Louisiana Sportsman
  • Home
  •  » 
  • Fishing
  •  » 
  • Arrested for fishing tidal waters?

lamarshboatsProfile Photo
Fishing in Southwest Louisiana

Arrested for fishing tidal waters?

I was recently fishing in a portion of sabin river called lost laske, it is just south of the tourist bureau near the texas louisiana border. As myself and my partner were fishing we were approached by 4 women, all employees of 'the marsh club' in southwest la, near burnout bridge on old hwy 90, and we were told if we didnt leave immediately AND throw whatever fish we caught BACK into the lake we would be arrested b the sherrifs department and have our equipment taken by them and have to pay a large fine. Granted i did see the sign that said HUNTING preserve, trespassers will be proscuted, what rights/laws are enforcing this kind of bull? I was in tidal waters, accessable and navigable by boat YEAR ROUND. I was NOT out of my boat and i was not disturbing anyone, just trying to catch a mess of fish for supper. Anyone with any knowledge of laws forbidding me to fish anywhere like i described would be greatly appreciated. oh yeah, on the sign it does say it it a licensed hunting preserve but i wouldnt think it would make a differance b/c it is navigable and it was NOT dredged by 'The Marsh Club'
April 09, 2012 at 5:13pm
71Comments
e-man (R)Profile Photo
Posted April 09, 2012 at 5:21pm
Hmmmmm

Welcome to louisiana and the political system or lack thereof.

•   View Reports by e-man (R)
abeastandasavageProfile Photo
Posted April 09, 2012 at 7:14pm
it sucks!!

you see this going on more and more!! like e-man said, welcome to la. the greedy rich and powerful and people with clout, little by little are taking away our rights and places to fish!! pretty soon, there will be a lot more fewer places to fish!!! GREED AND MONEY, i think that's what louisiana must mean in french!!! what can we do, absolutly nothing!!! like they say, you can't fight city hall!!!

•   View Reports by abeastandasavage
bleedingduckProfile Photo
Posted April 09, 2012 at 9:55pm
Marsh Club

So i see the Marsh Club is still at it! I dont know of very many people down there who think very highly of them, judges have been very fisherman friendly lately.

•   View Reports by bleedingduck
olreprobaitProfile Photo
Posted April 10, 2012 at 6:52am
Posted waters

We tried to fight this years ago at the state capitol, Aka 'WHORE HOUSE' of politicians that work for the big land owners. They got stuck on what 'FLOWING WATERS' was, does that tell you something about these 'LEACHES'. I am like you, they own the land under that WATER that belongs to me and you.

Ol Rep-ro 'Bait'

•   View Reports by olreprobait
lamarshboatsProfile Photo
Posted April 10, 2012 at 6:56am
unanswered...

wl lets see, 2 weeks ago when i went to the exact same spot the water was 4.5 ft deep, because the fact of the river being so high from the large amounts of rain. NOW the water is 3.0ft feet which is a normal place for it to be when the river is stable. anyways, m original question was, what laws are protecting these to do this kind of

•   View Reports by lamarshboats
Mike Guerin, Louisiana Sportsman Field ReporterProfile Photo
Posted April 10, 2012 at 9:34am
two things

It all stems from a stupid judge not being able to read. Ok well not all of it as some of also has to do with the fact that the state gave land ownership to open water way back in the past. These to things have conspired to make Louisiana the worst place in the country for fishermans rights.

Sorry I can't remember the actual law code but do some searching with the search function this topic has been discussed here plenty.

keakarProfile Photo
Posted April 10, 2012 at 5:51pm
navigatable waterway

the key description is 'navigatable waterway'

this is the way it was described to me, to fit the description of a navigatable waterway the depth of water must never be less then 6 feet deep at lowest tide and be wide enough for a tugboat to turn around in. anything less then that is considered a non-navigatable waterway which can be blocked off or controlled and regulated by whoever holds the land and or mineral rights under it.

in short anything other then the main canals can be taken away from you if they choose to.

navigatable waterways can never be restricted from the public

•   View Reports by keakar
duck headProfile Photo
Posted April 10, 2012 at 10:21pm
Had similar prob

Me and my buddy had some what of the same prob in plaqUeMines parish.. We had hunting land across a big lake and when the lake was rough we would take the back way home in the marsh instead of going in choppy water. Well somebody stoped us and told us we can not run in the canals and on the property. We told him it's navigational waters and they had no right to tell us that we can't . They called the police and gave them our boat numbers and the police contacted my buddy and told him he wanted to have a meeting with us at the boat lunch. We set up a time and we went and it the officer we went there to meet was the head of the plaquemines parish water division. We told him the story and what we were doing on the property. He told us as long as it was not man made waterway and if we were not causing property damage we had every right to run the canals.. I don't no if it's diff. In every parish r if its a state law but that is what the head of the water division officer had told us.

•   View Reports by duck head
lamarshboatsProfile Photo
Posted April 11, 2012 at 11:48pm
actually

I just did some digging. the 'federal rivers law' 'civil code articles 150-159' AND 'Louisiana public trust doctrine' all guarantee me rights to fish all waters natural or MODIFIED(NOT man made unless otherwise proclaimed by state law)(the waters in question were never dreged by the marsh club as they stated) navigable at all at anytime in the course of the year to the high water mark(high tide), there are no depth restrictions, no width restrictions, no size restrictions. By making me leave and throw my fish back they violated my civil rights as stated in all 3 documents. If anything shall become of this in the next couple of days it will be fought until the bitter end. I hope anyone in my area that shares my concerns also does the digging and helps me get these waterways back and unrestricted as described in louisiana and federal constitutional law.

The same type of case was presented to the attourney general in four locations on the red river and the attourney general stated the water is state owned, the land owners have no right to prohibit recreational activities inside these areas. Any gates, fences or obstruction had to be removed at the cost of the land owners that placed them there. I have all the reason to believe ifit WAS to go that far it would be ruled in the publics favor and the marsh club would forfeit the 'ownership' they claim they have.

•   View Reports by lamarshboats
Rick2005Profile Photo
Posted April 13, 2012 at 11:09am
Facts

Everything listed below is the laws regarding waterways and private canals. The laws are written but the supreme court judges have a hard time interpreting them. It comes down to case law regarding private canals and waterways. One day the judges rule in favor of the fisherman, the next day they rule in favor of the land owners. It's constantly changing. AT the very least you have enough to fight it in court if anything ever comes about as long as you don't get some yuppie judge.

Resources: http://www.legis.state.la.us/
Revised Statutes
Title 41
41:1701 and 41:14
Civil Code CC449-456

Louisiana Constitution Article 9
Vaughn vs Vermillion http://supreme.justia.com/us/444/206/case.html

Another good article if you have the patience to read it all. Pretty much explains everything you want to know.
http://www.lsu.edu/sglegal/pdfs/PubTrustDoct.pdf

•   View Reports by Rick2005
avoca ghostProfile Photo
Posted April 13, 2012 at 7:43pm
Hit them where it hurts

The state won't do anything about this until the sportsmen quit buying a fishing license. Why spend your hard earned money for a license and have no place to fish. When the revenue starts to decline then they will have to do something about it, but until then it will be business as usual!

•   View Reports by avoca ghost
Playtime H2OProfile Photo
Posted April 14, 2012 at 3:52am
Women in mans shoes?

Well this is exactly why I bring my good buddy Mr. 45-70 when I go fishing. Besides the main point though, when a woman puts herself in a mans situation I look at them no differently. She better be able to handle whats comming to her is all I have to say. Sounds to me like some idiots are overstepping their bounds. They need to take into consideration that some people are fishing for a meal and not just out there playing. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX edit XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Freakin idiots like that I have not the chance to run into in this lifetime as of yet. Maybe this is Gods way of protecting me. Maybe it's his way of protecting them. But if it's comming to not being able to provide for my family in the way my Father and Grandfather tought me, maybe it's comming soon time for my grand exit. They say Obama is waging war on the wealthy, maybe it's time I rethink who my representatives have been in the past. When do we need to meet you out there for our first anual (Fishermans Rights)fishing trip? I'd be glad to be there. Always wanted to fish that area anyways.

Edit; I know a man lives in Vinton, La. that has 10 acrers and a small canal runs through it. A very 'affluent cattlemen' property owner down stream from him tried to block his use of this canal that is only about eight feet wide and a couple feet deep. Well long story short, the man I know still has full use of this canal for fishing or anything otherwise. They didn't block this guy from navigation to the lake. This is sure one case when money didn't buy out the little guy. I suspect that your dealing with the same bunch of Little Hitlers over there.

Mark.

•   View Reports by Playtime H2O
lamarshboatsProfile Photo
Posted April 16, 2012 at 8:46am
mark

sounds like to me you feel the exact same as me. Anytime you wonna go fishing over there call me man. 3376609003 i live right here in sulphur, better yet, ive got a few buddys that feel the same way as myself. im sure you do too, we oughtta getem all together and have a tournament on lost lake, and see if the sheriff can arrest all of us at once.

•   View Reports by lamarshboats
motorboatProfile Photo
Posted April 16, 2012 at 9:12am
avaco

Yeah--that's the ticket. Don't buy a license and you'll send a message. There are plenty of public waters out there to fish. I'm not giving up my fishing license because .5% of areas to fish have been posted.

•   View Reports by motorboat
MarshClubProfile Photo
Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:56pm
Tidal Waters / Private Land

First, the Marsh Club does not own the area that you (and others) mention in your rant(s). It leases the property from a Property Management Company and as part of that Lease they are required to patrol and maintain the integrity of the leased area. You did not access Lost Lake via 'Tidal' waters, you accessed it via a 'Privately dug and maintained' ditch. This Ditch was deemed Private by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. What you didn't know is that before Rita, which pushed out downed trees and vegetation, that area could not be reached by boat. After Rita Sports like yourself began accessing Lost Lake (ripping down the signs that explained that it was posted for hunting and fishing due to the Court's ruling)and by doing so, brought Salvinia in on your boats. Now, without expensive chemical treatment, Lost Lake would be a solid mass of Salvinia (as it was two years after Rita). Did you take the time to check your boat before coming down the ditch...I think not. Do you want to spend the money to maintain the area so that you can fish there? I think not...If you, or the other yahoo's that think they can go and do what they want no matter what the law says, want the laws to change, take a close look at how you vote. The point is, private landholders and those that lease from them, are the ones on the forefront of Habitat Management and work hard with their own money to prevent coastal erosion and saltwater intrusion into our marshes. Without their 'money' and interest, habitat for ducks, shrimp, red fish, bass and trout would be done in this area. Even with their work, saltwater is moving farther and farther up the Sabine. So before you condemn the private landholders and people who lease from them, ask yourself...what are you doing to maintain the habitat that you want access to? I would suggest that you don't do anything but take from it and give nothing back..

•   View Reports by MarshClub
lamarshboatsProfile Photo
Posted April 17, 2012 at 5:12pm
@ marshclub

the water that is supplied to LOST LAKE and surrounding marshes comes from what river, tell me i would love know. you sure dont pay for the water b/c in fact it is owned by THE STATE(public). The fish that spawn/live in lost lake and surrounding areas did you stock them? most likely they are sabine river fish yet again state owned property. Why hasnt the 'ditch as you call it been gated as like everything else that was dredged? what about the entrance on the north west corner of the lake? is that dredged also? Why isnt it gated? I think a lot of the problems you have with trespassers could be resolved by putting up a gate. And the signs you say that are post reguarding hunting and fishing, is a blatant lie. The only sign in the 'ditch you dredged' is a sign that states it is a hunting preserve and says nothing about fishing. Back to it not being gated... Why is it not gated, does federal law forbid landowners from gating public water, is lost lake considered 'running water' b/c it is in fact connected to sabine river? Maybe you could spend all that money on putting up a gate instead of spending money on salt water intrusion which in fact was on set by drought which now, is seemingly over. You call me a yahoo, thats defamation and an insult to me and numerous other people posting on this thread, if you cant keep your tongue and head from overheating, maybe you need to find another forum to post on. Or better yet, gate the area and post permanant signs,(not plastic but metal) on 'your' side of the gate saving yourself and us 'yahoos' the trouble of going to court over somthing that in your knowledge has been settled in court and laws. Somthing else. Do not email me mr.manager@themarshclub.com If you have somthing to say, say it here, for all of us to see, thats another problem with the situation, the law is largely unknown to my generation so ENLIGHTEN US PLEASE. As i assume you do, I also pay my taxes, and that is used for a number of things including funding for the wildlife and fisheries. That is my contribution.

•   View Reports by lamarshboats
MarshClubProfile Photo
Posted April 17, 2012 at 6:41pm
Water

Where the water goes is not an issue. How you accessed the area is. If during the flooding the water from the Sabine was in your yard, from your rational, I should be able to run my boat up to your house or through your yard because it's not your yard, in fact, if the water is in your house, i should be able to go there too...right? As far as the gate, we have installed 3 gates, but 'yahoo's' who don't obey the law or simply decide since it does not jive with what they want at the time, simply bring a torch and burn through the gate like they do the locks on our control structures. Which is why we have been in the process of installing security cameras on the gates and ditches and structures...to prosecute vandals...the courts do not look favorably on people who profess to be Sportsmen and damage private property.
Saltwater intrusion is not only due to the drought, it is due loss of coastal areas. That is also why the hurricanes do such harsh damage farther in shore than before... a lot of people use the internet to look up information that they feel justifies their position so since you show such an interest in coastal erosion and saltwater intrusion here is a link for you http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/special/landloss.htm
But back to your argument. The LAW in the state of Louisiana is simple, if the land you are on is not yours and not listed as public, it is private and you are trespassing, the land owner is not obligated to post the land under the law, because the legislature believes that the common man in Louisiana should know where the Public land is. If you duck hunt, I feel relatively sure that you know where you can go to duck hunt on public land. You accessed the area through a privately maintained ditch, where there were metal signs in place, but people didn't like what they said so they pulled them down as well. I am happy that you pay taxes, only your state taxes don't fund LA WLF, that is funded from buying licenses and there function under the current administration has been limited to enforcement, not coastal erosion, that is federal and state and if you read or watch the news, there is no money for that. As far as your generation, from the photos I downloaded you are either my age or older and when you go to court, they really don't care that you 'didn't know' because ignorance of the law is no excuse. Also, from what I can tell, and what I was told, you are probably the guy in the front of the boat... If you are unhappy about the current state of affairs, I would suggest that you Vote or better yet, take the time to find out what the laws are and then run for office, get elected and pass laws that are more favorable to your point of view. Until then, obey the law, it's there for a reason...if you don't like it, change it, but being mad at people who are doing their jobs as dictated under their lease does not address nor solve your issue...One last thing, I could care less if everyone who accessed the area stayed in their boats and just fished and didn't litter or vandalize stuff, but those that vandalize and litter are the people you should be mad at, they are the ones, along with those that sue, that force these kinds of laws into existence. I realize that you are frustrated, but your mad at the wrong group of people...

•   View Reports by MarshClub
MarshClubProfile Photo
Posted April 17, 2012 at 6:48pm
water

One last thing...go back and read my post. I state Clearly that The Marsh Club does not own nor dredge nor maintain those ditches. They are owned, dredged and maintained by a Property Management Company from which we lease the land. In our lease we are responsible to maintain the security of the leased area..so again, you are mad at the wrong people ... it's like being mad at the Sheriffs deputy for serving a warrant because you broke the law, it's not his fault, it's his job...

•   View Reports by MarshClub
Lordbud7Profile Photo
Posted April 17, 2012 at 9:47pm
WALL

Might I suggest you build a WALL across these ditches. As I understand the law (and i'm no expert, just a dumb fisherman) if the ebb and flow of tidal waters enter that area than I am able to fish it. If you build a wall and the tidal waters can not flow into that area then it would keep people out. As long as there is tidal flow there people will fish it! Just my 2 cents.

•   View Reports by Lordbud7
lamarshboatsProfile Photo
Posted April 17, 2012 at 10:29pm
marshclub

Where the water goes is not an issue(it is accoding to the federal river law). How you accessed the area is(no it is not according to feral river law). (this is just way off topic and no where near my rational we're discussing tidal waters from river, not rain)If during the flooding the water from the Sabine was in your yard, from your rational, I should be able to run my boat up to your house or through your yard because it's not your yard, in fact, if the water is in your house, i should be able to go there too...right? (hire security personel and save some money preventing all the fisherman from bringing salvania into 'your' leased marsh) As far as the gate, we have installed 3 gates, but (name calling)'yahoo's' who don't obey the law or simply decide since it does not jive with what they want at the time, simply bring a torch and burn through the gate like they do the locks on our control structures. Which is why we have been in the process of installing security cameras on the gates and ditches and structures...to prosecute vandals...(yet again way off topic no one was vandalizing, just fishing)the courts do not look favorably on people who profess to be Sportsmen and damage private property.
Saltwater intrusion is not only due to the drought, it is due loss of coastal areas. That is also why the hurricanes do such harsh damage farther in shore than before... (lol run down the intercoastal canal and you will see where the state of louisiana has infact paid for such erosion preventing measure, OR go to holly beach)a lot of people use the internet to look up information that they feel justifies their position so since you show such an interest in coastal erosion and saltwater intrusion here is a link for you http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/special/landloss.htm
But back to your argument. The LAW in the state of Louisiana is simple, if the land you are on is not yours and not listed as public, it is private and you are trespassing(yet again we are talking about waterways not land, the land owner is not obligated to post the land under the law(and under federal law i infact do have access), because the legislature believes that the common man in Louisiana should know where the Public land is. If you duck hunt, I feel relatively sure that you know where you can go to duck hunt on public land. You accessed the area through a privately maintained ditch( and when we do infact meet in court this theory will be shot down by witnesses older than you and i that were actually fishing that lake before the marsh club was ever conceived), where there were metal signs in place, but people didn't like what they said so they pulled them down as well. I am happy that you pay taxes, only your state taxes don't fund LA WLF, that is funded from buying licenses(yet and arrogance is shown, a fishing license is a tax) and there function under the current administration has been limited to enforcement, not coastal erosion(take a ride to holly beach and tell me what you see in the water), that is federal and state and if you read or watch the news, there is no money for that. As far as your generation, from the photos I downloaded you are either my age or older and when you go to court, they really don't care that you 'didn't know' because ignorance of the law is no excuse. Also, from what I can tell, and what I was told, you are probably the guy in the front of the boat... If you are unhappy about the current state of affairs,( or i just believe in my civil right as an american citizen to fish navigable waters as stated in federal law) I would suggest that you Vote(you voted mike foster into office not me buddy, i wasnt of age yet, and if i was i darn sure wuld have voted for him) or better yet, take the time to find out what the laws are(actually maybe you should take your own advice) and then run for office, get elected and pass laws that are more favorable to your point of view(they are already in place). Until then, obey the law(im a law obiding citizen as your sheriff deputy came to find out), it's there for a reason...if you don't like it, change it, but being mad at people who are doing their jobs as dictated under their lease does not address nor solve your issue(no one is mad but yourself, b/c im making it public infomation)...One last thing, I could care less if everyone who accessed the area stayed in their boats and just fished and didn't litter or vandalize stuff, but those that vandalize and litter are the people you should be mad at, they are the ones, along with those that sue, that force these kinds of laws into existence. I realize that you are frustrated, but your mad at the wrong group of people(again not frustrated or mad, just standing up for what i believe is correct, especially under federal law)...

•   View Reports by lamarshboats
lamarshboatsProfile Photo
Posted April 17, 2012 at 11:09pm
manager of marsh club

The email that was sent to me, i just thnk it should be public information.

First off The Marsh Club does not own nor maintain the ditch, Stream Property Management does. The Marsh Club, under the terms of their lease is responsible for keeping trespassers out of the property. What you considered 'navigable waterway' is actually a privately dug and maintained ditch. The law covering this and assigning this ditch as well as the Grey Ditch, the area to your left as you put in at the Old US 90 Boat Launch (that has a gate in it)and what is commonly known as the Twin Sisters Cut (which is also gated) are all deemed Private as they were man made and maintained for the private landowners access. One of the main reasons that the land owners put up the gates and restrict access is because of those that dump trash, get out of their boats and vandalize control structures and injure themselves on underwater obstacles and then sue the land owner. That may not be you, but for the most part it is representative of the 20 to 30 bags of trash that we pick up each and every month on the inside of the levees surrounding our leased property. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you look at the make up of the US Supreme Court and the make up of the Louisiana House, Senate and Governor. The Staff from The Marsh Club were doing their job, which was to ask you to leave. You chose to argue and then post about something of which you had no facts or information. Now you know where to look to find out the facts. You will be receiving a registered letter from Stream Property Management (not The Marsh Club) regarding your trespassing and further explaining the Law to you. The laws are in effect to protect everyone's rights. Why would the landowner spend the money (out of their pocket) to protect the fresh water marsh area and prevent coastal erosion only to have someone with no vested interest come in and trash the property... The Marsh Club spends thousands of dollars treating the Lost Lake area to maintain control of the salvinia that trespassers have brought in on their boats and motors from the Sabine. The year after Rita you could not put a boat in Lost Lake as it was a solid mass of Salvinia. So if you are interested in helping with the cost of mitigation...then step up...if not, the law is the law...

•   View Reports by lamarshboats
Made To GOProfile Photo
Posted April 17, 2012 at 11:55pm
'That Water'

Its a simple litmus test really.

'Has a waterway be modified to usurped or 'catch, trap' a public resource? Being Fish or Water?'

If the answer is yep. Then fish it.

Its a simple question of property rights. If the fish/water are 'community' property and they are 'co-mingled' with private property, they become COMMUNITY PROPERTY.

When dealing with property rights or money, EVERY COURT USES THE PREVIOUS REASONING I JUST MENTIONED IN DETERMINING PROPERTY STATUS.

If everyone does not stand up for your rights to YOUR PROPERTY - TAX PAYER PROPERTY - that has been usurped by a few with financial prevy - SHAME SHAME ON YOU FOR LETTING FISHING GO WAYSIDE, ESP. IF YOU HAVE KIDS.

Marsh Club, to keep from usurping tax payer property, it would be wise to dam off this 'ditch'.

Craig

•   View Reports by Made To GO
bleedingduckProfile Photo
Posted April 18, 2012 at 6:27am
Liability

Sounds to me, from Marsh's email, like the real problem is liability. I truly beleive that all water that flows from public water should be open for public use, but I now realize it has to do the landowners' Liability stemming from irresponsible, sue-happy individuals. It is a shame we have so much trouble from people who want to blame somebody else all the time! Sounds like we need some Tort Reform in Louisiana!

•   View Reports by bleedingduck
olreprobaitProfile Photo
Posted April 18, 2012 at 6:55am
Posted Water Way

If anyone got hurt on that water way just watch how quick that land owner comes up with, Hey I own the land under that water, the state owns that water.

•   View Reports by olreprobait
AllisonXR-01Profile Photo
Posted April 18, 2012 at 7:26am
Hummm,

Where is this place,, must be sum kinda good fishin' in there ... !

•   View Reports by AllisonXR-01
motorboatProfile Photo
Posted April 18, 2012 at 8:01am
Marsh Club

Thank you for being the only one on this entire site that make any sense. That's all.

•   View Reports by motorboat
meauxjeauxx2Profile Photo
Posted April 18, 2012 at 8:40am
Tidal waters

Lordbud's post is the best here.
You don't want saltwater intrusion or people in boats on your property,build a wall unless you really want to take advantage of state owned fish.

Hmmm.......

•   View Reports by meauxjeauxx2
Pintail58Profile Photo
Posted April 18, 2012 at 12:48pm
ugh

Any natural waterway is navigagle waters. You can't look at our marshes and swamps like they are now, but as they were 1800 early 1900s. Any man-made canal accessing private lands can be classified as private waterways. Any of the old (some aren't even there anymone) sleus and waterways are natural waterways as well as their natural banks at normal water level. Bottom line it's pretty crappy either way you look at it. Go to the state lands website and under state lands and waterbottoms, agree to the terms and bring up the map. in your Key on the Left hand side of the page click state waters. All state waterways and bottoms will be highlighten in one of three colors. find the area you are looking to fish and PDF a copy of the map. E-mail this to one of the folks at the SLO and ask them if it is nav waters and you can fish it or not. Then they will e-mail you back a response. Carry a copy or the mapped area and the response from the SLO with you and if approached present it to said person in a POLITE manner. If WLF or Sherrif's office is brought into it then present it to them in a POLITE manner. At this point the officer/Agent will question it, but can't lagitamently citate nor remove you from the area. Key is POLITE attitude even when faced with some unruley people. Us as fishermen/women need to keep our act together and stay in good standings because there are way too many people that don't want us to hunt/fish at all much less on certain pieces of property.
Good day.

•   View Reports by Pintail58
motorboatProfile Photo
Posted April 18, 2012 at 4:05pm
natural water does not equal navigable

There is a legal definition (state) of 'navigable waterway' set in case law many years ago. Let's recap this:

La CC Art: Art. 450. Public things.

Public things are owned by the state or its political subdivisions in their capacity as public persons.

Public things that belong to the state are such as running waters, the waters and bottoms of natural navigable water bodies, the territorial sea, and the seashore.

Public things that may belong to political subdivisions of the state are such as streets and public squares.

You know what? nevermind. I don't have time or patience to argue all of this with ya'll...

•   View Reports by motorboat
Cajun315Profile Photo
Posted April 18, 2012 at 8:53pm
drewb

drewb...I could not help but see your referenced to my early comments on another post. I just sent you a personal email. As I said my money is in hand, name place and time. Just waiting on you.

•   View Reports by Cajun315
Playtime H2OProfile Photo
Posted April 19, 2012 at 12:18am
edit

Uop, there you go, exactly who I thought was behind it. But here we have and example of Mother Natures power. Things such as hurricanes like we recently had and erosion change the land, some loose and some win. It's like a river that changes direction. When a river decides to take say like 200 acres of your land what you gonna do? NOTHING. People don't own this world! We are just here to take care of it and maybe it will take care of us as long as we (This Generation Here and Now)live. If we are lucky it might take care of our kids. The reason the land doesn't have a wall as some mention is because the Army Corps of Engineers won't let them build a wall. Because said possible landowner would be blocking off a natural waterway. And just because someone cleans out that natural waterway doesn't make it a now private waterway. Oh I promise you if that nearby landowner had half a chance to put a gate up, they would. I'm finding this kinda funny now because it sounds to me like someone done suckered the marsh club into leasing some public water. In this day and time it wouldn't surprize me one bit. Hey Marsh Club, I got a bridge I'll lease to yah, cheap of you play rent a cop and tell everyone else to get off!!!!!
Ignorance and arrogance goes hand in hand here in South Louisiana!!!!

•   View Reports by Playtime H2O
Made To GOProfile Photo
Posted April 19, 2012 at 12:29am
Public

When private assets are co-mingled with community assets, they become community assets.

Google ANY property status rulings by ANY court.

•   View Reports by Made To GO
motorboatProfile Photo
Posted April 19, 2012 at 7:58am
Made to Go

You have no idea what you are talking about. 'Community assets/property' refers to property owned between spouses. Community property has NOTHING to do with this public things owned by the State. Community property does not equal public property in legal terms. Please think or at least try to research before you post something on here that adds nothing to the conversation.

I'll try to finish my thoughts from earlier if I have time today, but I have a feeling that posting the exact wording of the law will have little or no effect on the mind of the LAS posters I've seen here over the past week or so.

•   View Reports by motorboat
fishhfilesProfile Photo
Posted April 19, 2012 at 6:20pm
motor's da man

I tell you what , that dare motorboat is a legend in his own mind , what's he doing hangin' out with a bunch of chew-kees like us , he is so smart that I'd put him up Obama -------- maybe every one that post should get an evaluation done and a score put next to their handle , so that you can gauge how much belief to put in to what they are saying and so that you know you ain't going up against no kyodell

•   View Reports by fishhfiles
Lordbud7Profile Photo
Posted April 19, 2012 at 7:14pm
Answer

MeauxJeaux I find it funny the Marsh Co. Could not answer my question there. Isn't it law that if water moves with the tides than it is fishable by the public as long as you have a fishing license? Ebb and Flow!

•   View Reports by Lordbud7
fishhfilesProfile Photo
Posted April 19, 2012 at 8:21pm
no kiddin'

Ya know I have been told that the difference between brown nosing and butt kissin' all boils down to depth perception , I can see your in deep , Drew ----------- you don't think the guy that posted community property might have been a city slicker pulling the string on us dumb chew-kees

•   View Reports by fishhfiles
Cajun315Profile Photo
Posted April 19, 2012 at 8:55pm
Drewb

drewb...I cannot believe you just chastised someone for making personal attacks. You are the expert of such attacks, even when they are false. So much that you last rant had to be taken down from this website because of false and misleading lies. Heck, I sent you a personal email, yet you failed to respond.

•   View Reports by Cajun315
i_1_2_fish_24_7Profile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 2:15am
simple math

If you drew-b two lines and read between them, you'll see that CCA + LLA = MOTORBOAT
Q.E.D.

•   View Reports by i_1_2_fish_24_7
motorboatProfile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 7:59am
simple math?

But your formula is wrong. I have nothing to do with LLA. Nice try at being clever.

As soon as I can tackle the pile of files on my desk, I will make a post today that clearly sets out the history of this issue in legal terms, with no bias one way or another towards the issue. Free of charge.

315--please file that lawsuit on drew-B. It would make for comedy of epic proportions on LAS and you'd lose in similar fashion. Hilarious.

•   View Reports by motorboat
motorboatProfile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 9:03am
Here we go

Bear with me fellas. This is going to be long and difficult to read as this website does not have option to bold, quote or underline.

Louisiana Civil Code Art. 450. Public things.

Public things are owned by the state or its political subdivisions in their capacity as public persons.
Public things that belong to the state are such as running waters, the waters and bottoms of natural navigable water bodies, the territorial sea, and the seashore.
Public things that may belong to political subdivisions of the state are such as streets and public squares.

Art. 452. Public things and common things subject to public use.

Public things and common things are subject to public use in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Everyone has the right to fish in the rivers, ports, roadsteads, and harbors, and the right to land on the seashore, to fish, to shelter himself, to moor ships, to dry nets, and the like, provided that he does not cause injury to the property of adjoining owners.
The seashore within the limits of a municipality is subject to its police power, and the public use is governed by municipal ordinances and regulations.

Art. 453. Private things.
Private things are owned by individuals, other private persons, and by the state or its political subdivisions in their capacity as private persons.

Art. 455. Private things subject to public use.
Private things may be subject to public use in accordance with law or by dedication.

RS 14:1701. Declaration of policy; public trust

The beds and bottoms of all navigable waters and the banks or shores of bays, arms of the sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and navigable lakes belong to the state of Louisiana, and the policy of this state is hereby declared to be that these lands and water bottoms, hereinafter referred to as 'public lands', shall be protected, administered, and conserved to best ensure full public navigation, fishery, recreation, and other interests. Unregulated encroachments upon these properties may result in injury and interference with the public use and enjoyment and may create hazards to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this state. To provide for the orderly protection and management of these state-owned properties and serve the best interests of all citizens, the lands and water bottoms, except those excluded and exempted and as otherwise provided by this Chapter or as otherwise provided by law, shall be under the management of the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as the 'department'. The State Land Office, hereinafter referred to as the 'office', shall be responsible for the control, permitting, and leasing of encroachments upon public lands, in accordance with this Chapter and the laws of Louisiana and the United States.

Some case law blurbs:

'Additionally, the fact that the canal is navigable in fact does not thereby render it public. In National Audubon Society v. White, 302 So. 2d 660, 667 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1974), writ denied, 305 So. 2d 542 (La.1975), the court held that a privately owned canal, though navigable in fact, may not be subject to public use for the same reasons that a private road, though used by commercial traffic, may not be subject to public use.

The obligations arising from water being a public thing requires the owner through whose estate running waters pass to allow water to leave his estate through its natural channel and not to unduly diminish its flow; however, this does not mandate that landowner allow public access to waterway. LSA - C.C. arts. 450, 452, 658. People For Open Waters, Inc. v. Estate of Gray, 643 So. 2d 415 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1994). Landowners and members of [the] general public have [the] right to use [Pg 12] running water for their needs, if they have access to it, but neither landowners nor members [**20] of general public have the right to cross private lands in order to avail themselves of running water, and such right may only be established by agreement, destination of owner, or prescription. No public rights to use of a canal located on private property arises from the fact that water flows through channel. Cf. People For Open Waters, Inc., supra.

Defendants also contend that by virtue of the regulations of the Corps of Engineers, these man-made canals fall within the definition of navigable waters subject to public use. One of the tests Defendants argue, is whether the manmade canals constructed on private land is connected to a natural navigable waterway. They argue that in previous cases, the Court held that the Corps would have jurisdiction over such canals if they connected to a natural navigable waterway but if they were landlocked, the Corps would not have jurisdiction over it. The regulations cited by Defendants merely allow the Corps to seek to exercise regulatory control should it determine that in fact, the waterway is within its jurisdiction and regulatory powers. Additionally, this would be something that would be sought by the Corps, [**21] on a canal by canal basis. There is no such issue involved in this case and the Court will not venture afield to answer an issue which is not before it. The Defendants have no basis to assert the right of the Corps of Engineers to control or regulate the private waterways herein, especially in view of the fact that the Corps has not seen fit to do so.

In Vaughn v. Vermilion Corporation, 444 U.S. 206, 100 S. Ct. 399, 62 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1979), the court held that no general right of use in the public to a private canal arises by reason of the authority over navigation conferred upon Congress by the Commerce Clause of the constitution.

The Court therefore finds that the man-made pipeline canals in question are privately owned and the Petitioners by virtue of the leases have not only a [*275] right but an obligation to keep trespassers off of the leased property, which necessarily includes the private canals.

Our review of the record reveals support for the trial court's appreciation of the testimony and application of those facts to the relevant law. The testimony is undisputed that, at various times of the year, the property in question may be traversable [**22] by the defendants and others in various size boats. This fact, however, does not make those waterways navigable as that term is used in the jurisprudence and La.Civ.Code art. 450.

Buckskin Hunting Club v. Bayard, 868 So. 2d 266, 274-275 (La.App. 3 Cir. Mar. 3, 2004)

And a 20 year old law review article blurb that might help with our confusion on why this is a difficult issue to grasp:

THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE IN LOUISIANA
Volume 52 March 1992 Number 4
La Law Rev. 1992

Louisiana's unique geography has led to a great deal of confusion in determining the extent of the state's public trust lands. Louisiana has about 40% of the nation's coastal wetlands, a vast amount of acreage.' Louisiana's wetlands are comprised of low-lying salt, brackish, and fresh marshes, many of them subject to tidal inundation from the daily ebb and flow of the tides, and literally thousands of lakes, bays, coves, rivers, bayous, streams, and tidal passes, a great number of which are also affected by the daily ebb and flow of the tides. Both lands-subject to daily tidal inundation such as shores, tidal flats, etc.-and water bodies-affected by the daily ebb and flow of the tides-ean be said to be tidally influenced (by astronomical tides). Much of the Louisiana coastal region is subject to tidal overflow from wind-driven tides during hurricanes, storms, or high winds. These wind-driven tides can have a greater effect on overflow than the daily ebb and flow in some areas. Large coastal areas were also overflowed by flood waters from the numerous rivers, streams, bayous, etc., especially before the extensive levee building that has occurred in the last century. The boundaries between land and water in Louisiana's coastal wetlands are very often indistinct; this is the nature of wetlands. To complicate matters, Louisiana's coastal wetlands have been fluctuating for thousands of years between periods of expansion and recession, depending on factors such as sea level, subsidence rate, and sediment deposition.' Soon after Europeans and other nonnatives began inhabiting southern Louisiana, they introduced new factors affecting wetlands, such as dredging and filling, levees, and canals.' It is now well established that levees and canals have accelerated natural wetland loss; recent estimates are that thirty square miles of Louisiana coastal wetlands are lost each year.'

The dynamic changes of the Louisiana coast have important implications under the state's property laws and the public trust doctrine. Erosion and subsidence on the shores of the sea and other navigable water bodies have the effect of increasing state ownership as the beds of those water bodies expand.' Consequently, state public trust ownership extends to the new beds up to the mean high water mark for lakes' and to the extent of the highest winter tides for the sea.'

Bottom line is that this issue is intertwined between the laws of public right to use things and private ownership. Of course, we all want the public to be able to use as much of our resources as possible, but how do we also protect the landowner who has rights under the law as well? We can argue until we are blue in the face that we like this aspect of the law or that aspect of it, but this is a very complicated subject not easily addressed by individual biased comments on a message board.

BTW, my analysis above is far from complete and was quite lazy, but should reflect a bit more research than anything else posted here. There is nothing within on which you can personally attack me, but take your shots anyway.

•   View Reports by motorboat
motorboatProfile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 9:29am
Let's discuss some more law

315: The law you cited as it relates to bonding and has nothing to do with 'community property', which is a term of art related to property owned between spouses. PERIOD. Please stop showing your ignorance.

Also, here's the elements you'll need to prove for your defamation suit:

1.Defamatory Words
2.Publication
3.Falsity (this one's gonna be hard to show since your stuff is all over the internet)
4.Malice (this one's gonna be hard to show)
5.Damages (this one's gonna be hard to prove). Maybe you should see a psychiatrist to document how you were damaged.

I wonder if 'suck buddy' is an attack or defamatory? Maybe you can use one of your many degrees to figure it out.

Any other legal research you need done for you or have you forgotten how? When one gets a JD at 9 years old, he tends to forget things.

Another thing, Sam's post was not deleted. It was shut down because Andy said it had run its course. It is still up and searchable. None of your golden comments were removed.

•   View Reports by motorboat
i_1_2_fish_24_7Profile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 10:33am
simpler math

Since you're not affiliated with LLA, let me reformulate a new equation for...
MOTORBOAT - LLA = CCA
Oh wait, hmm, it seems that the new formula is equivalent to my origin one.

•   View Reports by i_1_2_fish_24_7
motorboatProfile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 10:47am
I 1 2 fish 24/7

You sure are a smart feller, but again, adding nothing to the conversation. Stop the trolling, please.

•   View Reports by motorboat
Cajun315Profile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 11:41am
wrong again

motorboat...The higher the monkey climbs the pole the more his butt shows, and yours is starting to show. The cases you cite in support of your position have been over ruled by either the U.S. Supreme Court or the La. State Supreme court. Moreover, read the 14th amendment and its restrictions before you start citing crazy federal propositions for purely state issues.

So, you my friend, please do a little shepardizing before you cite some laws. The public trust doctrine article you cite is a law review article which has no standing in court. Finally the statute I quoted along with three others have case law which courts have interpreted to allow public entity's the right to emminent domain during certain bonding issues.

My point of making that argument is because you wrongfully degraded someone for saying that community property and public asset issues are only involving domestic disputes. You were wrong again.

It is quit hard to have an inteliigent argument when we are one intellect short.

•   View Reports by Cajun315
fishhfilesProfile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 12:37pm
LTDS

Drew you asked for a contribution to the thread ------My thoughts on how I think it should be with water way rights is that if it is navagatable from open waters for a pirogue , then it should be open to fishing for all , if they don't want people in there then put an earthened dam with no culverts so that the fish can't get in either , remember we live in the only Napoleanic Law State, things are weird here to start with and then most Judges like to hunt and fish and they are friends with the people got the money and not a bunch of chew-kees -------- with that being said I might feel different if I was a land owner with water ways to a good fishing hole , all I got is a ditch full of mosquitos in front the house that really belongs to the Parish and I just cut the grass for them -------------------------Drew , my sarcasim to MB was not based on if he was right or wrong on his call on community property , which seems still up in the air from Cajun's post , it was about the way he comes off , he stated that as of the last couple of weeks all the poster on La. Sportsman were dumb and not worth the time to try and explain things to , he needs to learn that the harder he tries to convert the pagans the more they will resist , when you think you know it all , that is when you are the farthest away , and you got to admit right or wrong he does light the fire under alot of people by being aregent such as yourself -------as for you I'll stand behind what I said , I called it like I see it , you came after me for dissin' on ya boy motor , you tried many of times to knock me down on what I was posting based on punctuation , grammar and spelling , I think I told you back then that it is not how you write it , it is what you said --------- I see when it don't go your way , you first attack, if that fails you erase all traces of your posts and run off to another post with your tail between your legs , then kiss up to who ever is top dog on the board to get some moral support for your ego --------- thats the way I see .............. and this is not a personal attack , take it as a insight from the outside , I think you suffer from LTDS , Little/Top Dog syndrone ------your friend the turtle lover

•   View Reports by fishhfiles
motorboatProfile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 1:42pm
you're proving my point

The case I cited, Buckskin Hunting Club, is not overturned, nor is it bad law. It cites the Vermillon case that was overturned on a MSJ. At the outset of my post, I said that it would be difficult to read because I don't have bold or underline. I simply copy and pasted text from the buckskin case.

I understand that the law review article I cited is not law and I prefaced it with 'And a 20 year old law review article blurb that might help with our confusion on why this is a difficult issue to grasp'

The blurb I posted merely explains some of the issues with LA's waterways and why the law is nebulous on this issue. It was never a proposition that the law review article applied to this issue.

Let's define the original issue in this thread: An alleged trespass on private property. PERIOD. Now, the issue becomes, 'what is private property?'. We have codified law, which I cited from the Civil Code, however, that law is often subject to interpretation by courts. Property ownership is largely determined by state law. The injection of 'community property' into the thread has ZERO bearing on the discussion at hand.

Judges have decided that property similar to the Marsh Club's is private property. Whether we agree with it or not is one thing, but the law is another. I'm just putting it out there and pointing out the intricacies of it. I also said it was not a complete analysis. Chill out man.

•   View Reports by motorboat
Cajun315Profile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 2:48pm
wrong Again

motorboat....What you putting out there is bad law. You cited four cases, all of which have been overturned or have no bearing on public right of ways. The Vaughn case is a state 3rd Cir. opinion that has no bearing on any other of the five circuits in this state. Moreover, subsequent Lousiana Supreme Court cases have been rendered with trump your Vaughn matter.

You cite La. Rev. Stat. 14:1701. That staute does not even exist anymore.

I will chill out as you recommend, when you quit naking unfounded misleading facts.

Ironically, when someone does try to interject an opinion, you (as does drewb claim they are trolls). If you both would get your facts straight before you attempt to create arguments,your feelings would not be hurt when you are proved to be wrong.

•   View Reports by Cajun315
motorboatProfile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 3:08pm
Typo

Its supposed to be 41:1701. My mistake. If you're so versed, then please post the correct law and language from the case. The only case I cited was buckskin, which contained cites to other cases which may be overturned. Buckskin is still valid when shepherdized. I already said I was being lazy in my research and pointing out the history of the issue. You're the only one disputing that the law is not clear! Get a grip brah.

Know what? I'm done contributing to this site. People here only hear and see what they want to with little objectivity. Not a place I want to hang. Adios LAS. I can't deal with the ignorance anymore.

•   View Reports by motorboat
motorboatProfile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 3:15pm
Typo

Its supposed to be 41:1701. My mistake. If you're so versed, then please post the correct law and language from the case. The only case I cited was buckskin, which contained cites to other cases which may be overturned. Buckskin is still valid when shepherdized. I already said I was being lazy in my research and pointing out the history of the issue. You're the only one disputing that the law is not clear! Get a grip brah.

Know what? I'm done contributing to this site. People here only hear and see what they want to with little objectivity. Not a place I want to hang. Adios LAS. I can't deal with the ignorance anymore.

•   View Reports by motorboat
Cajun315Profile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 4:48pm
drewb

drewb...I am a liar because I challenged you on facts over and over, and consistently and without fail proved you wrong. I sent you several personal emails, but you fail to respond. I guess your big and bad when you hiding behind a screen...you take the term 'screen savers' to a new level. Why do you not response to my emails and give me the chance to prove to you your errors and false assumptions.

Anyway, you and your buddy leaving are not surprising, it is simply the CCA way...argue a position polar opposite of your stated public organizational mission, used flawed data in support of that position, then disappear from that isse when proven wrong.

Again, drewb, I would love to take you up on your challenge, just please email me.

Motorboat, you cited more than one case, read your own post. And again you cited a case than has been overturned by recent Supreme Court rulings and only effects 1/5 of the state. You also completely ignored the 14th amendment in your argument. Maybe you made a typo on the citation, but were the overturn, irrelevant, and unsubtantated law review article also typo's.

•   View Reports by Cajun315
abeastandasavageProfile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 7:49pm
navagatible water?

well, i don't have any degrees, but, if you own the land, stay off my land, no problem!!! where does the water comes from?? do you fill it up with a hosepipe, probably not??? so, where does the water come from??? mother nature fills it up for you, from what??? parish, state, federal waterways, so there you go, you own the land, not the water!!! the water is owned by the public!!! you own your property, do you own the sky above it, absolutly not!!! whats the difference??? a little reverse psycology! if you own a lot on grand isle and grand isle washes away and your lot is under the gulf now, who owns the lot??? certainly not you, now the state owns it!!!! enuf said!!!! my opinion, the more education you got, the less logic and common sense you got!! oh ya, i'm not a 7th grade dropout either!!!PS, ain't got a clue about the marsh club, excuse me!! drew-b, hate to say it, but you made yourself sound like a racist??? nothing personal, but correct me if i'm wrong??? not a personal attack!!

•   View Reports by abeastandasavage
fishhfilesProfile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 8:58pm
bottom rights

Something to throw into the mix is bottom rights granted to oysterfisherman , I would think it is ownership of a lease of the bottom and not actual ownership of the land as there is no land there ------my Aunt still owns leases my great grandfather fished and sub leases them to other fisherman ---another thing to think of is that it is possible to own land and not the mineral rights under the land you own , have heard stories of people who bought land and found out later they didn't own the oil under it ------- what about dem turtles

•   View Reports by fishhfiles
abeastandasavageProfile Photo
Posted April 20, 2012 at 9:22pm
fishfiles?

your rite, you don't own the air or the mineral rites, so why should you own the water rights????

•   View Reports by abeastandasavage
deerhunter1234Profile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 1:18am
locked?

Has this thread 'run its course'? Or is it just the CCA threads that get shut down when they've run their course...

•   View Reports by deerhunter1234
fishhfilesProfile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 4:53am
Botton line ?

ya know beast , I think it is only in sales where it was stipulated that the mineral rights don't come with the land where as you don't get them rights ------------I had read not long ago a story about air rights in a article about Donald Trump , Donald was building a hotel in New York and could only go up like 6 stories as the building owner across the street had the air rights over 7 stories so as to not block the view from his building , Donald presented his neighbor with plans for a first class hotel over 6 stories and they rejected his plan , so he drew up the ugliest , eye sore building you ever saw and gave them a copy and told them I am going to be your neighbor and build one of these two buildings , you choose which one , he got to go up --------- when you got money and political connections it seems the law is different than if you don't ----

•   View Reports by fishhfiles
olreprobaitProfile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 7:24am
Posted Proberty

You know some of you boys are sure long winded. I would hate to go on a long trip with y'all, to much yacking. Go back and read #4 response that I put.

•   View Reports by olreprobait
abeastandasavageProfile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 12:44pm
the guy with the gold?

ya, ya'll right!!! the guy with the gold, can make his own rules, by slipping somebody a few bucks!!! i guess it always has been and always be!!!

•   View Reports by abeastandasavage
Admiral RabbitProfile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 1:26pm
'Break'n Bread Crumbs'

...if the right people make a appointment w/ the 'Skinny Hindu' and sprinkle the right calories at the right time !!!... 'Thou Will Be Done'...and the reason they use women is that you unlikely to punch one in 'da nose!!!...cheers

•   View Reports by Admiral Rabbit
Admiral RabbitProfile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 4:20pm
'The Green 5,280 ft'

...money does talk !!!...does anyone ever remember any millionairs buying 'Old Sparky'???...cheers

•   View Reports by Admiral Rabbit
fishhfilesProfile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 5:28pm
electric chair

I catch your drift Rabbit , Green Mile = electric chair ----------------- Who was the guy that bought it ?----------------- I worked in a union mechanic shop as a apprentice back in the late 70's , we had a spark plug tester that had a pretty potent jolt , had a wooden chair , nailed about 50 old big headed sheetrock nails in the seat , wrapped bare wire around all the nails sticking out the wood under the seat and hammer them over where you could see them , we had a lot of fun with the chair

•   View Reports by fishhfiles
Admiral RabbitProfile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 6:02pm
'Sober-Up Volts'

fish...that would have work well in a couple of 100 taverns I use'ta go into !!!...till my wife laid 'da law down !!!...( we use to have a R/C rig that could be connected to a car in a 'tavern' park'n lot that worked best around 3:00 AM (all the 'patrons' claiming it was a electrical short) so a cab could be called...but 'da law took it away...think I was hurt'n their income ???...best part no one knew who had the T/X in his pocket ???cheers

•   View Reports by Admiral Rabbit
fishhfilesProfile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 6:41pm
posted no fishing

Rabbit , you never answered my question, ' What millionaire bought Olde Sparky ? ' ------------------------- I spent many of dollars and hours in bar rooms myself , got my name on tags on a few bars , learned to be a really good dancer , dancing is great bait for the mermaids -------- a funny bar room wildlife story , Legend's on N. Hullen , early morning walking out there is a momma coon and two babies in the courtyard , spur of the moment I decide to run behind them and yell at them , they took off across the street for the building they were living under , the momma stop in her tracks and turned around and came after me growling like a grizzly bear , I go back across the street into the courtyard and she is on my tail , thru the doors of the bar and she is at the door trying to come in , I was thinking ' Open the door and let'em in ' , but I didn't let her in , the door was half glass and a crowd built up at the door and nobody wanted to go out , the coon held us hostige for 20 minutes and I would up going to breakfast with a lady I meet while waiting to get out the bar , karma or blind luck

•   View Reports by fishhfiles
RayProfile Photo
Ray
Posted April 21, 2012 at 6:45pm
Changes

I see things haven't changed here. The one's who feel privileged still want to claim public waters as theirs to create their little paradise but then they claim to be doing it to save the environment.
The man-made water containment systems built by these people, in our marshes, are mainly for their own selfish use- to create hunting areas. They block the ingress and egress of our water-life as they attempt to move back and forth to spawn and feed. After one Hurricane I caught lots of catfish in front of a little slew which had been dammed off previously, to hold water in the marsh for duck ponds and preventing the bait from moving in and out to feed the fish. That is why some of your illegal control structures are destroyed, you destroy our fishing spots.
The biggest problem with the private dug canal argument, can be seen clearly in the Atchafalaya Basin. Public areas and lakes are drained by private individuals who block our waterways and dig illegal canals then receive an after the fact permit from the Corps. There are several lawsuits in Federal Court on this issue now. Every canal dug, leaves behind spoil banks, etc. that affect natural waterways until they silt up and are no longer passable, leaving the dug canal as the only remaining option. Blocking the natural water-flow by building these private canals is one of the reasons your fish die off every hurricane, not a size limit, when the bad water overflows the spoil-banks removing the oxygen. All those canals should be treated the same way as if someone works on your property to run a pipeline or other easement. Namely, put it back as it was originally by covering up the canal and leveling the land.
Keep up the good work all you people claiming to be saving us. Pretty soon you will have accomplished your mission and we will be like other States, where they stand shoulder to shoulder along the bank and fish with barb-less hooks, one or two days a year with a one fish limit. Good Fishin' Ray

•   View Reports by Ray
RayProfile Photo
Ray
Posted April 21, 2012 at 7:06pm
additon to post on changes and illegal activities

With the significant reforms of the federal Clean Water Act in the 1970s – and locally the somewhat grudging recognition that east-west spoil banks and other boundaries are destroying the natural bounty of the Atchafalaya Basin – one might not expect the damming practice to still be going on. Wilson’s message is that it is happening right now right under the noses of the government regulators.

Case in point is a culvert lying on the ground near a branof Brown Bayou in Iberville Parish. The hunting club that leases the land from A. Wilbert & Sons LLC apparently has the intention of building a road across the east branch of Brown Bayou, locking commercial fishermen out of the swamp during the spring flood and retarding and eventually blocking sheet flow and fish migration.

Wilson says he cannot find a permit for this work but adds that he does not find this surprising. This isn’t the first unpermitted de facto dam built across the Dallas, Texas, family’s property in the Basin.

“In June 2000, on the same piece of property, Bridas Energy applied for a general permit to ‘lay boards on an existing road, and to excavate and place fill to install and maintain a ring levee, drill site and appurtenant structures to serve the A. Wilbert’s Sons Well No. 3.’ The permit also asks for the replacement of existing culverts,” Wilson said.

“In reality, there was no existing road and no culverts,” he said. “They ended up building a 2.6-mile elevated road from east to west, forever blocking the natural north to south water flow through the wetlands, and damming Brown Bayou. Brown Bayou is a state-owned water bottom. The well was dry, but they never removed the structures after they finished. In addition, they used the dam and the road to bring in heavy equipment to cut down wetland cypress forest.”

In 2007 Bridas Energy applied for another general permit to build a ring levee and to lay boards on an existing logging road for another well, Wilbert’s Sons Well No. 1, Wilson said. “Again they built over a mile of elevated road using tons of limestone to make it permanent, and blocking three bayous and the natural north to south water flow of the wetland system.”

Wilson describes the modus operandi he has uncovered:

“They applied for a general permit and gave false information to get it,” he said. And instead of “laying boards” they elevated the new road and paved it with limestone.

“They built dams and elevated roads, but since they had applied for a permit, in the eyes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it becomes a permit violation instead of a Section 404 violation (under the Clean Water Act).

“If there is no action from the Corps for over four years, the Corps won’t take action against them after that time. If they get caught, enforcement will give them a cease and desist but it will be considered a lack-of-compliance issue and will be referred to the Permitting Department where they most likely will get an after-the-fact permit,” Wilson said.

“It would have been very hard, maybe impossible for them to get a permit if they would have tried to do it the right way, applying for a regular permit giving the accurate facts,” he said.

In this latest case involving the hunting club, Wilson’s informants tell him the club has been told not to worry about the permit, to go ahead with the work.

Read more: TecheToday.com - Fight for the Atchafalaya Basin centers on sloppy permitting

•   View Reports by Ray
Admiral RabbitProfile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 7:21pm
'Old Memories'

fish...no millionaires that I can remember ever bought 'Old Sparky'...the only ones I read about were 'poor defendless people'...also sounds like mamma coon lived around Downman Rd. between 'Mr.Del-a-Crow, 'da Matchbox and Bosco's ???...can remember one guy put a 'big rat-look'n possum' in the women's restroom...right before a mean look'n, man-hate'n 'womans'-libber' walked in... she zoom-zoom out w/o her panties !!!...cheers

•   View Reports by Admiral Rabbit
abeastandasavageProfile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 7:56pm
drew-b?

nobody wants land, they don't own, just the right to fish the public water that runs thru the land, that they should have the right to use!!!

•   View Reports by abeastandasavage
switzersfabProfile Photo
Posted April 21, 2012 at 9:09pm
perfect timing

I figured it was just about time in this post for some LCPA regurgitation.

•   View Reports by switzersfab
RayProfile Photo
Ray
Posted April 22, 2012 at 5:44pm
LCPA

switzersfab - so does that mean you agree with what is occurring to the waterways in the basin Illegally I might add or do you just have an objection to crayfishermen's free use of public waterways to earn a living? It seems to me LPCA is one of the few groups fighting and winning those cases here. By the way those comments weren't LCPA they were from Dean Wilson, the Atchafalaya Basinkeeper. Wilson is part of the Waterkeepers Alliance founded by environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and several on-the-water activists whose histories stretch back to the battle for the Hudson River in the toxic ’60s. I can only believe by your comments you may be one of those involved. And no I am not a member of any organization on either side just hate the hypocrisy of so called envirlomentalist who claim they are saving our State but are actually doing it for themselves. Good Fishin', Ray

•   View Reports by Ray
switzersfabProfile Photo
Posted April 23, 2012 at 8:37am
ha ha

No ray, I don't agree with what goes on illegally, and I have never had a problem with crawfishermen making a living. I'm a commercial crawfisherman myself and fish in the basin. What I do have a problem with is the way they go about doing it. While perfectly legal, still crooked like a politician. Like frivolous lawsuits to fund their activist agendas. Like using the clean water act to gain access to private property. Like establishing a black bear habitat area to gain access to private property. What does the black bear habitat and the clean water act have to do with the general public having access to fishing holes? Nothing, but if you dig a little deeper you will see how they use these things to their advantage. Sounds to me like you have come across a tid bit of info, since you're no longer a member and made that hypocrisy comment. All these folks care about is having access to the entire basin, nothing else. and their past actions have had nothing but a butterfly affect. People argued about not having to post signs on private property, so landowners and leasees started putting up gates. The general public still didn't have access, so they destroy the gates, just like the signs. Then the owners/leasees put culverts in. The general public still didn't have access, so they complain, saying it should be a earthen dam with no culverts, just like some people are doing in this thread. If the earthen dams go up, the general public still won't have access, and thats when they make the sheet flow argument, just like the LCPAs argument. These battles have gone round and round, and the inevitable outcome is the general public will not gain access to private property if the landowner doesn't allow them to.

That being said, i have never been to the property discussed in this thread, so I can't comment on this particular incident, but it sounds like the same tired argument we have discussed over and over again. Especially with the leasee's history of rulings in their favor.

•   View Reports by switzersfab
Made To GOProfile Photo
Posted April 24, 2012 at 12:34am
Property Status

I think someone commented earlier to my and said 'community property has nothing to do with this, this isnt a marriage'.

Of course it aint a marriage.

But the water and fish ARE community property, being co-mingled with private property. In ANY INSTANCE, - HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE - WHEN THE PROPERTY OF ONE/FEW/MANY ARE MINGLED WITH THE PROPERTY OF ONE, BY ONE, THE PROPERTY BECOMES 'COMMUNITY'.

It is not wise to speak of things in which you do not know.

This is a REALLY simple issue when you apply common sense, UNBIASED common sense.

•   View Reports by Made To GO
Made To GOProfile Photo
Posted April 24, 2012 at 12:38am
Say HUH?

Made to Go

You have no idea what you are talking about. 'Community assets/property' refers to property owned between spouses. Community property has NOTHING to do with this public things owned by the State. Community property does not equal public property in legal terms. Please think or at least try to research before you post something on here that adds nothing to the conversation

-MotorBoat

Mmmnn...OOOOOOkay....

L
O
L

•   View Reports by Made To GO

Haven't registered with us yet? Register
Forgot your password? Recover Password