Saw this on a canoeing forum.
https://wildernesscanoe.ca/content/b...s-royal-assent
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e...ading#enH13951
Printable View
Saw this on a canoeing forum.
https://wildernesscanoe.ca/content/b...s-royal-assent
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e...ading#enH13951
So....all the fingers off the lower grand in Dunnville out to Lake Erie....?
Yep, that's how I would read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
I had no idea this was coming. Fantastic!
Thanks for that Cramadog2
Does this change the definition of "navigable waters"? Does this make all accessible waters OK to canoe/boat?Quote:
Originally Posted by cramadog2
Yep the navigation protection act has been changed to the Canadian navigable Waters Act and the definition has been changed to the following
Navigable water means a body of water, including a canal or any other body of water created or altered as a result of the construction of any work, that is used or where there is a reasonable likelihood that it will be used by vessels, in full or in part, for any part of the year as a means of transport or travel for commercial or recreational purposes, or as a means of transport or travel for Indigenous peoples of Canada exercising rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and
(a) there is public access, by land or by water;
(b) there is no such public access but there are two or more riparian owners; or
(c) Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province is the only riparian owner. (eaux navigable
It'll be interesting to see how the members of "private" waterfowl hunting clubs that are on rivers and lakes react when their "ownership" is challenged.Quote:
Originally Posted by onelessarrow
Lol I was thinking you might be thinking of the duck mafia
That's exactly what I was thinking. There's a couple of them I know of that will be in for a surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by onelessarrow
Some marshes around here that are privately owned, restrict access. Generally, as long as you don’t anchor or touch the bottom, you are good to go. Some owners think they can restrict boat traffic. This may clarify things....Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Yep they can kiss the north side goodbye. Not sure if theres enough water on the south side to support a shot from hitting land. Haven't really looked at it. Good times.
My understanding of the one area that I think is being referenced the land was owned and then flooded much later to "create" a lake and this may not change that situation… I also didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night either, so take that for what it's worth.
If I didnt know any better, I would say the new definition was written with that spot in mind. Including the reference to the man made canal lol.
'A body of water including a canal or any body of water created or altered as result of any work'.
This speaks directly to the extension of any body of water, regardless of property.
I've been trying to play the devils advocate in my head but can't see anywhere in the legislation where they can dispute having to share the water now.
It does not change access to clubs for example at Long Point. I called the crown to get an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I was also told that this legislation will not affect flooded private property which many clubs are on. The club's owners must pay municipal taxes on it like it was dry land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon
When you say crown, you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon