Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fly-Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 09-27-2015, 12:17 PM
greyduck greyduck is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipco View Post
This would not be a short term fix and would take some time but how about hiring a lawyer to challenge this ridiculous (Section 263 (1) ) code?

I would be willing to put up a few dollars to fight this ruling.

I'm deeply saddened by this turn of events. How many thousands of dollars invested in hatchery trout will be lost in stocked aerated lakes? It is extremely disturbing that we need more laws in place to protect us from our own ignorance and stupidity.


Stan
Again I believe it's a legal issue on public land. Try to find a way to make it private or leased then the legislation won't apply. Could be a Rec Lease, SLU zone or other disposition surrounding the lakes/ponds, and removing the public status. The end effects will be restricted areas to ice fishing which will generate a backlash, but ACA could protect the quality lakes.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-27-2015, 12:30 PM
pipco pipco is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greyduck View Post
Again I believe it's a legal issue on public land. Try to find a way to make it private or leased then the legislation won't apply. Could be a Rec Lease, SLU zone or other disposition surrounding the lakes/ponds, and removing the public status. The end effects will be restricted areas to ice fishing which will generate a backlash, but ACA could protect the quality lakes.
This is the ruling from govt website.

" Duty to safeguard opening in ice

263. (1) Every one who makes or causes to be made an opening in ice that is open to or frequented by the public is under a legal duty to guard it in a manner that is adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident and is adequate to warn them that the opening exists.
Marginal note:Excavation on land

(2) Every one who leaves an excavation on land that he owns or of which he has charge or supervision is under a legal duty to guard it in a manner that is adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident and is adequate to warn them that the excavation exists.
Marginal note:Offences

(3) Every one who fails to perform a duty imposed by subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of

(a) manslaughter, if the death of any person results therefrom;

(b) an offence under section 269, if bodily harm to any person results therefrom; or

(c) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 242; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 18.



Not having a legal background I don't really know ( haven't searched yet) of a case that sets a precedent. I'm wondering who brought this to the ACA's attention regarding the liability ( friggin' hate that word) issue?

What I'm reading clearly states that if adequate measures ( signage, snow fence, barricade for eg.) is in place there shouldn't be any liability issues.

Is there something deeper we are not aware of, going on here?

Can anyone shed some more light on this matter?

Stan
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-27-2015, 01:48 PM
greyduck greyduck is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 113
Default

One subsection applies to public land and subsection 2 applies to all lands. I wonder what the guarding standards are. With thousands of excavations and developments in Alberta, how do you keep the masses out?

I don't believe it's been tested and I wouldn't want to be the first. I work in a gravel business that both subsections apply and we would have to have complete chain link fencing with guarded access to comply. Don't see any of that out there.

Looks like legally there is no easy answer.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-27-2015, 05:36 PM
xmastree xmastree is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 58
Default

There is no legal answer for this issue. I am amazed a snow mobiler hasn't drowned by now. In the dark, snowing, from out of town, drinking, racing, etc. You can't put physical barriers around it early enough in the fall. I certainly wouldn't want to be the guy that signed his name allowing this to continue even from a conscience standpoint nor can I see the ACA continuing.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-27-2015, 06:06 PM
pipco pipco is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xmastree View Post
There is no legal answer for this issue. I am amazed a snow mobiler hasn't drowned by now. In the dark, snowing, from out of town, drinking, racing, etc. You can't put physical barriers around it early enough in the fall. I certainly wouldn't want to be the guy that signed his name allowing this to continue even from a conscience standpoint nor can I see the ACA continuing.

I know we're getting off topic here but......
What!

So, you're saying that if some d#27^%$t drives a s sled, quad, whatever into a hole in the ice that someone else should be responsible for his/her stupidity?

If you truly believe that I'm scared for the state of our society.

Whatever happened to being responsible for our own actions and accepting the consequences?

Is this an old fashioned sentiment?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-27-2015, 06:40 PM
xmastree xmastree is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipco View Post
I know we're getting off topic here but......
What!

So, you're saying that if some d#27^%$t drives a s sled, quad, whatever into a hole in the ice that someone else should be responsible for his/her stupidity?

If you truly believe that I'm scared for the state of our society.

Whatever happened to being responsible for our own actions and accepting the consequences?

Is this an old fashioned sentiment?
Just the law....and how a reasonable person would view the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-27-2015, 06:52 PM
pipco pipco is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xmastree View Post
Just the law....and how a reasonable person would view the situation.
I admire your simplistic, naive view but disagree completely.
That's o.k., you are entitled to your opinion just as I am.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-27-2015, 07:08 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Gents, kindly let's get back to putting on the thinking caps and not arguing....can't believe it is me that is saying this
It is frustrating beyond words but that are some ideas that are forming...even if it goes downhill for a year or two I'm hopeful that a solution will be found.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-27-2015, 07:14 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipco
This is the ruling from govt website.
What I'm reading clearly states that if adequate measures ( signage, snow fence, barricade for eg.) is in place there shouldn't be any liability issues.

Is there something deeper we are not aware of, going on here?

Can anyone shed some more light on this matter?
I'm with you on the same questions after reading the ruling. I'm not a lawyer either but I've worked contracts and legalize for about 15 years now. Looks perfectly reasonably to put up the necessary signage and barriers. I'm completely unconvinced at the ACA reaction to just stop is doing the right thing. I do understand the risks they are facing though. Not saying that I wouldn't take them myself because I know I would.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-27-2015, 08:52 PM
CMichaud's Avatar
CMichaud CMichaud is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Beijing, Canada
Posts: 1,470
Default

So why not have them engage at the political level and amend/clarify the law. It is clearly a generalization and simply needs an amendment to exempt aerated ponds on public lands. Mitigate risk with signage and snow fence etc.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 09-27-2015, 09:52 PM
pipco pipco is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMichaud View Post
So why not have them engage at the political level and amend/clarify the law. It is clearly a generalization and simply needs an amendment to exempt aerated ponds on public lands. Mitigate risk with signage and snow fence etc.

This is a definite solution ( could take some time) but what I'm wondering is why all of a sudden is the ACA concerned about liabilty when they have been aerating lakes for years and had/have future plans in place to aerate more?
Was there a case that used section 263 ( 1) as precedent? Who brought this to their attention?


I'm with you Snap, I should quit arguing, it's not conducive to coming up with a solution.

You're right it'll get solved eventually.


In the mean time, before I pop a blood vessel, I'll take a few more days off and go chuck a few leeches, boatmen and backswimmers at some fat, fiesty trout at a favorite aerated stocked lake.

Last edited by pipco; 09-27-2015 at 10:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-28-2015, 07:41 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipco View Post
In the mean time, before I pop a blood vessel, I'll take a few more days off and go chuck a few leeches, boatmen and backswimmers at some fat, fiesty trout at a favorite aerated stocked lake.
Sounds good. Hope to see you out there this week.

All the best!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-28-2015, 04:32 PM
xmastree xmastree is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 58
Default

I doubt very much snow fence would be considered an adequate barrier when it's a permanent recreational facility. A solid barrier which would stop a snowmobile or someone may be sufficient but you would still have the time before it was put in place and after it was taken out in spring. You also have the liability of the people putting out the structure and removing it to consider.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-28-2015, 10:37 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

And exclusion fence c/w signage is all that is needed on land. Construction companies + nearly everyone uses the same technique. Same law applies to ice. Need to design a floating fence.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-29-2015, 08:17 AM
greyduck greyduck is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 113
Default

Boom logs and page wire fencing. Snow fence would be too much of a sail. I used to manage water operations for timber company on Williston lake. It would be easy.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-29-2015, 11:04 PM
Ayr Ayr is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 218
Default

From Fly BC forum, Sep 22 2015,

"I believe the newer aerators are different in that they leave no open water. More accurately, there is still open water but it is confined within a large box-like structure. Unfortunately you have to protect the idiots from themselves... '

Could it be this simple? If this new style of aerator solves the liability issue, Alberta adopts them, and.......problem solved?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-30-2015, 06:03 AM
Stryker2's Avatar
Stryker2 Stryker2 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
This may not be popular.

But here goes anyway, do not allow any activities on the ice.

Not good for the ice fishermen but may allow for aeration and allow the fish to over winter.
I'm with this suggestion! Just close off the aerated lakes for the winter months, that way at least we can have nice fish to catch over the summer months. Those who want to ice fish can go to non aerated lakes and catch small fish or no fish, which is how ALL the lakes would be like if the aerated ones were left open anyway! So by closing the aerated ones it's a win win for everybody!
__________________
"I go fishing not to find myself but to lose myself "
~Joseph Monniger
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-30-2015, 07:16 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Stryker2,

Many others can use ice on lakes for some activity other than fishing. Banning ice fishing only removes a single activity.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-30-2015, 07:24 AM
Stryker2's Avatar
Stryker2 Stryker2 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Stryker2,

Many others can use ice on lakes for some activity other than fishing. Banning ice fishing only removes a single activity.

Don
I meant closing off the aerated lakes as in no access permitted over the winter months.
__________________
"I go fishing not to find myself but to lose myself "
~Joseph Monniger
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-30-2015, 10:15 AM
xmastree xmastree is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Stryker2,

Many others can use ice on lakes for some activity other than fishing. Banning ice fishing only removes a single activity.

Don
Ban fly fishing!, then that would only be two activities banned.

Banning fishing would have nothing to do with decreased liability.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-30-2015, 09:55 PM
brown trout brown trout is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 60
Default

Don,

What about holding off on aerating until a solid ice layer has formed on the lake, then have the aerators run on a timer, say 2hrs on, two off, or whatever would be necessary per water body. Most likely, enough air would be there on smaller lakes (Ironside, Fiesta etc). Not sure about "larger" waters like Swan, Muir, or Beaver. Even run aerators like hell for 2 weeks before ice will reasonably form (last two weeks of Oct let's say) to saturate the water with O2.

This is what we get for turning decrepid left over sloughs into our best trout lakes... yikes.

I've said all along, waters that over winter should have a 2 fish over 16" limit (with a few c and r, Bait ban, no ice fishing ones) with the wintetkill ponds being 8 fish per day to split the difference with the guys who want to keep fish. Fair all around.

But back on point, consider my above idea...

Nick
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-30-2015, 10:04 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xmastree View Post
Ban fly fishing!, then that would only be two activities banned.

Banning fishing would have nothing to do with decreased liability.
Xmastree,

Tough to FF when casting to a 8" hole.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-30-2015, 10:14 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Browntrout,

I have absolutely control on how aeration occurs or not.
Further, I have no control over which lakes, ponds or sloughs aeration is attempted.
The selection, planning, implementation, foot work, permits are all someone else's responsibility. All I have attempted to do is keep anglers informed about the issue and asked their skills in determining a solution. The ACA was made aware of this thread.
Whose is doing the selection of lakes, the criteria used for selection, the aeration process used will be revealed by the CEO of the ACA at a Provincial Fisheries Roundtable meeting Oct 17.

Regards,

Don
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-30-2015, 10:25 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSL View Post
The problem with many of the suggestions is that section 263 of the Criminal Code does not provide for a due diligence defense. Regardless of the precautions, warnings or barriers implemented, if someone falls into the hole and dies those who created the hole (ACA) are guilty of manslaughter. Even if he or she does not die but suffers personal or property damage despite all your precautions those causing the hole in the ice are subject to possible criminal charges.
The code is worded as such.

"Every one who makes or causes to be made an opening in ice that is open to or frequented by the public is under a legal duty to guard it in a manner that is adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident and is adequate to warn them that the opening exists."

The key wording if I were a lawyer would be "adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident and is adequate to warn them that the opening exists.". Signage to warn them of the aeration and a visible barrier surrounding the area close to aerator would be plenty adequate to prevent a person from falling in by accident. There may still be people that don't head the warnings etc but it would then not be by accident waiving ACA's liability on the matter.

A floating barrier(a few buoys and a rope should suffice) that can freeze into place around the aerator seems to be the easiest solution and protect the ACA from liability.

Furthermore there are some aerators that are placed close to shore on certain lakes. It would be easy to fence off the area in those types of situations.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-30-2015, 10:29 PM
brown trout brown trout is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 60
Default

Don,

Wasn't intended to be a directed response or to cause any issues. Just was a possible solution to the cresting a hole in the ice issue. Was just suggesting a solution. Had your name at the start simply because you started the thread.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-01-2015, 08:05 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Damn IPad - first sentence had NO changed to "on".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Browntrout,

I have absolutely control on how aeration occurs or not.
Further, I have no control over which lakes, ponds or sloughs aeration is attempted.
The selection, planning, implementation, foot work, permits are all someone else's responsibility. All I have attempted to do is keep anglers informed about the issue and asked their skills in determining a solution. The ACA was made aware of this thread.
Whose is doing the selection of lakes, the criteria used for selection, the aeration process used will be revealed by the CEO of the ACA at a Provincial Fisheries Roundtable meeting Oct 17.

Regards,

Don
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-01-2015, 09:26 AM
xmastree xmastree is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
The code is worded as such.

"Every one who makes or causes to be made an opening in ice that is open to or frequented by the public is under a legal duty to guard it in a manner that is adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident and is adequate to warn them that the opening exists."

The key wording if I were a lawyer would be "adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident and is adequate to warn them that the opening exists.". Signage to warn them of the aeration and a visible barrier surrounding the area close to aerator would be plenty adequate to prevent a person from falling in by accident. There may still be people that don't head the warnings etc but it would then not be by accident waiving ACA's liability on the matter.

A floating barrier(a few buoys and a rope should suffice) that can freeze into place around the aerator seems to be the easiest solution and protect the ACA from liability.

Furthermore there are some aerators that are placed close to shore on certain lakes. It would be easy to fence off the area in those types of situations.
Do you think they would fall in "by accident" on purpose. You have to prevent the accident or be liable, that's why a physical barrier is required.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-01-2015, 09:45 AM
xmastree xmastree is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Xmastree,

Tough to FF when casting to a 8" hole.

Don
You guys that still fish with wooden poles are so far behind.....I would suggest using a battery operated tip up!
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-01-2015, 07:33 PM
pope pope is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 335
Default

Best chance until something is resolved, is to be running aeration now until freeze up and hope for the best. What a waste.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-01-2015, 08:19 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Folks,

Aeration equipment installed into Beaver Lake today. The ACAc plan which will be revealed Oct. 17 may tell us how long it will run.

Regards,



Don
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.