Riparian rights is a term from British Common Law. It refers to the designation of a river or stream as an article of real property claimed by the owner of the lands through which it flows. In my last post, I mentioned fishing private water in the province of Quebec. Private water no longer exists in Nova Scotia, unless you count man-made trout ponds, or backyard swimming pools. The law states:
"As a resident of the province you have the right to go on foot along the banks of any river, stream or lake and upon and across any uncultivated lands and Crown lands to lawfully fish with rod and line in these rivers, streams or lakes; you also have the right to use a boat or canoe on or across any river, stream or lake." (The Angling Act)I was surprised to learn that much of the Medway River and the right to fish from Bangs Falls to Poultice Falls was once owned by a man named Michael Dwyer. Compare the letter of the law with the tone of Mr. Dwyer's letter to Mr. McGinty dated June 02, 1909. (Click to enlarge.)
I can only surmise that Mr Dwyer had made agreements with all three men named in the letter. Mr. Dwyer mentions sharing the expense of keeping a guardian on the river. I believe Payzant and Silver were contributing financially to this effort and, as such, expected first rights when Dwyer was not on the river. Included with the letter was a hand-drawn map showing the location of Michael Dwyer's lands. (Click to enlarge.) On the map, there is mention of Dwyer having purchased land from McGinty. Perhaps a condition of the sale was that McGinty would be allowed to continue to fish the river. The matter was eventually resolved with the passing of The Water Act of 1919 which terminated all private riparian rights, and transferred them to the government of Nova Scotia.
If you're thinking that this legislation was created to provide equal access for all anglers, think again - equal and free access for anglers was only a fringe benefit. The driving force behind the Water Act was to expropriate the province's waterways for future hydroelectric development.
Good Luck and Good Fishin'!
-Random Phrump
4 comments:
To clarify matters, the Angling Act should be read in conjunction with the Act to Protect Property.
It is the Act to Protect Property (Protection of Property Act) that anglers should be very much aware of, and especially section 3 of the Act (which I have seen ignored on many occasions).
In summary, section 3 states that you may NOT, without permission, cross cultivated lands, climb under or over fences, dump garbage, or ignore No Trespassing or Private Property signs. Any infringement of this section makes you liable to prosecution.
Under Section 15 (2) You may enter forest land without fear of prosecution.
Curious and curiouser... I have a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde perspective. As an angler and naturalist, I value the freedom to travel Nova Scotia's woods and waters. As a landowner, I feel protective of my property and privacy.
Thank you for your informative comment.
Well we all understand about crossing private forested or natural lands for angling, however my neighbour has trespassers walking across his front lawn to access a river, and then they don't walk along the shore but cut through my property along the river ! Its a shame that these types ruin it for the respectful ones.
I think you had better do an update - there do indeed exist riparian rights in Nova Scotia though they are more in line with protecting access to water along ones' frontage, the right to continue to access water, the right to have unpolluted water (unpolluted by someone further upstream). I just finished reading a court case concerning riparian rights in a case of Corkums vs Nash in Glace Bay Harbour that was 1988 wherein the plaintiff's riparian rights to access were being blocked by a neighbor's wharf extending onto her frontage.
In addition, an angler's right to access waterways is solely either by BOAT or by BANKS of the watercourse where a watercourse crosses private lands that are either marked as no tresspassing by signage, or verbally given by the landowner. One needs to understand a couple of things; 1) the banks of a watercourse in Canada are the areas directly affected by the water and adjacent to it within a few feet - anglers cannot just stroll up through your pastures and fields (as I once had one mouthy angler do while I was out sunbathing in my own back yard which was abutting my horse's electrically-fenced pasture, where that fencing was a good 30 feet away through brush to the creek he claimed to be fishing from). 2) When deciding what is considered tresspass, the law considers the strictest definitions in attempting to weigh the *intent* of the Water Act, which was NOT to try to strip the rights of property owners, but rather to benefit the potential future provincial use for hydroelectric usage. This is evidenced by the first original draft of the Water Act, wherein the eception to provincial ownership was, creeks and streams too small' for generating usage. In any tresspassing case, the law will be looking to the rights of the property owners first, and to the behaviour, and then the rights, of those accused of tresspassing. In essence, it is only polite to let someone know you will be strolling their banks to fish - don't be loud, disturbing, or obnoxious, don't litter or light fires, don't destroy habitat or alter the environment. That sediment you wash up by slogging through a creek's bed may very well clog my drinking water filters....
Post a Comment