Private/Public river sections?

[dsukh]

Hi guys,



Whats the difference between crown land, conservation area, and provincial parks? How do I know if a section of the stream/creek/river is on private or public land? I plan to do some exploring this weekend for some beginners fly fishing and don't want to get in trouble for trespassing... Is there an easy way to determine from looking on google map which sections of streams are private and which are public?


Also, is fishing allowed in all conservation areas? I'm looking at TRCA under fishing and I only see three conservation areas listed (Albion, Glen Haffy, Heart lake). Can I fish in any conservation areas, or just the three specified ones? I contacted TRCA today regarding this and they didn't really give me an answer.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I want to explore the many streams/creeks/rivers around me but I'm afriad of trespassing without knowing.


Thank you in advance.



Regards,

Dan

 

[Blair]

PRIVATE PROPERTY

Question Re: Accessing fishing opportunities
Most of the land around where I live is private property. Can I cross privateproperty to get to a stream, river or lake?

Answer:
This is a complex area but the most important idea to keep in mind is that therelationship between landowners and the recreational public is very importantand must be kept positive and respectful.

In this discussion we will use the term occupier because it describesboth the land owner and others who may have legal occupation of the land andthe authority to control some or all access.

When it comes to crossing private lands to access fishing opportunitiesthe property occupier has the first and last word about who can enter theproperty. It is up to the occupier to allow or restrict entry onto theirproperty or to allow or restrict the activities that occur on that property.

Entry
In general terms anyone may enter onto private property to do anything which islawful without occupier permission unless the entrant has been given noticethat entry is prohibited. So, a privately owned bush lot is available to thegeneral public until the occupier notifies people otherwise. The occupier has anumber of options when it comes to letting people know that entry is prohibitedor that activities are restricted.

Notice - Signs
The most common method used by occupiers to restrict access is by postingsigns. The message on the signs can be written or a picture representation ofthe activity which is prohibited. If a sign prohibits one activity specificallythen all others are permitted. For example, if hunting is specificallyprohibited then hiking or fishing is permitted.

Notice - Coloured Marking
Another common method of notice is coloured markings. You will often see red oryellow dots painted on trees or fence posts on a property boundary. A redcoloured marker indicates that the occupier is restricting all access; entry isprohibited. A yellow coloured marker indicates that entry is permitted but thatthere are conditions on the activities that are allowed. Perhaps all-terrainvehicles are restricted while bicycles are allowed. It is now up to the entrantto locate the occupier and determine what the conditions of entry are.

Notice - Oral or Written
Entrants may be simply told by the occupier that they cannot enter onto theproperty or that a particular activity is prohibited. Sometimes the occupiermay put the notice in writing to establish a record of his or her wishes.

Notice - Other Forms
There is a long list of other things which are forms of notice and must beconsidered the occupiers intention to restrict entry on property. This listincludes:

• Maintained fences and gates;
• Land under cultivation;
• Orchards;
• Planted trees under 2 metres in height; and
• Established lawns and gardens

When it comes to signs, coloured markings and fences (gates) theoccupier is only required to place them at the normal access point to theproperty. Generally that will be a laneway, private roadway or trail. Theremight only be one sign prohibiting entry on a very large, undeveloped woodlotfor example. It is the responsibility of the entrant to determine whether ornot the occupier intends to restrict access to the property and where theproperty boundaries are; the occupier is not responsible for marking the entireproperty boundary.

And finally, even if a property is posted the occupier still has thechoice to allow entry or to allow a prohibited activity to occur. What thismeans is that the occupier can fish on a property posted to prohibit fishingand the occupier can permit others to enter the property to fish as well.

Remember to ask; always be courteous and respectful.

QuestionRe: Fishing From the Water Near the Shore or close to a Dock
Some of the best places to find fish are in the near-shore areas, especiallywhere there are undercut banks and docks that provide shade. Can I fish inthese areas?

Answer:
The Ministry of Natural Resources recognizes the interests of private landowners and recreational fishing enthusiasts and encourages respect andcooperation between them.

Generally,naturally occurring and man-made watercourses that are navigable, and that havelegal access points, are open to the public for boating regardless of ownershipof the bed of the water body. Most docks, marinas and lagoons constructed onlakes and rivers would fit this description.

Ontario's fishresources are managed by the government for the benefit of the public and assuch are not the property of individual landowners whose property they mayassociate with while near the shoreline, in lagoons or under the docks ofmarinas.

Equallyimportant is the landowner's right to control access to, and the use of,private property. A person with control of a property may allow or excludeaccess to that property, or put conditions on the entry to the property. In thecase of a dock, while a fisher may cast from a boat for fish under the dock heor she may need to consult the dock owner before standing on the dock to anglefor the same fish.

Likewiseproperty owners have the right to use their property without unusualinterference. A person owning property on a water body expects a reasonableamount of boating and fishing activity near-by, however they do not expectsomeone to fish persistently on their shoreline for long uninterrupted periodsof time.

Both landownersand the outdoors public must be reasonable and respectful in exercising theirrights and obligations.

Question Re: Private Property
I own a large parcel of land with a good sized spring-fed pond on it, the ponddrains off of my land into a near-by river. I know there are fishing the pond,do I need a licence to fish in the pond and do the seasons apply on myproperty?

Answer:
Because your pond has an outflow the laws requiring a licence and the variousfishing seasons would apply to your pond. The Ontario Fishery Regulations,which contain the rules for sport fishing in Ontario, apply to all water in theprovince with the exception of National Parks, waters that are licenced underan aquaculture licence and waters that occur on private lands that meet all ofthe following conditions:

• The waters are not on a regional flood plain,
• The waters lie wholly on privately owned land,
• The waters are not connected to natural waters,
• The waters contain water from run-off, springs, ground water or water pumped from a stream or lake; AND
• The waters have been artificially created.

If the pond meets all of the list above the fish must then come from alicenced aquaculture facility or a licenced commercial fish operation; theycannot be caught by sport-fishing and transferred to the pond.


Trespassingon private property

Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act encourageslandowners to mark private property with signage, specifying that it is privateand/or which activities are not be permitted. For example, a landowner maydecide that he will tolerate hikers and other daytrippers, but forbid campingor hunting. Generally speaking, cottagers who want to keep boaters away fromtheir land have installed the requisite signage. Some property owners are verygenerous in their accommodation of cruisers, kayakers and canoeists, but thisshould not be seen as a default position.

•At the least, ano-trespassing sign in Ontario must consist of a circular red marking at least10 centimeters (4 inches) in diameter.

•All signs “shall be soplaced that a marking is clearly visible in daylight under normal conditionsfrom the approach to each ordinary point of access to the premises to which itapplies.”

•Yellow markings areused to indicate that entry is prohibited “except for the purpose of certainactivities.”

•”A sign naming anactivity or showing a graphic representation of an activity is sufficient forthe purpose of giving notice that the activity is permitted.”

•“A sign naming anactivity with an oblique line drawn through the name or showing a graphic representationof an activity with an oblique line drawn through the representation issufficient for the purpose of giving notice that the activity is prohibited.”

Marking each and everyisland and islet as private or out of bounds to certain activities may not bepractical, and we also think that a profusion of signage would be unsightly.The onus of knowing whether or not they're trespassing is on a defendant ifcharges are laid. However, for trespassing to be enforceable in the courts (seeOPP advice below), landowners need to make a reasonable effort to erect andmaintain proper signage. If you innocently make us of land that turns out to beprivate and are asked to vacate, hopefully you can retreat gracefully whilesuggesting for everyone's sake that the property be properly marked accordingto the Trespass to Property Act.

Regardless of thenature of the land you use, leave it in the same condition in which you foundit. If you leave garbage and beer empties in someone’s backyard, they’reunlikely to invite you back, and where cruisers are concerned, everyone sufferswhen one boater is a slob or leaves a fire carelessly smoldering.

There is a concept of"historic use” in provincial law, which has been used to allow the publicto continue to occupy or transit certain private lands, through what is calleda prescriptive easement. But there would have to be a demonstrable,longstanding tradition in this regard for someone to claim such a right, andeven then, it's probably headed to court if the landowner really objects. (Alegal battle over such an easement involving a Georgian Bay cottage isdescribed here at “move smartly,”a Toronto real estate blog.)

A worthwhile parallelsituation for cruisers to consider is hunting rights. Hunters in Ontario cannotenter or cross private property, even to get to public land, unless they havethe landowner's permission. The onus again is on the defendant where there isan accusation of trespassing. Landowners are encouraged to post signs thatspecifically say no trespassing, or have a symbol indicating no hunting ispermitted.

The Southern GeorgianBay O.P.P. advised landowners during the fall 2009 hunting season, “Privateproperty owners, who do not wish persons to enter upon their property, mustproperly sign the property. In order for the provisions contained within theTrespass to Property Act to be enforceable, property owners at a minimum, mustpost a sign that has a red dot on a white background. Signs that clearly state`No Trespassing’ are readily available at most hardware type stores, areinexpensive and carry a very clear and concise message. The simple posting [of]a single sign on a large piece of property may not be enough (for court relatedpurposes) and signage should be placed at regular intervals along the propertyline it is designating as private. The signs should also be checked on aregular basis to ensure that they are still posted, clearly visible and in goodrepair.”

Trespassing is usuallylinked to the broadly defined activity of “occupation.” That doesn’t only meanbuilding a shack or setting up a campsite. Going ashore with a portablebarbecue or to light a campfire is an act of trespass. Most important forcruisers, once you tie a line to a tree or set an anchor ashore in the groundor between exposed rocks, you are "occupying" that land. That's howMNR defines occupation of crown land, including parkland, which we’ll get toshortly. You can think of the rope-to-shore situation as the "hammocklaw." If I string up a hammock by using a tree on my neighbour's lawn, orthe downspout on his eavestrough, he's going to consider that trespassing, evenif while lying in my hammock I'm physically suspended over my own property.


Trespassing on PublicLand

Just because land is insome manner in the public domain doesn’t mean you have unfettered access to it.Certain kinds of federally or provincially owned land (above and beyond therestrictions spelled out below) can be posted against trespassing for reasonsof security or safety. National defense properties are an obvious example.(Good luck going ashore at the tank range in Meaford.) Coast Guard propertiescan also be posted, as eleven Torontonians in two boats discovered in 2009.Responding to a report of a possible break-in at the unmaned lighthouse onBrebeuf Island on the west side of Beausoleil Island in southeastern GeorgianBay, the OPP found the group having a picnic in defiance of no-trespassingsignage on the island. All were charged under the Trespass to Property Act.

Crownland

Crown land is publicland that belongs to the nation (as opposed to public lands that are municipalholdings), and comes in two broad administrative flavours in Ontario. Federalcrown land includes national parks, First Nations reserves, and Crown islandson eastern Georgian Bay south of Moose Deer Point. The rest of Crown land is provincial.There’s a tremendous amount of Crown land of all kinds on Georgian Bay and theNorth Channel.

Whether federal orprovincial in nature, some of these public lands are categorized as unalienatedCrown lands. They are Crown lands have no particular administrative definition.Unless otherwise posted, anyone can camp, go ashore, or tie to unalienatedCrown land without authority or permission. Generally speaking, these arefederal Crown lands not included in a national park, and provincial Crown landsadministered under the Public Lands Act.

Other provincial Crownlands are formally defined as provincial parks or conservation reserves, underthe authority of the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, and areadministered by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Anchoring rights inprovincial parks (particularly The Massasauga) is discussed on our anchoring rights page.Suffice to say that navigable waters in and around parks and crown land (andany other sort of land, for that matter) are free for cruisers to use. But themoment you tie a line to shore or go ashore, you are “occupying” crown land. Inthe case of a park (federal as well as provincial) you should expect to have topay a user fee in doing so. It’s not always practically possible to do so, butcruisers who regularly make use of Georgian Bay Islands National Park, which isfederal crown land, are known to “do the right thing” and purchase a season’spass. It’s a good idea, because cruisers otherwise are freeloading on thepark’s amenities, where campers and day visitors are paying fees. Cruisers canhardly expect to have a voice in the formulation of park management policies ifthey’re never contributing directly to its overhead, the way other users are.(Yes, you pay taxes, but you know what we mean.)


Provincialcrown land is subject to a variety of permitted uses. The best resource isonline (if a little slow) at Ontario’s Crown Land UsePolicy Atlas. Its interactive map (left) allows you to identify the landsin particular areas (even private land), and then access the use policy for aparticular chunk of crown land. The map is scalable and very detailed,including provincial and national parks, proposed provincial park lands,conservation reserves, proposed conservation reserves, wilderness areas, forestreserves, and enhanced management areas. Shoreline road allowances (a 66-footsetback of public land that endures in many areas, and which now belong toincorporated municipalities where they exist) can also be detected, althoughthey’re not specifically labeled. Keep in mind that you do not necessarily havean unfettered right to go anywhere and do anything you want where crown land isconcerned.

 

[dsukh]

That's an awesome amount of information blair! Thanks!

The information you gave me is generally more land-use oriented. Does it apply to stream/rivers too? I've read somewhere around here, or another forum, a while back that a stretch of a particular river bedding is private, but the water is public. So a small watercraft will be permitted, but not wading through the waters. Would there generally be signs up too indicating private river bed? Or will I just have to wait to be notified by owners that i'm trespassing?

Thanks again for the information.

 

[NADO]

It is very rare that a river bed is actually considered private, 9.9/10 times it is always ok to walk on the river bed however there are still those rare circumstances when landowners own the river bed. Notta Steeler taught me an invaluable lesson when I fished the Notta with him. The Crown owns a certain amount of space on either side of any bridge that goes over a river. So if you want to fish a river that is completely covered by private property what you can do is access the river by walking down beside the bridge and go directly in the water, once in the water do not go on the shoreline and you are doing nothing against the law.

 

[dsukh]

It is very rare that a river bed is actually considered private, 9.9/10 times it is always ok to walk on the river bed however there are still those rare circumstances when landowners own the river bed. Notta Steeler taught me an invaluable lesson when I fished the Notta with him. The Crown owns a certain amount of space on either side of any bridge that goes over a river. So if you want to fish a river that is completely covered by private property what you can do is access the river by walking down beside the bridge and go directly in the water, once in the water do not go on the shoreline and you are doing nothing against the law.

That's IS definitely invaluable information.Thanks!

So I SHOULD be fine as long as I make sure I don't step into a stretch of water owned by conservation areas or provincial park.

Thanks!

 

[Graham Bristow]

Be careful NADO giving out that kind of information. On a large rivers like the Nottawasaga that is considered a navigatable waterway that may be true, however, I do know sections of that river where the land owners actually have river bottom rights/ownership and you could be charged for walking the river bed. Also if at any point you cant wade the water and need to get out you cold be considered trespassing.

Smaller rivers and creeks do not always have public rights if they are not navigatible.

There are sections of the middle and upper credit where owners have river bed rights. be careful on this one.

If someone finds a way to determine who ones the river bed without paying the municipality to look up property lines let me know.

 

[dsukh]

Be careful NADO giving out that kind of information. On a large rivers like the Nottawasaga that is considered a navigatable waterway that may be true, however, I do know sections of that river where the land owners actually have river bottom rights/ownership and you could be charged for walking the river bed. Also if at any point you cant wade the water and need to get out you cold be considered trespassing.

Smaller rivers and creeks do not always have public rights if they are not navigatible.

There are sections of the middle and upper credit where owners have river bed rights. be careful on this one.

If someone finds a way to determine who ones the river bed without paying the municipality to look up property lines let me know.

Any tips you can give me regarding this Graham?

 

[Blair]

Just like the "HARBOURFRONT FIASCO" .... we LOSE!

I'm afraid that the future is bleak.

I suggest saving your money (Lots of it) and BUYING YOUR own RIVER or LAKE! *SMILES*

Seriously, everyone else (Big Money, Corporations) are doing it. Total Shame! How things have "Changed" over the years.



http://ontora.ca


In the late 1990′s the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources embarked on the “Lands for Life” planning process. The intent and spirit of this process (as far as we can tell) was to define land use strategies that would support the continued use of Ontario Crown Land by ALL stakeholders – resource companies, the tourism industry, and outdoor recreational activities for the general public.

Instead, the result was quite different. Resource companies and natives gained unprecedented access to policy making decisions, and preferential access to public land was given to privately owned (and in many cases foreign owned) tourist establishments. The average Ontario fisherman, hunter, and family out for a hike or camping expedition have been relegated to second class status on their own public lands and lakes.

OntORA (Ontario Outdoors Recreational Alliance) is dedicated to maintaining equal access to Crown land for ALL people in Ontario. The misguided policies and regulations that were drafted as a result of the Lands for Life process MUST be amended, and/or legal action taken to confirm our constitutional rights and freedoms.

A grassroots organization dedicated to restoring equal public access to Crown Land in Ontario.



Kings and Queens – Ontario Crown Land for the Rich
September 29, 2011 ·

The following letter was published in the Sudbury Star recently.

Re: “Tories promise to open trails for northerners”. It is refreshing to read that in Nickel Belt Riding, both the NDP’s France Gelinas and the Tories’ Paula Peroni recognize the stark injustice done to northerners who have lost public access to thousands of lakes and vast areas of pristine forest, all decreed by Queen’s Park and MNR bureaucrats. As expected, the Liberal’s Tony Rima says that the issue just hasn’t come up on all the doors that he has knocked on. Perhaps Mr. Ryma has been knocking on doors in southern Ontario!

To illustrate the gravity of the problem, imagine that you were an angler and hunter in Europe a few hundred years ago. Fish and game were plentiful and vast untouched areas of forests and lakes teemed with nature’s wonderful bounty. The only problem was the King and his entourage of lords and noblemen had reserved most of this pristine land for their private hunting and fishing grounds. Any poor peasant who dared enter onto this hallowed ground to obtain a fish or fowl to feed his hungry family was severely punished. That served as an example to other peasants who may have the gall to interfere with the private outdoor pleasure of the King and his buddies.

Fast forward to 2011 Ontario; Medieval Kings and noblemen would feel at home in jolly ‘ole Ontario. Thousands of square kilometers of pristine Crown land, and over 2,000 of our best lakes are still off-limits to the masses. The MNR, in concert with NOTO (Northern Outdoor Tourism Ontario) has allowed remote lodge owners the exclusive use* of vast areas of our Crown land and lakes. The average anglers and hunters are warned by posted signs that “trespassing” on such lands will result in charges and heavy fines if they use any type of vehicle to access these lands and lakes. This artificial remoteness, created by keeping the “locals” out, enables remote lodges to charge higher rates and rake in huge profits because of their “remoteness”. Moreover, MNR Conservation Officers, who have more important things to do, are forced to police these private hunting grounds and charge any wayward hikers, hunters or blueberry pickers.

*Minister Jeffrey keeps telling the public through the media that public acces is NOT restricted – “All that ordinary people have to do is WALK in, we just don’t want any vehicles on the roads that were built with taxpayers’ money”. Surely, her staff must have informed the Minister that walking in to a lake, a minimum of three kilometers and up to 50 kms, carrying a canoe, fishing and camping equipment, food and essantials is just not feasible and, despite her double-talk, is essentially prohibiting public access. Mouthing those words of “well, they can WALK in” is just adding extra salt to the wound of private hunting and fishing grounds for the wealthy.

Publicly owned Crown lands, and the major lakes on them, are used as private game and fish farms for the wealthier American, European and Canadian guests to enjoy without being bothered by the presence of the poor average Ontario outdoors person. Of course, remote tourism operators have a right to run a business and make a profit, but not at the expense of the rights and freedoms of Ontario taxpayers and at a very high disadvantage to road-based tourist operators who do not enjoy the generous government benefits that their remote tourism cohorts enjoy.

It’s high time to end the two-class system of public access to Ontario’s Crown lands and lakes. While (according to Wikipedia) Ontario has over 250,000 bodies of water, only about 4,000 are lakes of over three square kilometers in area (3 Sq. Kms). Approximately 2,000 of these major lakes, most of them stocked with fish from MNR hatcheries at the taxpayers’ expense, along with thousands of square kilometers of pristine public land, are reserved for paying guests of the remote tourism industry.

More and more tertiary and other roads are being bermed, “buffer zones” set up around tourism lakes, culverts or bridges removed, and otherwise closed up after forestry operations are completed. As well, the chronic shortages of enforcement staff and budgetary restrictions have resulted in large areas being closed to the public. Surely, there is a better way to support remote tourism and respect public right of access. Much of the road network closed to the public is funded by the $75 Million public roads fund, taxpayers’ money that Premier McGuinty promised would also be for the enjoyment of the public at large. (Another failed promise). If land areas or lakes really need to be closed for bona-fide conservation or ecological reasons, then they should be closed to all anglers and hunters – not closed to ordinary citizens and kept open only for the paying hunting and fishing tourists.

It appears that Ontario residents are ready for a change in government, and I sincerely believe that the Liberal government’s handling of the MNR portfolio in the last few years is one very important reason that residents feel that way.

Simon R. Guillet

 

[dsukh]

Just like the "HARBOURFRONT FIASCO" .... we LOSE!

I'm afraid that the future is bleak.

I suggest saving your money (Lots of it) and BUYING YOUR own RIVER or LAKE! *SMILES*

http://ontora.ca


In the late 1990′s the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources embarked on the “Lands for Life” planning process. The intent and spirit of this process (as far as we can tell) was to define land use strategies that would support the continued use of Ontario Crown Land by ALL stakeholders – resource companies, the tourism industry, and outdoor recreational activities for the general public.

Instead, the result was quite different. Resource companies and natives gained unprecedented access to policy making decisions, and preferential access to public land was given to privately owned (and in many cases foreign owned) tourist establishments. The average Ontario fisherman, hunter, and family out for a hike or camping expedition have been relegated to second class status on their own public lands and lakes.

OntORA (Ontario Outdoors Recreational Alliance) is dedicated to maintaining equal access to Crown land for ALL people in Ontario. The misguided policies and regulations that were drafted as a result of the Lands for Life process MUST be amended, and/or legal action taken to confirm our constitutional rights and freedoms.

A grassroots organization dedicated to restoring equal public access to Crown Land in Ontario.



Kings and Queens – Ontario Crown Land for the Rich
September 29, 2011 ·

The following letter was published in the Sudbury Star recently.

Re: “Tories promise to open trails for northerners”. It is refreshing to read that in Nickel Belt Riding, both the NDP’s France Gelinas and the Tories’ Paula Peroni recognize the stark injustice done to northerners who have lost public access to thousands of lakes and vast areas of pristine forest, all decreed by Queen’s Park and MNR bureaucrats. As expected, the Liberal’s Tony Rima says that the issue just hasn’t come up on all the doors that he has knocked on. Perhaps Mr. Ryma has been knocking on doors in southern Ontario!

To illustrate the gravity of the problem, imagine that you were an angler and hunter in Europe a few hundred years ago. Fish and game were plentiful and vast untouched areas of forests and lakes teemed with nature’s wonderful bounty. The only problem was the King and his entourage of lords and noblemen had reserved most of this pristine land for their private hunting and fishing grounds. Any poor peasant who dared enter onto this hallowed ground to obtain a fish or fowl to feed his hungry family was severely punished. That served as an example to other peasants who may have the gall to interfere with the private outdoor pleasure of the King and his buddies.

Fast forward to 2011 Ontario; Medieval Kings and noblemen would feel at home in jolly ‘ole Ontario. Thousands of square kilometers of pristine Crown land, and over 2,000 of our best lakes are still off-limits to the masses. The MNR, in concert with NOTO (Northern Outdoor Tourism Ontario) has allowed remote lodge owners the exclusive use* of vast areas of our Crown land and lakes. The average anglers and hunters are warned by posted signs that “trespassing” on such lands will result in charges and heavy fines if they use any type of vehicle to access these lands and lakes. This artificial remoteness, created by keeping the “locals” out, enables remote lodges to charge higher rates and rake in huge profits because of their “remoteness”. Moreover, MNR Conservation Officers, who have more important things to do, are forced to police these private hunting grounds and charge any wayward hikers, hunters or blueberry pickers.

*Minister Jeffrey keeps telling the public through the media that public acces is NOT restricted – “All that ordinary people have to do is WALK in, we just don’t want any vehicles on the roads that were built with taxpayers’ money”. Surely, her staff must have informed the Minister that walking in to a lake, a minimum of three kilometers and up to 50 kms, carrying a canoe, fishing and camping equipment, food and essantials is just not feasible and, despite her double-talk, is essentially prohibiting public access. Mouthing those words of “well, they can WALK in” is just adding extra salt to the wound of private hunting and fishing grounds for the wealthy.

Publicly owned Crown lands, and the major lakes on them, are used as private game and fish farms for the wealthier American, European and Canadian guests to enjoy without being bothered by the presence of the poor average Ontario outdoors person. Of course, remote tourism operators have a right to run a business and make a profit, but not at the expense of the rights and freedoms of Ontario taxpayers and at a very high disadvantage to road-based tourist operators who do not enjoy the generous government benefits that their remote tourism cohorts enjoy.

It’s high time to end the two-class system of public access to Ontario’s Crown lands and lakes. While (according to Wikipedia) Ontario has over 250,000 bodies of water, only about 4,000 are lakes of over three square kilometers in area (3 Sq. Kms). Approximately 2,000 of these major lakes, most of them stocked with fish from MNR hatcheries at the taxpayers’ expense, along with thousands of square kilometers of pristine public land, are reserved for paying guests of the remote tourism industry.

More and more tertiary and other roads are being bermed, “buffer zones” set up around tourism lakes, culverts or bridges removed, and otherwise closed up after forestry operations are completed. As well, the chronic shortages of enforcement staff and budgetary restrictions have resulted in large areas being closed to the public. Surely, there is a better way to support remote tourism and respect public right of access. Much of the road network closed to the public is funded by the $75 Million public roads fund, taxpayers’ money that Premier McGuinty promised would also be for the enjoyment of the public at large. (Another failed promise). If land areas or lakes really need to be closed for bona-fide conservation or ecological reasons, then they should be closed to all anglers and hunters – not closed to ordinary citizens and kept open only for the paying hunting and fishing tourists.

It appears that Ontario residents are ready for a change in government, and I sincerely believe that the Liberal government’s handling of the MNR portfolio in the last few years is one very important reason that residents feel that way.

Simon R. Guillet

This is getting way too confusing for a hobby....

 

[Joel52]

Graham's right about the Upper Credit. There are sections that you can't wade - clearly marked by signs, some even span the river. The landowners are responsible for what happens environmentally on their property, so some have restricted access rather than risk opportunity for liability.

 

[dsukh]

Thanks for all the I input guys

 

[NADO]

Man do private rivers make me angry!

 

[Dewy]

It is very rare that a river bed is actually considered private, 9.9/10 times it is always ok to walk on the river bed however there are still those rare circumstances when landowners own the river bed. Notta Steeler taught me an invaluable lesson when I fished the Notta with him. The Crown owns a certain amount of space on either side of any bridge that goes over a river. So if you want to fish a river that is completely covered by private property what you can do is access the river by walking down beside the bridge and go directly in the water, once in the water do not go on the shoreline and you are doing nothing against the law.

What this is called is road allowance. The government owns the land to a certain point beside each side of the road, allowing fishermen access to some rivers. I do not know how to tell which creeks and rivers land owners can own the river bed, but I do know that many citizens up here in Grey Bruce area are willing to allow fishermen, all we have to do is ask!

 

[Spinninreel]

For anyone to be charged with trespassing, there first hast to be proper signage, then when the land owner see you, my understanding is that he first has to give you a verbal or written warning before any charges can be laid. So there is a little grace for you to be charged.

 

[Alfiegee]

Actually you have to do research about this topic. According to the MNR any river that is navigatable is OK for wading, the land owner only owns the land to the riverbank. On smaller streams and rivers with older property agreements, the land-owner may actually own the riverbed. Not the water following over it though.
I always find that if I talk to land-owners and explain that I want to fish and I show them a garbage bag and tell them I will carry it out full and dispose of it properly, they give me the OK.
I have a number of places I fish every year, and the people that own the land around the river welcome me every year.
Just need to communicate.

Alfie.

 

[Blair]

MO: Public is the NewPrivate

You knew that, right?

Well if you didn’t, just launch your boat at your favourite “verypublic” lake and start fishing the shorelines for bass.

You will quickly find out that most waterfront owners, not all, butmost, will be quick to explain to you that you’re trespassing. And guaranteed,they won’t saunter down to the lake edge sipping a mug of morning coffeedressed in their pajamas and kindly ask you to get away from their little pieceof paradise. Rather, expect an explosion of insane lunacy delivered by arake-wielding, stone-throwing nutcase foaming at the mouth whilst shouting atirade filled with the most updated versions of profanity and threats available!

This is the form of abuse and harassment anglers are enduring mostoutings. It is illegal and demeans your rights as a tax-paying citizen of thiscountry.

Let’s approach this situation with an open mind based on the facts. Thisarticle is not intended to promote extremist activity nor is it apropaganda-fueled political statement. It’s about your rights, the laws of thisfantastic country and the availability and access to its wealth of naturalresources. Let’s move on, shall we?

As a citizen of this country, we are all entitled to the same basic setof allowances detailed in our constitution and upheld by a letter ofexplanation pertaining to human rights.

A navigable waterway granted access for public use allows any citizenthe freedom to use that lake, river, reservoir or impoundment in a lawfulmanner for business or recreation. Typically, the boundaries of crown (public)area are determined by not that of the waters edge to a private property, butrather the high water mark determined by the expected and normal flood plane,documented by the provincial or regional governing body. Or if the waterway issmall and no such document is available, the high water mark is of the firstpermanent natural non-aquatic structure such as a row of bushes, or trees.

Of course, one could say, “Why subject yourself to such distastefulremarks fishing a cottage owner’s dock or the shoreline their property isattached to? There are other water bodies to fish, go elsewhere.” Well, forinstance, shorelines offer some of the most productive cover on the lake. Manyfish, especially bass, love to live under, or around man-made structures. Sowhy not fish near them? Anglers are well within their legal rights to angle anin-season species as close to the shore as necessary as deemed by the angler.

Conversely, a waterfront owner who approaches you is well within theirright to speak with you about your location and even ask you to move along.However, if they impede your actions as an angler, threaten or harass you, theyare then breaking the law and can be charged for such ridiculousness.

This year alone in eastern Ontario, I have been harassed and threatenedon 3 different occasions. One waterfront owner even put buoys out in the waterin front of his property. He claimed to have anyone inside these buoys chargedwith trespassing. Challenging him, I suggested he call the Ontario Provincial Police.No officers responded…

Another time while I was competing in a bass tournament, a lake residentshouted at the boats before take off that we should “F#*K off and ruin our ownlake.” This land owner’s portrayal of entitlement went so far as believing thatsomehow as a waterfront land owner he owned a piece of the lake (not tomention, us anglers owned one of our own somewhere and we should not be onhis). Is this how all cottage owners feel?

Maybe?

It’s examples like these horror stories that lay a foundation of failurefor public water access. Soon if we don’t own waterfront property, we won’t beable to enjoy our favourite little fishing honey hole.

Waterfront owners who feel entitled to special allowances incorporatingthe water must realize that their dreamed-up version of what they own and whomay use it is sadistic and resonates an image of Nazi elitism.

If any waterfront property owner has read this far and is grinding theirteeth at this article’s notion, please feel free to read a little further.

YOU DO NOT OWN THE WATER. IT IS CROWN PROPERTY!

That means it belongs to us all. Well, probably it belongs to the nativeIndians of this country, but that’s a whole other ball of wax.

We’ve gone this far, let’s go a step farther.

Waterfront owners will go as far as to say that anglers are damagingtheir docks and boats by casting lures at them. This is very possible. However,this is a crime completely unrelated. It’s called vandalism. I suggest aproperty owner take it up on a case-by-case infraction and call the police ifthey can prove an angler damaged their property. Just be sure it’s not anunsubstantiated claim. The police don’t care for middle-aged tattletaleninnies.

To summarize this rambling thought, it’s important to understand,regardless of what stance one takes on this issue as dictated by theirinterest, that there are rules. Real, actual rules that determine who can gowhere and do what. Unfortunately, more often than not, a select few people oneither side of the fence take it too far, which leads to shouting matches andphysical threats, if not some form of assault.

But you know what? I’ve yet to see an angler pull up to a cottageowner’s dock and shout obscenities at the fact that his dock or swim wharf isin the way of his fishing… Makes a person think.

By TrevorKunopaski of Militant Outdoors