Lake access

[Beachcomber]

if you want private property don't be a dick about it.

That cuts both ways. Private landowners should not be categorized as "dicks" simply because they do not appreciate having their privacy invaded by those abusing right-to-roam access as so often happens in the UK. That said, access to Minnie and Stoney should be allowed. I do not see why this issue can't resolved through simple legislation requiring that private landowners provide access to public property through a simple easement. There are many examples of similar access issues being resolved in this way (see Malibu's Carbon Beach) and the judge appeared to distinguish between legislative and legal remedies to resolve this issue, suggesting that the former was an option but that his concern was with the latter. Any government with the political will to do so could move this forward.

"Unlike other jurisdictions, British Columbia does not have public access legislation. The absence of such legislation reflects a policy decision by the legislature that is the focus of some debate. The debate, however, is with respect to the wisdom of the policy decision that has been made, not with respect to the state of the law."

[ACE]

That cuts both ways. Private landowners should not be categorized as "dicks" simply because they do not appreciate having their privacy invaded by those abusing right-to-roam access as so often happens in the UK. That said, access to Minnie and Stoney should be allowed. I do not see why this issue can't resolved through simple legislation requiring that private landowners provide access to public property through a simple easement. . . . Any government with the political will to do so could move this forward.

"Unlike other jurisdictions, British Columbia does not have public access legislation. The absence of such legislation reflects a policy decision by the legislature that is the focus of some debate. The debate, however, is with respect to the wisdom of the policy decision that has been made, not with respect to the state of the law."

​The Stoney/Minnie lakes access issue would open the door on many other access issues . . . . two FSRs and large blocks of Crown Land behind Mosaic gates. eg. Copper Canyon ML is the access to said FSRs. The DLR issue belongs in the Canadian Supreme Court appeal process.

[Bugle M In]

I see both sides of the situation. If it is all private land, it should be considered private. If the private land prevents access to public land, access to the crown land should be provided.

Yup, as simply as you put it, this is how it should be.
But the thought that a lake and belong to an individual bothers me big time, and dont agree with that!
Guess it's the "Buddhist Mentality" side of me when it comes into play.

Its okay to have private property, but then there are things upon the landscape that should belong to "everyone"!
Just like Beachfront.
I am okay with folks owning land up to beachfront.
But there should always be a portion from that property to the beach that belongs to everyone.
No one person should have the right to any part of the planet for "all to themselves" and that mentality.

Are they "Special" that they can have it and no one else can???
Nope!, just money and a feeling that gives them ownership over everyone else.
Explains why the planet is going to shit and you can see some of the comments from some on here who think they are special.

Also not sure why the public paid thru freshwater society to have those lakes stocked if it is private.

Hopefully the supreme court goes favorably as compared to this recent decision.
Otherwise, you might have FN claims that could also make things worse if this gets by and set into stone.
Think about that one if you like the recent decision.

[adriaticum]

It seems to me that quite a few people don't understand what the issue is.

- Nobody is disputing that the Minnie Lake and Stoney Lake are public
- Nobody is disputing that all the land around the lakes is private

The dispute is around the fact that at some point in this province's history some corrupt idiot politician sold the land around these two lakes to a private individual but did not know that there are lakes on that land.
That meant that this same idiot politician did not ensure that there is access to public land within the private land of DLCC.
Access to the lakes is disputed.

Nobody disputes private property here, like bearvalley and gcreek are insinuating, without ****ing understanding the issue.

When Ranch ownership was Canadian and when there were people alive who remember using the lake without anyone questioning them, this wasn't an issue.
DLCC allowed people to cross their land to get to the lakes.

Over time, ownership become American, out of state, and they didn't care about the local people. Who gives a shit about the locals.
Also what changed is that the business model of DLCC become different. They started to provide tourist attractions, fishing lodges, recreation etc.
So it become in DLCC insterest to block access to these lakes so their guests could have exclusive use of these lakes.
Over time Fisheries stopped stocking the lakes and they were stocked privately by the DLCC.

There are millions of acres of private land in this country and when one piece of private property is in the way of accessing another, there needs to be a path provided to the second property.

There are thousands of instances in this country where some public piece of property is completely surrounded by private property, but there is always a road that allows access to the public land beyond.

In the case of DLCC, the idiots who were running municipal and provincial governments forgot to provide access to public land that was completely surrounded by private land.

Or they were paid by the DLCC to look the other way.

THIS IS A FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT MORONS. That's what that is.

Nobody questioned this issue or cared about it because for 100 years this private land owner allowed public to use the road to the lake.

When the ownership changed the new owner was not local and didn't care about their relationship with locals also realized that access was not mandated by the province.

So they blocked access to the lake to maintain exclusive use of it for their guests.

It's really simple and DLCC will lose this.
You can't have a piece of public land on your private property without providing access to it.
If DLCC wins they would set a precedent that will enable many private land owners from removing access to any public land or other private land that goes through their property.

[Rob Chipman]

That cuts both ways. Private landowners should not be categorized as "dicks" simply because they do not appreciate having their privacy invaded by those abusing right-to-roam access as so often happens in the UK. That said, access to Minnie and Stoney should be allowed. I do not see why this issue can't resolved through simple legislation requiring that private landowners provide access to public property through a simple easement. There are many examples of similar access issues being resolved in this way (see Malibu's Carbon Beach) and the judge appeared to distinguish between legislative and legal remedies to resolve this issue, suggesting that the former was an option but that his concern was with the latter. Any government with the political will to do so could move this forward.

"Unlike other jurisdictions, British Columbia does not have public access legislation. The absence of such legislation reflects a policy decision by the legislature that is the focus of some debate. The debate, however, is with respect to the wisdom of the policy decision that has been made, not with respect to the state of the law."

Fair point. I didn't word that as well as I should have. I'm not characterizing private landowners in general as dicks simply because they enjoy the benefits of private property (I have a bit of it myself and I understand and appreciate what it takes to get that). I am saying that Kroenke's being a dick, and he's doing so needlessly. There is s simple solution that he is not required to assent to, but if he fails? He may find that he gets forced to, and that will compromise the current private property rights of other people who aren't being dicks.

[gcreek]

The lawyer for the club is quite confident that they will win a appeal in the Canadian court of appeal.
The process of filing said appeal is already in motion.
This saga is far from over...

The Club owes their lawyer about $200,000 . It is a non profit group so the directorship is not responsible. You think the lawyer is going to keep working for nothing?

[gcreek]

That cuts both ways. Private landowners should not be categorized as "dicks" simply because they do not appreciate having their privacy invaded by those abusing right-to-roam access as so often happens in the UK. That said, access to Minnie and Stoney should be allowed. I do not see why this issue can't resolved through simple legislation requiring that private landowners provide access to public property through a simple easement. There are many examples of similar access issues being resolved in this way (see Malibu's Carbon Beach) and the judge appeared to distinguish between legislative and legal remedies to resolve this issue, suggesting that the former was an option but that his concern was with the latter. Any government with the political will to do so could move this forward.

"Unlike other jurisdictions, British Columbia does not have public access legislation. The absence of such legislation reflects a policy decision by the legislature that is the focus of some debate. The debate, however, is with respect to the wisdom of the policy decision that has been made, not with respect to the state of the law."

You do realize that both lakes are part of DLR’s water rights and they can release the water at any time? There wouldn’t be many of those trophy fish that the ranch has been putting in at their own cost for thirty years left would there?

[gcreek]

Yup, as simply as you put it, this is how it should be.
But the thought that a lake and belong to an individual bothers me big time, and dont agree with that!
Guess it's the "Buddhist Mentality" side of me when it comes into play.

Its okay to have private property, but then there are things upon the landscape that should belong to "everyone"!
Just like Beachfront.
I am okay with folks owning land up to beachfront.
But there should always be a portion from that property to the beach that belongs to everyone.
No one person should have the right to any part of the planet for "all to themselves" and that mentality.

Are they "Special" that they can have it and no one else can???
Nope!, just money and a feeling that gives them ownership over everyone else.
Explains why the planet is going to shit and you can see some of the comments from some on here who think they are special.

Also not sure why the public paid thru freshwater society to have those lakes stocked if it is private.

Hopefully the supreme court goes favorably as compared to this recent decision.
Otherwise, you might have FN claims that could also make things worse if this gets by and set into stone.
Think about that one if you like the recent decision.

The public does not pay to stock those lakes. I got that tonight from a very nice phone visit and some candid questions to Joe Gardner.

Also, the natives have never been stopped from fishing there but the rule is catch and release only on both lakes so very few bother.

[gcreek]

It seems to me that quite a few people don't understand what the issue is.

- Nobody is disputing that the Minnie Lake and Stoney Lake are public.

Wrong....
- Nobody is disputing that all the land around the lakes is private

The dispute is around the fact that at some point in this province's history some corrupt idiot politician sold the land around these two lakes to a private individual but did not know that there are lakes on that land.

Really? It has been deeded land since sometime back in the 1880’s




That meant that this same idiot politician did not ensure that there is access to public land within the private land of DLCC.
Access to the lakes is disputed.

Nobody disputes private property here, like bearvalley and gcreek are insinuating, without ****ing understanding the issue.

When Ranch ownership was Canadian and when there were people alive who remember using the lake without anyone questioning them, this wasn't an issue.

DLR was dealing with trespassing idiots for longer than most on this board have been alive and I do very much understand private land and trespass.


DLCC allowed people to cross their land to get to the lakes.

Not willingly.

Over time, ownership become American, out of state, and they didn't care about the local people. Who gives a shit about the locals.
Also what changed is that the business model of DLCC become different. They started to provide tourist attractions, fishing lodges, recreation etc.

The lodges were built in Chunky Woodward’s time....

So it become in DLCC insterest to block access to these lakes so their guests could have exclusive use of these lakes.
Over time Fisheries stopped stocking the lakes and they were stocked privately by the DLCC.

For the last 30 years. No ice fishing and catch and release only.


There are millions of acres of private land in this country and when one piece of private property is in the way of accessing another, there needs to be a path provided to the second property.

There are thousands of instances in this country where some public piece of property is completely surrounded by private property, but there is always a road that allows access to the public land beyond.

In the case of DLCC, the idiots who were running municipal and provincial governments forgot to provide access to public land that was completely surrounded by private land.

Or they were paid by the DLCC to look the other way.

THIS IS A FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT MORONS. That's what that is.

Nobody questioned this issue or cared about it because for 100 years this private land owner allowed public to use the road to the lake.

When the ownership changed the new owner was not local and didn't care about their relationship with locals also realized that access was not mandated by the province.

Wrong again Sir.


So they blocked access to the lake to maintain exclusive use of it for their guests.

It's really simple and DLCC will lose this.
You can't have a piece of public land on your private property without providing access to it.
If DLCC wins they would set a precedent that will enable many private land owners from removing access to any public land or other private land that goes through their property.

Both of these lake were 30 or 40 acre mud holes until DLR developed them for irrigation purposes. They have been building the dams bigger over time to where the lakes are nearly 200 acres. Since these crown grants are nearly 150 years old, I would suggest that most of the land under the water is deeded to DLR

I corrected a few things for you. Interesting how facts can be lost in telling.

[gcreek]

Fair point. I didn't word that as well as I should have. I'm not characterizing private landowners in general as dicks simply because they enjoy the benefits of private property (I have a bit of it myself and I understand and appreciate what it takes to get that). I am saying that Kroenke's being a dick, and he's doing so needlessly. There is s simple solution that he is not required to assent to, but if he fails? He may find that he gets forced to, and that will compromise the current private property rights of other people who aren't being dicks.

Let’s pray that never happens for any land owner in this country.