Kakabeka falls

[Foz 25]

I used to fish below the falls years ago. I am interested in going again. I used to access it by walking down the steep hills but then they got fenced off. I still accessed it that way and got the tresspassing fine. I am wondering if anyone knows the way to "legally" access the area right below the falls. Off the record, I am not opposed to accessing it however I can lol. Just trying to do it the proper way. Fishing was great down there, many different species.

[speckmaster 114]

I don’t think you can. 

[Zackcorbin1401 542]

I have seen guys pay to get in to the park and walk the trails down to little falls I think it’s called and cross the river down there… not really into crossing the river but allways been wondering if there’s another way in… 

[Fishog 215]

Ontario hydro used to let you park at the power station and there was a trail going south that you accessed the river and crossed to the other side to get past the out flow. Now they have become very unfriendly about anyone going on their so called property. Both gates are locked upper and lower gates. Anyone caught will get charged for trespassing. 

Only way now is through the park down the trail called Little falls trail which comes out way farther down river then you need to be. 

 

[PkdR 11]

I believe even going through little falls trail now will be considered trespassing. You either have to go over the fence or under it.. that’s if you’re caught Ofcourse. But I believe that’s the only way to get down there now. 

[mad scientist 140]

21 hours ago, Fishog said:

 their so called property.

 

Nothing so-called about it.  It's private property.  So are the unopened road allowances that run along either shore of the river.  The river itself is partly within the provincial park, and part general use Crown land, but you can't get to the river without crossing private land.  Unless you come upstream from one of the public boat launches.

 

According to the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas, both shores of the Kam are private land for the entire length between the mouth and the falls, except for a short stretch of the east bank near Whitewater Golf Club, and that's all swamp with no road access

 

This is a clip from CLUPA showing the OPG site.  Green is the provincial park, dark grey is private land, and the lighter grey/peach is general use Crown land.  https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/CLUPA/index.html?viewer=CLUPA.CLUPA&locale=en-CA

[Fishog 215]

8 hours ago, mad scientist said:

Nothing so-called about it.  It's private property.  So are the unopened road allowances that run along either shore of the river.  The river itself is partly within the provincial park, and part general use Crown land, but you can't get to the river without crossing private land.  Unless you come upstream from one of the public boat launches.

 

According to the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas, both shores of the Kam are private land for the entire length between the mouth and the falls, except for a short stretch of the east bank near Whitewater Golf Club, and that's all swamp with no road access

 

This is a clip from CLUPA showing the OPG site.  Green is the provincial park, dark grey is private land, and the lighter grey/peach is general use Crown land.  https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/CLUPA/index.html?viewer=CLUPA.CLUPA&locale=en-CA

So called land ownership is what it is dumbass. They  never bought one inch of any land they are on. It was all given to them by us the Canadian tax payers. 

[Zackcorbin1401 542]

Would one be able to get a boat up river from harstone bridge? Or it is to shallow I’ve always thought of trying it and destroying my motor;) 

[Northoman 29]

28 minutes ago, Zackcorbin1401 said:

Would one be able to get a boat up river from harstone bridge? Or it is to shallow I’ve always thought of trying it and destroying my motor;) 

It's pretty shallow and filled with boulders that you would have to pick your way through. I spent a lot of time in there as a kid and I'd say you'd be walking more then boating. 

[Zackcorbin1401 542]

7 minutes ago, Northoman said:

It's pretty shallow and filled with boulders that you would have to pick your way through. I spent a lot of time in there as a kid and I'd say you'd be walking more than boating. 

Thanks! Mabye il give it a shot one day in the boat or the dingy! And walk her up mostly

[Fishog 215]

The owner of the Staney hotel (RIP) had a air boat but he even was able to destroy the motor going up river. Two in a canoe could navigate the river from the Heartstone bridge but its a fair distance to paddle up river. Kids here in the village ride their bikes to the beach above the falls and catch the walleye and pick. You can also go to the end of Hume road and catch the same. Both places are a hit and miss type of deal. Thought about dragging a canoe into Hume rapids to see how I would do but have not gotten around to it yet. 

[mmgg 26]

Bring a canoe call them up say you need portage access on the traditional travel route and set up a time... they might let you thru.

[Snag??? 173]

&

[Snag??? 173]

&

[Fishog 215]

19 hours ago, mmgg said:

Bring a canoe call them up say you need portage access on the traditional travel route and set up a time... they might let you thru.

 

I was going to look into the The Canadian Navigable Waters Act . 

 

Navigable waters could be added to the Schedule based on the following factors:

• whether the waterway is charted;
• its physical characteristics;
• how it connects with other navigable waters;
• the safety of navigation;
• past, current and anticipated use;
• use by Indigenous peoples to exercise their rights; and
• the cumulative impact of works on navigation in the waterway.

• as a means of travel or transport for commercial or recreational purposes or as a means of travel or transport by Indigenous peoples to exercise their rights; and
• where there is public access, two or more waterfront owners, or where the Crown is the sole waterfront owner.

Past , current and anticipated  use and a means of travel fro recreational use caught my eye. 

 

I know people in Alberta took a farmer to court but lost so not sure if it would be worth the time. 

[Feldwebel Wolfenstool 80]

Nova Scotia....“Section 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.”

 

[mad scientist 140]

At the risk of opening a can of worms...

 

The federal Navigable Waters Act protects the right of navigation, not the right of access.  This is the definition of a "navigable water" from the Act:

 

navigable water means a body of water, including a canal or any other body of water created or altered as a result of the construction of any work, that is used or where there is a reasonable likelihood that it will be used by vessels, in full or in part, for any part of the year as a means of transport or travel for commercial or recreational purposes, or as a means of transport or travel for Indigenous peoples of Canada exercising rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and

• (a) there is public access, by land or by water;

• (b) there is no such public access but there are two or more riparian owners; or

• (c) Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province is the only riparian owner. (eaux navigables)

The bit in red applies to the Kam...it already qualifies as a navigable water under the Act.  Being a Scheduled Water under the Act provides additional protections against the development of "works" in the waterbody, but again, does nothing to secure public access.  Not to mention that there already is public access to the Kam, by way of the public boat launches in Thunder Bay.

 

As for the Nova Scotia legislation, the Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act says:

 

10 (1) A person shall not,

(a) enter premises in contravention of the Trespass to Property Act or the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 for the purpose of hunting or fishing;

(b) enter premises in contravention of the Trespass to Property Act or the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 in possession of a firearm, fishing rod or other hunting or fishing device;

(c) engage in hunting or fishing in contravention of the Trespass to Property Act;

(d) fail to leave premises in contravention of the Trespass to Property Act, if the person was on the premises for the purpose of hunting or fishing; or

(e) fail to leave premises in contravention of the Trespass to Property Act, if the person was on the premises in possession of a firearm, fishing rod or other hunting or fishing device. 1997, c. 41, s. 10 (1); 2023, c. 9, Sched. 14, s. 2.

 

In order to understand this, you have to cross-reference the Trespass to Property Act, which I know less about.  But in essence, the TPA says that there are some cases where trespassing can be assumed on private property (e.g. there's a fence), other cases where the property is expected to be posted 'no trespassing'.  I don't know which situation would apply to the private land along the Kam...probably both, depending on what part of the river you're talking about.

 

So...if you want to access the river below the falls by foot, with the least legal risk (disclaimer...I'm no lawyer), then you need to figure out who owns the unopened road allowances and ask for permission to cross.  Then you can get to the river either via the provincial park, or the Crown land that is immediately south of the OPG property.

 

 

[Fishog 215]

One option that might be worth checking into is convincing Hydro to allow people to buy a key and sign a agreement to lock the gates behind them. This way users would be more able to control who is there and doing what. Not sure if the salmon hatchery is still in operation but they share the same road and they must have a key to the gate to get to their building. 

Going up river from Hartstone bridge is doable with a kayak, canoe might be kind of hard to paddle up stream. 

I think it will come down to a group of people working with Hydro to allow us to access the water ways again. One person will make noise but thats about it. 

[Feldwebel Wolfenstool 80]

On 7/26/2023 at 9:09 AM, Fishog said:

One option that might be worth checking into is convincing Hydro to allow people to buy a key and sign a agreement to lock the gates behind them. This way users would be more able to control who is there and doing what. Not sure if the salmon hatchery is still in operation but they share the same road and they must have a key to the gate to get to their building. 

Going up river from Hartstone bridge is doable with a kayak, canoe might be kind of hard to paddle up stream. 

I think it will come down to a group of people working with Hydro to allow us to access the water ways again. One person will make noise but thats about it. 

..."convincing hydro..buy a key...sign an agreement"...lol.  No, wait.  ROFL

[johnr 47]

Fished Hume rd access as a kid 50 years ago . At that time there was no signs posted preventing access . Good parking , beautiful part of the river but ....that pesky sign !!! Do I cross or do I not? 

[TerJr 12]

33 minutes ago, johnr said:

Fished Hume rd access as a kid 50 years ago . At that time there was no signs posted preventing access . Good parking , beautiful part of the river but ....that pesky sign !!! Do I cross or do I not? 

I had been prowling around on Google maps and thought it looked like a good spot... saw the sign and left. I like to be respectful as a fellow landowner but goddamn I want to go fishing there...

[Fishog 215]

The sign is put up by CNR to keep people off the tracks. Seems people love to run quad runners down the rail line. If your just crossing the tracks its not much of a problem. I spend a lot of time there as does a lot of locals who fish that part of the river and as long as you don't do something dumb its not a problem.