What do you think?

I was just curious if anyone has a problem with hunting clubs taking down State Land signs in the basin and replacing them with their own signs? I also know for a fact that the State does not lease any of their land. State land is for anyone! If a piece of State Land is land-locked, that is a different situation. An individual must obtain permission to cross private land to enter the State Land. I have obtained a map of all the State Land in the basin and have found that a lot of State Lands that are accessible by boat have had their signs removed and replaced with private posted signs. In fact I am so sure of this that next year I will be hunting on a DMAP club that is actually State Land. When I get confronted I plan on calling the LDWF and turning myself in. When the agent gets there I am whipping out my maps. Either I am going to jail for trespassing or the other guy is going to jail for removing State Land signs. Any comments?

It goes both ways. We have some property that has state signs on it. There seems to be a communication breakdown from the surveyors to the ones posting the signs. Do you have the latest map with the entire basin shown on it? Is it the one with the aerial photo on one side and the state lands on the other?

Myself and several other people have noticed the same thing. I was told the State leased them that land. I was still skeptical of that. I have the latest and greatest of the maps. There is land on the Atchafalya River at Bayou Sorrel thats marked state land on the map, but it has posted signs all over it in reality. They say POSTED BY WILLIAMS as a matter of fact.

http://www.doa.state.la.us/slo/default.htm

What state land did St. Martin Land sell in Butte LaRose?

look at the map that drewberry posted the link for. If you look at the Lake Mongoulais area on that map, (it's right off the river, a little north of where the Crook Chene meets the river), you'll see that on the map, the state is only claiming the odd shaped strip of land. But if you ride out to that area, you'll see that they've put state signs up around the whole area. Some of which is land we lease. That is just one of several inconsistancies I've found, and it creates a major problem when trying to control trespassing. So who are you going to believe? The state map, or the state signs? I guess the final word in these types of disputes, ends up being decided by some high and mighty judge, who probably knows very little about that sort of thing and probably doesn't care, he's gotta tee time to make.

The map just published by the State Land Office and available on their Web site (www.state.la.us/slo) actually is the latest claim of ownership by the state. It is, without going to court, the final say on the issue.

If there are inconsistencies between the map and posted signs, a quick, written request to the office can clear up the matter.

And posted signs don't over-ride the law. If the signs are illegally placed on public land, that land still is open to public use. Just be sure and have the map with you to show anyone who confronts you. But don't argue: Simply call the law and let them do their jobs.

Still thinking if cutting cypress trees, nailing
spikes in the ones that are stil standing, and
in general acting as though you own state lands acceptable. Is there anyone, really someone in charge that can do something about such actions?