Government erred by including beds and shores in transfers

Dear editor,

While it appears that 3L is correct in their statement of ownership of the river bed, both of the Puntlege and Browns Rivers, it is most often not the case, and there is generally no need for the title to read an exception of the beds of navigable rivers and streams, it is just understood to be the case, the usual exception being only for mines and minerals.

Somehow, when the B.C. government transferred these blocks of lands to private parties, usually forestry companies, they erred, and the beds and shores of these rivers should not have been included, and in my opinion (and I am not a lawyer or title expert) they never had the right to transfer them in the first place, this being Crown land in the right of the Province of British Columbia. I don’t believe that the rest of private ownership along these rivers have ownership of the river bed included in their titles, so why the difference? Just sayin!

Paul Ellegood

Area B