Jump to content

fishing spot


smerchly

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I thought I'd throw my hat into this one and see where it got me because as like many of you, I am appalled by this. I sent the link to this thread to a friend of mine who is a biologist for the DFO at CCIW. Thinking that maybe an insider might be able to circumvent some of the BS we go through when trying to get things figured out. The responses I got were as follows:

---DFO

"I am looking into this. Ian Barrett from NPCA should be looking into this. I sent him an email this morning to see if he has followed up on this yet. The site looks like a classic infill. This would fall under the Conservation Authorities Act. The Fisheries Act comes into play here as well but I will see what Ian says first. "

"See email below. Ian is going to keep me in the loop on this matter. There is a 6 month statute of limitations on infractions under the Conservation Authorities Act.

When do you think this work was completed? An approximate date would help? Do you know any fishing colleagues who could help here?"

---NPCA

" I was just informed of these works last Friday and since then I have received about 10 separate complaints. The NPCA typically doesn’t permit works below top of bank, so this is a fairly clear violation. The issue from our end is establishing a timeline to endure the CA Act statute of limitations has not expired. We initiated the investigation yesterday and see where things go from there."

So, both parties are on it and hopefully if one falls through, we can press the other to take up the slack. As can be seen through the replies, a time line is needed. So, if anyone was down there six months ago or less, it would be imperative to come forward.

Hope this helped!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Someone needs to make it a news story to get others who know when the work was done to come forward. Still sad though that only 6 months is a statute. He'll everyone will do this come first snow. Especially those who live where public access is difficult during the winter. That statute should change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they put a 6 month statute on environmental destruction in the first place ? More damage is occuring as we speak through erosion ! A 6 month statute allows anyone to take advantage of the seasons and gives them time to get away with this kind of environment abuse . I mentioned earlier that a fellow at our meeting at the SGFA said he saw an excavating machine at this site in late September of 2009 . The work may have went into October before the carnage was completed . If that is the case , we better act fast . If this kind of abuse of the environment can be ignored because of a 6 month statute , we will have this happen again .

NickW .....thank you kindly ! It's good to have you on board with this . The DFO swings a big club and I hope they are very interested in this . A simple visit to the beach at CDP would shock them I'm sure .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my buddy MNR (CO)

10-4, we look into that stuff. Under the PLA the person would require a work permit to do any shoreline construction. I've seen those pictures too. I'll email one of the CO's in Vineland and I'll CC your work email to get you guys talking. Odds are good they already know about it,

PLA = Public Lands Act

An extensive conversation with the area CO has taken place and they are investigating. I believe the hope is to co-ordinate action rather than have 3 different agencies at it piecemeal.

That you for urging action, Ollie. This needs a number of people hitting up contacts, and pushing buttons, to remedy this blatant wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to e-mail Ian Barret and ask to see copies of the permits for this. It's a bloody disgrace. Even if it WAS permitted (which I doubt) then whoever granted permission is clearly unfit to do so, or is "$lexible" with the rules!

We really do need to make some noise here.

....and that 6 month statute is a crock!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about Ron Arnold, or another CO? I just sent Ron an email about it, along with some pictures.

It is Randy Tippin who is investigating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does anyone have photos with dates on the photo? that would be physical proof of the dates needed here.

maybe another option is to prove that the modifications are causing erosion. get photos with dates on them and then leave it a few weeks and take more. if you can show erosion on those sets of photos, they'll have to investigate. this may take longer, but might get something done if this statute of limitations BS rears its ugly head.

not to get all pollitical here, but things like this is exactly the reason why I do not vote. I do not believe in the system and I will not take part in it. I pay my taxes like everyone else, but this is yet more proof of our failing pollitical system. only WE can do something about this and other areas of pollitics, but it takes a group to make changes, not just one or a few. having lived in several cultures and countries, I have to say that this one is the worst I've seen as far as what the population seems willing to take from the machine that controls them. after saying that, one voice won't change a thing.

anyway, I'm done my rant and I appologize if I've pissed anyone off, but this kinda thing just really yanks my chain. how sick can we get as a society? well, just take a look at that house in the pic, cause whoever lives inside those walls has just proved to everyone just how sick a person can be. what they have done is terrible, but what is even more terrible, is if the people we/you elect into office, turn a blind eye as if nothing is wrong. if anyone in that capacity is reading this, shame on you for turning that blind eye. polliticians need to put this kind of thing to a stop instead of bickering like they do on the government channel.............now that's a joke, right there. LOL

Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to e-mail Ian Barret and ask to see copies of the permits for this. It's a bloody disgrace. Even if it WAS permitted (which I doubt) then whoever granted permission is clearly unfit to do so, or is "$lexible" with the rules!

We really do need to make some noise here.

....and that 6 month statute is a crock!

That was clever :P and I had to think for a couple seconds on how you made that typo and then it hit me B)

I won't jump to that conclusion myself but it was a good one.

Love EV it doesn't always go this way. The new rules of greenbelt and endangered species are killing allot of farming and tieing knots everywhere with red tape. You have to be careful which battles to pick anymore or you won't be hunting and fishing in protected areas either. Try and keep your emotions out of it and stick to the facts. Getting upset can blind you and you'll never see your mistakes coming.

This here is a bad precedent that needs to be corrected but I hardly think that home owner is the scum of the earth. Some people are oblivious and us anglers have trouble comprehending that because we are the front line on environment. If that home owner read this board they might be wondering what all the fuss is about. If explained in a professional manner they might just blush and offer to help with the restoration voluntarily. Lets try not to slag anyone until we have all the facts which means letting the investigation happen first. Once that's complete you then pressure for charges and restoration if it doesn't happen on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well whatever they are doing to the land doesnt look complete. i bet they will start more work soon as the weather gets nicer then out goes the 6 monthe statute bs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we hang the owner of the property out to dry ......Can someone tell me how people who own waterfront properties are informed on what you can or can't do to "clean up , landscape etc " ? I'll bet many owners do not know you cannot clean out old structure from the water without a permit . Is the owner informed about these issues when he purchases this property by the township or by some other source ? I am sure many people who frequent the beach walking their dogs etc. must have been concerned when the dozer was cleaning out the shoreline & said nothing ? We hunters & fishermen have a reg .book which informs us about our sport. These owners should be aware of what they can or cannot do with water front property . Maybe this will set a precedent ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LockedInTheTrunkOfACar

I highly doubt they are aware of what they can and can not do. Living where I am, there is a creek that runs close to my street and the people who have their property backing on down towards the creek encroach each year to make their back yard larger or their compost pile (outside their fence) larger. None of them own directly onto the creek except for one or two but it does not stop them from taking care of the land behind their property as well, this includes cutting grass and trees down ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of condeming the landowners why don't you wait and see if they knew what they were doing. Maybe they didn't know what they were doing and the problem will be rectified without any problems. It might even be made better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of condeming the landowners why don't you wait and see if they knew what they were doing. Maybe they didn't know what they were doing and the problem will be rectified without any problems. It might even be made better.

You are quite right captnn. This should not be a witch hunt. My concern is with seeing the problem corrected and the habitat restored. That is the only issue that matters.

If he gets fined etc..., that is not my concerm.

He may or may not have known what he was allowed to do. The contractors would have known the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of condeming the landowners why don't you wait and see if they knew what they were doing. Maybe they didn't know what they were doing and the problem will be rectified without any problems. It might even be made better.

I agree Captn as in my post at 10:59 pm . The owner might be very surprised that he has had his property altered contrary to the fisheries act etc. and may be quite willing to make amends to the pond. I would like the see it fixed as soon as possible . I'll have to admit , when I first saw this property , the rage takes over the senses and I wanted to string someone up on the last tree , but after a cool down , one has to use the old nogging and start asking questions . I think we have accomplished that ! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just talking out of my ass..............but, the O.F.A.H has a big voice

They've been contacted by myself and others at the SCG&F but no response thus far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding photos with dates on them.

Every digital camera inserts what is known as meta data into the picture when it is taken. The date will be in the meta data along with other stuff like the camera make and model, the camera settings used to take the picture.

I can tell you from the pics first posted they were taken on a Kodak CX7330 digital zoom camera on 3\18\10 at 10:04:26

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone checked local bylaws? I'll bet dollars to pesos, that this is a violation. There must be something in the bylaws about construction like what happened...special reinforcement walls, construction that close to the waterway...or if they changed the flow of water or altered the shoreline.

As fishermen we all know that the property lines vary when it comes o water. It could be 5 feet from the waters edge, into the water or at the water line.

But the damage is done and it will takes years to get that eco system back. The concern know should be property run off. Fertilizers, cleaners etc.,

Even salt from the driveway...because I'm sure the driveway is huge.

I always get a kick out of people who build a huge home in the country - I assume they wanted

to be closer to nature - but in order to build their huge house and let everyone see it, they cut down and drive out all the nature!

Good luck and I hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Big Dog for your input on this subject . We have several people looking into the legal aspects of this case and hope to get some info. on it soon . I know what you mean about city slickers who buy or build a home in the country , then complain about the wildlife infringing on "their" property . Earlier , I posted about some of these people now wanting paved roads with lights & sidewalks , just like they had in the big city . I guess it's the price we pay for urban sprawl & "progress" .

Here's a google map of the pond , house and the shoreline affected by the cleanout . The green dots is where the natural runoff occurs when the water level in the pond is normally high . The water level should never be as low as it is now .

CDP%20map%20close%20up.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LockedInTheTrunkOfACar

I was down there today ... will have pics of the area put up later ... but from what I could see I do not know if a machine dug out the trench to the lake or it was natural, hard to tell but it is closing up as long as we do not get too much rain. A really good storm on the lake would get the waves shifting the sand back and closing it up as well.

The pics are closeups to the land, they filled in some of the area with dirty fill it looks like (lotta stone and brick).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for tripping down there LITTOAC . The last picture shows a frost fence which may be propery line for the neighbour ? You can see it better on my first picture , post #1 . We may be talking about 2 properties here ? I sure would like to see the drainage of the pond stopped . Last year there was tractor tire marks on the berm at the outflow which I believe was the township of Lincoln's doing . I hope to see some regs established on this pond and hope it also sets a precedence for other important water/eco systems in the province . We learn from our mistakes (I hope) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just figures for April Fools Day.

Less than encouraging news. Here's the current bureaucratic bumpf.

MNR does not have hard evidence of equipment working in the water or destroying shoreline, so they pass off to the DFO and NPCA because the issue is on private lands and more about habitat destruction.

The NPCA may be hamstrung by a 6 month statute of limitations.

The DFO has only just assigned the file to a fisheries biologist who has yet to see the file.

Your tax dollars hard at work. :(

Meanwhile our natural resources are being squandered in a sea of red tape :)

What's next? Maybe a drive through Timmies for boaters at the mouth of the Niagara R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TC1OZ
What's next? Maybe a drive through Timmies for boaters at the mouth of the Niagara R.

I hope that's ready when I get my boat.... APRIL FOOLS :(

Sorry to hear about all the red tape.... Don't get me started on the government!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...