Sunday, June 28, 2015

They Paved Paradise

This is another example of denying public access to public land. The UBC Research forest in Maple Ridge are endowment lands donated to UBC as a gift. UBC is a publicly funded University. The research forest is open to the public but they have "closed" the waterfalls to the public. This is a beautiful spot on the Allouette River. I realize there has been problems in the past with youth drinking and cliff jumping yet denying public access completely is going over board. That's like putting up a fence around wreck beach and saying the public is not allowed in. It's just not right.

I hiked down and took this picture yesterday. The falls are several tiers and this is the last tier. You can wade into the water and go right up to the waterfalls. Obviously drinking and cliff jumping is a bad idea. I was born in North Vancouver near Lynn Canyon. A lot of people have died there doing stupid things but the park is beautiful and the 30 foot pool is totally safe.

Years ago when Cypress mountain became owned by an American company they tried to deny public access to certain parts of the park. People came out in huge numbers to protest and they rescinded the decision. Tax payers elect the politicians that make the rules. The rules have to be in the public interest. Denying public access to public land is a bad idea. Signs that say no drinking or no cliff jumping are good enough to deal with the liability issue.

In the States if you are caught trespassing you could be shot dead. Here you might get a ticket. I hope they do give me a ticket so I can dispute that ticket in court. If they are going to deny public access then the public need to reassess the University's public funding. Perhaps we can e-mail UBC and request them to amend the policy:,,,


  1. "In the States if you are caught trespassing you could be shot dead."

    Aw come on, seriously? Excellent way to wind up in jail, as some who thought that have found out. Deadly force is not allowed by statute anywhere in 50 states for simple trespassing. Now mind you, someone breaking into your house at 3AM is not simple trespassing......forcible entry into a residential dwelling during hours of darkness will be a good shoot in some states, but may be questionable in others. In neither case is this trespassing though.

    Any land or homeowner may require someone to leave private property but if that person does not comply, you dial 9-11. If the person refuses to comply when ordered to by the police, they would be arrested. The remedy for simple trespassing is for the person to leave when advised to do so. You are not even getting arrested by the cops for simple trespass unless the property is clearly posted or unless their are other factors, and with other factors even that is often an "officer discretion" thing.

    1. If the property is clearly posted No Trespassing they are pretty quick to pull out a gun and point it at you.

  2. one of my friends came back from Texas and their host had informed them to not wander off the public road, regardless of the reason. they could well be shot in that rural area. Its just what was done.

  3. You're full of shit. Or "your friend" is. Down here we call that murder. You think anyone is doing that as a matter of course and getting away with it you've been spending too much time with a bong in your hand. The two guys who shot Marcus Luttrel's DOG (yes, a DOG) are in jail for it, and you are going to try and represent that people just get shot willy nilly in Texas for being on private land?? Show us some actual incidents or STFU with your blatant anti-American BS.

    Illegals, dope runner's and whoever else cross private land all the time in the border states (of which Texas is one) and no one shoots at them. Quite frankly I wish it were otherwise, but that's a different story. You will lose everything you have by doing something like that, never mind criminal charges, there are cases where illegals have broken into someones house on their journey north, been shot, survived, and their attorney winds up suing for civil damages and winning.

    Bottom line, no one is shooting anyone who does not present a clear and present threat and getting away with it. Try posting what you have personal knowledge of, not what "your friend" told you.

    1. Take a deep breath. People are allowed to disagree. We all agree that if an intruder breaks into your home and threatens your life in the US you are allowed to shoot him dead, no questions asked. The discrepancy arises with regards to trespassers on private property in rural areas.

  4. Actually if you live in a place like Chicago, NYC, DC or other democratic strongholds which are anti-gun there will be quite a few questions asked. Some of them will sound a lot like the same questions you'd be asked in Canada. You better have done everything right or be a sympathetic figure (female living alone, offender had previous rape convictions, etc.) or YOU will be getting charged. One of the reasons I don't live anyplace like that.

    Such politicians as run these places feel as Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock did, that even a threat to your life should not justify use of a firearms, you should just "dial 9-11 and die" or run out the back door (as if that was always possible) rather than do that. Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs described gun control as "a necessary step in the social re-engineering of Canada". And they largely accomplished their goal, if you ever use a firearm to successfully protect yourself or your family you can be sure the police will at a minimum confiscate your gun and try to charge you with unsafe storage so that they don't have to give it back. You will likely have your PAL revoked as well.

    Allow me to repeat, no one down here is just getting shot down out of hand for being on private land in rural area's. That's murder and believe it or not that's illegal. Even in Texas. Will people come and investigate why you are on their land? Absolutely. Stock theft is a big concern everywhere, not just the SW border states such as Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Expect them to come with a firearm? Absolutely. They don't know who you are. Landowners have been killed confronting dope mules, illegals, rustlers and other criminals. Are they just going to shoot people down? Nope, you go to jail for that. If you knock on the front door at someone's place out in the country during hours of darkness, (and why would you...) expect them to be prepared to protect themselves, why not? "When seconds count, we're only minutes away".....except in rural areas, the nearest deputy may be 40 miles away down a network of dirt roads. "My car broke down" has been used as the "entry technique" of criminals who wind up hurting folks more than once.

    Canada is really no different, there are plenty of folks off in the country have guns, registered or not, and they don't all use them to threaten and subjugate their spousal partners either. I think e.a.f. might be surprised to find out how many women in rural area's in Canada who either live alone or whose husband is away from home a lot, truckers, tradesmen who work out of town for weeks at a time etc. have a firearm available for personal defense.

    One of the dirty little secrets of the Long Gun Registry issue was how few "law abiding Canadians" actually complied, a LOT of guns got stashed away....I can tell you that when I left, my short barreled 12 ga. pump and my No.4 Mk2 "Irish Enfield" (both owned prior to the Long Gun Registry and not registered) both went to another PAL holder who was happy to take in two orphans who had never been legitimized in the eyes of the state..... ;-)


Sorry. Comments have been closed. In the words of Martin Luther King, "I've seen too much hate to want to hate myself and every time I see it I say to myself that hate is too great a burden to bear. "

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.