Trouble is Mike,after they've paddled away they will never be seen again,how do you charge someone with an offence with no offender,or proof of offence,even a photograph wouldn't help much unless they had criminal record and when the police turn up three days later they will not be interested in the slightest...
Canoe reply from HDYGO thread
- Thread starter no-one in particular
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2009
- Messages
- 9,335
- Reaction score
- 1,692
steve2
Well-known member
If you really want to know what is happening read the British Canoeing website and the British Stand-up Paddle Association website. Plenty of articles about paddling and paddle boards, access rights, where they can use the boards etc.
One thing I picked up on was that landowners following leaving the EU could raise money by giving more access to waterways for paddlers and other users.
One thing I picked up on was that landowners following leaving the EU could raise money by giving more access to waterways for paddlers and other users.
mikench
Well-known member
I agree Alan that it is difficult if not impossible to police and enforce. As in most potential legal action the cost is as important a consideration as the validity of the claim, often more so.
My point is that a club is wasting money paying for fishing rights which are constantly undermined/ ruined by paddlers. Paddlers won't pay a licence to the landowner so , if by letting indiscriminate use he loses revenue , he might do something about it.
My point is that a club is wasting money paying for fishing rights which are constantly undermined/ ruined by paddlers. Paddlers won't pay a licence to the landowner so , if by letting indiscriminate use he loses revenue , he might do something about it.
I cannot envisage that being given any credence whatsoever, in all honesty.
There are no sound reasons behind that statement other than someone on the paddling site trying to make a case, no matter how spurious, in favour of leaving the EU.
There are no restrictions, (from the EU or elsewhere) as to who a riparian owner can lease his rights to . . . . so that is just another example of an unfounded canard being used to support a favoured case.
steve2
Well-known member
I never realised that paddlers already had access to 5000 km of waterways so maybe those that we complain about have as much right to be there as you and I have.
I also wouldn't mind betting they also have more members than the AT and have a more powerful lobby. They are always pushing the fitness and well being of paddling and with a Government looking to increase fitness they have a point. What easier way then saying get out on the water and enjoy yourself while getting fitter.
I also wouldn't mind betting they also have more members than the AT and have a more powerful lobby. They are always pushing the fitness and well being of paddling and with a Government looking to increase fitness they have a point. What easier way then saying get out on the water and enjoy yourself while getting fitter.
dorsetsteve
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2015
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 189
Hasn’t there literally just been a landmark case with this, whereby a Canoer was charged £10k for his actions. It was said to be definitive that you can’t just paddle where you fancy.
The trouble with this lot is, unlike us, they wish for unfettered and unchallengable access and wish to get that as a right rather than a contract. We pay a licence fee and must have the land owners permission, all pretty logical.
There may be some loose corner to pick at but it’s pretty simple, no you may not just wander through people’s land irrespective of the mode of transport, unless there’s a right of way such as a public footpath or navigable route. A non navigable river with no history as one, is not a navigation route or a right of way. It’s called trespass, it’s really rather simple, despite the nonsense it’s rolled in.
The trouble with this lot is, unlike us, they wish for unfettered and unchallengable access and wish to get that as a right rather than a contract. We pay a licence fee and must have the land owners permission, all pretty logical.
There may be some loose corner to pick at but it’s pretty simple, no you may not just wander through people’s land irrespective of the mode of transport, unless there’s a right of way such as a public footpath or navigable route. A non navigable river with no history as one, is not a navigation route or a right of way. It’s called trespass, it’s really rather simple, despite the nonsense it’s rolled in.