Print

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

[Hike_and_fish]

The city works so hard to keep tax paying normal Joe's off the path but doesn't blink an eye when an illegal meth lab blows up on the river like last winter.

[stsfisher]

Mid river as in the middle of the river? Are
you kidding?

This is exactly what I was told by the RCMP almost 27 years ago. Didn't matter much to me as there was plenty of water to fish back then.

[iblly]

Wiseguy, unfortunately the whole river is becoming a garbage dump/toilet and it’s not just anglers who are the culprits. Sad state of affairs.

[Cyanescens]

https://maps.fvrd.ca/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=eae55e6da5f14e11a9a5e07a78f339c5
here's a link to the districts mapping page. the property line in question does appear to extend into the river a few meters but not to the middle of the river.

[Knnn]

https://maps.fvrd.ca/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=eae55e6da5f14e11a9a5e07a78f339c5
here's a link to the districts mapping page. the property line in question does appear to extend into the river a few meters but not to the middle of the river.

Thanks, I was going to post the same link that shows property boundaries at this location.

If you change the base map to show an air photograph, you will see that the property at 4298 WILSON RD used to extend a few metres into the river.  However, that piece of the property has been lost to the river due to erosion and further erosion has been prevented by creation of the dyke.   It should be noted that this property does not encompass the entire dyke and runs parallel with the dyke, on the east side, for approximately 160 m.  Only a relatively short section of the dyke is actually encompassed by the property, which extends approximately 26 m south of the new fence.  Therefore, if you are standing on the dyke more than say 30 m south of the fence this is public property, although I doubt the property owner will admit to this. 

Other relevant information of note:

Waterways, including stream and lake beds are crown property. 

The Canadian Navigable Water Act provides the public with free and unobstructed right of passage over navigable waters and the public right of landing from and mooring boats and vessels. 

Navigable water is typically defined as anything that you can reasonably use a canoe on. 

There is no right or implied right to cross private property to reach navigable water.

The lateral extent of a navigable water body is generally defined by the high water mark, which in BC is further defined as the natural boundary where there is a change in vegetation or soil owing to the continued presence of water.

It is unclear if the fence that was constructed below the high water mark is legal or if it requires approval from the Crown.

In conclusion, my lay interpretation is that if you are standing below the high water mark (where ever that is) or on the dyke more than 30 m south of the fence, you should be good to go.

[RalphH]

I agree with Knnn. Below the highwater mark should be ok for angling. It would have made more send for the property owners to fence their land along the top of the dyke trail and back into their yard with appropriate signage. that's what was done at the spot known as fort Apache.

[Wiseguy]

I agree with Knnn. Below the highwater mark should be ok for angling. It would have made more send for the property owners to fence their land along the top of the dyke trail and back into their yard with appropriate signage. that's what was done at the spot known as fort Apache.

I will suggest this to the owners next time I see them! 

[RalphH]

I will suggest this to the owners next time I see them! 

note:

I fished that spot for the first time earlier this year, but walking up from downriver there are no signs. I was totally unaware there were any signs until I left and passed the fencing in the picture.

so their fence and signage is totally ineffectual and bound to lead to continued conflict.  They also will be unable to sue for trespass since the gate and fence at the east end doesn't meet the requirements of the Trespass act. neither the owners or FVRD did their homework.

[DanL]

https://maps.fvrd.ca/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=eae55e6da5f14e11a9a5e07a78f339c5
here's a link to the districts mapping page. the property line in question does appear to extend into the river a few meters but not to the middle of the river.

Very useful link, thanks



Whoever who fishes there should screenshot or print out the boundaries in case they get hassled.

Assuming the satellite images are still accurate, it seems you cannot get to the water from upstream without crossing a little bit of the private boundary. May be ok from downstream depending on where the river currently flows and water level.

[clarki]

There was a piece of river in the FVRD that I wanted to fish. A section of private property blocked my access, however the GIS map indicated an FSR through the property and an adjacent parcel in the river itself that was identified "Return to Crown" I was curious if the (abandoned) FSR was a public easement and if the "return to crown" parcel was indeed crown land.

I emailed the Planning Department from the FVRD website, received a next day email back from a real live Planning Technician with an invitation to call her direct line. So I did. I explained that I was an angler not wanting to be shot at by a landowner and we had a very informative conversation.

The tools exist to have curious and respectful conversations and get the information you are looking for.

[bigblockfox]

its for sale if anyone here wants to own those rocks.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/23275937/4298-wilson-road-chilliwack

[stsfisher]

My bad, this is an entirely didn't property than the one I was thinking of.

[DanTfisherman]

Interesting.
Looked at the photos.
I see they have 5 or 6 photos with views of the river, all of them Pre-Berlin wall.
Maybe the goal is for the wall to come down and restore the area to it's pre cold war conflict appearance?

Dano

[bigblockfox]

that dyke is the only thing keeping those properties safe.

the property lines were probably drawn up in 1968 when that house was built. who knows if the dyke was even there then. i bet at one time there was a bank there and slowly its been eroded to where a high water event could threaten the properties, than they built the dyke and never changed the property line. there is no way that would fly today.

[DanL]

i bet at one time there was a bank there and slowly its been eroded to where a high water event could threaten the properties, than they built the dyke and never changed the property line. there is no way that would fly today.

This seems a plausible explanation. Based on the photo, the dyke seems to cross in and out of the property line at multiple points, which suggests something ad hoc instead of planned...