river legalities

[Meeka]

You might want to subscribe to La. Sportsman to keep up with the dispute. I have pasted a post from Andy Crawford, a Loisiana Sportsman writer, from thier website that I think you will find interesting:



Man, it's great to see such a lively debate on the issue of public access to tidal waters. This is exactly what needs to happen.
I'll add a couple of thoughts about questions you guys have been raising, just to add to the fun and discourse.

First, there is a very clear distinction between my pursuit of fish and my pursuit of deer, squirrels, etc. on someone's private land. That distinction is that I would have to touch private land to hunt deer and other wildlife. Aquatic life, on the other hand, is in the water that comes from public waterways. It's not land; it's water that changes every few hours. Just because the water is diverted from a public waterway shouldn't move ownership to the owner of the surrounding land and waterbottom. As long as I don't touch the land (if I do, that would be trespassing), I should be able to go where the water flows. That's what the federal Public Trust Doctrine states.

As to what state law says: There really is nothing in state law that explicitly allows private ownership of tidal waters. In fact, state law defines "running waters" as inalienable public property. Court rulings are where the mess comes from. A reading of all applicable state law (see our June issue, page 42) reveals a decided lean toward public ownership of "running waters." The problem seems to be that "running waters" isn't defined in the laws, so judges are left to make up their own determinations.
So what needs to happen is a clarification of state law to define exactly what "running waters" include. Once that's done, then judges will have clear guidance on how they should rule.

And dj, you're correct: A landowner can get permits to reclaim eroded land. However, that's a different issue than manmade canals. The fact is that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' policy is that the water in those canals are actually public and open to public navigation.

And lastly, glenn and Chad are absolutely correct about the scope of the problem extending past the tidal zone. Although the short-term solution might come in the form of reform for waters in the coastal zone, the fact is that state law currently doesn't distinquish between coastal and non-coastal waters. It simply states "running waters," which I would think includes waterways off of public rivers and lakes, no matter where they are located. I also happen to believe that there shouldn't be a distinction made; public waters in North Louisiana are just as important as public waters along the coast.

It really is a complex issue that will take a lot of political will to solve. Should landowners' rights be considered? Certainly. And I think they were being protected in Lambert's bill, since it only claimed the waters and not the land. Remember, these people are "landowners," not "waterowners."

As to grandfathering existing canals, that would be ridiculous. It's almost impossible to get permits to dig new canals in the coastal marsh, so nothing would be accomplished if the thousands of canals currently in existance are allowed to remain private. Besides, just because the landowners have claimed them and the state hasn't been aggressive in the past doesn't mean the waters are actually private. It simply means the state hasn't adequately protected the public's rights. A grandfather clause would be like passing a law making it illegal to block off a public road, but grandfathering in any public roads that were currently blocked. Sort of dumb, don't you think?

I would encourage all of our readers to get involved in this issue. Call your lawmakers and demand something be done. If you're a CCA member, demand they get involved in this fight. Make noise.

But don't sit on the sidelines. That only works in favor of the landowners.

(emphasis added where appropriate)

[JLT]

what is the difference in what I am hunting and the oxbow lakes of the ms river???? You can hunt anywhere on them until the river gets to or above flood stage. Also, the people who own lots on those lakes normally are deeded and pay takes on property that extends into the lake and in some cases to a center line of the lake.........Can they stop us from hunting and fishing on this property???

[JLT]

that is an interesting read meeka. Thanks

[duxfearme]

i agree with you on some of it but you must see both sides of if i were in the river and could get into one of these areas to hunt and there were ducks I would be the first one to haul booty in there but I see the landowners point too I can imagine if I owned it I could be the one to make the decision of who goes in there and who doesnt. for instance if i was having a cookout on the bank one afternoon with my family and some duck hunters came in there shooting then it would bother me and I also feel that a if a person is paying taxes insurance and upkeep on the property then it is his whether it fills up with water or horseshiit. there is a local case that just went to trial here where some drunk guys were riding atvs at night on fair river and the landowner had a dispute with them and shot the shiiit out of one of them and permanantly maimed him and a jury found him not guilty. A person home or property no matter how large or small is there castle and their domain. Like I said if I was in the boat with you I would be the first one wanting to go in there but sometimes it is better to put the shoe on the other foot

[Don Miller]