This bill enacts a new statute, R.S. 56:322.3, that forbids the deployment or use of hoop nets and seines in North Pass and Manchac Pass along the corridor from Interstate 55 to Lake Pontchartrain. The prohibition is expressed to operate notwithstanding any other provision of law.
The measure is geographically narrow but operationally significant: it removes two specific gear types from a defined stretch of coastal waterways, with immediate implications for commercial and subsistence fishers who rely on those gears, and for recreational and commercial boating that shares the same channels. The text is brief and leaves key implementation questions — definitions, enforcement, penalties, and exemptions — to administrative practice or future legislation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a single new statutory section that makes it unlawful to use hoop nets and seines in North Pass and Manchac Pass from Interstate 55 to Lake Pontchartrain. It includes an override clause ('notwithstanding any other provision of law') to ensure the prohibition supersedes conflicting statutes or rules.
Who It Affects
Operators who deploy hoop nets and seines — including commercial fishermen, some subsistence harvesters, and any recreational users employing these gears — must cease those activities in the specified corridor. Boating operators, charter services, and local tourism businesses that navigate the passes will also be affected indirectly by changes in gear presence and enforcement activity.
Why It Matters
Although geographically limited, the ban sets a precedent for place‑based gear restrictions in Louisiana's coastal fisheries and could displace fishing effort into adjacent waters. Compliance and enforcement will rely on existing wildlife enforcement mechanisms, but the statute’s brevity raises practical questions that stakeholders will need to resolve quickly.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates R.S. 56:322.3 and places a targeted prohibition on two named fishing gears — hoop nets and seines — within a clearly described corridor of North Pass and Manchac Pass. By putting the rule in Title 56 (fisheries), the legislature signals this is a statutory change to the state’s fisheries regulatory regime rather than a mere administrative action.
Geography is the bill’s operative detail: the banned area is the stretch running from Interstate 55 to Lake Pontchartrain. The measure uses a 'notwithstanding' clause, which is a legislative tool to make this prohibition take priority over conflicting laws or regulations, reducing the possibility that existing permits or local rules could create loopholes.The text is minimalist.
It does not define 'hoop net' or 'seine,' it does not list penalties, and it does not carve out exemptions for licensed commercial permit holders, subsistence fishers, scientific sampling, or emergency actions. That means enforcement officers and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) will need to interpret the statute alongside existing enforcement authorities and penalty schedules unless the legislature provides further direction.Practically, the ban will require operators who use the affected gear to alter fishing plans, relocate effort, or stop using those methods inside the corridor.
For managers and compliance officers, the immediate tasks will be mapping exact enforcement boundaries, communicating the change to permittees, and deciding whether administrative rules or guidance are needed to implement the statute without creating undue confusion on the water.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new statute — R.S. 56:322.3 — that forbids hoop nets and seines in North Pass and Manchac Pass.
The geographic boundary is explicit: the prohibition applies from Interstate 55 to Lake Pontchartrain.
The statute contains a 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' clause, indicating it is intended to override conflicting statutes or regulations.
The text does not define 'hoop net' or 'seine,' and it does not specify penalties, enforcement procedures, or exemptions.
Because no permits or exceptions are mentioned, the ban applies to all users of those gears in the corridor unless later clarified by statute or agency action.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a statutory ban on hoop nets and seines in the named passes
This is the operative provision: it makes the use of hoop nets and seines unlawful inside the described stretch of North Pass and Manchac Pass. Drafting the prohibition as a standalone statutory section locks the rule into the fisheries code and signals legislative intent for a durable constraint on gear use in that corridor.
Boundary set between Interstate 55 and Lake Pontchartrain
The bill anchors the restricted area to two fixed geographic references rather than to coordinates or a map. That makes the ban straightforward in principle but creates practical issues for enforcement — officers will need to translate 'from I‑55 to Lake Pontchartrain' into patrol sectors and determine how the boundary interacts with adjacent waters and tributaries.
Notwithstanding clause gives the ban priority over conflicting law
By including a 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' statement, the legislature intends this prohibition to prevail if another statute, rule, or permit appears inconsistent. That reduces legal doubt about conflicts with prior authorizations but may invite challenges where permit holders believe they held vested rights or where administrative regulations previously allowed the gear.
Bill is silent on definitions, enforcement mechanics, and exceptions
The statute does not define the prohibited gear types, nor does it reference penalties, civil or criminal enforcement sections, or exceptions for permitted scientific, emergency, or subsistence activities. In practice, LDWF and enforcement officers will need to rely on existing statutory penalty schemes and rulemaking authority to operationalize the ban unless the legislature supplements the statute.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Recreational boaters and charter operators — removing fixed nets and seines from the corridor reduces snag hazards and gear conflicts, making navigation and charter operations safer and more predictable.
- Local tourism and waterfront businesses — clearer waterways and potentially improved aesthetics and safety can support recreation and tourism activities that use the passes.
- Small‑craft operators and non‑commercial anglers who share the waterways — fewer stationary gears in the channel lowers entanglement risk for small vessels and fishing lines.
- State fisheries managers and habitat advocates — a gear‑specific restriction gives managers a discrete tool to address localized user conflicts or habitat concerns without a broad, fishery‑wide closure.
Who Bears the Cost
- Commercial hoop‑net and seine operators who fish those passes — they must stop using that gear in the corridor and either relocate effort or change gear types, with attendant operational and economic costs.
- Fish processors and dealers reliant on catch from those gears — reduced landings from the corridor could compress supply chains and cause local economic ripple effects.
- Enforcement agencies (LDWF and state enforcement) — the statute increases monitoring and compliance duties; without additional resources agencies may face trade‑offs in patrol coverage.
- Adjacent waterway users and fisheries — displacement of effort could increase pressure on neighboring areas, generating new user conflicts and potential ecological impacts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits localized waterway safety and user‑conflict management against the livelihoods of fishers who rely on hoop nets and seines: it provides a swift, place‑based restriction to benefit navigation and recreational use, but it does so without clarifying how displaced commercial effort will be accommodated or compensated, and without furnishing the definitions and enforcement mechanisms that make a ban administrable.
The statute’s brevity creates implementation liabilities. First, 'hoop net' and 'seine' are not defined, and those terms can cover a range of gear designs and sizes; enforcement officers will need to adopt working definitions or rely on ancillary statutes and common practice to identify prohibited gear.
Second, the bill does not state a penalty scheme or reference existing sanctions, so courts and enforcement agencies will default to general fisheries enforcement provisions — a gap that can produce inconsistent outcomes unless clarified administratively or legislatively.
A second set of trade‑offs involves displacement and enforcement resources. Removing gear from this corridor may reduce local user conflicts but will likely move fishing effort to adjacent waters, potentially creating new conflicts or conservation issues there.
Finally, the 'notwithstanding' language strengthens the statute’s legal priority but does not eliminate practical clashes with preexisting permits or grandfathered practices; resolving those will require administrative guidance or litigation, both of which carry costs and uncertainty.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.