Fair or Unfair? Discuss.

[CabezaBlanca]

If he owns the land surrounding the lake it is HIS LAKE......................

I agree.

[Johnny Dangerr]

I agree.

I did not read the fine print. Is he paying tax on the water. I have seen it go both ways. If he is not taxed the state should create a right of way for the public through emanant domain or offer him the tax burden.....

If he is taxed it's his lake......................

[Geezy Rider]

If he has that much money let him buy the lakes and then the Gov. can go by some land for recreational use with lakes. Plenty of lakes in Canada.

My thoughts also.

[RiverRat1]

I bet taxpayers didn't pay much to build these lakes. I'd assume they're natural.

Also, taxpayers pay for 10's of thousands of lakes to be stocked with fish and many are never fished. And they restock each year. So just take those lakes off the list.

Taxpayers are not out much money is my guess. It's just trying to make it appear a rich man took something. Name one person on TBH that would like to own 100% of the land around a lake or pond and have the court tell them they have to allow access for fishermen. I'll wait.

[brushtrooper]

Fair in my book
They should have negotiated a public ROW in the beginning. I have a hard time accepting that the government has a right to dictate what could be done with privately owned property beyond what they already require.

[BuckRage]

It's not his fault the government didn't think far enough ahead. The government should stop using public money to upkeep the lakes but no one should be forced to let people trespass on their property after the purchase. Otherwise the government should make an attempt to negotiate or purchase an easement. Funny how everyone says they believe in property rights unless it doesn't benefit them or the property owner is super rich which makes them a villain somehow.

[WItoTX]

But then only rich people can fish the lake so still unfair. Maybe give every fisherman a sea plane?

Your joking, but believe it or not, helicopters in Montana are cheaper than you would expect. Less than a guided hunt. If only it were legal to set down on wilderness out west!

[hbender1]

It's Canada, so same a Timbuktu to me.....Got no skin in that game.

[canny]

Seems the logical thing would be to either open up public access, or he purchases the lake for market value in addition to repaying the dollars spent by the agency for the lake since the law suit began.

[Hoggslayer]

If I was him I'd do the same thing. I wouldn't want everyone traipsing across my land. Some idiot gets hurt and tries to sue and he'll be screwed. Sad, but the truth. People will search him out just to sue him because he has money.

[wilded]

Not any worse than the State of Texas having thousands of acres of land owned by the people of Texas that they do not allow access to anyone but certain State officials.

[S-3 Ranch]

Not any worse than the State of Texas having thousands of acres of land owned by the people of Texas that they do not allow access to anyone but certain State officials.

Yeah that is kinda a beef with me, Texas school fund holds 100’s of thousands of acres next door to some places I frequent and
It’s now off limits to hunt, oil / wind companies can access, some is leased to grazing

[RJH1]

I don't know Canadian laws, but it sure seems like there's two sets of rules for the average man and the ultra-wealthy. No matter how you look at it, if the public, who owns and pays for the Lakes can no longer access them, the rich guy basically stole property from every Canadian that pays taxes on those Lakes. Because even if there's some Nuance to the law that allows it, having property that you cannot access, basically means you do not have that property. If I was a slightly less rich person than him and had a couple extra million to blow, I'd buy the biggest ****ed floatplane I could, and Buzz His Place daily with Partiers going to the secluded Lakes LOL

[lab man]

Sounds somewhat similar to what happened at Lake Diversion after he bought the Waggoner Ranch here in Texas. Lake is owned by the Water District and the City of Wichita Falls.

[Mike D]

Fair or Unfair? Discuss.

If he has that much money let him buy the lakes and then the Gov. can go by some land for recreational use with lakes. Plenty of lakes in Canada.

This. If any tax dollars paid for those lakes in any way, the way I see it the landowner has 2 choice:

(1) allow public access through his land to the publicly funded resource.

(2) buy the lakes from the government at full market rate and kick everybody out.

EDIT: 3rd option would be for the landowner to deed an easement through his property at full market value to the government to allow public access to the publicly owned/funded resource.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro