Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[bennygesserit]

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.

Geoff you can own a piece of land that still has a public right of way across it, so you may own the land but not be able to stop people walking across it.

If you own the water then why do you need an extraction licence , if its your water you could do whatever you want with it - divert it somewhere else for instance.

---------- Post added at 17:05 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ----------

Hang on wouldn,t it mention this issue when you buy a piece of land with a river running through it ? If anyone owns such a piece of land what does it say on your deeds ?

 

[Berty]

For goodness sake Berty, what he is trying to say is that your knowledge is out of date, cycling permits don't exist any more, everyone has a right to cycle on a C&RT towpath without needing a permit.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

If you look on line the sites still say that permits should be obtained!!! but OK i accept they may be out of date to......but i wonder how many had them when they were needed?......anglers can't complain about boats on canals, they were built for them! in my mind they can't complain about walkers either......but cyclists should dismount, some of the morons expect to cycle at high speed non stop, they have no such right, why? because it is an offence to endanger others!.......but enough on bikes, i didn't bring them up.

You do have a problem with river anglers! why is it militant to say you have no right there when the law says the same?

On the sections where you are allowed i, as a paying member of the public, have the right to say you are destroying the natural aspect of the Wye........and is it truely navigable in some of the parts the "flotilla" starts out on?

 

[geoffmaynard]

Hang on wouldn,t it mention this issue when you buy a piece of land with a river running through it ? If anyone owns such a piece of land what does it say on your deeds ?

Geoff you can own a piece of land that still has a public right of way across it, so you may own the land but not be able to stop people walking across it.

If you own the water then why do you need an extraction licence , if its your water you could do whatever you want with it - divert it somewhere else for instance.

---------- Post added at 17:05 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ----------

Hang on wouldn,t it mention this issue when you buy a piece of land with a river running through it ? If anyone owns such a piece of land what does it say on your deeds ?

So you argue with Windy? Look at his CV again, then tell us he's wrong.

And yes, if there is a public right of way through a piece of land to be sold, the conveyancing search would find it. But these are just more red herrings Benny; the law is the law. Laws don't have to be fair, or even have to make sense, but they do have to be obeyed, otherwise you are breaking them. Black and white, no shades of grey.

---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:50 ----------

On the sections where you are allowed i, as a paying member of the public, have the right to say you are destroying the natural aspect of the Wye........and is it truely navigable in some of the parts the "flotilla" starts out on?

The Wye has a public right of navigation from just below Hay-on-Wye bridge, at the Herefordshire border. Navigation upstream of that point requires the permission of the owner.

 

[bennygesserit]

So you argue with Windy? Look at his CV again, then tell us he's wrong.

And yes, if there is a public right of way through a piece of land to be sold, the conveyancing search would find it. But these are just more red herrings Benny; the law is the law. Laws don't have to be fair, or even have to make sense, but they do have to be obeyed, otherwise you are breaking them. Black and white, no shades of grey.

---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:50 ----------



The Wye has a public right of navigation from just below Hay-on-Wye bridge, at the Herefordshire border. Navigation upstream of that point requires the permission of the owner.

Windy hasn't given his full unqaulified opinion yet , and to be frank I think its a little unfair to have the whole forum waiting for his answer , its his job not his hobby after all. And besides there are any number of very fine legal minds with differing opinions all over the web.

 

[barney20]

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.”

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

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.

I wasn't trying to avoid your point, I would happily donate to a fund to take this to court. I would first like to gain a greater understanding of the law, if some one explains to me why the whole of the pro navigation argument is wrong I will change my mind. So far a few bits of it have been disproved but there are several bits remaining unchallenged.

The figures come from EA's annual accounts, yes I fully agree all rod licence money goes into fisheries. Extra money is spent on all forms of fishing, check their accounts if you don't believe me. I accept that salmon stocks are very heavily subsidised, and that this is for wider environmental issues in addition to angling.

I pay, I am a canoeist, therefore your statement that "All CANOEISTS pay nothing" is wrong. Also many other canoeists pay as well. Canoes add very little to the cost of maintaining a navigation, we can cope with shallow water and blockages etc. The main costs of maintaining a navigation are the locks and dredging required for bigger boats on rivers such as the Thames, Medway, Severn etc.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

If you own the water then why do you need an extraction licence , if its your water you could do whatever you want with it - divert it somewhere else for instance.

What Geoff is saying is that it's the river bed that belongs to the landowner. The water, as has been said so many times, belongs to no one, but to travers on it across someone's land, i.e. the river bed, is trespass.

You can't divert it or abstract from it because the landowner downstream from you is entitled to the same rate of flow and enjoyment that you get out of it. That's why you need a licence, just like with planning permissions that get rejected because someone wants to build an inappropriate structure on their land that will impact on you or your aspect.

As for public footpaths, they are well defined and registered with the local county or unitary council, you must keep them free of any restrictons, i.e. fallen trees etc., for the public's use. There are other paths that are permissible paths that the public can access, but it is always with the landowners permission. Just what the canoeiests should be seeking re water.

Towpaths are that, for towing boats with horses or manpower, our 7½ miles stretch of the Wey Navigation was opened long before powered steam barges where the only means of propulsion was either by horse where allowed or by punting the barge with poles. Many have been turned into pathways these days, but not all are public footpaths. If anyone wants to argue that point they should check with the local authority or the owners, i.e. C&RT, EA, or in our case National Trust.

This is all by-the-by and nothing to do with the real subject.

---------- Post added at 19:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------

its his job

No it isn't his job, he's retired from that line of business. Read his CV... And anyway, no one is paying him and he couldn't legally practise anyway since he is not lodged with any chambers (so I believe)..

---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------

I wasn't trying to avoid your point, I would happily donate to a fund to take this to court. I would first like to gain a greater understanding of the law, if some one explains to me why the whole of the pro navigation argument is wrong I will change my mind. So far a few bits of it have been disproved but there are several bits remaining unchallenged.

That's putting the cart before the horse, if it was proven to you that you're wrong you wouldn't need to go to Court. But even though people are trying to prove you wrong you don't want to believe them so start up the fund and go to Court..

Extra money is spent on all forms of fishing, check their accounts if you don't believe me.

No, I told you. Separate fishing/angling from fisheries. Completely different. A fishery is a place where fish exist and it is the EA's duty (under WFD) to ensure that is upheld, but it may not be a place that is accessible by any means by an angler. There are many such places - EG the Chalvey Ditch nr Eton where no one is allowed to fish, it belongs to Eton College, but because of constant polutions the EA spends a small fortune on continuous restocking of it.

---------- Post added at 19:27 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------

I pay, I am a canoeist, therefore your statement that "All CANOEISTS pay nothing" is wrong. Also many other canoeists pay as well. Canoes add very little to the cost of maintaining a navigation, we can cope with shallow water and blockages etc. The main costs of maintaining a navigation are the locks and dredging required for bigger boats on rivers such as the Thames, Medway, Severn etc.

You really don't get it do you? "We don't need it, it's for bigger boats" - It's for ALL boats. I'm not going to broaden it any further, but say that roads are metalised enough for trucks to 38 tonnes (perhaps more now) so why do I want them that strong when I've only got a car? Your argument is silly. What do you pay, through the BCU? That is a pittance.

 

[The bad one]

A lot said by both sides, countered and recountered, claims of impact, no impact, understanding and misunderstanding on both sides.
So let add some facts to the impact debate here. England has two types of river Upland and Lowland, there may be some that fit in to both camps but are small in number.
Serious paddlers don’t want the lowland type, they are boring to them and don’t give them the Buzz, I’ve already made that point above. Therefore, it is the upland spate rivers of the North they really want access to. But it is these that have from an angler point of view no access rights to in the main.
By the way no paddler has address Windy’s statement about Lord Denings ruling in the 1960s.
But for the purpose of this post I’ll let that lie there.

A typical spate river has 3 fish elements to it and can be defined as thus Trout Zone, Coarse Zone and Tidal Zone.
The Trout Zone is where, from the paddlers point of view, the exciting water is found. Plenty of ruff white water, stopper and what are called Forces. “Simply” they can be described as waterfalls or drop steps in the river.
In this zone there are few coarse fish and why it’s called the Trout Zone. So few coarse anglers ever fish this zone and where the expensive beats and money is. In sort they tend to be exclusively game fishing.
The likelihood of a coarse angler wading in a redd is remote to say the least.
And game anglers won’t, because it’s the closed season.
A personal observation made over 40 + years, few coarse anglers will wade in a river to float fish during the winter. The av river temperature is between 3-8 C at best and an hour in that water means you will be very cold indeed even with the best thermal waders made.
The game anglers will tell you the same story in the early part of their season. The comments to me when checking cards is, “I’m freezing stood in this water and my feet are turning to blocks of ice. Usually followed by, “but there’s a fish in this pool and I’m going to have him!”

A canoe going through a redd, which tend to be very shallow and disturbing the gravel with the inevitable digging in of the paddle or the wafting over it, dislodges the eggs out of that redd, to drift off down river and perish. Atlantic Salmon are, even in the best of salmon rivers, still on the decline and becoming a threatened species.

So should an activity that might and does increase that threat still further be allowed?

Sam and others have eloquently stated the problems in the coarse zone that are encountered by anglers with canoes. What has not been discussed in any detail is the spawning habits of the riverine species this section contains. Most if not all riverine species spawn on the shallow riffles between March and as late as August, Spawning is river conditions and temperature dependant.
All species migrate and ruck up near these riffles and wait for the right conditions and temperature before they start the act of getting it on and shedding eggs. A canoe(s) passing over these fish can and do disturbed them prior to them getting it on. Scattering them far and wide, constant disturbance can and does cause them to give up and move of the riffles. The window of opportunity of the right conditions and temperature may well close through bad weather and that spawning lost for that year, the eggs getting reabsorbed. And/or the fish gets spawnbound and die. The latter being worst of all situations, not only do you lose that years recruitment, you lose the fish for further recruitment in years to come.

The act of shedding eggs is done on what substrate is available to the fish, but with chub, dace, bleak they prefer to shed it where available on weed (usually Ranunculus). And where does that weed grow? On the riffles and the shallower parts of the river. A canoe or person paddling or wading through such weed will break the adhesion of the eggs to the substrate or weed causing them to drift off down river to perish by predation, or poor oxygen flow over them through ending up in deeper water.
Any weed dislodged with eggs on it by you paddling through it, suffers the same fate.

What many anglers and definitely not paddlers realise is, riverine species have successful spawning very infrequently, about 1 in 8 years is successful. Add this to the other known threats to river stocks and you get the situation that is all too familiar and you have an unsustainable river and stock in it. This leads to the EA inevitably having to stock the river to try and bring it back to sustainable levels.
And who pays for that? Muggins anglers out of their licence money. You pay nothing for the damage you cause, do you?

No doubt you will say well we can have regulation so we only have access when there’s over a certain level on the river?
There are several problems with this, How will you police it? Not up to us, or the authorities, you want the access, it’s down to you to prove your policing can, will, does work. A code of conduct is just that, it is not policing. To police it properly you’d have to bring in a licensing system for every canoeist, so they can be identified if and when they break the rules, so effective sanctions can be taken against them. Within angling we already have in the main, this type of sanction.
I really can’t see that ever happening on your part.

Spate rivers drop very fast indeed, can and do regularly lose 2 metres in a 12 hour period. Someone travelling up from the SE seeing the river had 2.50 m on the night before, could and would find it down to .50m when they got there and by the time they came to the end of a 12K paddle and dragging out, it would be at NSL. Below the level they should be on the river.
Then there’s the idiot fringe that don’t give a flying about what level it’s at. They’re going canoeing and bollox to the rules, agreement, whatever!

And before anyone jumps in about the game anglers wading on riffles on the coarse zone whilst fish are spawning. Most clubs are mixed fishing in this area and many have rules pointing this out to them. Some clubs would withdraw their membership if the felt they were doing it deliberately. Any bailiff worth his salt would F’em up hill and down dale at minimum if they caught them doing it. So with angling we have the ability to police their activities. You don’t seem to have the same facility or ability.

The Tidal Zone really doesn’t need discussing as you have more or less access to it now but that’s not really where you want to be, and as one paddler said above, it’s flat water.
Only when a full life cycle analysis is fully know, and it is nowhere near being know as yet, could a proper costing be put on your damage to the river’s ecology and what the proper cost is you should pay. Like it or not you have an ecological impact and that cost could well be to high a price to pay for your sharing the rivers you really want access to.

 

[geoffmaynard]

What Geoff is saying is that it's the river bed that belongs to the landowner. The water, as has been said so many times, belongs to no one, but to travers on it across someone's land, i.e. the river bed, is trespass.

Not quite Jeff. I'm quoting Windy on Post 91:
"The owner of land in England (and a quick pardon me to any other lawyers wincing at my simplifying this complicated issue) basically owns the rights to the land to the centre of the earth below and to the furthest extents of the water, air and universe above."

 

[bennygesserit]

TBO thats a great post I always thought fish just spawned every year , successfully but reading a lot of stuff on the web I was surprised to find that sometimes the spawn is a massive net failure , lots of very good points made very well.

 

[Berty]

As anglers we have provided some pretty impressive debate.......not myself i hasten to add but the likes of Windy, Jeff, Geoff, and Phil (TBO) to name a few.

The paddlers choose to listen to none of it, and why should they? they want what is legally denied them and they are turning a "deaf en" to any counter debate.

Today in a local town i came across and actually photographed a sign...it said

"Highways act 1958....this footpath is private property and does not form part of the pavement. the public have no right of way thereon"

It is private, owned by someone, if it flooded it would still be private!!!! non navigatable!!! etc etc!

We anglers have voiced our opinion and presented our thoughts, i think it's time to let the paddlers stamp their feet and say "i want, i want" elsewhere.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Didn't realise I could actually copy this so I hope Simon Jackson Solicitors (experts in Fishery, Angling and Water Law) won't mind if I do. It will answer one of Benny's questions also...

2. RIPARIAN RIGHTS

Whilst there is no ownership of the water itself, rights exist in favour of the owner of the bed of the river or lake. Such rights only exist where water flows in a defined channel. There are therefore no property rights in relation to percolating water.

A riparian owner has the right to receive water from another riparian owner without sensible alteration in quantity or quality. Therefore a cause of action can be established if that right is infringed. However all riparian owners are entitled to use the flow of water passing their land for whatever purpose they wish subject to their obligations to neighbouring owners. An exception to this proposition concerns the right to remove water for agricultural purposes. Provided that such use is an “ordinary” use then an owner can take as much water as he wishes even if he exhausts the supply of water by such use. Thus a riparian owner can discharge into a river, divert a watercourse, place an obstruction or structure in a watercourse, clear the channel or use water for milling purposes provided that the rights of other riparian owners are not materially affected.

In addition to these rights the owner of the bed of a watercourse owns the right of navigation and the right of fishing.



On that last point we (our organisation) have just taken someone else to task on as they claimed the river bed and fishing rights yet we found that a public body actually did. Therefore, we found that it was held as free (re: cost) fishing - unless that person can claim his rights through the Land Registry, of course..
.
.
.
.

 

[david perry]

Not quite Geoff. I'm quoting Windy on Post 91:
"The owner of land in England (and a quick pardon me to any other lawyers wincing at my simplifying this complicated issue) basically owns the rights to the land to the centre of the earth below and to the furthest extents of the water, air and universe above."

Quite right. But...I believe this example is using the points of the 'water', 'air' 'and land etc'. as referral/reference points. points.
According to Peter Carty,a solicitor in Simon Jacksons solicitors a leading firm on matters of angling law and Simon Payne seneior lecturer in Environmental law "Angling & The Law" 1998, which I'm sure all anglers have next to their bed along with The Angling Times , their view is that the actual water in a fishery cannot be owned. The owner may have rights over the water but cannot own it whilst it is in the river (some extraction is allowed though - then the water becomes 'owned (Water Resources Act 1991 Section 221(I) And to quote Geoff M "End Of"



Far too many points to cover and multiple quotes I cannot do.

1) Given the number of comments about "We pay for our fishing", is this just about money? Would your arguments end if perhaps there was such a thing as a 'Canoeing licence'? (forget the practicalities of individual river owners for the moment) So lets say I bought a canoeing licence in yorkshire for our yorkshire rivers and it cost the same as rod licence and club fees, would you object to canoeists then?

2) The upper stretches of rivers, which are of interest to white water canoeists - those who like rapids etc., are often owned by those with Salmon and trout interests - Dukes and the like. Actually in Scotland many of these Dukes & Lords now share their waters legally with canoeists. So it;s not unbelievable that they would give up the fight to protect their interests from canoeists.

3) Not all paddlers would refuse compromise. I for one would welcome some compromise- and I'd certainly, as an example, agree not to paddle in the close season perhaps, or at other times. Even if I had a god given right to paddle whenever and wherever I want, I personally would cringe with embarrassment at finding myself canoeing past rows of anglers on a saturday taking part in a contest - I just would not want to - its bad manners!!?? I would not want the 'right' to spoil their fishing in the same way I don't walk all over the road, although I have a 'legal' right to do so, and spoil a driver's day out (Well OK it might spoil mine too - but you get the idea)

4) Canoeists don't damage rivers.

I can find the EA report link if you wish but they have produced an expert report in which they say canoeists do no damage to fish or fish stocks. Most of the upland rivers in which Salmon & Trout make their redds are spate rivers and are generally not canoeable when they are as shallow as The Bad One states, then you simple cannot canoe them. No serious canoeists wants to drag their prized possessions over gravel (Their canoes that is) They are much much better when flooded. And where canoeing agreements exist, for example the North Tyne, such conditions are a part of the agreements. I'm honest enough to admit that in shallower water it is highly likely we disturb fish by the dark shadow the canoe makes. That said I have disturbed a shoal of chub around the 2lb - 3lb mark, stopped paddling, gone back on foot and had one caught in less than ten minutes after canoeing through them.

But there's always a few idiots, and I'd hate to be a fisherman on the Wye for example
I assume there are a few idiots in the angling fraternity?.



5) "Anglers are on the whole conservers". Really?

If you are going to throw stones.....(or hemp) etc., then please don't throw them at all canoeists. I've never seen a canoeist dig great seating platforms out of steep banks for example, nor have I seen canoeists chop great gaps through thickets & reeds to get at the water.

I'm also aware that some fishermen clear huge amounts of weed from their swims before fishing - I've done it a cou;le of times. I 'm also aware that clubs or fishery managers will often clear huge amounts of weed from stretches of river.

I am aware that some paddling/canoeing clubs have done or helped in river clean ups, removing litter and discarded bikes & junk from out of rivers. Have anglers done the same?

Oh, and wasn't there a call some years ago by angling bodies for the closed season for coarse fishing to be abolished?? Perhaps you can explain the conservation value in that?


6. Allowing canoeing will not make things any worse and I cannot see how canoes could possible "Destroy all rivers" as one poster says. How?

I doubt very much whether allowing canoeing will actually alter the number of canoeists. I'm not aware of any potential canoe owners who won't buy or use a canoe, "Because it is illegal". And other than avoiding places where you might face abuse I really don't think the pattern and use of the rivers will change.

So in general, if it were proven in a court of law that there is a right to paddle rivers I don't think it'll make much difference - nothing much is going to change from a fishing perspective!

 

[Berty]

Quite right. But...I believe this example is using the points of the 'water', 'air' 'and land etc'. as referral/reference points. points.
According to Peter Carty,a solicitor in Simon Jacksons solicitors a leading firm on matters of angling law and Simon Payne seneior lecturer in Environmental law "Angling & The Law" 1998, which I'm sure all anglers have next to their bed along with The Angling Times , their view is that the actual water in a fishery cannot be owned. The owner may have rights over the water but cannot own it whilst it is in the river (some extraction is allowed though - then the water becomes 'owned (Water Resources Act 1991 Section 221(I) And to quote Geoff M "End Of"



Far too many points to cover and multiple quotes I cannot do.

1) Given the number of comments about "We pay for our fishing", is this just about money? Would your arguments end if perhaps there was such a thing as a 'Canoeing licence'? (forget the practicalities of individual river owners for the moment) So lets say I bought a canoeing licence in yorkshire for our yorkshire rivers and it cost the same as rod licence and club fees, would you object to canoeists then?

2) The upper stretches of rivers, which are of interest to white water canoeists - those who like rapids etc., are often owned by those with Salmon and trout interests - Dukes and the like. Actually in Scotland many of these Dukes & Lords now share their waters legally with canoeists. So it;s not unbelievable that they would give up the fight to protect their interests from canoeists.

3) Not all paddlers would refuse compromise. I for one would welcome some compromise- and I'd certainly, as an example, agree not to paddle in the close season perhaps, or at other times. Even if I had a god given right to paddle whenever and wherever I want, I personally would cringe with embarrassment at finding myself canoeing past rows of anglers on a saturday taking part in a contest - I just would not want to - its bad manners!!?? I would not want the 'right' to spoil their fishing in the same way I don't walk all over the road, although I have a 'legal' right to do so, and spoil a driver's day out (Well OK it might spoil mine too - but you get the idea)

4) Canoeists don't damage rivers.

I can find the EA report link if you wish but they have produced an expert report in which they say canoeists do no damage to fish or fish stocks. Most of the upland rivers in which Salmon & Trout make their redds are spate rivers and are generally not canoeable when they are as shallow as The Bad One states, then you simple cannot canoe them. No serious canoeists wants to drag their prized possessions over gravel (Their canoes that is) They are much much better when flooded. And where canoeing agreements exist, for example the North Tyne, such conditions are a part of the agreements. I'm honest enough to admit that in shallower water it is highly likely we disturb fish by the dark shadow the canoe makes. That said I have disturbed a shoal of chub around the 2lb - 3lb mark, stopped paddling, gone back on foot and had one caught in less than ten minutes after canoeing through them.

But there's always a few idiots, and I'd hate to be a fisherman on the Wye for example
I assume there are a few idiots in the angling fraternity?.



5) "Anglers are on the whole conservers". Really?

If you are going to throw stones.....(or hemp) etc., then please don't throw them at all canoeists. I've never seen a canoeist dig great seating platforms out of steep banks for example, nor have I seen canoeists chop great gaps through thickets & reeds to get at the water.

I'm also aware that some fishermen clear huge amounts of weed from their swims before fishing - I've done it a cou;le of times. I 'm also aware that clubs or fishery managers will often clear huge amounts of weed from stretches of river.

I am aware that some paddling/canoeing clubs have done or helped in river clean ups, removing litter and discarded bikes & junk from out of rivers. Have anglers done the same?

Oh, and wasn't there a call some years ago by angling bodies for the closed season for coarse fishing to be abolished?? Perhaps you can explain the conservation value in that?


6. Allowing canoeing will not make things any worse and I cannot see how canoes could possible "Destroy all rivers" as one poster says. How?

I doubt very much whether allowing canoeing will actually alter the number of canoeists. I'm not aware of any potential canoe owners who won't buy or use a canoe, "Because it is illegal". And other than avoiding places where you might face abuse I really don't think the pattern and use of the rivers will change.

So in general, if it were proven in a court of law that there is a right to paddle rivers I don't think it'll make much difference - nothing much is going to change from a fishing perspective!

Some real pathetic mis quotes there!!

 

[david perry]

I'm sorry think my post is pathetic and can't be bothered to reply Berty.

I didn't do multiple 'quotes' as some of the points were similar to other posters. Nor actually was I directly quoting anyone, other than I think one or two posters which I named, although I did use ( " ) a couple of times. I didn't think it would upset anyone.

I thought this thread was about substance not procedure.

 

[sam vimes]

1) Given the number of comments about "We pay for our fishing", is this just about money? Would your arguments end if perhaps there was such a thing as a 'Canoeing licence'? (forget the practicalities of individual river owners for the moment) So lets say I bought a canoeing licence in yorkshire for our yorkshire rivers and it cost the same as rod licence and club fees, would you object to canoeists then?

I don't object to paddlers now. In some circumstances I'd prefer it if they didn't plow, or even glide serenely, through my swim. However, I'm not going to attempt to stop you. I may even nod, smile or wave if they are civil. It might be through gritted teeth if I think that's my day spoiled though.

The things that annoy me are them bleating on about their "rights" when there's a reasonable chance that those "rights" don't exist. The mistaken idea that what they are doing causes an angler no problem whatsoever and the fact that you want carte blanche to do what you do, wherever you want to do it, for free or at least for peanuts.

Pay for it, go the legal route and prove your case and I'll have no objection whatsoever to your presence. I still may not like it when you ruin my day on a small shallow river, but I'll not deny your equal right to access the river.

 

[The bad one]

David I'm well aware of the report and at best it's poor science and would not stand up to independent scrutiny in any reputable scientific journal in the field of Fisheries Science.
Now that may be why it's never been submitted to one.
The only reason it got published was because it had the name "Environment Agency" to it and was a in-house publication.
It has more holes in it than a canoe blasted by a peeved gamekeeper with his 12 bore because you were trespassing on his lordships land. (joke... he should be using a howitzer)

It's also no secret that the EA support widening participation on rivers, defacto they support you. And that report was written at the time they were openly stating that.
Strangely.... not.... they have back pedaled since the cuts and now giving a neutral line. That's most likely because they've realised who's buying the butter and feeding them. Like my dog, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Berty]

I'm sorry think my post is pathetic and can't be bothered to reply Berty.

I didn't do multiple 'quotes' as some of the points were similar to other posters. Nor actually was I directly quoting anyone, other than I think one or two posters which I named, although I did use ( " ) a couple of times. I didn't think it would upset anyone.

I thought this thread was about substance not procedure.

I did reply!. i said your post was full of pathetic misqoutes........it is therefore with out substance!

Like your fellow paddlers you choose to ignore anything lawful or ethical we say......i really am not interested in your dummy spitting foot stamping anymore.......you paddlers go demand your way lawfully.

 

[david perry]

Some real pathetic mis quotes there!!

I've spent (wasted?) another ten minutes looking to see who I misquoted and can't find anything completely out of context. Although I didn't show a series of full stops before and after quoting a bit of your sentencewhen I was quoting you where you were telling us that anglers were conservers and canoeists destroyers. Have i offended you by getting that wrong?

I can't see any others Berty.

 

[Berty]

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

According to Peter Carty,a solicitor in Simon Jacksons solicitors a leading firm on matters of angling law

I think you'll find that he works for the Environment Agency Legal Team. Very sorry to correct another point...

---------- Post added at 22:41 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

It's also no secret that the EA support widening participation on rivers,

You're right Phil. They also support the building of hydro power schemes on our weirs which will not only affect the breeding areas of many rheophilic species of fish, but will also restrict passage to the canoeists. They'd be better off fighting with us on that point first. The EA (not necessarily the Fisheries Teams) are not the best friends of the angler.