83 replies to this topic

[Majstor]

i think the vote poll says what the majority of us feel like

[Knuguy]

Rivers have small open sections this time of year, so guess where people are going to end up.

Well, some do and some don't. As I said in my post above, the Notty has a huge open section whereas the Beaver has very little

[Float down]

Well, some do and some don't. As I said in my post above, the Notty has a huge open section whereas the Beaver has very little

Yah but more and more of the notty is being shut off to us because of land owners not appreciating the traffic and the mess that's left behind. There's a crazy old lady who produces a shotgun if your cutting through her beautiful stretch of water, a gentleman that charges 240 $ a year to fish his chunk, which he owns the river rights too. Most of us that fish this system know the majority of the public points access, and if you're determined Enough it's not hard to find them. Yes it's a huge river that's open all year, but it still gets pounded just as hard as any other system, gta or not.

I think openfire made a good point about if someone says a certain river is on fire most will flock to it.
We have a couple of really good spots close to a certain trib that is almost always shoulder to shoulder, a 10 minute drive you're away from the slaughter fest and still pounding fish.

[chromefanatic]

I do like this site, and there are a lot of great members and lots of good info shared but imo, this is/has been one of the worst sites for naming of rivers and creeks, especially smaller systems.

If that could be cleaned up a little, theres no doubt in my mind this would be one of the better sites.

Cheers.

[Bug_Slinger]

after reconsideration would like to change my vote from "Yes, as long as the presence of fish is not discussed" to absolutely "No".

[Ivor]

Had a question for the Creators/Moderators of this site/forum:

What was/is the objective of this forum? Would the following statement meet the objectives of this forum:

"I went fishing on <day/date>; had a great time; caught <number of fish> of <name species> from <time> to <time>. I caught them on <rod brand>, <reel brand>, <line brand and details>, <hook brand and details>, and <fishing setup>. Here are the pics, with background distorted, of the fish and I. Hope you enjoyed your fishing too! BTW, the weather and water was great! "


I may add, that if the above statement matches the objectives of this site, then we have a FishBook!

Edited by Ivor, 28 October 2012 - 01:46 PM.

[chinhook]

I've got to agree with the majority here and say that no names of rivers should be said on the forums. The idea of a section where contributing members can post may be an alternative, however I think that East/West/GB would suffice for about as much information as should be allowed.

If people want to have banner days like some members here, they should go and do the leg work themselves.

[ChaseChrome]

Yah but more and more of the notty is being shut off to us because of land owners not appreciating the traffic and the mess that's left behind. There's a crazy old lady who produces a shotgun if your cutting through her beautiful stretch of water, a gentleman that charges 240 $ a year to fish his chunk, which he owns the river rights too. Most of us that fish this system know the majority of the public points access, and if you're determined Enough it's not hard to find them. Yes it's a huge river that's open all year, but it still gets pounded just as hard as any other system, gta or not.

I think openfire made a good point about if someone says a certain river is on fire most will flock to it.
We have a couple of really good spots close to a certain trib that is almost always shoulder to shoulder, a 10 minute drive you're away from the slaughter fest and still pounding fish.

I am not altogether sure about "ownership" of the river however...I would like to get clarification on this. I had always thought whether one owned the land or not it did not allow one to bar anyone from using the river, that they do not have absolute riparian rights...

Anyone want to chime in...property lawyer perhaps???

[Knuguy]

In some cases exceptional cases the land owner also owns the stream bottom. However, that is not the case for navigable waterways, which the Notty definitely is. Otherwise, NVCA would not be able to publish a map showing it as a canoe route. But WATCH OUT!!. The Harper Gov't is about to change the whole definition of navigable waterways to a much narrower one. Does not bode well for fishermen or canoeist. I happen to be both.

[CanadianAngler87]

I dont understand how someone can own water that runs through/past there property. Waters moving and the stuff that float/swim through it move aswell. So if people own the water, that would mean ownership of the water would change as it flows downsteam, and the things that go with it.

[Brian]

They don't own the water...in cases like that mentioned above, they own the land...
So as long as you don't come into contact with the land, you're OK

[Float down]

They don't own the water...in cases like that mentioned above, they own the land...
So as long as you don't come into contact with the land, you're OK

Exactly. You can float through, just no wading.

[Knuguy]

..in cases like that mentioned above, they own the land...
:

I'm not sure which cases you are referring to, but they definitely do not own the Notty river bed.

[CanadianAngler87]

Exactly. You can float through, just no wading.

So if you were in a kayak/or boat they got nothing on you.?

[Alfiegee]

Why do I feel like I have said this before? O Yes because I have.
Land-owners do not own riverbeds on navigatible water ways, so you can wade. In some very rare cases where the property rights date back years some land owners do own rights to the riverbed.
You no what I find is easy? Walk up and knock on the door and say Hi, I'm Alfie. Show the people a garbage bag and tell them you will fill it and bring it out. Ask if you can fish on their property. I never have a problem. Many of the land-owners are saved on my cell phone and I now call them the day before I am going to be in the area.

Alfie.

[FishingNoob]

Why do I feel like I have said this before? O Yes because I have.
Land-owners do not own riverbeds on navigatible water ways, so you can wade. In some very rare cases where the property rights date back years some land owners do own rights to the riverbed.
You no what I find is easy? Walk up and knock on the door and say Hi, I'm Alfie. Show the people a garbage bag and tell them you will fill it and bring it out. Ask if you can fish on their property. I never have a problem. Many of the land-owners are saved on my cell phone and I now call them the day before I am going to be in the area.

Alfie.

That's the way it should be done.

[Float down]

I'm not sure which cases you are referring to, but they definitely do not own the Notty river bed.

Buddy... I'm telling you first hand the owner has the rights to the river bottom, my friend was escorted out of there by the cops and the warden, he showed us the deed and my friend thought it was BS so he went back only to be kicked out. I can give you directions so you can ask him yourself, lol.

[Float down]

He's a decent enough guy, but he is pretty firm in not letting people fish it, it's some sort of resort, or something like that so you have to give him some cash to fish it, I think he said 240 a season.

[Float_On]

He's a decent enough guy, but he is pretty firm in not letting people fish it, it's some sort of resort, or something like that so you have to give him some cash to fish it, I think he said 240 a season.

There's a lot of free & productive water in this province. For $240 there better be bud girls putting your roe bags on!

[Dewy]

In order for the system to be sustainable, reproduction (either natural or through stocking) would have to exceed the loss of fish. I think this is a great question, and raises some concerns for smaller creeks and streams that may not have extensive stocking programs. It also depends on the type of angler. Not every angler goes out fishing to catch their limit, however on some waters it seems this way.

Very interesting and valid points brought up so far. Thanks guys.

I personally look at it from a more 'unconventional' point of view, more of a statistical/quantitative approach... I'll elaborate later as I don't want to sidetrack the conversation.

But I wonder... what would happen if 100 steelheaders who would have evenly fished on 10 different streams on a given day, instead all converged on one particular stream? What would the overall (aggregate) net fish loss/impact to the fishery be?