RedactedNarrative: On the morning of 1/30/21 Operator went to check on his vessel, which was tied to the western shore of the Ouachita River near his residence.  Upon arriving at his vessel he discovered that it was partially sank and appeared to have been struck by a barge.  Subject contacted LDWF to report the accident.  At approximately 1:00pm, Agent arrived at the location of the incident and also determined that a barge had ran over the vessel.  Subject advised Agent that he had checked on his vessel the morning before (1/29/21).  
              vessel (vessel 2) was parked in a curve on the outer bank of the river.  From the manner that vessel 2 was positioned in along the bank, it appeared that vessel 1 was traveling down river and was unable to make the sharp left hand turn, resulting in it running over the bow of vessel 2 and forcing it downward into the water and against the shoreline.  Vessel 2 then began taking on water and ultimately sank.  Due to the displaced aluminum and drag marks it appeared that after vessel 1 ran over vessel 2 it then backed up causing displaced aluminum and drag marks in the opposite direction.  Rust was transferred from vessel 1 and left in the drag marks of vessel 2’s damaged rounded pipe gunwale capping.  
  
  Given the most common vessel traffic for the area to be aluminum and fiberglass hull recreational boats, a larger commercial barge or tow boat would be the only vessel operated in the area to be constructed of a rusting material capable of causing the damage.  No indentation from vessel 1 was left in the sandy shore at the scene of the incident, indicating that the travel speed was slow and that the draft of vessel to was deep enough to stop the vessel upon contact with the shore beneath the waterline.  Had a smaller/recreational sized vessel struck vessel 2 with enough speed to ramp onto and over vessel 2, impression marks in the sandy shore should have been visible from vessel 1.  
  
  Individual 1 with the U.S. Coast Guard was contacted to assist with the investigation since it appeared to be a commercial vessel involved.  Individual 1 was able to determine that 2 different vessels (towboats) had been traveling down river the night before.  The name of the first towboat was XXX and the name of the second towboat was XXX.  Both towboats were said to have been owned or operated by Owner.  Individual 1 advised that he would make contact with both boat captains and the owners of the company to try and get more information.
               On February 22, 2021, Cpl. followed up on the accident with Owner at his residence.  Owner advised that the company had compensated him for the damages to his vessel in the amount of $12,000, which he accepted.  A representative that the XXX was possibly the vessel responsible for the damages but it was still uncertain.  The Captain of the XXX at the time advised that he could have hit vessel late 1/29/21 to early 1/30/21, but was unaware that he’d hit the vessel or caused the damage.  Individual 2 purchased a replacement 50hp Tohatsu outboard motor for $8000 and had his vessel repaired to the best of a local fabricators ability for $200.  He advised that he would test the vessel repair but may ultimately have to have another boat built if it didn’t perform as it did prior to the incident.