Is your favourite river under threat?

[singingdog]

Transport Canada is in the process of re-writing the Navigable Waterways Protection Act. In essence, they are looking at removing the application process for dams, booms, bridges and wiers on smaller streams to "speed up development". A concrete example of the result of this change: forestry companies would no longer need to apply to build dozens of small bridges across a river or stream, rendering it essentially not navigable by canoe, kayak or small fishing boat.

 

The whitewater community is mobilising over this issue, for obvious reasons. I believe that this threatens fishing use of streams as well. Imagine all those floatable tribs with private bridges or other obstructions on them. There will be no enforcable consideration of water level or safety or limit to access.

 

Navigability of small streams and rivers is an important part of our cultural heritage. Speak up! Contact your MP, and the committee that is heading up these changes.

 

List of MPs:http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

 

Committee clerk:

Maxime Ricard

 

Committee Clerk / Greffier de comité

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities / Comité permanent des transports, de l’infrastructure et des collectivités

 

Procedural Services / Services de la procédure

House of Commons / Chambre des communes

131 rue Queen St., Ottawa

 

Tel. / tél. : 613-996-4663

Fax / téléc. : 613-996-1626

[email protected]

[danbo]

Bro, the whole planet is under threat, from every direction..

[Reef Runner]

Thanks for the info.

A double-edged sword there. As you submit, the bad side is the affect this may have on our waterways, which I will not go into detail as you have done so elegantly. The good side is the opening for private investment into our crumbling infrastructure which, according to recent reports, is in dire need of a revamp. Contacting your respective MP is a great idea. Another good idea is garner the support of organizations (fishing clubs, environmental groups...if we can get along, lol) and become part of the collective process itself. I just hope that the right stakeholders are brought to the table and a balanced solution is realized.

 

just my 2cents,

reefrunner

[mattyk]

danbo is right.

[Reef Runner]

Sure, Danbo has a valid statement, but it is just that. The purpose of this post was to inform us of the current events that WILL affect our waterways and, in turn, fisheries. A call to action unanswered with a moot point in my opinion.

 

We have the opportunity now to influence decisions that will affect our future. I do hope that this issue is considered seriously by members here and not dismissed with indifference. Opening up this legislation, without a balanced approach, can be devestating to generations to come.

[bdzyngel]

I hate to respectfully disagree, but I will.

 

In the north where most of the forestry is, building of bridges by forestry companies actually opens up additional fishing and hunting areas to the general public, rather than limiting use to only those who can pay big dollars to fly-in fishing operations. While I have nothing against the latter, I do have a problem when they lobby government to have our public dollars spent by the MNR buldozing previous logging roads.

 

I find it hard to believe that that a few cribs here and there actual do anything to fishing, but I can understand whitewater enthusiasts getting their knickers in a knot about it. Why you'd actually need to do a few more turns to avoid them! Did you ever think that more roads in certain areas may actually open up additional whitewater opportunities? I can think of many examples North of Superior where I'm from that this is the case...

 

Two sides to every issue...

[Reef Runner]

It is true, I live in the city and my opinion is influenced in that regard. Your experience and input is appreciated and I have learned much from your prespective. Thanks.

 

reefrunner

[singingdog]

I hate to respectfully disagree, but I will.

 

In the north where most of the forestry is, building of bridges by forestry companies actually opens up additional fishing and hunting areas to the general public, rather than limiting use to only those who can pay big dollars to fly-in fishing operations. While I have nothing against the latter, I do have a problem when they lobby government to have our public dollars spent by the MNR buldozing previous logging roads.

 

I find it hard to believe that that a few cribs here and there actual do anything to fishing, but I can understand whitewater enthusiasts getting their knickers in a knot about it. Why you'd actually need to do a few more turns to avoid them! Did you ever think that more roads in certain areas may actually open up additional whitewater opportunities? I can think of many examples North of Superior where I'm from that this is the case...

 

Two sides to every issue...

 

This has nothing to do with roads,. It is about the potential for significant modifications to stream beds that will require no special permit. If your favourite trout stream is declared not navigable, then dams, wiers, booms or bridges will no longer require a permit to construct.

 

I'm not worried about a few cribs. I'm worried about new dams, wiers, and low bridges that not only limit the ability to paddle a river, but can become significant hazards when the water is higher. This is not just a whitewater issue. Landowners that want to keep you from floating a river through their property could use the new regs to put up all kinds of obstructions that are currently not allowed.