Printable View
Where would the line for public vs private be?
Would it be the shoreline? 7 ft from the water line? Hunting from an river In boat with an electric motor.. If.I was to pull into bull rushes and not touch dry land am I trespassing? We were having discussions about this today at work.
As fat as I understand you have 7/feet from dry land. Guy at work is telling me.as soon as weeds are present you are on private property..
Generally it's the high water line that's referred to. Exactly where that line is... well that kinda varies.
It depends if they have deeded water rights. Along the st.clair river there are a handful of properties that have deeded water rights which gives them ownership out quite a ways from shore. This is from yrs ago. Most places it is not this way. I look at it like this, as long as the boat is floating and not beached your golden since no one owns the water. It's a touchy subject with some that feel they own it all
Ya... I got in last week by a farmer who said being pulled I'm the bull rushes was trespassing.. Was the canoe floating... Sorta.. Was I on land. No.was standing on a floating chunk of bull rush weed...
Standing outside the canoe I can see his point, best to stay in the boat. You also have to take into consideration of what you will do if you drop a bird onto the shore then what? Sometimes this can get tricky, do you have permission if a shot bird flares and lands behind you in the field? Unless you have permission you are trespassing, and if you can't retrieve your bird you are breaking another law.
Might be a little new to the group and hunting but I specifically asked this in my hunters safety, and the person who owns the land has to grant you access for you to retrieve your game, or a conservation officer has to be called and they can retrieve. Is what I wrote, no rule or number written. That's someone else's game
We get into this discussion every year. As a rule,property lines start 20 ft. from the high water mark. The shore is Crown land when on navigable waterways UNLESS part of the river/lake bed is flooded farmland and the owner is paying taxes on the flooded section which may be why the farmer said you were trespassing. In only that instance may a farmer/owner post the weed beds and bull rushes. On some waterways,municipalities may have by-laws restricting hunting within certain distances from shore where they own the land or where dwellings and outbuildings are within a 300M limit. The onus is on us to know where and when to hunt.
On the particular spot i was there is a municipal made dyke.. Or levy to separate the water from the reclaimed land on the other side of the Dyke.. (Think Holland) the farmer does not own the dyke.. As that is town property to maintain.. I know where j was k was good.. Right up to the other side.. But just wasn't sure for other situations..
General rule of thumb is, if you can float a vessel (kayak to pontoon boat) than it is navigable water and it is therefor crown land. There are as with every rule some exceptions although mostly in SW Ontario. However, once you step foot on land to retrieve your bird, you may be trespassing. Know where you are and know the local by-laws and you should be good to go.
Trimmer21 is correct. You can also look at municipal land maps, they can help sometimes. There were some places I was told were government land, but the land maps showed that although the house and land lot were separate, the flats and ponds were definitely private.
Definition of Navigable Waters[edit]
The Act is relatively silent about the complete definition, saying only that a “navigable water” includes "a canal and any other body of water created or altered as a result of the construction of any work."[11] The Supreme Court of Canada, however, adopted the "floating canoe" threshold in 1906, holding that any water that was navigable and floatable was within its scope.[12]
"The definition of ‘navigable water’ is broad and inclusive, and must be interpreted by relying upon a definition provided in the NWPA and related jurisprudence. Briefly, if a craft is able to pass over a body of water, the body of water would be considered navigable. The craft could be as large as a steamship or as small as a canoe or a raft." [5]
In 2011, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded that the common law of navigability “requires that the waterway be navigable” and “must be capable in its natural state of being traversed by large or small craft of some sort.” It summarized the Canadian jurisprudence on this matter as follows:[13]
- A stream, to be navigable in law, must be navigable in fact. That is, it must be capable in its natural state of being traversed by large or small craft of some sort—as large as steam vessels and as small as canoes, skiffs and rafts drawing less than one foot of water.
- "Navigable" also means "floatable" in the sense that the river or stream is used or is capable of use to float logs, log-rafts and booms.
- A river or stream may be navigable over part of its course and not navigable over other parts.
- To be navigable in law, a river or stream need not in fact be used for navigation so long as realistically it is capable of being so used.
- According to the Civil Code of Quebec, the river or stream must be capable of navigation in furtherance of trade and commerce.[14] The test according to the law of Quebec is thus navigability for commercial purposes,[15] but that is not applicable in the common law provinces.
- The underlying concept of navigability in law is that the river or stream is a public aqueous highway used or capable of use by the public.
- Navigation need not be continuous but may fluctuate seasonally.
- Interruptions to navigation such as rapids on an otherwise navigable stream which may, by improvements such as canals be readily circumvented, do not render the river or stream non-navigable in law at those points.
- A stream not navigable in its natural state may become so as a result of artificial improvements.
Therefore, navigable waters include all bodies of water that are capable of being navigated by any type of floating vessel for transportation, recreation or commerce. In that respect, frequency of navigation may not be a factor in determining a navigable waterway — if it has the potential to be navigated, it will be determined “navigable”.[13]
Good post,jaycee. Thanks for doing the research.
What you need to be conscious of though is retrieval of downed game. If your birds are landing on private land or in bull rushes where there is no way you will find them then that hunting spot isn't worth worrying about. You could be into a trespass charge or a wasting game charge for leaving game behind.
Another point to consider is that navigable waters can flow over private land.
As soon as your paddle touchs bottom or you anchour, you are tresspassing.
You don't always have to go into the weeds to be tresspassing.
Simply tying up to a tree that is over hanging navigable waters has resulted in tresspassing charges being laid and proven in court.
There are also a few places, where despite being navigable (by definition) the water is verboten and simply being in a boat, on the water can get you charged.
Navigable water does not always mean all systems go.
You can not be charged for letting ducks spoil it is a federal law and there is nothing in the law that states you have to eat your bird. also as far as the rule on private land you must look at the patton deed the mnr has and it will cost you to look. you need to see if the deed read "together with the woods and water" there is lots of land around where the famers own the river bead and the water that flows by.. and if you drop a deer on private land you can ask permission to get deer and if you are told no then its over . the deer becomes the land owners if he finds it simple call to the mnr and he then owns it .
Can you supply a link to that regulation? It just doesn't sound right to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark270wsm
- 16. (1) No person shall hunt a migratory bird unless he has adequate means for retrieving any such bird that he may kill, cripple or injure.
- (1.1) A person who kills, cripples or injures a migratory bird shall
- (a) immediately make every reasonable effort to retrieve the bird; and
- (b) if he retrieves the bird while it is still alive, immediately kill and include it in his daily bag limit.
- (2) Notwithstanding paragraph 15(1)(e), a power boat may be used for the purpose of retrieving a migratory bird.
You don't have to eat it but you can't just shoot them and leave them.
Surely we don't need a law in place telling/stating that we must eat our catch and not let it spoil.... For one to say there is no law regarding eating or spoiling game and to rely/go live by that information is silly, shouldn't be hunting ducks and geese if you don't care enough about them to utilize them, stay away... Common sense tells me to find my bird and don't let it spoil... Don't think I need the government to put that in writing for me too....
Back the private/public.... If you are so close to private land with your canoe you probably shouldn't be hunting there...navigate all you want but once a gun comes into play, your pellets and game can fall on private land then what? Technically your pellets need to stay on your land and not enter non-permission land, so thats something else that you need to consider too...
Good luck with your season
It doesn't sound right, but it is. Waterfowl are not "game birds" or "game wildlife" under the FWCA. The MBCA (migratory bird convention act), deals with waterfowl. Under that act, you must retrieve your birds. There is nothing in the MBCA that deals with letting waterfowl spoil....yet! I understand that issue may be addressed in new regulations yet to come, if they haven't been added yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Whom ever gave you that information was not correct. A landowner does not have to allow you on his property to retrieve game, nor can/will a CO force him to allow retrieval. Best case would be the CO MAY plead your case with the landowner and mediate any issues. By the time you could get a CO to your location, the game would must likely have spoiled......best course is to not hunt in an area where this might happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by TyHill
http://www.oodmag.com/community/imag...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by TyHill http://www.oodmag.com/community/imag...post-right.png
Might be a little new to the group and hunting but I specifically asked this in my hunters safety, and the person who owns the land has to grant you access for you to retrieve your game, or a conservation officer has to be called and they can retrieve. Is what I wrote, no rule or number written. That's someone else's game
What we have here is a failure to communicate.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
"has to" refers to seeking and being granted permission from the landowner as opposed to just entering private land to retrieve. "Has to", in this instance, does not mean that the landowner is compelled to grant permission.
I Dont want anyone to belive i am not a law abiding person but the FWCA is Written very poorly and many of the laws are very beatable in court and even most game wardens are confused over the laws.. its only the enforcement supervisor or enforcement specilist that know the rules. so if you ever need a question answerd do not ask a Co ask for the supervisor or specilist and make sure you follow up with emails. I have called the mnr many a times and was shocked to here the replies only to learn what i belived to be true is not . Good luck to all those hunting and best part is have some fun AND TAKE A KID HUNTING