Please Sign In


New To Sportsman Network?

Cca

Reply
The CCA is a 'green scam.' They claim to be conservationists...but they are funded by big oil and the founder is the heir to the Exxon fortune. CCA (coastal conservancy assosciation) should be called Country Club Anglers. They charge $75 to $100 for their fundraising dinners and use the money to put commercial fisherman out of work. Do not support the CCA,
Reply
this is a great post, very concisive, to the point, with links to all the 'facts' and not one shred of negativity or false claims. I will bookmark it to read this great post again. Thanks for this

where can I find more about the coastal 'conservancy' association anyway?
Reply
   kenspeck
Let me guess you are a commercial fisherman right? I am a member of CCA but not what you would call an active member. Let me pose one question for everyone to consider. If not CCA then what entity you propose work with biologists/State to protect the resources from recreational or commercial abuse so that future generations can inherit these marine resources. if anyone has a better way then i am all ears.
Reply
   kenspeck
Let me guess you are a commercial fisherman right? I am a member of CCA but not what you would call an active member. Let me pose one question for everyone to consider. If not CCA then what entity you propose work with biologists/State to protect the resources from recreational or commercial abuse so that future generations can inherit these marine resources. if anyone has a better way then i am all ears.
Reply
Yes I am a commercial fisherman all my life
Reply
Most conservation organizations are non-profit organizations. Most of their money comes from donations or memberships and most of them get money from large corporations whether it be Exxon, Wal-Marks, etc. That does not mean they are RAN by those companies. They also have a board, the board is often comprised of folks who are very business savvy (know how to make money and what to do with money and get the best bang for your buck). They need donations to do the work they do. The $25 you may send to DU or NWTF or Delta Waterfowl or XYZ organization doesn't really add up too much in the grand scheme of things. The large donations are what keep the organization afloat. The organization decides to work on a project, the organization will then go to a big corporation and try to raise the funds. Its that simple. The annual membership fees are a drop in the bucket. When you want a big project done, you have to ask for big money and the $25 membership fee doesn't cut it, most of that is for overhead

if your info you are spreading is from that video about CCA being in bed with Exxon then you need to get your head out the sand or the tinfoil off your head at least
Reply
   kenspeck
If you read my post, i made no mention as to the corporate structure of CCA nor where the money comes from or how it is distributed. What I mentioned was that do in fact facilitate marine conservation programs to protect marine resources. This is a point of fact. You can believe that CCA targets commercial fisherman, that is your right but don't twist my words with your response.
Reply
   MathGeek
This link:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/712460725459033/

as well as a search for 'Boycott the S.T.A.R.' will bring up lots of solid reasons why CCA has been unproductive and should no longer be supported.
Reply
   kenspeck
While i have at least some admiration for your position. The reality is that recreational fisherman in majority will continue to support CCA not because of the people they affect but for the ' perception ' of their work for marine resources. CCA is not going to fix all the conservation problems they perceive on their bucket list but will continue to have the financial support it needs to exist long after you and i are gone. In other words, a few people can complain but will do very little to change how CCA operates. As i said, I am member who pays dues and not much else.
Reply
was responding to the original poster sorry kenspeck

Get ready for a CCA bashing though haha. There was once a guy who went on several websites with a message to Boycott the STAR. The guy posted a bunch of unpublished graphs and a bunch of preliminary data and spread it all over the websites to try and gain a following, the sheep followed. The guy also posted in this thread!
Reply
   kenspeck
I hear you no worries, only time will tell
Reply
   MathGeek
'There was once a guy who went on several websites with a message to Boycott the STAR. The guy posted a bunch of unpublished graphs and a bunch of preliminary data and spread it all over the websites to try and gain a following, the sheep followed.'

Why not criticize CCA for using unpublished data to push for tripletail limits?

At least the data we posted was from a study that has been peer-reviewed and has received approvals and input and feedback from a number of fisheries scientists and other experts.

The data CCA used to push triple tail limits was from a single life history study done in Mississippi. There was no data showing the stocks were threatened. Would it make sense to manage the LA deer herd based on data from Mississippi?
Reply
If the commercial fishermen have a problem with what the CCA is doing or working towards why don't they attend the CCA public meetings? Anyone could go and voice their opinions and concerns. Letting thereself be heard before everyone attending the meeting. This way everyone could hear the reasoning behind what is being done.
There was a meeting for Calcasieu Lake last night out of the 200 ppl there I didn't hear of any commercial fishermen bring up a discussion topic. Why blast them on social media networking rather than go before everyone and state your opinion of what you believe.
Reply
   MathGeek
I've usually tended to view written communication as superior to verbal because there is better accountability, and to my knowledge, last night's meeting was one of few CCA meetings that is open to the general public (no membership or fee required). CCA has a long track record of making shifty and slippery statements at meetings that they are unwilling to commit to in writing.

Last night's meeting was focused on the state of the recreational fishery in Calcasieu Lake. A commercial fisher with interests in other parts of the state would have been out of place there. But there was a strong presence of local guides from SWLA. Anyone identifying themselves as a commercial oyster fisherman on the lake might have been lynched, so it is no wonder they did not identify themselves.

We are trying to get CCA to clarify in future meeting announcements whether the meetings are open to non-members.
Reply
   TurtleNO
I have to disagree with you kenspeck on the majority of rec guys joining CCA. I bet their numbers dropped quite a bit after the bowfishing debacle. The triple tail is another one. They also won't make a stand on the navigational waters on private land. I will never be a member of CCA again. Not a bashing, just don't think they have my interest.
Reply
MG, I am pretty sure that the meeting at Prien Lake was somewhat put together in response to your unpublished and preliminary graphs beind strewn all over the internet and your posts about boycotting CCA. They responded by putting together a public meeting, and did you even attend?
Reply
   MathGeek
'MG, I am pretty sure that the meeting at Prien Lake was somewhat put together in response to your unpublished and preliminary graphs beind strewn all over the internet and your posts about boycotting CCA. They responded by putting together a public meeting, and did you even attend?'

Our experimental methodology, analysis techniques, and results have received many levels of review, feedback, and approvals from fisheries scientists and other qualified professionals.

I would not presume to have played a big role in motivating the meeting, since no one from CCA contacted me or invited me personally. The 'Boycott the S.T.A.R.' movement and Facebook page were the brainchild of other local anglers, although (after checking with them) I helped spread the word on LA Sportsman.

Your suggestion that I played any significant role in a gathering of such eminent managers and scientists is flattering, but since CCA completely ignored my attempts (email) at private discussion of scientific issues surrounding the Calcasieu fishery last year, I attribute the meeting to their recognition of widespread angler dissatisfaction with management of the fishery rather than a few internet posts by an individual.

I am not able to make it to Lake Charles as nearly as I would like, and my trips are mostly reserved for fishing. I touched base with Patrick Banks (the LDWF oyster guy) before the meeting, received written and verbal feedback from a number of attendees during and after the meeting, and eagerly read the news article and the posted presentations from the speakers with great care. If we determine that the general public is welcome at their meetings, I hope to attend some future CCA meetings in LC and BR when I am available.

But like most people here, if I'm going to sit in a car for 5-6 hours, it's most likely going to be to actually go fishing, not just to hear about it, especially when accurate reports are available without actually attending. The overwhelming majority of attendees surveyed were not optimistic that the meeting would result in any improvements in the situation in Calcasieu. (See attached photo for survey results.)
Reply
   JB
Can anyone tell me what CCA has done to help out our fishery? And I'm talking about in the last 20 years? And please don't say anything about the STAR tournament. All that does is somewhat force people to be a member.
I have no stake in this really, as I rarely fish saltwater anymore and I am not bashing them. I would just like to know how they benefit the public.
Reply
   MathGeek
To their credit, CCA has had several artificial reef projects in LA and also provided some labor assistance to some scientific studies in LA. But this pales in comparison to the magnitude and scope of their oyster reef restoration and conservation efforts in TX.

Galveston Bay has gotten huge oyster reefs which provide a much bigger boost to the estuary, along with lobbying efforts to ensure they are protected from dredging, while LA has gotten some piles of dead rubble and no real efforts to restore or protect valuable oyster reef habitat.

I wish CCA would focus more on habitat preservation than pushing unscientific harvest restrictions (15 specks, 5 triple tail) and increases in license fees.
Reply
   JB
Thanks MG

I just have a sour taste in my mouth after they were nowhere to be found during the public water/private water issue.
Reply
JB, really man? The public/private water debate should be over. Only a handful of folks are still kicking that dead horse. It has been hashed out a hundred times.

If your land washes away and is covered with water, it is still your property, you can post it, you are still paying taxes on it also

If your land has an oil/gas canal cut through it, that is still your property, no one has a right to be in there even if you can 'navigate' through it.

Just because its navigable does not mean you can fish/hunt there. Its that simple
Reply
   Drake870
JB, to answer your question about what CCA has done in the last 20 years, the most obvious answer would be eliminating gill nets. Those things were atrocious and nobody needs to kill that much marine life. Math Geek, as for CCA spending more money in TX, you do realize that GCCA began in TX and probably raises 10X the funds that LA CCA does? I too would like to see most of the funding for projects be directed at our coastline but the reality is the dollars are going to be spent close to their source. LA can not compete with TX in anything related to fund raising. They may actually have 5X the number of SW fisherman than we do.
Reply
...Geronimo sez: 'Tipical twoface paleface canards...cheers
Reply
   MathGeek
No doubt that TX CCA raises more money than LA. But LA CCA should spend their limited resources on habitat conservation rather than lobbying for more restrictive limits (15 specks, 5 tripletail) when there is no data showing that the more restrictive efforts are needed.

In 2005, CCA pushed hard for lowering the speck limit to 15 (from 25) in SWLA even though the move was unsupported by scientific data. At the same time, they did nothing to oppose the legalization of dredging which has resulted in the near complete destruction of oyster reefs in Calcasieu Lake since that time. In 2013, CCA pushed for imposition of triple tail limits (again with no scientific data showing a need) while the oyster reefs were subjected to ongoing destruction, without one word from CCA. In 2014, CCAs legislative priority was an increase in saltwater license fees rather than habitat protection or restoration.

Gill nets were banned in Louisiana in 1995, barely falling within the 20 year window of the gentleman's question. I won't question GCCA's efforts, but the organization has been increasingly impotent since 1998 or so with respect to real habitat preservation and restoration in Louisiana.
Reply
They shouldn't have no limit on no fish you will never fish them out
Reply
   niteboy82
'They shouldn't have no limit on no fish you will never fish them out'

I don't believe that I will ever take a single thing you post seriously ever again. That is an extremely foolish mindset to go with.

---

I am unsure on how I feel on the whole CCA issue, but I am with MG on the idea that the CCA should be focusing a lot more on restoring wetlands (ie. coastal conserving) and a little less time on changing up limits. We can beat the horses on what charter captains should/should not do, but at the end of the day the land is being lost and tripletail limits will have nothing to do with restoring that land.
Reply
   e-man (R)
JB, to answer your question about what CCA has done in the last 20 years, the most obvious answer would be eliminating gill nets

This is another falsehood. CCA had absolutely NOTHING to do with the elimination of the gill nets.
The movement was Started by Save Our Specks (SOS) which then became Gulf coast conservation association (GCCA) These groups along w/ many volunteers got the gill nets banned . Then CCA came along and took claim for the gill net ban.
Reply
U don't have to believe noting I ports u tell me how you can fish them out it impossible people been fishing for 100s of years and they still got them
Reply
   JB
Bayou - All I said was I did t agree with them not standing up during that debate. I wasn't trying to start that up again.
As for the right of a property owner who has land erode into a body of water, that is complete and utter BS. I had a camp on Lake Verret. Over the years, before we replaced our seawall, we lost about 8 feet of our yard to erosion. I guess we should have posted the entire lake as private property then?? Who's to say where our yard went. Maybe some dirt washed all the way to Belle River. We should have posted that as well!
Reply
   Dr. Spot
Bayouwild...I wouldn't characterize the restrictions on public waterways as 'beating an old horse.' The reason the issue isn't discussed anymore is because, frankly, we lost to the powerful landowners groups. And, yes, the CCA was completely silent on the issue.

Until that happened, I was a CCA supporter, and that single issue was the beginning of the CCA resentment and making many people take a hard look at the CCA. But if you want to make light of it by calling it 'beating a dead horse', so be it.
Reply
   MathGeek
I'm not too critical of CCA for sitting out the water rights debate. They may have seen it as more of a question of resource partitioning with little impact on conservation issues. Their mission is about conservation, not advocating for angler's rights that are unrelated to conservation.

CCA may also have seen the water rights issue as un-winnable and as such, a potential drain on clout and resources that could better be used for their core mission (conservation). Does anyone recall what CCA was supporting when the water rights decisions were made and what reasons they gave for sitting it out?

The question of whether or not property rights should be retained by the owners or revert to the state when land erodes and is replaced with water is a complex legal, moral, and philosophical question that reaches far beyond the conservation mission espoused by CCA.
Reply
   Dr. Spot
Mathgeek....you've taken the high road on the land right issue. Unfortunately, CCA's thinking and motivation is not as 'deep' as you make it out to be. Go back to the original post, and read between the lines. Use your scientific supposition. Its not hard to figure out what really happened. And conservation is meaningless when outdoorsmen rights are taken away.
Reply
   MathGeek
I prefer verifiable facts than unverifiable aspersions. What percentage of open water in Louisiana is private and unavailable to the public?

I've seen a few places, but I still think conservation is important for the 90+% water that is public. The fish will migrate out of private water eventually. I don't lose sleep over unavailable fish in private waters any more than I lose sleep over unavailable deer or ducks on private land.

To me, the federal power grab on the vast majority of GoM waters is much more onerous than the unavailability of a small percentage of private waters. There are a lot of fish that almost never come inside the 3 mile zone (state waters).

The loss of marsh, the destruction of oyster reef habitat, the mismanagement of the fishery in federal waters, and the ongoing erosion of angler rights through ever decreasing limits (without demonstrated scientific need) are the bigger issues.

Will access to a small percentage of private water really matter down the road if everything is catch and release?
Reply
it really is that simple. You have land in your family where they once ran cattle in Lafourche Parish. It is now underwater and there are pipeline canals through it. That 'land' is still yours, you still pay taxes for it. The canals are 'navigable' but you have no right to be in there. Its a right-of-way for the oil/gas companies, you and that company are the only ones that have a right to be there. You do not even have to post it anymore. If someone is on your property, they are trespassing, plain and simple.

There was no reason for CCA or any group to try and get involved with the fight. It was a lose/lose situation. If you side with the landowners (the right side), people think you are in bed with the big landowners. If you side with the others, you are not only on the wrong side, but you are essentially advocating trespassing on private property. Navigable does not mean you have a right to hunt or fish there

The MS River floods land all the time making those places 'navigable'. That doesn't mean you can boat up to Giles Island or Davis Island or any of these other places that are under and go shoot ducks there!
Reply
   JB
Bayou - so, by that argument, can I post the air/sky above my property as well? What is the difference? I can understand if the Mississippi River floods and puts water on your property. But, because property you owned has eroded and it is no longer accessible, you should not have the right to block off entire waterways.
People are not on your property. That water is not your property.
Again, if my yard at Lake Verret erodes, can I post the entire lake? After all, some of my yard could have washed into the lake. INstead of my property being on Shell Beach, one grain of sand, one speck of dirt could be in Crackerhead, or Bay Alcide. Should I claim all of that as mine?
Reply
If your property erodes at Lake Verret, yes you can put posted signs on you property boundary in the water. You can't post the entire lake, thats not even a good comparison. These people in Lafourche/Terrebonne/Jefferson Parish are posting water that was once LAND. Terra firma with cows and stuff running around on them. Its not there anymore, its water, BUT its still their property. They also have canals that go throught their property. The canals are rights-of-way for the oil/gas companies. The oil/gas companies can use them and the landowner can use them. YOU have no business being back there, you can't fish or hunt in those canals. They have the right to post them, put up gates, or whatever they wish. It is actually law that they do not have to even put up signs anymore.

But, please go to Giles Island when it floods and see what happens!
Reply
   JB
erode -
verb (used with object), eroded, eroding.
1.
to eat into or away; destroy by slow consumption or disintegration

I will not go to Giles Island when it floods. If you would have read my post, I stated that when a river floods your property, then yes, you should have the right to post it or keep people off of it. If, however, your property ERODES (see definition), you should not be able to claim property that is eaten away, destroyed or disintegrated as your own. How can you claim something that is no longer there? If the Corps of Engineers breaks the MS River levee and the entire southern part of the state is under water, then I can see it. BUT, if your property disintegrates over a period of years, that property is disintegrated. You should have taken the necessary steps to prevent the loss of your land. How many miles of shoreline has eroded in the last 100 years? Is that property, the owned property, private? Should it be?
Again, if a river or body of water floods, it is a different story. But, if a public waterway permanently engulfs a piece of property or starts to overtake a piece of property, so be it. That property owner needs to take the necessary steps to stop his land from disintegrating.
Reply
'BUT, if your property disintegrates over a period of years, that property is disintegrated. You should have taken the necessary steps to prevent the loss of your land. How many miles of shoreline has eroded in the last 100 years? Is that property, the owned property, private? Should it be?'

It eroded as no fault of your own. 100s of miles of shoreline have been lost. A football field an hour is the current calculate rate.

Look, you can bash CCA all you want for other issues but this issue is over. If YOU owned land that was now covered by water as not fault of your own, AND you still pay taxes on that land, you would post it I guarantee it. You just have to realize that you are wrong on this issue.

You can OWN land under water in Louisiana. Catahoula Lake and Lake Martin are one of many examples
Reply
   JB
Bayou - how is my ealrier comparison not a good comparison? If my property erodes, who is to say where my property eroded to? Some of my dirt can get carried several yards. Maybe it can get carried several hundred yards? If it washes away, can't the waves and current carry it away? Who can prove where dirt or sand is carried to by current?
Reply
   rocknet
The big corporations, like oil companies and Louisiana, made sure the access battle went there way. This is the only state in the 5 state Gulf region with laws like we have here. In Florida, if a landowner wants to gate a waterway, they must place an earthern dam across it so that the public's resource's don't go into the area. Right now there are lots of state owned areas gated off as private in this state, and that's just wrong. Take Lake Theriot below Houma. That lake has been there since the La. Purchase.... but is gated completely off. How can this be? That would be like gating off Lake Salvador or Lake Pontchartrain because you own land along it's shores. Their are big money folks in the CCA, and they sure wanted to make sure that access battle went their way. The CCA needs public members to be a recognized 'conservation' group. That's why they run the STAR rodeo, to get members. But, they do not publish their list of officers and what they are paid like most non-profits. This organization in this state reminds me of a good ole boys club. When they want to effect a change in law or regs.... they do not poll their membership to see if in fact that is what the majority want. They just decide themselves and then do it. The CCA gets large donations from companies and individuals.... the membership fees is minimal monies. They want to be seen as a large national conservation group for power and influence reasons.
Reply
   JB
My land eroded because I did not have a proper sea wall installed. My land eroded because water ate at it over several years. I saw the land washing away, and for years I did nothing to stop it. So because I did nothing to stop it, I should punish the public and not allow then to utilize public water?
It is all just a screwed up issue. Unfortunatley, big money rules and the land owners are the big money holders and nobody in this state will commit that type of suicide by ruling against the big money people.
Reply
That is still your property JB. If you were to sell that land, a surveyor would come out and the survey plats would show the land would extend back into the lake. You could put up a wall at that boundary and fill it back in and reclaim it (after a permit of course), its yours, the state doesn't get it because it eroded away. Whether or not you wish to keep people off it doesn't matter. If we are talking a couple feet of waterfront property, its not that big a deal, but if you owned thousands of acres in the lower parishes and its all open water now, thats significant. Its still their property whether you can get to it by a boat or not. The law is that is goes by what was land in 1812.
Reply
   rocknet
Yes, the state is using the 1812 maps to justify what is a natural bayou, lake, bay, river. If Bayou Blue runs through your property, you cannot block public access to it....just like you cannot block public access to the Miss. River. But this is being done right now.
Reply
   rocknet
What was once great about this country was the thinking of the early founding fathers. Most came from Europe, where the rich and powerful ruled over everyone and everything. The normal working person did not stand a chance. The big landowners in Europe are still mostly the families that go back to the middle ages an took what they wanted by power and force. In some areas of Europe, you cannot get into a boat on a river and just start fishing...the landowner owns the land along the river as well as that section of river. Our laws, especially maritime laws, since our super highways back then were the rivers and waterways, were set up to insure the public could not be blocked out by the rich and powerful just like in Europe. Well, in Louisiana, we are going back to those days. If you have enough money, power, and influence, you can control the legislature as well as judicial. Maybe, just maybe one day the voters in this state will wake up and hold their elected officials feet to the fire. In the meantime, the big money lobby groups both in Baton Rouge and D.C. run the show.
Reply
   Lordbud7
If the water in question ebbs and flows with the tide that means natural resources (like fish) can be in it hence with my fishing license I am allowed to fish it. I can not stop my boat and get out on the bank but I can fish the waters.
If you want it to be private then you should build a damn where the water can't ebb and flow with the tide hence the resources won't be able to get into it.
Again with my fishing license I can fish any waters that move with the tide!!
Reply
you could not be more wrong Lordbud. If an oil/gas company placed a canal through your land in Lafourche Parish then that waterway is now a tidal body of water. No one else has any reason to be there other than the owner of the property and the oil/gas company as they have a right-of-way there. Tidal has nothing to do with it. If it was land in 1812, its still your property.

Posting/gates/fences

You no longer have to post private property. I would personally, but its not required. You once had to have your property 'legally posted'. If someone was on your land, they could come back and say it wasn't 'legally posted' and get away with trespassing essentially. A poacher could easily tear down your posted signs, hunt the place, get caught, and then say it wasn't legally posted and that's just not right. I am glad the new law is in favor of property owners and not trespassers.

As far as 'navigable waters', a judge ruled on that in NE Louisiana. There was a lake (Gassaway Lake) that was a privately owned lake off the MS River. When the water got up in the MS River, trespassers (yep, trespassers, not sportsmen) would go in and fish the lake saying it was navigable so they could fish it. The judge said navigable does not mean you can hunt and fish there, its still private property. If your backyard went under water (became navigable), would you want some guys in a boat camped out there? Or would you run them off with a shotgun? I know what I would do
Reply
   JB
Bayou - that is the issue here. Nobody would be on your land. They would be in public water, catching public fish. If someone were to leave their boat and step onto your land, hammer away.
What is the difference between that and me wanting to claim the sky over my house as private property? Sure, the sky and air is public but it runs over my property. How dare someone trespass on my property...
Reply
'Bayou - that is the issue here. Nobody would be on your land. They would be in public water, catching public fish. If someone were to leave their boat and step onto your land, hammer away.

What is the difference between that and me wanting to claim the sky over my house as private property? Sure, the sky and air is public but it runs over my property. How dare someone trespass on my property... '

Even though it is not LAND, it is still your property. It is hard to comprehend but its just the fact of the matter. It is NOT public water, it is PRIVATE. The end. CCA had nothing to gain but everything to lose in fighting for this. Laws are laws
Reply
   rocknet
I for one am not contesting private marsh... but I am contesting companies and individuals gating off natural waterways which were meant to remain open to all the public. This part of the law has never changed!
Reply
   Lordbud7
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/the_public_trust_doctrine_in_louisiana.pdf

This explains it ALL!! The judge up north that made the ruling was WRONG according to law!! That or paid off by land owners (wouldn't be the first time)
Please take time to educate yourself on this issue and what the Public trust doctrine is!!
In order for a canal to be private it needs to be dammed off from the ebb and flow of the tide hence no natural resources can enter it. A gate will not do. If the water moves with the tide then it falls under the public trust doctrine and can be accessed by the public! How can someone own the water that just moved in from the Gulf of Mexico? Just like someone mentioned owning the air over your property. As long as I don't go on your land then it is legal.
Again before all the BS comments please read the law I just posted!
Reply
Lordbud, just back out of this discussion man. Did you really just post a 50+ page law review article? Did you read it? Do you really expect me to read 50+ pages of this? If you can find in there where it is legal for you to go onto private property because it is navigable, then please show me. But don't even waste your time because its not in there

'The judge was wrong'

Please tell me why anyone has any business fishing in a private water body just because the river gets into it at extremely high levels? Navigable does not = you being able to hunt or fish there.

Rocknet - I agree that posting natural bayous and waterways is wrong and some do it I know, but this is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the the age-old argument that because I can get a boat in there (navigable waters) that I have a right to hunt and fish there and that is simply not the law nor should it be. Private property is private property
Reply
   Lordbud7
Of course you don't want to read the LAW. It states that any water that ebbs and flows on high tide (can't remember if it was summer or winter tide) is deemed Public trust aka public property and therefore as long as you have a valid fishing license you are allowed to fish it.
You are not allowed to get out and go on land (that would be trespassing) but as long as the water moves with the tide it is public. I have you your proof but of course you're too lazy to read it or unable to comprehend it.
In order for a waterway to be deemed private they must dam it off so no tidal flow or natural resources (fish in this instance) can get into it. Just because you own the land does not mean you own the water. Again it's all covered in the public trust doctrine.
Instead of being a keyboard Rambo and telling people to stay out of something, maybe you should learn the law first about the issue.
Like I said read it and then get bck to me. I've read it several times and did a paper on it years ago. You just might learn something.
Reply
   Lordbud7
Btw bayou how long have you been a member here? 3 weeks? It shows.
Reply
   Lordbud7
Also these oil/gas canals that you speak of. How did they get filled? Did they truck water in to fill them or did they use PUBLIC WATER to fill them? Basically you're telling me that they used yours,mine, Johns, Joes, Petes and everyone else's water (aka Public Trust) water to fill the canal but we can't use it anymore even tho it ebbs and flows (notice I keep using those 2 words? They're a big key factor in the law)?
Also since it's not completely dammed off the fish can swim in it which if I have a valid fishing license I am allowed to catch.
Again the analogy of air was pretty good. Just like water that ebbs and flows, the air is public trust also. Are you saying people own the air over their property too?
I gave you the law, where it originates from and anything else you could possibly want on the matter and instead of becoming informed you would rather be like the rest of the Sheeple out there. That's the problem with this country right now. Nobody wants to be informed or cares about their rights until they get stripped away from us.
Most on here that know me, know I don't post too much anymore because of all the criticism and negativity on here. But they also know I'm usually well informed and have no peoblem helping others (that choose to) get informed on the law.
If you get stopped in the so call private canals like I have before and the Sherriffs or LDWF give you a hard time then you inform THEM of the law. I have on more than one occasion cited the Public Trust Doctrine to law enforcement and they agreed with me, talked for a bit about how the fish were biting then left us go on our way.
Reply
Lordbud, how long I have been a member here is irrelevant. Back on topic

since you are so sure about the law in that doctrine, please point out the exact page and paragraph in that doctrine you posted that says you are allowed to fish in the oil/gas canals on private property. Show me where that is, enlighten all of us.

I am not reading through all that, because its NOT in there. If it is, prove me wrong
Reply
I bet Jake Duet will disagree with you guys
Reply
   Lordbud7
Again since you're too lazy to skim thru 46 pages (not 50) skip to page 6 and read the 1st and 2nd paragraph for starters. It's right there plain as day
Reply
   Lordbud7
Also specifically Louisiana check out first paragraph on page 10
Reply
Yes, I don't have time to read through 46 pages.

Your paragraphs you outlined are still talking about NATURAL bayous and waterways that were there in 1812. These oil/gas canals were not there during 1812 and therefore you have no right to be there even though they are navigable by boat.

Let's say you owned Elmer's Island and cut a canal through the island to the Gulf of Mexico, no one but you and anyone you grant permission to has a right to be there even though it is navigable, it was never a natural body of water in 1812 and that is what the law states.
Reply
animals and fish belong to the public, however you can not access PRIVATE property to try and take these PUBLIC resources. They are as much yours as they are everyone else's but private property is private property
Reply
   Lordbud7
Most duck leases have land where blinds are set up if I'm not mistaken. Also if the pond is dammed off from the ebb and flow of the tide then it would be private property.
As far as Elmer's Island canal, since it would be filled with public water and have public resources swimming in it then it would be considered public trust.
Now if you dug the canal and put a dam across it where the public water and fish can not flow/swim thru it then it would be considered private.
Remember all these 'private canals' are being filled with PUBLIC water. Like the Public Trust Doctrine says if the water ebbs and flows with the tide and it meets the high water mark (in winter if I remember) then it is deemed public.
Reply
wrong again, go up a thread or two and look at what maxcheramie posted. He owns land down there that is tidal, ebb and flow and all that crap, but he owns it because it was ONCE LAND and canals were dug giving folks a right of way through the property, these people have a right to go there, the public does not.

There are hundreds of thousands of acres of tidal ponds in south Louisiana that are NOT public property, they are 100% PRIVATE because these areas were once landlocked and canals were dug through them which make them influenced by tides but they are still PRIVATE property. Go try to set up in one of them on opening day of duck season and watch what happens
Reply
Eventually, louisiana will all sink. The diversion of the mississippi river killed everything in louisiana besides Venice. Not wanting people on private property is not greedy.

Whats greedy about when you have your family on your property and 4 kayaks show up and some jackass is having a kayak charter fishing trip on your property.

Or you get a phone call that louisiana sportsman TV is trespassing and filming a kayak show on your property. (which is getting worked out now with the owner of the sportsman)

Or you set out a trail camera and catch 5-6 different kayak fishermen stealing crabs out of your cousins crab traps.

Be real. I have land all over. But if any of you had land anywhere and you went to get in your deer stand and someone was doing a guided hunt in your stand on your property, or you had a duck blind on your property and someone was hunting in it, or you have private property and people are trespassing and filming a show on your property, or you fish crabs for a living and you have kayakers trespassing and stealing crabs and catching fish illegally from the property then enough is enough.

Bottom line is natural navigable canals which are navigable by big boats like tugs is what is documented in the state. Its really quite simple you go to the tax assessors office and ask for a map of public land. And you'll see what you have a right to be on. If someone else is paying property taxes you have no right on that property. And 10 times out of 10 times you will be guilty.
Reply
   motorboat
Hey guys. What's going on up in here?
Reply
A whole lot of cheese + a little bit of d**ks = Cheesed**ks

Thats about all thats going on here.
Reply