Maa-Nulth treaty lands devastate kayaking areas

Discussion in 'General Paddling Discussions' started by jk, Oct 31, 2007.

  1. mick_allen

    mick_allen Paddler & Moderator

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    3,069
    sobering thought
     
  2. ken_vandeburgt

    ken_vandeburgt Paddler

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    I've been planning a trip to Mexico's Baja California.

    There are exceptions but that law means you can camp almost anywhere on the coast.

    Public Trust Doctrine at work.

    ZOFEMAT
    http://207.248.177.25/images/stories/do ... sco/14.pdf
    (Its in Castellano)

    I would like to see an equivalent "ZOFEMAT" law in Canada and have it grandfathered over treaties, crown grants, and other dispostions of private land.
     
  3. jk

    jk Paddler

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    276
    Everyone has the right to be stupid, greedy and shortsighted, and no doubt given the opportunity everyone will be stupid, greedy and shortsighted. My point is "their land" in the traditional sense will be private land in the future sense. If it remained communal Maa-nulth land as reserves were, there wouldn't be this issue. But in 100 years when the band membership is a stock broker in Detroit, a nurse in Winnipeg, etc., and maybe one person living near the land with a connection to the land, and a developer pitches a $100-million development for a prime parcel of vacant land, meaning say $100,000 per member, how will the membership vote? The land after all will be simply a portfolio of properties run by a quasi-corporation no doubt driven to make a profit. And you can be sure that any properties that have sat vacant and generated no revenue for 100 years will be liquidated when the opportunity arises. All it takes is one board or one membership to make the decision one time, however short-sighted that might be, and the heritage link is gone. Thus eventually a private coast.

    Ken, having gone to Cancun recently I would cite Mexico as a place how NOT to develop the coast. Miles of resorts with no or very limited public access. Maybe the rule exists on paper, and is applied at urban centres and such, but in application the large, sprawling resorts are isolated properties that can control who comes and goes, with gates and security guards, etc. This is the vast majority of the Mexican coast that I've seen, or at least how it is where it is being developed, which as far as I can tell is the vast majority of the best undeveloped coast.
     
  4. ken_vandeburgt

    ken_vandeburgt Paddler

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Mexico has a problem with enforcement as we do here with enforcement of public right of way and with people altering the riparian zone with breakwaters and the like.

    That doesn't mean a ZOFEMAT law couldnt work here. Any country with a tradition of Justinian Public Trust Doctrine has similar laws.

    I think (but do not know) Spain has a similar law except the strip is 100 meters. In Spain beach access is completely unrestricted. The only downside is the 100 meter strip is used as a transportation corridor with highways and railways.
     
  5. hmmm

    hmmm Paddler

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    Messages:
    42
    "The Final Agreement provides for reasonable public access for hiking, canoeing and other recreational activities on Maa-nulth First Nation Lands."

    What is "recreational activities". could this be camping.
    I see someone put this to the test on the old international heritage site that was given to manulth in the treaty.
    They where camping on the kirby point camping area when the hu huu aht chased them off. :hug
    Guessing they never read the treaty properly. :roll: