Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nicole]

I'll continue to enforce my rights to access the river up to the high water mark. The guy is obviously smarting over his property loss, and is seeing some potential way of capitalizing on the situation. I cry foul on that.

This guy has made a fortune as a land developer, and is looking to serve his own needs, not the needs of anglers. The thought of this makes me freaking ill. This is not Britain, this is BC, equal access for all.

If that part of the river houses the best fly water in the mid river next season, I'll be fishing it. No one will be stopping me. I won't cross his property, I'll be walking downstream like I always do... It'll take a shotgun pointed in my face to stop me.

Cheers,
Nicole

PS> Despite the vedder's flooding issues, looks like riverfront is still not going cheap... http://vancouver.craigslist.org/rfs/304906847.html
Looks like the run ins with the guy who enjoyed throwing rocks at anglers at Osbourne Rd will be coming to an end...

[Gooey]

The mid river tended to move a lot, look at the river around vedder crossing to on the way...one year its on this side of the flood plain and the next year its on the other...I feel for the land owner there - one year the river is hear and the next tis there.  Keep in mind that with a river like that area  will NEVER be developed...no one would want ot live in that precarious a position. 

Back to ownership rights...I have been told that dependant on when the land was bought, some ownership right PREDATE the legislation that established the river bed to high water mark thing...I certainly am not in a position to guess at the owners exact legal rights. 

[norm_2]

Here is another idea which may help both parties.  How about a special sign which indicates where the property line ends and have it prenumbered and referenced to a list which is maintained by the municipality.  This way the fishermen know it is a special situation, where fishing can occur, and with the reference number the fishermen can confirm the rights with the municipality.  It sounds like there are not too many of these situations so it may be workable.  Conversely, if there is no special sign, the high water mark applies.

[BwiBwi]

The answer is not quite that simple.  Many of the dykes on the Chilliwack River are on private property and the FVRD has statutory right-of-ways for maintenance purposes so they are not accessible to the public.  Some are on crown land and are accessible to the public and many are orphan (no ownership/ no maintenance) and access is probably a legal question.  The river has shifted and changed in several areas so that the high water mark is different than the original survey and also some property has been in a family for so many years that the crown was never able to claim back to the high water mark.
 
In several areas in the Chilliwack River you would most definitely be tresspassing if you were to walk along the dykes.  To be on public land you would need to be down at the toe of the dyke on the river side. After this past winter's flooding event, which shifted the river's channel in several areas, the river is now part way up on the dyke leaving no dry walking spot.  The area on either side of Osbourne Rd falls into several catagories, however the various structures and works along these areas were not engineered or built to a standard and are not recognized as "flood work structures".  Most of the works in the area do in fact belong to and are on the owners property.

Jane Sowik, Manager of Administrative Services
Fraser Valley Regional District
45950 Cheam Avenue
Chilliwack, BC  V2P1N6   

[Nicole]

Why any person would purchase a riverside property on the most heavily fished river in the province, and then try to stop all anglers from accessing it is beyond me.

I think its just plain boneheaded, and shows a negative personality type that does not mix well with others.

The osbourne road fellow who is selling his house, I was fishing the backside one day, and the cops were there as I arrived, as they had been called as the homeowner was throwing rocks at anglers...

As far as I'm concerned, you should know anglers will be fishing on the river bank. If you don't like that, pick a stream that has no fishing traffic.

Same thing goes with the flooding - it's going to happen.

This is why insurers will not cover flooding when a property is on the bank of a river. Don't all of sudden be shocked when it happens and you're on the hook for the bill.

-Nicole

[CAPTAIN BONK]

YEAH NICOLE ! LOL 

[Fish Assassin]

Why any person would purchase a riverside property on the most heavily fished river in the province, and then try to stop all anglers from accessing it is beyond me.

Perhaps he bought the property long before it became a heavily fished river. Just a thought.

[Nicole]

I know for a fact that fellow purchased the property for around 400K not more than 7-8 odd years ago...

And that property has flooded once during that time, and he was on the news saying how it was his dream property...  Yadda yadda, etc.

Not a bad profit if you can sucker someone from Vancouver to buy it...

Cheers,
Nicole

[CAPTAIN BONK]

^ HE'LL BE MAKING A NICE CHUNK OF CHANGE WITH ALL THOSE HUGE TREES THAT ENDED UP ON HIS PROPERTY AFTER THE BIG FLOOD !

[Xgolfman]

Why any person would purchase a riverside property on the most heavily fished river in the province, and then try to stop all anglers from accessing it is beyond me.

I think its just plain boneheaded, and shows a negative personality type that does not mix well with others.

The osbourne road fellow who is selling his house, I was fishing the backside one day, and the cops were there as I arrived, as they had been called as the homeowner was throwing rocks at anglers...

As far as I'm concerned, you should know anglers will be fishing on the river bank. If you don't like that, pick a stream that has no fishing traffic.

Same thing goes with the flooding - it's going to happen.

This is why insurers will not cover flooding when a property is on the bank of a river. Don't all of sudden be shocked when it happens and you're on the hook for the bill.

-Nicole

Amen!!! It's exactly that, The guy implied to me that the landowners were getting togeather and with their MLA's backing were going to "See some changes around here for fishing access" It's very different for us down here...property owners own to the LOW water line... So unless your floating a system you can not go up on allot of the banks to fish... You guys/gals are very lucky to have what you have and should fight hard to keep it...as these people will always think that their money will buy them what they want...and like what happened with us, have no problem lying about it!!!

[BwiBwi]

If those 'private' lands beyond the dykes are going to be no public access.  I say if any dyke repairs or flood prevention measures done on the private lands are to be paid solely by those land owners and not the public.  And I do strongly believe this will make them think twice when it comes to public access on river banks.

[Nicole]

Amen!!! It's exactly that, The guy implied to me that the landowners were getting togeather and with their MLA's backing were going to "See some changes around here for fishing access" It's very different for us down here...property owners own to the LOW water line... So unless your floating a system you can not go up on allot of the banks to fish...

I'd support fighting that all the way to supreme court.

How dare they even think of such garbage, when my tax dollars are used to protect their property value. HOW DARE THEY!

Greedy bastards.

 
Nicole

[Fish Assassin]

If those 'private' lands beyond the dykes are going to be no public access.  I say if any dyke repairs or flood prevention measures done on the private lands are to be paid solely by those land owners and not the public.  And I do strongly believe this will make them think twice when it comes to public access on river banks.

Agree totally. Let's see how they like them apples.

[Old Black Dog]

You all might want to cool it a little.

Talk to Chris and see if there is a way that as a group you could talk to the land owners about access.
If it is private land and if you start a war with the owners, you will lose as they have the legal rights.

The Minister of MOE might want to be involved as it is to his benefit to have access?

If you were the owner of the land and people were walking on it and throwing garbage and crap all over it, then having them tell you off as they feel it is theirs, you might get your hackles up as well?

[eddy]

I vote NICOLE for Prime Minister!
I love a fighter. Yeah!