View topic - Black River (Washago) and Longford Township

It is currently January 17th, 2020, 7:52 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: March 14th, 2016, 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: January 22nd, 2005, 12:16 pm
Posts: 4037
Location: Toronto
Anything new?
Is the entire township still owned by a US syndicate and used as a private fish and game reserve?
Is paddling there, especially along the Black River, still actively discouraged?

_________________

A literal mind is a little mind. If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all. Good enough isn't.  None are so blind as those who choose not to see. (AJ)



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 14th, 2016, 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6150
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
This blog written in 2015 says... "actively discouraged" (maybe we both read the same report?)... 6th paragraph.

Quote:
The route we outline here includes only the lower Black, from Victoria Falls to Hwy. 169, a distance of 30 km. The 25 km stretch from Vankoughnet southwards is also navigable by canoe, but its use is actively discouraged by the owners of the Longford Reserve.


The rest of the river has interesting features.

http://my-washago.blogspot.ca/



Hm, they have an address in Bracebridge...

Longford Reserve Ltd
RR 3 Stn Main, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1X1



And in Toronto...


Phone:
(416) 652-4201

Office Address: 2255B Queen St E

Longford Reserve Ltd. is a public organization in Toronto, ON. With one employee and $48,015 in annual revenue, the company is around the same size as and generates much less revenue than the average miscellaneous personal service company.

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 14th, 2016, 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 23rd, 2006, 4:25 pm
Posts: 3022
Location: Milton
Victoria falls is in QEIIWLPP
It is the stretch just south of 118 to just north of Victoria falls is in the Longford Township in question.
Lots of conflict in the area since there are several plots of private land in the area.
I believe it is crown land up to the Longford border along the Black river south of 118. (needs to be confirmed)
Jeff

_________________
Choosing to save a river is more often an act of passion than of careful calculation. You make the choice because the river has touched your life in an intimate and irreversible way, because you are unwilling to accept its loss. — (David Bolling, Ho


Last edited by jedi jeffi on March 14th, 2016, 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 14th, 2016, 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 23rd, 2006, 4:25 pm
Posts: 3022
Location: Milton
that was weird..... :-?

_________________
Choosing to save a river is more often an act of passion than of careful calculation. You make the choice because the river has touched your life in an intimate and irreversible way, because you are unwilling to accept its loss. — (David Bolling, Ho


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 14th, 2016, 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2008, 9:20 am
Posts: 1371
Location: Oshawa
I have yet to see anyone on the river when I've paddled it...it was also my understanding the natives didn't mind. Some leave money somewhere there when paddling the river...haven't heard them complain about that. Are there summer yahoos going in there and disrupting the peace perhaps? The early spring paddlers are very respectful.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 14th, 2016, 9:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: January 22nd, 2005, 12:16 pm
Posts: 4037
Location: Toronto
Sam: Were you paddling the reach in Longford Township?

Jeff: As best you know, is the situation the same as on the Credit, where the landowner won the court case? As I understand that one, paddlers could do our thing on the river but could not portage on private land.

_________________

A literal mind is a little mind. If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all. Good enough isn't.  None are so blind as those who choose not to see. (AJ)



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 14th, 2016, 10:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2008, 9:20 am
Posts: 1371
Location: Oshawa
I put in on the bridge over HWY 169 and take out just west of there on the bridge crossing the river. All of the land is private and most of it (maybe all?) is FN. Never had an issue...maybe you are referring to a different stretch?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 15th, 2016, 6:20 am 
Offline

Joined: January 22nd, 2005, 12:16 pm
Posts: 4037
Location: Toronto
Thanks, Sam, for the clarification.
I should have specified that the reach in question lies just downstream from Vankoughnet.
The best online information I've found is at
http://my-washago.blogspot.ca/2015/01/t ... alley.html
This is the source of my "actively discouraged", as in
The 25 km stretch from Vankoughnet southwards is also navigable by canoe, but its use is actively discouraged by the owners of the Longford Reserve.

The question, in my mind, is whether the owners have any right to discourage canoe travel as long as paddlers don't tread on land.
And I don't know whether portages are required on that reach.

_________________

A literal mind is a little mind. If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all. Good enough isn't.  None are so blind as those who choose not to see. (AJ)



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 15th, 2016, 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: August 11th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 5554
Location: Sunny Wasaga Beach
I have paddled both the Black downstream from Longford and the Head. I found the head a much more interesting river for scenery. The Black has high muddy or sandy banks that limited our view. It was a bit like paddling in a ditch.
The stretch down from 169 has a quite different character and is good for practicing WW at high flow levels.

_________________

Old canoeists never die---they just smell that way.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 15th, 2016, 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 3478
Location: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Allan Jacobs wrote:
Thanks, Sam, for the clarification.
I should have specified that the reach in question lies just downstream from Vankoughnet.
The best online information I've found is at
http://my-washago.blogspot.ca/2015/01/t ... alley.html
This is the source of my "actively discouraged", as in
The 25 km stretch from Vankoughnet southwards is also navigable by canoe, but its use is actively discouraged by the owners of the Longford Reserve.

The question, in my mind, is whether the owners have any right to discourage canoe travel as long as paddlers don't tread on land.
And I don't know whether portages are required on that reach.



Allan I'm not an expert on all the legalities but I do own property near the credit and have followed the situation there a bit.

It's my impression that in some municipalities there were ownership transfers into private hands which included not only the property on either side of the Credit but also the riverbed itself. This in and of itself does not prevent paddling but legally you can't touch the shore or even get out of your canoe in the middle of the river.

The situation in Norval is more like the Black, the land is private so the portage around the dam is trespassing.

_________________
"What else could I do? I had no trade so I became a peddler" - Lazarus Greenberg 1915


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 15th, 2016, 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2008, 9:20 am
Posts: 1371
Location: Oshawa
This is sort of a nervous issue. Basically implies that the rich will have rights to the water and depending how much of it Canada decides not to protect it could be a large amount.

I also understand property owners not wanting their land trashed or abused and I completely get that too.

I see far too much junk at access points on rivers that are mostly private and that is disgusting.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 15th, 2016, 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: January 29th, 2016, 11:43 pm
Posts: 22
Location: Port Credit
Bear in mind that trespassing in Ontario is a provincial offence, with a maximum fine of $65, assuming you choose to stick around for the police to show up and issue a ticket. They rarely do.

Not that I condone breaking the law or being disrespectful to the wishes of landowners, but if you're not hurting anyone, littering or vandalizing, I see little problem with quickly portaging on or paddling through private property. Be quick and discrete and respectful and the odds of acrueing any meaningful punishment are infitesimally small. Just sayin'

_________________

http://www.tohellandback.net



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 15th, 2016, 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 3478
Location: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Sam82 wrote:
This is sort of a nervous issue. Basically implies that the rich will have rights to the water and depending how much of it Canada decides not to protect it could be a large amount.

I also understand property owners not wanting their land trashed or abused and I completely get that too.

I see far too much junk at access points on rivers that are mostly private and that is disgusting.



I wouldn't be too nervous. Outside of First Nation transfers I don't think any of the transfers of the type we are discussing have happened in at about 100 years.

_________________
"What else could I do? I had no trade so I became a peddler" - Lazarus Greenberg 1915


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 16th, 2016, 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: August 5th, 2009, 8:34 am
Posts: 254
I've paddled that section of river, and its very well marked no trespassing or camping. Not an overly nice paddle, I wouldn't do it again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 17th, 2016, 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2008, 9:20 am
Posts: 1371
Location: Oshawa
recped wrote:
Sam82 wrote:
This is sort of a nervous issue. Basically implies that the rich will have rights to the water and depending how much of it Canada decides not to protect it could be a large amount.

I also understand property owners not wanting their land trashed or abused and I completely get that too.

I see far too much junk at access points on rivers that are mostly private and that is disgusting.



I wouldn't be too nervous. Outside of First Nation transfers I don't think any of the transfers of the type we are discussing have happened in at about 100 years.


I should have clarified my post. After reading it, I sound like I'm including the FN land... . Rivers like the Burnt and Irondale are almost all private land and I have witnessed first hand angry property owners if you are anywhere near their shore...regardless if your just trying to bypass a falls or rapid. Last time I was on the Burnt I did notice a few portage signs which was promising.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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