5 ms·

Personal use of public lands of this nature can almost always be classified as "misuse," no matter how cool or ingenious the project.

by debacle 14y ago

Wohlf 14y ago
I agree, letting it slide would also set a terrible precedent.
- schiffern 14y ago
  I don't think anyone has suggested looking the other way. They should work with the builder and find a way to make it legal. This isn't any more egregious than the numerous abuses of our public land system (e.g. the sale Tim DeChristopher was protesting, which was later deemed illegal).
  - debacle 14y ago
    No, they shouldn't. There is a reason lands are marked for conservation. They should remove the structure with prejudice.
schiffern 14y ago
>Personal use of public lands of this nature can almost always be classified as "misuse," no matter how cool or ingenious the project. Of which nature? Many people camp and graze on public lands without committing violations, so merely "personal use" is certainly allowed. You seem to be saying, "illegal use is illegal".
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  Of which nature? Building permanent or semi-permanent structures.
- indiecore 14y ago
  Well it's not really public land it's Crown Property. Not sure of the specifics of BC law wrt structures[1] but in most places anything you build on Crown Property becomes the property of the Crown and whatever minister is in charge of that can do whatever they want with it. Honestly it wouldn't be hard for them to say "Yeah that's nice" and let it slide, obviously he doesn't have any rights to the structure so I could go and take it over and he couldn't really do anything about it. [1] Looked it up http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96245_01#part6 http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/free...
  - fatbird 14y ago
    While they could let it slide, they won't, because that could trigger adverse possession from him. He could wait ten years, then sue to gain ownership of the land, arguing that because they didn't kick him off when they found out, they were implicitly granting him ownership. He'd win, too. You have to make a positive defense against adverse possession, meaning if you know about it you have to do something about it.
- bmelton 14y ago
  I would think that the 'permanent structure' is probably the defining thing done here that makes it incontrovertibly illegal. Generally speaking, camping on lands like this requires permits (though not always) and are generally overlooked because 1) they aren't as heavily patrolled (because there isn't the expectation of campers) and 2) the campers generally leave little trace of their comings and goings.
  - schiffern 14y ago
    >Generally speaking, camping on lands like this requires permits Nah. Places that require permits are typically developed camping sites. The vast majority of public land in the US (and Crown land in Canada) requires no permits to camp on. BLM land (1/8 of the US) is free to camp on unless local regulations say otherwise.
    - bmelton 14y ago
      Thank you for the correction. That's what I get for using anecdata to assert a claim. Edit: Now that you've pointed that out though, I did a quick search and found that while free, there is a "14 day limit per calendar year" on camping on BLM land (it doesn't specify if this is confined to a single piece of land or all land in general), and for periods longer than 14 days, a permit is required.
- debacle 14y ago
  Some things are illegal as a formality, and some things are illegal based on social morality, but other things are illegal because society as a whole is sacrificing some freedoms in order to provide for a better future. In that case, I've very little concern for legality.
Alex3917 14y ago
"Personal use of public lands of this nature can almost always be classified as 'misuse,' no matter how cool or ingenious the project." Actually our national forests were specifically created for personal use. They are designed to meet the needs of a variety of stakeholders who have interest in using the forest, including the construction and paper industries, skiers, hunters, backpackers, fisherman, wildlife conservation groups, etc. Clearly they should have gotten permission first, because the job of the national forest service is to mediate between the needs of the different groups who each want to use the forest in their own way, and that can't happen if people just go off and do their own thing. But this would actually potentially be a legitimate use of the national forest system had they gone about it the right way.
- indiecore 14y ago
  The "right way" is buying land from the Crown. That's the thing here, this isn't "public" land it's Crown land. The governor general owns it and lets people hike and bike and stuff but you can't build stuff there because it's not yours.

Personal use of public lands of this nature can almost always be classified as "misuse," no matter how cool or ingenious the project.

by debacle 14y ago

Personal use of public lands of this nature can almost always be classified as "misuse," no matter how cool or ingenious the project.

Wohlf 14y ago

I agree, letting it slide would also set a terrible precedent.

schiffern 14y ago
I don't think anyone has suggested looking the other way. They should work with the builder and find a way to make it legal. This isn't any more egregious than the numerous abuses of our public land system (e.g. the sale Tim DeChristopher was protesting, which was later deemed illegal).
- debacle 14y ago
  No, they shouldn't. There is a reason lands are marked for conservation. They should remove the structure with prejudice.

schiffern 14y ago

>Personal use of public lands of this nature can almost always be classified as "misuse," no matter how cool or ingenious the project. Of which nature? Many people camp and graze on public lands without committing violations, so merely "personal use" is certainly allowed. You seem to be saying, "illegal use is illegal".

andyjohnson0 14y ago
Of which nature? Building permanent or semi-permanent structures.
indiecore 14y ago
Well it's not really public land it's Crown Property. Not sure of the specifics of BC law wrt structures[1] but in most places anything you build on Crown Property becomes the property of the Crown and whatever minister is in charge of that can do whatever they want with it. Honestly it wouldn't be hard for them to say "Yeah that's nice" and let it slide, obviously he doesn't have any rights to the structure so I could go and take it over and he couldn't really do anything about it. [1] Looked it up http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96245_01#part6 http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/free...
- fatbird 14y ago
  While they could let it slide, they won't, because that could trigger adverse possession from him. He could wait ten years, then sue to gain ownership of the land, arguing that because they didn't kick him off when they found out, they were implicitly granting him ownership. He'd win, too. You have to make a positive defense against adverse possession, meaning if you know about it you have to do something about it.
bmelton 14y ago
I would think that the 'permanent structure' is probably the defining thing done here that makes it incontrovertibly illegal. Generally speaking, camping on lands like this requires permits (though not always) and are generally overlooked because 1) they aren't as heavily patrolled (because there isn't the expectation of campers) and 2) the campers generally leave little trace of their comings and goings.
- schiffern 14y ago
  >Generally speaking, camping on lands like this requires permits Nah. Places that require permits are typically developed camping sites. The vast majority of public land in the US (and Crown land in Canada) requires no permits to camp on. BLM land (1/8 of the US) is free to camp on unless local regulations say otherwise.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    Thank you for the correction. That's what I get for using anecdata to assert a claim. Edit: Now that you've pointed that out though, I did a quick search and found that while free, there is a "14 day limit per calendar year" on camping on BLM land (it doesn't specify if this is confined to a single piece of land or all land in general), and for periods longer than 14 days, a permit is required.
debacle 14y ago
Some things are illegal as a formality, and some things are illegal based on social morality, but other things are illegal because society as a whole is sacrificing some freedoms in order to provide for a better future. In that case, I've very little concern for legality.

Alex3917 14y ago

"Personal use of public lands of this nature can almost always be classified as 'misuse,' no matter how cool or ingenious the project." Actually our national forests were specifically created for personal use. They are designed to meet the needs of a variety of stakeholders who have interest in using the forest, including the construction and paper industries, skiers, hunters, backpackers, fisherman, wildlife conservation groups, etc. Clearly they should have gotten permission first, because the job of the national forest service is to mediate between the needs of the different groups who each want to use the forest in their own way, and that can't happen if people just go off and do their own thing. But this would actually potentially be a legitimate use of the national forest system had they gone about it the right way.

indiecore 14y ago
The "right way" is buying land from the Crown. That's the thing here, this isn't "public" land it's Crown land. The governor general owns it and lets people hike and bike and stuff but you can't build stuff there because it's not yours.