You guys in LA needto doeverything you can to fight this. Its just the beginning

Just sent this email to the parish council member who sponsored the ordinance and copied every other member:

"Dear Ms. Williams:

You sponsored the referenced new ordinance which is on the parish president’s desk for signature or veto. I urged him to veto it for the following reasons:

1. The ordinance does not define “mudboat”.
2. It applies to “public” waterways as well as private, but the reason for which you introduced it, you said at the meeting, was by request of the sheriff who was having “difficulty” enforcing current trespass laws as to private landowners.
3. By placing a just a few strategically placed no trespass signs along public waterways, this ordinance could effectively cut off access to all public land and waterways or water bodies in the whole parish, to all mudboats and hunters seeking access to public hunting lands. I do not believe this is the intent of your ordinance. Such a widespread denial of access via mudboats to all of the public waters and lands of the parish would only benefit a select few private land owners who’s properties or launches sit beyond where the no trespass signs might be placed. A coordinated effort between these few land owners and parish authorities on the placement of the no trespass signs could effectively cut off all access by the public to public waters and land of the state or parish, including Section 16 lands and Wildlife Management Areas.

If your intent was to help the sheriff and wildlife and fisheries enforce no trespassing violations down in the Venice area, what you introduced and the parish government adopted go way beyond that, which is why I suspect there was more at play here than merely an attempt to aid the sheriff. The inclusion of public waterways to the ordinance went beyond what was needed to accomplish your objective."

guys we should use this as a templet and resend.

dean, can you provide their emails?

nwilliams@ppgov.net,jbarthelemy@ppgov.net,wblack@ppgov.net,klepine@ppgov.net,brousselle@ppgov.net,cburt@ppgov.net,asalvant@ppgov.net,jedgecombe@ppgov.net,acormier@ppgov.net

Mr. Cormier is the parish president who can still veto the ordinance.

Make sure to send to Mr. Cormier, the parish president, if you send to anyone.

just sent mine

thanks dean

Out of town hunters and fisherman need to also wright them and explain how much money you spend in there parish and how you will spend it where they are more sportsman friendly.

someone needs to put this on Facebook to get this started

You need the mudboat manufacturers to flex some muscle on Boss Hog over at the parish.
If they get one parish, then two, next the state and then hunting.

i imagine delacroix corp is pushing for this

This would affect Delacroix, absolutely. I'm sure there are pinch points where no trespassing signs could be placed that would cut off complete access by mudboat. If I were in charge, I'd simply place one at every private and public boat launch in all directions. Might as well pass an ordinance that says you can't even bring a mudmotor into Plaquemines Parish because that is the effect of this ordinance.

DG scored!! 2 points for Dean

Nobody's made any mention of the fact that this friggin' joke is being touted as protection for the public safety and that the local sheriff is incapable or incompetent of performing his duties. Safety is great but when it's used as a weapon it's lethal. Obviously the facts need to be examined here as to the dangers of life and limb incedences compared to standard outboard/air boat operation. No doubt the increase of mudmotor ownership has elevated traffic in areas previously tread more lightly upon. That _itch ought to be cited/fired for being a damn moron. History proves this same stupid shit happens everytime a more effective means of conveyance becomes popular (horse vs car, outboard vs row boat, etc). Local citizens need to can her ass at the next election and see if there is a man down there thats capable of being a sheriff while they're at it. WTF are some of these officials thinking?

thanks for clarifying

Thanks Dean. Good work!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
18x54 GTR Extreme CC

All of you Mudmotor/mudboat owners ought to go to Parish President Comiers office first thing in the morning and camp out until he hears you. Call me if you want me to go with you if you think it would help. I'm not clear on how long he has before he must either sign or veto. He may be able to just do nothing in which case the law would go into effect automatically.

You have until Wednesday the 20th to covince the parish president to veto the ordinance, if he hasn't yet signed it, probably a few days more beyond that but to be safe use this date as the deadline.

I am trying to set up a meeting with parish president Cormier to discuss objections to the ordinance. I would like as many MMT members as we can to attend, as well. Please pm your contact information so I can contact you with details for the meeting if I can arrange it.

There is not as much public property as people think there is. What i mean is that people think that that can hunt in certain spots, but most of those spots are private owned property. It has caused a lot of problems the past year.

Posted on FB by Beau Black

this is what I posted yesterday on a different post:

Please read the entire ordinance. It is being misinterpreted on this site.

This ordinance is in accordance with existing state law and only provides for the parish to be able to protect private property and legally prohibit people from entering onto public property that the parish wishes to protect because of dangers, work being done, or other reasons that are unsafe on that particular property. In the ordinance, it states that the property or area must be clearly posted forbidding entry. With that, only clearly posted public property will be in violation of this ordinance.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: If the parish allocates 10 million dollars to restore marshland on 100 acres of public property, we may wish to prohibit people from entering into that area in order for the restoration project to work. That 100 acre area will be clearly marked with no trespassing signs and will be off limits, but all other areas of the surrounding public land will be ok to enter onto.

Council member Black may believe that is how it might work but in truth it could be used legally to arbitrarily prohibit access to public property in favor of private land owners who have access to the same land through other access points. How is one supposed to know the boundaries of public land to be protected if it is not specificpcally set forth on the sighn itself, especially considering some of it may be underwater yet still navigable by outboard or surface drive vessels. Trespassing signage would be effective only if the signs are placed at all water access points.

All you need now to stop mudboats, unlawful people of any sort or traveling by any means, from trespassing on private property without this ordinance is a sign. This ordinance changes things as it applies to mudmotors/mudboats on public land, too. Don't believe a thing about its purpose being for safety or preservation. None of that is mentioned in the ordinance. There does not have to be a reason at all for the parish under this ordinance to prohibit mudboats on all public lands. The council member Black may say he will only selectively apply this to public areas to preserve works in progress like land restoration, but another council myay apply it in a different way at just the request of a private individual wanting private access with his mudmotor to the very land on which the trespass applies to which he may have acess through an alternate route with no trespass signage. The whole ordinance is totally unenforceable in areas not easily identified by clear boundaries. The only rational way to enforce the ordinance in these areas is to cut off access by placing no trespass signs at the main arteries to the inundated public properties. That is why I think it was enacted to ban mudboats in favor of some private landowners. Otherwise, the council could have issued an outright ban on all mudmotors in a more direct way. They had to leave access via mudmotors so some in favor of whom the public trespass signage placement would favor, could still use their mudboats.

I don't see the need. Trespassing laws already exist and I am sure there is a mechanism for Parish government to restrict access to "public" land. Why a new vague law aimed at a non-defined "mud boat"? Why parish wide with no specifics about when and why this ordinance can be applied or by who?

I sent emails to the parish president and to each member of the council.

What's interesting is that in high water an outboard traveling the same path marked no trespassing would not be in violation. This ordinance was poorly drafted.

In my opinion the only purpose of this ordinance is to eliminate public duck hunting in mudboats thus eliminating half the pressure on the ducks in favor of private landowners and duck leases.

If this ordinance is not vetoed, I would say there may be thousands of Mudmotor owners who hunt the parish who will lose the use of their mudmotors for the purpose for which they were intended. There's gonna be lots of for sale post on this forum if this happens and if it spreads, no telling what may happen. So get off your asses and call, email, or go see council president Cormier ASAP.