Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[sam vimes]

Windy suggested that the law could be used to bring bankruptcy to both canoeists and those who support them. My problem is I didn't understand what he said or how it would happen. I still think that, no matter what legal action is taken, the penalty for canoeist is virtually nothing, because he does no damage. The worst that could happen is that he would receive an injunction to stop him paddling on that piece of the river again

I'm sure you've had it explained a multitude of times, but I'll give it another bash. You're convinced you do no harm, I beg to differ. It may not be much in a material sense, but you screw up my fishing. That might amount to very little monetarily, the cost of a day ticket, the cost of bait, the cost of fuel etc.

Where paddlers could come in for a financial hammering is when they spoil the day of a paying customer on a salmon trip. If you upset one of those fellas, who may well have paid several thousand pounds for a single days fishing, you could be in for an expensive day in court. You need to consider the type of people that you could be up against, both angler and landowner. Those are the types that could give you a financial battering and I'm quite sure that was exactly the type Windy was getting at.

So on a practical level, canoeists can canoe where they like...

Yep, as I've said several times already. However, the risk you run is in upsetting the wrong angler. Whether that's the rich bloke that doesn't care how much it costs him to persue you through the courts or one that's not averse to a confrontation.

 

[Terry wright]

"Where paddlers could come in for a financial hammering is when they spoil the day of a paying customer on a salmon trip. If you upset one of those fellas, who may well have paid several thousand pounds for a single days fishing, you could be in for an expensive day in court."

This is about paddling in England and Wales 'several thousand pounds'? For salmon fishing here? It's not the Junction Pool on the Tweed. Let's just try and keep things in perspective.

 

[sam vimes]

This is about paddling in England and Wales 'several thousand pounds'? For salmon fishing here? It's not the Junction Pool on the Tweed. Let's just try and keep things in perspective.

Several thousand was being being fairly conservative. I'd expect many of the famous Scottish fisheries to run to a great deal more.
However, I was including other financial outlay (bait, fuel etc) into the total, as I did when commenting about mere mortal anglers.
Several thousands are easily achieved when you add on the cost of a flight from Japan, USA, Saudi, etc.

 

[waterways]

Several thousand was being being fairly conservative. I'd expect many of the famous Scottish fisheries to run to a great deal more.
However, I was including other financial outlay (bait, fuel etc) into the total, as I did when commenting about mere mortal anglers.
Several thousands are easily achieved when you add on the cost of a flight from Japan, USA, Saudi, etc.

Sam,
With all due respect, are you a lawyer?

I want to see Windy's thoughts on this. Although he freely admits he knows less about this than the Rev Dr Caffyn, he was the one who suggested the awful fate in store for 'trespassing' canoeists. I still think canoeists would get off more or less scot free, unless they did something really stupid... By the way are you aware that in Scotland canoeists are free to paddle... By law... I am not sure why you mentioned Scotland?

As to the 'harm', I was referring to the calculated legal damages... not the result of your feeling that your fishing day had been ruined... My uneducated guess is that, rightly or wrongly, you might have a hard time convincing a judge of that as a reason to award damages... And of course no one is going to mount a case to recover a few pounds.

I want to know the real situation here, uncluttered by emotion... We can not move to a solution until we know what is happening now...

 

[jasonbean1]

well to me it sounds like you paddlers have already decided whats happening with your **** you attitude.

there is no point in this debate...it seems the line as been drawn by you lot end of.

it's just enforced which way we will go on our bit of river should we get more paddlers..we will make it a very unpleasant experience for them should they ignore our requests and choose to trespass....then there's the farmer who is most definitely against any one coming down his bit of river.

it's a shame your choosing this route

 

[waterways]

well to me it sounds like you paddlers have already decided whats happening with your **** you attitude.

there is no point in this debate...it seems the line as been drawn by you lot end of.

it's just enforced which way we will go on our bit of river should we get more paddlers..we will make it a very unpleasant experience for them should they ignore our requests and choose to trespass....then there's the farmer who is most definitely against any one coming down his bit of river.

it's a shame youßr choosing this route

I just do not understand this response at all.

For one thing I do not speak for 'paddlers'. I am not 'choosing' any route. I am simply presenting some hard cold facts you don't like.

Secondly in these days of mobile phones, any threats made by anglers can be recorded and played back to police... And threats of violence are criminal acts... No question of that... choosing to be a criminal as a solution is very stupid.

Thirdly this is a problem which affects both anglers and canoeists who both genuinely hold different views...

I want to find a solution, but we need to be able to describe the real problem. As I have said, I think the real problem is that whatever anglers think or say, they cannot practically stop canoeists doing as they think fit...

Don't forget they believe they're right just as strongly as you do... in fact they think you are the one with the ****** you attitude. They think you are incredibly selfish with a dog in the manger attitude. Why is this so hard to understand?

Veiled threats are simply playing into the hands of canoeists and making anglers appear like thugs.

I would say, stop blustering, face reality, and then think about a solution that doesn't involve canoeists suddenly agreeing to your view of the law.

 

[sam vimes]

Sam,
With all due respect, are you a lawyer?

Nope, and with no false respect whatsoever, can you actually read?

I am not sure why you mentioned Scotland?

Simply because someone else brought the Tweed into the conversation. Again, do you actually read the posts?

As to the 'harm', I was referring to the calculated legal damages... not the result of your feeling that your fishing day had been ruined... My uneducated guess is that, rightly or wrongly, you might have a hard time convincing a judge of that as a reason to award damages... And of course no one is going to mount a case to recover a few pounds.

No doubt, which is why you get away with what you do. However, the risk you take is in mixing it with those big nasty rich blokes where the money means little. Good luck when it happens.

I want to know the real situation here, uncluttered by emotion... We can not move to a solution until we know what is happening now...

No you don't. You want people to agree with you, bow to your demands and to believe what suits you. Nothing we, or the lawyers that come down with an opposite view could say will convince you otherwise. The only "solution" you want is concessions. I would encourage you to hold your breath on that one. In the mean time, keep doing what you do and stop whining like little girls about your "rights" or when some annoyed angler tells you to go forth and multiply. One thing that is for sure, the angler has every right to be there. Whether paddlers have the right is still entirely dubious.

 

[jasonbean1]

I just do not understand this response at all. For one thing I do not speak for 'paddlers'. I am not 'choosing' any route. I am simply presenting some hard cold facts you don't like.Secondly in these days of mobile phones, any threats made by anglers can be recorded and played back to police... And threats of violence are criminal acts... No question of that... choosing to be a criminal as a solution is very stupid. Thirdly this is a problem which affects both anglers and canoeists who both genuinely hold different views...

I want to find a solution, but we need to be able to describe the real problem. As I have said, I think the real problem is that whatever anglers think or say, they cannot practically stop canoeists doing as they think fit...

Don't forget they believe they're right just as strongly as you do... in fact they think you are the one with the ****** you attitude. They think you are incredibly selfish with a dog in the manger attitude. Why is this so hard to understand?

Veiled threats are simply playing into the hands of canoeists and making anglers appear like thugs.

I would say, stop blustering, face reality, and then think about a solution that doesn't involve canoeists suddenly agreeing to your view of the law.

i think me and sam are two of the most mild mannered and considerate posters on here, but the **** your coming out with....well it only makes me shake my head in disbelief.

lets get this straight, from what you are saying you do not give a stuff about anglers, land owners or the law...you just want it your way END!

no threats in my post....just re- read what you have written, then read some of my posts...i started on this thread thinking we could sort of compromise and share some common ground. but your not interested END!

my last encounter with paddlers was just like talking to you (brick wall)...we were doing some work in the river and a trailer pulled up with 4 kayaks on, they blatantly avoided us as they new we were anglers. so we told them politely there was no right of access, the river was non navigable and they had not received any permission from the angling club or land owner...they average age was around 50, they said ok, we went up the river and carried on...gues what they went straight in and paddled down(brick wall just like you).

so excuse me for not seeing your one sided point of veiw

now...if they had of asked us if they could access or if we minded... me and terry would have said yes paddle down but you will have to take your chances with the farmer

 

[Berty]

I suggest we cease now and simply find out the address's of as many canoists as possible and camp in their gardens and fish in their garden ponds......lets see how they feel about paying out their hard earned cash and someone else demanding a right to what they choose to spend it on.

How many can we get in a Charabanc?

 

[richiekelly]

I just do not understand this response at all.

For one thing I do not speak for 'paddlers'. I am not 'choosing' any route. I am simply presenting some hard cold facts you don't like.

Secondly in these days of mobile phones, any threats made by anglers can be recorded and played back to police... And threats of violence are criminal acts... No question of that... choosing to be a criminal as a solution is very stupid.

Thirdly this is a problem which affects both anglers and canoeists who both genuinely hold different views...

I want to find a solution, but we need to be able to describe the real problem. As I have said, I think the real problem is that whatever anglers think or say, they cannot practically stop canoeists doing as they think fit...

Don't forget they believe they're right just as strongly as you do... in fact they think you are the one with the ****** you attitude. They think you are incredibly selfish with a dog in the manger attitude. Why is this so hard to understand?

Veiled threats are simply playing into the hands of canoeists and making anglers appear like thugs.

I would say, stop blustering, face reality, and then think about a solution that doesn't involve canoeists suddenly agreeing to your view of the law.

If you think the anglers view of the law is wrong take it to court other than that stop breaking the law by paddling where you shouldn't, that's the solution.

 

[david perry]

What about the on day after a Mayan EOTW prophecy being accurately forecast.:wh
Jerry

I set myself up to get that lot didn't I!!!

 

[The bad one]

Secondly in these days of mobile phones, any threats made by anglers can be recorded and played back to police... And threats of violence are criminal acts... No question of that... choosing to be a criminal as a solution is very stupid.

Quite!
Got a few of them on vid from guess who.......Oh paddlers!
Distress, harassment and alarm are the words used by the police

 

[david perry]

I'm not sure the real threat for canoeists are the salmon beats really. Scotland has free access on all it's rivers to all canoeists without restrictions. Obviously many/most of these are salmon rivers.

Where I've paddled under voluntary access agreements these have been on rivers or parts of rivers which are mainly used by salmon fishing interests. I'm talking about northern rivers!! These agreements are normally are for out of season (salmon) and/or winter paddling and/or in spate only. Thus when I've paddled these rivers I've never encountered fisherman. The north and south tyne, parts of the Ure, Washburn are covered by access agreements as are several other northern river systems in their upper reaches. In the summer they are far too shallow to be paddled.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I would say, stop blustering, face reality

Mod hat: Off, i.e. Personal comment

It is about time that you, and your fellow paddlers did likewise.

You (collectively) have seen legal opinion from a respected retired Barrister here on FM and yet you (collectively again) chose to nit-pick words and assign to them your (collective) meaning.

The Reality is that the only way you (the collective one again) are going to get access onto rivers is by a negotiated agreement, but your (collective) attitude is hardly likely to achieve that, is it!

I would think that further discourse is considered to be a total waste of time.

If you (collectively) think you have a case, then take it to the Courts, oh, but you (collectively) have already tried that and backed out!



Moderator hat: back on

 

[david perry]

You (collectively) have seen legal opinion from a respected retired Barrister here on FM and yet you (collectively again) chose to nit-pick words and assign to them your (collective) meaning.

And don't fishermen selectively do this?

 

[barney20]

If you think the anglers view of the law is wrong take it to court other than that stop breaking the law by paddling where you shouldn't, that's the solution.

That is not a solution.
If I think the anglers view of the law is wrong, why do I need to take it to court? I could just paddle on any river at any time.

I am not asking anyone to agree with the paddlers view of the law, I would just like people to realise that they do hold a different view, and that they hold it as strongly as anglers hold their view.

 

[geoffmaynard]

I am not asking anyone to agree with the paddlers view of the law, I would just like people to realise that they do hold a different view

A bit like the mafia then?

 

[barney20]

Secondly in these days of mobile phones, any threats made by anglers can be recorded and played back to police... And threats of violence are criminal acts... No question of that... choosing to be a criminal as a solution is very stupid.

Quite!
Got a few of them on vid from guess who.......Oh paddlers!
Distress, harassment and alarm are the words used by the police

Unfortunately anglers and canoeists have hurled abuse and threats at each other. It is not right and shouldn't be accepted by either side.

---------- Post added at 11:40 ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 ----------

A bit like the mafia then?

In what way is asking someone to realise that some one else has a different point of view "a bit like the mafia".

Forcing them with threats of violence to agree with some one else's point of view would be "a bit like the mafia".

Asking them to just understand that I have a different point of view, not to agree with it or even understand why I have it, just to understand that I have it, is the act of a normal reasonable person.

 

[richiekelly]

That is not a solution.
If I think the anglers view of the law is wrong, why do I need to take it to court? I could just paddle on any river at any time.

I am not asking anyone to agree with the paddlers view of the law, I would just like people to realise that they do hold a different view, and that they hold it as strongly as anglers hold their view.

and that is just the sort of selfish attitude that is shown by paddlers,

this thread is a waste of time,.

 

[Fred Bonney]

There are none so blind as those who don't want to see.

The law is not on the canoeists side FULL STOP!

Those who break the LAW should not expect to be protected by LAW