Quote:
Originally Posted by
adriaticum
Yes, we are getting somewhere.
Your understanding of where DLCC is located is good and that it's governed by BC law.
This is all good.
Check.
Quote:
I'm not saying DLCC is on Mars, I'm just saying laws in BC and Canada that govern DLCC are stupid. Or they are fine but not enforced.
I am not familiar with all the laws governing private property in Canada and BC, because I am not a lawyer and I am not the owner of DLCC so I don't know the entire history of the case
Check. Me either, but I'm with you so far.
Quote:
so I don't know exactly which it is.
But I know from the infromation I can gather that is in the public domain, this case is clear.
No check. It is possibly public domain, on the original area of the original lake bed. That in theory is owned by the Province. In theory one can land a helicopter on floats on the original footprint of the lake legally. There is also some case law that suggests that in similar situations where a lake has been artificially enlarged to a new high water mark via permanent structure (an earthen dam for instance) that the newly developed lake bed then becomes the property of the Province. Although there are some regulations and bureaucratic bullshit that goes on around that. Provincially owned property yes, mandated legal access, no.
Quote:
Either the law is bad and needs to be fixed. Or the law is fine and some corrupt politician decided he was not going to follow it.
No check. That is your belief, and that's ok. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either assertion.
Quote:
You also think, incorrectly, that you have some sort of private property in Canada.
While I can tell you, coming from a place that has actual private property, that you don't.
You just have rentals.
There is no private property in Canada.
Governments make sure of that. Some people are waking up to that fact.
But that's a political discussion for another day.
No check, but not for the reason you think. You assume that I think I have private property. I am well aware of the freedoms I have on the lands that I reside on, and pay taxes on. I am well aware that I can kick a trespasser off of my property, and that I have free and reasonable use, but that is pretty much it.
Quote:
If you know the DLCC ranch lands you would know how extensive the land base is and that there is a public road through every bit of it that is not contiguous and that has public land beyond it.
The concept of having public roads through private land is not a new concept in BC.
And you would also know that you can travel all those roads ok, but you can not hunt or camp on either sides of the road because it's private property.
And those who frequent that area know how it works and we obey those signs and respect their property.
I do pet their horses every once in a while, but they just follow me on the road.
To be honest, I have no concept of where the ranch is. I have never been there. I have never driven through it. I have never set foot on ranch property. I've never even looked at it on a map, although this conversation has piqued my interest, as well as finding out recently (since this court case decision was made public) that my great great grandfather was a cowpuncher for a while there.
Quote:
Albeit, if you knew the area you would understand that the forestry road network was created on DLCC to access all the public land areas.
Now we are in territory that I am intimately familiar with... Now, just because there is a logging access road built to access crown land, that does NOT mean that the Province had any input, financial or otherwise, in that road system. In fact, it is likely that the mill or licence tenure holder came to an agreement with the landowner for paid access to get to that crown owned land. This is VERY common between licencees and private landowners for various reasons - ie. shorter haul routes, land locked parcels of land, cheaper access route locations, unwillingness to use an existing road system (as in, maybe the guy who owns the property an existing road that accesses the crown land is making unreasonable financial demands on paid access, so I'll build a road 10 meters over on the neighbors place who is easier to deal with and being financially realistic and there is nothing he can do about it other than watch trucks go by).
Those situations have less than nothing to do with the public (Province), simply that a company wanted access and came to an agreement with a landowner for paid access. (Incidentally, my understanding of landlocked crown land and how this all works legally isn't simply guessing on my part, a portion of my career over the last decade + has been dealing with this sort of stuff on a professional basis).
Quote:
Some of those roads were closed in the 80s and a gate put up. That is the road to Stoney and Minnie lakes.
If they can put up a gate on that road, why don't they put up a gate on all the roads and block passage through their land altogether?
In fact some of the areas can be accessed via a different road from the other side so they don't really need to allow access.
Yet they still do.
Why is that?
Entirely probable that it is different and distinct classes of road tenure and status. Maybe some of those roads are not technically "roads". Maybe those were trails constructed by the ranch over time (or even before the ranch was a ranch) that never got tenured by the Province and so are technically still private land, that = legal gates. Maybe they were roads that were tenured, and at some point someone didn't renew the tenure when it expired and a savvy ranch manager applied for the road on behalf of DLCC and as such they would own the liability for the road and can control access, that = legal gates. And some of those roads WILL be Provincially owned/maintained/tenured and as such they are legal, public access. AND to further complicate some of this, some of the roads that are NOT owned by the Province may have agreements in place with the Province for maintenance that would be paid for or agreed upon based on some other criteria, but that doesn't mean that you can use that road.
Just because a road exists in BC, even it if is on crown land, doesn't necessarily mean that you can drive on it. Or walk on it. Or use it for any reason. Some folks here will remember a thread by Curt about the Graham River road that is gated on the bridge on the Graham River. That road is ONLY in existence for the sole reason of resource extraction. Specifically, logs. As a member of the public you are not permitted to drive on that road or use that road for any purpose, and that is mandated by an agreement between the Province and the major licencee that built and maintains that road. The only vehicles and people that can legally be on that road are people actively employed for logging purposes, while they are logging.
Quote:
Because government doesn't directly benefit from a few people fishing a lake so they have effectively gave DLCC a green light to "privatize" that lake.
I have nothing against DLCC privatizing that lake, but they have to pay for it if they want to take it out of public domain, and for the road that was created for them by the public dollar (some roads are forestry too).
But in Canada we have a chronic problem of taxpayer's money funding corporate ventures.
That's what Candian government institutions have become.
Well, couple things there. The Province DOES benefit from DLCC having people pay to fish there. That generates tax revenue. And likely more tax revenue than would have been directly generated by resident fishermen in the form of GST/PST/Hotel Tax etc for staying at the lodge.
We don't know (for the purpose of this discussion at any rate) the status of the roads that were built. Are they publicly owned roads based on construction paid for by taxpayers? And remember, that may or may not have been the case. (Likely NOT the case, as that would be pretty simple to prove in court if the roads had been appraised against stumpage paid to the Province, and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all). Like I said before, just because a road exists, that doesn't give you the right or ability to travel on it.
Regardless, convoluted shit, with a lot of aspects to be considered.