Re: OT: For Ray, The Armada on Mothers Day

Frogwatch wrote:
[ SNIP ]

Arved, describe this "Anglers Act".

The NS Angling Act is short and sweet. The important bit of it is simply:

---------------
3 (1) Any resident of the Province shall have the right to go on foot along the banks of any river, stream or lake, upon and across any uncultivated lands and Crown lands for the purpose of lawfully fishing with rod and line in such rivers, streams or lakes.

(2) Any resident of the Province shall have the right to go on, upon or across any river, stream or lake in boat or canoe or otherwise, for the purpose of lawfully fishing with rod and line in such rivers, streams or lakes.

In addition, by 15 (2) of the NS Protection of Property Act, we have:

* No person may be prosecuted for contravening any notice given pursuant to this Act prohibiting entry or prohibiting activity on forest land if that person is hunting as defined in the Wildlife Act, fishing, picnicking, camping, hiking, skiing or engaged in another recreational activity or engaged in a study of flora or fauna.
--------------

In practise it means that unless it's a farm field or someone's lawn you can traverse private property to access streams and lakes for the purposes of fishing.

Supposedly here in FL, the salt
waterfront up to the high tide line is public land. This is often not
true in practice.

That's also the case here. In fact it's common in many countries and lesser jurisdictions. In theory the public has the right of access to the area between the low and high tide marks; in practise the public often can't get at that stretch of land because of private development upland.

Navigable waterways are also public although many
people question the definition of navigable. Lakes surrounded by
private property are considered private although enforcement is
probably impossible if the owners do not see what property he crossed
to get to the water (Hey, I parachuted in, prove me wrong.).

The difference in NS is, we have no private lakes in that sense. In practical terms, if a lake is actually surrounded by peoples' lawns then anglers don't normally bother unless they know someone on the lake. But you can't own the water.

What is
am,using to me is to see beachfront property owners begging the state
to spend millions to "renourish" their waterfront with sand because
all the sand has washed away radically reducing their property size.
This has actually led to a shortage of usable sand so that sand is
being "harvested" from the Bahamas. Even weirder, the state is trying
to make sand from crushed glass for the beaches in S. FL.
Beaches here move a lot. One place, (Cape San Blas) has the original
mid 1800s era lighthouse site nearly a mile offshore now. Expensive
beachfront homes built in the mid-90s on sand dunes often are
surrounded by water and are stilt homes after a hurricane. Somehow,
this stupidity is still allowed.
[ SNIP ]

I agree, it's idiotic. What would make sense is a simple rule: if the power of the waves put that land there, so can the power of the waves take that land away, so you cannot develop it.

AHS
.

Relevant Pages
Loading