Landowner wins right to block access to his private lake

[Ken07AOVette]

Nobody is discussing this?

A rancher builds a lake, and people are mad because they have lost a court battle to use it. The way I see it, would it be any different if they wanted to hunt on his land, use his garden, garage, parking space or swimming pool?

It seems annoyed entitled people are most annoyed (jealous) because it is convenient for them, even though he personally stocks his own lake.

Am I reading it wrong?

https://cfjctoday.com/2021/03/05/douglas-lake-ranch-owner-wins-appeal-restricting-public-access-to-merritt-area-lakes/?fbclid=IwAR0eXJesUdqUO0coQAc4MK1qeIfPmvgeQ6gkf_2N l4P0I8MOyuvev7WgPQQ

[Mulehahn]

As I understand it the Lake was public Lake until current owner took over. There was even a public road that went to the lake and property that was maintained by highways until then. These parts of story are proven.

It gets complicated when some gates went up. It became private. Apparently it was the land was given to the ranch in exchange for changing the highway somewhere else but there is no record of this and even official government Maps created after the deal went through show it as public land. Also, it is even more complicated that the ranch increase the size of the lakes significantly. This is where the issue of "private lake" comes from. If a person takes a public Lake and alters it does it become theirs. To even complicate things even more, the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC, which is responsible for stocking all the public lakes in the province, and is funded through fishing licenses were the ones sticking these 2 private lakes which is not allowed. Private lakes are to be stocked by private companies. The whole thing is a mess.

[IronNoggin]

... Am I reading it wrong?


Yep, you are indeed reading it wrong.

the lakes (two) are Public, and have always been.
The ranch increased their volume by putting dams them, but they remain in the public realm.
The Public stocks them, despite the ranch's cries that they have taken that over.
The roads to the lake are Public, despite the fact that the ranch intentionally plowed one under, and drowned the terminus at the lake with the dam.

Long and short of it:
An Uber Rich American Owner decided to collaborate with a willing (corrupt) government of the day, and make the lakes his own. That was challenged by a small local hunting & fishing club - the classic David & Goliath stuff.
The club wins round one.
The Rich Dude appeals.
Two appeal judges ignore much of the evidence, and side with the rich dude.

Again:

The lakes are Public.
The roads are Public.
No-one, regardless of who they think they are, has any right to deny the rightful owners access.
Period.

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...

Nog

[Jayhad]

Yep, you are indeed reading it wrong.

the lakes (two) are Public, and have always been.
The ranch increased their volume by putting dams them, but they remain in the public realm.
The Public stocks them, despite the ranch's cries that they have taken that over.
The roads to the lake are Public, despite the fact that the ranch intentionally plowed one under, and drowned the terminus at the lake with the dam.

Long and short of it:
An Uber Rich American Owner decided to collaborate with a willing (corrupt) government of the day, and make the lakes his own. That was challenged by a small local hunting & fishing club - the classic David & Goliath stuff.
The club wins round one.
The Rich Dude appeals.
Two appeal judges ignore much of the evidence, and side with the rich dude.

Again:

The lakes are Public.
The roads are Public.
No-one, regardless of who they think they are, has any right to deny the rightful owners access.
Period.

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...

Nog
Good post and it sums it up perfectly.

[urban rednek]

This is not a man made pond or overly large dugout, it is 2 natural bodies of water that were expanded by damming the outflow. This could set a precedent to overturn federal control of a body of water.
Previously discussed in these threads:
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=274562
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=312039
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=312098
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=391025

[Ken07AOVette]

Yep, you are indeed reading it wrong.

the lakes (two) are Public, and have always been.
The ranch increased their volume by putting dams them, but they remain in the public realm.
The Public stocks them, despite the ranch's cries that they have taken that over.
The roads to the lake are Public, despite the fact that the ranch intentionally plowed one under, and drowned the terminus at the lake with the dam.

Long and short of it:
An Uber Rich American Owner decided to collaborate with a willing (corrupt) government of the day, and make the lakes his own. That was challenged by a small local hunting & fishing club - the classic David & Goliath stuff.
The club wins round one.
The Rich Dude appeals.
Two appeal judges ignore much of the evidence, and side with the rich dude.

Again:

The lakes are Public.
The roads are Public.
No-one, regardless of who they think they are, has any right to deny the rightful owners access.
Period.

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...

Nog

Thanks Nog.

It would appear though your opinion does not align with the appelate court.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There are some definate heated arguments on both sides.

Apparently some feel that if there is water they are entitled to be on it, no matter if they have to trespass to get to it or not. If the water belongs to the crown the only access I can think of is by air.

If there were a floating dock with a bunch of boats in the middle a helicopter lodge would do very well, the fishing there must be amazing for the amount of fighting over this.

Or is it because it is a yankee billionaire?

[IronNoggin]

It would appear though your opinion does not align with the appelate court.

Which of course is why it is headed to the next level of appeal. The grounds well exist to do so.

... Or is it because it is a yankee billionaire?

While that plays some small part of it, the much larger picture is any landowner denying access to Public Lakes (Parks, Natural Areas, etc) via Public Access. Most believe this to be quite an over-reach, if not entirely illegal in the first place. In the first case direct collusion was proven with the province over some of the matters, for which they were taken to task.

So, finding for the Ranch would set a rather serious precedence for any who like to enjoy such lakes, parks etc. Conversely, should the final decision be for the Club, precedence will be established that will make many (Mosaic on the Island comes immediately to mind) shake in their boots.

Again, this saga has a long ways to go before the Fat Lady Sings.
Personally, I hope the Ranch loses (again) and is forced to bear costs.

Cheers,
Nog

[ak77]

My question would be, how did the land get divided to allow public water body be 100% surrounded by private land? Without digging into it, isn't it that the access to, and certain patch of land around the lake to remain publicly accessible no matter what?

[Trochu]

My question would be, how did the land get divided to allow public water body be 100% surrounded by private land? Without digging into it, isn't it that the access to, and certain patch of land around the lake to remain publicly accessible no matter what?

I was thinking similar, but kinda along the lines of "that doesn't look like much of a "lake"". Looks kinda like a big pond/slough to me.

[mrcrossbow]

B. C has different rules then Alberta.
They are also doing some messed up stuff regarding firearms in bc..
Runkle of the bailey on utube explains it well along with c21 stuff etc, makes stuff easy to understand In none lawyer speak. He's a fire arms lawyer out of Edmonton.

[Grizzly Adams]

My question would be, how did the land get divided to allow public water body be 100% surrounded by private land? Without digging into it, isn't it that the access to, and certain patch of land around the lake to remain publicly accessible no matter what?

I remember when a German baron owned a mess of land around Balzac. He was fighting to close off the county roads that bisected it, the locals resisted and prevailed. The super rich have a sense of entitlement, no way around it. The ironic part being, these guys are seldom in residence. :confused:

Grizz

[Ken07AOVette]

I was thinking similar, but kinda along the lines of "that doesn't look like much of a "lake"". Looks kinda like a big pond/slough to me.

Thats exactly what I thought.

It is likely neighbors walking or driving a couple miles because it is so close. I wonder if they will start siding with the FN's to get the land turned back because it is yankee owned lol.

There is land here that is now covered in water, does that mean the landowner stops paying property tax (minimal is it is) on it because it is now a public lake? no....

[Jerry D]

I read into this a little and if it’s private land blocking access, You will not have access. Even if you fished it in the past. New owners or new boundaries or something changed.

We have tons of lakes like this that have no public access in Ontario. You must have property to get access. We have no right trespassing between 2 cottages to go fishing on someone’s shoreline or launch your canoe etc. Must have a bridge or road leading down to the water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nick0danger]

From what i can gather no one is stopping them from having a heli drop a boat with a couple people into the lake, and the heli them out!

[RandyBoBandy]

https://globalnews.ca/news/7680205/b-c-cattle-company-wins-appeal/ Great video..3 mins long..I had NO idea he turned it into a fishing resort :sSc_hiding: SOME people do get to fish :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[calgarychef]

I remember when a German baron owned a mess of land around Balzac. He was fighting to close off the county roads that bisected it, the locals resisted and prevailed. The super rich have a sense of entitlement, no way around it. The ironic part being, these guys are seldom in residence. :confused:

Grizz

Similar in the UK when Madonna bought a property and tried to shut the traditional footpaths down. It was a fight but she lost and the pools can traipse across her land all they want. A good win I think.

[nimrod]

Looks like the BC case is heading to the supreme court, soon, Hear this on the news today.

As a side not who is the million owner of the ranches

[JareS]

Thats exactly what I thought.

It is likely neighbors walking or driving a couple miles because it is so close. I wonder if they will start siding with the FN's to get the land turned back because it is yankee owned lol.

There is land here that is now covered in water, does that mean the landowner stops paying property tax (minimal is it is) on it because it is now a public lake? no....

Standing water is different than a permanent, classed waterbody or watercourse. You must know that, right?

[Ken07AOVette]

Standing water is different than a permanent, classed waterbody or watercourse. You must know that, right?

enlighten me please

[Iron Brew]

Similar in the UK when Madonna bought a property and tried to shut the traditional footpaths down. It was a fight but she lost and the pools can traipse across her land all they want. A good win I think.

England and Scotland have had these public footpaths for centuries. When I was last in Scotland, we were driving along and spotted an old ruined castle. We stopped to look at it, saw there was a style/sheepgate, and went through and looked at the castle. It's good that they do this. No motorized vehicles, whatever, no going to the person's house for your wander, just being able to go see stuff. I expect the usual yahoos with their garbage etc. will eventually destroy it for others, however.

Interestingly, when we were in Ireland, we noticed (as in asked, and didn't wind up in trouble) that the laws are quite different there. We did not get to Northern Ireland to see if they followed UK tradition or Irish tradition.

[Ken07AOVette]

People that live there are already saying they are going to poison the lake, or throw in pike, or be arrested and fight it 'coz it's their right'

[trapperdodge]

Judges like to fish....

Lots of corrupt land dealing in BC. There's a whole history of it. The sale of the BC interior railroad sale smells of corruption.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Sounds an awful lot like Bearspaw near Calgary. I hear they might open it up via park access over 10 years haha

[sjr]

I was thinking similar, but kinda along the lines of "that doesn't look like much of a "lake"". Looks kinda like a big pond/slough to me.

That big pond/slough use to have 8-12lb rainbows in them when the resort looked after the stocking and breeding program . That's when the big push came from the local F+G club to fish it .

[Ken07AOVette]

I remember when a German baron owned a mess of land around Balzac. He was fighting to close off the county roads that bisected it, the locals resisted and prevailed. The super rich have a sense of entitlement, no way around it. The ironic part being, these guys are seldom in residence. :confused:

Grizz

Thats unreal.

This is a different deal I think, again correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear there are no county maintained roads to these bodies of water, meaning they do not intersect crown road anywhere, meaning it is solely on private land.

If there is a road there it is likely a farm trail or trail made by fishing and recreational users mistakenly thinking it was a public lake.

It will be interesting to see how it ends up. If it ends up that this water must be accessible to everyone it will set precedent that every slough and trout pond owned by every farmer will be fair game, and can you imagine if that happened to farmers here? Chaos would ensue.

[Ken07AOVette]

That big pond/slough use to have 8-12lb rainbows in them when the resort looked after the stocking and breeding program . That's when the big push came from the local F+G club to fish it .

Of course, if there were a thousand 3" perch they would not care at all. If fish get to trophy size, you bet the club 'needs' to have access. It makes total sense now lol!

[tri777]

People that live there are already saying they are going to poison the lake, or throw in pike,
or be arrested and fight it 'coz it's their right'

I hate them already. Hope karma kicks arse extra good with that thinking.

[IronNoggin]

That big pond/slough use to have 8-12lb rainbows in them when the resort looked after the stocking and breeding program . That's when the big push came from the local F+G club to fish it .

Only partially true. When the ranch began it's initial stockings, there was very little in the way of competition. So of course the plantings grew rapidly and grew large. However, the ranch did not follow science in their stocking rates, and that developed the usual problems rather quickly.

The ranch 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 itself) that the fish were stunted, yellow-hued, lesion covered slinks. Today, as a direct result of the provincial management regime, the fish are once again healthy and growing to rather large sizes.

People that live there are already saying they are going to poison the lake, or throw in pike, or be arrested and fight it 'coz it's their right'

Odd. Over here we've heard none of that nonsense?

As for the roads, they existed before the ranch. They were always public, and they were noted as such in the land grant. The ranch plowed one under, and drowned the terminus of the other at the lake itself. And the province colluded with them doing so. Both illegal.

It's off to the Big Court now. One can only hope they get it right this time around...

Cheers,
Nog

[Ken07AOVette]

Only partially true. When the ranch began it's initial stockings, there was very little in the way of competition. So of course the plantings grew rapidly and grew large. However, the ranch did not follow science in their stocking rates, and that developed the usual problems rather quickly.

The ranch 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 itself) that the fish were stunted, yellow-hued, lesion covered slinks. Today, as a direct result of the provincial management regime, the fish are once again healthy and growing to rather large sizes.



Odd. Over here we've heard none of that nonsense?

As for the roads, they existed before the ranch. They were always public, and they were noted as such in the land grant. The ranch plowed one under, and drowned the terminus of the other at the lake itself. And the province colluded with them doing so. Both illegal.

It's off to the Big Court now. One can only hope they get it right this time around...

Cheers,
Nog

Dirty pool for sure, wonder if some locals were heavily bribed by the multi billionaires?

[roper1]

Nog, any feel for which way it's gonna go ? Douglas Lake been bullies for 100 years.

[IronNoggin]

Nog, any feel for which way it's gonna go ? Douglas Lake been bullies for 100 years.

It's a tough call.
I was surprised at the latest ruling, given all the background & circumstances.
I have yet to review the new terms of appeal.
Once I can, I'll get back with an assessment of sorts...

And yeah, that ranch has been an issue for many for a very long time, especially so with this new absentee owner.
Had a run-in myself, but did not back down from them (they were in the wrong and eventually backed off themselves).

Cheers,
Nog

[Ken07AOVette]

That's interesting Nog.

Was it on their land or other circumstances?

[nelsonob1]

My question would be, how did the land get divided to allow public water body be 100% surrounded by private land? Without digging into it, isn't it that the access to, and certain patch of land around the lake to remain publicly accessible no matter what?

Lots of lakes in bc surrounded by private land. Not unusual.

[IronNoggin]

That's interesting Nog.

Was it on their land or other circumstances?

On a publicly noted easement surrounded by their lands, but accessed via a public road. Tried to run me off. I had the relevant documentation with me, a scattergun, and started filming them the instant they showed up. They got fairly belligerent, and attempted the tough guy routine with me. Let's just say that didn't go over so well...

A copy of the video was sent to both the foreman and the owner. Reaction was "you will not be hassled again".
Better not be...

Cheers,
Nog

[roper1]

Thanks Nog!

[huntwat]

I’ve been reading the title of this thread since it was posted. I can’t help but think this is the way the media writes. They try to sway the reader right off the top. I’m not saying that’s what the op planned, but just reading the title puts you on the landowners side.

[Ken07AOVette]

I’ve been reading the title of this thread since it was posted. I can’t help but think this is the way the media writes. They try to sway the reader right off the top. I’m not saying that’s what the op planned, but just reading the title puts you on the landowners side.

That's what happened.

If the title was - As a long running battle between a multi billionaire land owner, community residents, the local fish and game club and several court systems continues to play out the latest news is-

It would still be the same.

Titles mean nothing here as you can see from opposing points of view. That's what makes the forum so interesting.

[huntwat]

Shouldn’t it read “ Landowner wins right to block access to public lake”?

[Ken07AOVette]

Shouldn’t it read “ Landowner wins right to block access to public lake”?

Prove it is a public lake. Just because it is something that was done before does not mean that it must continue. Laws are there for a reason.

Public by definition means concerning all the people, and as the Judge has shown there is neither need for the public to have access, or access for the public, it is therefore a private body of water surrounded by privately owned land.

All caught up now?

[Donkey Oatey]

Prove it is a public lake. Just because it is something that was done before does not mean that it must continue. Laws are there for a reason.

Public by definition means concerning all the people, and as the Judge has shown there is neither need for the public to have access, or access for the public, it is therefore a private body of water surrounded by privately owned land.

All caught up now?

Not sure how it is worded in BC legislation but in Alberta the Public Lands Act lays claim to the bed and shore of all natural and permanent water bodies, rivers and streams.

Title to beds and shores, etc.

3(1) Subject to subsection (2) but notwithstanding any other law, the title to the beds and shores of

(a) all permanent and naturally occurring bodies of water, and

(b) all naturally occurring rivers, streams, watercourses and lakes,

is vested in the Crown in right of Alberta and a grant or certificate of title made or issued before, on or after May 31, 1984 does not convey title to those beds or shores.

(2) Subsection (1) does not operate

(a) to affect a grant referred to in subsection (1) that specifically conveys by express description a bed or shore referred to in subsection (1) or a certificate of title founded on that grant,

(b) to affect the rights of a grantee from the Crown or of a person claiming under the grantee, when those rights have been determined by a court before June 18, 1931, or

(c) to affect the title to land belonging to the Crown in right of Canada.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a river, stream or watercourse does not cease to be naturally occurring by reason only that its water is diverted by human act.

So water bodies, lakes, ponds etc completely surrounded by private land are still public land, but no right of access is give to access them. Still public, but no right of access.

I think in reading this case is that the access to the public was there and the landowner has now won the right to block the access across his private land.

[Ken07AOVette]

Not sure either, but it very plainly says 'naturally occuring' and iirc there were dams put up by the landowner at some point that created these bodies of water? Or maybe made them bigger.

Again the act of granting access is being contested, and the fact that there was access before does not mean it is a municipal or provincial owned and maintained road.

If you walk across your neighbors garden to get to their koi pond in their back yard you leave a trail, when the neighbor tells you to get out do you (not you personally Donkeyoatey) then say 'my family have been using this trail for years, therefore it is public access to public water because all standing water is the property of the Crown'? :thinking-006:

Vastly oversimplified but you get my meaning.

I have never said I agree with the landowner by the way, I just am looking at the court ruling and making notes. People assuming anything out of this are doing so with feelings and emotions not rational thought regarding statute.

To be honest this is almost the backstory of Yellowstone. Maybe that is why people are so wound up lol.

[Donkey Oatey]

Not sure either, but it very plainly says 'naturally occuring' and iirc there were dams put up by the landowner at some point that created these bodies of water? Or maybe made them bigger.

Again the act of granting access is being contested, and the fact that there was access before does not mean it is a municipal or provincial owned and maintained road.

If you walk across your neighbors garden to get to their koi pond in their back yard you leave a trail, when the neighbor tells you to get out do you (not you personally Donkeyoatey) then say 'my family have been using this trail for years, therefore it is public access to public water because all standing water is the property of the Crown'? :thinking-006:

Vastly oversimplified but you get my meaning.

I have never said I agree with the landowner by the way, I just am looking at the court ruling and making notes. People assuming anything out of this are doing so with feelings and emotions not rational thought regarding statute.

To be honest this is almost the backstory of Yellowstone. Maybe that is why people are so wound up lol.

Completely agree Ken. I was just pointing out how a "private" lake is actually public land in Alberta. The lakes don't stop being natural due to the activities of the land owner. The public portion would be assessed through air photo review of historic size. The crown claimed portion would be much smaller than actual foot print.

Yes this is about access. Is the road public? This court case says apparently not.

[huntwat]

All caught up now?

I thought I was after reading this. Nog seems to know quite a bit about this.

Yep, you are indeed reading it wrong.

the lakes (two) are Public, and have always been.
The ranch increased their volume by putting dams them, but they remain in the public realm.
The Public stocks them, despite the ranch's cries that they have taken that over.
The roads to the lake are Public, despite the fact that the ranch intentionally plowed one under, and drowned the terminus at the lake with the dam.

Long and short of it:
An Uber Rich American Owner decided to collaborate with a willing (corrupt) government of the day, and make the lakes his own. That was challenged by a small local hunting & fishing club - the classic David & Goliath stuff.
The club wins round one.
The Rich Dude appeals.
Two appeal judges ignore much of the evidence, and side with the rich dude.

Again:

The lakes are Public.
The roads are Public.
No-one, regardless of who they think they are, has any right to deny the rightful owners access.
Period.

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...

Nog

[urban rednek]

While a previous judge clearly stated the lakes are Crown property and the access roads were/are public roads maintained by the Crown. The wording of this argument clearly went right over the head of the appeal court judge:
One of the richest men in the world had his lawyers argue in B.C. Appeal Court on Monday that the public should never have been given the right to use a public road to access two lakes on his ranch, which is the largest private land holding in the province.
One of the lawyers for Kroenke, Evan Cooke, maintained Monday that Justice Groves erred in December, 2018, when he decided the public had the right to use historic Stoney Lake Road to fish at Stoney Lake and Minnie Lake, which the ranch has stocked with fish for Kroenke and his resort customers.

Since they have not produced any legal documents proving their outrageous claim, Douglas Lakes Ranch has effectively privatized public property for their own profit.
This story reeks, someone is getting paid off.:mad2:

[Ken07AOVette]

While a previous judge clearly stated the lakes are Crown property and the access roads were/are public roads maintained by the Crown. The wording of this argument clearly went right over the head of the appeal court judge:


Since they have not produced any legal documents proving their outrageous claim, Douglas Lakes Ranch has effectively privatized public property for their own profit.
This story reeks, someone is getting paid off.:mad2:

That is very interesting, they admit it is a public road. I guess it will fall down to the county that installs/maintains the road, and where/when it was authorized to do so across private land?

[Redfrog]

I fished those lakes in the 80s and field trialed there as well when the Woodwards owned it. Very nice folks, always made me feel welcome. Spent many days training with them as they field trialed as well.
I know nothing of this owner.

[roper1]

I believe Thompson & the Harper brothers referenced those lakes in their notes 1880's onward. That certainly means they were present before the white man. Just because Kroenke added berm & made the lakes deeper doesn't mean he can claim them.

[IronNoggin]

Prove it is a public lake.

There is NO Contesting the FACT these are public lakes. Period.
Nor is there any question that the access roads were built and maintained with public funding, also making them public.

Public by definition means concerning all the people, and as the Judge has shown there is neither need for the public to have access, or access for the public, it is therefore a private body of water surrounded by privately owned land.

Ummm... Nope.

You may wish to peruse the latest developments in this case, and what the judge had to say directly relating to such.:

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

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

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

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

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

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-pressure-on-b-c-govt-to-fix-trespassing-laws-that-favour-u-s-billionaire-and-other-landowners

[huntwat]

Shouldn’t it read “ Landowner wins right to block access to public lake”?

Thanks Nog, as I thought.

[Ken07AOVette]

There is NO Contesting the FACT these are public lakes. Period.
Nor is there any question that the access roads were built and maintained with public funding, also making them public.



Ummm... Nope.

You may wish to peruse the latest developments in this case, and what the judge had to say directly relating to such.:

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

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

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

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

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

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-pressure-on-b-c-govt-to-fix-trespassing-laws-that-favour-u-s-billionaire-and-other-landowners

Well you know far more about it than me, and that happens lots Nog.

I appreciate the fact you are adding information about it.

trouble is, even if this is a public lake, the Judge has said, noted above, BC does not govern it. (as noted in red)

So that just means the Judge is waiting for the Provincial Government to change the laws regarding public access?

That will take time I am sure, with everything going on and people (groups) howling for money from 1 side of the province to the other.

The more I read this the more I see that people are not going to be fishing there anytime soon, as of right now the owner of the land surrounding the body of water has the only right of access.

[RandyBoBandy]

Well you know far more about it than me, and that happens lots Nog.

I appreciate the fact you are adding information about it.

trouble is, even if this is a public lake, the Judge has said, noted above, BC does not govern it. (as noted in red)

So that just means the Judge is waiting for the Provincial Government to change the laws regarding public access?

That will take time I am sure, with everything going on and people (groups) howling for money from 1 side of the province to the other.

The more I read this the more I see that people are not going to be fishing there anytime soon, as of right now the owner of the land surrounding the body of water has the only right of access.
Problem is, if you pay the resort, you can fish :thinking-006:

[Ken07AOVette]

Problem is, if you pay the resort, you can fish :thinking-006:

Why is that a problem?

You are then under their care control and insurance, you are there freely of your own will, and allowed access on his land to get to the lake.

Is it c&r only?

I pay a membership to costco while allows me in the door to actually take things home, stupid as that is but it's my choice.

Is the problem now then that the neighbors see people fishing because they have paid, and feel they can just go for free because they always have? That makes more sense to me now.

[Sundancefisher]

https://nanaimofishandgameclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-BCCA-99-Douglas-Lake-Cattle-Company-v.pdf


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.

[Sundancefisher]

Why is that a problem?

You are then under their care control and insurance, you are there freely of your own will, and allowed access on his land to get to the lake.

Is it c&r only?

I pay a membership to costco while allows me in the door to actually take things home, stupid as that is but it's my choice.

Is the problem now then that the neighbors see people fishing because they have paid, and feel they can just go for free because they always have? That makes more sense to me now.

If I recall the lakes in question had no natural spawning. The land owners actually paid to stock the lakes. Anyone know if this is true?

[huntwat]

Problem is, if you pay the resort, you can fish :thinking-006:

Why is that a problem?



This sounds very much like the paid hunting fiasco that we had in Alberta a few years ago. Luckily that was put to rest

[Ken07AOVette]

So how does it work with fly-in only fishing lodges?

If you walk through the trees you can fish there for free? Or can the Lodge that manages the area walk you out again, or have you arrested for trespassing?

Sincerely asking.

[Positrac]

If I recall the lakes in question had no natural spawning. The land owners actually paid to stock the lakes. Anyone know if this is true?

In the past there was access to the lakes in question and they had been stocked by the Province.

[IronNoggin]

In the past there was access to the lakes in question and they had been stocked by the Province.


Originally the lakes were stocked by the Province.
Sometime around 20 years ago or so, the ranch took that over.
They followed their own ideas on how to proceed.
Their initial results were good, producing decent numbers of large trout.
But then greed set in. They increased the numbers exponentially in Minnie Lk at least. That caused over competition, stunting and disease.
Since then, for the past few years, the province has taken the stocking back on. As they do so with Science, the fish are now healthier, more robust, and again are growing to larger sizes.

Cheers,
Nog

[huntwat]

So how does it work with fly-in only fishing lodges?

If you walk through the trees you can fish there for free? Or can the Lodge that manages the area walk you out again, or have you arrested for trespassing?

Sincerely asking.

“Fly in only” is a phrase used because it’s the only sensible way in. Go ahead and walk in if you’d like. Just follow the provincial regulations. Unless you’re in a national park.

[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

[Ken07AOVette]

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

While it is a wonderful thing that the club is going to bat against the absentee land owner I have to ask are they doing this out of spite, or because these 2 are the only lakes within short driving distance, or really why? Are there no other fishable lakes in the area?

Locals have threatened to poison the lakes, will the club still fight if all the fish are dead?

If the SCOC refuses their claim what next?
I wonder if members realize that the money being used to fight this battle is likely club dues, which means that if lose and have to pay the landowner legal costs, it could possibly ruin the club.

Or, maybe there are some very well off fly fishing members footing the bill, which is something I really could see happening.

Being from Alberta where it is more or less useless to fish around here for a hundred square miles due to winter kill, dams, netting over fishing and commercial fishing I (used to) go into Saskatchewan if I wanted to eat a few fish, surely that is not the case there.

I think this is noses out of joint and no matter the cost they wont be pushed out of the lakes they have been on for years.

[roper1]

Ken it's in Nog's post

To win public access to waterways

Sometimes it's really important to take a stance, I, for one, will always appreciate Huntinstuff for his effort & knowledge & commitment!!

[Ken07AOVette]

Sometimes it's really important to take a stance, I, for one, will always appreciate Huntinstuff for his effort & knowledge & commitment!!

Granted

[ChrisGrohms]

Out of curiousity, are there that many lakes in B.C. that the public is being denied access to due to private land surrounding it?
I don’t really see the issue with private land owners wanting to keep things that way. PRIVATE. I would hate to see people trapsing across my property to access the creek that runs through it to catch some brookies.
Is this issue particularly pertain to just the lakes on this ranch or is this a major problem throughout B.C. ?

[Windsweptcoast]

There is also a problem on southern Vancouver Island. Much worse there. The government gave huge areas of the land away to private companies long ago. Now many of the logging roads are blocked off with gates.

[calgarychef]

Out of curiousity, are there that many lakes in B.C. that the public is being denied access to due to private land surrounding it?
I don’t really see the issue with private land owners wanting to keep things that way. PRIVATE. I would hate to see people trapsing across my property to access the creek that runs through it to catch some brookies.
Is this issue particularly pertain to just the lakes on this ranch or is this a major problem throughout B.C. ?

Until it’s you that can’t get onto a lake to fish. Pick a lake, let’s go crazy and call it wabumun. Now that’s a huge lake and everyone assumes they’ll be able to fish it forever, but just imagine a time when the land is all private all the way around and the landowners say “too bad, no fishing.” No, it’s important to maintain public access, and in the future it’s going to be even more important.

[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

[The Elkster]

I worry that this precedence will embolden others to try this route to block access creating private lakes for themselves. That is a pretty good motive. If legal precedence is there then people know what they have to do which makes them more likely to act. Its just not a good road to go down. Public easements/access should be included in any gov't sale of land and be a mandatory part of approved developments/business plans. Obviously not for ponds and small creeks but certainly for medium to large rivers and lakes over say 5 hectares.

[Ken07AOVette]

this is EXACTLY what I was talking about. The club is going after this so hard that they are spending money they do not have. The Lawyer will only do it for free for so long, and then it is all gone. They have spent $160,000 and are saying it could be 10x that before they are done, which taxpayers will pay???

And yes, I understand that at times a stand has to be made. But there must be a point where defeat has to be recognized. They need a wealthy benefactor they can name a trail after if they win.

from the link above, thanks Nog

The NVFGC is no longer entitled to special costs as a result of this ruling, and has been ordered to pay Douglas Lake’s legal costs for the appeal, which the club has been told are estimated to be around $25,000 to $30,000.


“We’ve spent over $160,000 to date and we’ve got approximately a couple hundred thousand dollars of bills un-billed by our lawyer, who’s been doing it for free, subject to us winning the special costs which have now been eliminated,” said McGowan.

“So, our financial future right now is unknown, other than we don’t have the money to pay those kinds of bills.”

McGowan estimates that the total cost of the ongoing legal battle, factoring in the province, DLCC and NVFGC, is around $1.5 million in total.

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.

[ChrisGrohms]

Until it’s you that can’t get onto a lake to fish. Pick a lake, let’s go crazy and call it wabumun. Now that’s a huge lake and everyone assumes they’ll be able to fish it forever, but just imagine a time when the land is all private all the way around and the landowners say “too bad, no fishing.” No, it’s important to maintain public access, and in the future it’s going to be even more important.

Yes I understand the whole not my problem until it is. But if there are just a few lakes out of literally thousand of lakes in bc then why would we put so much effort in to the few we can’t access and re allocate those resources to protecting what we DO have access to.
Yes there is a time and place to take a stand no matter the cost but I question whether this is the place.
It seems to me it’s one of those situations where everyone is up in arms over losing access but if we did in fact did have access very few would actually take advantage.
I am not set in my way of thinking here just spewing thoughts