Please Sign In


New To Sportsman Network?

HB 391

Reply
Just curious about HB 391, it states that the fish being property of the state.... access to them should no be blocked by private landowners or private property? Is that my understanding?So where does that put deer, rabbits, hogs, ducks, doves, etc.? Why would fish be any different from any other animal that roams freely?
Reply
you are comparing tidal water and land. Tidal water is and should be property of the State of Louisiana.
Reply
   bullcoon
If the fish swim in the state water and the fish belong to the public so the public should be allowed to catch them what is the difference of the duck which belongs to the public landing in the state water and the public should be able to shoot them ???
Reply
   bigjim
Sounds simple but it’s not. When a person comes into a good chunk of money they buy up the resources we’ve all used all our life. A new one is land around chef. The public has been using that area since man has been using this planet but one greedy person is trying to claim all this for himself allowing no one that I’m aware of to use it. All that has a lot of tidal flow. That land is protected and being saved by millions and millions of our tax dollars to keep it from washing away. If the public can’t access any water with moving tide then they should have to repay all dollars that have been spent preserving it. It comes down to who they know and who gets benefitted to rule in their favor. If someone knows who purchased this tract please let us know who it is and any business they may own.
Reply
so my duck lease, owned by apache land and exploration,has an ebb and flow directly related to the tides. this bill will not affect my ability to keep tresspassers out of my hunting ponds, or as it is written, i lose exclusive hunting rights to these ponds, which are on privately owned land?
Reply
   Zgisclair
Missing my point.... What makes fish any different from any other animal that roams freely. If this bills says I can catch fish anywhere they swim because they belong to the state, then why can't I travel anywhere all other animals roam freely??? Fisherman want to be very selective with this bill, but I don't think you can be so black and white with it. If you can follow the fish where they swim, then I can follow a deer where it walks....
Reply
Land vs Water that flows freely and supported by taxes - different than private property. If you can float it you can boat it in TX....The water moves from up north (snow melt and other) as well as tidal ocean waters which move in and out....different than owning land. As it moves through the state (again different than land not moving) the state claims rights to it and the fish within it. So therefore it can't be claimed by an individual and yes if your duck pond is connected to a bayou and not land locked people can boat it if this bill passes.
Reply
   PhilD.
I would have no problem not being able to moor, anchor or disturb the water bottom, it's the land that is private, not the water. It's very hard to tell where public waters end and private land begins; therefore the private land should have to be posted at the very least. Had a very angry property owner confront me one day about fishing on his property--it was in Lake Boudreaux in Chauvin. I asked him to show me exactly where his property began and I'd fish outside of his property. He couldn't show me, but I left anyway.
Reply
   Zgisclair
Fortune and Phil u are correct... but the way this bill is written, it is saying that because fish are property of the state then the public should have access to them. So again a fish swims into a private canal... and under this new bill the public has access to that fish. What is the difference if a deer or rabbit(property of the state) walks unto private property. If the law changes for private waters why wouldn't it change for private lands????
Reply
   JOHN C.
SOUNDS LIKE 'Only applicable to MARSH land bounded by water-flow/ tidal movement' and NOTHING relative to land bounded by land!?! My observations...John C.

As I previously posted...'Re: HB 391April 02 at 11:56am
SOUNDS LIKE 'Only applicable to MARSH land bounded by water-flow/ tidal movement' and NOTHING relative to land bounded by land!?! My observations...John C.'

I have never hunted! Therefore, my initial interpretation of this bill relates ONLY to 'fishing' in general...anything that permanently LIVES IN THE WATER/SUBSURFACE such as fish, crabs, shrimp, and crawfish!

Fishermen should not trespass a LAND MASS/ISLAND/MARSH ISLAND POSTED...by EXITING their boat. With this in mind, 'fishermen' should not be kept from those waterways with tidal influences. RETAIN the ability to 'fish' any/all tidal bodies of water surrounding the previously mentions land structures!

Some have interjected hunting and thus losing leases---this is a different matter that will/should be addressed---BUT NOT WITHIN THIS BILL! Hunting to include ANY/ALL GAME...ducks, rabbits, deer, pigs, nutria, etc---NONE OF THESE ANIMALS LIVE PERMANENTLY IN THE WATER!

AGAIN, just my opinion and understanding of what was written and to be addressed...John Castelluccio, Jr.
Reply
   a.c.man
Right as always John , hell they are posting open water on the East side of Leeville, People need to step up are we are going to loose another Right, Why are we the only Gulf Coast State to allow this to happen
Reply
so if what your interpretation is valid, most duck leases in south louisiana are no longer valid. i can take my boat, pull into someone's pond, and blind up my boat with a pop up blind several feet from the bank, add a few bushes, roseau, and proceed to hunt this pond. i'm not on private land, as i'm still in water that is affected by the ebb and flow of the tides. bet this bill gets a lot of push back from the oil companies that own the marshes in south louisiana! just judging from the price i pay for the small lease i have, the oil companies stand to lose a lot of income from the duck hunting leases they currently lease out.
Reply
   Nameless
Punisher69 -
From my understanding - your duck leases will still be valid for duck hunting. On these tidal moving waters (if not gate installed before March 2018) people will be able to fish these waters [not hunt].
Specifically if anyone would own land on both bank of navigable waterway they could put up a barricade and actually prevent you from getting to your lease today (if only have inlet)
Louisiana is the only state that allows blockading a waterway if : you dredged the canal, or you own lease all property around waterway even if navigable by boat.
This battle has been going on for years starting with the upper Mississippi flooded banks where landowners have been able to run fishermen off the water stating they were trespassing.
Reply
   a.c.man
Punisher being a older Louisianan as I recall the oil companies do not own the land but Lease it from the State and sub Lease to the Duck hunters which utilize it only 2 months a year
Reply
   a.c.man
I Heard that the hearing on this was April 9th at 8 at the Capital , Where are you CCA
Reply
   mossback
That's a good question AC. I was contacted by the CCA a few months ago to invite me as a member. They know that I belong to quite a few organizations locally and nationally. I told them that I would join their organization if they would take a stand on
fishing access to tidal waters. An official with CCA called me back and said this was a very complicated issue. That's it! Apparently they have wealthy landowners among their ranks who don't want to get involved.
It is amazing that Louisiana is the only state with non-access laws.
Reply
   a.c.man
Moss I have been a member since we had the Gill nets banned and also got the same run around when I asked them the same question recently ,thus thats why My Son and Grandsons and myself are not renewing our membership
Reply
I got this email today from CCA. They did take a stand. CCA is against the bill.

CCA Louisiana Recommends Creation of a Special Task Force
to Address Complex Waterway Access Issue
Louisiana Sea Grant study should serve as the basis of task force’s work

CCA Louisiana is recommending the Louisiana Legislature create a special task force to address the complex and contentious waterway access issue. After speaking with numerous legislators, we believe this is the next logical step toward reaching a positive resolution to the ongoing issue.

CCA recognizes the importance of the issue, and we believe that anglers should have access to public waterways. Unfortunately, there has been very little progress toward any meaningful solutions to the conflict over the years. But, in 2017, after meeting with fellow legislators, CCA members, anglers, charter captains, landowners and others, Rep. Truck Gisclair of Larose introduced legislation calling for a study of this extremely complicated issue, to be conducted by Louisiana Sea Grant. The final study report, which can be seen here, was made public earlier this year. The extensive 63-page document outlines a number of potential solutions that should be fully explored, and represents the first significant effort at cooperation between conflicting interests.

In light of this effort, CCA Louisiana believes a special task force should be created to address this issue, using the Louisiana Sea Grant report as the starting point for the proposed task force’s work. The task force should consist of stakeholders, legislators, academics and others who would add expertise and perspective to the discussions. The task force could meet regularly to consider the potential solutions presented by the Sea Grant report, and others that may arise, with the goal of identifying possible solutions that are most agreeable and beneficial to all parties.

CCA is at the State Capitol every day working with lawmakers to ensure that our marine resources are conserved and well managed. While CCA appreciates the intentions of Rep. Kevin Pearson and his House Bill 391, and has spoken with him many times since its introduction, the bill was drafted without the benefit of the findings from the Sea Grant study, and without significant input from stakeholder groups. With this in mind, we believe that HB 391, as it is currently written, could have the unintended impact of reversing the positive momentum that has been achieved in the past 18 months. Our understanding is that Rep. Pearson is considering amendments to the bill, and we will continue to work with him and other legislators towards a positive path forward.

Our commitment to CCA members endures: We will remain engaged in this issue and will continue to work with lawmakers, anglers and landowners to find workable and achievable solutions. In the meantime, we invite feedback from CCA members. Please contact CCA Louisiana David Cresson directly at david@ccalouisiana.com.
Reply
   DMAN1968
Well CCA...that's a kick-the-can-down-the-road...straddle-the-fence remark. I have a pretty good idea which 'stakeholder groups' you get 'significant input' from.

Only in Louisiana will we...the average citizen...be able to see our marshes taken by mother nature AND wealthy corporations/landowners.
Reply
   Dr. Spot
Its actually old news that the CCA is on the side of landowners and the oil companies. If one investigates their history, how they are still funded, their lobbyists, and --- most importantly --- and their decades of silence on this issue, its patently clear. Details are on the web and even in a couple of books, but it takes more effort than googling it and reading the top 5 hits.

Only now does the CCA want 'studies on this complicated issue' now that they are losing all their supporters to the other group. Its not complicated at all --- Louisiana is the only state that allows blocking of tidal waters, and it needs to end. Anyone against this, delaying it, or obfuscating this has alternative motives.

I appreciate LASM allowing these views being published.
Reply
   JOHN C.
Re: HB 391April 02 at 11:56am
SOUNDS LIKE 'Only applicable to MARSH land bounded by water-flow/ tidal movement' and NOTHING relative to land bounded by land!?! My observations...John C.

As I previously posted...'Re: HB 391April 02 at 11:56am
SOUNDS LIKE 'Only applicable to MARSH land bounded by water-flow/ tidal movement' and NOTHING relative to land bounded by land!?! My observations...John C.'

I have never hunted! Therefore, my initial interpretation of this bill relates ONLY to 'fishing' in general...anything that permanently LIVES IN THE WATER/SUBSURFACE such as fish, crabs, shrimp, and crawfish!

Fishermen should not trespass a LAND MASS/ISLAND/MARSH ISLAND POSTED...by EXITING their boat. With this in mind, 'fishermen' should not be kept from those waterways with tidal influences. RETAIN the ability to 'fish' any/all tidal bodies of water surrounding the previously mentions land structures!

Some have interjected hunting and thus losing leases---this is a different matter that will/should be addressed---BUT NOT WITHIN THIS BILL! Hunting to include ANY/ALL GAME...ducks, rabbits, deer, pigs, nutria, etc---NONE OF THESE ANIMALS LIVE PERMANENTLY IN THE WATER!

AGAIN, just my opinion and understanding of what was written and to be addressed...John Castelluccio, Jr.
Reply
   a.c.man
Right John, curious to know how oysterman are being allowed to post open water around Leeville
Reply
   JOHN C.
THAT is another RESOURCE I failed to mention!!! Thanks for reminding me...John C.
Reply
If you want to try to help, Please plan to come to the hearing Tuesday April 11, 2018 at 930 down at the state capital. This is your chance to make your voice heard.

A few years ago, a similar bill was defeated in committee, very few people showed supporting the bill. I hope this time will be different.

If you don't have time to come, at least call the committee members to offer your support for the bill Monday.

These postings, tickets etc. are going to increase unless the law is changed! There are some powerful opponents against this bill, so a strong showing of support from the recreational fishermen is needed to get this bill out of committee to the House floor.
Reply
   JOHN C.
'Trout Thirty' please check your e-mail!!! John C.
Reply
Committee members in case you would like to call them:

Raymond Garofalo (Chair)....504 277 4729
Randal Gaines (Vice Chair)....985 652 1228
Taylor Barras....337 373 4051
Robby Carter....985 748 2245
Raymond Crews....318 716 7532
Gregory Cromer....985 645 3592
Julie Emerson....337 886 4687
Sam Jenkins....318 632 5970
Walt Leger III....504 556 9970
Tanner Magee....985 858 2970
Gregory Miller....985 764 9991
Reply
   a.c.man
Much Appreciated Trout , we need a local news station to post these numbers, They all make it sound like fishermen are running boats in peoples back yards, They could help if they took a ride down to the marsh and see whats going on, We are talking about people posting the old powerline canals in Leeville ,that doesnot hold ducks but has oysters , open water thats been open for 45 years I fished ,is now covered with signs
Reply
   JOHN C.
Trout-Thirty---THANKS AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! John C.
Reply
   Zgisclair
Got another scenario for you guys.... So if I lease land from an oil company and that oil company digs a canal in that leased land they own or lease from the State, according to this Bill then that canal should be open to the public. So what if a logging company leases land to deer hunters and builds a road on someone's deer lease for the purpose of harvesting logs, then we should have similar support to have that road open to the public right?????
Reply
   a.c.man
Not the same,apparently you do not fish
Reply
   JOHN C.
N O T H I N G to do in reference to hunting!

Interpretation of this bill relates ONLY to 'fishing' in general...anything that permanently LIVES IN THE WATER/SUBSURFACE such as fish, crabs, shrimp, crawfish, AND OYSTERS!

Fishermen should not trespass a LAND MASS/ISLAND/MARSH ISLAND WHICH IS POSTED...by EXITING their boat. With this in mind, 'fishermen' should not be kept from those waterways with tidal influences. We SHOULD RETAIN the ability to 'fish' any/all tidal bodies of water surrounding the previously mentioned land 'structures'!

Some have interjected hunting and thus losing leases---this is a different matter that will/should be addressed---BUT NOT WITHIN THIS BILL! Hunting to include ANY/ALL GAME...ducks, rabbits, deer, pigs, nutria, etc---NONE OF THESE ANIMALS LIVE PERMANENTLY IN THE WATER! John C.
Reply
   Jason A
I joined the CCA about 5 years ago but now that I know that they are against the bill HB 391. I will not be renewing my member ship.Why join something that is supposed to be for fishermen but is for blocking the canals we fish in.
Reply
   Zgisclair
I KNOW the Bill does not pertain to hunting... That is my point exactly.... if it is ok to chase fish in a canal dug by an oil company on private land..... then why aren't we also writing a bill to be able to chase deer, rabbit, etc. anywhere say a logging company build a road on private land????
Reply
   DMAN1968
If anyone digs a canal on 'private' land that connects to tidal waters that are accessible by the public AFTER March 2018 then I think it should be open to the public.

Then again, anyone digging such a canal these days is doing more harm to the marsh by opening it up to even more erosion, they should not be allowed to do it.
Reply
   a.c.man
I think a lot us are missing the point, Why is our State the only Gulf Coast State that allows tidal water to be posted, I know Texas and Mississippi and Alabama do not have any problems with the hunters being mistreated by their Tidal waters being open, Check the Facts Please
Reply
Any word on how the HB 391 hearing at the capital went today?
Reply
   reelkaos
Someone just told me it passed. I don't have a link.
Reply
The bill passed out of committee 5 to 3!!!!
Reply
The water is owned by the public. If a landowner didn’t allow it to come onto his/her property there would be no issue. With erosion, property owners haven’t lost their land because they still own it but what they have done is taken ownership of publicly owned water.
Reply
   DMAN1968
For the hunters who have been opposing this:

An amendment was added to HB 391 to allow for prevention of access to an area during migratory fowl hunting season. There was also an amendment to prevent the use of motors that would damage vegetation 'on or above the waters surface'...or at least that's how I remember it was stated. This would help to prevent damage that can be caused by airboats or surface drive motors.

In short...effort has already been made to make HB 391 more agreeable to everyone. These amendments were introduced by the representative who started the bill to begin with.
Reply
Great news that the bill passed for fishermen! This is a huge victory.

Attendance at the meeting surely had to help - there were around 100 people there in favor of the bill.

Now the bill heads to the House floor.
Reply
   Zgisclair
AC Man... I actually fish and hunt probably more than half the guys that post on here. And I understand exactly what the Bill states.... I just would like someone to tell me the difference, between fish and all other animals being owned by the state. That is what the bill states... the fish are owned by the state so the public should have access to them.... So why just carve out fish? And on the hunting issue, you may still have rights to your hunting lease, but try to find a duck within 5 miles after airboats and bow-fishing boats have free range over all tidal waters at night.
Reply
The water is publicly owned so the difference between other animals is that the fish wouldn’t be able to go onto/over a person’s land if the land owner cared for his/her property and didn’t allow something publicly owned to go onto its property. A deer travels on land so it can move. Hope that makes sense. Lol They did add amendments to the bill to protect duck hunters.
1. No access during duck season
2. Gates that were properly permitted prior to March 2, 2018 are allowed to stay.
3. No destruction to surface vegetation

#3 addresses the air boat and mud boats tearing up a grassing duck pond.
Reply
the difference is 'Water' vs 'Land'.
Reply
Just found out that the opponents of the bill are trying to send the bill to the Natural Resources Committee instead of to the House floor. This is a back door way to steer the bill to a committee where opponents feel they have the votes to kill the bill.

Please contact your representative ASAP to strongly encourage the bill be sent for a floor vote ASAP. It has already passed committee fair and square, it should not be redirected just to kill it.

Below is a link to find your legislator's phone number.

http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/FindMyLegislators.aspx
Reply
   a.c.man
Guys we have to pull together for this and show them we are united,I have lost my ability to enjoy my sport due to health issues, I am pushing for our Grandkids and Future Generations to be able to enjoy the Sportsman Paradise
Reply
The bill heads to the House floor Tuesday April 17. There will be a support rally at the state capital at 200 pm. Please attend to demonstrated your support for the bill. If you are unable to attend, please contact the house representatives via email and phone to request their support of the bill.

http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Bios.aspx?cid=H

Thanks.
Reply
This is the reason HB 391 will never work. There’s always gonna be that one Ass that thinks he is going to be able to do anything he wants. Come on man. Just fish and be happy if you get that.
Reply
   a.c.man
Sort of like the ones caught in Tidewater last year with over 150 trout and were fileting them in the boat as memory serves,
Reply
   eubied
I have fished in LA inshore waters only once, near Houma. I am an old trial lawyer from NC, and have been involved in several coastal cases involving riparian and littoral water-access and use under NC law. NC has had a fairly recent thorough litigation history dealing with tidal, navigable and other water access and use related 'sticky' issues; Coastal Area Management Act issues and issues arising out of marinas being dug out of the mainland as well as canal usage. The NC cases are well thought out and would make good reading for those of you that would like to study and understand what I deem to be good and fair policy where there is private land flooded by public waters. NC courts have done a good job articulating what the rules are, and why. Nobody gets shot here, although old ladies still don't like it when you fish right up near their docks on the ICW. Just smile, wave and keep fishing.
Reply
Dude it's not rocket science.... Water is a resource that has been determined by man to be a universal resource open to all people (see rain falling from the sky). The same determination was made for land, but as history progressed human perception of its availability forced a change to ownership of tracks. Water is starting to follow this unfortunate trend but a change is being made (House bill 391).... This bill is NOT solely focused on fish. This bill is focused on access to the tidal waters of the U.S AND 'the wild aquatic life inhabiting them'.

Since land is no longer a universal resource, there can be no claim made to creatures within a portion of privately owned land.... (i.e a deer walking from one private track to another is technically still a private deer because the access to the deer is bounded by private land.) This differs from House bill 391 because if an individual or creature is floating on water, that water is a universal resource and is (or should be) public property. If for some miracle your 12 point buck starts to float across interstate 10 and the game warden removes the shooting from a moving vehicle restriction, then by all means my friend have at it. Otherwise, there is a distinct difference between the Land and Water- Deer and Fish comparison you are trying to push.

That is about as simple as it gets my friend.
Reply