Lake access

[IronNoggin]

... if the fee is reasonable I think it puts an end to this...

According to their website it is now a non-staffed vacation rental property only at $1800/night for 8 rooms and 8 boats with a minimum stay of 2 nights (non-weekend).

Nog

[Rob Chipman]

Sounds totally reasonable for big shooters like you and me....

[gcreek]

KodiakHntr:

"If a resident wants to fish the lake they can, they just have to pay DLCC's fee to access it" Not sure how much the fee is, but if the fee is reasonable I think it puts an end to this - the fee respects private property plus allows reasonable access. If it's only unreasonable plaintiffs taking DLCC to court the legislature won't make any changes, but if the plaintiffs are reasonable/sympathetic *and* there's political advantage? Different story.


gcreek:

"you have no idea how fearful we are of the right to roam ideas". I can see your point. I get that you're fearful. You might be smart to be fearful, but you might not be so smart lining up squarely behind Kroenke. If legislators think he's being unreasonable and they see a political advantage to changing legislation he won't be the only one hurt as a result of this fight. He'll just be the guy who started the fight that hurt him....and you.

"Why do you think the whole agriculture community is in support of the decision?"

I have no opinion on that. I'm not sure its the case (lotta people in the agricultural community and I'm pretty sure you don't know them all) and I'm not sure why it's relevant. The court said "FNs need more evidence if they want to win in court, and non-FN as well as FNs can go to the legislature for a remedy"; courts and legislatures are decision makers. The ag community is not.

"All the land .... is deeded property...". We're still in BC, right? Most of it is still unceded, right? Indigenous title and fee simple are still thought to be incompatible, right? Law of the land as it stands at present, correct?

I've said it before: private property is not what some people think it is. A negotiated solution is probably wiser. I don't think this saga is over.

Do you have a status card Rob? You keep talking about unceeded land. DL has been in talks with local bands for several years now but that has absolutely nothing to do with resident Whiteys wanting access to a trophy fishing lake that is completely catch and release so quit trying to mix the two.

I hope that you ate today and I hope you thanked the farmers that produced what you ate.......

[gcreek]

Sounds totally reasonable for big shooters like you and me....

Only $112.50 apiece for 16 people, not bad for a couple days enjoyment and much cheaper and easier that court cases.

[IslandWanderer]

Only $112.50 apiece for 16 people, not bad for a couple days enjoyment and much cheaper and easier that court cases.

I have a hard time picturing 16 people all having the same time/days off to spend money to fish in what seems to be a public resource.

[adriaticum]

Okay, this makes a ton more sense to me now.
The issue is that your beliefs and assertions as noted above are completely incorrect.

There are 15 million acres of public land in the USA that are completely land locked with no public access. Hit up your googler with “Land Access Initiative”.


The term “public land” in BC doesn’t mean “useable all the time by the public”, it means that it is owned by the crown, it is part of the crown resources. It does NOT mean there is guaranteed public access. It merely means that title is held by the crown (“public”) for use as the crown (“public”) sees fit.

There hasn’t been some big conspiracy 100 years ago to keep people from fishing a pothole or palms greased, its simply that your understanding of what it means to have a crown resource (or “public land”) isn’t really accurate. Having the crown hold title to land doesn’t mean that you automatically have access.

Ok, that makes sense. You think I have the wrong idea of what "private property means".
At least we narrowed it down to 1 issue.
In fact it's your limited understanding of what private property means is the problem.
Unfortunately if you only know BC, you have the wrong idea of what private property is and how laws governing private property should look like.

[gcreek]

Unfortunately if you only know BC, you have the wrong idea of what private property is and how laws governing private property should look like.

There are many in this province who would say you are the one with mistaken ideas.

[adriaticum]

There are many in this province who would say you are the one with mistaken ideas.

Sure, I can live with that.
Everyone's mileage varies.

[KodiakHntr]

Ok, that makes sense. You think I have the wrong idea of what "private property means".
At least we narrowed it down to 1 issue.
In fact it's your limited understanding of what private property means is the problem.
Unfortunately if you only know BC, you have the wrong idea of what private property is and how laws governing private property should look like.

NOW we are getting somewhere. I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask if you have immigrated here from elsewhere? Or lived extensively outside of BC and Canada?

I guess I was mistaken in the understanding that DLCC was located in BC, and thereby governed under BC law and regulation.
In fact, I thought that the only laws pertaining to this particular court case were the ones that people of BC have to operate under. I guess that is a failure on MY part to understand what the laws of the province are in regards to private property where the actual property is located, because YOUR view is that BC should be modeled after access from different countries and different cultural norm's.

Ok, got it. MY bad.

[adriaticum]

NOW we are getting somewhere. I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask if you have immigrated here from elsewhere? Or lived extensively outside of BC and Canada?

I guess I was mistaken in the understanding that DLCC was located in BC, and thereby governed under BC law and regulation.
In fact, I thought that the only laws pertaining to this particular court case were the ones that people of BC have to operate under. I guess that is a failure on MY part to understand what the laws of the province are in regards to private property where the actual property is located, because YOUR view is that BC should be modeled after access from different countries and different cultural norm's.

Ok, got it. MY bad.

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.

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
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.
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.

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.

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.

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.
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?

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.