On a website providing interpretation of the BC Land Act:
"What is Foreshore?

Foreshore is the land between the high and low watermarks of streams,
rivers, lakes, and the ocean."

So, foreshore (public access) applies not only to intertidal zones, but
also, as you can see, to lakes and rivers.

Quite right, IMHO.

frtzw906

I was just reading further, and this might be of comarative interest:

"Who Owns Foreshore?

In British Columbia, the Province owns nearly all freshwater and
sal****er foreshore. Land adjacent to foreshore maybe privately owned,
but in common law the public retains the privilege or "bare licence" to
access the foreshore."

from: http://www.lwbc.bc.ca/02land/tenuring/privatemoorage/

Note the point about "access to the foreshore". Again, quite proper
IMHO.

frtzw906

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access
to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may
belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's
toys.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private?

Of course, if they are private. There's nothing at all immoral about
owning
something that someone else, or the general public want or covet.
What's
immoral is when the public decides that it "needs" the thing more
than the
owner and decides to take it away from him without either asking or
paying
for the right to do so.

Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in
perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Indeed, but the key word is "some." Too many paddlers want it all,
and won't
be satisfied with "some."

And, all you have to do to obtain a particular venue that you
treasure and
place it in the public domain in perpetuity is to PAY FOR IT. That is
what
the Constitution requires. You don't get to use it without paying for
it if
somebody else already owns it.


Then there is the further question which pertains to "How" these
venues
got into private hands.

By grants of Congress and devolvement of title according to law.

The only way to interfere with that title is according to law. You
don't get
to use it or take it just because you want it.

And yet another question: Is the public good or public interest
being
served by having these venues in private hands?

When it comes to private property, private rights trump public
interest
unless and until the public comes up with the cumshaw (and the legal
justification of "public use") to purchase that which it wants to put
to
public use.

Private property is private only so long as the state deems it to
be
private.

Maybe in Canada. Down here, private property is private until the
state
lawfully exercises its powers of eminent domain and provides just
compensating for the taking.

If you want to use it, or open it to public use, all you have to do
is pay
for it. Pretty simple, actually. Unfortunately, most
liberal-socialists are
parsimonious in the extreme and think they ought to be given
everything for
free.

Sorry, but that's not the way it works down here.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

=A9 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott, I must not have made myself clear, and riverman missed my point.
I would like to meet the real Scott Weiser. Will the real Scott Weiser
please stand up? I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true. I have not had opportunity to go back and read
all the archives, and would really appreciate the opportunity to form
my own opinion. So is it possible to meet? TnT

Tink says:
=============
Scott, I must not have made myself clear, and riverman missed my point.
I would like to meet the real Scott Weiser. Will the real Scott Weiser
please stand up? I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true. I have not had opportunity to go back and read
all the archives, and would really appreciate the opportunity to form
my own opinion. So is it possible to meet?
============

Tink, are going to be the CO president of the Weiser fan club? GRIN

He's a gun-toting, Hummer-driving, ex-Kampus Kop. Are you guys so short
of role models down there? Or maybe I'm just jealous that you don't
want to meet me. GRIN

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=============
Scott, I must not have made myself clear, and riverman missed my
point.
I would like to meet the real Scott Weiser. Will the real Scott
Weiser
please stand up? I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true. I have not had opportunity to go back and
read
all the archives, and would really appreciate the opportunity to form
my own opinion. So is it possible to meet?
============

Tink, are going to be the CO president of the Weiser fan club? GRIN

He's a gun-toting, Hummer-driving, ex-Kampus Kop. Are you guys so
short
of role models down there? Or maybe I'm just jealous that you don't
want to meet me. GRIN

frtzw906

I would love to meet you, I owe you a big slobbery kiss!

As far as Scott goes, I don't expect that Scott feels the need for a
fan club, that is yet to be proven wrong! Though I would volunteer if
the job comes with the perk of driving a Hummer. They are pretty cool,
and Big, and expecially if they have darkened windows. Think SWAT,
could stand for Scott Weiser Attack Team! He and I do ok against some
of you raging liberals!

Scott you are hearing this aren't you, I am going out on the limb for
you, so may I come visit you, to set the record straight about what
kind of guy you really are? Sort of like I did with K&r! Things are so
much better now between them. Maybe there is hope between this bunch
and you! Tnt

Tink:
=============
Scott you are hearing this aren't you, I am going out on the limb for
you, so may I come visit you, to set the record straight about what
kind of guy you really are? Sort of like I did with K&r! Things are so
much better now between them. Maybe there is hope between this bunch
and you!
===============

Think about it Tink. Do you really think there'll be any correlation
between the Usenet persona and reality? I don't.

This meeting will never happen. Do you think the Usenet Scott really
wants anyone to meet the real Scott?

frtzw906

Melissa:
==============
I suppose also that the use of the term "nearly all" above might be in
reference to the possible exceptions of both "Crown" and "First
Nation" lands?
=============

Right. Primarily it refers to Federal lands (and First Nations affairs,
when not self-governing, fall under Federal jurisdiction).which
includes many harbors and, of course, military bases.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:

BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Wilf, please do yourself and all of us a favour, and don't go there...
Weiser's views on that issue have been known to RBP for about a decade,
and while he's probably more than happy to repeat them ad infinitum, you
won't gain anything from getting a monologue like that from him.

Well, he might learn something too.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


"Wilko" wrote in message
...
BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Wilf, please do yourself and all of us a favour, and don't go there...
Weiser's views on that issue have been known to RBP for about a decade,
and while he's probably more than happy to repeat them ad infinitum, you
won't gain anything from getting a monologue like that from him.



Seconded. You could use this as an object lesson in personal restraint, and
nobody....I repeat NOBODY here will think the less of you for it. You could
be Barbara Walters wrapped up in Oprah and Larry King, and you will not make
any headway against his well-rehearsed position.

Well, that would be because I'm right and have the law on my side. Still, he
may wish to learn something new on his own.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 07:16:42 -0800, you wrote:

Wilko:

Wilf, please do yourself and all of us a favour, and don't go
there... Weiser's views on that issue have been known to RBP for
about a decade, and while he's probably more than happy to repeat
them ad infinitum, you won't gain anything from getting a
monologue like that from him.

Wilf:

OK. Fair enough. Perhaps I'll check the archives and have that
discussion with Scott vicariously.

Indeed, that particular issue seems to be Scott's number one "pet
issue", and it's truly pointless to engage him in any sort of
discussion concerning it, as his ideas on the matter are absolutely
set in stone; even for the sake of discussion.

Well, when you're right, you're right. Why would I change my mind when I
have the weight of both Constitutions, the law, and the Colorado Supreme
Court on my side?

Only those who
actually enjoy endlessly banging their heads against a brick wall
will find anything interesting about discussing "private property"
issues with Scott.

Unless they want to learn something.


Once Scott "owns" a piece of the earth, you'd best not even try to
breathe the air anywhere near that bit of real estate. If Scott were
to "own" a bit of oceanfront real estate, any boat passing by better
be sure to be out of range of Scott's firepower, and beach combers
best take the inland detour before reaching the "No Tresspassing"
signs on the beach, then only return to the beach after the last "No
Tresspassing" sign is safely behind them.

Absolutely not true. The ocean is a "navigable water of the United States,"
and boats have a perfect right to use it. Beachcombers also have a right to
use the beach below the "ordinary high water mark," because that too is in
the public domain. In fact, I stand with the beach access people in
California who are challenging the rich movie stars and other beachfront
property owners who are trying to exclude the public from the beaches below
the ordinary high water mark.

The issue here is what waters in Colorado are defined as "navigable" under
federal tests, and what rights the public has to navigate over waters that
are not, in fact, navigable under the requisite federal tests.

I simply maintain that Boulder Creek, through my property, is not a
"navigable waterway" and that as such, the public has no right to float
through my property. The Colorado Supreme Court has stated unequivocally
that the public has no right of recreational access upon non-navigable
rivers and streams in Colorado. That's the law. I choose to exercise my
rights under that law to exclude boaters from the creek, which is my private
property, just as you might choose to exclude me from your backyard barbecue
because your back yard is private property.

But where a waterway, such as the Mississippi or the Ohio or any other
waterway which has been adjudicated to be navigable by the proper federal
court, then I fully support the right of the public to navigate upon it.

I simply demand that everyone, including kayakers, obey the law and respect
the distinction between navigable and non-navigable waterways in Colorado.

The essence of the dispute is that most kayakers feel that there is no such
thing as a non-navigable waterway, and that anything they can float a kayak
on is automatically classified as public. Unfortunately, that is not what
the law says, and never has. It's much more complex than that.


I think most people, myself included, hold more nuanced views of
"private, personal property", especially when it comes to "owning" a
piece of the earth itself; which is a concept worthy of nuanced
consideration and discussion, but Scott's views on this are anything
but nuanced. I almost wouldn't be surprised if when he dies, he'll
want to have every speck of dirt, rock, and drop of water stuffed
into his coffin with him, because after all, he paid "good ole US
Cash Money" for it! :-)

Typical hypocritical leftist-socialist claptrap. I'm quite certain that if I
came to your house, walked in unannounced and uninvited and picked up your
kayak and walked out the door with it, you'd object. I'm certain you'd
object just as loudly if I walked in, sat down on your couch and started
drinking your beer without your permission.

I also imagine that if the state came along, said it needed your land to
build a freeway and tossed you out of your house summarily, without so much
as a by-your-leave, much less paying you just compensation, you've be
screaming like a stuck pig.

Why is my right to exclude people from my property any less sacrosanct than
your right to exclude people from your property?

Your hypocrisy is immense. Unsurprising, but immense.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser