Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Xgolfman on April 01, 2007, 09:11:25 PM
-
Thought this would be something that Rodney or Chris could look into and address, We were out fishing today and stopped for a very brief fish at Ways field...The owner came out in his truck, and very politely told us that this is Private Property and we were trespassing...He said that it is now being passed that this whole section will be off limits to all fisherman and that includes the bank and rocks next to the river...He said he owns across the river to the tree line on the other side and as such there is no such thing as a high water mark etc. That this is his property and no will be allowed down the banks for fishing anymore!!! Again, he was very polite with us but said that this is now approved by your government and will be posted....
Really makes you wonder what's next for the Vedder??? How soon before all of the mid river will be off limits????
This is NOT an April Fools joke though I wish It was!!!
-
wont stop me. bull$hit on the river in my property is mine.
-
Where is Ways Field ?
-
Its a "ways" up there.
-
wont stop me. bull$hit on the river in my property is mine.
That's pretty much what Rick told him too..but he was adament about since he owns the property on the other side as well, The Government has approved his request that no one be allowed on...He also said, things are going to be changing as far as homeowners rights on the river!!!
-
Does not seem right I will send this to the FVRD Area "E" Director for his coments as well as others. Thanks for bringing this to our attention
-
As far as i know there are only two rivers here that property owners can own the river bottom and that is the Cowichan and Allouette.
Im thinking this guy has his wires crossed but wouldnt surprise me to see the government change things for the worse. ::)
-
Chris, I understand the owners by Osborne Road have greater ownership than the high water line. Is it possible to list out the different parts of the Vedder/Chilliwack which have these restrictions? That way, the fishermen will not be going on private property. If it is not possible, perhaps the municipality or other group could do it. What I am thinking about is an authoritative listing so both sides can refer to it.
-
We fished ways field yesterday, did not run into any trouble...but he may not have been home. Seems to me whatever his property lines and his desire to keep the river access private are, it will be damn near impossible for him to enforce this no access idea.
However much I respect his property, what is he going to do during salmon season...sit out there with a salt gun all day? I say good luck to him, hope he figures it out. If what he's said is true, then he's perfectly entitled to do so. I don't fish down there much anyways, so I have no problems with it...but I'm sure that he will.
-
I don't know about this specific property. Generally and in 99.9% cases in BC, private property starts at the high water mark. Crown Provincial owns the bed of the river up to the high water mark. There are some properties in BC where the water covered land is titled and in private ownership.
On the Vedder specifically, there are some properties which are contigous and include the bed of the river. This may be one of those properties. If that's the case, then the owner is fully in his rights to post No Trespassing signs and enforce them. There was such a sign near Peach Road up until 2 years ago when the upland owners got an ALR exclusion so they could develop all those new houses and townhouses if they gave up title to the river bed.
The only way to know for sure in this specific case is to go to City Hall and ask.
-
Jurisdiction of land along a river can be confusing and frustrating and there is no greater example of this from the Vedder Bridge upriver to Tamahi. Land in this area could be under one of five jurisdictions:
1. City of Chilliwack
2. Fraser Valley Regional District
3. First Nations
4. Province of BC (Crown Land)
5. Private ownership.
It is imperative for all concerned to get this specific area (Ways Field) clearly defined so that both fisher and private owners rights are respected.
-
Chris, Rod...any info on this yet???
-
Some dialogue has started over emails. It'll take awhile to sort something like this out, this ain't MacDonald's you know? ;D
As soon as Chris has information available for the public, he'll either post it or forward to me to post.
-
Chris, Rod...any info on this yet???
Talked to my MLA at a meeting tonight and the property owner has had discussion with two MLA's but it was a meeting only, with the owner requesting what you said he said. Nothing other than that, a discussion only at this time. So fish away in this area but I would suggest you do not cross his property (the field). Access this fishing area from above or below the field and keep along the edge of the river and the hope is nothing changes as access becomes more of an issue all the time.
People including fishers who drop litter, line, break down fence, chop down trees etc. do make it difficult to retain the access we have had for years on the Chilliwack River. This is partly why the CVRCC was formed to try and control garbage and littering that can threaten our access to the river as residents become angry because of these irresponsible few. That is why the ugly blocks have gone up and no camping allowed in the stretch from just above Teskey Rock to Tamahi.
As a side note, the Dyke Road on the West side of the Vedder Canal at the Keith Wilson Bridge from the start of the Canal to Barrowtown pumping station has both gates now closed partly because of the damage some people were doing with motorcycles, ATV's and 4 by 4's to the dykes. Some of you may remember we brought this issue forward a while back and said this could happen.
With a large freshet forcast this year the action of a few may have spoiled it for many. I am not sure after the flood threat this area will be opened once again, we will try but donot hold your breath.
-
Thanks Chris, that's very interesting as we were led to believe this had already been approved and we were in the wrong... Thanks again...
-
I'll continue to enforce my rights to access the river up to the high water mark. The guy is obviously smarting over his property loss, and is seeing some potential way of capitalizing on the situation. I cry foul on that.
This guy has made a fortune as a land developer, and is looking to serve his own needs, not the needs of anglers. The thought of this makes me freaking ill. This is not Britain, this is BC, equal access for all.
If that part of the river houses the best fly water in the mid river next season, I'll be fishing it. No one will be stopping me. I won't cross his property, I'll be walking downstream like I always do... It'll take a shotgun pointed in my face to stop me.
Cheers,
Nicole
PS> Despite the vedder's flooding issues, looks like riverfront is still not going cheap... http://vancouver.craigslist.org/rfs/304906847.html
Looks like the run ins with the guy who enjoyed throwing rocks at anglers at Osbourne Rd will be coming to an end...
-
The mid river tended to move a lot, look at the river around vedder crossing to on the way...one year its on this side of the flood plain and the next year its on the other...I feel for the land owner there - one year the river is hear and the next tis there. Keep in mind that with a river like that area will NEVER be developed...no one would want ot live in that precarious a position.
Back to ownership rights...I have been told that dependant on when the land was bought, some ownership right PREDATE the legislation that established the river bed to high water mark thing...I certainly am not in a position to guess at the owners exact legal rights.
-
Here is another idea which may help both parties. How about a special sign which indicates where the property line ends and have it prenumbered and referenced to a list which is maintained by the municipality. This way the fishermen know it is a special situation, where fishing can occur, and with the reference number the fishermen can confirm the rights with the municipality. It sounds like there are not too many of these situations so it may be workable. Conversely, if there is no special sign, the high water mark applies.
-
The answer is not quite that simple. Many of the dykes on the Chilliwack River are on private property and the FVRD has statutory right-of-ways for maintenance purposes so they are not accessible to the public. Some are on crown land and are accessible to the public and many are orphan (no ownership/ no maintenance) and access is probably a legal question. The river has shifted and changed in several areas so that the high water mark is different than the original survey and also some property has been in a family for so many years that the crown was never able to claim back to the high water mark.
In several areas in the Chilliwack River you would most definitely be tresspassing if you were to walk along the dykes. To be on public land you would need to be down at the toe of the dyke on the river side. After this past winter's flooding event, which shifted the river's channel in several areas, the river is now part way up on the dyke leaving no dry walking spot. The area on either side of Osbourne Rd falls into several catagories, however the various structures and works along these areas were not engineered or built to a standard and are not recognized as "flood work structures". Most of the works in the area do in fact belong to and are on the owners property.
Jane Sowik, Manager of Administrative Services
Fraser Valley Regional District
45950 Cheam Avenue
Chilliwack, BC V2P1N6
-
Why any person would purchase a riverside property on the most heavily fished river in the province, and then try to stop all anglers from accessing it is beyond me.
I think its just plain boneheaded, and shows a negative personality type that does not mix well with others.
The osbourne road fellow who is selling his house, I was fishing the backside one day, and the cops were there as I arrived, as they had been called as the homeowner was throwing rocks at anglers...
As far as I'm concerned, you should know anglers will be fishing on the river bank. If you don't like that, pick a stream that has no fishing traffic.
Same thing goes with the flooding - it's going to happen.
This is why insurers will not cover flooding when a property is on the bank of a river. Don't all of sudden be shocked when it happens and you're on the hook for the bill.
-Nicole
-
YEAH NICOLE ! LOL ;D
-
Why any person would purchase a riverside property on the most heavily fished river in the province, and then try to stop all anglers from accessing it is beyond me.
Perhaps he bought the property long before it became a heavily fished river. Just a thought.
-
I know for a fact that fellow purchased the property for around 400K not more than 7-8 odd years ago...
And that property has flooded once during that time, and he was on the news saying how it was his dream property... Yadda yadda, etc.
Not a bad profit if you can sucker someone from Vancouver to buy it... ;)
Cheers,
Nicole
-
^ HE'LL BE MAKING A NICE CHUNK OF CHANGE WITH ALL THOSE HUGE TREES THAT ENDED UP ON HIS PROPERTY AFTER THE BIG FLOOD !
-
Why any person would purchase a riverside property on the most heavily fished river in the province, and then try to stop all anglers from accessing it is beyond me.
I think its just plain boneheaded, and shows a negative personality type that does not mix well with others.
The osbourne road fellow who is selling his house, I was fishing the backside one day, and the cops were there as I arrived, as they had been called as the homeowner was throwing rocks at anglers...
As far as I'm concerned, you should know anglers will be fishing on the river bank. If you don't like that, pick a stream that has no fishing traffic.
Same thing goes with the flooding - it's going to happen.
This is why insurers will not cover flooding when a property is on the bank of a river. Don't all of sudden be shocked when it happens and you're on the hook for the bill.
-Nicole
Amen!!! It's exactly that, The guy implied to me that the landowners were getting togeather and with their MLA's backing were going to "See some changes around here for fishing access" It's very different for us down here...property owners own to the LOW water line... So unless your floating a system you can not go up on allot of the banks to fish... You guys/gals are very lucky to have what you have and should fight hard to keep it...as these people will always think that their money will buy them what they want...and like what happened with us, have no problem lying about it!!!
-
If those 'private' lands beyond the dykes are going to be no public access. I say if any dyke repairs or flood prevention measures done on the private lands are to be paid solely by those land owners and not the public. And I do strongly believe this will make them think twice when it comes to public access on river banks.
-
Amen!!! It's exactly that, The guy implied to me that the landowners were getting togeather and with their MLA's backing were going to "See some changes around here for fishing access" It's very different for us down here...property owners own to the LOW water line... So unless your floating a system you can not go up on allot of the banks to fish...
I'd support fighting that all the way to supreme court.
How dare they even think of such garbage, when my tax dollars are used to protect their property value. HOW DARE THEY!
Greedy bastards.
>:(
Nicole
-
If those 'private' lands beyond the dykes are going to be no public access. I say if any dyke repairs or flood prevention measures done on the private lands are to be paid solely by those land owners and not the public. And I do strongly believe this will make them think twice when it comes to public access on river banks.
Agree totally. Let's see how they like them apples.
-
You all might want to cool it a little.
Talk to Chris and see if there is a way that as a group you could talk to the land owners about access.
If it is private land and if you start a war with the owners, you will lose as they have the legal rights.
The Minister of MOE might want to be involved as it is to his benefit to have access?
If you were the owner of the land and people were walking on it and throwing garbage and crap all over it, then having them tell you off as they feel it is theirs, you might get your hackles up as well?
-
I vote NICOLE for Prime Minister! ;D ;D ;D ::)
I love a fighter. Yeah!
-
You all might want to cool it a little.
Talk to Chris and see if there is a way that as a group you could talk to the land owners about access.
If it is private land and if you start a war with the owners, you will lose as they have the legal rights.
The Minister of MOE might want to be involved as it is to his benefit to have access?
If you were the owner of the land and people were walking on it and throwing garbage and crap all over it, then having them tell you off as they feel it is theirs, you might get your hackles up as well?
I would agree if this property didn't run through one of the top fishing rivers in the West, these people had to realize that they were buying riverfront property and that there would most likely be people fishing close to their property !! I honestly can't see the landowner having any rights if the fishermen stay on the rock's and fish the river.. if people are walking through their property to get to the hole then they have a reason to get upset other than that I think they need to move if they have a problem..
TH