# Private Waters in Louisiana May Change



## E-money

@jmrodandgun I know this one gets you fired up


----------



## BM_Barrelcooker

They is fixin to be a civil war down there between the haves and the have nothins.


----------



## commtrd

BM_Barrelcooker said:


> They is fixin to be a civil war down there between the haves and the have nothins.


It's not just the folks in LA. It's nationwide. Look for around 2026 when the current real estate cycle finishes for the poop to REALLY hit the fan. The absolute perfect economic storm is brewing right now.


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

This would be a huge win for outdoorsmen. With that said, Lowsyanna has a long history of not doing the right thing; so I'll believe it when I see it.

If written properly, land and mineral owners would retain ownership and be shielded from liabilities. Can someone explain why an oil company would object to fishermen floating in public water over private lands? And spare me the evil oil company speach. There must be a reason I am ignorant to. I think the primary objection would be from wealthy duck clubs.


----------



## E-money




----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

Thanks for that Eric. It seems their objection is more related to their duck leasing "operations" rather than their oil and gas exploration operations.


----------



## WhiteDog70810

I saw this bill was brought forth. From what I understand, permanent wiers and gates constructed before the bill is passed are grandfathered in. Improvised weirs and gates, eg. drill stem stuffed vertically in the mud and chains across canals are not grandfathered in. The main benefit of this bill is that you could again hunt and fish in open water even though it was once land in 1812 and owned by such-and-such before it eroded away.

Marshland was only valued for the mineral rights and the few cattle it could support when I was a kid unless it held enough ducks to lease out for hunting. I am not sure what changed, but landowners only started limiting public access for fishing within the last 15-20 years. I don't think they are succeeding in making money by limiting public access, but, by God, if it has potential value, they ain't gonna give it away for free now. 

This has hurt Louisiana's "Sportsman's Paradise" reputation. From what I hear, lots of business has been lost. I know ramps that are suffering and some tournaments are avoiding Louisiana specifically because our water access is so convoluted. I can't justify going back home to fish (I even have a lifetime license) because much of the area I used to fish is private. There is no requirement for clearly marking property boundaries and there is no accurate single resource showing property boundaries and who allows public access, so unless you are local, the system is totally opaque. Even the local guys just figure it out by trial and error. Why spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to travel home just to have locals cuss at you, shoot at your boat (yes, it happens) or get ticketed by deputies?

While I have a problem with the concept of denying public access to unimpounded tidal water because it is private "land", I am all for protected the hunt clubs' lease privileges on impounded marshland. In that specific case, the landowners spent money to build weirs and levees to impound fresh water to improve and protect the habitat on their lands. If they are saving marsh (which helps us all), they deserve to reap some reward. There is no incentive to take care of the land otherwise. The state isn't going to proactively step in to take care of the marsh if the landowner is forced to open it to the public and the landowners aren't going to spend money to protect marshland so non-paying skyblasters (I hunted public land and have a very low opinion of many of my peers) can leave beer cans, Snickers wrappers and crippled ducks all over their marsh. 

A 200-300 yard safety zone around occupied duck blinds would be smart.

Nate


----------



## jmrodandgun

E-money said:


> @jmrodandgun I know this one gets you fired up


It does. What frustrates me the most is the idea that there needs to be some kind of compromise. In order for a compromise to exist, both sides have to want something to change. The problem is the land owners are perfectly happy with the way things are, so all they will be doing is giving, while the supporters of the bill simply get to take. That is not how a compromise works. Secondly, its either public or it is private. The idea of blurring those lines to make the duck hunters feel better is preposterous. As far as I am concerned, those who spend the most money are the ones who should get to decide. Duck hunters can take their 2 months and shove it up their ass. I'm done with them.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail

Frankly, I find the idea that any sort of navigable waterway regardless of whether or not it was once dry land can be consider private preposterous.

You can certainly consider private and post no trespassing signs on marsh islands but that's about it.


----------



## jmrodandgun

WhiteDog70810 said:


> A 200-300 yard safety zone around occupied duck blinds would be smart.


You do realize that could put boaters in a situation where they have no other choice but to violate the buffer zone. Opening weekend someone would for sure set up on the entrance to a lake or a major canal.

You can't close off access to areas because someone decided they wanted to spend a few hours shooting at birds.


----------



## Fritz

jmrodandgun said:


> As far as I am concerned, those who spend the most money are the ones who should get to decide.


This bothers me, I imagine a few rich guys running rough-shod over the rest.


----------



## WhiteDog70810

jmrodandgun said:


> You do realize that could put boaters in a situation where they have no other choice but to violate the buffer zone. Opening weekend someone would for sure set up on the entrance to a lake or a major canal.
> 
> You can't close off access to areas because someone decided they wanted to spend a few hours shooting at birds.


While I agree there needs to be some common sense written into any hypothetical buffer zone, you shouldn't fish through someones dekes either. That is kinda like fishing so close you snag the line of another boat. I think it could be written so you could move through the buffer zone to access otherwise obstructed areas, but you cannot loiter in the buffer zone. I know trusting a politician to phrase this right is naive.

Unfortunately, my argument isn't important because buffer zones aren't in this bill... ...yet.

Nate


----------



## jmrodandgun

WhiteDog70810 said:


> While I agree there needs to be some common sense written into any hypothetical buffer zone, you shouldn't fish through someones dekes either. That is kinda like fishing so close you snag the line of another boat. I think it could be written so you could move through the buffer zone to access otherwise obstructed areas, but you cannot loiter in the buffer zone. I know trusting a politician to phrase this right is naive.
> 
> Unfortunately, my argument isn't important because buffer zones aren't in this bill... ...yet.
> 
> Nate


My apologies, I was being a little obtuse. I just don't feel like we need specific legislation put into place to keep fisherman from getting too close to someones decoys. We already have hunter harassment laws. We simply do not need more laws.


----------



## LowHydrogen

They should have Les Miles write the legislation, that way it's sure to be equally bad for everyone .


----------



## DuckNut

I have no horse in this race;

From what I have read above from people who know something about the issue, this appears to be nothing more than a public access issue.

If that is correct and they want to take privet lands that taxes have been paid for generations away from those footing the bill. This has a silent connotation to it. This sounds like the single largest eminent domain land grab ever. 

How many landowners are in support of this or is this solely supported by non-interested parties? What is their compensation plan to these landowners?

What the hell will happen to Swamp People?


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

jmrodandgun said:


> We already have hunter harassment laws. We simply do not need more laws.


^^^ this


----------



## sjrobin

DuckNut said:


> I have no horse in this race;
> 
> From what I have read above from people who know something about the issue, this appears to be nothing more than a public access issue.
> 
> If that is correct and they want to take privet lands that taxes have been paid for generations away from those footing the bill. This has a silent connotation to it. This sounds like the single largest eminent domain land grab ever.
> 
> How many landowners are in support of this or is this solely supported by non-interested parties? What is their compensation plan to these landowners?
> 
> What the hell will happen to Swamp People?


It is a tidal water grab. Lots of previously privately owned land has subsided and is covered by tidal water in Texas. The land covered by tide is now owned by the state.


----------



## DuckNut

Here are the nuts and bolts
Present law (C.C. Art. 3413 and R.S. 56:3) provides, in part, that wild animals, birds, fish, and shellfish in a state of natural liberty either belong to the state or are things without an owner, but that the owner of a tract of land may forbid entry to anyone for purposes of hunting or fishing, and the like. Proposed law clarifies present law by providing that the running waters of the state and the wild aquatic life inhabiting those waters are and remain the property of the state and that title and ownership of these natural resources remain unchanged whether they flow over public or private water bottoms, and further provides that the running waters and aquatic life are subject to the supervision and control of the state. Proposed law provides that no person may prohibit the public navigation of running waters which are navigable by a motorboat required to be registered or numbered pursuant to the laws of this state or the U.S., except where navigation has been prevented or impeded by an obstacle constructed by the landowner prior to March 2, 2018. Proposed law provides that for the purposes of proposed law, "running waters"mean running waters as provided in Civil Code Article 450 and includes waters passing over any privately owned water bottom which has a direct natural or man-made inlet or outlet to a state-owned water bottom that is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide of the Gulf of Mexico and the tidally influenced arms and tributaries passing through the coastal areas of this state. Proposed law specifies that proposed law cannot be deemed to establish a change in ownership of the bottoms and banks of any privately owned waterway, and that no watercraft powered by a combustible engine may be used to navigate running waters over privately owned water bottoms and banks of waterways in such a way as to cause damage to the bottoms or banks of the waterway. Proposed law provides that the owner of a privately owned water bottom or bank is entitled to the existing limitations of liability for owners of property used for noncommercial recreational purposes



sjrobin said:


> It is a tidal water grab. Lots of previously privately owned land has subsided and is covered by tidal water in Texas. The land covered by tide is now owned by the state.


Thanks for the info on TX. LA wants the resources and leave the bill with the owner. There is no mention of restitution to owners.


----------



## dranrab

This really is a difficult issue to address. I used to think that if the water were tidally influenced then there should be no private ownership. Then I talked to a land owner and listened to his perspective. His family had hundreds of acres of land. Due to subsidence and coastal erosion most of the land is now shallow marsh. Is it just tough luck for them? People can come and go as they please? I enjoy kayak fishing. I used to love to go down around Leeville. It's not worth the hassle anymore. You have no way of knowing whether you are on private or public water. More and more areas are seeing more and more posted waters. It's obvious that some of the posted waters are natural bayous. Something needs to be done, and I have no idea what the right solution is.


----------



## ifsteve

Perhaps the landowners who have seen "their land" erode away for generations should have paid more attention to that issue years ago. Instead of letting the oil companies and other interests building canals all over the place and channelizing the MS river.

I have said this before. Its not a complicated fix.
Redraw the land maps used for the tax base to current boundaries. The "landowners" now only pay taxes on the actual land mass. "Landowners" continue to own the mineral and gas rights that went with the original land claims for the under water sections but they no longer pay taxes on that parcel. All tidal waters are public domain and access can NOT be blocked. Determine the total amount of tax losses due to the redrawing the "land" boundaries and raise fishing license fees to replace the lost tax revenues.

For instance. Lets say that the state stands to lose $1M in tax revenue. If LA sells 100K licenses a year then raise the price of each license by $10. I have talked to a bunch of guys and not one of them had a problem with this approach. And while I don't have the means to determine just what this would cost I bet a fair penny that it would shake out to be less than $10/license.

The "landowners" want their cake and eat it too. For years they got paid by various economic interests to mess up the ecosystem but they don't want to own the end result. Sorry but the redfish and trout that now swim in tidal waters over your submerged land are not yours. The are a public resource.


----------



## jmrodandgun

DuckNut said:


> LA wants the resources and leave the bill with the owner. There is no mention of restitution to owners.


Louisiana already owns the resource (water), they just want to retain the ownership and access of the resource under normal tidal conditions. 

Right now there is a $1.6B marsh restoration project that's entirely on private property. This project is funded by the tax payers of Louisiana as well as federal funding. In a lot of places the land loss they are experiencing is directly related to digging on oil and gas canals. They can gate every dead end canal they want, but the digging of that canal silted in the adjoining natural bayou, cutting off access for everyone else.


----------



## jmrodandgun

ifsteve said:


> For instance. Lets say that the state stands to lose $1M in tax revenue


The State does not collect property tax. Property taxes are collected on roughly 3 million acres.

Tidal marsh is also taxed at a very low rate. I believe in the neighborhood of .50 cents per acre. The value does not reflect the rate at which they are taxed.


----------



## redchaser

A few people have talked about "compromise". I think it's needed on both sides of the issue, an all or nothing approach by either side won't influence anyone. I have trouble with the language saying that even man made canals would be open to access. I would strongly support a bill/law stating that all tidal or flowing water accessible through natural waterways is accessible by the public, but if the only access to a patch of marsh is through a man made canal that either the property owner, their agents or their fore-bearers bore the expense of making, then there wouldn't have been historical access to it anyway. I would however require that such canals be either gated or clearly marked as private. Fishing the marsh right now is too much like Russian Roulette.


----------



## ifsteve

redchaser said:


> I have trouble with the language saying that even man made canals would be open to access.


Agree but those landowners need to recognize that had they not dug the canal that the fish that now go there wouldn't have had historical access either. So here's a compromise. Canals are off limits to the public. But the "landowner' can not fish those canals either!

I am only being a bit tongue in cheek but you get the point.


----------



## jmrodandgun

I agree. The idea that a properly permitted canal dug on private lands with private money shouldn't be subject to public use is a hard sell. I think you might run into some issues whith private canals and how they disturb the hydrology of adjoining waterways. Silting issues of neighboring canals or land loss.

Tidal water is a weird deal. You dig a canal, take water that is owned by the people and redirect it onto your property, then restrict access to it. 

This is a little off topic but if you dig through the old contracts, a lot of the oil companies were contractual obligated to fill in canals when they were finished. The canal was an improvement to the property for a lot of land owners so they didn't enforce that clause. They now had access more of their property. Coincidently oil and gas canals are big contributing factor to erosion, second only the levee system.

Another thing to consider is the commercial industry built around the use of the marsh. Bob over at Bayou Black Marina is closing after 25 years after the adjoining canal owner decided to restrict access to the intercostal.


----------



## dranrab

About those canals. What would the land owners do if they were given these two options. The canal will be dammed off so that the opening of the canal is returned to a natural state or they can allow boat traffic. Is that unfair?


----------



## Finn Maccumhail

It’s just a fact of life and law since time immemorial that coastal/riparian lands are impermanent and loss of the land to hydrological forces does not constitute a taking. It’s simply a risk that one has owning marsh land. The marsh erodes, land subsides, new waterways are opened, and the tide takes what it will.

The issue with Louisiana is that they’re using 200 year old maps to determine what is a navigable waterway.


----------



## ifsteve

Finn Maccumhail said:


> It’s just a fact of life and law since time immemorial that coastal/riparian lands are impermanent and loss of the land to hydrological forces does not constitute a taking. It’s simply a risk that one has owning marsh land. The marsh erodes, land subsides, new waterways are opened, and the tide takes what it will.
> 
> The issue with Louisiana is that they’re using 200 year old maps to determine what is a navigable waterway.


Now why would you go and use facts and common sense?


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

If a landowner wants the exclusive right to a private canal on their property, they should foot the bill for the damage that canal has caused the ecosystem. 

Just let us know where to send the bill. 

Oh crap! You already spent all the money the oil companies paid you? And your canal caused land loss? And you want exclusive use to that canal?

Cry me a river. Or cry me a private canal.

And whoever above mentioned that there is no guarantee that privately owned marshlands will not erode, subside, change, etc is spot on. Such is the life of a marshland owner.

And marsh land is valued as special use in Louisiana which means property taxes are not assessed on FMV. Instead they are taxed at a much lower rate. It varies by parish.


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

I spoke to someone at the Louisiana CCA on Monday. To my disappointment, they have not taken a stand on this bill yet.

I read the Sea Grant report on the issue and thought it to be pretty worthless.

Made a call to my state representative and had a nice discussion on the issue.

If you don't know who your rep is, there is a link on this site. https://joinlasc.com/

I fear that losing on this bill will add fuel to the fire and encourage more landowners to restrict access. For better or worse, the issue is on the table for debate.


----------



## E-money

Ruddy Duck LA said:


> I fear that losing on this bill will add fuel to the fire and encourage more landowners to restrict access. For better or worse, the issue is on the table for debate.


Unfortunately I think you are right. The dialogue that I have seen between land owners and supporters of the bill has not been pretty. This bill being introduced is already pretty polarizing.


----------



## topnative2

For what it is worth:
In fl as I remember it
1.a canal dug into private land is owned by the landowner and no boats are allowed...
2.on coastal lands the high tide line is where the land owners property begins....yup it changes
3.the state can lease state land for commercial purposes(marina) and it becomes property controlled by the marina and applies to boating...rare ... sailfish marina in palm bch co. is an example


----------



## jmrodandgun

Ruddy Duck LA said:


> I spoke to someone at the Louisiana CCA on Monday. To my disappointment, they have not taken a stand on this bill yet.


CCA will never support anything that doesn't benefit them directly.

Besides, Tim Allen is South Louisiana property manager for Apache Oil as well as a State Board Member on the CCA board of directors. Apache is one of the top two land owners in Lafourche and Terrbone parish, they will send you tickets in the mail for being on their property. Now do you really think CCA will support this so long as Tim Allen sits on their board?

Here is an email Tim Allen sent out in opposition.



> Ladies and Gentlemen-
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to make you aware of a threat to private property rights which will affect you as a landowner or lessee, and ask for your assistance in fighting this threat.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a bill in the legislature (HB391 by Rep. Pearson-attached) which if passed, will grant public access to nearly all coastal marshes; wherever a boat can float. It will essentially allow anybody to traverse on and across the area you own or lease as private property. Imagine being in your duck blind on your private lease and a sport fishing guide with a boat full of paying clients come to fish the same area!
> 
> 
> 
> Representative Tanner Magee from Houma is on the House Civil Law Committee where this bill will be heard within the next week or so. Our request to you is to contact Representative Magee at either ******** or phone number (985) *** **** and urge him to vote against this bill.
> 
> 
> 
> If possible, please don’t stop there – contact the remainder of the Civil Law Committee to voice your concerns. Their contact information is on the attached ‘talking points’ paper. They are certainly hearing from the folks who want ‘something for nothing’, and they need to hear from us.
> 
> 
> 
> And please share this concern over HB391 with your colleagues, family and friends who will be adversely affected by its passage.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you in advance for your assistance on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Timothy J. Allen, PLS


----------



## CurtisWright

Hell Yes.
I can't vote on this matter, but feel that the majority of marsh in LA should be designated and protected with state or national park status. Just like ENP. There should be Chickee's / Camping areas, and other public facilities.
I will support this campaign if someone can share a link.

And duck hunters...I wish there was a limit for how many rounds they can carry. Like 10rds per person. Force them to make the shots count instead of sky blasting. Let the birds actually decoy before shooting. Would be safer for the hunters, injure less birds, and help protect the resources. It would also make for better hunts because you would get to shoot at decoying birds rather than birds that are scared to death and fly really high.


----------



## CurtisWright

dranrab said:


> This really is a difficult issue to address. I used to think that if the water were tidally influenced then there should be no private ownership. Then I talked to a land owner and listened to his perspective. His family had hundreds of acres of land. Due to subsidence and coastal erosion most of the land is now shallow marsh. Is it just tough luck for them? People can come and go as they please? I enjoy kayak fishing. I used to love to go down around Leeville. It's not worth the hassle anymore. You have no way of knowing whether you are on private or public water. More and more areas are seeing more and more posted waters. It's obvious that some of the posted waters are natural bayous. Something needs to be done, and I have no idea what the right solution is.



Agree. I fished Cocodrie last summer. Super stressful. I wasted the whole first day getting run off of peoples property trying to find a place to fish. Never going back there again.


----------



## E-money

It looks like the committee hearing is scheduled for April 10 at 9:30 am. There is a ton of commitment from supporters to go to the hearing, some of which will speak. The LaSC is actually expecting more turnout than the room will allow for. There are overflow rooms with televisions there as well. This will be interesting to say the least.


----------



## ifsteve

Those speaking on behalf of the sportsman and changing the law need, no MUST, remain civil and calmly present their thoughts. Get riled up and it will backfire.


----------



## E-money

CCA breaks its silence with opposition while suggesting a task force made up of “stakeholders”


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

Well I guess it is official. I'm done with the CCA.


----------



## texasag07

When you let oil field lease people on the board it’s all downhill from there. Unfortunately this is about what I figured. Hopefully it still passes.


----------



## Tx_Whipray

Ron Ratliff just posted that HB391 passed 5-3


----------



## E-money

Tx_Whipray said:


> Ron Ratliff just posted that HB391 passed 5-3


Yes it passed the committee with amendments including:
1. Public access will exclude waterfowl season
2. No surface or subsurface vegetation can be damaged by boat/motor

Now onto the House. I was able to watch the whole thing remotely and one thing that was glaringly obvious is that the supporting side needs to employ some lawyers. The lawyer that spoke in opposition of the bill was speaking to how this bill would challenge supreme court dictated property rights. He was also leaning on the fact that the state severed their ownership of this land when they sold it off after it was granted to the state from federal ownership. His biggest point was that "state owned water" does not translate into "right to access" to the general public. This fella was on point and the supporting side needs to shore up the argument.


----------



## ifsteve

State owned water dang better equate to right to access!!!!


----------



## CurtisWright

E-money said:


> Yes it passed the committee with amendments including:
> 1. Public access will exclude waterfowl season
> 2. No surface or subsurface vegetation can be damaged by boat/motor
> 
> Now onto the House. I was able to watch the whole thing remotely and one thing that was glaringly obvious is that the supporting side needs to employ some lawyers. The lawyer that spoke in opposition of the bill was speaking to how this bill would challenge supreme court dictated property rights. He was also leaning on the fact that the state severed their ownership of this land when they sold it off after it was granted to the state from federal ownership. His biggest point was that "state owned water" does not translate into "right to access" to the general public. This fella was on point and the supporting side needs to shore up the argument.


Thanks for the update.


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

Encouraging news indeed! And no thanks whatsoever to the CCA.


----------



## jmrodandgun

E-money said:


> Public access will exclude waterfowl season


Unacceptable.

Edit- Are you sure? I'm not seeing that amendment anywhere.

Never mind I see it. Wow. They snuck that in there.


----------



## E-money

Ruddy Duck LA said:


> Encouraging news indeed! And no thanks whatsoever to the CCA.


Yes but the opposition doesn’t just have an argument, they have a defendable argument based on what I heard today. I could be wrong but because of the decisions of the state to sell these swamp and overflow lands to private persons, the taking back of that land requires fair compensation according to federal law. And the Supreme Court ruled that access control falls to the owner of the property. Currently there is no distinction made about where access control stops. If it does require compensation and that responsibility falls on the state, I would not bank on this ending in favor of the public given the deficit Louisiana currently operates within. But nevertheless, this was the first win and it was needed to get to the second


----------



## E-money

jmrodandgun said:


> Unacceptable.


My guess is this amendment will be changed or excluded at some point.


----------



## E-money

jmrodandgun said:


> Unacceptable.
> 
> Edit- Are you sure? I'm not seeing that amendment anywhere.
> 
> Never mind I see it. Wow. They snuck that in there.


This was no doubt to appease the duck hunting crowds but one of their main complaints is going to be a knife in their sides. The second amendment will have to stand to protect all vegetation and the main culprit there is surface drives. So if at any point they cross shallows that do not belong to them they will be in violation of the very amendment they asked for and one that they thought would be a deterrent for the bill.


----------



## ifsteve

1. I have no problem with the duck season amendment. I avoid those areas intentionally during duck season as most reasonable guys do.
2. Surface drives can be an issue. But guess what. Have you watched tower boats tearing around the marsh. HATE them and the tournament idiots.


----------



## jmrodandgun

E-money said:


> This was no doubt to appease the duck hunting crowds but one of their main complaints is going to be a knife in their sides. The second amendment will have to stand to protect all vegetation and the main culprit there is surface drives. So if at any point they cross shallows that do not belong to them they will be in violation of the very amendment they asked for and one that they thought would be a deterrent for the bill.


Well put.

How do you feel about this whole thing? I'm on the fence. I watched the hearing and had to shut it off when that guy started asking who owns the water that flood his house. Then Allain came on and threatened to stop allowing public access if this passes. This man a sitting senator and real piece of trash.

youtube link 







__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10204465979286345


----------



## jmrodandgun

ifsteve said:


> 1. I have no problem with the duck season amendment.


You should.


----------



## ifsteve

jmrodandgun said:


> You should.


I get it but if that little bone lets this thing go through I will gladly take it. Long road to go but this was a great start.


----------



## sjrobin

The bill will have to go through Senator Allain's senate. Not likely. Voter turn out next state election cycle is the key to this problem.


----------



## jmrodandgun

sjrobin said:


> The bill will have to go through Senator Allain's senate. Not likely. Voter turn out next state election cycle is the key to this problem.


I think he was just elected in which case he will term out at the end of 2022

On second thought, I might be wrong about that.


----------



## E-money

jmrodandgun said:


> Well put.
> 
> How do you feel about this whole thing? I'm on the fence. I watched the hearing and had to shut it off when that guy started asking who owns the water that flood his house. Then Allain came on and threatened to stop allowing public access if this passes. This man a sitting senator and real piece of trash.
> 
> youtube link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10204465979286345


I am in favor of making tidal water accessible to all. I do not believe that a land owner should be able to control access to that which he does not own. But, I think Louisiana is unique and I am unsure how this will play out. It will at some point have to go to the Senate and Allain is only one vote. And he will have to vote along with his own private interest rather than vote as an extension of his constituents. That should be interesting.

In truth, planting a push pole foot in privately owned bottoms would still be an act of trespassing under the new bill. So based on the way I fish this doesnt open all doors for me, but I already try not to fish areas I know are private. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the public should be able to use every bit of the state fisheries so long as the state allows it. It should be the decision of the state and it’s biologists rather than oil and land companies or the Sen. Allhains of the world who have had thousands and thousands of acres of marshland passed down to them over the last 200 years.


----------



## sjrobin

The marine life that thrives (and swims in and out of the now private water) belongs to the state of Louisiana, people of Louisiana, and the people of the USA.


----------



## jmrodandgun

sjrobin said:


> The marine life that thrives (and swims in and out of the now private water) belongs to the state of Louisiana, people of Louisiana, and the people of the USA.


Sure, but the same can be said for ungulates and small game. You can control access to publicly owned wildlife that lives on/over private property. It's not a good argument.


----------



## ifsteve

jmrodandgun said:


> Sure, but the same can be said for ungulates and small game. You can control access to publicly owned wildlife that lives on/over private property. It's not a good argument.


True. However there is a big difference here. A lot of "places" where there is now marine life is only there because the land owner manipulated land to let that water (and the marine life) in there. The redfish I chase didn't magically sprout wings and fly across land.


----------



## E-money

Just as a reminder, there is no uncertainty as to who owns the waters and fish within them. That is property of the state and is not being disputed. Those in opposition are arguing that taking away their right to control access to their water bottoms and property boundaries (whether or not state owned water runs over it) encroaches on their rights as property owners as granted to them by the constitution and supreme courts.


----------



## sjrobin

jmrodandgun said:


> Sure, but the same can be said for ungulates and small game. You can control access to publicly owned wildlife that lives on/over private property. It's not a good argument.


The marine species are not only migratory, but require the disputed estuaries to complete the life cycle. Trusting responsible estuary management to a scattering of private owners should be illegal based on the regulated seafood industry alone.

Short term thinking and greed put Louisiana estuaries and people in this position.


----------



## jmrodandgun

I understand your point but just because the public owns something does not necessarily mean they have access to it. Don't take this the wrong way, I am all for public access to tidal water but as it stands right now the land owners are well within the rights to restrict access to publicly owned water that flows over privately owned water bottoms. It's not like water front property where the title to the property describes the property line as the high water mark. I own river front property and in 2016 lost about 16-18 acres from a change of course in the river during a major flood. I can not string a gate across the river because it flows over where my property use to be, this is because of how my property lines are defined.

The marsh is a little different because the property lines are defined as specific lines in space. Access to anything within those lines can be restricted. Let's say you have a private pond that is subject to flooding during high water periods. You do not own the water that fills the pond, but you control access to said pond. You don't own the fish within the pond, but you can control access to said fish. If you dug a canal and filled it up with water that was owned by the public, you can still control access to that canal. Just because the state owns the water that is contained within the canal does not mean the state can come and go as the please.

While I support HB391 I also understand the issue is not who owns the water as that is clearly defined. The problem is how the property is defined, how it was divided, and how it was sold. People bought property under the assumption they controlled access to everything within its boundaries. You can't turn back the clock but you can change the definition of the property.

The amendment to close access during duck season is also something I will not support. If that part does not get amended I can no longer support the bill. The public either owns the water and has access, or they do not. You can NOT close public access to public things for private use.


----------



## E-money

You all will undoubtedly hear about the State Senator that made a statement in opposition of the bill who was "making threats". This video was uploaded yesterday (not my video) and shows the segment to which they are referring.


----------



## GullsGoneWild

ifsteve said:


> 1. I have no problem with the duck season amendment. I avoid those areas intentionally during duck season as most reasonable guys do.
> 2. Surface drives can be an issue. But guess what. Have you watched tower boats tearing around the marsh. HATE them and the tournament idiots.



shhhh, smack might hear you


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

To say that you won't support a bill because it contains the amendment protecting duck hunters is ridiculous. I believe that amendment should be thrown out. However, if I wait for the perfect bill to come along before I support it, well..... then I'm no better than the CCA. And landowners will get exactly what they want, which is a "kick the can" mentality among those fighting for public access. We all know who the losers are if the status quo is maintained.


----------



## jmrodandgun

Ruddy Duck LA said:


> To say that you won't support a bill because it contains the amendment protecting duck hunters is ridiculous.


To add a provision to specifically exclude certain people at certain times is even more ridiculous. As far as I am concerned this bill is trash in its current state and the LASC did a shit job of articulating their point. They got lucky and the swing vote went their way.

This bill will get smoked on the house floor and the only thing that would have been accomplished is the alienation of the major land owners.

Edit- Just to be clear, very few people are more zealous about public access to tidally influenced waterways than me. However this bill is the result of zeal, not merit. It's poorly written at best. It doesn't redefine anything. They threw in an amendment to appease duck hunters. Let that sink in for a moment. You will not be able to get a boat in the water during duck season, they will shut it all down.


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

And to be clear, it is currently shut down all year. Every time you get in your boat and leave navigable waters or public marsh you are trespassing. I'd bet that currently, the overwhelming majority of fishermen trespass every time they are on the water. They rely on their hopes that the landowners are not present or are part of the group that do not enforce trespassing. 

Anyone that has not visited the state office of lands management website should do so. There is an interactive GIS map that shows public water, private water, and water claimed by both the state and private landowners. It is eye opening.

I view the current bill, in substance, to be granting an easement (servitude for LA folks) to the general public to access tidal waters. The form, of course, is more complex.

Whether this bill has a chance to go all the way is irrelevant to me at this point. I'm supporting measures to grant public access. I acknowledge that the perfect bill will never surface and kicking the can is counter productive. 

To say that I know what will happen would be speculative at best. I suspect crow tastes like shit, so I won't set myself up for making it my next meal. I could ask the CCA representative that said it didn't have a prayer passing committee what it tastes like I suppose.


----------



## WhiteDog70810

I don’t get the aquatic vegetation damage clause. We are not talking about fragile eel grass that is looking to be offended. Most of the awuatic vegetation affected is alligator weed and water hyacinth. You can barely kill that stuff. If this refers to erosion caused by boat wakes damaging Roseau and bull rush, I guess it makes a modicum of sense, but you’d have to exclude everyone operating a power boat from the entire coast if that is the case.

I worry this will be the “reason” given to exclude the public.

Nate


----------



## E-money

Update: newest word is that the bill may be sent to another house committee rather than being sent to the house of rep floor for a vote as would normally happen. This would essentially be nullifying the consideration of yesterday’s meeting and forcing the bill to be heard again by a different committee.


----------



## jmrodandgun

E-money said:


> Update: newest word is that the bill may be sent to another house committee rather than being sent to the house of rep floor for a vote as would normally happen. This would essentially be nullifying the consideration of yesterday’s meeting and forcing the bill to be heard again by a different committee.


Stuart Bischop. He's in bed with CCA and he is the chairmen of the house resources committee.


----------



## E-money

jmrodandgun said:


> Stuart Bischop. He's in bed with CCA and he is the chairmen of the house resources committee.


You were correct. Looks like the tides have shifted once again. Pun intended.


----------



## jmrodandgun

E-money said:


> You were correct. Looks like the tides have shifted once again. Pun intended.
> View attachment 26562


It would have been stupid for him to continue to push for the bill to be sent to his own committee. This thing still has to get through the house, senate committee, and the senate. If it lands in the Senate Natural Resources committee it's as good as dead. Bret Allain and Norby Chabert sit on that committee and will never let this thing go to a vote. There are a few major players pulling strings here besides the Louisiana Land owners Association. CCA is now involved as well as Apache. Apache's land manager, Tim Allen sits on the board for Louisiana CCA. 

I do not foresee a scenario where CCA doesn't put their full weight behind killing this thing. They have too many people in the legislature for this to happen.


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

I guess they saying that you don't want to see laws and sausage being made is true.

For what it is worth, I have convinced our entire table to pull out of the CCA banquet tonight. I also sent an email to the LA CCA contact stating that our table was not purchased as a result of their stance on HB 391. This will be the first year in nearly a decade we will not be present at the event.

I believe it is important to pull support from them, but it is also important to clearly inform them of what they are missing and why. It is my hope that others are doing the same.


----------



## sjrobin

As states were admitted to the USA, each state was granted tidal water property under what is known in English law as public trust. Unlike every other state with much less tidal estuary, the state of Louisiana decided it would determine the tidal affected zones, and with great foresight and corruption sold some of the prime tidal zones to private citizens. These actions were upheld by state courts at the time. If the Louisiana legislature were so inclined, the state could reclaim ownership of the tidal lands per the original public trust tidal law. Private owners could go to the US Supreme Court and lose the case. The key is the legislature, the people of Louisiana.


----------



## jmrodandgun

Ruddy Duck LA said:


> I believe it is important to pull support from them, but it is also important to clearly inform them of what they are missing and why. It is my hope that others are doing the same.


CCA historically has been on the side of land owners. They did not support previous attempts at redefining publicly owned and accessible water and will not likely support any legislation that grants the public more access. 

I've never understood what people see in CCA.


----------



## sjrobin

The founders of GCCA in Texas used $$$ and political influence to accomplish the goal of legal game fish status for sea trout and red drum here in Texas. No commercial netting. Certainly the GCCA's finest hours. When I first began saltwater fishing as a teenager, we celebrated if some one landed one small red drum in our bays. Not sure I know the purpose of the CCA now. The focus should be on educating the public and conserving and restoring habitat so that more people can enjoy the sport with a better chance of catching a few fish.


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

jmrodandgun said:


> I've never understood what people see in CCA.


I think they did some fantastic things a long time ago.

Sometimes groups like this can coast along on an old track record without offending people enough to change their position. I still don't think they are all bad, but this is unforgivable in my book.


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

Anyone going to Baton Rouge tomorrow. I'm going as long as nothing blows up at work in the morning.


----------



## sjrobin

Represent. Every citizen that attends or speaks at the hearings can make a difference.


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

sjrobin said:


> Represent. Every citizen that attends or speaks at the hearings can make a difference.


I'm not certain, but my understanding is that we will not be able to speak. However, there will be green cards to fill out allowing you to send messages to particular representatives. You may also fill out proxy cards for others. I have had a few friends text me their address and desire for me to fill out a proxy for them. Reach out and do the same.


----------



## sjrobin

Ruddy Duck LA said:


> I'm not certain, but my understanding is that we will not be able to speak. However, there will be green cards to fill out allowing you to send messages to particular representatives. You may also fill out proxy cards for others. I have had a few friends text me their address and desire for me to fill out a proxy for them. Reach out and do the same.


If I were a La resident I would take a days vacation to be there.


----------



## jmrodandgun

sjrobin said:


> If I were a La resident I would take a days vacation to be there.


It's scheduled to be heard at 2pm today. I can't be there but I'm also not entirely sure I could support the bill as it is written anyway so I'm taking the wait an see approach. Experience tells me this bill will do far more harm than good, but I sincerely hope I am wrong.


----------



## jmrodandgun

That was brutal to watch. The bill got killed 58 to 38. I'm a little pissed off that they managed to anger so many people with this nonsense. I'll be waiting on phone calls from landowners to revoke my permissions.


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

It wasn't nonsense. It was an uphill legal battle. The likelihood of passing was lower than we all hoped. But the cause was and continues to be worthy.

And it was brutal to witness.


----------



## E-money

I understand that this bill may not have been written in such a way that it would pass through with flying colors, and I also understand that given that this bill may not have been ready that we shouldn't expect our representatives to vote on it just for the sake of gaining some ground. That being said, the tactics that were used to get the bill to the point where it would guarantee its failure was appalling to me. Throwing unnecessary (and quite frankly ridiculous) amendments in under the guise of "bettering the bill for both sides" until the bill could only fail was a slap in the face of recreational anglers. It was a weaselly way of voting against the bill while trying not to anger the majority of constituents who are most likely recreational anglers without claim to "private waters". An amendment was passed that excluded small game season.....REALLY?!?! That immediately makes the bill preposterous in that the waters would remain private from September to March. 

And my blood was boiling as they kept talking about all the work that has been done with SeaGrant and all of the STAKEHOLDERS, which really means everyone with a vested interest in keeping the waters private or seeking compensation for the use of what would remain under their ownership. By the end of the discussion, I would not have even voted for the bill. I guess that's politics but I would certainly like to see how many of our politicians violated their code of ethics by debating/voting against the bill while owning private land and providing leases to paying persons.


----------



## sjrobin

That is the way of the world if citizens do not vote for change. We have the opportunity to change law here in our democracy. A lot of the world's great marine ecosystems are held in the public trust. The Louisiana delta is a glaring exception.


----------



## E-money

I hope I am wrong, but I think it is going to start feeling a little tighter in the marsh in the years to come. Now that this bill has failed, I would expect land owners to restrict access even more so than they had before. Rep Garafalo and Gisclair claim to be working with the state and landowners to more accurately map the bottoms so that fishermen can at least have a clear understanding of where they are and are not allowed to fish. My guess is that more of the water is claimed than we realize. But make no mistake, once the map is created, trespassing enforcement can and probably will become more common place. Lawyers can invoke the timeless "known or should have known" argument for prosecution of trespassers. Once the maps are revised and made accessible, there is no more arguing that you were unaware that you were on private waters.


----------



## Ruddy Duck LA

Well said @E-money. And the rational that the public should not have fought the fight because landowners are just going to retaliate is a cop out. The trend over the last decade is already reducing access. The only difference going forward is that the scared sheep can now point the finger at their peers and blame them for the expansion of the problem.

I read the Sea Grant report a couple weeks ago after discussing the issue with a CCA representative. My only hope is that the state did not incur a lot of costs for it. I saw a couple wolves in sheep's clothing yesterday that frighten me to no end.


----------



## fishicaltherapist

GREED.........ALWAYS begins the erosion and eventual collapse of a free and civilized society, UNLESS, the movement for what is right and just CONTINUES . There will always be "SCARED SHEEP" and complacency, however, DO NOT forget what happened in SEVERAL States when the "raping the fisheries by nets" was resolved in favor of recreational fisher folks. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I will NEVER give up on just causes. My prayers are with you in LA, one of my favorite places on this planet. Keep up the fight !!!!!!!


----------



## brianBFD

I watched the live stream for 3 hours yesterday and the LA legislature is as big a circus as the AL legislature. The amendment that Gisclair added (that was passed) would have kept the bill from going into effect until July 2020. When I saw that get added to the bill by the margin it did I had no doubt the bill was as good as dead. I agree with E-money's comment about there being even less water available in the near future. I come over to the Grand Isle area in the spring and the Empire-Venice area every fall for kayak fishing tournaments. Not being from there and not knowing what is public or private I'm beginning to re-think going back this fall. Especially if the animosity between land owners and anglers escalates because of this bill. I really hate that, because there's no where else I know of that you can catch 50+ fish in a day and still not even place in the tournament.


----------

