U.S. Billionaire Stan Kroenke Wins Fight
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
goelk 09-Mar-21
Jaquomo 09-Mar-21
Paul@thefort 09-Mar-21
Will 09-Mar-21
kscowboy 09-Mar-21
Huntcell 09-Mar-21
Glunt@work 09-Mar-21
Ambush 09-Mar-21
DiRTY MiKE 09-Mar-21
Jaquomo 09-Mar-21
BlacktailBob 09-Mar-21
hoytshooter1 09-Mar-21
Ambush 09-Mar-21
Bob H in NH 09-Mar-21
goelk 09-Mar-21
Bowfreak 09-Mar-21
Huntcell 09-Mar-21
TEmbry 09-Mar-21
jbamburg 09-Mar-21
Grasshopper 09-Mar-21
goyt 09-Mar-21
PECO 09-Mar-21
JohnMC 09-Mar-21
Catscratch 09-Mar-21
Scar Finga 09-Mar-21
Ambush 09-Mar-21
TEmbry 09-Mar-21
DanaC 09-Mar-21
Rocky D 09-Mar-21
Bowfreak 09-Mar-21
JohnMC 09-Mar-21
Kurt 09-Mar-21
Ambush 09-Mar-21
GDx 09-Mar-21
Norseman 09-Mar-21
keepemsharp 09-Mar-21
WV Mountaineer 09-Mar-21
DL 09-Mar-21
Norseman 09-Mar-21
Ambush 09-Mar-21
Spiral Horn 09-Mar-21
Jaquomo 09-Mar-21
PECO 09-Mar-21
PECO 09-Mar-21
Ambush 09-Mar-21
Missouribreaks 09-Mar-21
WV Mountaineer 09-Mar-21
BOHNTR 09-Mar-21
Norseman 09-Mar-21
Ambush 10-Mar-21
Missouribreaks 10-Mar-21
Huntcell 10-Mar-21
Ambush 10-Mar-21
WV Mountaineer 10-Mar-21
skull 10-Mar-21
Jackaroo 10-Mar-21
Norseman 11-Mar-21
Ambush 11-Mar-21
kentuckbowhnter 11-Mar-21
Mint 11-Mar-21
Ambush 11-Mar-21
Spiral Horn 11-Mar-21
petedrummond 11-Mar-21
Huntcell 11-Mar-21
PECO 12-Mar-21
Corn bore 12-Mar-21
Bou'bound 12-Mar-21
Boris 12-Mar-21
Corn bore 12-Mar-21
From: goelk
09-Mar-21
Ive been watching this and the public lost.

From: Jaquomo
09-Mar-21
What did we lose?

From: Paul@thefort
09-Mar-21
American billionaire Stan Kroenke – the real estate and sports mogul who owns more than 2 million acres of farmland in North America – has just won a ten-year legal battle in Canada to keep the public from d ” access two lakes that can only be reached by property.

Kroenke, who is married to Walmart heiress Anne Walton, owns the largest ranch in Canada – a towering mass larger than Metro Vancouver, which entirely surrounds two bodies of water: Stoney and Minnie Lakes. The lakes, each over half a mile long, are both publicly owned in Canada and filled with fish. But the orientation of Kroenke’s property leaves citizens without a road to reach them, forcing would-be hunters and fishermen to take a small dirt trail or unpaved cart road through its lands to access the wilderness it has to offer. their taxpayers maintain.

Kroenke’s ranch, known as the Douglas Lake Cattle Company or Douglas Lake Ranch, blocked access to these roads with locked gates and fences. (Notably, the ranch has two private lakes on the same property, which visitors must pay an undisclosed daily rate to access). So in 2013, the Nicola Valley Fish and Game Club, a local nonprofit organization dedicated to managing wildlife in the area, sued the ranch to open the passageways, arguing the trail had historical significance. dating back to its use by an indigenous village. , and that Canadian citizens have the right to access public lands.

In 2018, a British Columbia Supreme Court judge sided with the recreation group, noting that Canadian tax dollars had been used to rehabilitate the historic trail. But Kroenke appealed, and on Friday a higher court overturned the 2018 ruling, barring Canadians from “entering” on both lanes.

“Our whole club and most of the people in the Nicola Valley cannot believe that a court of appeal can, with the stroke of a pen, erase a 20-day delay. [British Columbia] Supreme Court ruling, ”said Rick McGowan, manager of the Nicola Valley Fish and Game Club on Monday. “He devoted 10 years of research and work, all for the benefit of a wealthy American.”

The appeal judges confirmed in their decision that the lakes and the fish they contain do not belong to Kroenke’s ranch, but they accepted his lawyers’ argument that a path does not reach the “limit. natural ‘waters and that there was not enough evidence. to link the trail to native roots. In their decision, the judges wrote that the trial judge had “added his voice to the chorus of those who sought to limit the rights of private landowners.”

“The club (Nicola Valley) invites us to recognize a right to cross private land where it is necessary to do so to access a lake on land reserved for the Crown for the benefit of the public,” wrote the judge. Peter Willcock appeal on file. . “In my opinion, while this argument may attract considerable public support, it has no support in our law.”

Evan Cooke, a lawyer representing the Douglas Lake Cattle Company, called Friday’s ruling a “good decision.”

“The DLCC was satisfied from the outset that its position in the litigation was in accordance with British Columbia law,” said Cooke.

Last week’s decision came at a heavy cost for the environmental nonprofit. Judges ruled the organization was not a “public interest litigator,” meaning it will have to pay the billionaire’s legal fees for his appeal, in addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars owed for theirs. . According to Vancouver Sun, the non-profit organization supports its own legal fund with picnics and raffles. “It will probably be $ 25,000 or $ 30,000 [for Kroenke’s legal expenses]McGowan said. “I don’t think we would fundraise to pay for legal fees, but we are organizing funding to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada on a couple of issues.

Club attorney Christopher Harvey told The Daily Beast in an email that “the central issue in this case concerns public rights of access to public lakes versus the private property rights of landowners around the lakes.

“The law maintains the balance between these two competing rights, but when it comes to water rights, the law has long favored public rights over private rights,” he said in an e- mail. “What is remarkable about this decision is that it flips that equation … Even though the water belongs to the state, no one is now allowed to cross it if the bed under the water is a private property.”

Inside the war between the rich and the super-rich on an English golf course

Kroenke made his fortune through land development: Forbes estimates that he owns around 30 million square feet of real estate – much of it in malls near his in-laws’ megastores – generating a net worth of more than $ 8.2 billion. One of its properties is a large expanse of land in North Texas around Diversion Lake near Wichita Falls. In 2016, Kroenke evicted hundreds of longtime residents from the 35,000-acre ranch, forcing them to leave their homes on less than four months’ notice. According to Dallas News, most residents were elderly or lived on fixed incomes. “We have family members who have had leases here for 50 years,” said Annette McNeil, a longtime resident. Saint-Louis post-expedition at the time.

Kroenke has also funneled some of his fortune into sports teams and owns the NHL Colorado Avalanche, NFL LA Rams, English Premier League Arsenal FC and NBA Denver Nuggets, among others. The NFL does not technically allow team owners to have professional sports properties in competing cities. But Kroenke found a way around the rules: he arranged to put two of the teams under his son’s name, Josh Kroenke, while keeping them in the family.

In 2017, Kroenke got involved in a different kind of sport: an on-demand app called MyOutdoorTV which has been dubbed the “Netflix of the hunting world”. The paid blood sports channel broadcast, among other things, the trophy hunting of endangered animals, including lions and elephants. After MOTV was widely criticized in the press, Kroenke asked it to remove all content related to big game hunting.

Harvey hinted that the legal findings of the ruling left room for another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada – if the fishing group can afford it. McGowan agreed, noting that the club plan to raise funds to support the effort. “The judge[s] effectively said that water on private land is not navigable for Canadians, ”said McGowan. “That means they just give it to the landowner for free.”

A spokesperson for British Columbia’s Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development said it was too early to comment on the decision as the Fish and Game Club may try to bring in the highest court.

The BC Court of Appeal decision is a landmark case that has far-reaching implications for public access to land in an area where many crown-owned waterways are closed by private property. The case is part of a larger international movement on public rights to the wilderness, known as “freedom to move”. There is increasing pressure in British Columbia to establish “right to roam” laws. “It doesn’t make sense to me,” Judge Joel Groves wrote in the original 2018 ruling, “that the Crown would retain ownership of the lakes, only so that there is no access.

“It’s not a happy judgment for public rights,” Harvey said. “The Attorney General has a duty to protect the rights of the public, but in this case, that did not happen. The club is fully autonomous. “

From: Will
09-Mar-21
Is that write up accurate? If so... Wow!

From: kscowboy
09-Mar-21
Found one error, Will: "trophy hunting of endangered animals, including lions and elephants." Endangered?

From: Huntcell
09-Mar-21
That was a lengthy piece which says, Canadien law confirms private property rights.

From: Glunt@work
09-Mar-21
Article has some slant to it. If the fish and water are public, the province can prohibit recreational use meaning the ranch can't use it either. Maybe some leverage for a deal.

From: Ambush
09-Mar-21
Kreonke will simply bury the Club in an avalanche of legal bills.

Justice will be served to those who can afford the tab. The head of the head table always gets the best service.

09-Mar-21
This is canada? Screw those guys.

# tuttulik #neverforget

From: Jaquomo
09-Mar-21
I'm confused. The article says "forcing would-be hunters and fishermen to take a small dirt trail or unpaved cart road through its lands to access the wilderness it has to offer."

So does this mean there is still hiking access, just not a vehicle road?

From: BlacktailBob
09-Mar-21
Nice to see they respect private property rights in Canada.

Just because the masses want it, doesn't legally, morally, or ethically allow access. Like the constitution of the United States of America reads, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". Not sure how Canadian law works, but if the public wants it, they can have it for a public use in the USA, as long as just compensation is paid.

From: hoytshooter1
09-Mar-21
"This is canada? Screw those guys. # tuttulik #neverforget"

This guy owns a LOT of land here in Wyoming.... he won't hesitate to replicate his actions here. So, let's not turn our heads away because it's Canada. It can and will happen here too. My two cents....

From: Ambush
09-Mar-21
^^^ No access allowed. There are quite a few twists and turns to get to this point. Everything from "historic" to "accepted" to some murky agreements with now nameless officials. Road beds changing without anything on paper and supposed gentlemen's agreements. It's not quite cut and dried as private VS public rights. And as the judgements have fallen so far prove, there is a case for both sides.

But right or wrong, in the end Kroenke will win. Unless a benefactor with as much money and influence will take up the case from the clubs perspective. And that would likely have to be the provincial government and I don't think they're interested.

DiRTY MiKE; that's just stupid.

From: Bob H in NH
09-Mar-21
I was going to ask the same thing Jaquomo! Wasn't sure if that was the same trail they tried to claim native access to, or a different one.

If it were me, no public access not fishing in the lake, if the lake is controlled by the state, I surely wouldn't stock it. That said, private land ownership wins.

From: goelk
09-Mar-21
Thanks Paul i couldn't figure out how to get all that info on.

From: Bowfreak
09-Mar-21
I'm not sure what the issue is here? The guy owns the land and can do with it as he pleases.

It's a poorly written piece. Does the public have access via trail? If so, what are they upset about?

From: Huntcell
09-Mar-21
private property is not so secure in the US of A since the US Supreme Court in their infinite wisdom decided to rule that a jurisdiction can eminent domain ones private property and transfer ownership to another private owner if that owner is deemed having the ability to increase value added to previous owners property. besides that your only leasing your 'Real Estate' from the government, stop paying your lease payments (taxes) and see how long you really 'own' it.

It's not your father's US of A anymore.

"Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, " Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 22, 2005 Decided June 23, 2005

From: TEmbry
09-Mar-21
Is there a walking trail to still access the lake as this article hinted towards? If so I think the whole issue is ridiculous. If it was a small family farmer wanting to be left alone it wouldn’t have such a negative slant as it does for the big bad capitalist billionaire.

From: jbamburg
09-Mar-21
"forcing would-be hunters and fishermen to take a small dirt trail or unpaved cart road through its lands to access the wilderness it has to offer. their taxpayers maintain.... Kroenke’s ranch, known as the Douglas Lake Cattle Company or Douglas Lake Ranch, blocked access to these roads with locked gates and fences."

To all who keep asking about the trails the answer is right there in the next paragraph. He blocked access to the trails. There is now no access.

From: Grasshopper
09-Mar-21
The High lonesome ranch in Garfield county Colorado put a gate across a county road preventing access to public lands. If your wallet is deep, you can tie things up for a long time. In this case, sounds like 10 years.

https://casetext.com/case/high-lonesome-ranch-llc-v-bd-of-cnty-commrs-for-garfield

From: goyt
09-Mar-21
The outcome maybe much different if the Public were to attempt to force the sale of enough land to the public to provide public access to public lakes. The courts have to rule on the action taken. In this case the public wants to cross private land which the courts ruled against.

From: PECO
09-Mar-21
Public lakes and public lands need to be accessible by the public. This public land, landlocked and blocked by private land is B.S.

From: JohnMC
09-Mar-21
I usually have a strong point of views on most issues. This one I am kind of on the fence. I'd be pissed if the government wanted to allow people to walk through my yard to get to a park that was otherwise inaccessible. Or if I owned 80 acres to hunt whitetail on and for whatever reason it was decided I need to allow public to walk through it. Then on the other hand it pisses me off that there is mucho BLM lands that are landlocked.

I do over all think the government has no business telling someone for the most part what they can or can not doing on their PRIVATE property or who they must allow access to it.

From: Catscratch
09-Mar-21
Skimmed over the article. Do I have the scenario correct; The water in the lakes is state owned... The ground (bank) up to the water is privately owned by Kroenke... the trail that is on private land had previously been treated as public, it's the only access to the lake...

My first question is; can you fish from bank without trespassing or do you have to be floating?

Second question is; why didn't the government get an easement to protect access to the public waters either during a previous ownership or right before sale to the newest ownership?

From: Scar Finga
09-Mar-21
Well, if it was my property I wouldn't want anyone on it either!

Would you????

Honestly???

But I might build a nice road, camping spots and then charge an insane access fee! HA!

From: Ambush
09-Mar-21
There is NO ACCESS now.

The lakes were until recently stocked by the government.

The lakes are now much larger than they were due to earthen impounding by the owner (dams).

The ranch recognized an opportunity to sell the fishing to lodge guests. The "be a real cowboy for a week" people. It truly is beautiful country!

High paying guests don't want the nonpaying guy with a cooler and lawn chair fishing next to him. Especially if the only logo'ed clothing is a beer hat.

Yes, you could legally get dropped off by air and fish all you want.

The issue is not the private property surrounding the lake, it's the access that was once public and now isn't. The issue is, "...was there a public road that has been blocked?"

The fall out for property owners may be a renewed interest and political appetite for a recently proposed "Right to Roam" legislation. Although Kroenke may not care, other private landowners may end up being the victims of having millions of votes from the city over riding their present property rights. It's a David and Goliath scenario where siding with David may mean you can walk through someone's property to drink beer on an otherwise inaccessible beach. If you live in a condo, what's not to like?!?

There's gonna be more than one loser.

From: TEmbry
09-Mar-21
“ To all who keep asking about the trails the answer is right there in the next paragraph. He blocked access to the trails. There is now no access.”

The quote you used implies to me that he closed the roads to the public forcing them to now walk down a dirt trail to go fishing. If so, big deal it’s his land and his road. I think this is only an issue because the owner is a billionaire and everyone crying foul would be singing a different tune if a struggling to stay afloat farmer was the owner.

From: DanaC
09-Mar-21
If that 'struggling to stay afloat farmer' owned it and wanted to charge a modest access fee, I'd be fine paying it. This is some billionaire locking it up to everyone who used to enjoy free access.

From: Rocky D
09-Mar-21
X2 TEmbry, tons of public land locked by small and large land owners. Be careful what you wish for, there are many people who do not believe in private land ownership.

From: Bowfreak
09-Mar-21
I'll defend the right of the working poor or the uber rich to do as they see fit with their land.

From: JohnMC
09-Mar-21
Zero logic in that statement Dana other than lets stick to the rich guy,

From: Kurt
09-Mar-21
As usual Ambush has it correct. The lakes in question are about an hour south of me. The issue has been in the news for most of the 12 years I've lived around here. I've heard but don't see it mentioned or know the validity that when the HW 97C connector from Merritt to Peachland/Kelowna was built 30 years ago that access to one of the lakes was cut off and gov't basically dropped the ball from the public's point of view at that time....pre Kroenke days.

From: Ambush
09-Mar-21
Checkerboard. Corner hopping.

From: GDx
09-Mar-21
near where i elk hunt, there was a public road that was blocked by the landowner decades ago. law enforcement was call but did not do much about it. years of legal wrangling and a deteriorated road, a lawsuit was filed. the landowner won and the public road became public no longer. as a substitute, a difficult and often dangerous 4wheel drive trail was developed to get public access back the land.

From: Norseman
09-Mar-21
Can you fly in and fish?

From: keepemsharp
09-Mar-21
You can if you are batman.

09-Mar-21
Bowfreak and Tembry. Along with quite a few others.

It’s his. Plain and simple. He decides who does or doesn’t get access.

From: DL
09-Mar-21
The lesson here is its easier to marry a rich woman than a poor one.

From: Norseman
09-Mar-21
Or have a float plane

From: Ambush
09-Mar-21
I don’t beleive BC has any regulation against fishing with a drone.

From: Spiral Horn
09-Mar-21
Not that I have any expertise in the Canadian Legal System, but the appellate judges made it pretty clear that while their decision might not be publicly popular the legal challenges against the landowner were not supported by Canadian Law, and the historical/tribal claims were unsubstantiated. Seems pretty much over at this point.

Here in the US, private property rights in relation to bodies of water are very complex and vary tremendously from state to state. In one state I’m familiar with, the state owns up to the high water mark on either side of a navigable waterway and anyone can wade or troll the river where it is bordered by private property, but if someone tries to wade a small river or creek that runs through (or lake surrounded by) someone’s privately owned land they are trespassing.

From: Jaquomo
09-Mar-21
Sounds like the club didn't make a strong enough case in the appeals court.

From: PECO
09-Mar-21
"It’s his. Plain and simple. He decides who does or doesn’t get access." So you are in favor of public land and water, being in the middle of someones property and they have control? You pay for that land or water. Not the surrounding land owner.

From: PECO
09-Mar-21
The attitude of "I'm here now, eff everyone else that has been paying for and using this PUBLIC land and water forever, I'm going to block it, this PUBLIC land and water is mine" is total BS.

From: Ambush
09-Mar-21
The Club got out lawyer’d. Won the first, lost the appeal and can’t afford to advance it. The club and its members will suffer as well as the locals that work on the ranch/resort.

As long as the ranch doesn’t piss off the local Indian bands, they won’t worry about it.

09-Mar-21
Private property rights.

09-Mar-21
Peck, I’m not in favor of the public being locked out of public land. I’m as big an advocate against that as you’ll find.

However, I’m also as big an advocate for private property rights as you’ll find. It begs to be answered why this is public property. There isn’t a shortage of places to be stocked either. The sticker here is this used to be utilized by the public. Was bought by this guy, and is now closed to the public.

You buy things to own them. Owning them means you get to call the shots. Not me. Do, it’d be almost socialists to suggest the guy is doing any wrong. Because this obviously wasn’t public property to begin with.

From: BOHNTR
09-Mar-21
Private land....plain and simple. Just because the public used to access it doesn’t mean it was legal. Government should have paid or secured an easement or bought the property outright.

From: Norseman
09-Mar-21
Yellowstone 2.0 He’ll need to hire a couple Rips to keep it together.

From: Ambush
10-Mar-21
One last try to add some clarity and I'll keep it simple.

There was a public road to the public lakes. The ranch raised the level of the lakes by damming and diverting water from elsewhere. The lake then covered part of the old road in two spots. A new road was built around the lake. Now the ranch claims the new road is on private property. Some shenanigans happened with a buddy relationship with some highways administrators that left some paperwork missing. There are photos and eye witness testimony to back this up and documentation for government expense for maintaining the original road and the new road.

10-Mar-21
The court will figure it out, not bowsite.

From: Huntcell
10-Mar-21
Keep it simple the court has made its ruling!

From: Ambush
10-Mar-21
Trouble is the club very likely won't get it's "day in court" simply because of the financial disadvantage. Is that justice?

Huntcell; the court did make its ruling and the club won. End of story? No. With more lawyer power the ranch won an appeal. Again there is room to go to a higher court but the money won't be there. Justice served?

How many here believe the OJ Simpson killed his wife?

If the present ruling stands, then everyone with private property in BC better worry about new legislation. And we know how good politicians are at getting it right.

10-Mar-21
How could it ever have been a public road or, public waters before, if the lakes are surrounded by private ground now? The only way that happens is if he bought the land off the government? Is that correct?

From: skull
10-Mar-21
Is not over yet, is going to the Supreme Court of Canada

From: Jackaroo
10-Mar-21
I fished the lakes in the 1970s. They were filled with 5 to 8 lb kamaloops rainbows the meanest trout in the history of trout. A dragon fly nymph was the go to but a grey dun on the surface worked really well too. My dads uncle owned a fishing lodge just north of there and he was friends with the people that Owned the ranch back then. I believe you can still fish them via the Douglas lake ranch pay to play program.

From: Norseman
11-Mar-21

From: Ambush
11-Mar-21
Welp, Looks like Mr Kroenke has kicked the hornets nest of urban dwelling hikers, enviros and the politicians that cater to them. A lot of private property owners are now going to be living under the cloud of impending Right to Roam legislation.

Vancouver Sun news opened the can of worms to the public this afternoon.

11-Mar-21
maybe the Province should lease a fly in lodge facility to an outfitter for the lakes and then they can charge kronk a big ole fee just to put his toe in.

From: Mint
11-Mar-21
I think they Government should build a bridge over the public road that was flooded and then the problem would be solved.

From: Ambush
11-Mar-21
Just remember government's motto: "We're not happy till nobody's happy".

From: Spiral Horn
11-Mar-21
There is an old legal saying = "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” After studying up on this case a bit more it is beginning to appear that unless Canada changes the law the appeals court decision isn’t going to change.

From: petedrummond
11-Mar-21
Guess all those po folk in Canada might have to fish in the remaining 100000 lakes

From: Huntcell
11-Mar-21
All the groups can join together , Start saving up and buy him out, then turn it over to the province to keep it public.

He wouldn't live forever . properties eventually turn over. Time now to plan ahead.

Each $1 US donation is $1.25 in Loonies. Every bucket is filled with a million drops . Time to get started.

From: PECO
12-Mar-21
Maybe he will buy that ranch for sale on the pop up adds here. Then we don't have to see it anymore.

From: Corn bore
12-Mar-21
First question was the road publicly owned or was it just used by the public for a period of time? Lot of complicated laws to wade through here.

From: Bou'bound
12-Mar-21
OJ never killed his wife and was never accused of doing so

From: Boris
12-Mar-21
Ok, just thinking outside the box. You guys are talking 2000000 acres. That it is private land, an nobody but nobody can go on it. Right? What would happen if there was lighting strikes, and set the place on fire. What would happen if the forest firefighters where called in. They went on the property without permission to put the fire out. Can they be arrested? What would happen if the fire fighters know that the land is private, an refuse to go on the property knowing that they can or would be arrested and/or fined? Just thinking.

From: Corn bore
12-Mar-21
When you pay property taxes, or other taxes, you get fire services.

  • Sitka Gear