I think your wading interpretation is wrong. Regardless of the streambed "ownership", the right to access falls under the Navigable Waters Act, with the intention of "navigating" those waters by actually riding the "surface" in some sort of watercraft. So you would actually have to be able to "float and navigate" a watercraft (kayak, canoe etc...). My interpretation would be that without the "watercraft" you are trespassing.
Stream/river access rules?
- Thread starter kodiakjack
- Start date
I think your wading interpretation is wrong. Regardless of the streambed "ownership", the right to access falls under the Navigable Waters Act, with the intention of "navigating" those waters by actually riding the "surface" in some sort of watercraft. So you would actually have to be able to "float and navigate" a watercraft (kayak, canoe etc...). My interpretation would be that without the "watercraft" you are trespassing.
Well, generally people are dinks. My first house was on the Chippawa creek. Some people assumed just because i had a dock they could moor there and use my property to access the gas station and convenience store across the road from me.
After this happened a few times i got pissed at any boat that got close to my property.
And dont get me going on the snowmobilers that used to ride and park all over my property.
Just remember if anyone does run into a grouchy old man while you are in the middle of his property, there probably is a reason.
Hmm. I think it’s clear from some of the law stuff posted earlier that for the most part, the creek bed remains crown land, unless specifically stated in the lease. In Ontario, anyway. And I know that’s how it works in the great majority of the States as well (I know Colorado is an exception).
I see what you’re saying though: that the intent of the Act is for water navigation, not some dude in hip waders missing an embarrassing amount of fish with his bow on a Sunday afternoon. But to support the Act, they’ve included the beds, and as long as they remain Crown land (without published restrictions), then they remain public access.
That’s my take from what I’ve read so far, but I’m not married to the idea. I’m welcome to more or contrary info.
And sometimes, trespassing is a legacy issue. One landowner welcomes people to tie up and cross his property for decades, word spreads, and eventually people assume its public access. Then the property is sold, and the new owner is stuck with trying to educate the masses, and becomes “grouchy old man” through no fault of his own.
Under the letter of the law, you may very well be right. But the odds of being charged are very low, and of a successful conviction, even lower. If, and I do say if, you decide to wade up such a stream, what do you think the odds are that an LEO/CO would attend the scene to charge you. And, how would he/she prove that your feet were actually touching the bottom of the stream, and that you weren't floating/swimming? Now, such an attitude could lead to an altercation with the property owner and is very much a prick move, but under the strictly legal point of view, the odds of being charged are very, very, slim, IMHO.
Do tell, lol.
Most states use the high water mark.
Now is a “watercourse” defined anywhere? Are there criteria like width, or depth, or flow, or water has to be present, etc?
And is this just “knowledge you know” or is there applicable regulations somewhere? Thanks
Navigable waters Canada seems to think they have jurisdiction if any kind of watercraft can fit down it including canoes
They have an obligation to preserve navigation on waters that can be practically navigated under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (which the Conservatives re-wrote to apply to only named bodies of water and I think the Liberals re-established to its original form or plan to). Navigability under that act and the navigability regarding rights and ownership are two entirely different things.
Bubba Yugga
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Midwestern Ontario
So what happens if you have to drag your canoe over a beaver dam?
Is that part of the private property / river bed?
Does that make that creek non navigable in law?
Is that part of the private property / river bed?
Does that make that creek non navigable in law?
Silly man. Never had issues with people fishing infront of my place as long as they stayed off my dock.
Reading online, it appears that this topic is being fiercely debated by legal and environmental experts, and there isn’t great consensus on what the recent changes to the Navigable Waters Act actually mean, and how current proposed legislation will further change that meaning.
In the meantime, a simple guideline - if the property line ends at the waterway, no issue. If the property line crosses the waterway, get permission. In the interests of all hunters and recreational users, if you can’t get permission from landowners, don’t look for work-arounds that might be “technically legal”. Think of it this way - if the stream was going through your land, what would you want people to do?
In the meantime, a simple guideline - if the property line ends at the waterway, no issue. If the property line crosses the waterway, get permission. In the interests of all hunters and recreational users, if you can’t get permission from landowners, don’t look for work-arounds that might be “technically legal”. Think of it this way - if the stream was going through your land, what would you want people to do?
Trimmer 905
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Picture the Otonabee River south from Peterborough that empties into Rice Lake. It wends it's way south through private property on both sides. In several areas,part of the river banks are posted out into the river with "No Trespassing" signs where waterfowl clubs are active. After several court cases claiming the sections of the river were covered under The Navigable Waters Act,Ontario Court (Divisional) ruled they were indeed flooded farmland and owners were still paying municipal taxes on it, therefore, allowed to post the property. Hunting clubs were allowed as a permitted use under township and county zoning regulations. The ruling was upheld on appeal by Ontario Court-Superior Division and the laws stand to this day. The exact same principle is applicable to posted private hunting club that jutts out into Lake Scugog south of Cesarea. This,too,has been upheld by Ontario Courts.
Having said that,it brings us back to your original post vis-a-vie navigable creeks across private land. Applying the same principles as noted above,land owners are well within their rights to post their property and if necessary,fence the creek to block access. It sucks,but,in Ontario,it's the law.
Last edited:
To be clear, the Ontario Beds of Navigable Waters Act doesn't say anything about what makes a river navigable. All is does is say all navigable waterways are Crown unless specifically granted. MNRF has determined that catch-all phrases like 'together with all water flowing over the lands' is not sufficient to grant title to a river or lake. The grant needs to specifically name the water body. The Act was passed some time around 1914 and was needed to clear up considerable confusion at the time.
The federal Navigable Waters Protection Act again says nothing about ownership. Its purpose (contrary to the greenies who think the word protection means it is an environmental act) is to preserve actual navigation by way of preventing and removing obstructions. It unfortunately drifts into the area of navigability in the legal/ownership sense but that comes with a great big caution. If a watercourse is subject to the federal act it doesn't necessarily mean it is navigable for legal/ownership/public right of access purposes, nor does a legally navigable watercourse have to fall under the federal act.
Other things that may be relevant to your example is the possibility of water lots that have been set up and granted or flooded land either naturally or as mill ponds.
