Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[bennygesserit]

This reads like not only are you bitching about being able to paddle on the Severn, which you can as far up as Welshpool but no further, but you want the right to fish where you like when you like from your kayak for the price of an EA licence and because there are few or no anglers present.
Nowt like bleedin cheek is there!

THE FISHING RIGHTS ARE OWNED BY SOMEONE!

You have no rights to fish there unless the owner gives you permission to do so. To do so without that permission will mean you are committing the act of Poaching. And no amount of digging about in Magna Carta for long defunct rights will get you out of that one!

It is because of people like you that I will not rejoin the Angling Trust and their pandering to you and your ilk! I also know that there are many, many other river anglers that feel the same way. I talk to them on a weekly basis when checking their club cards.

You've stated above if the AT thought they had a case against paddlers they'd have gone to court over it. Now call me cynical but given they are offering both kayakers and canoeists insurance cover no doubt deriving a management/handling fee from that, they are unlikely to. Which raises a larger question on this issue, "In who's best interests are they really acting on?" The vast majority of anglers who fund them? Their own and an income stream derived? The paddlers and their own?

I am not sure Terry is proposing he can fish anywhere he likes from his kayak ? Are you Terry ? TBO. I totally agree that you cannot fish where you do not have the rights , even if you were in a hot air balloon floating above the river.

Don't canoeists contribute aswell , financially in the ways Terry has already detailed.

I cycle and occaisionally on the canal by me there are matches with a hundred anglers, getting past them on a bike is such a hassle i normally take another route , unless I want to watch. However if I can't take another route , its just tough , I am patient about waiting for them to move their poles out the way , but still its my right to be there , just as much as them , so I ignore their occaisional moaning, and it is only occaisional , most people are ok with sharing.

To me its the same with paddlers , the rivers are a public place , even if you own the fishing rights , and no one has given a definitive legal answer to that yet.

Is it the sharing that creates the fuss , certainly someone mentioned a hundred canoeists paddling past , that would certainly be annoying , I have had a canoeist come past me when I was fishing on the canal , and I'll be honest even though there was just one it was annoying.

But also when out cycling , or walking my dogs I have had matchmen moan at me on the canal.


Surely in most places , with exceptions , its just the odd canoeist and the odd loan angler who meet up , politely and mostly get along.

 

[Berty]

Berty perhaps you should leave the art of reasoned discussion to those more able.

Each time you are proved wrong you just ignore the point and attack something else. You have so many chips on your shoulder you should go sea fishing and get a portion of cod.

You do your cause no justice when others can do it so much better. I am an angler and a paddler. At no time have I advocated unfettered access, indeed I wrote ' reasonable access where appropriate.'
You say 'fairness to all'! You do not mean it. You mean fairness to anglers.

'1000+years of angling heritage'
Strange that is around the time of the Magna Carta which was the first time public Rights of Navigation were created by government via that same document.
It could be said that angling is disrupting over 1000 years of navigation heritage.
'Fairness to all'.

Theres nothing that gets up my nose more than a self righteous arogant idiot who can't see when he is wrong and is only interested in walking over the rights of others!!!....reasoned discussion my arse!!

Now pray tell what bit i was wrong about?

Oh and by the way, angling predates the Magna Carta by a long long time as it doe's Navigation......but you will twist that for your own means!

Chip on my shoulder? no, just a passionate dislike for those who think they can take what they like at the cost of others.

Oh and by the way, i have owned kayaks!!!!.........it's not kayaks that are a problem it's some of those in them!!

---------- Post added at 07:32 ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 ----------

All this endless Paddlers' Ping Pong. Debate coherently, even spell correctly, then clued-up people like myself might give you more than just a sighing "Oh dear" moment of their time.

**** off..............................no one understands your waffle.

 

[jasonbean1]

i would consider myself a very reasonable person, i'm even considering buying a kayak to fish from and after reading this thread and looking in on the song of the paddle forum i can't help but side with Berty.

Terry, reason being you want it all... and in the ideal world all paddlers would be reasonable and fair people and anglers and would get along fine with them...trouble is we don't live in this world you see, your trying to make it fit what you want.

i have a very big interest in this as there is direct threat to my club, the car park and access and i'ts peacefull fishing on a small river...this is coming from a company that runs canal cruises, now a tea shop and they have set up canoe and kayak hire within 20 yards of the river we lease from the canal and rivers trust. at the moment they are just using the canal we think, they are trying to push us off the car park on there busy days depsite it being in our lease with the trust and we have been there many years longer than them (see it?...they are already unreasonable and not playing fair).

however they are business people and there website pretty mush says the river can be used(or does not say it can't)....they advertise corporate team building events along with slalom...now i doubt if a group of lads wanted to hire canoes and go down the river the company woud stop them...this would lead to direct confrontaion with the club, the paddlers and the company.

terry, would you say this situation is acceptable?... it appears so from everything you say and if not seeing as you volunteer with the canal and rivers trust would you back us in stopping this company accesing the river for canoe/kayak hire?

fortunately at this moment it is not a problem but with way things are going with what you and others advocate it soon will be and our club will have to prepare itself to fight it's corner.

cheers
Jason

 

[bennygesserit]

i would consider myself a very reasonable person, i'm even considering buying a kayak to fish from and after reading this thread and looking in on the song of the paddle forum i can't help but side with Berty.

Terry, reason being you want it all... and in the ideal world all paddlers would be reasonable and fair people and anglers and would get along fine with them...trouble is we don't live in this world you see, your trying to make it fit what you want.

i have a very big interest in this as there is direct threat to my club, the car park and access and i'ts peacefull fishing on a small river...this is coming from a company that runs canal cruises, now a tea shop and they have set up canoe and kayak hire within 20 yards of the river we lease from the canal and rivers trust. at the moment they are just using the canal we think, they are trying to push us off the car park on there busy days depsite it being in our lease with the trust and we have been there many years longer than them (see it?...they are already unreasonable and not playing fair).

however they are business people and there website pretty mush says the river can be used(or does not say it can't)....they advertise corporate team building events along with slalom...now i doubt if a group of lads wanted to hire canoes and go down the river the company woud stop them...this would lead to direct confrontaion with the club, the paddlers and the company.

terry, would you say this situation is acceptable?... it appears so from everything you say and if not seeing as you volunteer with the canal and rivers trust would you back us in stopping this company accesing the river for canoe/kayak hire?

fortunately at this moment it is not a problem but with way things are going with what you and others advocate it soon will be and our club will have to prepare itself to fight it's corner.

cheers
Jason

I don't think Terry has said he wants it all at least in terms of fishing where he has no right to.

I understand your concerns but isn't it like when you were kids and you played football in the street , you had to stop when a car came past because the car has the right to be on a public highway ?

 

[Terry wright]

Bad One,

I have NEVER EVER advocated freedom to fish anywhere without payment from the kayak, please read my posts and quote correctly. I have asked for the right to buy a day ticket. I totally agree that all fishing rights are owned and need to be paid for.

The access question for paddlers needs to be debated and the acess under debate should be ' reasonable access where appropriate.' I hate to say this but as time goes on you will have to share the rivers with the rest of the country. CROW was just the first step, walkers, dogs, mountain bikers, open swimmers, SUP's etc will all be lobbying for access.

Oh and I am not a member of the AT and they are not linked in any way with any access discussions, quite the opposite.

Jason,

With regard to a hire company of any description on a canal that has navigational access then I am afraid you are stuck. The best you can do is negotiate with CRT and the hire company to see if when you have a match they restrict movements to reduce the impact.
The CRT have a duty to all water users and it cannot be forgotten that canals were for water traffic originally and angling was a by product.
The CRT have had there funding cut dramatically and are desperate to generate cash where they can but not to the total avoidance of your rights. Have you tried speaking to John Ellis, the National Fisheries Manager to see if a compromise can be reached. Perhams a solution can be found before trading starts.

Berty,
Strangely enough navigation predates the Magna Cart too, but that was when it was formally ratified. I think fishing and boats have gone hand in hand for a little while.

'Theres nothing that gets up my nose more than a self righteous arogant idiot who can't see when he is wrong and is only interested in walking over the rights of others!!!....reasoned discussion my arse!!'
Your words are very appropriate Berty my friend.

Lad's,

I am not an advocate for unlimited access to all rivers.
Nor for free fishing kayak anglers. I strongly advise on obtaining consent and purchase of permits.

Terry

 

[Berty]

Theres a section of the Warwickshire Avon that i fish, its a section that is NON navigable, it is a wonderful fishery.

The navigable part is another section and "our" section gives us somewhere away from the week end admirals, we accept that they have a right on the Avon as much as we do and we adjust our fishing to suit.

"Our" section is a dead end in as much as the weir stops further progress and the entrance to this narrow stretch of water clearly makes it known that the navigable part is the other way.


Last time i was down there, a couple and their 3 children decided "our" narrow channel would be a good place to paddle up and down practising various canoe activities, it totally screwed up the anglers days out.

This is what really happens!!.......i have seen the other side where a loan kayaker passes through my swim swiftly and silently, he even gave a smile and said sorry, i didn't have a problem with that.

I have met and chat with at length an ex soldier who crossed the Atlantic in a kayak so i have seen all sides.

But as the hobby becomes more popular it attracts those who have no desire to "go silently" and don't give a toss about how many others enjoyment they ruin.

So in my own short and to the point language **** em!!!

 

[jasonbean1]

.

Jason,

With regard to a hire company of any description on a canal that has navigational access then I am afraid you are stuck. The best you can do is negotiate with CRT and the hire company to see if when you have a match they restrict movements to reduce the impact.
The CRT have a duty to all water users and it cannot be forgotten that canals were for water traffic originally and angling was a by product.
The CRT have had there funding cut dramatically and are desperate to generate cash where they can but not to the total avoidance of your rights. Have you tried speaking to John Ellis, the National Fisheries Manager to see if a compromise can be reached. Perhams a solution can be found before trading starts.

Terry

Terry, i am on about a river, it runs alongside the canal and so the access to that bit of river belongs to the CRT. I know John ellis and to be honest he and angling have liitle or no say within the CRT when comes to a comprimise between angling and commercialism within that organisation

re-read my post and answer the questions please. again i say that you want it your way which is there is no law to stop us and if you want to stop us take us to court or ask us nicely to sop accessing your river?

cheers
Jason

 

[Berty]

Bad One,

I have NEVER EVER advocated freedom to fish anywhere without payment from the kayak, please read my posts and quote correctly. I have asked for the right to buy a day ticket. I totally agree that all fishing rights are owned and need to be paid for.

The access question for paddlers needs to be debated and the acess under debate should be ' reasonable access where appropriate.' I hate to say this but as time goes on you will have to share the rivers with the rest of the country. CROW was just the first step, walkers, dogs, mountain bikers, open swimmers, SUP's etc will all be lobbying for access.

Oh and I am not a member of the AT and they are not linked in any way with any access discussions, quite the opposite.

Jason,

With regard to a hire company of any description on a canal that has navigational access then I am afraid you are stuck. The best you can do is negotiate with CRT and the hire company to see if when you have a match they restrict movements to reduce the impact.
The CRT have a duty to all water users and it cannot be forgotten that canals were for water traffic originally and angling was a by product.
The CRT have had there funding cut dramatically and are desperate to generate cash where they can but not to the total avoidance of your rights. Have you tried speaking to John Ellis, the National Fisheries Manager to see if a compromise can be reached. Perhams a solution can be found before trading starts.

Berty,
Strangely enough navigation predates the Magna Cart too, but that was when it was formally ratified. I think fishing and boats have gone hand in hand for a little while.

'Theres nothing that gets up my nose more than a self righteous arogant idiot who can't see when he is wrong and is only interested in walking over the rights of others!!!....reasoned discussion my arse!!'
Your words are very appropriate Berty my friend.

Lad's,

I am not an advocate for unlimited access to all rivers.
Nor for free fishing kayak anglers. I strongly advise on obtaining consent and purchase of permits.

Terry

Well i believe, no i know! boats, in any form, came well after fishing!! so that bit of your debate is unreasoned also!!, though irrelevant to this anyway........oh and please don't call me friend, i dislike condescending self righteous folk to!

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

preferencial treatment over us humble boat people.

Crikey Paul, I thought you were a Yam Yam not from Vietnam.

but tell me why you can get for £37 what someone else pays £280 for?

Fully agree with that. Thankfully I sold my boat this year, it was costiong around £72 to register it, would hate to do it under those new terms, but I suspect that's what you get when the old British Waterways takes over. There is a fight to allow the Thames to carry on as previously, I can see why now, it's cheaper.

Still can't understand why a 12 foot Kayak is different from a 12 foot boat, other than the shape.


Oh and TERRY, why not answer my questions please, they're along moral lines not legal.

 

[bennygesserit]

Oh and TERRY, why not answer my questions please, they're along moral lines not legal.

Does that mean you have abandoned the legal line Jeff ?

As For Jason's club as far as I can tell while it may be legal to paddle through its definitely not legal to use land to access the river without permission.

 

[jasonbean1]

Does that mean you have abandoned the legal line Jeff ?

As For Jason's club as far as I can tell while it may be legal to paddle through its definitely not legal to use land to access the river without permission.

i think that will be the problem benny, fairness doesnt come into this on the paddlers side...it's a stuff you attitude and i think you well know that despite trying to keep impartial.

and for our bit of river i hope it doesn't become a problem but the potential is real and right next to the river...thing is benny the acces rights will belong to the CRT...who are definetly not pro angling and if they can gain more money from anywhere they will...that's the way they are.

cheers
Jason

 

[Berty]

Does that mean you have abandoned the legal line Jeff ?

As For Jason's club as far as I can tell while it may be legal to paddle through its definitely not legal to use land to access the river without permission.

Benny, your sentence sums it all up......it MAY be legal to paddle through, well the anglers are 100% legally there, no if, but's or maybe's......paddlers WILL illegally use the land and maybe cause grevious trespass.....no, DEFINATLY cause grevious trespass, they do this simply by destroying the enjoyment of the anglers who have dug deep into their pockets to LEGALLY be there.

You are wrong, it is nothing like when we were kids and had to wait for cars to pass, the road was made for cars, they had the right to be there, we were the "trespassers" but knew the risk.

We have paid for fishing RIGHTS, we expect to be able to fulfill that right in peace.

 

[bennygesserit]

i think that will be the problem benny, fairness doesnt come into this on the paddlers side...it's a stuff you attitude and i think you well know that despite trying to keep impartial.

and for our bit of river i hope it doesn't become a problem but the potential is real and right next to the river...thing is benny the acces rights will belong to the CRT...who are definetly not pro angling and if they can gain more money from anywhere they will...that's the way they are.

cheers
Jason

That is the thing though Jason I haven't fished a river since I was a kid so I don't know, that is the reason I am trying to be impartial.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Does that mean you have abandoned the legal line Jeff ?

No, it's an adjunct to it. Although I see now he says

Lad's, I am not an advocate for unlimited access to all rivers. Nor for free fishing kayak anglers. I strongly advise on obtaining consent and purchase of permits. Terry

So fair play if the emboldened part refers to passage on a river by canoe/kayak, but I wish that other paddlers would share that same opinion. However, if he's just refering to fishing and thinks paddling on any river anywhere is OK, then what about the questions I posed... Still!

 

[bennygesserit]

Benny, your sentence sums it all up......it MAY be legal to paddle through, well the anglers are 100% legally there, no if, but's or maybe's......paddlers WILL illegally use the land and maybe cause grevious trespass.....no, DEFINATLY cause grevious trespass, they do this simply by destroying the enjoyment of the anglers who have dug deep into their pockets to LEGALLY be there.

You are wrong, it is nothing like when we were kids and had to wait for cars to pass, the road was made for cars, they had the right to be there, we were the "trespassers" but knew the risk.

We have paid for fishing RIGHTS, we expect to be able to fulfill that right in peace.

As far as I can tell Berty most canoeists pay aswell take a look at the thread on song of the paddle canoe forum , its posted by me at the start of this thread, it explains it better than I can, plus its always interesting to see someone elses point of view , in my experirence its the only way you ever get anything sorted.

Your post about diverting canoeists to a more appropriate part of the river , even though that family ignored it seems the way forwards to me.

---------- Post added at 14:22 ---------- Previous post was at 14:20 ----------

No, it's an adjunct to it. Although I see now he says So fair play if the emboldened part refers to passage on a river by canoe/kayak, but I wish that other paddlers would share that same opinion. However, if he's just refering to fishing and thinks paddling on any river anywhere is OK, then what about the questions I posed... Still!

Jeff if its not a legal issue and just a moral one , I don't for a minute think you are saying that , then the analogy would be you have built your lawn across a busy street and expect people to stay off the grass .

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I don't for a minute think you are saying that , then the analogy would be you have built your lawn across a busy street and expect people to stay off the grass .

No, it's only a moral question in terms of the question itself. It's asking does he think it's fair to paddle anywhere he likes without permissions or rights. That's all, legals aspects aside.

I’ll try and summarise my ‘moral’ (albeit some have a legal content) questions :

Q. If you're a car driver there are roads marked 'Private' and similarly there are public roads marked with prohibitions and weight limits, are you suggesting that truck drivers, motorists, and motorcycle riders ignore those also?

Q. If you're cyclist you see this sign ahead of a public footpath would you still ride your bike along it? -

​

Q. When walking a regular route to the local shops and at one of the corners is someone's unfenced (by deed) garden would you cut the corner by walking across his nice lawn?

Q. If a river runs through privately owned land and there is no right of navigation and the land owner doesn't provide permission would you still paddle through it?

It all comes down to respecting other's rights to privacy on their own lands and what they own, doesn’t it?

There's many thousands of miles of waterway that can be paddled in this country and just a few thousands that can't. Why not be happy with what you have?

 

[Berty]

As far as I can tell Berty most canoeists pay aswell take a look at the thread on song of the paddle canoe forum , its posted by me at the start of this thread, it explains it better than I can, plus its always interesting to see someone elses point of view , in my experirence its the only way you ever get anything sorted.

Your post about diverting canoeists to a more appropriate part of the river , even though that family ignored it seems the way forwards to me.


Canoeists dont pay! a small percentage of them may belong to the BCU and they seem to think that gives them the right to use ANY waterway.......what angler can do that with out spending £1000's

I'm sorry Benny but as you don't fish rivers i fail to see how you could understand the frustration of seeing a planned fishing trip being ruined by these people.

Most of them have no understanding whatsoever of angling and most just dont care whose day they ruin so long as they can splash about.

 

[jasonbean1]

berty...i really do like your simplistic, striaght to the point attitude

i think that's what it will come down to in the end despit the legalities of it all.

 

[Berty]

berty...i really do like your simplistic, striaght to the point attitude

i think that's what it will come down to in the end despit the legalities of it all.

I have simply got sick of living in a world of twisters and turners mate, sometimes straight in and sort is the only way.

 

[bennygesserit]

berty...i really do like your simplistic, striaght to the point attitude

i think that's what it will come down to in the end despit the legalities of it all.

But surely the key to it is what's legal ?