Lake access

[campking]

Just read this.
Douglas Todd: Us billionaire wins battle to keep anglers of his giant B.C. Ranch (Douglas lake) I think this has implications all over the province.

[gcreek]

Best news all year!

[bearvalley]

Best news all year!
I agree!
Private property is private property.
We haven’t gone complete commie yet.

[rred]

i agree!
Private property is private property.
We haven’t gone complete commie yet.
x2.............

[IronNoggin]

Worst possible news for those of us on the Island wanting access to our own back country...

Sad Day,
Nog

[Bubbacanuck]

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.

[campking]

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.
This is how I see it also

[warnniklz]

Can we rent whirly birds and get dropped in with belly boats?

[adriaticum]

I agree!
Private property is private property.
We haven’t gone complete commie yet.
its not private property

[Pioneerman]

its not private property


You can say this, but how can we get proof that it is not owned and private ? As for the island we all know it has been owned and private longer than most of us have been alive. Just no one likes changes, we all feel the same

[835]

There has got to be some sort of regulation created where if a company or person owns over a certain size of land they have to allow some sort of access. Maybe its from this point forward, I dont know. But at some point when you own 1000's and 1000's of acers it has to change.

[IronNoggin]

... As for the island we all know it has been owned and private longer than most of us have been alive.

No. It's Not.
There are a great many examples wherein the timber companies have been denying access (via publicly funded roads) to public lands, lakes, parks and more. Even gating access to private gun ranges on land they DO NOT OWN!

Educate yourself.

This case is rather similar IMO.
Piss poor Precedence setting.

Nog

[bearvalley]

There has got to be some sort of regulation created where if a company or person owns over a certain size of land they have to allow some sort of access. Maybe its from this point forward, I dont know. But at some point when you own 1000's and 1000's of acers it has to change.
Why?
Does it matter if someone saves and buys more land than the next guy?
Private is private....you earn that right when your names on the check making the land purchase.
What your saying is no different than stating the guy with a big house should let a freeloader camp in the basement.

[bearvalley]

its not private property
Looks like the courts blew the wind out of that argument.

[835]

Why?
Does it matter if someone saves and buys more land than the next guy?
Private is private....you earn that right when your names on the check making the land purchase.
What your saying is no different than stating the guy with a big house should let a freeloader camp in the basement.

If your going to argue use a proper argument. What I suggested most defiantly is different than "stating the guy with a big house should let a freeloader camp in the basement" or ""
unlike you I think the government should make " Future" massive land owners/companies have to allow public access.. because unlike you I think its wrong to be able to own and lock that much land.
and this is not about saving money. That is an absolutely ridiculous comparison.

You see I understand where you come from. I also totally disagree. your simplification of it is totally off base and out of perspective.

[IronNoggin]

... I also totally disagree. your simplification of it is totally off base and out of perspective.

Be careful my Friend!
You do know what happens when you wrestle with a pig right?

Cheers,
Nog

[bearvalley]

If your going to argue use a proper argument. What I suggested most defiantly is different than "stating the guy with a big house should let a freeloader camp in the basement" or ""
unlike you I think the government should make " Future" massive land owners/companies have to allow public access.. because unlike you I think its wrong to be able to own and lock that much land.
and this is not about saving money. That is an absolutely ridiculous comparison.

You see I understand where you come from. I also totally disagree. your simplification of it is totally off base and out of perspective.
You tell me the difference between someone’s front yard, another guys 100 acres and 5000 acres of private property.
I’m not off base at all....sorry but socialism isn’t my thing.

[bearvalley]

Be careful my Friend!
You do know what happens when you wrestle with a pig right?

Cheers,
Nog
Meaning what Matt?

[adriaticum]

Looks like the courts blew the wind out of that argument.



Bearvalley, read the god damn article.

[bearvalley]

Bearvalley, read the god damn article.
Read it.
It seems 3 judges didn’t agree with the first ones right to roam mentality.

[Beachcomber]

Here is the link to the judgement for anyone interested in how it was arrived at: https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/21/00/2021BCCA0099.htm#_Toc65246410

Summary:
The trial judgment gave the public access to two lakes on the appellant, DLCC’s property. DLCC challenges the judge’s determination that a road and a trail on the property were excepted from an 1895 Crown grant and that there is public access to both lakes. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The road in question was excepted from the Crown grant; however, because the trail was not excepted from the Crown grant and the elements of common law dedication are not met, the trail is not a public way. The trial judge erred in determining the natural boundary of one lake by failing to address the applicable statutory criteria. The public road at issue does not reach the natural boundary of either lake, as defined by survey. The Trespass Act permits DLCC to prohibit the public from crossing its property, including its land under water. The lakes in question are not navigable and no case for access to the shoreline as a right appurtenant to the right to navigate is made out. A public interest costs order against DLCC and the respondent Province was also set aside, with each party ordered to bear their own costs at trial.

[Rob Chipman]

Worst possible news for those of us on the Island wanting access to our own back country...

Sad Day,
Nog

Worst possible news for anyone who didn't marry an heir of the WalMart clan. Glad to know the diehard capitalists are down with the guys who profit from ChiCom slave labour.

[sames14]

Its nice that our fishing license monies went to stocking these lakes so they can charge people to fish them.

[835]

Bear valley...
Are you then, ok with people buying BC?
Because as you state it. And as much money as some people have.. it can happen.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Worst possible news for anyone who didn't marry an heir of the WalMart clan. Glad to know the diehard capitalists are down with the guys who profit from ChiCom slave labour.

Yup Both the DLCC and Walmart can go Phuck themselves - NOT that they could CARE less how BC Taxpayers - Residents think ! jmo RJ

[stan]

Yup Both the DLCC and Walmart can go Phuck themselves - NOT that they could CARE less how BC Taxpayers - Residents think ! jmo RJ
100 percent agree

[bearvalley]

Bear valley...
Are you then, ok with people buying BC?
Because as you state it. And as much money as some people have.. it can happen.
To tell you the honest truth, I’d rather DLCC had remained under Canadian ownership like it was in the Chunky Woodward days.
Chunky was hands on, on the ranch.
DLCC seems to have drawn a lot of attention due to these 2 lakes and rightfully so.
I have bigger issues with Canadian ranch ownership ....it’s burnt me for years that the Gang Ranch is under Saudi ownership.....but who are we to say who buys what.
At least the Gangs got an excellent manager in place.
This entire DLCC case is not about who owns it....it’s about legalities.
If the access was indeed public I’d be as bent over the decision as you.
If the road is not an access that puts the public to the lake without crossing private dirt I would side with the owner of said property.
I do not believe in freedom to roam someone else’s private land.
I’m old school and firmly believe if someone wants to access private property it’s a simple as knocking on a door or picking up the phone.
You might get a yes, you might get a no.
At least you would be being respectful.
On that I’m done with this cry baby thread.
To bad the money pissed away on this lawsuit hadn’t been put to a useful fish or wildlife project.

[bearvalley]

your a frickin idiot
That the best you got mouthpiece?
Some of you clowns don’t really get the private property deal....you got something I can use?

[HarryToolips]

There are easements within cities on private property, in order to provide access or right of ways for various utilities or other infrastructure...it would be nice if the the govt could employ the same idea with access roads or paths to crown land or crown lakes through private property....

[Treed]

Wait a hundred years until BC is like Europe or Texas and most land is privately owned by the super rich or under some resource tenure or controlled by aboriginals. Have fun practicing your family’s traditional practices hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing, gathering etc. on parcel stamps of land. By then the squabbles of the rabble (which we are to them) will be too late. We are blessed with large expansive public lands. Currently. Don’t think that these lands will continue in perpetuity without a fight to maintain and improve access.

[Asp]

your a frickin idiot

wild guess. Your a condo owner?

[Treed]

wild guess. Your a condo owner?

well chosen moniker.

[IslandWanderer]

Why?
Does it matter if someone saves and buys more land than the next guy?
Private is private....you earn that right when your names on the check making the land purchase.
What your saying is no different than stating the guy with a big house should let a freeloader camp in the basement.

He doesn't seem to own the lake. Wouldn't an easement have been a good option?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement

[gcreek]

He doesn't seem to own the lake. Wouldn't an easement have been a good option?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement

They own much of the land under the lakes as they have irrigation dams on them. Joe Gardner showed me photos of both areas from years back. They were a fraction the size they are today.

The private property issue is simple, private is private. Regardless whether it is an apartment or 200,000 acres. I will guarantee you would be quite upset if I was to walk into your home without warning or knocking. Who owns this private property is also a moot point, there are hundreds of thousands of properties and homes in Canada owned by non residents and immigrants.

[IslandWanderer]

They own much of the land under the lakes as they have irrigation dams on them. Joe Gardner showed me photos of both areas from years back. They were a fraction the size they are today.

The private property issue is simple, private is private. Regardless whether it is an apartment or 200,000 acres. I will guarantee you would be quite upset if I was to walk into your home without warning or knocking. Who owns this private property is also a moot point, there are hundreds of thousands of properties and homes in Canada owned by non residents and immigrants.

Does this mean that a fraction of the lakes are indeed still publicly owned?

[Ride Red]

To tell you the honest truth, I’d rather DLCC had remained under Canadian ownership like it was in the Chunky Woodward days.
Chunky was hands on, on the ranch.
DLCC seems to have drawn a lot of attention due to these 2 lakes and rightfully so.
I have bigger issues with Canadian ranch ownership ....it’s burnt me for years that the Gang Ranch is under Saudi ownership.....but who are we to say who buys what.
At least the Gangs got an excellent manager in place.
This entire DLCC case is not about who owns it....it’s about legalities.
If the access was indeed public I’d be as bent over the decision as you.
If the road is not an access that puts the public to the lake without crossing private dirt I would side with the owner of said property.
I do not believe in freedom to roam someone else’s private land.
I’m old school and firmly believe if someone wants to access private property it’s a simple as knocking on a door or picking up the phone.
You might get a yes, you might get a no.
At least you would be being respectful.
On that I’m done with this cry baby thread.
To bad the money pissed away on this lawsuit hadn’t been put to a useful fish or wildlife project.


They own much of the land under the lakes as they have irrigation dams on them. Joe Gardner showed me photos of both areas from years back. They were a fraction the size they are today.

The private property issue is simple, private is private. Regardless whether it is an apartment or 200,000 acres. I will guarantee you would be quite upset if I was to walk into your home without warning or knocking. Who owns this private property is also a moot point, there are hundreds of thousands of properties and homes in Canada owned by non residents and immigrants.

^^^^^^^^ Good posts. Until you actually own property, you won’t fully understand what private ownership means. We had people trying to cross our farmland without permission, I’ve had people walk onto my personal property without permission; most times these conversations end up heated because people feel entitled.

[Grizzlydick]

can always suck the water out. or helo in and fish, just don't touch dirt...

[adriaticum]

your a frickin idiot
dude, if you want to hurl insults facebook might be your thing. we here are almost all over 16

[IronNoggin]

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...

[Rob Chipman]

I read somewhere the the lawyer for the Cattleman's Association was commenting about how a common law right of access might be the solution....as in, if you want private property don't be a dick about it. Kroenke isn't the only one happy about this. Andrew Weaver is also happy, 'cause Kroenke just re-fuelled the Right to Roam issue. I think the Catlleman's Assoc lawyer saw that coming a long way off.

I'm siding with IronNoggin - this saga is far from over.

[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.

[sames14]

What? Those who have bought a freshwater fishing license the past few years have contributed to stalking those lakes. And believe me if Brian Chan is fishing there then they are or have been stocked and paid for by our freshwater license dollars. It is like fighting with BC Hydro and their promise to maintain a healthy fishery but they do as they please because environment or fish populations is not at all on their agenda.

[Redthies]

And I doubt it is/was legal to flood that crown land.pull your heads outta your asses , no money no play is where it’s heading quickly

You need to pull your head out! THE ONLY PUBLIC LAND, WAS THE LAKE. Any flooded land was their own private land.

Adiraticum summed it up well in post #48. If DLCC would allow an easement to the lakes, it would be an easy solution, but that it has being American owners, that’s not going to happen without a high court decision.

I’ve witnessed the same thing on a small scale in Whistler. There were mistakes made in the survey done originally, and an entire side of a street was laid out with property lines off by about 20’. Nobody made a fuss, and everyone just dealt with it until two lawyersfrom California bought a place there. My friend drove home from work to find survey ribbons in the middle of his driveway. A week later, after a couple of short and curt phone conversations, the American couple hired an excavation company to build a rock wall right down the middle of my friend’s driveway. He now has a one car driveway, and no access to his backyard with a vehicle. His property is steep and rocky, so to make any improvements would mean drilling and blasting within 10’ of his house. It sucks, but legally he can’t do anything.

[Beachcomber]

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?

I don't see why doing that would be in the DLR's interest. Why would Kroenke go all gangsta ("Nice lake you have there, wouldn't want anything to happen to it, would we?") and alienate the province? He needs to work with authorities on other issues so going nuclear on this one would just be stupid. Lake access does not have to mean that everyone with an RV rolls up and throws a line out. There are lots of ways to limit use without completely excluding public access. You could, for example, manage the lake as a trophy lake and require a special permit to fish it. I am sure that would offend purists on both sides of the debate but looking for a middle ground makes sense.

[Beachcomber]

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.

Understood.

[REMINGTON JIM]

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?

This is VERY Interesting - and it does take lot's of MONEY to go to Court - I'm Sure the DLCR is in a far better financial position then the Club ! :( RJ

[horshur]

Club owes money to a anti hunting environment law firm. Serves them right stupid battle a waste of resources. Pick your battles.

[Rob Chipman]

Gcreek wrote: "Let’s pray that never happens for any land owner in this country."

Ummm...hate to break it to you, but that ship has sailed, repeatedly, many times in the past, and will continue to do so.

[IronNoggin]

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.

You and your "familiarity" with the situation tend to put quite the spin on things at times. Always nice to drop a name or two in support of such spins, but in actuality, that doesn't pass the smell test.

FYI: The DLR hasn’t stocked the lakes since 2018. You can find the reports here:

https://www.gofishbc.com/Stocked-Fish/Detailed-Report.aspx?region=THOMPSON-NICOLA&waterbody=MINNIE%7CSTONEY&start=3/7/2016&end=3/7/2021

The provincial government is doing a much better and more scientific approach than the ranch. Prior to the total kill on Minnie, that lake had been so rampantly overstocked (20,000+ per year according to the ranch) that the fish were stunted, yellow-hued, lesion covered slinks.


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.

Another deflection?
Might want to check into just what FN rights are even with those angling restrictions in place.

And btw, draining the lakes is one of the stupidest comments you have ever made.
Fastest way to get the ranch charged, and that would happen.
Period.

Try to get it straight next time...

Nog

[gcreek]

You and your "familiarity" with the situation tend to put quite the spin on things at times. Always nice to drop a name or two in support of such spins, but in actuality, that doesn't pass the smell test.

FYI: The DLR hasn’t stocked the lakes since 2018. You can find the reports here:

https://www.gofishbc.com/Stocked-Fish/Detailed-Report.aspx?region=THOMPSON-NICOLA&waterbody=MINNIE%7CSTONEY&start=3/7/2016&end=3/7/2021

The provincial government is doing a much better and more scientific approach than the ranch. Prior to the total kill on Minnie, that lake had been so rampantly overstocked (20,000+ per year according to the ranch) that the fish were stunted, yellow-hued, lesion covered slinks.



Another deflection?
Might want to check into just what FN rights are even with those angling restrictions in place.

And btw, draining the lakes is one of the stupidest comments you have ever made.
Fastest way to get the ranch charged, and that would happen.
Period.

Try to get it straight next time...

Nog

You make me laugh, Joe Gardner and I have been friends for 35 years, he has never and has not any reason to tell me anything but the truth. Your biased hate of successful people really shows Sir.

We did talk about the person who is responsible for managing the provinces fishery and did ask DLR how they were managing their trophy lakes as well as they were. The result of that meeting was shutting down ice fishing and having catch and release rules put in place on several lakes in the province.

Considering they have the water rights in that area they can drain and fill the lakes as they choose to. Looks like you are running out of intelligence when the insults come out Matt.

[IronNoggin]

You make me laugh, Joe Gardner and I have been friends for 35 years, he has never and has not not any reason to tell me anything but the truth. Your biased hate of successful people really shows Sir.

https://www.tnof.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/ROFLMAO.gif

Typical. Caught in an obvious lie, you then deflect by attempting to smear the messenger.
You certainly do view the world through strange eyeglasses Dave.

Nog

[gcreek]

https://www.tnof.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/ROFLMAO.gif

Typical. Caught in an obvious lie, you then deflect by attempting to smear the messenger.
You certainly do view the world through strange eyeglasses Dave.

Nog

Do you deny they stocked previous to 2018? Do you know why or what trade was made to have the govt. stock the lake? Some things aren’t always made public. I will keep that part to myself.

[adriaticum]

Do you deny they stocked previous to 2018? Do you know why or what trade was made to have the govt. stock the lake? Some things aren’t always made public. I will keep that part to myself.


gcreek, you are peddling irrelevant nonsense.
You keep avoiding real questions.

the question is, if you have a piece of property that is only accessible by going through my property, should I give you access to it?

[stoneramhunter]

If the lake is not in a park. I’ believe I Could land a plane on the public lake and fish all day. Many parks do not have restrictions re floatplane landing on lake. Maybe I’ll check it out.

[Blacktail1]

Is it such a big deal to get permission to cross said property?

[adriaticum]

Is it such a big deal to get permission to cross said property?
It's difficult when politicians are on the payroll of the rich foreign land owner.

[gcreek]

gcreek, you are peddling irrelevant nonsense.
You keep avoiding real questions.

the question is, if you have a piece of property that is only accessible by going through my property, should I give you access to it?

Not if you choose not to. I know of an instance where unfortunate individuals bought property without researching in full access to said property . They were forced to apply to the government to build a more costly road in order to not use an existing but not legal way of getting to their property. So yes, you can refuse.

I did read what Matt posted, so we do have a when but we definitely do not have a why. Do we?

[gcreek]

It's difficult when politicians are on the payroll of the rich foreign land owner.

Can you say that with complete surety? I cannot because I do not know and likely one would never find out if it was true.

[REMINGTON JIM]

If the lake is not in a park. I’ believe I Could land a plane on the public lake and fish all day. Many parks do not have restrictions re floatplane landing on lake. Maybe I’ll check it out.

Yes when i was young we could fly into and fish the lakes in " Wells Grey Park " - Then some phucking flower sniffing canoeist POLITICIAN :twisted: got air craft banned from landing in the park ! :mad: RJ

[adriaticum]

Can you say that with complete surety? I cannot because I do not know and likely one would never find out if it was true.

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.

[adriaticum]

Not if you choose not to. I know of an instance where unfortunate individuals bought property without researching in full access to said property . They were forced to apply to the government to build a more costly road in order to not use an existing but not legal way of getting to their property. So yes, you can refuse.



This question is in fact at the heart of this issue.
In most jurisdictions you can not have private property without access.
But in BC, apparently there are instances of this. I guess we are still wild west.

[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?

[gcreek]

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.

That is exactly what the ranch did and now you want access. Also, if another lake is created, the laws of BC will declare it public property also.

Let’s put a different spin on this, rather than spending all this money on lawyers, why didn’t the club and those in support buy their own property and create their own fishing paradise? If they expect DL to provide the opportunity, why not do it themselves? Oh well, what’s $300,000 plus a bunch more when it isn’t your money.......

When you have some on this site threatening to shoot cattle it really gives ranchers a warm, fuzzy feeling to let strangers access private lands.

[Surrey Boy]

That is exactly what the ranch did and now you want access. Also, if another lake is created, the laws of BC will declare it public property also.

Let’s put a different spin on this, rather than spending all this money on lawyers, why didn’t the club and those in support buy their own property and create their own fishing paradise? If they expect DL to provide the opportunity, why not do it themselves? Oh well, what’s $300,000 plus a bunch more when it isn’t your money.......

That turns the outdoorsman image from one of common, virtuous, family folks to an elite hobby.

We don't want to end up like British fox hunters.

[adriaticum]

That is exactly what the ranch did and now you want access. Also, if another lake is created, the laws of BC will declare it public property also.

Let’s put a different spin on this, rather than spending all this money on lawyers, why didn’t the club and those in support buy their own property and create their own fishing paradise? If they expect DL to provide the opportunity, why not do it themselves? Oh well, what’s $300,000 plus a bunch more when it isn’t your money.......

When you have some on this site threatening to shoot cattle it really gives ranchers a warm, fuzzy feeling to let strangers access private lands.


What did the ranch do?

[KodiakHntr]

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.

Well you will have to forgive me for thinking it was an emotional issue for you given some of your borderline violent comments. Certainly not a rational, well thought out discourse on the subject at any rate.

As far as simple matter of reasoning and common sense, it IS simple. There is no legal public road access to the lake in question. The owner has opted to not let the public enter his property for whatever reasons he has, and that is across the board. No access to pick wildflowers, no access to ride a dirtbike, no access to hunt, no access to fish. That is his right as a property owner.

Several (hundred?) thousand people in this province own lake and river front property. If it is navigable the public is legally entitled to use that water feature. Landowners aren't legally allowed to stop you floating past their property on an innertube drinking beer in July, but they do NOT have to allow you access through their land to get to the river or lake if there isn't a legal access route owned by the province. Just because Ol' Billy Bob has a boat launch on his lake front property that starts at the end of his driveway doesn't mean that you can wheel your bass boat down there and launch it beside his dock just because he has a road that goes there. There is no difference in this situation. Just because Miss Mable has a foot trail that goes over to a river side beach and fire pit that starts in her back yard doesn't mean you can walk down her driveway to use it.
She can't stop you from legally landing your tube and sitting on that beach as long as you stay below the high water mark, but she doesn't have to let you cross the property to get there.

Access is the only thing that has any relevance to the issue with this lake and DLCC. Who stocked it when or who used to be allowed to go there is mostly just noise, and not really directly relevant at this point given the timelines involved. Is there a legal Crown owned road to the lake shore in question? Not according to the landowner and the court given the current decision. What were the laws when it was purchased? - lake access wasn't a consideration then. No law broken then.

I truly hope that everyone involved in this understands what kind of far reaching implications that litigation and precedent setting case law could occur here.

[Rob Chipman]

Access is the only thing that has any relevance to the issue with this lake and DLCC. Who stocked it when or who used to be allowed to go there is mostly just noise....I truly hope that everyone involved in this understands what kind of far reaching implications that litigation and precedent setting case law could occur here.


I think that's right.

Put it another way - if Kroenke let people go through his land nobody would be upset, and there would be no court case over who did what when.

By the same token, mind you, "Is there a legal Crown owned road to the lake shore in question? Not according to the landowner and the court given the current decision. What were the laws when it was purchased? - lake access wasn't a consideration then. No law broken then" also sounds just like noise to me, precisely because of what you're saying this is about: access.

Rights aren't *created* by government or by law - governments can only recognize or deny rights. Different rights conflict with each other, and must be resolved, and government certainly has a role there.

Does anyone have a right to access the lakes across private property? Anyone who says that they do has to demonstrate that right enough that government (either in the courts or the legislature) recognizes it. If the little guys who want to cross DLCC's land to access the lakes proves in court that the right exists, DLCC is in trouble (and there is still more legal road to go down should the parties want to).

If they don't prove the right and get it recognized through the courts?

They've still got the legislature. As Kodiakhnter observes: "I truly hope that everyone involved in this understands what kind of far reaching implications that litigation and precedent setting case law could occur here".

An easement or right of way, formal or informal, between DLCC and the public is one thing (its restricted and site specific).

A ruling in court *or* an new law/change of existing law is a completely different thing. (Some of us remember when abortion was 100% illegal in Canada. Now it's 100% legal. The SCC threw out a law prohibiting abortion *on the grounds that it violated women's rights* and told Parliament it figure it out.

That was 1988.

Don't want someone walking through your ranch, gcreek? You better hope Kroenke wins in court *and* among the NDP.

[adriaticum]

Well you will have to forgive me for thinking it was an emotional issue for you given some of your borderline violent comments. Certainly not a rational, well thought out discourse on the subject at any rate.

As far as simple matter of reasoning and common sense, it IS simple. There is no legal public road access to the lake in question. The owner has opted to not let the public enter his property for whatever reasons he has, and that is across the board. No access to pick wildflowers, no access to ride a dirtbike, no access to hunt, no access to fish. That is his right as a property owner.

Several (hundred?) thousand people in this province own lake and river front property. If it is navigable the public is legally entitled to use that water feature. Landowners aren't legally allowed to stop you floating past their property on an innertube drinking beer in July, but they do NOT have to allow you access through their land to get to the river or lake if there isn't a legal access route owned by the province. Just because Ol' Billy Bob has a boat launch on his lake front property that starts at the end of his driveway doesn't mean that you can wheel your bass boat down there and launch it beside his dock just because he has a road that goes there. There is no difference in this situation. Just because Miss Mable has a foot trail that goes over to a river side beach and fire pit that starts in her back yard doesn't mean you can walk down her driveway to use it.
She can't stop you from legally landing your tube and sitting on that beach as long as you stay below the high water mark, but she doesn't have to let you cross the property to get there.

Access is the only thing that has any relevance to the issue with this lake and DLCC. Who stocked it when or who used to be allowed to go there is mostly just noise, and not really directly relevant at this point given the timelines involved. Is there a legal Crown owned road to the lake shore in question? Not according to the landowner and the court given the current decision. What were the laws when it was purchased? - lake access wasn't a consideration then. No law broken then.

I truly hope that everyone involved in this understands what kind of far reaching implications that litigation and precedent setting case law could occur here.


Kodiak, I don't think you understand the issue at all.
You keep repeating status quo, which makes me believe you are not understanding the core of the problem.

I am not questioning the right of private land owners from prohibiting the public from accessing their property.
Maybe you need to re-read this thread from the beginning.
I'm exhausted explaining this.

[adriaticum]

The issue is not with the DLCC.
This issue is directed squarely at BC Government.
That's why expecting that BC government will act to rectify the issue is ridiculous.

[Walking Buffalo]

Why pick on the Lord when trying to establish common law or set precedent in the courts?

These legal wars are not strategically well thought out.

[Petros65]

I think the point is "access". This is not about someone setting up camp in your home. This is about allowing the citizens of a country to access resources that we all "own" and have a right to use. If there is a huge bush fire on this mans land its out tax money that will fund the fire fighting initiatives.

The Nordic countries/ Scotland etc have a awesome solution. Its called the right to roam, which has nothing to do with socialism (or any other ism that some like to scare us with).

The Right to Roam is an ancient custom that allows anyone to wander in open countryside, whether the land is privately or publicly owned. In countries such as Norway, Sweden, Estonia and Scotland it has existed as a common right, a defining concept of nationhood, and has only recently been codified into law.

This does not apply to your house and immediate garden. It applies to huge tracts of land that in no way impeded or disturb the land owner.

How would you feel if this land was owned by some senior Republic of China government officials, and they decided to allow only Chinese people to access the land and fish on the lakes?

Would you still be ok with it?




You tell me the difference between someone’s front yard, another guys 100 acres and 5000 acres of private property.
I’m not off base at all....sorry but socialism isn’t my thing.

[gcreek]

What did the ranch do?

Both lakes were expanded in size artificially behind irrigation dams. DLR also holds the water rights. They can store water and release as much as they need. I have stated this several times before. I believe Minnie lakes was increased in size from approximately 30 to 40 acres of shallow swamp to 200 acres + or - All the land that surrounded the original lake is deeded property, now under water.

[gcreek]

I think that's right.

Put it another way - if Kroenke let people go through his land nobody would be upset, and there would be no court case over who did what when.

By the same token, mind you, "Is there a legal Crown owned road to the lake shore in question? Not according to the landowner and the court given the current decision. What were the laws when it was purchased? - lake access wasn't a consideration then. No law broken then" also sounds just like noise to me, precisely because of what you're saying this is about: access.

Rights aren't *created* by government or by law - governments can only recognize or deny rights. Different rights conflict with each other, and must be resolved, and government certainly has a role there.

Does anyone have a right to access the lakes across private property? Anyone who says that they do has to demonstrate that right enough that government (either in the courts or the legislature) recognizes it. If the little guys who want to cross DLCC's land to access the lakes proves in court that the right exists, DLCC is in trouble (and there is still more legal road to go down should the parties want to).

If they don't prove the right and get it recognized through the courts?

They've still got the legislature. As Kodiakhnter observes: "I truly hope that everyone involved in this understands what kind of far reaching implications that litigation and precedent setting case law could occur here".

An easement or right of way, formal or informal, between DLCC and the public is one thing (its restricted and site specific).

A ruling in court *or* an new law/change of existing law is a completely different thing. (Some of us remember when abortion was 100% illegal in Canada. Now it's 100% legal. The SCC threw out a law prohibiting abortion *on the grounds that it violated women's rights* and told Parliament it figure it out.

That was 1988.

Don't want someone walking through your ranch, gcreek? You better hope Kroenke wins in court *and* among the NDP.


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

[gcreek]

I think the point is "access". This is not about someone setting up camp in your home. This is about allowing the citizens of a country to access resources that we all "own" and have a right to use. If there is a huge bush fire on this mans land its out tax money that will fund the fire fighting initiatives.

The Nordic countries/ Scotland etc have a awesome solution. Its called the right to roam, which has nothing to do with socialism (or any other ism that some like to scare us with).

The Right to Roam is an ancient custom that allows anyone to wander in open countryside, whether the land is privately or publicly owned. In countries such as Norway, Sweden, Estonia and Scotland it has existed as a common right, a defining concept of nationhood, and has only recently been codified into law.

This does not apply to your house and immediate garden. It applies to huge tracts of land that in no way impeded or disturb the land owner.

How would you feel if this land was owned by some senior Republic of China government officials, and they decided to allow only Chinese people to access the land and fish on the lakes?

Would you still be ok with it?




Until you have needlessly picked garbage left by others, had your livestock harassed or killed, had fields driven through before harvesting, had people shoot towards your house and many other little activities that those with the entitlement ideas going through their heads do, you have no idea how fearful we are of the right to roam ideas.

[KodiakHntr]

I think the point is "access". This is not about someone setting up camp in your home. This is about allowing the citizens of a country to access resources that we all "own" and have a right to use. If there is a huge bush fire on this mans land its out tax money that will fund the fire fighting initiatives.

The Nordic countries/ Scotland etc have a awesome solution. Its called the right to roam, which has nothing to do with socialism (or any other ism that some like to scare us with).

The Right to Roam is an ancient custom that allows anyone to wander in open countryside, whether the land is privately or publicly owned. In countries such as Norway, Sweden, Estonia and Scotland it has existed as a common right, a defining concept of nationhood, and has only recently been codified into law.

This does not apply to your house and immediate garden. It applies to huge tracts of land that in no way impeded or disturb the land owner.

How would you feel if this land was owned by some senior Republic of China government officials, and they decided to allow only Chinese people to access the land and fish on the lakes?

Would you still be ok with it?



I didn't see anywhere in that where it states that DLCC has restricted resident anglers from fishing the lake... Just that they don't let anyone cross the property to GET to the lake. If a resident wants to fish the lake they can, they just have to pay DLCC's fee to access it, or land on it with a helicopter on floats I assume. Nobody owns airspace, and nobody owns the area of the original lake.

That fee to access the lake has zero difference in my mind from someone knocking on my door and asking if they can shoot a deer on my land (the deer being a Crown asset) and I tell them sure, but the trespass fee is $2000. Perfectly legal in BC for me to charge a fee to access my land to hunt animals that belong to the Crown, so the precedent is already set.

[adriaticum]

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


For the same reason the whole agricultural community loves slavery, (temporary foreign workers).
For the same reason this country is going to shit in a hurry.
Some people can't be bothered to think and others have nothing to think with.
I don't want to blame the whole agricultural community and only them for this.
It's a complex problem created by government.
But we are way passed having the ability to think.

[KodiakHntr]

Kodiak, I don't think you understand the issue at all.
You keep repeating status quo, which makes me believe you are not understanding the core of the problem.

I am not questioning the right of private land owners from prohibiting the public from accessing their property.
Maybe you need to re-read this thread from the beginning.
I'm exhausted explaining this.


You keep beeping after posting this, but I have yet to see any of your posts that even come close to a coherent discussion. So why don't you, please, lay out exactly what YOU think the issue is - clearly and concisely - so we can discuss it?

[adriaticum]

You keep beeping after posting this, but I have yet to see any of your posts that even come close to a coherent discussion. So why don't you, please, lay out exactly what YOU think the issue is - clearly and concisely - so we can discuss it?


As I already wrote:
Some facts.
1. Stoney lake and Minnie Lake a public lakes.
2. All the land around the lakes is private property and DLCC has the right to allow or not who passes through their property.

These items are not in question.

What's in question is how do you have something you call "public land" and you can't access it?
What's in question is what idiot can claim something is "public" and not ensure that public has access?
In other words if some government oversight has created a situation where you have public land that is inaccessible, should the government work with the land owner to correct that oversight?

Those are the questions this lawsuit is trying to answer.

You talk about how you have a lake surrounded with private property so you can use the lake but you can't step on the land should give you some indication of what you are missing.
There are many lakes and rivers that have tons of private property around them that we can access the water but not the land.
But there is always one road that is public that will allow access to that body of water.
In the US you have tons of lakes that a public but fully surrounded by private property, but there is always 1 public park, 1 boat launch and 1 road that allows public to access that body of water.
If you want to call that body of water public.

Somebody has greased some public official's pocket to overlook the fact that there was no road access to the public land.
This is a tactic some land owners use to secure free land for the future,
because people remember it being public wouldn't stand for it in the present.

[Linksman313]

.. Just that they don't let anyone cross the property to GET to the lake. If a resident wants to fish the lake they can, they just have to pay DLCC's fee to access it,

Been doing my best to keep up with the subject, will truly probably never understand the in's and out's of the public/private land legaleze, but the above quote would be the end for me, show up at DLCC with some scratch or a bottle (maybe offer the cookhouse some of the catch of the day?) and get fishing. Did this literally hundreds of times hunting Hutterite land in AB. (substitute a 5th wheel full of hay/feed for the bottle of course in their case)

Links

[Rob Chipman]

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.

[KodiakHntr]

As I already wrote:
Some facts.
1. Stoney lake and Minnie Lake a public lakes.
2. All the land around the lakes is private property and DLCC has the right to allow or not who passes through their property.

These items are not in question.

What's in question is how do you have something you call "public land" and you can't access it?
What's in question is what idiot can claim something is "public" and not ensure that public has access?
In other words if some government oversight has created a situation where you have public land that is inaccessible, should the government work with the land owner to correct that oversight?

Those are the questions this lawsuit is trying to answer.

You talk about how you have a lake surrounded with private property so you can use the lake but you can't step on the land should give you some indication of what you are missing.
There are many lakes and rivers that have tons of private property around them that we can access the water but not the land.
But there is always one road that is public that will allow access to that body of water.
In the US you have tons of lakes that a public but fully surrounded by private property, but there is always 1 public park, 1 boat launch and 1 road that allows public to access that body of water.
If you want to call that body of water public.

Somebody has greased some public official's pocket to overlook the fact that there was no road access to the public land.
This is a tactic some land owners use to secure free land for the future,
because people remember it being public wouldn't stand for it in the present.


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.

[VLD43]

I stated it in another post and will restate. All lakes are public land to the best of my knowledge. It is the Governments responsibility to guarantee access to public lands/lakes to all. When a corporation or business buys all land around a lake, they are effectively expropriating it from the public. This particular lawsuit is a class example of that. The land owners come up with all kinds of reasons and excuses as to why this should continue, and most of it has to do with greed and entitlement. Look at lakes in Northern BC that guides make difficult for residents to hunt or fly into. Or another example that comes to mind was when it became an issue for the City of Nanaimo to access the cities water supply because all the land around the supply was owned by Mosaic. This access thing has some huge impacts that need to be addressed, and the Government is guilty of neglect and negligence here. Just because business exploited a loop hole in past, does not give them the right to continue this practice.

[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.

[Rob Chipman]

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? :-)

[KodiakHntr]

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.

[mike31154]

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.

[KodiakHntr]

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.

[adriaticum]

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)

[adriaticum]

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.

[IronNoggin]

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 (https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-b-c-government-accused-of-aiding-u-s-billionaire-in-douglas-ranch-conflict) 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/columnists/douglas-todd-pressure-on-b-c-govt-to-fix-trespassing-laws-that-favour-u-s-billionaire-and-other-landowners

[Rob Chipman]

^^^^^

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).

[Walking Buffalo]

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.

[Beachcomber]

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.

[VLD43]

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.

Or maybe the Government should pull its head out of its butt, and stop throwing the citizens of this province under the bus. All crown land should be subject to public access, as its the public that own it, no Government. We elect Government to protect the interests of the public and look after the affairs of running the province. All to often in the past Government has sided with business and industry trying to chase revenue for their coffers, with no regard for protecting the interests of the citizens of this province. One need look no further than the mess Vancouver Island is in, with lack of access and all the gates. Mt Polly mine is another one that comes to mind. When the tailing pond let go, the amount of damage done to the environment and habitat was pretty much dismissed. No clean up or large penalties, because jobs are more important than the environment. This is not unique to the provincial government, as you see it all over the country. Food for thought, next time you go to the polls.

[Ron.C]

Or maybe the Government should pull its head out of its butt, and stop throwing the citizens of this province under the bus. All crown land should be subject to public access, as its the public that own it, no Government.

exactly right!!!!!!!!!

[KodiakHntr]

Or maybe the Government should pull its head out of its butt, and stop throwing the citizens of this province under the bus. All crown land should be subject to public access, as its the public that own it, no Government. We elect Government to protect the interests of the public and look after the affairs of running the province. All to often in the past Government has sided with business and industry trying to chase revenue for their coffers, with no regard for protecting the interests of the citizens of this province.

Now I understand this isn't going to be a popular viewpoint, however.... Have you given any thought to perhaps that the government, through siding with big companies, is perhaps doing their best for the people of the province? How much money would be generated to pay for roads and hospitals and schools if those businesses didn't exist? How would anyone look after the running of the province without money to do that? Your property taxes certainly don't go very far when compared to what a multi-million dollar business pays every year in provincial and federal taxes. So maybe, just maybe, helping businesses operate IS helping the public.

Just a thought.

[VLD43]

Now I understand this isn't going to be a popular viewpoint, however.... Have you given any thought to perhaps that the government, through siding with big companies, is perhaps doing their best for the people of the province? How much money would be generated to pay for roads and hospitals and schools if those businesses didn't exist? How would anyone look after the running of the province without money to do that? Your property taxes certainly don't go very far when compared to what a multi-million dollar business pays every year in provincial and federal taxes. So maybe, just maybe, helping businesses operate IS helping the public.

Just a thought.

Your points are valid but a little tilted in favor of business and industry. While I support Business being encouraged to locate in this province, I do have concerns with how that is arrived at. There is no need in my mind to subsidize business with special deals on power, or turning an eye to environmental concerns to name a few. But to give them outright control of tracts of land that are multi use areas does concern me. I would challenge the idea that some of these multi million dollar companies pay large taxes to either Provincial or federal Governments. They usually locate where they can get tax breaks. Their employees will pay taxes for sure. But a bigger concern is the lack of regulation and guarantees companies side step. Take for instance resource extraction in the broad sense. In a number of cases once the resource is extracted or becomes to costly to remove, some of these companies just declare bankruptcy and move on. Mean while the tax payer gets to deal with and clean up the mess. Do you have any knowledge of the two big mines up in the Yukon that did exact this. The mines are now shutdown, leaching toxic chemicals into the environment and the companies involved are long gone, with their pockets full of cash. How about all the abandoned oil wells in Alberta. Who is going to pay to clean them up?

The Government is helping itself when promoting business opportunities in the province. Don't get me wrong, I am pro business, but with conditions. Most companies only care about one thing and that is profit. Fair enough. But don't kid yourself, they are not here to benefit you or me. It is all about bottom line. So regulate them, make them deposit a large sum to pay for cleanup if they neglect that role or skip town, and put the residents of this province first. Just as a closing comment, how would you like it if the Government decided to close down Northern BC to resident hunters, because they wanted it to be managed by Guide Outfitters only. They probably generate more money per animal than you generate, so the province would be doing what is best for the province right.

[IronNoggin]

Fish and game club plans to take Douglas Lake dispute to Supreme Court of Canada

"The Nicola Valley Fish and Game Club may have lost a recent court battle for public access to Stoney and Minnie Lakes, but that doesn't mean they've given up. The club is hoping to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada to win a "precedent-setting" case for public access to waterways."


https://infotel.ca/newsitem/fish-and-game-club-plans-to-take-douglas-lake-dispute-to-supreme-court-of-canada/it81499

[KodiakHntr]

Just as a closing comment, how would you like it if the Government decided to close down Northern BC to resident hunters, because they wanted it to be managed by Guide Outfitters only. They probably generate more money per animal than you generate, so the province would be doing what is best for the province right.

Just noticed this one now VLD, sorry. If the government closed down NE BC to resident hunters and went guides only? Personally, and this is just my personal take on that, it wouldn't stop me from hunting. It would likely change up the gear I used to much lower dollar value equipment, and I wouldn't worry about seasons or bag limits or meat retention. I would be purely hunting for backstraps with gear I could walk away from without a second thought. But that's just me.

As to mines in the Yukon, or oil wells in Alberta, no idea. I don't live there, I don't work there. I know how abandoned wells are dealt with here in BC though, and it isn't exactly public taxpayer monies that go into that.
And to speak to your argument about "they generate more money per animal etc", my point previous to that was simply that the province does benefit from tax revenue generated by the DLCC by having paying guests stay and fish, it just doesn't have individual members of the public benefit recreationally from the province holding title to that land.


The one underlying aspect to this entire thread, and this entire legal battle, is that the implications of any decision that is made are far reaching and will have unintended consequences to people. The only thing I am fairly certain of is that no matter how it goes, it will cost taxpayers money. Whether it is a little bit of money, or a lot of money remains to be seen, but it will cost every resident of the province money.

[VLD43]

Just noticed this one now VLD, sorry. If the government closed down NE BC to resident hunters and went guides only? Personally, and this is just my personal take on that, it wouldn't stop me from hunting. It would likely change up the gear I used to much lower dollar value equipment, and I wouldn't worry about seasons or bag limits or meat retention. I would be purely hunting for backstraps with gear I could walk away from without a second thought. But that's just me.

As to mines in the Yukon, or oil wells in Alberta, no idea. I don't live there, I don't work there. I know how abandoned wells are dealt with here in BC though, and it isn't exactly public taxpayer monies that go into that.
And to speak to your argument about "they generate more money per animal etc", my point previous to that was simply that the province does benefit from tax revenue generated by the DLCC by having paying guests stay and fish, it just doesn't have individual members of the public benefit recreationally from the province holding title to that land.


The one underlying aspect to this entire thread, and this entire legal battle, is that the implications of any decision that is made are far reaching and will have unintended consequences to people. The only thing I am fairly certain of is that no matter how it goes, it will cost taxpayers money. Whether it is a little bit of money, or a lot of money remains to be seen, but it will cost every resident of the province money.

Thanks for the reply. The answer or solution you give to the scenario I posed about closing Northern BC is a cop out. So if you don't agree with the rule of law, you just ignore it and resort to criminal activity? As to the abandoned oil wells and mines, It matters little what part of Canada they are in, it is more the fact that Government gives industry a pass instead of a sanction. Rules for the rich and rules for the average man. Bit of a double standard. And the worst part of that is that it is done by Governments who are more concerned with jobs and re-election , than representing the citizens of the country and protecting the environment. If you project that scenario over the next 50 years, imagine what will be left. A country that is a waste land and a bunch of wealthy companies who move on to their next conquest. Not very sustainable and very irresponsible. You are right that it will cost a lot of money to correct all the missteps and bad decisions the Government has previously made, but do we just turn a blind eye to this, or do hold the Government to account. Douglas Lake is small potatoes, but it's the principle. Do you want foreign investors block access to residents? Its their playground so tough luck. What a sell out to our heritage and resources. WE are tenants in our own country? Any way thanks for your thoughtful responses. I don't agree with your logic, but respect your right to voice your opinions and defend them.

[KodiakHntr]

Thanks for the reply. The answer or solution you give to the scenario I posed about closing Northern BC is a cop out. So if you don't agree with the rule of law, you just ignore it and resort to criminal activity?
Cop out? How so? No more a cop out than your hypothetical situation. I'm thinking that you either don't understand what I wrote originally, or you don't understand the issue at stake. The province didn't "take away" the lakes in question and "give" them to DLCC.
What has happened is this:
-there are some lakes that exist
-a guy wanted to grow some cows up for market
-same guy scraped together some money and bought some land
-the guy bought the land at a time where the only thing lakes were valued for was as a place to hold water for cows to drink, and to sink a pump into to irrigate more land so more hay can be grown, and thereby more cows produced on the same amount of land
-at the time the land was bought, nobody cared about fishing
-at the time the land was bought, the value of the lake was having access to the water for the above reason
-at some point along the way, someone decided that they should start growing fish and putting them in lakes
-at some point along the way, someone decided that they should put fish in a couple of lakes that are on private land
-at some point along the way, someone at DLCC realized there was money to be made by having people fish in lakes on the private land
-at some point along the way, people who lived and worked there undoubtedly started getting fed up with having people leaving garbage around and shitting on the lakeshort
-someone thought they should take the time to look into whether there was even public access to the lakes
-someone figured out they didn't have to let people on the roads, thereby reducing garbage and people shitting around the lake (and you can't tell me that isn't an issue, because EVERYWHERE you go and there is a pullout you can find piles of human shit)
-now it is in court, and what people seem to want to ignore about this, is that it isn't about fishing the lake. You can still fish the lake. Pay the trespass fee (completely legal to charge in BC, which in this case involves having to rent a guide to take you out and make sure you don't shit on the boat launch) and go fish the lake. OR, buy or rent a helicopter on floats, go land on the lake and fish the lake. That is your right as a resident to go do that on a provincially owned piece of property. DLCC can't stop you from doing that.

There is a very big difference in the above, actual situation that is occurring, versus the simplified hypothetical scenario you posed above. In what you posed, the government simply took away an activity based on financial considerations and shut down access and by default seasons with no basis on scientific wildlife management. And also took away peoples ability to feed themselves. So yeah, I'm gonna hunt.


As to the abandoned oil wells and mines, It matters little what part of Canada they are in, it is more the fact that Government gives industry a pass instead of a sanction. Rules for the rich and rules for the average man. Bit of a double standard. And the worst part of that is that it is done by Governments who are more concerned with jobs and re-election , than representing the citizens of the country and protecting the environment.
You are showing your lack of understanding on what is actually happening here based on what you think you heard on CBC or Global. There are millions and millions of dollars being spent on abandoned oil wells (mines I have no idea and won't speak to that) being catalogued and rehabilitation plans created. And that is NOT being footed by the government. Well, some of it is technically I suppose, in that the OGC is a government organization, but it is funded through monies received from oil companies.



If you project that scenario over the next 50 years, imagine what will be left. A country that is a waste land and a bunch of wealthy companies who move on to their next conquest. Not very sustainable and very irresponsible. You are right that it will cost a lot of money to correct all the missteps and bad decisions the Government has previously made, but do we just turn a blind eye to this, or do hold the Government to account. Douglas Lake is small potatoes, but it's the principle. Do you want foreign investors block access to residents? Its their playground so tough luck. What a sell out to our heritage and resources. WE are tenants in our own country? Any way thanks for your thoughtful responses. I don't agree with your logic, but respect your right to voice your opinions and defend them.

I understand your thought process, but your thoughts are mostly based on a lack of understanding on how resource extraction and land laws in BC actually work from what I get from you reading this.
All of the anti-DLCC, pro-access-everything-I-shouldn't-have-to-pay-I-live-here people commenting on this thread seem to be of the mindset or understanding that this is some grand and elaborate scheme of a wealthy businessman to steal provincial assets away and make them his own. And maybe it is, no idea, he hasn't told me what his plans are... Never met the guy. Never been there.
And I haven't said I agree or disagree with the decision, or the situation. What I don't agree with, as a landowner, is letting people wander around at will on my property. Because currently, under the laws we have in BC, I don't have to let people do that.

[IronNoggin]

SCC to decide lake access?

"Having now had their hopes dashed by BC’s highest court, the NVFGC decided at a meeting of the executive held on March 14 to take their plea to the highest court in the country.

“We’ve decided to pursue the case to the Supreme Court of Appeal of Canada,” said McGowan.
“The bottom line, the huge issue, is that the judge ruled that if the landowner acquires a water license and raises the water over his private property, that property and the water above it is private, so you can’t get to the public part of a public lake, which is bizarre. And that affects thousands and thousands of lakes in British Columbia and Canada, which is really serious,” McGowan continued.

“It’s not a good thing for the people of British Columbia and future generations, it’s basically just a terrible ruling, it’s for the very rich and not taking into concern provincial laws and legislation and/or the people of British Columbia and future generations. It’s basically taking public property and giving it for free to rich people.”

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kamloops/328073/Merritt-area-fishing-club-says-it-plans-to-appeal-lake-access-decision-to-Canada-s-highest-court#328073

[gcreek]

SCC to decide lake access?

"Having now had their hopes dashed by BC’s highest court, the NVFGC decided at a meeting of the executive held on March 14 to take their plea to the highest court in the country.

“We’ve decided to pursue the case to the Supreme Court of Appeal of Canada,” said McGowan.
“The bottom line, the huge issue, is that the judge ruled that if the landowner acquires a water license and raises the water over his private property, that property and the water above it is private, so you can’t get to the public part of a public lake, which is bizarre. And that affects thousands and thousands of lakes in British Columbia and Canada, which is really serious,” McGowan continued.

“It’s not a good thing for the people of British Columbia and future generations, it’s basically just a terrible ruling, it’s for the very rich and not taking into concern provincial laws and legislation and/or the people of British Columbia and future generations. It’s basically taking public property and giving it for free to rich people.”

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kamloops/328073/Merritt-area-fishing-club-says-it-plans-to-appeal-lake-access-decision-to-Canada-s-highest-court#328073

It really bothers you that some people actually own things doesn’t it? Every post on this issue contains quotes about rich people in order to ignite passion into those with less.

[saskbooknut]

Ownership, holding a fee simple title is wholly different from having a grazing lease, but treating the land as if you had title to it.
Huge tracts of land are alienated for relatively small sums, where the right of the public to benefit from Crown lands merits little consideration.
The multiple use policy of the late 70s and early 80s seems to have fallen out of use.
If you superimpose the multiple competing land claims in the Province of BC, on top of the alienated lands limiting access, the future looks dire for Public access for hunting and fishing.

[HarryToolips]

It really bothers you that some people actually own things doesn’t it? Every post on this issue contains quotes about rich people in order to ignite passion into those with less.
All were saying is we should have a tiny little ROW (right of way) into a public lake....

[adriaticum]

It really bothers you that some people actually own things doesn’t it? Every post on this issue contains quotes about rich people in order to ignite passion into those with less.
you are way off base

[IronNoggin]

It really bothers you that some people actually own things doesn’t it? Every post on this issue contains quotes about rich people in order to ignite passion into those with less.


Completely Out To Lunch with these statements, and by carrying over into implied insults, quite counterproductive for your "side".

Nog

[Walking Buffalo]

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.


Or maybe the Government should pull its head out of its butt, and stop throwing the citizens of this province under the bus. All crown land should be subject to public access, as its the public that own it, no Government. We elect Government to protect the interests of the public and look after the affairs of running the province. All to often in the past Government has sided with business and industry trying to chase revenue for their coffers, with no regard for protecting the interests of the citizens of this province. One need look no further than the mess Vancouver Island is in, with lack of access and all the gates. Mt Polly mine is another one that comes to mind. When the tailing pond let go, the amount of damage done to the environment and habitat was pretty much dismissed. No clean up or large penalties, because jobs are more important than the environment. This is not unique to the provincial government, as you see it all over the country. Food for thought, next time you go to the polls.


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.

[IronNoggin]

... 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.

As a fall-back situation, I rather like where you are going with this.

Cheers,
Nog

[VLD43]

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.

Good Post Sir. Very well reasoned, in my opinion

[Beachcomber]

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.

This is not a case of the province needing to appease the DLR or get cute with veiled threats. Public land should be, by definition, accessible by the public and it is within the government's gift to ensure this access is provided - if only they would grow a set and pass legislation to this end. Declaring the lakes an ecologically sensitive area and therefore denying access to all is not an acceptable answer. The province should be telling the DLR to provide an access corridor or they will legislate a right of way. We do not need more land being cut off from hunters and fishermen. If we go down this road you can expect future disputes like this to be "resolved" by the creation of vast swathes of land being declared "ecological sanctuaries" and off limits to hunters and fishermen. No doubt Tides and other US foundations would applaud this development, but hunters and fishermen should not encourage this result. BC residents have a right to access crown land. Where that right is being infringed then it is incumbent on our elected officials to step up and act on behalf of the people who pay their salaries to represent our interests. Kroeneke can get stuffed.

[Ganso]

The future looks bad if it goes this way, it's going to be parks and nature preserves off limits to hunting, fishing and vehicles, country-sized First Nations territories off limits to anyone the tribe doesn't allow there, add a few big ranches and a lot of timber leases and there won't be much left for hunting and other free backcountry recreation. In some decades it might be like Texas where most everything is chunks of private land or otherwise off limits and you have to pay big bucks to lease a small lot so you can hunt over a feeder once a year.

[HarryToolips]

This is not a case of the province needing to appease the DLR or get cute with veiled threats. Public land should be, by definition, accessible by the public and it is within the government's gift to ensure this access is provided - if only they would grow a set and pass legislation to this end. Declaring the lakes an ecologically sensitive area and therefore denying access to all is not an acceptable answer. The province should be telling the DLR to provide an access corridor or they will legislate a right of way. We do not need more land being cut off from hunters and fishermen. If we go down this road you can expect future disputes like this to be "resolved" by the creation of vast swathes of land being declared "ecological sanctuaries" and off limits to hunters and fishermen. No doubt Tides and other US foundations would applaud this development, but hunters and fishermen should not encourage this result. BC residents have a right to access crown land. Where that right is being infringed then it is incumbent on our elected officials to step up and act on behalf of the people who pay their salaries to represent our interests. Kroeneke can get stuffed.
Your right, it is the responsibility of our elected officials to step up and represent us...I guess we need to put more pressure on our local MLAs to start standing up for us on this matter....

[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.

[gcreek]

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!

So if you lease a condo, apartment or any other such abode, anyone should be able to wander in and out at any time then?

[Jagermeister]

So if you lease a condo, apartment or any other such abode, anyone should be able to wander in and out at any time then?
Is that the best you can do? That argument is so benign, totally lacking substance . Absolutely no comparison. You should be ashamed to present that argument.

[Keta1969]

I've been following this thread and am confused, maybe I missed something. I own a very small piece of urban acreage. It is mine bought and paid for. I have no trespass signs posted and have given up trying to keep people from taking short cuts through it. I could fence it but it would cost a small fortune and be only a matter of time until wire cutters were used. The garbage is something else, people are pigs. It is private property, I have the deed same as DLCC. Stay the Faack off. Don't like it, to bad buy your own. There have been and are all kinds of private property been bought and sold in B.C. that are advertised with their own lake. How would you guys feel about it if you lived on a cul de sac in the Valley that abutted crown land with a creek running behind your property and joe public thinks it's ok to trespass through your lot to go fishing. I'm a firm believer in private property rights no matter who owns it. Some here seem to willing to give up those rights. Careful what you wish for.

[Bugle M In]

So if you lease a condo, apartment or any other such abode, anyone should be able to wander in and out at any time then?

Condos and apartments comprise of "some areas being private property, limited common property and common property, fyi.

[IslandWanderer]

So if you lease a condo, apartment or any other such abode, anyone should be able to wander in and out at any time then?

Lol, pretty lame argument in my opinion. It seems hardly comparable to the situation being discussed. Also, hallways and the lobby would be accessible by non-owners who have a reason to be there

[adriaticum]

gcreek
I am willing to bet you haven't left your ranch in decades.
I recommend a little international travel when the covid ends, it would do you some good.

[gcreek]

Stay off my land! And my neighbour’s land.

I won’t be bothering any of you. How easy is that?