Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[jasonbean1]

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.

but what your asking for lets the animal off the leashe....then we'd have to tame it?

 

[barney20]

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. 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.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.

The IF, in my "if we have a case" statement. Is because on balance I think we do have a case but I am not wholly convinced and would like more information, and I am open to the case being proved wrong at this stage.

To answer your questions on money.
I don't know what the "average canoeist" pays. Membership of CE (the English section of the BCU) costs £37 and includes a licence to most of the waterways in England and Wales that require one.

A canoe licence for all EA rivers that require one is £30.
The Canal and River Trust, seem to recommend joining CE for an annual canoe licence, but you can buy short term licences.
The Broads Authority charge £28.88 for an annual licence.
There are many other smaller navigation authorities for individual rivers or canals, or sections of river, their licence fees vary.
Some of the above licences require third party insurance (this is included in the CE membership)

I am a member of CE, partly to take advantage of the good deals they offer on insurance, and partly to get the licence to ensure I stay legal. I also donate money to a couple of local groups that work to maintain a local river and canal.

There are other potential costs such as launching fees, but most canoes can be launched for free from public areas.

Many paddlers may also be members of local clubs.

I don't think canoeing should be free, I am happy to pay towards navigation work, and wider environmental work on rivers and canals. If I benefit from them and enjoy them, why shouldn't I help pay for them?
In truth I would rather all the money I paid to CE went to the navigation authorities and the EA. How much of it actually does I don't know, which is partly why I donate extra money.

I hope I have answered all your questions, if not please let me know.

In return I have one question for you. Would you contribute to a fund to prove that the right to navigate doesn't exist on all rivers?

 

[david perry]

I'm not too sure the majority of canoeists would object to some kind of licence or fee for canoeing. I have said on an earlier post I would be willing to pay something equivalent to a rod licence (canoe licence!) or possibly more!

Faced with no choice - no licence no canoeing legally then surely most would pay in the same way you and me pay for a rod licence. This could be policed in the same way as rod licences are and 'policed' by a body such as the ??? BCU (British Canoe Union)? Environment Agency?

What you do about the problem hire companies several posters shave identified as a possible side effect I don't really know . I suppose you could have the licensing system the same as a rod licence in that it is held by the individual owner rather than some company. The last thing I would want ( and probably the majority of other paddlers) is to paddle down some river to be joined by a group of people who have hired canoes/kayaks for the day, like I hear the Wye is.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Thanks for both of your answers. However

Would you contribute to a fund to prove that the right to navigate doesn't exist on all rivers?

No, because there's no case to prove as far as I'm concerned. The laws as they stand are quite clear to me. It's for those who disagree to put up the dosh to prove otherwise.

 

[barney20]

Thanks for both of your answers. However No, because there's no case to prove as far as I'm concerned. The laws as they stand are quite clear to me. It's for those who disagree to put up the dosh to prove otherwise.

I take your point. But many canoeists could use the same phrase as you "The laws as they stand are quite clear to me" to mean that the right to navigate does exist. And therefore would see you as one of those that disagrees and should put up the dosh to prove otherwise.

If one side takes this to court, the other will feel compelled to pay for legal representation as well, so only the lawyers will win.

It would be better if some other solution could be reached. (other than the current stand off)

 

[sam vimes]

I'm not too sure the majority of canoeists would object to some kind of licence or fee for canoeing. I have said on an earlier post I would be willing to pay something equivalent to a rod licence (canoe licence!) or possibly more!

Faced with no choice - no licence no canoeing legally then surely most would pay in the same way you and me pay for a rod licence. This could be policed in the same way as rod licences are and 'policed' by a body such as the ??? BCU (British Canoe Union)? Environment Agency?

What you do about the problem hire companies several posters shave identified as a possible side effect I don't really know . I suppose you could have the licensing system the same as a rod licence in that it is held by the individual owner rather than some company. The last thing I would want ( and probably the majority of other paddlers) is to paddle down some river to be joined by a group of people who have hired canoes/kayaks for the day, like I hear the Wye is.

This still reads as if you expect your rod licence equivalent to give you access to whichever bit of water you fancy. The rod licence doesn't, it's just the beginning. You've then got to pay every club/landowner along a particular river for full access to just that one river. Then there are stretches that landowners won't let anyone near, regardless.

If you want equivalent access and equal status to anglers, you'd be paying for a national canoe licence and then paying each individual landowner, or buying stretches lock stock and barrel. Naturally, just the same as for anglers, there will be stretches that remain unavailable no matter how much money is offered. The alternative is for paddlers to take the open access theory to court. I really don't understand what is quite so difficult to grasp.
I'm sure it would be delightful to get all you want. However, I really don't think you can have it all ends up.

 

[barney20]

but what your asking for lets the animal off the leashe....then we'd have to tame it?

The animal is already off the leash, and already needs taming. What I am asking for would mean there were more people trying to tame it.

 

[david perry]

This still reads as if you expect your rod licence equivalent to give you access to whichever bit of water you fancy. The rod licence doesn't, it's just the beginning. You've then got to pay every club/landowner along a particular river for full access to just that one river. Then there are stretches that landowners won't let anyone near, regardless.

If you want equivalent access and equal status to anglers, you'd be paying for a national canoe licence and then paying each individual landowner, or buying stretches lock stock and barrel. Naturally, just the same as for anglers, there will be stretches that remain unavailable no matter how much money is offered. The alternative is for paddlers to take the open access theory to court. I really don't understand what is quite so difficult to grasp.
I'm sure it would be delightful to get all you want. However, I really don't think you can have it all ends up.

Sam I'm quite happy to pay. How much I don't know, but it would be impossible I guess for individual canoeists to negotiate with individual landowners because we obviously use more of a river normally. Perhaps this could be negotiated eventually by canoeing organisations. or even clubs like fishermen do on some basis. Although this may just end up with what we do have on some rivers which are voluntary agreements with some owners. And so far as i'm aware no money passes hands in these agreements.

I'm not quite sure which bit you don't think I understand.

The problem - or one problem, with going to court is that if river owners win over access then unless someone starts trying to prosecute individual canoeists we're back to where we are now.

If however, canoeists won the right to paddle, then anglers would loose totally. There would be no need to negotiate or discuss anything.

 

[sam vimes]

Sam I'm quite happy to pay. How much I don't know, but it would be impossible I guess for individual canoeists to negotiate with individual landowners because we obviously use more of a river normally. Perhaps this could be negotiated eventually by canoeing organisations. or even clubs like fishermen do on some basis. Although this may just end up with what we do have on some rivers which are voluntary agreements with some owners. And so far as i'm aware no money passes hands in these agreements.

I'm not quite sure which bit you don't think I understand.

The problem - or one problem, with going to court is that if river owners win over access then unless someone starts trying to prosecute individual anglers we're back to where we are now.

If however, canoeists won the right to paddle, then anglers would loose totally. There would be no need to negotiate or discuss anything.

I don't understand what you want. It would appear that you'd really like full access at minimal cost (can't say I blame you, I'd love the same). However, to achieve this you are going to have to go to court to prove the right of navigation argument or, by some miracle, have landowners bow to your demands without the need for a costly court case. The alternative is to have things as they are and pay or plead for your access with individual landowners. In your shoes, I really wouldn't expect landowners to bend over and accept your demands without the court case or payments.

Prosecuting individual anglers (unless they happen to be the riparian owner) will pointless for you, it'll gain you very little. However, if they do something that causes you harm (assault, criminal damage etc) under the existing laws, fair enough.

As far as anglers losing out if you win in court. Perhaps, but I doubt much will change beyond there being no doubt that you'd be entitled to be there. Plenty of paddlers go where they want now, with little real threat of anything beyond a grumpy angler, what's the difference? Until you win the hypothetical court case proving rights of navigation, you have nothing to negotiate with other than cold hard cash to various landowners. I can well understand paddlers wanting to avoid that particular court case but I really can't see you getting the full access you crave without it.

I'll state this again. Most anglers aren't particularly anti-paddler (they aren't particularly keen on having their day spoiled by people that they believe shouldn't be there though). However, the law, depending on your interpretation of it, seems to be. As such, your fight isn't with anglers (particularly not with individual anglers), it's with landowners and the law. You can circumvent one by paying those landowners that are agreeable. The problem is that you wouldn't get the blanket allowance to go where you please that you seem to desire.

 

[barney20]

I don't understand what you want. It would appear that you'd really like full access at minimal cost (can't say I blame you, I'd love the same). However, to achieve this you are going to have to go to court to prove the right of navigation argument or, by some miracle, have landowners bow to your demands without the need for a costly court case. The alternative is to have things as they are and pay or plead for your access with individual landowners. In your shoes, I really wouldn't expect landowners to bend over and accept your demands without the court case or payments.

Prosecuting individual anglers (unless they happen to be the riparian owner) will pointless for you, it'll gain you very little. However, if they do something that causes you harm (assault, criminal damage etc) under the existing laws, fair enough.

As far as anglers losing out if you win in court. Perhaps, but I doubt much will change beyond there being no doubt that you'd be entitled to be there. Plenty of paddlers go where they want now, with little real threat of anything beyond a grumpy angler, what's the difference? Until you win the hypothetical court case proving rights of navigation, you have nothing to negotiate with other than cold hard cash to various landowners. I can well understand paddlers wanting to avoid that particular court case but I really can't see you getting the full access you crave without it.

I'll state this again. Most anglers aren't particularly anti-paddler (they aren't particularly keen on having their day spoiled by people that they believe shouldn't be there though). However, the law, depending on your interpretation of it, seems to be. As such, your fight isn't with anglers (particularly not with individual anglers), it's with landowners and the law. You can circumvent one by paying those landowners that are agreeable. The problem is that you wouldn't get the blanket allowance to go where you please that you seem to desire.

A court case wouldn't just cost paddlers, the AT and landowners would presumably want to present their case, so it would cost them to. Therefore the landowners may benefit from agreeing to access now, rather than risk the costs of a court case.

The problem for canoeists is that a days canoeing could easily cover 15 or 20 miles, or more. This would involve negotiating with multiple landowners, which isn't very realistic. If one landowner who owned a few metres of river bank in the middle of the fifteen miles said no, the deal couldn't be done. Anglers only need to negotiate with one landowner.

Are fight isn't directly with anglers, whatever your interpretation of the law the anglers don't have a say in the right to navigate. But AT strongly argue against the PRN, and encourage landowners to as well, so the anglers clearly have an effect.

 

[Berty]

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round round and round.

 

[sam vimes]

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round round and round.

Yep, paddlers aren't actually interested in what we are saying to them. It's purely lip service. All they want are concessions. They claim to want to negotiate but the only bargaining chip they have is a hypothetical one. They want those concessions without having to take legal action because it's highly dubious that they are going to win and it'll cost them a fortune. They want concessions, preferably without paying a single bean. I really don't blame them, can't see it happening though.

 

[bennygesserit]

any answer to this

Originally Posted by BennyGesserit
.............................
The other thing I have learned , having an open mind , is that on smaller rivers especially a canoe passing through will disperse a shoal of fish that an angler may have spent the day stalking , or feeding in a way that makes them congregate in a particular area. This view has been repeated a lot by some very experienced anglers and I am sure would be echoed by those canoeists , on here , who also fish. So though you want to share , which is laudable , one activity may preclude the other.


Reply :
In Scotland, and most countries in Europe, rivers are shared by paddlers and anglers without any problems, so there must be away this could work.

The usual counter to this from anglers is that Scotish rivers are different to English ones, even if that is true, English rivers and fish can't be totally different to all other European rivers.

 

[david perry]

I previously posted this.

"The problem - or one problem, with going to court is that if river owners win over access then unless someone starts trying to prosecute individual anglers we're back to where we are now."


It should read

The problem - or one problem, with going to court is that if river owners win over access then unless someone starts trying to prosecute individual canoeists we're back to where we are now.

 

[richiekelly]

any answer to this

Originally Posted by BennyGesserit
.............................
The other thing I have learned , having an open mind , is that on smaller rivers especially a canoe passing through will disperse a shoal of fish that an angler may have spent the day stalking , or feeding in a way that makes them congregate in a particular area. This view has been repeated a lot by some very experienced anglers and I am sure would be echoed by those canoeists , on here , who also fish. So though you want to share , which is laudable , one activity may preclude the other.


Reply :
In Scotland, and most countries in Europe, rivers are shared by paddlers and anglers without any problems, so there must be away this could work.

The usual counter to this from anglers is that Scotish rivers are different to English ones, even if that is true, English rivers and fish can't be totally different to all other European rivers.[/QUOTE




Saying there must be a way doesn't mean there is a way, the only solution is for things to stay as they are or for paddlers to fight this in the courts or carry on breaking the law.

On average my son pays £600 a year for his fishing permits that's without his EA licence, that gives him access to 3 waters only, it seems to me that paddlers would be only to pleased to pay the same as an EA licence but expect unrestricted access to all waters.

 

[geoffmaynard]

The problem - or one problem, with going to court is that if river owners win over access then unless someone starts trying to prosecute individual canoeists we're back to where we are now.

On waters which are paddled without a PRN, the owners can prosecute now; they don't need to 'win access' because they already have it.

---------- Post added at 01:01 ---------- Previous post was at 00:48 ----------

It's obvious that paddlers are already prepared to pay for their paddling. I understand there are several places where a 'toll' is charged per craft wanting to pass through a certain stretch. I think Whitney on the Wye is one such spot where paddlers are charged, even though a PRN exists there. I think this may be a way forward for some people?

 

[barney20]

................................................
Saying there must be a way doesn't mean there is a way, the only solution is for things to stay as they are or for paddlers to fight this in the courts or carry on breaking the law.
............................................

There is away in all other European countries, why are England and Wales so different, if there really is something about the rivers or fish that make them unique please tell me what it is.

 

[jasonbean1]

There is away in all other European countries, why are England and Wales so different, if there really is something about the rivers or fish that make them unique please tell me what it is.

i'm not what you would called well travelled but my thinking would be coarse anglers in this country are the most environmentally aware and fish welfare conscious in europe...put on top of that the years of tradition, history within societies/clubs, relationships with there landlords and the general sense of ownership for there bits of water after many years of looking after them backed with hard cash ...then put more on top of that all the **** we have to put up with from the government bodies that suppose to support us then **** on us from above.

if you had any idea of what that means to us you may start to understand...which i doubt you will ever do

Jason

 

[geoffmaynard]

There is away in all other European countries, why are England and Wales so different, if there really is something about the rivers or fish that make them unique please tell me what it is.

Yes we are different, thankfully. We have different laws. That's the difference. And ours are better laws in my opinion. Though I agree some changes would improve them - for instance I would forbid any paddling on upper-rivers where fisheries are disrupted by navigation. Not the changes you would like I know, but I have to put up with what I see as the negative aspects of the present laws, the same as you do. What I, and most other anglers I know want, is to have the existing laws better enforced.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I thought I’d said enough on this subject, but since it’s peeing down and the river’s too flooded for fishing (or paddling) here goes -

The problem for canoeists is that a days canoeing could easily cover 15 or 20 miles, or more. This would involve negotiating with multiple landowners, which isn't very realistic. If one landowner who owned a few metres of river bank in the middle of the fifteen miles said no, the deal couldn't be done. Anglers only need to negotiate with one landowner.

That’s your problem, but as I said, if the Indians could do it for the Konkan railway with 42000 landowners it shouldn’t be much of a problem for you chaps.

Are fight isn't directly with anglers, whatever your interpretation of the law the anglers don't have a say in the right to navigate. But AT strongly argue against the PRN, and encourage landowners to as well, so the anglers clearly have an effect.

You are correct, your fight is with Government who could change the law and/or landowners in getting them to all agree to you paddling anywhere you liked.

ATr and Anglers are just arguing with Government that we want no change in law because of the disruption to our pleasure and the breeding areas in narrower and shallower streams. They're fighting for our interests, which they are paid to do.

If anything needs to be changed in your favour then it’s you that has to pay for it. A lot of us (not everyone ) pays £25 a year to the Trust to represent us in this matter and that they seem to have done by securing the aforementioned statement from the Minister, Richard Benyon. So you should get your BCU or CE, whatever portion of that you wish to use, to find some member of Parliament, one of them must do paddling, to represent your interests and present either a PMB or organise an EDM to get the law changed.

Until such time, seek voluntary access rights, pain though that is.

Oh, and I know one landowner who used to rent us fishing rights (it’s called a licence also, but it’s confusing to use the term too freely) and at the same time offered mooring rights for boats and barges and also charged people for camping caravanning on the same land we were on. So we had to share there. It can be done, just takes time and some effort.



NB: That would be a novell idea, having toll booths at the start of each stretch of river where there's no PRN...