I own the waterway...Leave now.

[MrCornford]

What a stupid law that is, if the waterway crosses several properties, it is shared property. I don't know where the law comes into being upstream and pollution etc.

 

[Ben78]

I own my house block...I know where my boundaries are...IF I owned a rural block...I would also know what is mine...and what is not.

I once owned a block that backed onto the Peel River. Over the course of 50 years the river had changed its course and flooding had reduced my backyard a little. I couldn't find a survey peg. Based on neighbours rear fences I had a rough estimate though. There was just enough room along the top of the bank to follow the back fencelines to walk along the river. One afternoon I noticed a couple of school kids walking along there and went down to meet them "what are you guys up to?" "Just walking...", "Right, whats that knife for?" "Oh, we found it". I confiscated the knife and escorted the lads back through my place to the footpath. In hindsight probably not the smartest thing to do but like it or not we *all* judge character immediately - and a couple of teens walking a riverbank without a fishing rod in hand was enough for me.

But yes - you are right. Rural property owners should know what is theirs and what is not!

 

[dwt]

A lot of talk about private land access here....and I agree 100%...permission first.

However, my post was about a land owners claiming something that was not his/hers...approached rudely and got right up in our faces.
I own my house block...I know where my boundaries are...IF I owned a rural block...I would also know what is mine...and what is not.

Trying to kick people out because they are close to your land is bollocks.....
Is like me saying no one can walk the footpath in front of my house because " they might be bad".

I totally agree, if the area around where your digging is not private property, and is crown land, you should have unbridled access.
However if someone was walking along your footpath, opend your gate, come into your property, then I'm guessing you'd have something to say, forum threads take a different turn all the time on topics mate

 

[Goldtarget]

A lot of talk about private land access here....and I agree 100%...permission first.

However, my post was about a land owners claiming something that was not his/hers...approached rudely and got right up in our faces.
I own my house block...I know where my boundaries are...IF I owned a rural block...I would also know what is mine...and what is not.

Trying to kick people out because they are close to your land is bollocks.....
Is like me saying no one can walk the footpath in front of my house because " they might be bad".

Fair enough. The gold had to come from somewhere. In the end everyone has a better day if there's no conflict. After the cops are called if things get ugly just envisage what decision that officer has to face. If he can't put the vehicle up beside the waterway he will be going through the front gate of the local bloke who called, speak to the local bloke who owns the land and the visitor to the area that caused them to get upset. Better to be onside I reckon from the get go. But we live in an age of entitlement, bugger the locals. As I said country connections run deep.

 

[casper]

And this from here
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/la195848/s386.html

(1) The owner or occupier for the time being of land adjacent to a watercourse the bed and banks of which have remained the property of the Crown by virtue of section 385
(2) An owner or occupier referred to in subsection (1) has the same right to seek and obtain a remedy for trespass against a person (other than the Crown or an Authority or a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority) trespassing on the part of the bed and banks adjoining the owner's or occupier's land

Horse going by the above if the property goes as far as the creek, then unless you were in the water or on the opposite bank your technically trespassing and they have the right to ask you to move.

Am I reading that right?

Interesting subject ....consider this though if he was carrying a Fossicking Licence or Miner's Right or even a Fishing Licence then he would be "a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority"

Am I reading that right?

casper

 

[Horse]

And this from here
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/la195848/s386.html

(1) The owner or occupier for the time being of land adjacent to a watercourse the bed and banks of which have remained the property of the Crown by virtue of section 385
(2) An owner or occupier referred to in subsection (1) has the same right to seek and obtain a remedy for trespass against a person (other than the Crown or an Authority or a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority) trespassing on the part of the bed and banks adjoining the owner's or occupier's land

Horse going by the above if the property goes as far as the creek, then unless you were in the water or on the opposite bank your technically trespassing and they have the right to ask you to move.

Am I reading that right?

LC76...I am not up to speed with Victorian legislation as I am in NSW.
I do know I was told by DPI Crown Lands Section that I am free to fossick in that watercourse providing I do not tresspass to get there and I abide by fossicking laws.

In the following Pic...I parked car at Position A. and was working a spot at position B...The outline shows the Lot of land owned.
All bases covered

edit...covered DP number on Map

 

[SWright]

I own my house block...I know where my boundaries are...IF I owned a rural block...I would also know what is mine...and what is not.

I once owned a block that backed onto the Peel River. Over the course of 50 years the river had changed its course and flooding had reduced my backyard a little. I couldn't find a survey peg. Based on neighbours rear fences I had a rough estimate though. There was just enough room along the top of the bank to follow the back fencelines to walk along the river. One afternoon I noticed a couple of school kids walking along there and went down to meet them "what are you guys up to?" "Just walking...", "Right, whats that knife for?" "Oh, we found it". I confiscated the knife and escorted the lads back through my place to the footpath. In hindsight probably not the smartest thing to do but like it or not we *all* judge character immediately - and a couple of teens walking a riverbank without a fishing rod in hand was enough for me.

But yes - you are right. Rural property owners should know what is theirs and what is not!

G'day Ben78

I know what you mean when you some people around a place that are not acting normally. Just a little thing I found out a while ago-I was working as a surveyor's offsider and doing some rural work. what I learnt was that fence lines - even old timer's ones are rarely accurately reflecting true property boundaries. Fences are changed all the time. What the others have said is generally correct that most significant waterways are owned by the Crown not property owners. the rules vary from state to state though.

I was up at one of my favourite gold places when a bunch of toffs also walked up and told me I was on private land and in no uncertain terms told me to "go away". I dragged out all my maps - including the Parish and land titles map, and pointed out the error of their interpretation. they still persistent and asked a little shyly where was a from. So I told them I was from BHP and we were going to start drilling and excaving there next week. They went white and evidently went away themselves to badger poor old BHP.

Araluen

 

[Hiluxlou]

Sometimes it's best to just walk away if a landholder is objecting to your being in the river , getting back to the car to find all your tyres are flat wouldn't be much fun ?

 

[magneticsand]

https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/img/member-images/2101/1421195576_treechangeville.jpg

edit...covered DP number on Map

What program is that horse?

 

[Horse]

Sometimes it's best to just walk away if a landholder is objecting to your being in the river , getting back to the car to find all your tyres are flat wouldn't be much fun ?

Would not be wise to screw with my vehicle when I know where he lives.

All the time it is best to stand up for your rights and not let idiots walk over you.
If we all back off every time, even when we are in the right...there will be no fossicking left anywhere.

 

[Horse]

https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/img/member-images/2101/1421195576_treechangeville.jpg

edit...covered DP number on Map

What program is that horse?

http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ is the map used there...powerful tool, plenty of otions

 

[Marked]

And this from here
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/la195848/s386.html

(1) The owner or occupier for the time being of land adjacent to a watercourse the bed and banks of which have remained the property of the Crown by virtue of section 385
(2) An owner or occupier referred to in subsection (1) has the same right to seek and obtain a remedy for trespass against a person (other than the Crown or an Authority or a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority) trespassing on the part of the bed and banks adjoining the owner's or occupier's land

Horse going by the above if the property goes as far as the creek, then unless you were in the water or on the opposite bank your technically trespassing and they have the right to ask you to move.

Am I reading that right?

Interesting subject ....consider this though if he was carrying a Fossicking Licence or Miner's Right or even a Fishing Licence then he would be "a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority"

Am I reading that right?

casper

I read that the same as you Casper.

 

[casper]

And this from here
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/la195848/s386.html

(1) The owner or occupier for the time being of land adjacent to a watercourse the bed and banks of which have remained the property of the Crown by virtue of section 385
(2) An owner or occupier referred to in subsection (1) has the same right to seek and obtain a remedy for trespass against a person (other than the Crown or an Authority or a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority) trespassing on the part of the bed and banks adjoining the owner's or occupier's land

Horse going by the above if the property goes as far as the creek, then unless you were in the water or on the opposite bank your technically trespassing and they have the right to ask you to move.

Am I reading that right?

Interesting subject ....consider this though if he was carrying a Fossicking Licence or Miner's Right or even a Fishing Licence then he would be "a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority"

Am I reading that right?

casper

I read that the same as you Casper.

Ta! Marked
The definition of the word sanction in Law is complex but in this case i'm certain that it is 4) v. to allow or approve. This meaning is ironically in contrast to the other operative definitions of "sanction" which are to "punish".

On a re-reading of the afore quoted legislation it is unambiguously clear which definition applies i.e. (2) An owner or occupier referred to in subsection (1) has the same right to seek and obtain a remedy for trespass against a person "(other than the Crown or an Authority or a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority ................"

casper

 

[LC76]

And this from here
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/la195848/s386.html

(1) The owner or occupier for the time being of land adjacent to a watercourse the bed and banks of which have remained the property of the Crown by virtue of section 385
(2) An owner or occupier referred to in subsection (1) has the same right to seek and obtain a remedy for trespass against a person (other than the Crown or an Authority or a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority) trespassing on the part of the bed and banks adjoining the owner's or occupier's land

Horse going by the above if the property goes as far as the creek, then unless you were in the water or on the opposite bank your technically trespassing and they have the right to ask you to move.

Am I reading that right?

Interesting subject ....consider this though if he was carrying a Fossicking Licence or Miner's Right or even a Fishing Licence then he would be "a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority"

Am I reading that right?

casper

Not sure if your being a smartass there casper but fair enough.

 

[Twapster]

Sometimes it's best to just walk away if a landholder is objecting to your being in the river , getting back to the car to find all your tyres are flat wouldn't be much fun ?

That may be so, and I also advocate being pleasant and accommodating to landowners. HOWEVER, to think that because you own acres of land you have a right to SPOOK people off areas JUST OUTSIDE your property, means you are unlawfully pushing the boundaries. I dont like bullys and sometimes with all good intentions, prospectors are bullied from spots that are actually crown land, and I think this is the point of the thread.

Nudnle guy is a classic example, putting fake signs up and making people think they cant prospect in spots that they have every right to prospect on.

While one is best to seek permission, I personally dont agree that any Australian river should be owned by a farmer. We are mainly talking about one man and one rod, or one man and his pans, to put things in perspective. If a farmer tells me to piss off and for all intensive purposes I'm on Crown land, it should be a punishable offense to do so, in that any farmer who asks someone to leave crown land should be accountable for that request.

That would stop some of these bullies from us prospectors simply enjoying this great land. Who dares say they own the land that we all walk on, is asking for a fight.

While there are legal boundaries we must all abide, the point of this post is that we should not be told to "get lost" when we are just walking on crown land. If its not crown land, it should be made clear to "normal people". Prospectors should not have to spend hours overlaying maps etc to get it right, and quite frankly thats the point of this discussion. If a farmer wants to SPOOK people away from Crown land just because they own everything around the river, then that farmer is taking things too far and needs to be put in their place by the authorities. Stepping off my high horse now!

Unfortunately us prospectors who are just wanting to enjoy the "great outdoors" get caught up in these debates. While there are pigs out there that ruin it for the rest of us, just because you or I own land doesn't mean we should be allowed to deny non land owners some sort of "passage" and "indulgence" on some portions of that land, in particular river access. Id be happy to debate anyone that thinks they "own" an Australian river or reasonable access to that river!

 

[casper]

And this from here
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/la195848/s386.html

(1) The owner or occupier for the time being of land adjacent to a watercourse the bed and banks of which have remained the property of the Crown by virtue of section 385
(2) An owner or occupier referred to in subsection (1) has the same right to seek and obtain a remedy for trespass against a person (other than the Crown or an Authority or a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority) trespassing on the part of the bed and banks adjoining the owner's or occupier's land

Horse going by the above if the property goes as far as the creek, then unless you were in the water or on the opposite bank your technically trespassing and they have the right to ask you to move.

Am I reading that right?

Interesting subject ....consider this though if he was carrying a Fossicking Licence or Miner's Right or even a Fishing Licence then he would be "a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority"

Am I reading that right?

casper

Not sure if your being a smartass there casper but fair enough.

Actually it was an innocent question in reprise to your post and now I'm not sure how to respond to that seeing as you proffered the question "Am i reading it Right?" before i did :/

Anyways my dear departed mum always said "if the cap fits wear it" so i guess 'cos i can unpick stuff and come to a plausible conclusion i must be a "smart arse" - I'm not offended

casper

 

[Horse]

Sometimes it's best to just walk away if a landholder is objecting to your being in the river , getting back to the car to find all your tyres are flat wouldn't be much fun ?

That may be so, and I also advocate being pleasant and accommodating to landowners. HOWEVER, to think that because you own acres of land you have a right to SPOOK people off areas JUST OUTSIDE your property, means you are unlawfully pushing the boundaries. I dont like bullys and sometimes with all good intentions, prospectors are bullied from spots that are actually crown land, and I think this is the point of the thread.

Nudnle guy is a classic example, putting fake signs up and making people think they cant prospect in spots that they have every right to prospect on.

While one is best to seek permission, I personally dont agree that any Australian river should be owned by a farmer. We are mainly talking about one man and one rod, or one man and his pans, to put things in perspective. If a farmer tells me to piss off and for all intensive purposes I'm on Crown land, it should be a punishable offense to do so, in that any farmer who asks someone to leave crown land should be accountable for that request.

That would stop some of these bullies from us prospectors simply enjoying this great land. Who dares say they own the land that we all walk on, is asking for a fight.

While there are legal boundaries we must all abide, the point of this post is that we should not be told to "get lost" when we are just walking on crown land. If its not crown land, it should be made clear to "normal people". Prospectors should not have to spend hours overlaying maps etc to get it right, and quite frankly thats the point of this discussion. If a farmer wants to SPOOK people away from Crown land just because they own everything around the river, then that farmer is taking things too far and needs to be put in their place by the authorities. Stepping off my high horse now!

Unfortunately us prospectors who are just wanting to enjoy the "great outdoors" get caught up in these debates. While there are pigs out there that ruin it for the rest of us, just because you or I own land doesn't mean we should be allowed to deny non land owners some sort of "passage" and "indulgence" on some portions of that land, in particular river access. Id be happy to debate anyone that thinks they "own" an Australian river or reasonable access to that river!

Great post Twapster...you put it in words better than I ever could

 

[silver]

Well,....I must add that I had a lady start to tell me what I shouldn't and couldn't be doing, so, in no uncertain term I said to her,"don't you go bullying me, or I will take a photo of you and put it in the paper", to which she replied " I could do likewise",..well, I said you just go ahead then,..and she completely changed her tune,...so much so that she became interested as to what it was that I was actually doing ,..until she ended up with an education that fixed her misconceptions about what it was that I was actually doing for the environment. To cut a longer story short,..by the time we parted company she was looking forward to the next time that we should meet.
So a bit of confrontation showing that I was not about to be bullied in any way eventuated in an awkward situation remedying itself so much so that the problem was alleviated completely(not that this will work in every circumstance),...Then again I have kissed the blarney stone(and acquired the gift of the gab) so it will work for me every time(and, that is my expectation).

 

[dwt]

And this from here
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/la195848/s386.html

Horse going by the above if the property goes as far as the creek, then unless you were in the water or on the opposite bank your technically trespassing and they have the right to ask you to move.

Am I reading that right?

Interesting subject ....consider this though if he was carrying a Fossicking Licence or Miner's Right or even a Fishing Licence then he would be "a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority"

Am I reading that right?

casper

I read that the same as you Casper.

Ta! Marked
The definition of the word sanction in Law is complex but in this case i'm certain that it is 4) v. to allow or approve. This meaning is ironically in contrast to the other operative definitions of "sanction" which are to "punish".

On a re-reading of the afore quoted legislation it is unambiguously clear which definition applies i.e. (2) An owner or occupier referred to in subsection (1) has the same right to seek and obtain a remedy for trespass against a person "(other than the Crown or an Authority or a person acting under the sanction of the Crown or an Authority ................"

casper

Frequently Asked Questions About Miners Rights
Licensing and Approvals
Policy a

1. What is a Miners Right?
A Miners Right is a permit to prospect for minerals on unreserved Crown land or private land where the permission of the landowner has been granted.
2. What is prospecting/fossicking?
Prospecting involves the use of metal detectors, hand tools, pans or simple sluices in the search for gold and gemstones.
3. Why is a Miners Right required to prospect for minerals?
All minerals belong to the Crown, even on private land. A Miners Right transfers the ownership of any minerals found whilst prospecting, to the holder of the Miners Right.
4. Who needs a Miners Right?
Anyone searching for minerals needs to have an exploration licence, a mining licence, a prospecting licence, a retention licence or a Miners Right.
5. Does that mean that a Miners Right is required even if you are fossicking on your own land?
Yes.

Here you go, strait out of the play book.
Doesn't say anywhere about a miners right allowing the holder to be acting under "authority of the crown",
So to go through, across, or over private property, your still going to need permission

 

[casper]

Thanks DWT - that's pretty succinct is't it - "game, set, and match" I'd say for us Victorians...........

casper