Hunting from a river surrounded by private land in Ontario

There are two, separate, issues being discussed here, IMO.

The right of free passage, by watercraft, along any navigable waterway. With 15 feet of dry land from the high water mark, either side, to be used if nessessary for the purpose of overcoming any obstacle to one's progress.

Then there is that separate issue, hunting, the discharging of a firearm, from within the corridor of free passage.

I am a canoe guy, who maybe, has chosen to have a gun along on any particular trip, for other, non-hunting reasons ... and therefore I have nothing to say about about the hunting legality angle of this debate.

Was I the landowner though, finding some stranger on my creek, who never even bothered to approach me for permission, blasting away, and citing some " the creek and fifteen feet either side" mumbo-jumbo .... lets just say that, unlike the ducks ..... that wouldn't fly.

It's about respect.
 
vviking said:
There are two, separate, issues being discussed here, IMO.

The right of free passage, by watercraft, along any navigable waterway. With 15 feet of dry land from the high water mark, either side, to be used if nessessary for the purpose of overcoming any obstacle to one's progress.

Then there is that separate issue, hunting, the discharging of a firearm, from within the corridor of free passage.

I am a canoe guy, who maybe, has chosen to have a gun along on any particular trip, for other, non-hunting reasons ... and therefore I have nothing to say about about the hunting legality angle of this debate.

Was I the landowner though, finding some stranger on my creek, who never even bothered to approach me for permission, blasting away, and citing some " the creek and fifteen feet either side" mumbo-jumbo .... lets just say that, unlike the ducks ..... that wouldn't fly.

It's about respect.
Click to expand...

This is an example of what I was saying in my post above. With all due respect to vviking, he has no idea what , if any, reserve may or may not be along this particular stretch of river. For all he knows, there may be a 66 foot road allowance along the riverbank, or there may be none. There may or may not be a 15 foot strip of land that you can use. (personally, I've never heard of a 15 foot strip to be used forgetting arround obstructions, but seeing as I'm in Northern Ontario, and I have no idea where vvinking is, I'm not going to say that they don't exist, just that this is a good example of why you have to research every situation separately.
 
tjsudbury said:
This is an example of what I was saying in my post above. With all due respect to vviking, he has no idea what , if any, reserve may or may not be along this particular stretch of river. For all he knows, there may be a 66 foot road allowance along the riverbank, or there may be none. There may or may not be a 15 foot strip of land that you can use. (personally, I've never heard of a 15 foot strip to be used forgetting arround obstructions, but seeing as I'm in Northern Ontario, and I have no idea where vvinking is, I'm not going to say that they don't exist, just that this is a good example of why you have to research every situation separately.
Click to expand...


Point well taken tj, in fact, I don't know enough of this topic to claim any authority whatsoever. Nor do I.
My original post opened with "my understanding is", and hoping to learn more of a topic that interests and affects myself, and many others posting/following on this thread.

The knowledge you present makes this issue even more of a headscratcher!
No surprise that my earlier assumptions where too simple to be true in this modern world.
 
vviking said:
There are two, separate, issues being discussed here, IMO.

The right of free passage, by watercraft, along any navigable waterway. With 15 feet of dry land from the high water mark, either side, to be used if nessessary for the purpose of overcoming any obstacle to one's progress.

Then there is that separate issue, hunting, the discharging of a firearm, from within the corridor of free passage.

I am a canoe guy, who maybe, has chosen to have a gun along on any particular trip, for other, non-hunting reasons ... and therefore I have nothing to say about about the hunting legality angle of this debate.

Was I the landowner though, finding some stranger on my creek, who never even bothered to approach me for permission, blasting away, and citing some " the creek and fifteen feet either side" mumbo-jumbo .... lets just say that, unlike the ducks ..... that wouldn't fly.

It's about respect.
Click to expand...


This.
 
The 15 foot from high water mark right of passage, both sides of any navigable watercourse ... came to me from a MNR CO, interviewed by me many years ago.
This during the due dilligence part of the preparations for a canoe trip, that of neccessity had to cross a span of private land, and that I knew was patrolled by private security.
CO explained to me that passage of any watercourse can not be blocked by any property owner. An inviolate principle, going back to the fur trade days, according to him.
If the watercouse is blocked or impassable(dam, fence, rapids, etc.) he assured me that no charge of trespassing could be brought if one stayed within 15 feet of the high water mark.
I had no reason to doubt his advice then, and have assumed it to be fact ever since.
Till now, that is.:confused:
 
vviking said:
The 15 foot from high water mark right of passage, both sides of any navigable watercourse ... came to me from a MNR CO, interviewed by me many years ago.
This during the due dilligence part of the preparations for a canoe trip, that of neccessity had to cross a span of private land, and that I knew was patrolled by private security.
CO explained to me that passage of any watercourse can not be blocked by any property owner. An inviolate principle, going back to the fur trade days, according to him.
If the watercouse is blocked or impassable(dam, fence, rapids, etc.) he assured me that no charge of trespassing could be brought if one stayed within 15 feet of the high water mark.
I had no reason to doubt his advice then, and have assumed it to be fact ever since.
Till now, that is.:confused:
Click to expand...

Not the first time that a CO was talking through his arse.
 
mpsmyth said:
It could be legal, but not sure I'd agree with going out to blast away at ducks without calling ahead to landowners. I know if it was my farm you were feet from, I'd be calling the cops and/or coming to "talk" with my own rifle/shotgun in hand. Depending on the farm you're going by, there could be livestock issues with gunfire, or concerned parents with young kids in the area. I'd just expect to see cops at some point in your hunt. You may not be trespassing, but chances are you're shooting onto someone's property or may have to trespass to retrieve a downed duck.
Click to expand...

This is good advice!
 
A navigable waterway is a Public aqueous highway, the waterway would not belong to anyone. The foreshore will be private and the bed of the waterway will likely belong to the Crown. Make sure there is no boating restrictions and no hunting/shooting restrictions. The 15' stuff is a reference to riparian rights which is a less clear issue. But if the waterway is navigable then even a man made obstacle does not render the waterway non-navigable.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-nwpp-menu-1978.htm
 
Colin said:
A navigable waterway is a Public aqueous highway, the waterway would not belong to anyone. The foreshore will be private and the bed of the waterway will likely belong to the Crown. Make sure there is no boating restrictions and no hunting/shooting restrictions. The 15' stuff is a reference to riparian rights which is a less clear issue. But if the waterway is navigable then even a man made obstacle does not render the waterway non-navigable. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-nwpp-menu-1978.htm
Click to expand...

Very true.

Generally the legal test is whether or not the waterway is navigable for "trade", but I have read court cases where a judge has ruled that even a lake was "non navigable" Figgure that one out.

Very good book on the subject is "Survey Law In Canada" by Issac De Rikki. He is both an Ontario Land Surveyor, and a Lawyer, and was a professor at Erindale Campus of U of T, Survey Sciences course.
 
hoytcanon said:
The Navigable Waters Act governs usage of all waters deemed "navigable." This includes bodies (creeks, rivers etc...) which are navigable by canoe... so the answer is... you "probably" have legal access to hunt the river. As far as retrieving game which has been shot and killed OR shot and wounded... the Fish and Game Act "REQUIRES" you to recover said game with "all due diligence," including if this means crossing onto private land to do so. The suggestion is made that you should obtain permission to pursue or recover game from private property whenever possible and where it is "expedient."
Click to expand...

You are wrong with the retrieval of game. You do not have the right or authority to enter private property without permission to retrieve downed game.

Shooting a deer that crosses property line and dies.....you need permission to that land.

(in Ontario)
 
Waterfowler said:
You are wrong with the retrieval of game. You do not have the right or authority to enter private property without permission to retrieve downed game.

Shooting a deer that crosses property line and dies.....you need permission to that land.

(in Ontario)
Click to expand...

There is case law to support unauthorized tresspass under the following sections, when it is impractical or impossible to obtain permission to enter in a "timely" (unnecessary suffering) manner. (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997; Ont);

Unnecessary suffering

(5) A person who harasses, captures or kills wildlife under this section shall not cause it unnecessary suffering. 1997, c. 41, s. 31 (5).

Abandoned and spoiled meat, pelts, etc.

Abandonment of meat

36. (1) A hunter or trapper who kills game wildlife other than a furbearing mammal shall not abandon it if its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).

Spoiled flesh

(2) A person who possesses game wildlife that is not a furbearing mammal and that was hunted or trapped shall not permit its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).
 
mpsmyth said:
It could be legal, but not sure I'd agree with going out to blast away at ducks without calling ahead to landowners. I know if it was my farm you were feet from, I'd be calling the cops and/or coming to "talk" with my own rifle/shotgun in hand. Depending on the farm you're going by, there could be livestock issues with gunfire, or concerned parents with young kids in the area. I'd just expect to see cops at some point in your hunt. You may not be trespassing, but chances are you're shooting onto someone's property or may have to trespass to retrieve a downed duck.
Click to expand...

I agree with this post. There are some municipal by-laws that say if you are shooting on a property you may not shoot across a property line unless you have permission from that property owner as well. Simpler said, if your shot crosses a property line, make sure you have permission from that property owner.
 
sbchapman said:
Here is a case from Alberta that dealt with the issue.
http://canlii.ca/t/2d708
Click to expand...

Thank-you sir... I was not having any luck in my search, but this is the sort of scenario that I was referring to... it seems to me to be "muddy waters" however... and perhaps not worth the risk of being placed in a position of having to defend oneself in a court of law...

Regardless, I am very conscious of all legal boundaries when hunting and am very diligent to follow them...

The one time that I found myself in this situation, the landowner happened to be on the vacant property, and I was granted permission to search... in fact he offered the assistance of his pet beagle to trail the deer and it was successfully recovered.
 
The retrieval of game does not allow one to trespass to do so. And Alberta case law has nothing to do with Ontario with regards to provincial statutes.
 
In Ontario I believe you have to ask if they say no then the mnr comes out and they have a choice to do it them selves or let you and mnr do it!!But that could be all bull to!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom