It is currently March 28th, 2024, 3:15 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: November 2nd, 2022, 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: January 5th, 2020, 10:11 am
Posts: 236
Hey fellow paddlers,

I contacted the City of Kawartha Lakes today to obtain their paddling brochure for the Burnt and Gull Rivers and was told that the section of the river between Kinmount and the village of Burnt River is no longer accessible.

"There is a section on the Burnt River between the town of Kinmount and the town of Burnt River that includes several portages. This section should NOT be paddled at this time as the portages are no longer permitted due to being on private property and they have not been maintained and therefore are very unsafe at this time. The section referenced above is not navigable at this time."

Anyone, know the story here? What a shame!

_________________
“A day without canoeing probably wouldn’t kill me, but why risk it?”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 3rd, 2022, 8:01 am 
Offline
CCR Site Administrator

Joined: April 30th, 2010, 4:11 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Georgetown, ON
The Wilderness Canoe Association paddled the river on Saturday September 24th and made a nice video about it here:



There is a necessary portage at High Falls, which was signed, and the trail was poor in places but still not difficult.
Otherwise, it was possible to just lift-over along the shoreline at the 3 other spots we passed through.

I can send you a copy of the brochure in question by email.

_________________
For he today that sheds his blood with me. Shall be my brother;


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 3rd, 2022, 8:05 am 
Offline
CCR Site Administrator

Joined: April 30th, 2010, 4:11 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Georgetown, ON
Otherwise, generally the law is on our side. I direct your attention to this page:
https://wildernesscanoe.ca/node/30

And the quote "Where public lands over which a portage has existed or exists have been heretofore or are hereafter sold or otherwise disposed of..., any person traveling on waters connected by the portage has the right to pass over and along the portage with the person's effects without the permission of or a payment to the owner of the lands, and any person who obstructs, hinders, delays or interferes with the exercise of such right of passage is guilty of an offence..."

_________________
For he today that sheds his blood with me. Shall be my brother;


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 3rd, 2022, 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 12th, 2004, 9:28 am
Posts: 2427
Location: Waterloo, ON
Unfortunately I believe Matt's interpretation is wrong when considering private property. The only potential exception would be if the lands that have to be crossed to portage were publicly owned and had been sold off. I'm not sure what the cut off date would be for the sale, but I know it would have to be "relatively" recent - ie: not going back to the 1800's.

Private property owners are not legally required to allow people to cross their land without permission. Even if previous owners allowed portaging, any new owners are not obligated to continue to allow portaging or water access.

_________________
No, your other left!
Loon Island Outdoors
"Like" my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/LoonIslandOutdoors


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 3rd, 2022, 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2008, 9:20 am
Posts: 1543
Location: Warkworth
eberlym wrote:
Otherwise, generally the law is on our side. I direct your attention to this page:
https://wildernesscanoe.ca/node/30

And the quote "Where public lands over which a portage has existed or exists have been heretofore or are hereafter sold or otherwise disposed of..., any person traveling on waters connected by the portage has the right to pass over and along the portage with the person's effects without the permission of or a payment to the owner of the lands, and any person who obstructs, hinders, delays or interferes with the exercise of such right of passage is guilty of an offence..."



This^^^^^

_________________
"It's healthy to be dirty" - Lars Monsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 3rd, 2022, 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: January 5th, 2020, 10:11 am
Posts: 236
It's a shame more landowners are choosing this line on traditional canoe routes. That's two in two years where I've encountered this. The owners can call the shots whether they are in the right or not. I don't know about others but I wouldn't want a confrontation on a trip or subsequently in a court of law. I suspect, in a litigious society such as ours, landowners don't want to be liable in the event of an injury occurring on their land. End result is the loss of a route. Like I said, it's a shame.

_________________
“A day without canoeing probably wouldn’t kill me, but why risk it?”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 3rd, 2022, 8:51 pm 
Offline
CCR Site Administrator

Joined: April 30th, 2010, 4:11 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Georgetown, ON
Splake wrote:
Unfortunately I believe Matt's interpretation is wrong when considering private property. The only potential exception would be if the lands that have to be crossed to portage were publicly owned and had been sold off. I'm not sure what the cut off date would be for the sale, but I know it would have to be "relatively" recent - ie: not going back to the 1800's.

Private property owners are not legally required to allow people to cross their land without permission. Even if previous owners allowed portaging, any new owners are not obligated to continue to allow portaging or water access.


The Credit River case specifically considered private property and argued extensively on its historical uses.
I agree with you, that the decision did not agree the private property owners were legally required to allow people to cross their land without permission in this particular case of the Credit River.
What the case established, was that the criteria for requiring that private property owners allow the passage of people and goods along a portage on their land, is consistent with the statement of;

The Ontario Public Lands Act (March 31, 1997), Chapter P43, Item 65(4): "Where public lands over which a portage has existed"

There was only required to be a portage on public land before the land became private. No timeline or time limits were established. The Credit River failed this test because it was not proven that an historical portage existed before the dam was built. This dam was privately constructed and of course there was no prior portage because previously there was no impediment at that location.

In the case of the Burnt River it was a logging route and potentially traveled by canoe even before the railway was built. Also we have an Ontario MNR route pamphlet from 1980 with all of the same portages on it. It is quite clearly an established route with documented portages.

So I disagree that any new land owner can arbitrarily decide to stop allowing people to cross their land without permission.

Where the text from the City of Kawartha Lakes says;
1.) "the portages are no longer permitted due to being on private property and
2.) they have not been maintained and
3.) therefore are very unsafe at this time.
4.) The section referenced above is not navigable at this time."

#4 is legally incorrect. The river bed has essentially the same status as Crown land: It is a navigable waterway.
#1 is directly in conflict with the Ontario Public Lands Act (March 31, 1997), Chapter P43, Item 65(4) so long as the land over which the portage passes was at one time Crown owned before becoming private and the portage was already there. Very easy to prove in this case since the loggers would have needed to walk around the rapids.
#2 is largely irrelevant. Whomever reported to the City their desire to prevent the passage of people over the portage is very likely concerned about their personal liability. However, in order to be held liable for an injury they would have to be found to have acted in a negligent way. Negligence is very difficult to prove and since the Act does not require maintenance it would also be impossible to suggest #3.
#3 There is no definition for what is safe. It is literally a track through the forest. There is no standard or definition for what an unsafe portage is. There is no standard or definition for what a safe portage is. I am confident the fact that there are old printed documents would be sufficient to identify these as established portages and their maintenance status has no legal effect.

I am assuming that someone has purchased a cottage and is now afraid that they are required to maintain the portage, when they are actually not. This is a fairly common land use conflict. The Act only requires that the portage be available and accessible for use. It does not have to be maintained.

Splake wrote:
any new owners are not obligated to continue to allow portaging or water access.


Yes any new owner is obligated to allow portaging but not to water access since it is the river that is open to navigation and not to or from adjacent lands.

Anyway, this is highly ironic since the reason for the City of Kawartha Lakes to publish and distribute a pamphlet is to attract paddlers to the area. There is probably someone giving them some grief and the council is trying to deal with it themselves.

_________________
For he today that sheds his blood with me. Shall be my brother;


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 3rd, 2022, 9:18 pm 
Offline
CCR Site Administrator

Joined: April 30th, 2010, 4:11 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Georgetown, ON
On September 24th we did not encounter any challenges at the first 4 portages.

So looking at the pamphlets; the fifth portage downstream of the Kinmount Dam (#9 or #23) is simply not close to anything. The sixth portage downstream of the Kinmount Dam (#10 or #24) is near to some crop fields and ATV trails.

The 2018 pamphlet does not describe, but the 1980 OMNR pamphlet has portage #25 shortly before Burnt River Village, passing by or through an obvious clearing with a road leading to it!

_________________
For he today that sheds his blood with me. Shall be my brother;


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 3rd, 2022, 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: January 5th, 2020, 10:11 am
Posts: 236
So it makes one wonder where the push back is coming from and for what reason. Could it be that a paddler was perhaps injured on one of the ports since your trip in late September and both city and owner are worried about impending litigation?

_________________
“A day without canoeing probably wouldn’t kill me, but why risk it?”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 10th, 2022, 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: January 3rd, 2017, 1:48 pm
Posts: 201
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario
Just a government entity trying to escape from any and all liability because common sense and personal accountability are becoming old fashioned and outdated ideals.

_________________
Have canoe, will travel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 10th, 2022, 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2008, 9:20 am
Posts: 1543
Location: Warkworth
The Burnt flows right behind my parents farm. I’ve never had any issues with property owners. I do know some of the locals party paddle it…maybe have upset some of the property owners…I dunno only a guess.

_________________
"It's healthy to be dirty" - Lars Monsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 10th, 2022, 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: January 5th, 2020, 10:11 am
Posts: 236
Last weekend, what was going to be an overnight trip with my wife from Canning Lake to the town of Burnt River became a day trip from Canning Lake to Kinmount due to the issue in question. I wanted no confrontations nor any aggravation on what is most likely my last paddle before hard water season. It was still a great run, albeit shallow in many places. I would have liked to see what the Burnt offered below Kinmount but that will have to be another time (hopefully!).

_________________
“A day without canoeing probably wouldn’t kill me, but why risk it?”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 11th, 2022, 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2008, 9:20 am
Posts: 1543
Location: Warkworth
Canoe Daddy wrote:
Last weekend, what was going to be an overnight trip with my wife from Canning Lake to the town of Burnt River became a day trip from Canning Lake to Kinmount due to the issue in question. I wanted no confrontations nor any aggravation on what is most likely my last paddle before hard water season. It was still a great run, albeit shallow in many places. I would have liked to see what the Burnt offered below Kinmount but that will have to be another time (hopefully!).


Below Kinmount to Somerville Park is the best section with some rapids and falls. Nowhere to camp but an excellent day trip.

_________________
"It's healthy to be dirty" - Lars Monsen


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group