water, you are trespassing. Catfish Lake used to have islands. Those islands are now gone. Now, the entire lake s private property. I have brought this subject up before. Eroded = gone, no more, cease to exist. How can you own something that does not exist?
Also, asking questions will not get any answers. All you will get in response is being called a socialist democrat freeloader and told to pound sand because the bill was destined to fail. Forget what is right or what is wrong. We are just supposed to accept it because it is the law and we are supposed to like it. Eventually, this law will be changed and that is exactly what I will tell all of the 'landowners'.....pound sand you socialist democrat.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
I had a thought about the conversation.
Since the landowner is saying the canal is part of their land, what about all the canals that have been there for 10 years and the landowner did not do anything to stop the public from entering the canal. Wouldn't that be like squater's rights to the public?
I am not a attorney, but I think the term is called ' Acquisitive Prescription'
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Reminds me of feudal system when kings owned the land and you got hung for taking the king's deer. The fish do not belong to the land owner, they are managed by the DWF, which is funded by the taxpayer so I do have skin in the game. My boat, floating on the water is not trespassing if I do not touch the land, if I'm in a plane do I get arrested for flying over the water or land? No. In Colorado the Colorado River is a free flowing river going through private property. You can float down the river unmolested, but you are trespassing if you touch the river bottom.(source is fly fishing brother in Colorado) If the landowner wants everybody to stay out then the landowner should not be allowed to catch fish that are ruled and governed by the state. That might apply to other species such as ducks. Yes, it could get nasty.
This bill's failure will not stop poaching or camp break-ins, not even gates, sooner or later the thief will get in, I know, I have a camp. I do agree that fishermen need to stay out of ponds while duck hunting is occurring, just common courtesy. This isn't about socialism, or overt government control, just a growing population and dwindling resources.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
You are correct Moon , being a oldtimer that pays attention a lot of this disputed property is indeed State land that was leased from the State to oil companies which was subleased to elites that claim it , Vatican should check into this he may be surprised , That a former governor does not own as much as he claims, lol
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
You are correct Moon , being a oldtimer that pays attention a lot of this disputed property is indeed State land that was leased from the State to oil companies which was subleased to elites that claim it , Vatican should check into this he may be surprised , That a former governor does not own as much as he claims, lol
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
CCA will never get another dime out of my pockets. But I'm sure they won't miss it as they are getting the money from the lobbyists and landowners opposed to God given fish.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
The land is theirs, the tidal waters are not, and the fish that is in those waters.
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Oh look at the front page of LA Sportsman site.... The CCA is begging for my tourney money again.... NOT ANYMORE.....!!!
Reply
Re: House Bill 391 and the CCA
Already sent that email Fishslayer,neither are they getting my son and 2 grandsons money again
Reply