10 replies to this topic

[dahotboy]

I have to ask, with regards to this fishing club that charges $400 per year to fish a 3/4 mile section....could you not simply wade the river all the way along? I understand that they offer their members a trout pond, camping, picnic area, etc. What is the legality of saying "We own this stretch of river, stay out!"

I have looked on google earth at it and you could simply park on any of the roads and step into the river. Or Kayak/float it from the upper parts south.

They make it sound as if you can not fish many places on this river as they are 'posted', quote,'Northern sections are all mostly posted except for a quarter mile section called the Thurn Park Conservation Area'

Whats the deal with this? I know there is a great deal more to fish then this section but I have to ask. Thanks for any info!

[YAWN]

This might be very wrong as I was told this as a kid long long ago when we lived on the pine and it ran through our yard.

The river bottom is owned but the water is not.

.: technically a fisherman can float down the river but walking it is not permitted.

I could be totally totally wrong here not that we cared cause if they didn't ask they ran into two monster Sheppard's who chased em out if we weren't around to stop em.

If they did ask they got a good 1/2 mile to fish, nice rest stop half way and introduced to the dogs so they wont have problems.

Then again we aint rich perhaps that makes the diff the poor share while the rich horde. Just what I have noticed in my time on this planet!

[longsilver]

Read your trespassing laws very carefuly. Now take into consideration how happy an angler is going to be when some dink comes wading down the piece of stream he's paid $400/year to fish/conserve/protect. Actually strike that, think how happy you'd be finding a pool holding a couple of large fresh steelhead and having someone clumsy scare them off.

I know that area really well since I spent most of last season off work and on it.

[dahotboy]

My understanding is that very very few people actually own river bed rights, and that any navigable(?) river,stream, or creek is usually considered crown property. That people may wade and use up to 2 feet on either side of such waterway. I have even been told this by MNR officers when I found a pond that was bordered by a road, the land owner put up signs and would confront people fishing it. Turns out that as long as you can gain access to it via public property, you are golden.
I have encountered the same sort of issue with hunting and road allowances. A person may own land with a road allowance going through his field and wood lot, we are legally allowed to travel along that land as it is still techincally crown owned in case they wish to build a road.
Also, hydro transmision lines are on crown property and you may walk them while hunting, or hunt them even though they may run through peoples property,within a set distance of the base, still crown owned land at the end of the day.
Often land owners only have surface rights, not rights to any mineral deposits, or even the pine trees that are often found on their property. Gov. licences and fees are required to harvest trees or claim rights to below ground resources.People just dont know what the actually own.
Just a few interesting thoughts, you would be surprised at how strange some of the rules are.

I am in no way attempting to ruin peoples day out, and would likely not even fish their private club, I just am interested to find out the legality of the situation.

[dahotboy]

http://www.mnr.gov.o...MNR_E000115.pdf

Here is info that basically says if waters are accessible from one point of public property, and another, it will be deemed navigable. An express grant would likely not be given unless there is no posibility of public interest or use, even if they have an express grant that only means the river bed is theirs but that they cant stop you from using the water above it.
"Where it has been established that no express grant has occurred, it is necessary to determine if the
watercourse is navigable. If the watercourse is navigable, the bed of the watercourse is Crown land
by virtue of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act. The bed of the watercourse will also be Crown land
if by virtue of the original Crown grant, the bed of the navigable watercourse has been reserved or
excepted to the Crown.
Note: Whether the bed of a watercourse is private land or Crown land, the navigability of the
watercourse is unaffected. The right of navigation (refer to PL 2.09.02 Navigation – A Public Right)
is protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, as administered by the federal government."

http://www.greybruce...blewaters.shtml

Section 18(2) of the Fish and Game Act (Ontario) prohibits unauthorized persons from giving notice prohibiting activity on Crown land. If you own property abutting a navigable waterway and you do not allow people to use the waterway for fishing and/or hunting, you are contravening section 18(2) of the Fish and Game Act (Ontario) and may be liable to have a penalty imposed.

This info is good to have in case you are any place that a land owner tries to say he owns the river you are fishing

[longsilver]

That's good information, I'd gone looking for it before but have had no luck as I was also told something similiar. I notice it doesn't say anything about the shore on either side.

If you're interested in fishing that area when the season opens let me know, I live 10 minutes away.

Cheers,
Shaun.

[longsilver]

Interesting articles, I've read through them in detail and there's a couple of interesting points;

Crown land grants which specifically include rights to the streambed are rare, and were/are usually made in relation to places where mills, power dams or hunting/fishing clubs were/are to be established. These places are usually pretty obvious and are usually posted. That being said, the best way to satisfy yourself that your exclusion from a waterway is legitimate is to head off to the Registry Office and look at the original Crown grant to see if such rights were specifically granted.

The myth of the “highwater mark”
Many people believe that the public has a right to use land up to the highwater mark of a navigable waterway while traversing the course of the waterway. Except for a very brief period in time (between 1940 and 1951, when an earlier version of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act provided that the Crown owned the beds of navigable waterways to the highwater mark of the waterway) the law in Ontario has always been that the boundary between a waterway and the abutting land is the waterline. In other words, if you are out of the water, you could be on private property.

Generally, the public has no right to enter on to private property abutting a waterway unless consent of the landowner has been granted. You can be liable to penalties if the land is posted against trespassers (i.e a “No Trespassing Sign” or a red dot painted on objects along the boundary of the property).

The public's right to use a navigable waterway (and the bed of the waterway) does not include a right to enter upon private property to portage around a natural obstacle in the waterway, or a legally constructed obstacle in the waterway. Unless there is a recognized right (at law) to portage, you need permission to travel overland. What this means is that although you have a right to use a navigable waterway, your right may not be able to exercise that right in some circumstances. Without permission to use the abutting land as a portage, you run the risk of facing trespass charges.

The creek to the north of the park is fenced off by chainlink spanning from one side of the creek to the other rendering this impassible.

The southern edge where it borders the 'wilmont club' is signed against trespassing. There used to be fences but from the look of it they've been trod into the mud. The signs are enough though. There's also bridges built across the creek just above water level, these cut off your access as well, unless you have scuba tanks.

You need true chest waders and lots of patience to even navigate down that far, and that's assuming they don't have a special grant allowing ownership of the riverbed.

[dahotboy]

I agree, you would not be able to navigate those obstacales! I am also sure that they, as a club, would not overlook the ownership of the creek bed before opening a club there.

I mainly bring this up though because fishing north of the club, I doubt that owners have the bed rights.

It does make you think though that if any other situation, elsewhere, were to occur like this wheather the person claiming a right would be legit.

Also, I like the statement of how the rich hoard while the poor share!

[longsilver]

I agree, you would not be able to navigate those obstacales! I am also sure that they, as a club, would not overlook the ownership of the creek bed before opening a club there.

I mainly bring this up though because fishing north of the club, I doubt that owners have the bed rights.

It does make you think though that if any other situation, elsewhere, were to occur like this wheather the person claiming a right would be legit.

Also, I like the statement of how the rich hoard while the poor share!

You've piqued my curiosity, I'm going to look into this in more detail. The park above it gets a lot of fishing pressure and I'm sure that it helps scare the rainbows downstream to hold in the less? fished club stretch.

[dahotboy]

So then do you think that it would be best to fish the club stretch, or south of it? What about going further north of the park above it?

Are you intending to call the MNR and ask them about the fishing club and their ownership?

http://maps.google.c...009613&t=h&z=17

this place south of the club looks good!

[YAWN]

Pleanty of room for all out there so just give them there stretch and move down a bit, Keep the peace.

Looking at the posotive I'm sure they will take very good care of that stretch which in theory should improve the river.