Weiser, in misunderstanding the concept of "Crown land":
===================
It seems to stem from the Monarchy approach of government, as the lands
are
defined as "Crown Lands," which don't belong to the people, they belong
to
the sovereign. This simple expedient says that "everything belongs to
the
King except what the King chooses to grant to an individual." Thus, it
seems, the King, to whom all lands belong as his private property, has
chosen not to grant title to lands underlying waters. I suppose that's
why
it's good to be the King.
===============

Whereas "Crown lands" are just that "lands belonging to the Crown" as
you state, they are in actual fact "public lands" belonging to the
"people". In Canada, when you see the appellation "Crown", just
substitute "Public" if you're looking for an American equivalent. Crown
prosecutor = Public prosecutor. Crown land = Public land. Crown
corporation = Public corporation. etc etc... No need to get hung up on
notions of Kings or Queens. The "crown" in Canada is purely ceremonial.
Personally, I find the notion of a monarchy, in 2005, insulting.
However, I calm myself by knowing that it is entirely meaningless.

frtzw906