3 ms·

>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 pe

>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.

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.