Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[Peter Jacobs]

this reminds me of......

BBC News - UK prime minister rebuffs Argentina over Falklands

and this is no way meant in any disrespect to our service men and women..

Inasmuch as there is absolutely nothing new to the debate from either side I would tend to agree with you.

I'm still waiting for a paddler to answer the question regarding the potential loss of income to a Riparian Owner when angling clubs and syndicates pull out due to canoes.
Will they pay the sort of annual fees that we do?

Guess I know the answer already as they (collectively) seems to think that they should get it all for free . . . . . if so, then . . . .


Dream on

 

[904_cannon]

Inasmuch as there is absolutely nothing new to the debate from either side I would tend to agree with you.

I'm still waiting for a paddler to answer the question regarding the potential loss of income to a Riparian Owner when angling clubs and syndicates pull out due to canoes.
Will they pay the sort of annual fees that we do?

Guess I know the answer already as they (collectively) seems to think that they should get it all for free . . . . . if so, then . . . .


Dream on

...and the current 'going rate' for the R Wear is £5k-£6k/mile - single bank!
I dare not even guess what the Tyne costs

 

[geoffmaynard]

Proof that brains are not a paddlers strong point. Y'gotta be a bit insane to try this
Highest waterfall in a kayak: 189 ft. [VIDEO]

 

[barney20]

Barney...that's a better starting point regardless of the legal side, my own opinion is that in some way we could share but reality tells me it would be something different. the more people using the water, understanding the problems and lobbying for improvements the better..ultimately we would need hard cash from you though. how many paddlers would want to contrribute the average amounts that anglers do?

most anglers that object do from a care of there sport and environment...for me it's not about "i want this river for myself, it's mine **** off"

paddlers have got to come up with a better/fairer approach than the one they are using currently if they want to move forward

Jason

Paddlers current approach is based on two things
1) The belief/knowledge that the PRN exists,
2) Years of experience of trying to make access agreements and getting nowhere.

The compromise/working together approach has been tried and failed, so all paddlers can do is push the legal approach.

As to money, if it was law that paddlers had to have a licence in the same way that anglers need a rod licence, then most paddlers would have that licence. A few wouldn't, but I imagine that would be about the same as the proportion of anglers that don't have a rod licence, there are idiots in all areas of life.

I don't know how much the average angler contributes, and how are you defining "contributes". Obviously all the rod licence money is reinvested in angling, and many clubs use there money for restocking and environmental work, some fees paid for fishing rights etc will be reinvested, but some of that money is taken as profit. Fishing needs investment to maintain the fish stocks etc, paddling needs less money as it's environmental impact is less.
So yes I think paddlers should make a fair contribution, but I don't know how much that would be, or how to calculate it.

 

[sam vimes]

Paddlers current approach is based on two things
1) The belief/knowledge that the PRN exists,
2) Years of experience of trying to make access agreements and getting nowhere.

The compromise/working together approach has been tried and failed, so all paddlers can do is push the legal approach.

As to money, if it was law that paddlers had to have a licence in the same way that anglers need a rod licence, then most paddlers would have that licence. A few wouldn't, but I imagine that would be about the same as the proportion of anglers that don't have a rod licence, there are idiots in all areas of life.

I don't know how much the average angler contributes, and how are you defining "contributes". Obviously all the rod licence money is reinvested in angling, and many clubs use there money for restocking and environmental work, some fees paid for fishing rights etc will be reinvested, but some of that money is taken as profit. Fishing needs investment to maintain the fish stocks etc, paddling needs less money as it's environmental impact is less.
So yes I think paddlers should make a fair contribution, but I don't know how much that would be, or how to calculate it.

Yet again you are labouring under the misapprehension that the rod licence gives the holder an entitlement to fish, it doesn't. On top of the rod licence an angler needs to seek permission of the holder of the riparian rights. Only very occasionally does that permission come for free. Usually, you pay, either direct to a landowner, via a syndicate or via a club that pay rent to a landowner. Sometimes, clubs and syndicates go the whole hog and buy the riparian rights along with an access agreement. Paddlers don't seem to want to acknowledge this fact at all. Your idea of a fair contribution seems to start and end with a single national licence. I wouldn't hold your breath on that coming to fruition unless you persue the theoretical PRN through the courts. Without that, I can't see the holders of riparian rights rolling over for you unless you cross their palms with silver. Individual anglers are never going to be able to tell you how much it's going to cost you, it'll be up to you (collective or individual) to negotiate that. Money talks, wave enough of it at the right people and you'd get access, it really is that simple. Money talks.

 

[barney20]

Barney, you keep on asserting that there is a historic right to navigate all waters without once giving any legal foundation to that assertion.

I thought the legal foundation had already been discussed in this thread, but for clarity I will summarise them to the best of my ability.

Under Roman law the PRN existed in all non tidal rivers, this carried on after the the Roman rule ended and has been confirmed in the Magna Carta and other documents. (The Roman Law, the Magna Carta and the other documents are obviously not valid law now, there only part in this argument is to show what the situation was in the past)

The 1472 Act for Wears and Fishgarths confirms and clarifies the existence of the PRN.

Between 1423 and 1827, 83 rivers were improved under Acts of Parliament, most of these acts do not grant a right to navigate, and many say they are to improve navigation. Therefore the PRN must have existed then.

If the PRN existed up until 1823, then it must still exist now, unless it has been removed by statute, no such statute exists.

Therefore the PRN must still exist.

For a fuller and far more detailed explanation visit this site. Caffyn on Rivers - Home Page

If you were correct, and you are not, then the government would not be spending time and money trying to negotiate a solution. Their lawyers would have picked up on this. Neither would boat owners have been coughing up licence fees to British Waterways and the like if they had a legal right to navigate. And you would not need to be on here trying to put your case. If you had a legal right to paddle anywhere then just get on with it.

The Government are not spending time and money trying to negotiate a solution. The government minister spent a very small amount of time answering a question on the subject, with a vague and non committal answer, perhaps their lawyers have picked up on the PRN.

Boat owners who pay fees to Navigation Authorities (eg Canal and Rivers Trust, which has replaced British Waterways) do so because there are obliged to do so by the Navigation Acts that are specific to those rivers. On rivers without a Navigation Act the PRN exists and can not be charged for.

Many paddlers do just get out and paddle, the purpose of this campaign is to overcome those people who try to stop them paddling.

The simple answer is that you have absolutely no idea of the law, not a jot and so interpret fragments of law to suit your purpose. To put it bluntly you are acting like an idiot.

I don't claim to be an expert in law. But I have read up on this issue, and taken the advice of those better qualified and more knowledgeable than me, and their opinion is that the PRN exists for the reasons stated above.

I am aware that other legal experts reject the existence of the PRN, but none of them have explained their reasoning.

There are two ways to obtain access to waters with no legal right of navigation;

Negotiate a change in the law to allow it. And you are not exactly helping your cause in that respect.

Buy some stretches of river in the same way that people purchase plots of land to allow off road motorbikes to lawfully ride off road.

I am not going to waste my time debating further with you as your childish legal arguments are not worthy of an adult forum.

The legal arguments I have given are not mine, but those of qualified legal experts, they may not be correct, but they are not childish.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I don't know how much the average angler contributes, and how are you defining "contributes".

My syndicate rents the fishing rights from 2 adjacent riparian Owners, both banks of about 1 mile of a southern Trout river.

Together the syndicate pays just under 25k per annum for the right to fish there.

Would paddlers be prepared to take over those costs if the angling syndicate gave it up because of people in canoes on our stretch?

The national fishing license only gives us the rights to fish and has nothing at all to do with where we fish . . . . . . . for the where we pay thousands of pounds either by club membership dies, day ticket venues or syndicates.

Now, you you understand the difference?

 

[barney20]

Inasmuch as there is absolutely nothing new to the debate from either side I would tend to agree with you.

I'm still waiting for a paddler to answer the question regarding the potential loss of income to a Riparian Owner when angling clubs and syndicates pull out due to canoes.
Will they pay the sort of annual fees that we do?

Guess I know the answer already as they (collectively) seems to think that they should get it all for free . . . . . if so, then . . . .


Dream on

Why should they be compensated, landowners are not compensated if a footpath or bridleway crosses their land. So why would they get compensated if there is a right of way running along a river on their land. We are not campaigning for new rights of way, merely for the recognition of rights of way that already exist.

Also if the PRN was acknowledged on all rivers, would all anglers really stop fishing? No. So the landowners could still charge them fees.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Between 1423 and 1827, 83 rivers were improved under Acts of Parliament, most of these acts do not grant a right to navigate, and many say they are to improve navigation. Therefore the PRN must have existed then.

The one does not in any way support the other I'm afraid.

Your conclusion is wholly inaccurate. Think along the lines of turnpikes and toll roads.

 

[fishface1]

Certainly the local police and landowners down here don't seem to think there is a right to paddle:

Avon Diary 2012

 

[sam vimes]

Why should they be compensated, landowners are not compensated if a footpath or bridleway crosses their land. So why would they get compensated if there is a right of way running along a river on their land. We are not campaigning for new rights of way, merely for the recognition of rights of way that already exist.

Also if the PRN was acknowledged on all rivers, would all anglers really stop fishing? No. So the landowners could still charge them fees.

If you want legal recognition of a PRN it'll have to be taken through the courts.
If you want free, or minimal cost, access, you'll have to prove the PRN exists in court. Otherwise you'll have to keep lobbying the politicians and hope the law is clarified or changed.

The alternative is to pay someone enough to allow you access or even to buy the riparian rights and an access agreement on stretches of river.
I'd go so far to suggest that if you went down the route of the latter, you may even be able to ameliorate some of the costs by charging anglers on your stretch of river.

 

[barney20]

Yet again you are labouring under the misapprehension that the rod licence gives the holder an entitlement to fish, it doesn't. On top of the rod licence an angler needs to seek permission of the holder of the riparian rights. Only very occasionally does that permission come for free. Usually, you pay, either direct to a landowner, via a syndicate or via a club that pay rent to a landowner. Sometimes, clubs and syndicates go the whole hog and buy the riparian rights along with an access agreement. Paddlers don't seem to want to acknowledge this fact at all. Your idea of a fair contribution seems to start and end with a single national licence. I wouldn't hold your breath on that coming to fruition unless you persue the theoretical PRN through the courts. Without that, I can't see the holders of riparian rights rolling over for you unless you cross their palms with silver. Individual anglers are never going to be able to tell you how much it's going to cost you, it'll be up to you (collective or individual) to negotiate that. Money talks, wave enough of it at the right people and you'd get access, it really is that simple. Money talks.

If you had read my whole post you would see that I do understood what a Rod Licence was for and that anglers have to pay other fees.

I was answering a post that mentioned the financial contribution that anglers make. Paddlers would be happy to contribute to the up keep of the river and it's environment. As I said calculating how much that would be is difficult.

I don't see why we have to contribute to the pockets of those who own the river bank, you do because you want to stand on the bank.

The riparian owners do not own the navigation rights and therefore can't charge for them.

Paddlers can and do go out and paddle on rivers without asking the riparian owners permission, but it would be better if paddlers, anglers, and land owners were working together for the good of the river, and to find ways to share the use of the rivers with minimum inconvenience.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

We are not campaigning for new rights of way, merely for the recognition of rights of way that already exist.

Well, I am sorry but those 'rights' as you define them do not exist.

That said, you appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that by dint of repetition that your argument might assume some spurious air of authority.

I assure you that it does not and will not.

If, (and is it a huge 'if') the paddlers truly believe their argument, then please pick a sample case and take it to the courts.

The problem being that you have already tried that and withdrew fearing a losing precedent. It had nothing at all to so with cost at all, did it.

 

[barney20]

If you want legal recognition of a PRN it'll have to be taken through the courts.
If you want free, or minimal cost, access, you'll have to prove the PRN exists in court. Otherwise you'll have to keep lobbying the politicians and hope the law is clarified or changed.

The alternative is to pay someone enough to allow you access or even to buy the riparian rights and an access agreement on stretches of river.
I'd go so far to suggest that if you went down the route of the latter, you may even be able to ameliorate some of the costs by charging anglers on your stretch of river.

Or paddlers could just continue paddling, safe in the knowledge that despite all the hot air put out by anglers and riparian owners it is 30+ years since the last case for trespass on a river was taken to court.
There must be a reason why paddlers are not prosecuted, if a paddler is prosecuted it could lead to the recognition of the PRN.

 

[sam vimes]

The riparian owners do not own the navigation rights and therefore can't charge for them.

No, you just want to believe they don't. It simply isn't clear cut. Honestly, good luck to you if you can prove this hypothetical PRN. Theorising about it outside of a court does you no good whatsoever. Even if you managed to convince every individual angler that the PRN exists, it won't clarify it in law.
As I've said several times already, take it to court or pay up. It really is that simple. In the mean time, stop acting surprised when anglers get miffed when you spoil their day. You may think that you are within your rights to do what you do. They are equally convinced that you aren't. The fact that no one in authority backs the paddlers claims suggests that, at this point in time, riparian owners are the ones with the law on their side. You choosing to believe otherwise or even ignore it, changes nothing.

 

[barney20]

Well, I am sorry but those 'rights' as you define them do not exist.

That said, you appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that by dint of repetition that your argument might assume some spurious air of authority.

I assure you that it does not and will not.

If, (and is it a huge 'if') the paddlers truly believe their argument, then please pick a sample case and take it to the courts.

The problem being that you have already tried that and withdrew fearing a losing precedent. It had nothing at all to so with cost at all, did it.

I have repeated the arguement in the hope that some one will explain why it is wrong. Just saying the right doesn't exist, or your wrong, does not answer my questions or prove your point. I have explained the case for the PRN (see post 506), and am waiting for someone to give a detailed explanation of why it is incorrect.

The problem with the case that was taken to court was that it would have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and would have only applied to one stretch of one river. Win or lose it would not have set a precedent that could have been directly applied to any other case.

Why do anglers/landowners not go to court and set a precedent that would keep paddlers off "your" rivers, a trespass case would be much cheaper and easier to bring, and would set a precedent. But you don't, is it because you know you might lose and set a precedent in the paddlers favour.

 

[sam vimes]

Or paddlers could just continue paddling, safe in the knowledge that despite all the hot air put out by anglers and riparian owners it is 30+ years since the last case for trespass on a river was taken to court.
There must be a reason why paddlers are not prosecuted, if a paddler is prosecuted it could lead to the recognition of the PRN.

It could, but the reality is that, in most instances, it's beyond the finances of the individual or collective concerned, not actually worth the trouble/expense anyway and you are nigh on impossible to identify or apprehend.

I can only urge you to do what you will. Just please spare me the bleating about your rights or the faux surprise and indignation when you get a mouthfull from a brassed off angler.

 

[binka]

Certainly the local police and landowners down here don't seem to think there is a right to paddle:

Avon Diary 2012

I'm trying to stay out of this... it's all way over my head but you refer to an interesting point in your link about the anonymity of the paddlers in the pictures and your appeal for anyone who knows them, I have seen it referred to in an earlier post (by a paddler?) about the suggestion of having the requirement to display a registration mark on their canoes.

I wonder, if this were ever to be introduced and enforced, if the same said paddlers that are so happy to challenge the laws as I interpret them to stand at the current time would be just as eager if they knew that they could be more readily recorded and later approached for their actions instead of the impracticality of trying to forge a link between passing paddlers and the vehicles at known launch sites and kicking everything into the long grass?

Surely a registeration scheme for easy identification wouldn't be objected to by those that still believe that they are in the right and have nothing to fear, and that the same said persons would have no objection to defending their beliefs should complaint be made and actually followed up?

Edited to add: Is it not an obligation on the part of the Police to follow up a complaint regardless, with discretion then resting with the CPS on whether or not to proceed and prosecute?

 

[barney20]

I'm trying to stay out of this... it's all way over my head but you refer to an interesting point in your link about the anonymity of the paddlers in the pictures and your appeal for anyone who knows them, I have seen it referred to in an earlier post (by a paddler?) about the suggestion of having the requirement to display a registration mark on their canoes.

I wonder, if this were ever to be introduced and enforced, if the same said paddlers that are so happy to challenge the laws as I interpret them to stand at the current time would be just as eager if they knew that they could be more readily recorded and later approached for their actions instead of the impracticality of trying to forge a link between passing paddlers and the vehicles at known launch sites and kicking everything into the long grass?

Surely a registeration scheme for easy identification wouldn't be objected to by those that still believe that they are in the right and have nothing to fear, and that the same said persons would have no objection to defending their beliefs should complaint be made and actually followed up?

Edited to add: Is it not an obligation on the part of the Police to follow up a complaint regardless, with discretion then resting with the CPS on whether or not to proceed and prosecute?

I wouldn't have a problem with displaying a registration number on my canoe.

I'm not sure that the police really would be interested, if the complaint is that the paddler was trespassing that is a civil matter and the police wouldn't get involved. The case would have to be brought by the landowner or their agent.

If the landowner wanted to bring a case for trespass the licencing authority could supply the paddlers details from the registration number, and there could be an offense of not displaying the licence.

 

[twotrucks]

Certainly the local police and landowners down here don't seem to think there is a right to paddle:

Avon Diary 2012

What you mean is that someone who runs a website to promote their own militant view of the law doesn't think there is a right to paddle. It means less than nothing.

The local police absolutely know what the score is, and empty threats to involve them to try and enforce a partisan view are clumsy attempts at intimidation if not carried out and a waste of police time if they are.

There was a time when local police forces would take a call from a land-owner or someone styling themselves as a baliff and claiming rights that they don't have with respect to navigation and automatically side with what they were told without investigating the actual position properly. Those days are over and they are now a lot less prone to having the wool pulled over their eyes.

Most police forces now know the score, but here is one from Dyfed-Powys where they have put their view in writing.

The salient bit is:

I have caused some research to be carried out in relation to interests in water and rights in flowing water at common law. The position is that although certain rights as regards flowing water are incident to the ownership of riparian property (that is, land abutting the water) the water itself, whether flowing in a known and defined channel or percolating through the soil, is not, at common law, the subject of property or capable of being granted to anybody. Flowing or running water is therefore considered as public or common.

and he goes on to reject any claims that there is any breach of the law involved in paddlers navigating down a river and any prospect of police involvement unless anyone commits a public order offence.

This all runs a bit contrary to all of the opinions I've read here about the law being clear that paddling is a crime etc.