Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[bennygesserit]

I respect that and i certainly i also learn something new every day to......but i can't help thinking you shouldn't be commenting so much on a section of angling that affects you not one iota......i'm not having a dig at you as a person, you sound a good bloke.

Enough said.

There are a few ways to answer that .... i used to fish rivers , my son wants to try a river , I pay my membership of the Trust and they are involved , I pay my license fee so I am involved that way. Again I pay my income tax so my money is involved that way or maybe I should restrict myself to those things that only directly affect me , I am sure you o, like commercial fishing and canal fishing nothing else.

No despite all those compelling reasons I can still comment because its aninternet forum and none of the political views expressed by anyone actuallly really matter , thats the end in itself , to chew the fat with fellow "alleged" anglers.

---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 21:07 ----------

Uh? This has nothing to do with anything like a 'class war'. Anglers and paddlers come from anywhere and everywhere in the social scale. The ATr is fighting on behalf of rich and poor anglers alike.

You sure ?

 

[nicepix]

The case where the canoeist did not turn up was held against him in his absence. That shows the offence of canoeing on a none navigable water was determined by the court clerk and enforced by the Magistrates. If the canoeists want to challenge that they need to take the matter to a higher court.

It is exactly the type of speculative interpretation that Waterways and others keep bringing up that caused me to write to Richard Benyon MP asking for him to consider a Fixed Penalty Notice for the offence. This will set down an easily enforceable penalty for the police to act on. It needs more people to write to him asking for the same.

 

[Berty]

There are a few ways to answer that .... i used to fish rivers , my son wants to try a river , I pay my membership of the Trust and they are involved , I pay my license fee so I am involved that way. Again I pay my income tax so my money is involved that way or maybe I should restrict myself to those things that only directly affect me , I am sure you o, like commercial fishing and canal fishing nothing else.

No despite all those compelling reasons I can still comment because its aninternet forum and none of the political views expressed by anyone actuallly really matter , thats the end in itself , to chew the fat with fellow "alleged" anglers.


When your "views" have the chance of affecting others but you have no idea whatsoever of what you are affecting then yes i think you should wait untill such a time as you can give a balanced opinion.

Payment into the "club" do's nothing to gain respect.

Personally i value a poachers opinion more, at least he see's the whole picture.

Comment away all you wish.

 

[bennygesserit]

Ha ha and you shouldn't comment on the premiership , at least not for a few years anyway.

Neither my views or yours will affect any of these issues one iota , I think you have lost sight of that when you talk about respect and whose values you respect chill out , its just a discussion on an internet forum , thats all, if you want to argue a point with me fine but simply saying I should not express an opinion is how the Nazis started.

 

[sam vimes]

Ha ha and you shouldn't comment on the premiership , at least not for a few years anyway.

Neither my views or yours will affect any of these issues one iota , I think you have lost sight of that when you talk about respect and whose values you respect chill out , its just a discussion on an internet forum , thats all, if you want to argue a point with me fine but simply saying I should not express an opinion is how the Nazis started.

Godwin's law applied.

However, I suspect you are missing the point. I feel that the paddlers are only too keen to pounce on everything you say as, on the face of it, from their biased viewpoint, you are an angler that is sympathetic towards them. However, when the reality is that you aren't really affected and admit to not having the greatest understanding of the river anglers side, you surely can't be too surprised when those that do fish the rivers get a little miffed with you.

 

[bennygesserit]

Godwin's law applied.

However, I suspect you are missing the point. I feel that the paddlers are only too keen to pounce on everything you say as, on the face of it, from their biased viewpoint, you are an angler that is sympathetic towards them. However, when the reality is that you aren't really affected and admit to not having the greatest understanding of the river anglers side, you surely can't be too surprised when those that do fish the rivers get a little miffed with you.

Sam do you get my point that i feel my opinion has no effect ? Neither do virtually any forum posts , I doubt I am going to reveal some secret that suddenly unlocks the paddlers ability to remove all anglers.

So what if I haven't fished rivers since I was a kid , so what if my opinion is not the same as yours , should I keep quiet ?

On a forum people will use any trick in the book to online kung fu you into thinking they are winning the debate well this is another piece of Kung Fu , except that no one wins on the internet.

i don't really care whether you think I should air my views or not , I am interested in your counter arguments and will read them with the respect that my fellows deserve.

 

[sam vimes]

Sam do you get my point that i feel my opinion has no effect ? Neither do virtually any forum posts , I doubt I am going to reveal some secret that suddenly unlocks the paddlers ability to remove all anglers.

Yes, I get the point. Ultimately, forums are talking shops with little real point other than whiling away a few minutes/hours/days/weeks/years* of our pointless existences. However, I still feel (mainly due to your peace broker stance on the paddlers forum) that they are only too happy to pounce on your posts as a vindication of some of their ideas.

So what if I haven't fished rivers since I was a kid , so what if my opinion is not the same as yours , should I keep quiet ?

You can say whatever you want, just don't act surprised when people get irritated. A daft analogy for you, what you've done is akin to me going on to a Palestinian forum and suggesting that I have every sympathy for their plight and perhaps Israel should cease to exist. At the the same time I'm also on the Israeli forum telling them that my sympathies lie with the Palestinians and that, perhaps, Israel has no right to exist. Would it then be a big surprise to find that the Israelis didn't take too kindly to me, particularly when I don't really know what I'm talking about and have no connection to either side?

On a forum people will use any trick in the book to online kung fu you into thinking they are winning the debate well this is another piece of Kung Fu , except that no one wins on the internet.

No trick, I'm not trying to win anything. There is nothing to win.

i don't really care whether you think I should air my views or not , I am interested in your counter arguments and will read them with the respect that my fellows deserve.

Good for you, I don't really expect you to. Nowhere have I said that you can't say whatever you like. However, I still struggle to see why you act so surprised that people react negatively to someone that has conceded that they have little knowledge of rivers and nothing whatsoever to lose. It's easy to make concessions when there's no impact to yourself.


*Delete as applicable.

 

[bennygesserit]

Yes, I get the point. Ultimately, forums are talking shops with little real point other than whiling away a few minutes/hours/days/weeks/years* of our pointless existences. However, I still feel (mainly due to your peace broker stance on the paddlers forum) that they are only too happy to pounce on your posts as a vindication of some of their ideas.


Maybe so , but only some , others on both sides are interested in a friendly dialog , I think everyyones posts can be mis understood or misinterpreted.


You can say whatever you want, just don't act surprised when people get irritated. A daft analogy for you, what you've done is akin to me going on to a Palestinian forum and suggesting that I have every sympathy for their plight and perhaps Israel should cease to exist. At the the same time I'm also on the Israeli forum telling them that my sympathies lie with the Palestinians and that, perhaps, Israel has no right to exist. Would it then be a big surprise to find that the Israelis didn't take too kindly to me, particularly when I don't really know what I'm talking about and have no connection to either side?

Like you said the analogy is so extreme as to be daft, there are angling canoeists and canoeing anglers on this forum and SOTP plus lots of people who wish to avoid promoting confrontation , which takes us further away from your analogy. i have a connection to angling ( that card again .... ? ). Saying I don't know what I am talking about , strikes me as strange when most of my posts where actually asking questions.


No trick, I'm not trying to win anything. There is nothing to win.

I agree with you.


Good for you, I don't really expect you to. Nowhere have I said that you can't say whatever you like. However, I still struggle to see why you act so surprised that people react negatively to someone that has conceded that they have little knowledge of rivers and nothing whatsoever to lose. It's easy to make concessions when there's no impact to yourself.

You repeated yourself , what concessions am I making , I am not negotiating on your behalf I am simply part of a group discussion. , is it only for elite river anglers ? No its for anyone who wants to contribute. This forum is littered with IMHO or I'm no expert but

*Delete as applicable.

next time you are on sotp why not sign in , thats enough for me the replies are getting too obvious.

 

[sam vimes]

Like you said the analogy is so extreme as to be daft, there are angling canoeists and canoeing anglers on this forum and SOTP plus lots of people who wish to avoid promoting confrontation , which takes us further away from your analogy. i have a connection to angling ( that card again .... ? ). Saying I don't know what I am talking about , strikes me as strange when most of my posts where actually asking questions.

Not all, but you've chosen to ignore most of the answers given by anglers.
Who said anything about "promoting confrontation"? Again, you seem to have anglers down as being confrontational. Well, I'm afraid you can't have a confrontation without paddlers being somewhere they shouldn't be. How that makes any angler confrontational, is quite beyond me. We aren't the ones turning up at the Holme Pierrepont/Tees Barrage canoe courses, sticking 16m of pole across the river then sitting there acting shocked when canoeists are brassed off with what we're doing.

Yes, the analogy I used is extreme and a little ridiculous. That doesn't mean it's not perfectly valid. Though you've taken the fact that Palestine and Israel are in conflict from it, that has little to do with what I was saying. You continue to have your say, just stop acting aggrieved and surprised when you when a river angler gets irritated.

next time you are on sotp why not sign in , thats enough for me the replies are getting too obvious.

No thanks, I've got nothing to say to them. However, I suspect that what you are alluding to is that they seemed to turn on you to some degree (last I saw anyway, I'm not a regular visitor). All I can say is, that's what happens when you play Devil's Advocate for too long, both sides end up disliking what you have to say.

Ultimately, much of your stance appear to be based on the ideological. As I've said before, I have some sympathy with the David vs Goliath thing. However, suggestions that it's a class war, with anglers lumped in with the Goliath that is the upper crust landowners, doesn't really hold water.
I'll actually be all for a more tolerant sharing approach, providing that there's a quid pro quo. As it stands, paddlers want it all for nothing, anglers only lose. Either paddlers accept the current situation and pay their way to individual landowners or, if they want their free for all, angling needs to get a similar riverine free for all.

 

[waterways]

Over my dead rotting body. Not while I'm paying for quality fishing and illegal paddlers are screwing it all up with a 'do as you likey' it's-all-free attitude.
"There is no clear case law on whether a 'common law right of navigation' exists on unregulated rivers. This is widely accepted to be an unclear and unresolved issue."

Who by? Nobody I know who fishes rivers that's for sure. This statement is nothing more than continued waffle

This is a statement by DEFRA's lawyers. It is a very clear and unambiguous statement. It was made to a group whose sole aim is to get access rights confirmed. It's main implication is that DEFRA may now have to explain why it continues to support the idea of 'access agreements' with landowners, when it does not know if the landowner has any right to ask for one.

It might also explain why The Angling Trust has not taken the very simple step of suing one or more canoeists for trespass. My guess is that they agree with DEFRA, although they are not prepared to admit this in public, and prefer to let their membership be ignorant of their true opinion, while they continue to posture and strut as the defender of Anglers' rights.

I would be asking them why they do not sue someone now and get this resolved.

 

[bennygesserit]

Not all, but you've chosen to ignore most of the answers given by anglers.
Who said anything about "promoting confrontation"? Again, you seem to have anglers down as being confrontational. Well, I'm afraid you can't have a confrontation without paddlers being somewhere they shouldn't be. How that makes any angler confrontational, is quite beyond me. We aren't the ones turning up at the Holme Pierrepont/Tees Barrage canoe courses, sticking 16m of pole across the river then sitting there acting shocked when canoeists are brassed off with what we're doing.

Yes, the analogy I used is extreme and a little ridiculous. That doesn't mean it's not perfectly valid. Though you've taken the fact that Palestine and Israel are in conflict from it, that has little to do with what I was saying. You continue to have your say, just stop acting aggrieved and surprised when you when a river angler gets irritated.



No thanks, I've got nothing to say to them. However, I suspect that what you are alluding to is that they seemed to turn on you to some degree (last I saw anyway, I'm not a regular visitor). All I can say is, that's what happens when you play Devil's Advocate for too long, both sides end up disliking what you have to say.

Ultimately, much of your stance appear to be based on the ideological. As I've said before, I have some sympathy with the David vs Goliath thing. However, suggestions that it's a class war, with anglers lumped in with the Goliath that is the upper crust landowners, doesn't really hold water.
I'll actually be all for a more tolerant sharing approach, providing that there's a quid pro quo. As it stands, paddlers want it all for nothing, anglers only lose. Either paddlers accept the current situation and pay their way to individual landowners or, if they want their free for all, angling needs to get a similar riverine free for all.

No that entire post is wrong

 

[jack sprat]

Pretty clear cut in law that such a right does not exist. DEFRA are being disingenuous in denying it. If it did exist then the cases quoted below would have been able to use it but they failed to do so, and certainly had the opportunity to test it right up to the Law Lords. In any case in the case of several non-navigable rivers the more recent existence of SSSI status affects all usage, including angling, and a general right for access would be denied.

Quite why canoeists are so incredibly tight-fisted is also beyond me. On one unnavigable river that I know well there is a five mile stretch of river that hasn't been fished for at least 20 years and is unlikely to be fished in the next 20 years but if they (the canoeists) paid the normal going rate (say £2 per metre they could have a section (not necessarily all five miles) of river all to themselves with no conflict of interest, and given planning permission probably build a club house/changing facilities in the bargain. If they are as numerous as claimed then the fees would be modest, certainly less than a good angling club. The rowers on the same river do just that on two of their own stretches and have paid for access to the stretches of river that they use and have secure storage for their sculls/blades etc. They also get to do essential maintenance to remove branches etc. likely to cause problems when they are rowing. Unrestricted access to non tidal water would place a burden on landowners to ensure their water was unobstructed and I don't think many would want either that nor unauthorised people on their land. Remember as much river water is unfished as fished, especially small streams. Interestingly two canoeists were jailed in Dorset for substantial jail sentences for attacking a river keeper who asked them to leave. Their defence of a right to be there carried no weight.

Personally, I've fished navigable waters all my life, mainly the Thames, but also tidal waters, and find the effect of boats variable in the extreme from beneficial to untenable, but at least I know what to expect and when to avoid going. My best day on the river mentioned above was a day when the rowing was continuous yet the roach fed well all day and fed better after the rowing started.

The current position of the law is settled in that no general public right to navigate in non tidal
rivers exists in England and Wales. While the public has the right of navigation in tidal waters (e.g. Gann v Free Fishers of Whitstable (1865) 11 H.L.Cas; Blundell v Caterall (1821) 5B & Ald. 268), this depends on the presumption of the Crown's ownership of the land beneath the water. This presumption is rebuttable and there are some instances where the tidal riverbed is under private ownership.

The presumption of rights of navigation on tidal rivers contrasts with the very limited right on non-tidal rivers. The default position is that there is no such general right of navigation. Above the flow of tide the land beneath a river or stream is privately owned so that while the public can acquire navigational rights over such waters they cannot have them as of right. It has been held that rights of navigation on inland waterways are not analogous to rights of way on land (Wills' Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School (1976) SLT 162 and AG
ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust and Malton Town Council v Brotherton [1992] 1 All ER 230).

Acquiring rights of navigation
Post-Wills Trustees, the public acquisition of a right to navigate on a non-tidal waterway cannot be based on the usual arguments used for "immemorial user" for rights of way on land. The basis of a public right of navigation in a non-tidal river should be treated as being in a legal class of its own. Of course, as is well recognised, a public right of navigation may also arise through statute. This is the most common way in which such rights arise.

No right for use of banks
Even in the situations where the public has a right of navigation in a non-tidal waterway (whether by grant, statute or immemorial user), this does not necessarily include the right to moor or to make use of the banks of the waterway in gaining access to or leaving the waterway. In A-G ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust and Malton Town Council v Brotherton [1992] 1 All ER 230, L Jauncy commented, obiter, that ". . .the public have no right to use the bed or banks of the river other than perhaps for anchoring in an emergency and for landing at a place where they are entitled so to do".

Therefore, to moor and access the river in such circumstances, canoeists would need the permission of the owner of the river bank to avoid to avoid trespassing.

 

[peter crabtree]

Quote Jack Sprat; 'yet the roach fed well all day and fed better after the rowing started.'

I was fishing the Colne last year and the local Sea scouts were having a very vigorous game of water polo a few yards upstream. At first I thought I'd pack up and move but the roach kept biting regardless of the commotion. I was soon bagging up and they were quality roach. As soon as the canoeists paddled off home I couldn't buy a bite.....

 

[waterways]

"Pretty clear cut in law that such a right does not exist. DEFRA are being disingenuous in denying it. "

DEFRA are not denying anything. They are saying they do not know whether the right exists or not. What is disingenuous about that? Particularly as by admitting this, they have destroyed the validity of their strategy for controlling access to rivers by users other than Anglers.

There is a very simple reason why canoeists cannot test this law. It is because someone has to sue a canoeist for trespass for it to be tested. Can anyone tell me why no one is prepared to do this if the situation is as clear cut as you believe, and if this is the huge problem that it is made out to be.

My guess is that it is because everyone knows that DEFRA are right, and because canoeists usually leave no trace and cause no damage, so trying to sue would be a fruitless exercise.

 

[sam vimes]

There is a very simple reason why canoeists cannot test this law. It is because someone has to sue a canoeist for trespass for it to be tested. Can anyone tell me why no one is prepared to do this if the situation is as clear cut as you believe, and if this is the huge problem that it is made out to be.

Are you aware that no one ever seems to get prosecuted for trespass?
That applies even if you take rivers out of the equation entirely.
The reality is that trespass on it's own is not going to land you in a court.
Only if there are ancilliary "crimes" (harrassment, poaching, criminal damage etc) is a prosecution likely. The problems an angling body would have in trying to sue a canoeist don't just hinge on that either. Canoeists aren't easily detainable or identifiable. Angling bodies or individuals aren't generally the landowner. Last I knew, you couldn't sue someone by proxy. "He trespassed on someone else's land, your honour." "Are you the landowner?" "Erm, no."

The only real angle, as mentioned by Nicepix earlier, is that of harrassment. I wouldn't want to sue in the hope of convincing a court that a canoeist would have any impact on fishing. For one reason or another, minds will already be made up on that issue before you even enter a court room.

That's the reality of why no canoeist has been sued for trespass. It's little to do with any percieved rights that canoeists may or may not have.

 

[waterways]

Sam
Thanks for that... A realistic assessment of the situation. Makes sense to me. If only Canoe England and The Angling Trust would get together and make a joint proposal to solve this issue. I blame both bodies equally for allowing this to fester for decades and for their refusal to negotiate with one another. The law needs to be changed to remove this confusion and provide clear guidelines for what is permitted and what is not. We might have different views about that law should be, of course....

 

[nicepix]

There was a case of trespass dealt with by the Magistrate's Court. The canoeist did not turn up so they found him guilty in his absence. They could not do that if there was no law to underpin the offence.

The Angling Trust are not responsible for negotiating rights of way over rivers. They have no mandate for the vast majority of rivers affected by canoeists demands. There are issues of privacy to be considered, not just angling. Land and house prices may be affected if canoeists are allowed access to non navigable waters. That is a bigger obstacle to overcome than angler's issues.

By the same token there is no canoeing association that can speak for the hundreds of non club members who descend on English and Welsh rivers with their play boats. That is the real danger. Not licenced and insured canoeists, but the boating equivalent of off-road motorcyclists. How can the BCU or whatever guarantee that they will not descend on every river? They can't.

DEFRA have always maintained that there is no right of navigation other than those waters with a legal status. There are many reference in Hansard to MPs debating these matters using the same principle. Why all of a sudden has that changed?

If the government was in favour of unrestricted boating access to rivers they would not be taking the stance they have. While ever Waterways and the others keep trying to pretend that the existing laws aren't applicable more pressure will mount on the government to bring in clear and decisive legislation as they have with off-road motorcycles.

The canoeists are forcing the issue and it can only go against them and in anglers favour IMO.

In the meantime all anglers should be aware of the laws of Harassment. They are a complete farce and easily proven, but in this instance will serve the angler's purpose very well indeed. If someone can be victim of Harassment by getting a couple of text messages from a stranger, then a law-abiding angler enjoying his fishing could be similarly harassed by a canoeist with no right to be there. Magic words to use are: Harassed, Alarmed & Distressed. The police are legally obliged to record and investigate your claim.

 

[richiekelly]

There was a case of trespass dealt with by the Magistrate's Court. The canoeist did not turn up so they found him guilty in his absence. They could not do that if there was no law to underpin the offence.

The Angling Trust are not responsible for negotiating rights of way over rivers. They have no mandate for the vast majority of rivers affected by canoeists demands. There are issues of privacy to be considered, not just angling. Land and house prices may be affected if canoeists are allowed access to non navigable waters. That is a bigger obstacle to overcome than angler's issues.

By the same token there is no canoeing association that can speak for the hundreds of non club members who descend on English and Welsh rivers with their play boats. That is the real danger. Not licenced and insured canoeists, but the boating equivalent of off-road motorcyclists. How can the BCU or whatever guarantee that they will not descend on every river? They can't.

DEFRA have always maintained that there is no right of navigation other than those waters with a legal status. There are many reference in Hansard to MPs debating these matters using the same principle. Why all of a sudden has that changed?

If the government was in favour of unrestricted boating access to rivers they would not be taking the stance they have. While ever Waterways and the others keep trying to pretend that the existing laws aren't applicable more pressure will mount on the government to bring in clear and decisive legislation as they have with off-road motorcycles.

The canoeists are forcing the issue and it can only go against them and in anglers favour IMO.

In the meantime all anglers should be aware of the laws of Harassment. They are a complete farce and easily proven, but in this instance will serve the angler's purpose very well indeed. If someone can be victim of Harassment by getting a couple of text messages from a stranger, then a law-abiding angler enjoying his fishing could be similarly harassed by a canoeist with no right to be there. Magic words to use are: Harassed, Alarmed & Distressed. The police are legally obliged to record and investigate your claim.

Nicepix, although I agree with your post above I would agree more if you stopped mentioning off road motorcycles, there are thousands of off roaders that do it completely legally ( my grandson races motocross) and it isn't cheap as I know to my cost, it is the illegal off roaders that the law is there to prosecute, one part of the law is that if caught the motorcycle is confiscated, perhaps the same law needs to include illegal canoeists?

 

[nicepix]

Nicepix, although I agree with your post above I would agree more if you stopped mentioning off road motorcycles, there are thousands of off roaders that do it completely legally ( my grandson races motocross) and it isn't cheap as I know to my cost, it is the illegal off roaders that the law is there to prosecute, one part of the law is that if caught the motorcycle is confiscated, perhaps the same law needs to include illegal canoeists?

I'm sorry if this offends you, but for every legal motorcross rider there will be many illegal off road bikers. On a weekend in summer around 30% of all the calls to police are about illegal off road motorbikes causing problems.

I mention off road motorbikes because it has several parallels with the canoeists. Mainly that there will be a majority who do not obey the rules and pay their fees. Also, whilst it is difficult for the police to apprehend off road bikes and canoes 'in the act', both are to a large extent on unloading and loading areas and that is where the police can intercept them more easily. But, they will only do this when the offence justifies their actions. I know how it works having spent time in the police. That is why I keep banging on about reporting Harassment. Trespass does not affect crime figures. Harassment does. and that will get the Neighbourhood Police Teams tasked with dealing with recurring problems caused by canoeists.

 

[bennygesserit]

I'm sorry if this offends you, but for every legal motorcross rider there will be many illegal off road bikers. On a weekend in summer around 30% of all the calls to police are about illegal off road motorbikes causing problems.

I mention off road motorbikes because it has several parallels with the canoeists. Mainly that there will be a majority who do not obey the rules and pay their fees. Also, whilst it is difficult for the police to apprehend off road bikes and canoes 'in the act', both are to a large extent on unloading and loading areas and that is where the police can intercept them more easily. But, they will only do this when the offence justifies their actions. I know how it works having spent time in the police. That is why I keep banging on about reporting Harassment. Trespass does not affect crime figures. Harassment does. and that will get the Neighbourhood Police Teams tasked with dealing with recurring problems caused by canoeists.

My son offroads too , legally , I understand you making the distinction in fact I have seen a motorbike confiscated while I was fishing.

Being a non river angler and blah blah etc etc all the other stuff I am getting Private Messages about .... EFF it let me just ask the question , are you suggesting you report harassment every time or only when you feel harassed ? See I understand how you would feel that on a small river when stalking , I can also understand how you would feel that if a canoeist stopped turned round in your swim and gave you an earfull for being cruel , but I am asking you honestly would you take this action every time you see a canoeist , even if you are fishing on a wide river ? Wouldn't this be a waste of police time ?

When they should be out catching motorists ( KIDDING )

No seriously I would be interested in your view