-
March 21st, 2011, 08:11 AM
#11
Growing up in Bowmanville in the 50's we spent many hours trying to figure out a way to hunt the "syndicate". No one would compain if we launched a canoe from the causeway during the fishing season, but as soon as duck opened in the fall things would change.
I once launched on the north side, paddled along the shore, hoping to jump-shoot on our way. No ducks that day, but when we got back there was a "caretaker" waiting by our car. (which was an out of area vehicle). We claimed ignorance and hadn't set foot on land so he let us off with a warning. If he had known we grew up in the area things would have been different.
-
March 21st, 2011 08:11 AM
# ADS
-
March 21st, 2011, 08:31 AM
#12
Has too much time on their hands
I really dont see the problem here against this group....what if it were locals that bought this land long ago....would you still have called them these names? They bought the land fair and square pay the taxes on it....whats the big deal? Private land is private land.....everyone here could do the same....as mentioned, take out your check book and buy a piece of land
"The Pointer is a superb Pointing Dog, born to serve a Gun. It will have no reason to exist when it will no longer be able to do so, or when there are no more Guns to be served."
The Woodcock: "A Prince Among Game Birds", "and its flesh is a delight to the palate of an epicure...the pretty pattern of woodland light and shades, the delicate long bill, and the big liquid eyes. An aristocrat among game birds!" AMEN.
-
March 21st, 2011, 09:17 AM
#13
Don't really see what the problem here is either.
Do I like it, think it's fair?
On the surface I don't like the idea of deeded streambed/lakebed/water ( Contrary to someones post above, you will be charged if you go by boat and stay in the boat). as noted the "right" was decided a century ago. To the best of my knowledge there are other "similiar" area's in Ontario where people have deeded stream/river/lake beds. When the land gets sold and the deed is "transferred" the rights to the bed go back to the crown. So deeding beds isn't something thats practised anymore and those areas that are left are legacy ones, that will go back to the people one day.
That said, the only time there problems atleast north of the causeway is during waterfowl season. People are in the "No tresspass" area's all spring/summer and to the best of my knowledge they don't care. I myslef have launed my kayak there to do a little bass fishing on the north side.
As others have noted, whether its a group of wealthy individuals or a single land owner.
No one would gripe if it was a single person, who owned and posted land.
Last edited by JBen; March 21st, 2011 at 09:19 AM.
-
March 21st, 2011, 09:21 AM
#14
Yedi, I've only ever driven by this place by chance but I wouldn't call it 'land'. It was like they cut off one bay from the rest of a natural lake by building a causeway. It would never fly nowadays because of the environmental impact. Originally, the point was to drain the water to reclaim land but that never happened so the original owners were able to retain the rights to what was supposed to be land under the water and sold that to a group or rich businessmen. This group then got the area declared non-navigable somehow, despite the fact that people had been boating there for years.
I'm all for private 'land' ownership but last time I checked, waterways belonged to everyone. And this isn't some piddly creek that's two feet across. It's a pretty substantial amount of waterway and wetland. From what I can tell from Google maps, it's not any shallower than the rest of the bog. Maybe I should be allowed to find any shallow bay, dam it up and declare it private property by buying up the shoreline as that is pretty much what happened here.
It doesn't matter to me if it's a group or individual, local or not, it still doesn't seem right to me.
Last edited by boozyleroux; March 21st, 2011 at 09:23 AM.
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Member
-
March 21st, 2011, 09:29 AM
#15
Has too much time on their hands
Isn't Scugog a man -made lake? Wasn't it a big gravel pit at one time? I agree, water beds should not deeded/sold to anyone as they should remain Crown assets.....big problem was(and still is) up in georgian Bay where we had a Cottage....I'm sure you are familliar w/ the beach wars that have been going from Balm beach and up....I remember there would be years where there were Violent attacks. If this is the case here ...then I can understand the frustration.
"The Pointer is a superb Pointing Dog, born to serve a Gun. It will have no reason to exist when it will no longer be able to do so, or when there are no more Guns to be served."
The Woodcock: "A Prince Among Game Birds", "and its flesh is a delight to the palate of an epicure...the pretty pattern of woodland light and shades, the delicate long bill, and the big liquid eyes. An aristocrat among game birds!" AMEN.
-
March 21st, 2011, 09:54 AM
#16
I could be wrong but I think the Ont. Fed. of Snowmobile clubs runs some of there trails through this Syndicate marsh , If anyone knows for sure I;am interested.
-
March 21st, 2011, 10:16 AM
#17
When the ownership was originally passed out by the Crown, most of it WAS dry land, then the Trent system built their locks and dams, making Scugog into a "real" lake.
We have a large marsh up here where much the same has occurred, except the owner tries to prevent fishermen from canoeing into "his" bay as he is opposed to fishing, hunting and eating meat. The OPP get called but because of the remote area they take quite a while to show up. Sometimes it can even be the next day....
-
March 21st, 2011, 11:09 AM
#18
Boozy,
As mentioned above not all navigable waterways are crown just most of it. In this case it is not. Regardless of if they bought it flooded or before it was flooded at the end of the day they did buy it and it is theirs. That same family has tended that piece of land for 100 years. They've kept it free of development and kept it safe for the wildlife that's in it (when they aren't shooting themselves). They should be applauded not vilified because the ducks and other migratory critters that are born in there don't stay in there. By extension they are a benefit to us all. I have marsh around here that is protected by people that own it and while it would be great to go in and have a pop at them we can't. But they do eventually come out.
-
March 21st, 2011, 11:14 AM
#19
Patvetzal
That is a problem. I kinda feel for the guy. Imagine you bought a great 100 acre piece of bush with a stream through it to hunt deer on. One day someone miles away decides they need to build a damn and you wake up to find your farm is a 50 acre piece of land with 50 acres of water. Should you suddenly lose ownership simply because someone can drive a boat around it? That's effectively expropriation without compensation.
-
March 21st, 2011, 11:42 AM
#20
I get that not all waterways are navigable. One that's more than 500 yards across and 20 ft deep one would think would continue to be navigable. It wasn't originally sold to hunt. It was sold to become land (aka drained). When the first group couldn't acheive this, they sold to a private party who decided to block access to it and leave it as is.
My point is that local government officials made either a stupid mistake or were on the take 100 plus years ago and that continues to aggravate people to this day. At this point, it is what it is.
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Member