Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[bennygesserit]

A) The permits are free, but i can't see any refrence to age?????.....so i believe you do need one, whether you are 5 or 105?

B) I ask if a towpath is common land? i doubt it very much, isn't common land something that dates back well before canals?.......you (and i) may not agree with the anglers who say you shouldn't be there........but perhaps they feel you are not abidding by the waterways greencode (available where you obtain your cycling permit from!) which states you should look out for anglers tackle.


A few posts back Benny you said you had the right to cycle anywhere you wish..........you do not.


I have to put up with all the paddlers on the Wye........it meand they have in effect STOPPED my daytime fishing at certain times of the year, I do not want their masses on the stretches of river i can still fish.

When I said cycle where I want I mean't cycle across the grass on the park , which I often do , but I wouldn't do it when there was a footy match on , even though I would on every other day so I think I have the right to be there.

You are right maybe the towpath isn't common land in the legal sense but I have cycled there and so has everyone else without a permit, who knows what the legal situation is.

As for the waterways code or whatever it is , I walked past on the opposite side of the bank in a high viz jacket with my dogs , on land that people graze their horses on , so they can **** off

Now I understand about a number of canoeists wouuld ruin your day , but Sam Vines says even one would , not being a river angler I don't understand that.

I think if a canoe club is allowing multiple and sometimes drunk canoeists to ruin your fishing then you have a real case but the occaisonal lone , polite canoeist seems a different story.

 

[sam vimes]

Now I understand about a number of canoeists wouuld ruin your day , but Sam Vines says even one would , not being a river angler I don't understand that.

Nope, I said it can, depending on the depth and clarity of the water. It's not definite that your day will be ruined, but in the right circumstances, it's highly likely.

 

[bennygesserit]

Nope, I said it can, depending on the depth and clarity of the water. It not definite that your day will be ruined, but in the right circumstances, it's highly likely.

So maybe Sam if canoeists understood what those circumstances were they could be educated in how to get past you in the correct way ? If there is a correct way of course.

 

[sam vimes]

So maybe Sam if canoeists understood what those circumstances were they could be educated in how to get past you in the correct way ? If there is a correct way of course.

I can't see it personally. You aren't talking about wide deep rivers and, sadly, I don't believe that people that are banging on about their "rights", whilst doing everything they can to avoid paying for them, are remotely interested. I'm afraid that I see the whole debate as little more than lip service in an attempt to gain concessions. As far as I'm concerned, paddlers have two options. They leave things as they are, paddle where they are allowed and be just about tolerated when they paddle where they aren't allowed. Alternatively, they take their legal argument to court and run the risk of being defeated. If they win, anglers will just have to take it on the chin.

 

[bennygesserit]

I can't see it personally. You aren't talking about wide deep rivers and, sadly, I don't believe that people that are banging on about their "rights", whilst doing everything they can to avoid paying for them, are remotely interested. I'm afraid that I see the whole debate as little more than lip service in an attempt to gain concessions. As far as I'm concerned, paddlers have two options. They leave things as they are, paddle where they are allowed and be just about tolerated when they paddle where they aren't allowed. Alternatively, they take their legal argument to court and run the risk of being defeated. If they win, anglers will just have to take it on the chin.

But is there a way they could get past hou , on the rivers you favour , without disturbing you or at least minimising the disturbance ?

 

[sam vimes]

But is there a way they could get past hou , on the rivers you favour , without disturbing you or at least minimising the disturbance ?

Yep, they could get out and walk (portage). Somehow I don't think they are going to be up for that. Particularly as it means that they are definitely trespassing should they do so.

 

[twotrucks]

A) The permits are free, but i can't see any refrence to age?????.....so i believe you do need one, whether you are 5 or 105?

B) I ask if a towpath is common land? i doubt it very much, isn't common land something that dates back well before canals?.......you (and i) may not agree with the anglers who say you shouldn't be there........but perhaps they feel you are not abidding by the waterways greencode (available where you obtain your cycling permit from!) which states you should look out for anglers tackle.

For goodness sake Berty, what he is trying to say is that your knowledge is out of date, cycling permits don't exist any more, everyone has a right to cycle on a C&RT towpath without needing a permit.

The usual nonsense that fishing should take precedence because you have paid comes up again. You have paid for the right to fish, not the right to exclude other users or insist that they somehow stop doing what they do every other day of the week just because you are there. You have no right to obstruct the towpath and are supposed to reel your lines in promptly when boats (who have also paid to be there) come past. I seldom see that happen.

Really, I have no problem at all with river anglers, I know and respect lots of them and am positive about the sport until the point where militant folks start telling everyone else that they have no rights because theirs are somehow pre-emininent. Do you honestly think that taking pot-shots at cyclists for using towpaths, walkers for walking on a footpath, paddlers for using the wrong colour canoes looks at all sane to the rest of the public. Honestly?

 

[richiekelly]

When I said cycle where I want I mean't cycle across the grass on the park , which I often do , but I wouldn't do it when there was a footy match on , even though I would on every other day so I think I have the right to be there.

You are right maybe the towpath isn't common land in the legal sense but I have cycled there and so has everyone else without a permit, who knows what the legal situation is.

As for the waterways code or whatever it is , I walked past on the opposite side of the bank in a high viz jacket with my dogs , on land that people graze their horses on , so they can **** off

Now I understand about a number of canoeists wouuld ruin your day , but Sam Vines says even one would , not being a river angler I don't understand that.

I think if a canoe club is allowing multiple and sometimes drunk canoeists to ruin your fishing then you have a real case but the occaisonal lone , polite canoeist seems a different story.

That part of your post shows a real lack of understanding of fishing small, shallow clear rivers, it can take many hours of stealthy feeding to get fish to feed on these rivers, the large shadow of one canoe passing through the swim will always cause the fish to bolt for cover, its a natural reaction that is to do with self preservation, fight or flight.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

I can think of many situations where a single canoe could wreck a swim for hours. Just think of any swim where you need to keep a low profile, stay hidden, use stealth and patience to attract the fish or get them feeding confidently in front of you. A canoeist chomping through is the antithesis of that. The only times when they arent going to disperse and unsettle the fish is if the water is deep, turbid or sufficiently wide, or the fish have seen it all before on a very regular basis.

The "conflict" between canoeing and angling can be an uneven one - the angler suffers whilst the canoeist does not.

 

[bennygesserit]

For goodness sake Berty, what he is trying to say is that your knowledge is out of date, cycling permits don't exist any more, everyone has a right to cycle on a C&RT towpath without needing a permit.

The usual nonsense that fishing should take precedence because you have paid comes up again. You have paid for the right to fish, not the right to exclude other users or insist that they somehow stop doing what they do every other day of the week just because you are there. You have no right to obstruct the towpath and are supposed to reel your lines in promptly when boats (who have also paid to be there) come past. I seldom see that happen.

Really, I have no problem at all with river anglers, I know and respect lots of them and am positive about the sport until the point where militant folks start telling everyone else that they have no rights because theirs are somehow pre-emininent. Do you honestly think that taking pot-shots at cyclists for using towpaths, walkers for walking on a footpath, paddlers for using the wrong colour canoes looks at all sane to the rest of the public. Honestly?

I didn't read his post like that at all , I think he agreed that I had the right to be there.

---------- Post added at 13:03 ---------- Previous post was at 13:00 ----------

That part of your post shows a real lack of understanding of fishing small, shallow clear rivers, it can take many hours of stealthy feeding to get fish to feed on these rivers, the large shadow of one canoe passing through the swim will always cause the fish to bolt for cover, its a natural reaction that is to do with self preservation, fight or flight.

Again I have freely admitted that , but maybe a lot of more reasonable canoeists also don't understand that either , I know many canoeists are reading this thread , so it can only be a good thing to have it spelled out.

 

[Poshpaul (Angling Trust and PaSC)]

cycling permits don't exist any more, everyone has a right to cycle on a C&RT towpath without needing a permit.

At least that eliminates a major farce. Pre C&RT cyclists had to have a permit...which they had to download. it was free.

Got to say the free access and use of towpaths by cyclists is one of the issues that does get the narrow boaters I know very energised!!

Again find virtually all regular cyclists considerate to me as an angler and I always avoid having a pole across a towpath.

However when walking a canal towpath it's amazing how many of them seem to expect the walker to deviate into a muddy spot rather then them - I always politely indicate to them that they are free to pass me through the mud...I'm staying on the dry bit!!

 

[barbelboi]

That part of your post shows a real lack of understanding of fishing small, shallow clear rivers, it can take many hours of stealthy feeding to get fish to feed on these rivers, the large shadow of one canoe passing through the swim will always cause the fish to bolt for cover, its a natural reaction that is to do with self preservation, fight or flight.

Too true, even the shadow of a bird flying over in similar conditions can spook them.
Jerry

 

[bennygesserit]

Too true, even the shadow of a bird flying over in similar conditions can spook them.
Jerry

Jerry do Birds need a permit ?

 

[richiekelly]

I have joined SOP to try and get both sides views, one of the first things I came across was a post saying " the EA spend more on angling than they receive from the rod licence" do they ? or is the poster just posting rubbish
without any proof of this?

 

[barney20]

Of course you are anti angler!!........thats why you are here trying to explain why you want to break the law, you can fudge over it as much as you like but thats what this is all about!

Back to those cables.....they render fishing totally out, so (leaving out the hooks, unless the anglers right to fish movement kicks off) i presume, with land owners permission, it would be OK for anglers ( and other anti militant paddlers) to have something in place to enhance their right to a decent days fishing on stretches of river that have no navigation and/or trespass rights?

The whole argument can get sillier and sillier.......but the fact remains that you WILL destroy our rivers if allowed free for all passage.

I am now off for a malt........cross swords again soon.

I am not anti angler, and I am certainly not here to "explain why I want to break the law".
I don't want to break the law, I want to understand what the law is. Not just hear what people think it is or should be. Windy has said he is working on an answer and I appreciate that.

If cables placed by kayakers cause you a problem, and I can see they might, then you can complain to the landowner or fish somewhere else. If the landowner has given permission to erect the cables then they should make that clear before charging people to fish there. If the cables have been put up without permission then ask the landowner if you or he can remove them, and try and complain to the people who erected them, I am not here to defend all paddlers, I realise there are a few who act unreasonably.

I hope you enjoy the malt. (There are more important things than angling or canoeing)


---------- Post added at 07:25 ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 ----------

Yep, fine, I understand that, and what about the places where you just pass through but there's no standing right of navigation? As it is there's nothing conclusive to suggest that a river in its entireity is a right of way. Just a supposition of those that think they understand the law. Naturally, you are well within your rights to make a legal challenge any time you like.

Why not offer to pay to pass through in just the same way as an angler has to pay, or at least seek permission, to be there? That way there would be no argument. Anglers would just have to put up with it whether they like it or not. Unfortunately, that seems to be the problem for the paddlers, they want it all for free, effectively at anglers expense. There's your compromise. Pay for your access, where the landowners are agreeable, or at least seek permission. The issue goes away then. I put good money on the fact that many landowners will give you exclusive rights, should you pay more than anglers. Money talks, the snag being that, unlike anglers, you don't really want to pay.

If the right to navigate all rivers was formally recognised by the government they could introduce a navigation licence that was required for all rivers.

Offering to pay to pass through has a few problems, firstly IF I have a right of way why should I pay, it would be like charging people to walk along a public footpath that crosses a privately owned field.
Secondly if we temporarily assume that the right to navigate doesn't exist, or I am prepared to pay anyway, who do I pay? Anglers find one landowner and negotiate permission to fish from his land for a fee, canoeists want to paddle several miles, with multiple landowners, if the river goes through a village or town there could be a different landowner every few metres.

---------- Post added at 07:35 ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 ----------

I have joined SOP to try and get both sides views, one of the first things I came across was a post saying " the EA spend more on angling than they receive from the rod licence" do they ? or is the poster just posting rubbish
without any proof of this?

This was discussed at length on the SOTP forum, if you look at EA's annual accounts they spend far more on angling than they receive from rod licences. They also spend far more on navigation than they receive from navigation licences.

So yes it is true, but it doesn't really prove anything. Anglers, canoeists, and other river users are all subsidised by the general tax payer via the EA.

 

[sam vimes]

If the right to navigate all rivers was formally recognised by the government they could introduce a navigation licence that was required for all rivers.

Offering to pay to pass through has a few problems, firstly IF I have a right of way why should I pay, it would be like charging people to walk along a public footpath that crosses a privately owned field.
Secondly if we temporarily assume that the right to navigate doesn't exist, or I am prepared to pay anyway, who do I pay? Anglers find one landowner and negotiate permission to fish from his land for a fee, canoeists want to paddle several miles, with multiple landowners, if the river goes through a village or town there could be a different landowner every few metres.

All ifs and buts. If you want clarification, get yourself organized, pay through the nose and take your chances in the courts, as you've every right to do. As it stands, it's nothing like paying to use a public footpath and won't be unless you get that legal clarification. If the law is clarified and it is deemed akin to a public footpath, good luck to you.

In just the same way as you want to paddle several miles, I'd love to fish anywhere I liked for a fixed (low) fee. The reality, just as it is for you, we have to negotiate with multiple landowners for such unfettered access. The alternative being forming clubs and syndicates to do so on our behalf. The reality is that plenty of water is unavailable to us, sometimes due to the limits of our pocket, sometimes because landowners don't want to know. Unfortunately, for for both anglers and paddlers, that's the way of it. As an angler I accept that, paddlers don't. You see the onus being on anglers and landowners to prove you don't have the "right". Most anglers and landowners will take the polar opposite view, you prove that you do genuinely have that "right". Accept the limitations or challenge them in court, your choice. It really is that simple. No amount of bleating about the Magna Carta, or any other source, is going to change that. Hell, I'm not even claiming that you don't have a legal point, just that you'll never know until it's taken to court.

 

[barbelboi]

Jerry do Birds need a permit ?

They have the undisputed right to fly - Making a point of fact Benny, maybe you should fish a river sometime and see how easy fish scare
Jerry

 

[richiekelly]

I am not anti angler, and I am certainly not here to "explain why I want to break the law".
I don't want to break the law, I want to understand what the law is. Not just hear what people think it is or should be. Windy has said he is working on an answer and I appreciate that.

If cables placed by kayakers cause you a problem, and I can see they might, then you can complain to the landowner or fish somewhere else. If the landowner has given permission to erect the cables then they should make that clear before charging people to fish there. If the cables have been put up without permission then ask the landowner if you or he can remove them, and try and complain to the people who erected them, I am not here to defend all paddlers, I realise there are a few who act unreasonably.

I hope you enjoy the malt. (There are more important things than angling or canoeing)


---------- Post added at 07:25 ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 ----------



If the right to navigate all rivers was formally recognised by the government they could introduce a navigation licence that was required for all rivers.

Offering to pay to pass through has a few problems, firstly IF I have a right of way why should I pay, it would be like charging people to walk along a public footpath that crosses a privately owned field.
Secondly if we temporarily assume that the right to navigate doesn't exist, or I am prepared to pay anyway, who do I pay? Anglers find one landowner and negotiate permission to fish from his land for a fee, canoeists want to paddle several miles, with multiple landowners, if the river goes through a village or town there could be a different landowner every few metres.

---------- Post added at 07:35 ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 ----------



This was discussed at length on the SOTP forum, if you look at EA's annual accounts they spend far more on angling than they receive from rod licences. They also spend far more on navigation than they receive from navigation licences.

So yes it is true, but it doesn't really prove anything. Anglers, canoeists, and other river users are all subsidised by the general tax payer via the EA.

Thanks for that information, I wonder why the post I refered to didn't mention that paddlers are also subsidised as well as anglers

 

[geoffmaynard]

To canoe along a river I don't really need anything from any single specific landowner, my presence in "their" bit of the river is only going to be for seconds or at the most minutes and when I'm gone there will be no trace whatsoever that I've been there. There is no use of any of their resources at all (the water definitely doesn't belong to the landowner).

Right. Lets make this very clear - especially as other paddlers are reading this and may take your statements as Truth and so perpetuate the myth.
The Riparian (river bank and river bottom) owner DEFINITELY DOES own the water. End of. This is clarified in an earlier post on this thread from Windy (an ex-barrister for those not reading the whole thread). Therefor you need something from him: THE OWNER'S PERMISSION! This is the Law! It is NOT in dispute either, apart from those 'activists' who are dealing in dis or misinformation. It's as clear as any other law. There are no shades of grey. You either obey laws or you break them.
As others have said, if you don't like the laws, lobby to get them changed. Good luck with that.
Please someone take this back to the sotp website so that the well meaning honest paddler-people are not infected with these common lies and then go on to break the laws as a result of the misinformation.
Your whole argument is predicated on this tripe.

---------- Post added at 16:31 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ----------

And before you say 'show me that law', I don't need to. ANy more than a farmer needs to show you the law that says that the wild grass growing in his field is his, as well as the land.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

And a request for the law to be clarified.

I see my points below have been cleverly avoided, perhaps the paddlers don’t want to stump up so much for their ‘sport’?

“The BCU claims to have 50,000 members and I'm sure there's more (one or two of you lot by admission) who are not members. Let's say that to push it to the Court costs £1m, that £20 each of 50,000. Cheap as chips and you get your way, if it goes your way. Even if it cost £100 each (tot. £5m), if it was something I believed so strongly in I 'd pay that willingly.”

That part of your post shows a real lack of understanding of fishing small, shallow clear rivers, it can take many hours of stealthy feeding to get fish to feed on these rivers, the large shadow of one canoe passing through the swim will always cause the fish to bolt for cover, its a natural reaction that is to do with self preservation, fight or flight.

Rivers like the Colne and the Loddon, even parts of the Kennet this would happen

one of the first things I came across was a post saying " the EA spend more on angling than they receive from the rod licence" do they ?

This was discussed at length on the SOTP forum, if you look at EA's annual accounts they spend far more on angling than they receive from rod licences. They also spend far more on navigation than they receive from navigation licences.

Just where do you get those figures from, utter tripe! All the money from rod licence fees goes back into fisheries, that's not angling, it’s FISHERIES, slight difference. Other than rod licence fees, the EA get some grant in aid, but that is spent on the salmon rivers and it is but a small amount anyway. Coarse anglers gain no additional benefits whatsoever from the EA other what we pay for.

On navigation, the EA have a duty to keep all navigable waters open and the locks and weirs maintained whatever traffic goes through. The fact the many boaters and ALL CANOEISTS pay nothing doesn’t help. If canoeists would pay like small boats have to pay then the balance would probably be met or at least come closer.