Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[Paul Boote]

Chaps. Whether it's trying to debate with, in some effort to "convert" the unconvertible, whether political, religious, ideological, disaffected or just plain borderline (or not so) barmy (see my much-earlier "It is happening again" comment via a YouTube clip), we are wasting our time: whether it's canoes and those who wish to paddle them right here, right now (or sharp-elbowed, here's a new niche for me, serial and / or former politicos and fishy sorts) we cannot win until we ignore them, or better still, treat them with the lofty contempt they so richly deserve. Put not your faith in serial axe-grinders, smilers and self-styled messiahs and charismatics: just go fishing, for yourself and not as part of any great plan they currently might have in mind for you (this really worries them).

 

[cg74]

Chaps. Whether it's trying to debate with in effort to "convert" the unconvertible, whether political, religious, ideological, disaffected or just plain borderline (or not so) barmy (see my much-earlier "It is happening again" comment via a YouTube clip), we are wasting our time: whether it's canoes and those who wish to paddle them right here, right now (or sharp-elbowed, here's a new niche for me, serial or former politicos) we cannot win until we ignore them, or better still, treat them with them with the lofty contempt they so richly deserve. Put not your faith in serial axe-grinders, smilers and self-styled messiahs and charismatics: just go fishing (this really worries them).

That's about (if not) the best post I've read on this thread.

 

[david perry]

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

He may well do, but he didn't (I assume) when he wrote the book. And like you, I'd assume he was stating what he thought was fact then, if not now. But either way, who 'owns' the water, is surely not either here nor there as far as
Anglers v. Fishermen are concerned.

And splitting hairs, if he now, or did work for the EA legal team that makes him pretty well qualified doesn't it?

Anyway it's time for a night cap.

I don't mind admitting the fact that other than on legally defined navigations I probably paddle in a rather grey area of the law. But I have not posted anything of the "you choose to ignore anything lawful or ethical we say......i really am not interested in your dummy spitting foot stamping anymore". which Berty talks about. Do not mistake me, for 'we' however royal you may take it.

Good night.:wh

 

[bennygesserit]

Chaps. Whether it's trying to debate with, in some effort to "convert" the unconvertible, whether political, religious, ideological, disaffected or just plain borderline (or not so) barmy (see my much-earlier "It is happening again" comment via a YouTube clip), we are wasting our time: whether it's canoes and those who wish to paddle them right here, right now (or sharp-elbowed, here's a new niche for me, serial and / or former politicos and fishy sorts) we cannot win until we ignore them, or better still, treat them with the lofty contempt they so richly deserve. Put not your faith in serial axe-grinders, smilers and self-styled messiahs and charismatics: just go fishing, for yourself and not as part of any great plan they currently might have in mind for you (this really worries them).

Complete tosh , or even toff tosh , there is so much common ground between these two groups , both want a quiet undisturbed life in which simply to pursue their hobby and enjoy being outdoors its only the most vocal politicos on both sides who have a different view.

i am sure at least some will pass their fellow canoeists or anglers , remember this thread give each other a friendly wave and roll their eyes at the likes of the above post

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:14 ----------

That's about (if not) the best post I've read on this thread.

Yes right if your from Mars

 

[geoffmaynard]

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.

Thanks for clarifying that point Jeff. I didn't put it very well. The water is owned for the purposes of navigation is what I meant - as the last para makes clear. Got that Mr Paddler?
END OF!

---------- Post added at 00:20 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ----------

I don't mind admitting the fact that other than on legally defined navigations I probably paddle in a rather grey area of the law.

I repeat. There are no shades of grey. You either obey the law or you break it.

 

[Paul Boote]

Complete tosh , or even toff tosh , there is so much common ground between these two groups , both want a quiet undisturbed life in which simply to pursue their hobby and enjoy being outdoors its only the most vocal politicos on both sides who have a different view.

i am sure at least some will pass their fellow canoeists or anglers , remember this thread give each other a friendly wave and roll their eyes at the likes of the above thread.

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:14 ----------



Yes right if your from Mars

Re: Mars (and other Planets).

But only if you are part of the problem itself and so have to serially declare "Don't understand a word 'e says" every time this or any Ziggie posts summat that does your ideological brain in.

Anyway, it's Christmas. Carry on, chaps.

 

[bennygesserit]

Re: Mars (and other Planets).

But only if you are part of the problem itself and so have to serially declare "Don't understand a word 'e says" every time this or any Ziggie posts summat that does your ideological brain in.

Anyway, it's Christmas. Carry on, chaps.

Sorry Paul I expected a you tube response or the normal forum hokey cokey , you kind of caught me off guard with a sensible answer , no ... Wait you posted bollox again.

 

[Paul Boote]

A bit of bollox in, far bigger bollox out, Benny. Have a good un, yeah?

 

[bennygesserit]

A very Merry Christmas

 

[cg74]

Yes right if your from Mars

I was going to post a quip involving the seventh planet from the sun, but I won't bother.

 

[bennygesserit]

I was going to post a quip involving the seventh planet from the sun, but I won't bother.

Why has someone set foot on it ?

 

[david perry]

That's about (if not) the best post I've read on this thread.

It might be the best post on here, but I don't think he should describe all you fishermen in that way.

 

[barney20]

[/COLOR]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..

If I believe that there is a reasonable case to be argued I would contribute to a fund. Even with definite proof a legal ruling would still be helpful. Some of the posts on this thread have shown that parts of the pro navigation argument are not valid, if the rest can be disproved I and many other paddlers will not want to continue this. If a case was launched it would cost both sides, so if some one could now disprove the points that have so far been ignored it would benefit everyone.

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.

I realise that not all the money spent on fish/fisheries is for anglers, and that even money that is spent directly on angling may well have benefits for others. That doesn't change the fact that the EA spend more on angling than they receive from rod licences. This is not a criticism or a point I am making to argue my case, it doesn't seem relevant to me, I was just answering a question.

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.

I haven't said canoeists don't need money to be spent on navigation, there is a lot of work done that directly benefits canoeists. To use your point about roads, no you don't need the same strength of road for a car as a truck, which is why trucks pay more road tax etc.

I don't think how much money either side pays is very relevant, EA's figures show both sides are subsidised, but it is not possible to breakdown the figures to show exactly by how much or exactly what the money is spent on.

I MAY be wrong on the navigation issue, but that doesn't automatically make me wrong on everything else.

 

[david perry]

Geoff

My comment regarding ownership of water etc was simply a clarification and really doesn't add anything of substance to this debate although now we do know that the water in a river is not actually owned and is separate from the right of navigation. Its actually nit picking I guess. And I do have a name!

OK lets turn things on their head. So I have no legal right to paddle. Satisfied?

I'd like to though................. and the issue of anglers & pthose who paddle is what I thought I'd be able to discuss on here without too many insults.

If as some of the posters here do is simply repeat the same mantra, again and again of 'no canoeing, no canoeing' there's simply no point in having this thread. Equally if people are not prepared to respond to other points I've made then there's no point in discussion.

What I can say to ALL freshwater fishermen is that if we do not have any sensible debate and canoeists end up having legal access to some or all rivers like everywhere else, then the ultimate losers will be fishermen because canoeists may just end up remembering the few that hurled the insults (and the hemp!) and not the sensible ones who tried to have a reasoned debate on both sides.

There is lack of understanding amongst many if not most canoeists & kayakers about fish, fishing & fishermen. Equally there is a lack of understanding amongst many if not most fisherman about canoeing, kayaking.

Some of the debate just raises red herrings (terrible pun) such as anglers not causing any damage to rivers systems but canoeists do. Trivial stuff really when you see the amount of damage one flood in one river can do such as what has happened recently. Just imagine the big trees raking their way down the river beds and the flood waters ripping out huge rafts of weed. However the anglers will bash on about canoes damaging the environment and how fishermen only care for it. And we really don't get to the heart of the matter.

Incidently I've added a bit to my profile and I guess we both probably started fishing at the same time.

 

[jasonbean1]

dave, the problem is not the likes of you and the genuine paddlers, it's the ones that will if given the chance do what they like on a river with no regard for anyone or the environment...then you have the hire business's that will muscle there way in and they'll definitely have the stuff you attitude.....so you can see why anglers are the way we are.

we're being shafted all ways round nowadays and loosing on many fronts so you have to understand where we are coming from.

 

[richiekelly]

Probably a daft question but with most of the small rivers over their banks (their normal boundaries) and into the fields if a paddler paddles outside of the normal river course (navigation rights or not) are they trespassing on land owned by someone?

 

[barney20]

dave, the problem is not the likes of you and the genuine paddlers, it's the ones that will if given the chance do what they like on a river with no regard for anyone or the environment...then you have the hire business's that will muscle there way in and they'll definitely have the stuff you attitude.....so you can see why anglers are the way we are.

we're being shafted all ways round nowadays and loosing on many fronts so you have to understand where we are coming from.

There are many canoeists who agree with your views on some hire businesses and the actions of some paddlers. If less energy was wasted fighting each other we could work together to find ways to deal with these problems.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

He may well do, but he didn't (I assume) when he wrote the book. And like you, I'd assume he was stating what he thought was fact then, if not now. But either way, who 'owns' the water, is surely not either here nor there as far as Anglers v. Fishermen are concerned. And splitting hairs, if he now, or did work for the EA legal team that makes him pretty well qualified doesn't it?

He is very ably qualified on all matters relating to water and lands that adjoin or abut it, you're right. He probably wrote a lot of that stuff you can find on Jackson's website and it's still very valid today. No one is argueing who owns the water as no one does (as stated), it's a matter of who owns the land it runs through and the river bed that you are crossing over.

To use your point about roads, no you don't need the same strength of road for a car as a truck, which is why trucks pay more road tax etc.

Precisely why you would pay much less with a canoe than would some gin-palace owner with a Broom 45. You still didn't answer my question about how much you do pay? I'm interested, humour me.

If I believe that there is a reasonable case to be argued I would contribute to a fund.

So that 'If' implies you don't believe you do have a case and probably the reason you haven't contributed to a fund or started one.

I really don't see where canoeists are coming from except to say -

1. They don't want to pay anything for using the rivers - and
2. They don't appear to want to pay to a fund that will or not prove their point that they have a right to paddle anywhere.

If both the above are true then what exactly do you want to pay for or is it that everything you want should be free? Genuine question, because I don't hear any of you saying "I'd pay for this" or "I'd pay for that"...

As I've said before, if it was my sport (and only my age perhaps prevents me for taking it up) I'd pay handsomely to prove my case. Let's face it, many anglers as well as paying £27 a year to the EA join clubs and my present annual bill probaly comes to around £240 a year and that is light by some standards. I was offered to join one club at £350 a year plus another £250 first year joining fee. Too rich for me, but for many that is standard.

Just what does it cost the average canoeist to set canoe in water?

Come on, humour me please.

 

[barney20]

Probably a daft question but with most of the small rivers over their banks (their normal boundaries) and into the fields if a paddler paddles outside of the normal river course (navigation rights or not) are they trespassing on land owned by someone?

IF the navigation right exists, it applies to the river. The course of a river will change over time and the navigation right will still exist. It is not the same as landbased rights of way which have an exact route that can be plotted on a map.

So if the flood water is part of the river, it would be legal to paddle it. If the flood water was flowing into the river from somewhere else, or flowing out of the river and taking a different course to the main flow, the navigation right may not be valid.

I imagine if your land has just been flooded, a canoe or boat being paddled across it is not your biggest problem, so I doubt this has ever been tested in court.

There is a bigger moral question around paddling around or even into flooded homes, I hope paddlers would not do this, unless it was to give assistance to those in the home.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Probably a daft question but with most of the small rivers over their banks (their normal boundaries) and into the fields if a paddler paddles outside of the normal river course (navigation rights or not) are they trespassing on land owned by someone?

On private land he is still deemed to be trespassing if he doesn't have permission.

However, the interesting point about your question is - what if that canoeist is paddling down the street, as they do, when it's flooded - A) does he need a driving licence B) Does he need to pay Road Fund like a car owner C) should he have to pass a test to make sure he knows his traffic lights and stopping distances.

Just the devil in me......