Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 157

Thread: Lake access

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    1,888

    Re: Lake access

    Gcreek:

    You're missing the point. I'm telling you that private property isn't quite the trump card some think it is. As you know (or should know) Indigenous title, once established, is thought to be incompatible to fee simple (which you seem keep calling "deeded land"). That's why I bring it up. DL being in talks with local bands is great. Good for them. If they don't negotiate something that makes both sides happy? They'll get what's given to them. IT's a government to government issue. Again, fee simple private property isn't as closed a case as you seem to think. As you've said "There are many in this province who would say [adriacitum is] the one with mistaken ideas" about private property in BC - that clearly applies to you as well. That's all I'm saying.

    It was an appeals court decision. That's a change from a lower court made by a mid level court. It is clearly baked into the cake that an appeals court judgement is not always the end of the story or definitive.

    Anything I ate today that was produced by a farmer was bought and paid for. I didn't thank a single one of them. And guess what? None of them thanked me for my money. Fair exchange between free capitalists. I love it.

    No, I don't have a status card. Why does that matter? Or is this the time when you say "Thanks for the honesty" and then go dark like you do when you ask who pays someone?
    Rob Chipman
    "The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
    "Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Northern BC
    Posts
    3,080

    Re: Lake access

    Quote Originally Posted by adriaticum View Post
    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.
    Check.

    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
    Check. Me either, but I'm with you so far.

    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.
    No check. It is possibly public domain, on the original area of the original lake bed. That in theory is owned by the Province. In theory one can land a helicopter on floats on the original footprint of the lake legally. There is also some case law that suggests that in similar situations where a lake has been artificially enlarged to a new high water mark via permanent structure (an earthen dam for instance) that the newly developed lake bed then becomes the property of the Province. Although there are some regulations and bureaucratic bullshit that goes on around that. Provincially owned property yes, mandated legal access, no.
    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.
    No check. That is your belief, and that's ok. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either assertion.

    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.
    No check, but not for the reason you think. You assume that I think I have private property. I am well aware of the freedoms I have on the lands that I reside on, and pay taxes on. I am well aware that I can kick a trespasser off of my property, and that I have free and reasonable use, but that is pretty much it.

    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.
    To be honest, I have no concept of where the ranch is. I have never been there. I have never driven through it. I have never set foot on ranch property. I've never even looked at it on a map, although this conversation has piqued my interest, as well as finding out recently (since this court case decision was made public) that my great great grandfather was a cowpuncher for a while there.

    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.
    Now we are in territory that I am intimately familiar with... Now, just because there is a logging access road built to access crown land, that does NOT mean that the Province had any input, financial or otherwise, in that road system. In fact, it is likely that the mill or licence tenure holder came to an agreement with the landowner for paid access to get to that crown owned land. This is VERY common between licencees and private landowners for various reasons - ie. shorter haul routes, land locked parcels of land, cheaper access route locations, unwillingness to use an existing road system (as in, maybe the guy who owns the property an existing road that accesses the crown land is making unreasonable financial demands on paid access, so I'll build a road 10 meters over on the neighbors place who is easier to deal with and being financially realistic and there is nothing he can do about it other than watch trucks go by).
    Those situations have less than nothing to do with the public (Province), simply that a company wanted access and came to an agreement with a landowner for paid access. (Incidentally, my understanding of landlocked crown land and how this all works legally isn't simply guessing on my part, a portion of my career over the last decade + has been dealing with this sort of stuff on a professional basis).
    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?
    Entirely probable that it is different and distinct classes of road tenure and status. Maybe some of those roads are not technically "roads". Maybe those were trails constructed by the ranch over time (or even before the ranch was a ranch) that never got tenured by the Province and so are technically still private land, that = legal gates. Maybe they were roads that were tenured, and at some point someone didn't renew the tenure when it expired and a savvy ranch manager applied for the road on behalf of DLCC and as such they would own the liability for the road and can control access, that = legal gates. And some of those roads WILL be Provincially owned/maintained/tenured and as such they are legal, public access. AND to further complicate some of this, some of the roads that are NOT owned by the Province may have agreements in place with the Province for maintenance that would be paid for or agreed upon based on some other criteria, but that doesn't mean that you can use that road.
    Just because a road exists in BC, even it if is on crown land, doesn't necessarily mean that you can drive on it. Or walk on it. Or use it for any reason. Some folks here will remember a thread by Curt about the Graham River road that is gated on the bridge on the Graham River. That road is ONLY in existence for the sole reason of resource extraction. Specifically, logs. As a member of the public you are not permitted to drive on that road or use that road for any purpose, and that is mandated by an agreement between the Province and the major licencee that built and maintains that road. The only vehicles and people that can legally be on that road are people actively employed for logging purposes, while they are logging.
    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.
    Well, couple things there. The Province DOES benefit from DLCC having people pay to fish there. That generates tax revenue. And likely more tax revenue than would have been directly generated by resident fishermen in the form of GST/PST/Hotel Tax etc for staying at the lodge.
    We don't know (for the purpose of this discussion at any rate) the status of the roads that were built. Are they publicly owned roads based on construction paid for by taxpayers? And remember, that may or may not have been the case. (Likely NOT the case, as that would be pretty simple to prove in court if the roads had been appraised against stumpage paid to the Province, and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all). Like I said before, just because a road exists, that doesn't give you the right or ability to travel on it.

    Regardless, convoluted shit, with a lot of aspects to be considered.


  3. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Vernon
    Posts
    1,573

    Re: Lake access

    Quote Originally Posted by KodiakHntr View Post
    Check.

    To be honest, I have no concept of where the ranch is. I have never been there. I have never driven through it. I have never set foot on ranch property. I've never even looked at it on a map, although this conversation has piqued my interest, as well as finding out recently (since this court case decision was made public) that my great great grandfather was a cowpuncher for a while there.

    Regardless, convoluted shit, with a lot of aspects to be considered.
    Haha, I didn't really know where this ranch is either. Thought further north but turns out it's not all that far from Vernon! Ima hafta take a drive up there when things warm up & check it out. So many lakes & places to fish it's a bit surprising there's such a kerfuffle over this 'pond'. But I admire the plaintiffs for their tenacity. Perhaps it's more about the principle, seems like it to me anyway.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Northern BC
    Posts
    3,080

    Re: Lake access

    Quote Originally Posted by mike31154 View Post
    Haha, I didn't really know where this ranch is either. Thought further north but turns out it's not all that far from Vernon! Ima hafta take a drive up there when things warm up & check it out. So many lakes & places to fish it's a bit surprising there's such a kerfuffle over this 'pond'. But I admire the plaintiffs for their tenacity. Perhaps it's more about the principle, seems like it to me anyway.
    I didn't realize it was that close to Vernon. Which is surprising to me, having grown up in Cherryville.

    That is definitely a big part of it, the principle of the matter. Which, I totally understand.


  5. #115
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    13,183

    Re: Lake access

    Kodiak, essentially we agree on most things, it's a matter of nuance.

    Yes there are all kinds of gates on that property and every gate/road that is private there is a sign and it's marked I respect that.
    By now you realize where I hunt and I know the area relatively well.
    Personally if I saw someone disrespecting DLCC lands or destroying it, I would take issue with that.
    But I never have. The few people I saw there are outstanding citizens.
    There are very few people who pass through there, it's not really all that good. Very spotty plus you can't walk in any direction without bumping into a fence.
    It's hard to keep track of public/private land so most people just avoid the area.
    So gcreek's argument that public just shit on the property and that's why they gated it, is bullshit.
    I think most people don't realize that this is the largest cattle ranch in Canada and one of the largest in the world. Maybe a largest piece of private property in Canada too.
    DLCC has a lot of sway in local politics for sure.
    Half of Thompson Nicola Regional Distring is DLCC (figure of speech)
    1. Human over population
    2. Government burden and overreach

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    13,183

    Re: Lake access

    Quote Originally Posted by mike31154 View Post
    Haha, I didn't really know where this ranch is either. Thought further north but turns out it's not all that far from Vernon! Ima hafta take a drive up there when things warm up & check it out. So many lakes & places to fish it's a bit surprising there's such a kerfuffle over this 'pond'. But I admire the plaintiffs for their tenacity. Perhaps it's more about the principle, seems like it to me anyway.

    It's the principle. Yes.
    Several lakes in the region have been "privatized" like this by corrupt backroom dealings and nobody's head rolled down the highway.
    It's gonna happen eventually.
    1. Human over population
    2. Government burden and overreach

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Alberni
    Posts
    14,218

    Thumbs up Re: Lake access

    Pressure on B.C. government to fix trespassing laws that favour U.S. billionaire and other landowners

    "Unlike other jurisdictions, British Columbia does not have public access legislation,' says judge, inspiring outdoors people to call for action.

    Environmentalists, lawyers and outdoors groups say B.C. judges have recently made it clear that it’s Victoria’s job to fix illogical laws that allow private property owners to keep anglers and hikers away from publicly owned lakes and rivers because they own the land surrounding the waterways.

    “It makes no sense to me that the Crown would retain ownership of the lakes, only for there to be no access because someone owns all the land surrounding the lake,” wrote the judge. “I have been a presider in the superior courts of British Columbia for close to 18 years and I have never felt the need until this case to comment to government … on a circumstance that has come before me with the hope of urging politicians to act.”

    Groves called on the B.C. government to revamp the Trespass Act. He told politicians in Victoria there is no point to the province owning lakes, lake beds and fish if public access can’t be regulated. “Consider doing what other jurisdictions have done and guarantee access to this precious resource.”

    https://vancouversun.com/opinion/col...her-landowners
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVNNhzkJ-UU&feature=related

    Egotistical, Self Centered, Son of a Bitch Killer that Doesn't Play Well With Others.

    Guess he got to Know me

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    1,888

    Re: Lake access

    ^^^^^

    Wow. Who saw that coming from a mile away? Gcreek, do you hear me now? All solved by a little neighbourliness on the part of Mr. Kroenke. (BTW, it wasn't me who saw it coming - as mentioned, I'm pretty sure it was the lawyer for the Cattleman's Association).
    Rob Chipman
    "The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
    "Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,617

    Re: Lake access

    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.

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    955

    Re: Lake access

    Quote Originally Posted by Walking Buffalo View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •