8 replies to this topic

[MapleNeil]

I've read that you can legally use a stream or pond in private property if it's a "navigable water".  Do either of these look significant enough to qualify?  One is more like a marsh, the other is a little stream.  I just need to canoe a short distance down to get to a good spot in crown land, but there's private land in the way.

Thanks for your help!

 

[fisherman2280]

You are partially correct. I grew up on a river. The land on both sides can be owned and under the river I think but the water is not owned. So you could float down.

 

But if you had to get out your trespassing. Or when you turn the corner and run into those two King Sheppard's who pin you against a tree  

 

Best advice is go ask, most people are so shocked you bothered asking they more often than not give you permission to get where you want easier.

[torco]

The Conservatives when in power gutted the navigable water protection act...so I would say likely no now. We need to continue to pressure the current liberal government to repeal the damage done by Harper et al to this Act

[FrequentFlyer]

go knock on the door and ask, or find a different access. if its on crown land as you say, there will be another access point

[Joel52]

Ask permission - it's usually not a problem if you do this, and then if it is, at least you'll know and avoid confrontation. I think the laws governing this type of access are good. In most cases if there is an environmental protection zone in place, the land owner is responsible for making sure it's adhered to. If I owned land (at one time I did with a creek - 200' EP in place), I would appreciate the ask. For every ten good people there's at least one idiot that litters, disrespects property, ect. People that ask don't usually have campfires and leave beer cans behind.

[bharkasaig]

Hey MapleNeil,

 

I thought the same as you, and generally, you are correct - if you stay in/on the water you are fine. The old, pre-Harper definition of navigable water was any water that could carry a canoe. Most water like this is public access. I would say your creek is 'navigable'. (I'm also NOT a lawyer)

There are exceptions, however, so it is always best to ask for permission.

 

I found this out the 'hard' way - I was walking down a creek and got caught on a farmers' property. I had to leave the water to get around so I spoke to the owner to get permission to cross his property to another part of the creek.

He informed me that he, and other landowners downstream had title to the whole creek, including the bed, on their property. It was given by some long dead king but still had legal backing (he has had interactions with the local conservation authority and has come out on top). If the property is on a property like his, you would be trespassing if you are on the creek without permission.

He was great, and gave me permission to continue, and outlined how far down people had this exceptional ownership. Not wanting to face a couple big dogs downstream on one of the properties I skipped that bit and got back to the 'navigable' section of the creek. 

 

It seems like this exception is limited to land initially granted to Loyalists after the War of Independence to the Victorian area, unless that land was also a part of Treaty deals with First Nations. On the creek I was on it is public access above a certain line because it is navigable, then private thanks to these title grants, then public below thanks to a treaty signed to protect First Nations fishing rights.

[FrequentFlyer]

Hey MapleNeil,

 

I thought the same as you, and generally, you are correct - if you stay in/on the water you are fine. The old, pre-Harper definition of navigable water was any water that could carry a canoe. Most water like this is public access. I would say your creek is 'navigable'. (I'm also NOT a lawyer)

There are exceptions, however, so it is always best to ask for permission.

 

I found this out the 'hard' way - I was walking down a creek and got caught on a farmers' property. I had to leave the water to get around so I spoke to the owner to get permission to cross his property to another part of the creek.

He informed me that he, and other landowners downstream had title to the whole creek, including the bed, on their property. It was given by some long dead king but still had legal backing (he has had interactions with the local conservation authority and has come out on top). If the property is on a property like his, you would be trespassing if you are on the creek without permission.

He was great, and gave me permission to continue, and outlined how far down people had this exceptional ownership. Not wanting to face a couple big dogs downstream on one of the properties I skipped that bit and got back to the 'navigable' section of the creek. 

 

It seems like this exception is limited to land initially granted to Loyalists after the War of Independence to the Victorian area, unless that land was also a part of Treaty deals with First Nations. On the creek I was on it is public access above a certain line because it is navigable, then private thanks to these title grants, then public below thanks to a treaty signed to protect First Nations fishing rights.

 

im 90% sure i know where that is, and his dogs are no joke, i have seen them in action, and they are very very well trained, if its the same east creek im thinking

 

but yea, like you said, just go knock on the door and ask, its all about respect for the property. if you were the one living there, wouldn't you want someone to do the same?

[MapleNeil]

im 90% sure i know where that is, and his dogs are no joke, i have seen them in action, and they are very very well trained, if its the same east creek im thinking

 

but yea, like you said, just go knock on the door and ask, its all about respect for the property. if you were the one living there, wouldn't you want someone to do the same?

Hi,

There's no house there, it's pretty far from civilization.  How do you find out who owns the land?