Lake access

[saskbooknut]

Ownership, holding a fee simple title is wholly different from having a grazing lease, but treating the land as if you had title to it.
Huge tracts of land are alienated for relatively small sums, where the right of the public to benefit from Crown lands merits little consideration.
The multiple use policy of the late 70s and early 80s seems to have fallen out of use.
If you superimpose the multiple competing land claims in the Province of BC, on top of the alienated lands limiting access, the future looks dire for Public access for hunting and fishing.

[HarryToolips]

It really bothers you that some people actually own things doesn’t it? Every post on this issue contains quotes about rich people in order to ignite passion into those with less.

All were saying is we should have a tiny little ROW (right of way) into a public lake....

[adriaticum]

It really bothers you that some people actually own things doesn’t it? Every post on this issue contains quotes about rich people in order to ignite passion into those with less.

you are way off base

[IronNoggin]

It really bothers you that some people actually own things doesn’t it? Every post on this issue contains quotes about rich people in order to ignite passion into those with less.

Completely Out To Lunch with these statements, and by carrying over into implied insults, quite counterproductive for your "side".

Nog

[Walking Buffalo]

These lakes are obviously very special.

So special that perhaps they should be declared ecological sanctuaries.
No Fishing allowed.


There are lots of ways to play this game.

Presumably the creation of an "ecological sanctuary" would also preclude using the surrounding area for grazing or other ranch activity. Not sure why this would be a sensible avenue for anyone to pursue.

Or maybe the Government should pull its head out of its butt, and stop throwing the citizens of this province under the bus. All crown land should be subject to public access, as its the public that own it, no Government. We elect Government to protect the interests of the public and look after the affairs of running the province. All to often in the past Government has sided with business and industry trying to chase revenue for their coffers, with no regard for protecting the interests of the citizens of this province. One need look no further than the mess Vancouver Island is in, with lack of access and all the gates. Mt Polly mine is another one that comes to mind. When the tailing pond let go, the amount of damage done to the environment and habitat was pretty much dismissed. No clean up or large penalties, because jobs are more important than the environment. This is not unique to the provincial government, as you see it all over the country. Food for thought, next time you go to the polls.

Beachcomber,

Why is it sensible for the Public or the Government to allow public land to be exclusively used by a private entity simply due to lack of legal access by the citizens that own it?

If the public can't recreate on this public land (the lakes), then it makes perfect sense to use this situation to further protection of the land and turn it into an ecological reserve.
It the public can't reasonably access the lakes, then make it so that those that are preventing access can't do so themselves.

I suspect that these private entities would reconsider their actions if the end result was that they could not enter the public lands themselves.
In this case, if the lakes became illegal for anyone to fish or recreate in or on, the Ranch would no longer have any incentive to exploit it for personal gain.


VLD43,
Sure. That would be best.

What I proposed is an alternative action that could be pursued IF public land becomes inaccessible to the general public due to legal decisions.
Remove or reduce the incentive for Private landholders to eliminate public access to public lands.

[IronNoggin]

... What I proposed is an alternative action that could be pursued IF public land becomes inaccessible to the general public due to legal decisions.
Remove or reduce the incentive for Private landholders to eliminate public access to public lands.

As a fall-back situation, I rather like where you are going with this.

Cheers,
Nog

[VLD43]

Beachcomber,

Why is it sensible for the Public or the Government to allow public land to be exclusively used by a private entity simply due to lack of legal access by the citizens that own it?

If the public can't recreate on this public land (the lakes), then it makes perfect sense to use this situation to further protection of the land and turn it into an ecological reserve.
It the public can't reasonably access the lakes, then make it so that those that are preventing access can't do so themselves.

I suspect that these private entities would reconsider their actions if the end result was that they could not enter the public lands themselves.
In this case, if the lakes became illegal for anyone to fish or recreate in or on, the Ranch would no longer have any incentive to exploit it for personal gain.


VLD43,
Sure. That would be best.

What I proposed is an alternative action that could be pursued IF public land becomes inaccessible to the general public due to legal decisions.
Remove or reduce the incentive for Private landholders to eliminate public access to public lands.

Good Post Sir. Very well reasoned, in my opinion

[Beachcomber]

Beachcomber,

Why is it sensible for the Public or the Government to allow public land to be exclusively used by a private entity simply due to lack of legal access by the citizens that own it?

If the public can't recreate on this public land (the lakes), then it makes perfect sense to use this situation to further protection of the land and turn it into an ecological reserve.
It the public can't reasonably access the lakes, then make it so that those that are preventing access can't do so themselves.

I suspect that these private entities would reconsider their actions if the end result was that they could not enter the public lands themselves.
In this case, if the lakes became illegal for anyone to fish or recreate in or on, the Ranch would no longer have any incentive to exploit it for personal gain.

This is not a case of the province needing to appease the DLR or get cute with veiled threats. Public land should be, by definition, accessible by the public and it is within the government's gift to ensure this access is provided - if only they would grow a set and pass legislation to this end. Declaring the lakes an ecologically sensitive area and therefore denying access to all is not an acceptable answer. The province should be telling the DLR to provide an access corridor or they will legislate a right of way. We do not need more land being cut off from hunters and fishermen. If we go down this road you can expect future disputes like this to be "resolved" by the creation of vast swathes of land being declared "ecological sanctuaries" and off limits to hunters and fishermen. No doubt Tides and other US foundations would applaud this development, but hunters and fishermen should not encourage this result. BC residents have a right to access crown land. Where that right is being infringed then it is incumbent on our elected officials to step up and act on behalf of the people who pay their salaries to represent our interests. Kroeneke can get stuffed.

[Ganso]

The future looks bad if it goes this way, it's going to be parks and nature preserves off limits to hunting, fishing and vehicles, country-sized First Nations territories off limits to anyone the tribe doesn't allow there, add a few big ranches and a lot of timber leases and there won't be much left for hunting and other free backcountry recreation. In some decades it might be like Texas where most everything is chunks of private land or otherwise off limits and you have to pay big bucks to lease a small lot so you can hunt over a feeder once a year.

[HarryToolips]

This is not a case of the province needing to appease the DLR or get cute with veiled threats. Public land should be, by definition, accessible by the public and it is within the government's gift to ensure this access is provided - if only they would grow a set and pass legislation to this end. Declaring the lakes an ecologically sensitive area and therefore denying access to all is not an acceptable answer. The province should be telling the DLR to provide an access corridor or they will legislate a right of way. We do not need more land being cut off from hunters and fishermen. If we go down this road you can expect future disputes like this to be "resolved" by the creation of vast swathes of land being declared "ecological sanctuaries" and off limits to hunters and fishermen. No doubt Tides and other US foundations would applaud this development, but hunters and fishermen should not encourage this result. BC residents have a right to access crown land. Where that right is being infringed then it is incumbent on our elected officials to step up and act on behalf of the people who pay their salaries to represent our interests. Kroeneke can get stuffed.

Your right, it is the responsibility of our elected officials to step up and represent us...I guess we need to put more pressure on our local MLAs to start standing up for us on this matter....