Print

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

[adriaticum]

Anyone has any idea what's going on here?

[EZ_Rolling]

None of it is good for fish that's for sure

[Novabonker]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/environmentalists-decry-changes-to-law-governing-navigable-waters/article4622873/

[skaha]

--there are no federal workers left to do the necessary reviews, rejections or approvals so they have eliminated the requirement to do so.
--there will be a gap in coverage as Provincial and Municipal governments would have to gear up to provide the same services now not required to be done by the federal government.
--in some instances provincial approval was based on inspection and approval of federal biologists... I don't see any job advertisements for more provincial environmental inspectors that would now have to view these sites that no longer required to be looked at by the feds.
--futher there are many instances where if no inspection or rejection of a project occurs within a given time frame the project is deemed to be approved.... usually some airy/fairy clause to the effect that the project is approved subject to the use of "best management practices"

--on the federal government speaker notes ie. instructions to MP's to parrot to anyone complaining... each will be given an example in their area of a restriction that any one would deem ridiculous... for example if a stream has not been visited on the ground and deemed  NOT NAVIGABLE it would default to NAVIGABLE thus  a stream course shown on a map or air photo  (may not even have water in it) but was not designated as NOT NAVIGABLE would require the proponent to hire and have a costly engineered structure if they wanted the project expedited.

--all this would take is an on site inspection that could be done by a summer student to designate the stream as not navigable.

 

[VAGAbond]

Amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act introduced as part of a sweeping budget implementation bill on Thursday limit its application to 97 lakes, 62 rivers and the three oceans that border Canada. That means construction of dams, bridges and other projects would be permitted on most waterways without prior approval under the act, which currently covers any body of water big enough to float a canoe in.

This is being framed as getting federal bureaucrats out of the way of the valid wants and needs of individuals, corporations and municipalities for waterfront development.  But there is a dark side for fishermen.   Those same rules ensured that the area below high water of any stream in which you could float a canoe was federal jurisdiction and usually open for public access.  If your favorite fishing stream is not one of the 62 designated rivers and 97 lakes you can probably expect your access to be progressively impeded by accelerated streamside development and private control.

[adriaticum]

What Vagabond says is very true.
In the states there are lakes that have "designated" public access areas, the rest is all private.
Probably majority of them down south.
For them we are the last bastion of freedom in the wilderness. and Alaska.

Navigable stream sounds benign enough. But I'm not really sure I understand the fine print.
There is a whole lot of hullabaloo about this on facebook.

I'm also concerned that rivers and lakes will be sold to corporations and private indiviuals.
As the population gets out of control here, those who can will try and acquire and control as much land as then can.
Which will mean, you have freedom.
Of movement within your condominium.