No tresspassing signs in Lake Scugog???

[forrest]

I have never been fishing apon a lake in fall before, water was 42 deg in 8 ft of water: got skunked but I did figure a copule of things out (on the way home )

 

 

No tresspassing signs in the lake at the south end, in the swampy area by Ceserea:

They were in the lake about 100 feet from the reed edges and enclosed a huge area. Posts were placed in the water and the signs said "no tresspassing". What is the deal with that?

 

forrest

[Marko]

We are starting to see more and more of those signs. I`ve seen them even on small creeks and are showing up on the rivers as well.

[Rizzo]

there was a post about this same spot on this board within the last year I believe. I think the property down that way is owned by a group of hunters or something like that but my memory of that post is a little vague because that location means absolutely nothing to me

[BillM]

Some people have nothing better to do I guess.

[irishfield]

Google it... they own it.. they can post it.

[forrest]

I found this on the web: http://www.scugogheritage.com/misc/scugogmarsh.htm

 

 

It started out as a bit of a shady deal and then got a whole lot more screwed up after Scugog's water level was raised. A long time ago some judge stated that the navigatable water act did not apply to fishing and hunting in the area.

 

Then the owners dreged canals...I guess this sucks more fish from the lake......that no one else can fish.

 

So it is not a matter of trespassing it is a matter of hunting/fishing around there.

 

I guess since the water is navigatable and if someone hits one of those posts in the night or day there will be a bit of a kerfuful.

 

That Scugog deal is messed up.

 

had to add this: not that I am able to do anything about it:

-The owners had land that the government flooded. Why wasn't the land purchased? what about hte others who had land flooded, can they block fishing?

 

-the land owners then dredged channels going into the lake. If a marina can't block people from fishing how can the channels on scugog be off limits?

 

bahhhh

Edited November 3, 2008 by forrest

[Cookslav]

Tha was a novel...LOL

But I suppose they own it, and those signs are legit.

[irishfield]

Exactly cookslav! I have 26 acres of ClassIII wetland on my property. It's mine, land and water, and I can keep you off of it. It doesn't really appear that this Scugog Marsh was navigable waters to begin with.. and only is now because they dredged channels on their own property.

[Billy Bob]

Since the signs have come out now in the fall of the year it sounds to me like they are protecting that area for Duck Hunting for themselves.

 

Bob

[dmac]

Say I was "on" the water above the said mentioned flooded area. Would i still be tresspassing. I am on no ones property. I am on water that flows and moves.

[irishfield]

I'd presume after all these years precident has been set and you would be tresspassing on their property......as you would be on my land that I mentioned above. Mine was dry land, with nothing but a non-navigable creek, and ducks unlimited built a dam 20+ years ago and flood the land. Marsh bottom or "on" the water you are tresspassing on my property. The Scugog Marsh appears to be no different.

[dmac]

I dont think a tresspassing charge would hold up in court. The person charged would just have to state that they were on water not on property. Can people own water? Im not trying to be an ass or anything i obey tresspassing signs when I see them. I know that there are some that couldn't care less if there was a sign or not. Just looking at it from both sides. I hope you were paid for the land they flooded on you. Seems like thay stole your land if you weren't.

[irishfield]

No they didn't "steal" the land. The previous owner entered an agreement to let them flood it.. but retained all ownership rights. Ducks unlimited only has easement across the property to maintain the dam (which they can't be bothered to do) and have no other access rights period. You can't get "on" the water without tresspassing on dry property first. No different than someone having a private pond or lake on their parcel of land. You can't fish it or be on it without their permission.

[out2llunge]

Go on the water past the signs all you want. They're there to warn you that hunting is taking place and if you trespass well, you should get the point or rounds more likely.

[ehg]

I dont think a tresspassing charge would hold up in court. The person charged would just have to state that they were on water not on property. Can people own water?

If the said water is south of Hwy 7 it is 'owned' by the Osler family. They run a law firm that takes the top floors of the

First Canadian Place. If you decide to push the issue you will be charged and they will win. If that is the area.

[cram]

I have seen water on the east coast (PEI, i think) that was private property. Believe it was for commercial fishing, but either way, no trespassing.

[spooner_jr]

The consortium owns property on the north side of the causeway as well as the south side. They post both to maintain consistency, but I haven't heard of anyone being bothered on the north side. If you try and fish the south side in a boat you will likely be paid a visit by the gameskeeper.

 

The consortium is interested mainly in duck hunting, and in the winter allows the snowmobile trail to cross the marsh.

[ricoboxing]

i know the area youre talkin bout. east of the island, just north of 7A. I fished there tons of times, and they don't really care. They only post the signs once duck hunting season starts. As soon as I fired my first shot, 2 guys came came out in their boats and told me I was trespassing. Scugog is a pretty big lake, so there are other places to hunt. They are right anyways, as the hunt club or whoever owns the land under the water before it was flooded.

[Sinker]

If you do decide to take a chance and tresspass for the purpose of hunting in there, be warned that there is a baited area in there. If your caught hunting waterfowl within 400m of the bait, its a federal charge under the Migratory Bird act......they're watching all the time for people in there.

 

It is all private.

 

Sinker

[forrest]

If you do decide to take a chance and tresspass for the purpose of hunting in there, be warned that there is a baited area in there. If your caught hunting waterfowl within 400m of the bait, its a federal charge under the Migratory Bird act......they're watching all the time for people in there.

 

It is all private.

 

Sinker

 

 

I wondered what that sign was for! Pretty smart to bait an area that they do not want people hunting around.

 

Its not the hunting thing that gets me its the use of lake water to create private canals that open to the lake......those things look great for fishing! No one is saying that they have been shooed off for fishing in the lake area so it sounds like the owners are friendly/sympathetic enough. There are lots of other areas to fish too.

 

BTW...there are some nasty stumps with roots sitting on the bottom over in that area (my boat got stuck on top of one) so anyone over the shallow areas in that direction should take it real easy.

 

Forrest