Access to Crown land

[Fancy]

What private property, to which people are not currently legally allowed access, are people being given access to?
Nothing I have read suggests that they are trampling anyone's existing rights, but rather giving greater access to public land.

Pretty much said it right here:
"Fences, gates and signs are blocking people from accessing crown land." Those fences, gates and signs are there for a reason.

Wildlife Act (Section 39) - A person is not permitted to hunt on cultivated land or on Crown land which is subject to a grazing lease while the land is occupied by livestock, without the consent of the owner, lessee or occupant of the land.

The Trespass Act also comes into play here.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/sport ... 6-2018.pdf

[Fancy]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/211109/Tear-down-the-fences

Another good bill tabled by Andrew Weaver. I can think of a couple of locked gates to Crown land that should be removed, one right here in the south Okanagan. Has anyone else been locked out of a favourite fishing hole, hiking trail, etc.?

Even Weaver stated it's unlikely there'll be a second reading. He's wasting his time.

[Verum]

What private property, to which people are not currently legally allowed access, are people being given access to?
Nothing I have read suggests that they are trampling anyone's existing rights, but rather giving greater access to public land.

Pretty much said it right here:
"Fences, gates and signs are blocking people from accessing crown land." Those fences, gates and signs are there for a reason.

Wildlife Act (Section 39) - A person is not permitted to hunt on cultivated land or on Crown land which is subject to a grazing lease while the land is occupied by livestock, without the consent of the owner, lessee or occupant of the land.

The Trespass Act also comes into play here.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/sport ... 6-2018.pdf

There is almost no way that this law could be applied to existing leases though, so I don't see how this is trampling anyone's rights. Yes, it may prevent such leases being renewed with the current conditions, but it is more likely be implemented to prevent new leases being drawn up with the current conditions, which I personally don't have a problem with. If people want to have exclusive access to land in perpetuity, buy it.

[Fancy]

If people want to have exclusive access to land in perpetuity, buy it.

That's not practical regarding cattle - crown land is leased for that purpose. This appears to be a non-issue anyway.

[Rwede]

So, it isn't trampling existing private property rights at all. Good to know.

Actually, it is. Weaver has proposed that that particular private property is open to everyone, with a 4x4 or quad or dirtbike.

Maybe I can come and start a bonfire in your yard and mudbog through your garden. I don't think you'd appreciate that, nor would a lessee of land who has paid a hefty sum to enjoy his/her plot of land.

As for the leases, can you please provide a link to somewhere supporting this view, since I would be very surprised if such leases could be affected in retrospect. Obviously going forward such leases and associated conditions are entirely up to the government and laws of that time, but I don't think any existing leases will be significantly affected.

Weaver is too frikken stupid to understand Common Law and the Occupiers' Liability Act. That's why he has proposed legislation that would strip personal rights away, and those include rights on existing leases.

A lessee currently has the protection of the Occupiers' Act:

(3.1) A person who is trespassing on premises while committing, or with the intention of committing, a criminal act is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks and the occupier of those premises is subject only to the duty of care set out in subsection (3).
(3.2) A person who enters any of the categories of premises described in subsection (3.3) is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks and the occupier of those premises is subject only to the duty of care set out in subsection (3) if
(a) the person who enters is trespassing, or
(b) the entry is for the purpose of a recreational activity and
(i) the occupier receives no payment or other consideration for the entry or activity of the person, other than a payment or other consideration from a government or government agency or a non-profit recreational club or association, and
(ii) the occupier is not providing the person with living accommodation on those premises.

That would disappear under Weaver's stupid plan, as the trespasser is no longer trespassing.

Allowing people to roam on private leased land opens a whole host of liability issues for the lessee. If that dopey roamer steps in a gopher hole and twists his ankle, who pays? Under lease conditions, liability is 100% the responsibility of the lessee, and allowing everyone onto that land increases that risk exponentially.

Weaver is a complete bozo. What else does he have in his BAG-o-TRICKS?

[Verum]

So, it isn't trampling existing private property rights at all. Good to know.

Actually, it is. Weaver has proposed that that particular private property is open to everyone, with a 4x4 or quad or dirtbike.

Maybe I can come and start a bonfire in your yard and mudbog through your garden. I don't think you'd appreciate that, nor would a lessee of land who has paid a hefty sum to enjoy his/her plot of land.

As for the leases, can you please provide a link to somewhere supporting this view, since I would be very surprised if such leases could be affected in retrospect. Obviously going forward such leases and associated conditions are entirely up to the government and laws of that time, but I don't think any existing leases will be significantly affected.

Weaver is too frikken stupid to understand Common Law and the Occupiers' Liability Act. That's why he has proposed legislation that would strip personal rights away, and those include rights on existing leases.

A lessee currently has the protection of the Occupiers' Act:

(3.1) A person who is trespassing on premises while committing, or with the intention of committing, a criminal act is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks and the occupier of those premises is subject only to the duty of care set out in subsection (3).

That would disappear under Weaver's stupid plan, as the trespasser is no longer trespassing.

Allowing people to roam on private leased land opens a whole host of liability issues for the lessee. If that dopey roamer steps in a gopher hole and twists his ankle, who pays? Under lease conditions, liability is 100% the responsibility of the lessee, and allowing everyone onto that land increases that risk exponentially.

Weaver is a complete bozo. What else does he have in his BAG-o-TRICKS?

It's not private property, it's privately leased public property and can you please show me where it says that this change in lease conditions would be retrospectively applied to existing leases? That would be a huge legal can of worms and I strongly suspect that would be impossible, but that the change could only be applied to new, or renewed leases.

I may have little time for Horgan or Weaver as I have little time for politicians in general, but your post seems particularly partisan and not at all based in rational criticism.

[Fancy]

I would think this is applicable:

Right of possession to acquired Crown land
65 Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a person lawfully entitled to occupy Crown land under a certificate of purchase, lease, right of way, easement or licence of occupation may, for that land, take proceedings against any person for recovery of possession of, or for trespass to, the interest in the land in the same manner and to the same extent as if the person were the registered owner of the land.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ ... #section38

[rustled]

^^Verum, he uses a pre-existing lease as an example. Emphasis is mine:

“The Right to Roam Act aims to address and prevent conflicts like the Douglas Lake Ranch case. Nature in British Columbia should be open to all, not to just the privileged few,” says Weaver.

http://www.bcgreens.ca/weaver_introduce ... o_roam_act
Many of the people he calls the "privileged few" are ordinary hard-working British Columbians who have invested both money and considerable sweat equity in the business for which they lease the land. Weaver seems blithely unaware of what goes on outside his bubble.

The Act is short, and available here:
http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/wp-conten ... am-Act.pdf
Notably:

Right to go upon land, river, stream or lake
3 (1) Any resident of the Province shall have the right to go on foot along the banks of any
river, stream or lake, upon and across any uncultivated lands and Crown lands, whether or not the rights to that land have been leased, for the purpose of:
(a) lawfully fishing with rod and line in such rivers, streams or lakes;
(b) lawfully walking, hiking, or roaming as recreation.

Leaseholders who currently use sensible things like fencing and signage to prevent damage to their property must be heartened by this:

(3) The rights conferred by this Section shall not in any way limit or restrict the right of any owner or occupant to compensation for actual damages caused by any person going upon or across such lands for the purpose aforesaid, and shall not be construed to give the right to build any fires upon such lands

[Fancy]

A river is also considered a boundary. This wouldn't even be an issue if people didn't abuse the rights of others.

[Verum]

The example shows that he does want it to apply to leases in the future, and while he probably wishes he could apply it to current ones, I seriously doubt that it is his intention to actually do so as there are just too many legal issues that I have no doubt that any major politician in BC would be aware of. Changing the conditions of a lease after you have signed it would almost certainly be seen as a breach of contract and it would open up the Province to some interesting law suits.

It is true that many of those who have leased this land are not so much particularly privileged, but hard workers who were somewhat fortunate and I too agree with supporting such as it is what drives our economy forward and I disagree with Weaver's characterisation of the problem as such. I actually suspect that we could have a solution which would give the likes of Weaver what he wants to a large degree, while also allowing continued use of leased land in a manner which works for farmers, etc. The problem is that few people are really looking for creative solutions

[rustled]

Perhaps, but as I read it, he seems to intend his Act to apply to any and all (not simply future).

Not sure what he's really up to with this. Seems like a messy solution looking for a problem, to me. Politicking at its worst. IMO.

[Fancy]

While I recognize that the government will unlikely call this bill for second reading, and while I also recognize that there are important amendments that would make it more effective, it’s critical that we keep this issue in the public realm.

http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2017/11/0 ... -columbia/

[Cactusflower]

I have a hunch that the Nicola Valley Fish and Game club vs. Douglas Lake ranch is what got Weaver's attention.
http://www.merrittherald.com/new-eviden ... game-club/

[Fancy]

I have a hunch that the Nicola Valley Fish and Game club vs. Douglas Lake ranch is what got Weaver's attention.
http://www.merrittherald.com/new-eviden ... game-club/

This was in the news quite some time prior to that.

[Cactusflower]

I have a hunch that the Nicola Valley Fish and Game club vs. Douglas Lake ranch is what got Weaver's attention.
http://www.merrittherald.com/new-eviden ... game-club/

This was in the news quite some time prior to that.

It's been in the news off and on for about 5 years. What's your point?