Lake access

[gcreek]

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.

I will ask you the same question as many others. If the ranch chose to let their irrigation supply go from these lakes and they reverted back to their original size, ( with deeded land to the lakeshore again) would there be any incentive for the general public to access said lakes?
Don’t tell me it can’t happen because it very well could.

[adriaticum]

I will ask you the same question as many others. If the ranch chose to let their irrigation supply go from these lakes and they reverted back to their original size, ( with deeded land to the lakeshore again) would there be any incentive for the general public to access said lakes?
Don’t tell me it can’t happen because it very well could.

yes there would be. some of the best fishing lakes in the region are smaller than the original stoney lake. size does not matter, quality does. but with easy access it would be fished out every year

[Walking Buffalo]

I will ask you the same question as many others. If the ranch chose to let their irrigation supply go from these lakes and they reverted back to their original size, ( with deeded land to the lakeshore again) would there be any incentive for the general public to access said lakes?
Don’t tell me it can’t happen because it very well could.

Rephrased.
Would the public prefer to have access to Public land or would the public prefer to not have access to Public land?

Regardless of the size of the lake, or the quality of the fishing, the pubic wants access to it's land!


Would the ranch have incentive to fight to keep the public away from these lakes if the fishing was marginal or if fishing was not allowed by anyone?

[Bugle M In]

I will ask you the same question as many others. If the ranch chose to let their irrigation supply go from these lakes and they reverted back to their original size, ( with deeded land to the lakeshore again) would there be any incentive for the general public to access said lakes?
Don’t tell me it can’t happen because it very well could.

Are there not public lakes that are not on ranchers land, that the ranchers use as irrigation to some degree?
I recall a lake where water levels become very low for many years.
Many felt it was the rancher in the area swallowing up much of the lakes winter run off, more than normal.
So, what if the government on behalf of the public, reduced water supply?
Basically ensuring lakes hold there maximum level (in other words, natural level) before any can be offered to ranchers if
said lakes actually are crown.

Maybe i am wrong here as to ranchers access to water and how they can retrieve it.
But i have seen a lake go way down, and impact fishing for public due to rancher.
In other words, its a 2 way street, imo.

Usually the best solution is when neither party is truly happy with the outcome.

[gcreek]

Are there not public lakes that are not on ranchers land, that the ranchers use as irrigation to some degree?
I recall a lake where water levels become very low for many years.
Many felt it was the rancher in the area swallowing up much of the lakes winter run off, more than normal.
So, what if the government on behalf of the public, reduced water supply?
Basically ensuring lakes hold there maximum level (in other words, natural level) before any can be offered to ranchers if
said lakes actually are crown.

Maybe i am wrong here as to ranchers access to water and how they can retrieve it.
But i have seen a lake go way down, and impact fishing for public due to rancher.
In other words, its a 2 way street, imo.

Usually the best solution is when neither party is truly happy with the outcome.

In many areas of the world and the southern part of BC is no different, irrigation is needed to grow crops. Limiting water would result in fewer farmers growing less food, less food would increase prices at the grocery store. Is that something you would prefer?

Ranching and farming are businesses, they pay taxes, lease fees, water rights, huge hydro bills if they are pumping water, we are now being told we need to be charged for every litre of water we use for business, be it washing machinery or watering livestock.

I do realize the public also pays some taxes, utility bills etc, but no one volunteering to pay more for policing things like this...... the landowner, be it this rich, nasty American billionaire or Joe Farmer with 40 acres ends up footing the bill for garbage collection, loss of grass and crops when those few abuse the rules. If all people who support this kind of thing were responsible do you think there would be as much of a fight against it?

I can’t and won’t support any of the other side as our little place has been abused by the few idiots also. The responsible ones come to the house and ask. While this does take time and time is money, most get approval or at the least, directions to a good spot to hunt. Surprising how few want to walk any more.

[gcreek]

Rephrased.
Would the public prefer to have access to Public land or would the public prefer to not have access to Public land?

Regardless of the size of the lake, or the quality of the fishing, the pubic wants access to it's land!


Would the ranch have incentive to fight to keep the public away from these lakes if the fishing was marginal or if fishing was not allowed by anyone?

I believe it would for reasons stated in my previous post. We are running a business, not a national park.

[Walking Buffalo]

I believe it would for reasons stated in my previous post. We are running a business, not a national park.

You speak the truth.
A business operating on Public land that excludes the Public.
Might as well turn that Public land into a National Park.

[Jagermeister]

I will ask you the same question as many others. If the ranch chose to let their irrigation supply go from these lakes and they reverted back to their original size, ( with deeded land to the lakeshore again) would there be any incentive for the general public to access said lakes?
Don’t tell me it can’t happen because it very well could.

No, we wouldn't be fishing them. We would be duck hunting them from a punt in the fall as that is a major flyway in BC And from what I was lead to believe,
Joe is not one to quote. Apparently, some of his testimony was a bit dubious. Instigated the first judge's field trip to the area.

And a far as a decision from three judges. Not so fast, it was Willcock and as I read it, (his decision) he wrote it and the other two rubber stamped it. Do you know how many pages long it is? Nothing more than a hodge podge. Makes me wonder if he is a DLCC client with preferential treatment?

And what about your ag leases? You are given the authority to deny people access which is keeping people from accessing crown land, not your land, crown land. I think it's time for the rest of us to follow up on Andrew Weaver's initiative to enact legislation under the Right to Roam.

Cattleman's Association members are just getting way too much for the amount of dollars they put into the system and no, what you folks lay down for lease fees is a piss in the bucket considering what you should be paying.

And let's not overlook the flagrant illegal gating on roads throughout the province. You can be assured that a vast majority of the gating is done by guides and ranchers (or a combination of both) and not bike riders, hikers and hunters.

And don't bother phoning me Mike. I'm not up to any bullshit. And I'm not referring to gcreek!

[Bugle M In]

In many areas of the world and the southern part of BC is no different, irrigation is needed to grow crops. Limiting water would result in fewer farmers growing less food, less food would increase prices at the grocery store. Is that something you would prefer?

Ranching and farming are businesses, they pay taxes, lease fees, water rights, huge hydro bills if they are pumping water, we are now being told we need to be charged for every litre of water we use for business, be it washing machinery or watering livestock.

I do realize the public also pays some taxes, utility bills etc, but no one volunteering to pay more for policing things like this...... the landowner, be it this rich, nasty American billionaire or Joe Farmer with 40 acres ends up footing the bill for garbage collection, loss of grass and crops when those few abuse the rules. If all people who support this kind of thing were responsible do you think there would be as much of a fight against it?

I can’t and won’t support any of the other side as our little place has been abused by the few idiots also. The responsible ones come to the house and ask. While this does take time and time is money, most get approval or at the least, directions to a good spot to hunt. Surprising how few want to walk any more.

I understand that and feel for you.
I know their are definitely asshats out there.
So from your "personal perspective", i get it, just so you know

[Bugle M In]

Funny thing about these 2 lakes is, they are both full Catch and Release (unless something changed??)
So, as far as impacting the overall quality of the fishing, there should be no concerns of "losing revenue due to samller trout"
which these lakes are known for, and still plentiful.

Yes, there might be a few "compelled to swindle" a few into their camps.
But things are different these days from days gone by, with many avid "catch and release" folks out on the water daily.
You would have to be a fool to think "no one is watching" and take some.
Premiere catch and release lakes don't go unnoticed by avid anglers and others "following the rules".

Extra Garbage, well, there might have to be an agreement between the R&G Club if access is eventually allowed by courts.
After all, it is the public and the club that wants access, so some responsibility should have to come with it, imo.