Arrested for fishing part of sabine river???
 

Hello, my name is mike fuselier, im 24 and im a bass fisherman. I am not here to be inflamatory toward anyone, I would just like input of a few legal matters. Heres my story.


Monday april 9th 2012 I was fishing in a part of sabine river called LOST LAKE. I arrived at the location at around 7:15am and fished the east bank from south to north until around 10am. At 10am my partner and I decided to try a couple spots on the way back to the south side of the lake so we could fish in the shade. As we are making our way back to the South end of the lake we here four women shouting at us, and we hurried up to go meet them. They started telling us to leave and we couldnt be there and we better throw whatever fish we caught back into the lake or we would be arrested and have our equipment taken away from us for TRESPASSING on their property. I asked them why I couldnt fish there several times and they told me it belongs to "THE MARSH CLUB" and i couldnt be there. My response probably came off as rude but wasnt intended, I said well I saw no signs and i found this place on a map of sabine river. Her response was that the place was dredged. She proceded to tell me if I left then that nothing would become of it and do not come back. I rudely told her she had no right, the water is part of sabine river(AND I AM RIGHT). The women started taking pictures of my boat numbers my boat and myself and partner. She then proceded to call her boss who will remain anonymous and he told her to tell me again, I will be arrested by the sheriffs department if I did not leave immediately and if i did nothing would become of it. We left and just went home because we were so aggrevated. On our way out we idled threw the cut instead of running as we did to get in(no need to run its 3-4ft deep) and we saw the old faded sign LICENSED HUNTING PRESERVE trespassers will be prosecuted. Which is fine because I was fishing.



Having read this, does anyone know of any law that prevents me from fishing this area? It is my understanding that according to the FEDERAL RIVER LAW, LOUISIANA CIVIL CODES 150-159, and THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE OF LOUISIANA, I can fish in waters that lay ontop of privately-owned land. Now having said that some of the Louisiana laws conflict with the federal laws(you just have to read them). Regardless of which, the Federal laws always outweigh the state laws.

welcome aboard and I am sure someone will have insight on this very soon

I believe if the land ( privately owned) is under water only because of " tidal movement" or " flooding" you can't fish it if .
That's how u choose where to go and where not to go.
Ya gotta b careful;
I had a gun pulled on me down the tickfaw one Day...... We were only fishing a dock and the owner went ape ch!t on us.

Welcome to the site Mike !

Where exactly were you off the Sabine ?

Thanks,
Hydro

I just looked it up on the map and that's an old oxbow off the river.... where did these women come from to tell y'all something because it don't look like there's anything around there

it looks to be pretty much due west of Nibblets bluff off the main river

I think its off the powerline cut, heading back East... That would back up to the "Marsh Club" ... (Leave BOB, head north take a right into powerline cut)

There is a trail that goes from the BOB canal to the powerline cut, but I never got a straight answer on who "owned" the marsh so we just go around...

When in doubt, I stay out !!!

Hydro

First welcome to sc. Second imo i would just not go back there, cause their is plenty of water in that area to fish it's just not worth your time ti have it ruined by a fight.

its the principle of the matter. I have every god given right to be there, its a natural waterway. and there are some very big fish in there.

I understand that, but sometimes imho it's just not worth it.

Take a map to a wildlife and fisheries office or show it to a gamewarden and find out.... I would find one that works that area

good idea

its always worth it. civil rights are being violated.

From what I see on a map, Lost Lake borders Sabine Island WMA but its not included in the WMA....... that's why I would talk to a local Gamewarden and make sure you have everything straight before returning.

Shoot a PM to Kenner18, I bet he can answer your question.

let me be clear. there are two lost lakes. the one that is in question is SOUTH OF I-10 down the powerline canal.

I use to work for the Marsh Club. They are well connected with the state. The ownwer of the land is Grey Estate. The Marsh Club has a 99 yr lease on the property. The club is owned by very powerful businessmen from Baton Rouge. While working there I fed the Governor and various Senators. I know one phone call and LDWLF will side with them. When they use to suspect poaching they would have guys in airboats waiting to catch them. If I was you I would stay out. I have fished Lost Lake. If it was mine I woud keep anyone one out too. Best bass fishing I have yet to experience. Some areas a fish every cast. It got to the point where I would try to cast and not catch a fish.

i think here's your answer

Yep heres the way it works
Lost Lake is on Gray Estate property.
Gray Estate = BIG $
Which means ---You Lose every time
Trust me it aint worth it for a fish .
Sorry but $ wins every time .

Thanks for the info !

Who owns the marsh between the BOB canal and the powerline ditch ?

Hydro

I think thats 4 mile square or something like that

Ole boys who own the last camp on the right just before hitting the marsh

Some is Grey Estate ,some belongs to others . Alot of that is just trouble waiting to happen. I guide for Grey Point Lodge on Grey Estate property ,and we even have very limited access. The man over all the property is David Richard at Stream Companies in Lake Charles . He can tell you if it is theirs for sure . If you can get in contact with him.

Thats 4 square . 4 mile square is down by JB .

Lol Mike. Only
Person i know that would run into the law while fishing :):).


Jamie H ;)


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?03bry5

Thanks for the info guys, sounds like the best thing to do is stick to the canals and stay the hell out of the marsh !!!

Hydro

Its like Kenner18 said. Most owned by Grey estate but nearly all managed by Richard.Bottom line,its the Golden Rule-He who has the gold makes the rule.

Maybe we hit the grey estate with the "buffet rule". Bring em down a notch or two! Lol

Were you by chance wearing a hoodie?

lol
 

nope no hoodie. you are all wrong for giving up so easy. your civil rights re being violated and you could all careless.

The way I understands it is, if they owned the property with a pond on it, then dredged to the river, it is private property. That's not a public lake

You are more than welcome to take the land owners on,trust me you wont be the first one. Its not a matter of giving up easy ,its a battle that has already been fought and lost . Some years back there was a group called P.O.W.(People for Open Water) that took on the land owners over access to the Greys Ditch in Vinton. Long story short its still off limits to the public ,even though it is tidal and runs in the Vinton Drain Ditch.

So go right on ahead and take them on .Good Luck I hope you win.
Just remember -If you stick it out there ,dont be afraid to get it chopped off.

Been there, done this, on both sides of the issue....

Had a club lease in lower Terrebonne Parish which we gated the access canal off to keep looters away from the camps... Lots of headaches because it was "tidal", even though it was on our lease and the landowner blessed the gate installation...

Again in Terrebonne, local businessman purchased land off of main canal which had one of the nicest lakes you have ever seen on it... He had way more dollars than the opposition did and the lake is still off limits...

All I ask for is that these areas are MARKED, but the law states that its YOUR responsibility to know where you are :shaking:...

I do care tremendously about our rights to waterways and other issues that limit access to where I want to go... The problem is that many of us have marched up that hill only to die on it, multiple times...



Hydro

As I said in an earlier post, print you a map and bring it to WL&F and talk to them and see where it gets you

in 2010 an almost exact scenario played out on the red river. the attourney general ruled in favor of the public. I can only hope that it will ahppen again. i WILL fight it to the end with or without the support of other local fishermen.

Why are you so h e l l bent on fishing this specific body of water????????

Good luck and keep us posted !!!

Hydro

That's what I'm wonderin'... There a hidden moonshine still back there? Titanic sank back der?

Goodluck, but your in Louisiana, back woods justice over rules all.

lol go and find out for yourself. youd see why.

I'm guessing it looks like a bass anglers DREAM. If this is true, I would say that it looks that way because it is private. If that was a public waterway, this conversation wouldn't be taking place. Just my opinion.

This battle has been fought and lost on the east side of the state. There was a huge push to get CCA involved and they would not. Not knockin CCA, just stating fact.

Do some research on the net.

Dont give up Mike. Screwem all!!!!

Your caring and loving cousin,
Jamie


:)


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?eilnf5

WRONG like i stated, they dreged the cut to the powerline channel deeper. the cut has always been there. in other words all they did was modify it, but if you google earth the lake, or actually go there you will see an entrance at the north end of the lake. also you can see the lake itself is an anctient oxbow of the river, its rather obvious in my opinion but i may be being biased. therefore that would make it navigable by pulic in either entrance.

similar scenrio happened on the red river in 2010, attorney general buddy caldwell ruled the land under the water is private but the water on top is public, the two are two different subjects thus the public was granted access and the land owners had to remove the fences and gates. heres a litte of that.




[SIZE=3]"In five separate Attorney General’s Opinion requests in 2010, staff from the Attorney General’s Office had the opportunity to analyze whether the State has control over various types of surface waters.26 The requests included a privately-owned (bed) creek, the Red River, and two privately-owned (bed) lakes. In all four scenarios, the Office opined that, as to the "running waters" within these water bodies, irrespective of the ownership of their beds, the State owned the water.27 The conclusions from these analyses were based upon the language of the Civil Code, noted above, which classifies "running waters" as a public thing. These conclusions are consistent with the notion that running water is essentially a fugacious thing that is transient when over any one piece of land and thus that the law should treat the water separately from the land over which it runs. Further, it is axiomatic that impacts to running waters in any one location can have downstream impacts, it is thus necessary to recognize that this resource is public in nature to which the protections embodied in the public trust doctrine must attach.
The creek and the Red River are obviously "running waters." However, the lakes present a unique situation: are they actually "running?" In the scenario that involved Smithport Lake and Clear Lake, that question was irrelevant. In that situation, the private owners had granted the State a servitude that provided the authority for the State to control, use, and protect the waters of those privately-owned lakes. Thus, whether the waters were "running" was a superfluous question, as the State has control of the waters by contractual agreement regardless of their "running" status. In the Lake Claiborne situation, because the waters are connected with numerous bayous that flow in and out of the lake and are otherwise connected to other running waters, this lake was considered to be the running water of the State.28 This result seems logical, as lakes are seldom unconnected (and thus flowing to and from) other water bodies. Hence, they should be considered "running waters." In fact, it is difficult to imagine a scenario when lake [SIZE=3]
waters are not connected to some other running water source and are thus running in their own right. Admittedly, the question of how much flow is required for a water body to be considered "running" has not yet been addressed, however, even seasonally-existing waterways are "running" when there is water in them. Thus, it seems that even periodic or seasonal streams, when holding "running water" should fall under the Civil Code classification of public things and should be subject to State control and ownership"
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

http://www.nationalrivers.org/states/la-law.htm

specific to rivers

Damn Mike I didnt think Sulphur had that good of an education :):)


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?4trjfr

my point exactly jchief. if you read the la state laws, access is permited. if you read the FEDERAL laws access is permited. in other words they can do nothing. ive been to those and numerous other sites, including the attorney generals website. and found nothing stoping me from going to that lake.

Similar case happened on MS River on Gassoway Lake. This was an oxbow lake cutoff from the main river until the water was up high enough to get into it. People were arrested for fishing it. Long story short, the judge ruled that even though the water was navigable, the land underneath was private and the only thing that was allowable was navigation (no hunting no fishing). The law of navigable waterways does NOT include hunting/fishing rights, the land is still privately owned. However, the regulations were put there to allow fishermen to moor and hang nets to dry from these areas but not hunt/fish.

This may be a similar case to yours, but not sure. IF the pond was private and then connected to the main river, its still private:(

I understand your frustration, believe me, but they are likely in the right here, just as many (not all) of the landowners in SE LA. People think that because the place is open water, that they should be able to fish/hunt there, and I was once in this camp. However, since the land is subsiding so much, what was land is now underwater, their land is still there, so technically they own it. If the state just 'took' all that land and made it public, then for some godly act the land reappeared, the landowner just lost his land. I understand both sides, I was mad at CCA, but then I realized that they were probably not going to win the fight and need to focus on coastal conservation and fixing the problem of land disappearing

Let me add to this

Lets put ourselves in their shoes. Lets say you own a house and 1 acre near the Sabine River. If the Sabine comes up in December/January and floods your land would you allow people to duck hunt there? I think not, even though its navigable water. We have to look on both sides of the issue. This is private property, and we often let our emotions get in the way of logic. I see where someone posted this very message on lasportsman, I am assuming it was you, and a representative from the Marsh Club gave the answers to all the questions. There are 2 sides to every story, and the truth is in there somewhere:)