Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: one more cast on December 08, 2018, 10:03:23 PM
-
Big news here.... https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-angler-overwhelmed-at-winning-lake-access-case-against-billionaire-ranch-owners
-
what about corbit ???
-
https://www.merrittherald.com/landmark-court-decision-deems-lakes-public-property/?fbclid=IwAR2MvYovYO3LAwx1JGN7WTQiho_ptjNTCNCiJ6ZOjmsKaA43geXNDvFZRhw
-
Wow....I'd given up on thinking I'd ever hear anything again that resulted in a win for the sporties….
and a step in the right direction on access and privatization even…….wow.....a good win...and good day.
-
what about corbit ???
That still has to go to court and the facts of that case are somewhat different.
-
Wow....I'd given up on thinking I'd ever hear anything again that resulted in a win for the sporties….
and a step in the right direction on access and privatization even…….wow.....a good win...and good day.
How do you figure? DLR stocked and managed those 2 lakes. Will the Province now take over that role? It is never good when we lose viable options to resource management.
Will the Province enforce environmental protection of the surrounding grasslands and pick up all the garbage left from grad parties and thoughtless lake users? I think not. What about sewage because i don’t think DLR will keep any of their facilities on the lakes.
This decision helps no one and is short sighted. Just my $0.02
-
It is never good when we lose viable options to resource management.
How can you call the fish and lake a resource when they were made inaccessible to the public? DLR essentially converted crown property into a pay per use playground by the paying customers of the ranch, and that is what the courts ruling is about.
Like it or not, this ruling wasn't about deciding the best fate for the fish and the lake, rather it was to determine if what DLR was doing was lawful or not. According to the courts, it was not.
-
Copy and pasted from another forum: Courtesy to AA for digging it up
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2167/2018bcsc2167.html?resultIndex=1
[307] Earlier in these Reasons, I noted my very significant concerns about the action of DLCC and its ranch manager, Mr. Gardner, in their actions in, for a lack of a better term, taking the law in their own hands and closing, by virtue of a lock and intimidation, a public road. As critical as I am of Mr. Gardner, greater criticism may be levelled at the Province for its absolute lack of action in maintaining their property and enforcing the public good against a determined and bullying corporate entity and its manager.
[308] In particular, and with no disrespect intended, the evidence of Mr. Kirk regarding the actions of the Ministry of Highways under his watch, are actions which are frankly deplorable. Although Mr. Kirk may have had some strategic reason for doing so, he should have acted to enforce a public right and he did not. Mr. Kirk had determined in 1996 that the expression by Mr. Gardner to him, on behalf of DLCC, that the Stoney Lake Road had been traded for, the construction of the bypass road was not factually correct. He advised Mr. Gardner and DLCC of this. As such, a representative of the Province had determined in 1996, with some certainty, that the closure of the Stoney Lake Road was unlawful.
[315] I reluctantly conclude there was a breach of the Province’s obligations to the citizens of British Columbia, when DLCC unilaterally closed a public road and no government official in the Ministry of Highways had the wherewithal to insist that the lock on the gate be removed, nor insist that a corporate entity respect the law.
[318] No explanation was provided to the Court for why the government did nothing when they clearly have an obligation to, in my view, enforce a public right to roads.
[320] One of the very profound lessons of this litigation is that the Province has failed to protect the public interest. It has failed to ensure that a road it owns was not blocked, and subsequently destroyed by virtue of flooding, by a private land owner with economic interests aligned with the closure and destruction of the road. The Province’s actions, in not protecting the public interest in that sense, are disappointing to say the least.
-
They are not private lakes, open to the public.
They are public lakes, reopened to the public, after being usurped by a private land owner.
-
How do you figure? DLR stocked and managed those 2 lakes. Will the Province now take over that role? It is never good when we lose viable options to resource management.
Will the Province enforce environmental protection of the surrounding grasslands and pick up all the garbage left from grad parties and thoughtless lake users? I think not. What about sewage because i don’t think DLR will keep any of their facilities on the lakes.
This decision helps no one and is short sighted. Just my $0.02
You speak like a few of those guides on the lake.
It's very easy to bribe people. Give a few key people a bone and they will go and prophesy your religion.
DLR is certainly not one of those private owners who need help from the public.
They own half of region 3.
Those lakes were never theirs. They have plenty of space to create a lake of their own if they want to create an exclusive fishery.
People are pigs, yes, but the solution to pigs shitting on themselves is not to steal the property, it's to let them drown in their own shite.
-
All the land above the high water mark and outside the road allowance is theirs. They are well within their rights to fence it off to contain the mess.
Technically I believe the public is limited to the 3 foot swath of a trail to one of the lakes.
-
one thing to clarify - this judgement only applies to Minnie and Stoney Lakes, not all lakes private or otherwise or to river bank access.
-
Look at the Douglas Lake Face Book page:
https://www.facebook.com/DouglasLakeRanch/
Apparently they have launched an attempt to appeal the ruling.
-
one thing to clarify - this judgement only applies to Minnie and Stoney Lakes, not all lakes private or otherwise or to river bank access.
No kidding. Thanks for the obvious
-
the funny thing is it took you about 4 weeks to point this out ... slow on the up take aren't ya...LOL!
-
the funny thing is it took you about 4 weeks to point this out ... slow on the up take aren't ya...LOL!
All hail Ralph. The smartest man alive. Must be lonely on top of that pedestal Ralph.
-
maybe one day you'll learn to have a conversation on points of disagreement without hurling adolescent insults?
Nah!
-
the funny thing is it took you about 4 weeks to point this out ... slow on the up take aren't ya...LOL!
I don't know if I would characterize this comment as an adolescent insult, condescending, sarcasm or mockery. It's rich on so many different levels!
When I look into your glass house, I see a log in your eye and a black pot on the stove.
-
... turnabout is fair play. As for 'obvious', reading some responses on the thread shows this not to be so!
I gotta say having a log in my eye is quite a trick. Hee Hee
***************************************
To get his discussion back on topic, even if DLR's appeal fails, I don't see any big win for sport anglers or the public as result of the ruling. DLR may simply close their lodge and terminate their fish stocking operations. If so there is no certainly the Province will take over management & stocking given the difficult access the court ruling stipulates. Neither lake had a history of sustaining trout for any length of time until DLR got involved. The Province stopped stocking Minnie because it consistently summer killed due water draw downs for irrigation of the ranch. DLR may now have both right and incentive to big water draws for growing hay on the surrounding land.
It's pretty certain the issue will be on hold for some years yet as it works it's way through the court system.
-
maybe one day you'll learn to have a conversation on points of disagreement without hurling adolescent insults?
Nah!
Maybe one day you'll learn to join in on a conversation yourself pal. You should try it sometimes. Reading your responses makes me gag. You almost always have to be right. It amazes me that someone as narcissistic as you manages to get by in life.
-
Maybe one day you'll learn to join in on a conversation yourself pal. You should try it sometimes. Reading your responses makes me gag. You almost always have to be right. It amazes me that someone as narcissistic as you manages to get by in life.
::)
-
Other public lakes in this area still have big fish in them. They haven't been raped.
Lodges exist on many lakes that are not privately owned and make good bucks at it.
Maybe the DLCR could get the FFS to stock this now public lake and they can run the lodge on it.
There is no excuse why these lakes would not still be viable for a good fishing experience with a lodge and public fishing.
-
True. Roche and Tunkwa have been fairly successful. I go to the lodge at Lac Le Juene every couple of years and they are pretty frank little of their business comes from fishing customers. Bird watchers are a far bigger part of the clientele & that anglers and birders don't always mix well. Maybe DLR has to think of 'diversifying' in some way. Trouble I see is conflict with their base enterprise is ranching. If the process plays out with on going conflict the Province and may just choose not to get involved. No fish in those lakes, likely no conflict.
-
And so they try again to steal our resources and land!
https://www.merrittherald.com/ranch-owner-appeals-judges-order-not-to-block-access-to-local-lakes/ (https://www.merrittherald.com/ranch-owner-appeals-judges-order-not-to-block-access-to-local-lakes/)