Lake access

[gcreek]

No I can not. But I can say with complete surety that politicians who sold land to private individuals without considering access to pieces of public land that was cut off inside, did not represent public interest and their constituents. And I would give them a baseball bat rabbit treatment.

These lands in question were deeded to private citizens pre 1900, I doubt very much the government or the people of the day were concerned with fishing a couple of swamp lakes. Settlers and commerce were being encouraged and most were more concerned with living than playing.

[dakoda62]

I'm just curious, don't slay me i'm just asking a question, so how many are in favour with this ruling yet will run a native blockade?

[adriaticum]

These lands in question were deeded to private citizens pre 1900, I doubt very much the government or the people of the day were concerned with fishing a couple of swamp lakes. Settlers and commerce were being encouraged and most were more concerned with living than playing.

It doesn't matter when the land was sold.
What matters was that it wasn't done properly.
It wasn't an issue for a 100 years because the land owner allowed people to fish the lake.
The lake was never private and it was fished by the public and stocked by the BC fisheries.
The public didn't question it until they were told they can't do it anymore.
DLCC used to allow hunting on it's property and now they don't allow public to hunt either. They still allow their people to hunt.
So times change and if they want to be assholes then people will want legal access to the lake.
Private land owners can't just block access to public land, period. Same shit with Corbett lake.
It's not like DLCC doesn't have enough land to build a private lake if they want to have an exclusive resort.

[KodiakHntr]

It doesn't matter when the land was sold.
What matters was that it wasn't done properly.

Slippery argument to make. Unless of course you think the same argument applies to native land claims?

It wasn't an issue for a 100 years because the land owner allowed people to fish the lake.
The lake was never private and it was fished by the public and stocked by the BC fisheries.
The public didn't question it until they were told they can't do it anymore.

So perhaps that was a discussion with the province then?
-"Hey, we aren't going to let people cross our land anymore to fish."
-"Welllll, if you do that we aren't going to stock that lake anymore."
-"no problem, we'll do it ourselves."

DLCC used to allow hunting on it's property and now they don't allow public to hunt either. They still allow their people to hunt.

And? The guy who used to own my place before me used to let anyone who asked hunt, I don't. But I still hunt my place, and I WILL kick a trespasser in the taint and press charges. I've seen me do it.

So times change and if they want to be assholes then people will want legal access to the lake.
Private land owners can't just block access to public land, period. Same shit with Corbett lake.
It's not like DLCC doesn't have enough land to build a private lake if they want to have an exclusive resort.

Yeah, they can. Otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. Otherwise DreamWeaver wouldn't have tabled his Right To Be A Trespassing Asshole Act. If there wasn't already precedent set there wouldn't be an issue, period. There is an awful lot of public land landlocked by private property all across the province.
Just because you don't want it to be that way, doesn't make it that way.
And the fact that DLCC has enough land to repurpose something to be a new lake, doesn't mean that THEY want to repurpose it.

[adriaticum]

Slippery argument to make. Unless of course you think the same argument applies to native land claims?

I can't argue about native land claims because I don't know what the motivation behind the land claims is.
I don't want to get involved in that cluster ****.


So perhaps that was a discussion with the province then?
-"Hey, we aren't going to let people cross our land anymore to fish."
-"Welllll, if you do that we aren't going to stock that lake anymore."
-"no problem, we'll do it ourselves."




And? The guy who used to own my place before me used to let anyone who asked hunt, I don't. But I still hunt my place, and I WILL kick a trespasser in the taint and press charges. I've seen me do it.

That's not the same thing. I don't understand where you are going with this. Hunting someone's property and accessing crown land that is cut off by private property are apples and oranges.


Yeah, they can. Otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. Otherwise DreamWeaver wouldn't have tabled his Right To Be A Trespassing Asshole Act. If there wasn't already precedent set there wouldn't be an issue, period. There is an awful lot of public land landlocked by private property all across the province.
Just because you don't want it to be that way, doesn't make it that way.
And the fact that DLCC has enough land to repurpose something to be a new lake, doesn't mean that THEY want to repurpose it.

You obiously don't own any land and have probably never researched private land ownership outside of BC. In most places around the world private property can not cut off another private property or public land.
You can't not subdivide crown land or private property without providing access to each new parcel of private property.
People have killed and gone to war over this in most places around the world and that's why law usually requires you to provide access to the land.
Only in BC, can someone question this. It's laughable. I understand that there are paid stooges like these fishing guides and employees of DLCC who are trumping this as the "right to private property", which is absolutely is not. The same laws that allow you to have private property mitigate conflicts between land owners and land owners and the public. I have no issue with Stoney and Minnie being fully private, but if they want to privatize them, they have to pay for it. Personally I don't understand the concept of Crown owning all the lakes and the water. But if we are going to make the lakes private, then let's put value on them and give people a chance to buy them.

[KodiakHntr]

You obiously don't own any land and have probably never researched private land ownership outside of BC. In most places around the world private property can not cut off another private property or public land.

Why would I care about what is legal land ownership outside of BC? I don't own land anywhere EXCEPT BC. The only thing that matters in BC, is BC private property rights. I'm sorry that you obviously can't accept or understand that without it becoming an emotional issue for you, but BC property rights are what is being disputed here.

You can't not subdivide crown land or private property without providing access to each new parcel of private property.

Possibly correct. But that is under current law. Not when the property was originally sold and deeded. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of this across the province. You can only operate under the laws of the land that are in place at the time. If DLCC were to want to subdivide off a piece of land that would otherwise be landlocked they would have to provide access under the current laws. That is how that works. When the original property in question was sold to the company that wasn't the case. Not sure why that is so hard to understand?

People have killed and gone to war over this in most places around the world and that's why law usually requires you to provide access to the land.

Again, it doesn't matter what happens in Germany or Switzerland or the USA or Zimbabwe, the only law that matters in BC, is BC law. BC doesn't have right to access laws. What BC has is regulations around subdividing and selling of new parcels of land, and those parcels require access to be sold. They don't require access to exist, they require access as a condition of sale.

Only in BC, can someone question this. It's laughable. I understand that there are paid stooges like these fishing guides and employees of DLCC who are trumping this as the "right to private property", which is absolutely is not. The same laws that allow you to have private property mitigate conflicts between land owners and land owners and the public. I have no issue with Stoney and Minnie being fully private, but if they want to privatize them, they have to pay for it. Personally I don't understand the concept of Crown owning all the lakes and the water. But if we are going to make the lakes private, then let's put value on them and give people a chance to buy them.

Again, obviously this is an emotional issue for a lot of people here, but the fact remains that based on land access laws in BC, the court case was defeated. Doesn't really matter what an appeal lawyer tells his clients about their chances for winning on appeal, his motivation is the pay cheque at the end. The lawyer doesn't care about the motivation behind the lawsuit, he cares about the money. Unless of course he is fighting it for free, but I see a number of $200 000 being floated around so that sure doesn't look like its the case.

It doesn't matter to the case law for access that the province stocked that lake. The only thing that matters is that when the land was purchased the lake had no value to the public, and as such no access was provided. It wasn't required based on the law at the time. The lake existed, and its value was to the land as a source of water for irrigation or cattle. That was it.
NOW it has value to the public because it has big fish in it, and someone is telling people that they can't fish for them because they can't get to it.

[Rob Chipman]

...based on land access laws in BC, the court case was defeated....The only thing that matters is ....

Yes and no. Based on current laws the Rod and Gun Club lose, correct, but there are multiple things that matter. It's unceded land, the original title isn't as strong as some may assert, there is a chance to submit more evidence (court referenced that) and....legislation can be changed (which, again, the court referenced).

The big challenge here is that Kroenke is rich and litigious. Tough for a little guy to beat a guy like that....unless that little guy is a politician and can change the rules. As I said earlier, I think I saw a comment by the lawyer for the Cattleman's Association who saw exactly that on the horizon.

[HarryToolips]

^^^speaking of politicians, has anybody spoken with the Merritt area MLA regarding this matter? Maybe he/she can flex their political muscle in favor of the voter/tax-payer....

[adriaticum]

Why would I care about what is legal land ownership outside of BC? I don't own land anywhere EXCEPT BC. The only thing that matters in BC, is BC private property rights. I'm sorry that you obviously can't accept or understand that without it becoming an emotional issue for you, but BC property rights are what is being disputed here.

Possibly correct. But that is under current law. Not when the property was originally sold and deeded. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of this across the province. You can only operate under the laws of the land that are in place at the time. If DLCC were to want to subdivide off a piece of land that would otherwise be landlocked they would have to provide access under the current laws. That is how that works. When the original property in question was sold to the company that wasn't the case. Not sure why that is so hard to understand?

Again, it doesn't matter what happens in Germany or Switzerland or the USA or Zimbabwe, the only law that matters in BC, is BC law. BC doesn't have right to access laws. What BC has is regulations around subdividing and selling of new parcels of land, and those parcels require access to be sold. They don't require access to exist, they require access as a condition of sale.



Again, obviously this is an emotional issue for a lot of people here, but the fact remains that based on land access laws in BC, the court case was defeated. Doesn't really matter what an appeal lawyer tells his clients about their chances for winning on appeal, his motivation is the pay cheque at the end. The lawyer doesn't care about the motivation behind the lawsuit, he cares about the money. Unless of course he is fighting it for free, but I see a number of $200 000 being floated around so that sure doesn't look like its the case.

It doesn't matter to the case law for access that the province stocked that lake. The only thing that matters is that when the land was purchased the lake had no value to the public, and as such no access was provided. It wasn't required based on the law at the time. The lake existed, and its value was to the land as a source of water for irrigation or cattle. That was it.
NOW it has value to the public because it has big fish in it, and someone is telling people that they can't fish for them because they can't get to it.

It's not an emotional issue for me, I have no horse in the race.
I never fished and do not plan to fish Stoney/Minnie lakes. There are far better lakes to fish.
It's a rational issue for me.
Simple matter of reasoning and common sense.

[Rob Chipman]

^^^speaking of politicians, has anybody spoken with the Merritt area MLA regarding this matter? Maybe he/she can flex their political muscle in favor of the voter/tax-payer....

Good call. Jackie Tegart, Liberal.

I dunno, but if I was the MLA there I would be wondering: is it worth pissing off Douglas Lake Ranch in order to get all then outdoors people in Merritt on my side?