Public property vs private property.. On water

[jaycee]

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]

1. 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.
2. "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.
3. A river or stream may be navigable over part of its course and not navigable over other parts.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Navigation need not be continuous but may fluctuate seasonally.
8. 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.
9. 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]

[trimmer21]

Good post,jaycee. Thanks for doing the research.

[terrym]

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.

[mooner]

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.

[JBen]

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.

[mark270wsm]

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 .

[terrym]

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.

[Lucas]

• 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.

[fratri]

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

[rick_iles]

Can you supply a link to that regulation? It just doesn't sound right to me.

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.