Page 1 of 1

how would you interpret this rule?

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:18 pm
by Lvace
Came across this rule in the mnr book and wonder how one would interpret it... kinda sounds like if the lake is stocked we can access it even threw private property . I know most rules or laws are left to interpretation so this is why I am a bit confused .?

Rules for Stocked Lakes
With Private Access
Lake names printed in “Bold Italics” in the
following fish stocking tables, indicate that access
to these waterbodies is over private land adjacent to
right of ways. Access agreements with the landowners
have allowed these lakes to be stocked for public use.
However, continuation of stocking is dependant upon
the following rules:
• No Fires on the Shore or Ice
• No Cutting of Trees or Other Vegetation
• No Vehicles, snowmobiles or ATVs on the Ice
• No Littering (Clean up before you leave)
• No Vandalism
If the above conditions are violated in anyway, the
stocking of these waterbodies will cease immediately
and access to them across private land will be denied.

Re: how would you interpret this rule?

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:59 pm
by zippyfx
I would read it as... At least one property owner of the isolated lake will allow people to use their property to access the lake and will continue to do so unless there is a negative impact to them.

I would determine ownership of the land around the lake... Make phone calls, determine who is providing the access to the lake, and what route they would prefer you to take. I would then let them know when I was planning to visit the lake.

Alternately you could conduct MNR and ask them if they know were the access point is or who to contact.

Re: how would you interpret this rule?

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:13 pm
by Mick
ya that's how I'd interpret it too

Re: how would you interpret this rule?

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:51 pm
by MLR
Contact the district mnr office and they will tell you how to access the lake.

Shaven's lake is a good example in zone 15. It was on the stocking list for splake, even after access was revoked. The access was via a seasonal cottage drive way with no trespassing signs posted at the entrance. I got an email from the mnr a year later, letting me know that access had been revoked.

Just goes to show that previously stocked lakes stay on the list years after access has been lost.

Re: how would you interpret this rule?

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:11 am
by Lvace
Thanks for the replies!! Better safe then sorry when accessing lakes threw private property !