Printable View
Went for a boat ride at my cottage and saw new signs on some islands I hunted on before . I would like to find out if someone is playing ( stay away from here ) illegally . Or have I been wrong all this time. Some of these so called islands are about two times the size of my pickup truck. and are result of the left over parts of the making of the Trent water way. Who can I ask if I`m screwed or not.
I know MNR has Crown Land maps on line.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/crown-land-use-policy-atlas
The old Provincial Series Topo Maps used to ID Crown and Private land as well. You have to watch though they are not 100 percent accurate, but they both give you a really good idea and give you grounds for an argument.
Good luck.
The maps might help.
If the islands were created when the Trent Severn was created, it may in fact be privately owned, as many areas have title that extends under the waterway, and in fact encompass the waterway as well.
Although I have many times seen people put signs on property they did not own. Had a fella putting signs on a property I had access to and I got permission from the land owner in writing to remove the signs. I have also seen chains across crown land roads and told the MNR and the MNR removed them.
Sorry but my question would be, 'why did you hunt them before, if you had not checked to see if you could, or who owned them'?
Correct me if I am wrong but if land is unmarked and not be used for anything you can use it. Probably a little more to the law than that but it's close. I can show you land around here that you would swear is crown and it isn't I can also show you crown but you would probably think it's private. I know of some land that members on here in the past hunted thinking it was crown and it wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Where,generally,is your cottage and these small islands? Are you island hopping for small game or waterfowling?Quote:
Originally Posted by javl
These island are really small . One would not fit my truck parked on it. I saw others hunting off them and honestly didn`t think any one would own them. Bad on my part I know. We have been hunting there for 15 years. Strictly waterfowl hunting. We hunt about 4 times during the season. It`s in the Kawartha lakes and part of the Trent water way.
Considering he put this thread in the waterfowl section and in the title he referenced it as his goose hunting spot I think is self explanatory................Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Thanks. I'll sleep better,now,knowing that you found it necessary to post that.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by duckslayer
Small islands close to shore more than likely are private property. Larger islands out into the lakes,not so much,but,may be part of First Nations land claims. They can be confusing,for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by javl
We were once setup in a tent camp moose hunting on Crown Land near Red Lake. An Outfitter drove up to our tent and put a no hunting sign on a trail not 50 feet from our camp ( one of the guys we hunt with is a CO, pretty sure we were hunting legally). We put it in the fire pit and burnt enough of it for him to see it in the fire pit. He didn't return.
My point is many people post land they don't own. I would do some more research on that one. This could be an anti hunter or someone claiming the spot.
You might be able to try the appropriate land registry??
Great white is correct with respect to the trespass act. Certain properties don't have to be marked ( manicured lawns, agricultural etc). Bush lots etc do need to have signage indicating what isn't permissible. In some cases landowners don't mind certain activities, so you might only see
"no motorized vehicles"
"no hunting"
etc
so access is fine, to hike/bike, bird watch....
other landowners dont want anyone on the property so the all encompassing.
"no trespass"
its entirely possible someone owns these "islands" and has recently changed their minds, or possible new owners.
Ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer............Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Now now. Let`s all play nice. This is a very small lake . No native land claims around here this I know for sure. I have a feeling its an anti who moved in. Not sure if the islands belong to them. My wife works for a realestate head office and has someone from the area looking in to it. If it is bogus gona contact MNR and I hope they lay charges but I think I have a better chance of seeing a fart.
I second trimmers comment, many of these islands from buckhorn to the Trent river are First Nation owned as part of the islands of the Trent. Peterborough GIS labels these perfectly on they're software for your knowledgeQuote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Yes there are First Nation land claims here, these islands are part of the Islands of the Trent land claim settlement. They are owned by the Mississauga First Nations of Alderville, Curvelake, Hiawatha and Scugog. These islands fall in theWilliams treaty as well as the 1818 Treaty #20 which encompasses all of Peterborough County.Quote:
Originally Posted by javl
Javi, hopefully you can come up with the answer you need, unfortunately I am no help, not in that area but I have hunted on some islands in that region but only threw invites.
So if land is not posted and vacant you can just help yourself to it? I would recommend securing permission from any private land owner before hunting on it. This happens all to often and is a huge reason why it is becoming increasingly more difficult to get permission on private land in Ontario.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
If land is unmarked and does not appear to be private than yes, there is a bit more to it than that but I don't have time to lookup the Act.. I can show you private land that even seasoned members on here thought was crown but it was private. I can also show you crown that you would swear up and down it's private.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon
That is correct Bandwagon. No intention to start "something", and we all know trespassers, littering etc are the source of problems. However I happen to know a few landowners who don't mind, if people enter their land........Im sure there are many more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon
Those who do not want people on their property, indicating so, is very easy. If your property doesn't fall under those that are automatically "prohibited" or assumed to be "prohibited"....Put some red dots or signs up. It not hard to announce to the world.
visitors not welcome, or "X activity not welcome".
Personally I would recommend people be familiar with the law. And not suggest those who are within the law, are causing problems. Any landowner who for any reason be it finding too much litter, or was an "anti" who was having problems with people on his/her land, just simply has to post a sign. So "hunters" or birdwatchers, who are legally going onto land where they are permitted to be and go....aren't a problem, nor source of problems with more land owners saying no to hunters.
Prohibition of entry
3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,
(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or
(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).
Implied permission to use approach to door
(2) There is a presumption that access for lawful purposes to the door of a building on premises by a means apparently provided and used for the purpose of access is not prohibited. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (2).
Limited permission
4. (1) Where notice is given that one or more particular activities are permitted, all other activities and entry for the purpose are prohibited and any additional notice that entry is prohibited or a particular activity is prohibited on the same premises shall be construed to be for greater certainty only. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 4 (1).
Limited prohibition
(2) Where entry on premises is not prohibited under section 3 or by notice that one or more particular activities are permitted under subsection (1), and notice is given that a particular activity is prohibited, that activity and entry for the purpose is prohibited and all other activities and entry for the purpose are not prohibited. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 4 (2).
Method of giving notice
5. (1) A notice under this Act may be given,
(a) orally or in writing;
(b) by means of signs posted so that a sign is clearly visible in daylight under normal conditions from the approach to each ordinary point of access to the premises to which it applies; or
(c) by means of the marking system set out in section 7. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 5 (1).
So for clarification.
I currently am part owner of a few thousand acres that I atv on as well as hunt.
There are trails throughout my land that continue into other large parcels also in the over thousand acre range.
I have always turned around when I thought I had reached the end of my land but what some are claiming here is that if it is not posted... Which it isn't and is not a farm, just bush and swamp then I am free to continue on my way ?
Also not trying to start something. Just curious.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Want to clarify something first, because I probably didn't word it well. Its always worth talking to the land owner, if for no other reason than finding out how heavily or not the land is used. I don't hunt any of the property I know of, because I know lots of others do as well, and really the land isn't large enough. Aka I could shoot something, and it pile up on private property that is posted.
It's more who are causing problems for us, and landowners getting "fed up". Land owners that I've talked to, have almost all universally said they are tired of the litter and vandals.........not the people be they hikers, bird watchers or hunters they are well aware are using the land and "have permission".
From the sounds of it, yes straggle lake. If the land isn't posted (any indication whats "prohibited" or what is ok) and it isn't what you would reasonably deem to any of the properties identified in section 3.1, you can enter it. If the land owner didn't want people going there Im sure there'd be at least red dots where existing trails enter the property.
Theres always the chance vandals rip them down ( "Your honour, I didn't see any signs), but you can usually find indications of signs having been hung or red spray paint...so again if possible ask the land owner, but really ask yourself. If after 5, 20 years of people using those trails...If the landowner had problems with it...surely by now......
That was always my thought as well, if the land owner didn't want anyone on it why not post the trail.
I always just stayed off because I was taught to be very respectful of trespassing. I'll probably steer clear for now to be safe but still good to know.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Even though the law as provided above is quite clear, my thought is that common courtesy would mean asking the landowner for permission, and it may prevent a landowner approaching you after you have entered and telling you to leave (which you would be obligated to do) and ruining your hunt. I don't like signs on my property and do appreciate the courtesy of a hunter coming to my door and asking permission. I wish the law would change putting the onus on the hunter to get permission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by javl
Canal Lake?
IF I knew what lake you were talking about I could probably help you out. Pm me if you want.
S.
There's fines for people posting land they don't own or manage. Do you use a portable blind? If not,it wouldn't hurt to build one. It takes the "private property" situation right out of the equation if you're interested in that approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by javl
Can you explain this comment a little further or are you referring to a floating boat type of blind?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
A portable blind (ie: pop-up) on private property shouldn't make a difference as to the trespass act.
Sure! By "portable" I mean boat blinds. I've used them for decades and they sure take the BS factor away from permanent duck blinds as to who owns what and who can hunt there and when. All I need to do is keep an eye out for who is set up and where and just don't crowd anyone. A good time is had by all.
Assuming there is a house on the property I would agree. Often that is not the case or when you knock on a door they don't have info for landownersQuote:
Originally Posted by redd foxx
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
As D782 said, it really depends on the property and where it's located.Know of 1 land owner that leases land. While he will often give permission for people to enter. He has in the past had some problems with the person he leases the land to, who acts like he owns it. Common courtesy always goes for miles, however......
We may think the onus should be on "hunters", but that's impractical. It would akin to the province requiring drivers to check with them, to find out what speed limits are on roads/highways.
So far the discussion has centered around entering for the purpose of hunting. What if your tracking a buck/doe and it enters property you know to be privately owned, doesn't fall under 3.1 and is not posted in any way.....
still going to spend a few days trying to track the owner down in vain?
or knock on their door at midnight?
Nope! That's a case where a hunter may enter property to retrieve game,BUT, must leave when told by a landowner. In that case,a trespassing charge may be laid only if the trespasser refuses to leave as directed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Where do you come up with this crap? I swear, I read more total BS from you than anyone else on this whole site. No offense, but you shouldn't spew out stuff you "think" is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Show me where I could find this written in some sort of act or regulation.
S.
Trimmer
If the land/property isn't one of the below in 3.1, and it's not posted in any way. Said hunter ISN"T trespassing. Period.
Prohibition of entry
3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,
(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or
(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).
******************
whether or not a landowner subsequently ask a person to leave, which is utterly no different than inviting a bunch of people over for a dinner party, then asking one of the guest to leave (for whatever reason). Well thats a different topic than what's being discussed (which is whether or not people who enter unposted property are "in the wrong") or should in any way, be made to feel as though they are.
/edit
Wish I could figure out why various formats( font colour, quoting etc) are mucking up
:)
I was in law enforcement for many years and dealt with hunter trespassing complaints on a weekly basis. Read the Trespass to Property Act and the Occupiers Liability Act and actually read what it says,not what YOU think it says. They go hand in hand and it's all in their,then,you can search and read the case law that goes with them. Go nuts!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinker
That's exactly what I said. Tell that to Sinker. He thinks we're all wrong.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Trimmer is bang on ! Pretty much all land in our neck of the woods requires no posting. In the north, not so much. Under the Trespass to Property Act, there are basically three offences, entry when prohibited, engage in prohibited activity or failure to leave when directed. A charge under the FWCA for trespass to hunt is more severe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinker
I would suggest if you are a land owner and are posting no hunting or trespassing signs - then write "posted by landowner" on each sign.
Thats not even close to what you said. READ what you wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Read 3.1b....its right there in plain english!
If you shot a deer, and it ran on to my property, that is fenced ( is there any property in southern ON that isn't fenced that's not a cultivated field, orchard, or managed forest etc???) You are tresspassing and I would kick you out simply because you were arrogant enough to not ask me. If I really wanted to be an , I would keep your deer too.
I let the neighbours know I'm hunting the next property and usually already have permission to retrieve my game before I even put my boots on.
If you cross a fence, generally, you are tresspassing.
S.
I'm staying well clear of "differences". But in part is why I mentioned "dinner party's" or even house guest. Once asked to leave, if they don't the law will side with "owner". Ask your daughters friend to leave. Doesn't matter what your daughter says about inviting said guest in, when Leo shows up, said guest can be charged with trespass.
Unless I'm missing something (it's happened before) the reference was to property, not posted, not fenced, and didn't meet the criteria where posting is not required....under those circumstances, no trespassing offence is committed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinker
The best part is, you can use as much force as is necessary to remove said "guest", who refuses to leave !!Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
No, its me that missed something. Sorry...Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
I missed the part that said it was exempt from 3.1.....oops.
Its very hard to be exempt from that one though. There is always something.
S.
That's why the farming community are pushing for changes to the TPA, to put some teeth into the Act. I haven't seen a new fine structure, so maybe the amendments have done just that.
Hey lets ask Sparky494.
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...31-Blood-Trail
14 pages and this stuff is still being regurgitated. Bottom line guys use the KISS principle. If the land is not yours assume it belongs to someone else. Therefore if it belongs to someone else how would the majority of people feel if they find a stranger lurking on their property.
If we stop putting are own selfish needs or desires before the next person there would be a lot less problems in this world.
Yea, a charge under the FWCA is much different than the TPA, in terms of penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
I'll remember that the next time someone tries to tell me I'm trespassing or there's "no hunting" on Crown land FFF. :)
the "bottom line" is
some common sense, some common courtesy usually go a long way. But one "answer" doesn't fit all situations, locations. So know the law.
be safe, be legal
Pretty much !!
Trying to keep it simple. As you know if its crown ( assuming you verified it by more than just looking at a map) treat it as your own otherwise treat it as not your own to do as you please.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
The latest fine schedule I have shows FWCA 10(1)(a) Trespass for the purpose of hunting ,the set fine is $100. It should be $1K first offense. Back in the day,every time I wrote a simple trespassing ticket,it was only $25.....hardly worth the effort,but,the law is the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
I think it's now $125.00 with the surcharge.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
http://www.muskokatodaily.com/?p=23291Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Plead guilty and was fines $1000 for trespass for the purpose of hunting so we are there boys
Understood FFF but there are situations/locations where it's not necessary. Tracking game is just one.
how many people have been intimidated or "threatened" when fishing rivers/streams legally. I know photographers as well who a) weren't tresspassing and b) were accosted. Hunting is a little different for a few reasons but the law "is the law" and knowing it, and knowing when your doing nothing wrong, is just as important as not crossing the line.....kind of like knowing what the storage/transport/entry and search laws are. Knowing them "protects" you as well, when others don't...or do but
.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
The CO in this instance would have proceeded by way of summons, rather than an offence notice with the set fine. It can go either way, depending on the circumstances.
Well it's official . The 4 islands in question do belong to someone. I never set foot on any of these islands but other hunters do. It's a matter of time before they come over to my spot. I did jam my boat into the cat tails and hunt from my boat a couple of times in front of one of them but the cat tails grew and spread. That the birds don't land there anymore . Well gona have to wake up extra extra early now to get a spot. My cushy days are over!
Thank's to all who offerd to help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by javl
so the question begs to be asked...any chance for permission to hunt? Just because it says no trespassing doesn't always mean no hunting. Have a few spots where posted yet ask the owner and they said sure no problem just wanted to be asked first. Here's hoping for you.
The signs say no hunting. Maybe some of the other hunters might go some were else . Who knows. Anyway I'm sure we'll be o.k.