Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Sorry Jeff completely disagree , if either side had the definitive answer and could prove it then this would have been a very short debate.

I would have thought that Windy's posts have marked out that point quite clearly, unless you like the canoeists, weren't taking it in.

Further you quote Benyon "There are plenty of places to canoe where it is appropriate and others where it is not. There will be no change to our policy of supporting voluntary access agreements as the only way forward."

You say this was unclear. What bits of "others where it is not", ie: where navigation is not permissable, "change our policy", ie: the common law as Windy has pointed to, and "volunatry access agreements", ie: those non-navigable stretches where it has been agreed that canoeists can traverse - is not clear?

You can't change the meaning of sentences to suit either your own will or those of others.

What is the actual result of a canoe or kayak passing through a swim?

Simple. Disturbing settled and feeding fish, please refer to my previous post about feeding chub. But, if you have a right to navigate and this is born out with the EA, such as the main part of the Thames for example, then there can't be much of an issue from either side. If it is on a river or stream where you're not allowed to navigate, I can more than well understand the angler's bad attitude. You might find it's me!!!

If we take the Thames (and again, re- my previous post where I have jumped across it) as an example there is a point, above Lechlade I believe, where navigation rights ceases and thereafter you are in the lap of voluntary access.

 

[bennygesserit]

Jeff Richard says where its appropriate and where not , he doesn't say where it is legal or illegal.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Can I just add, that on the main body of the Thames, one of our main problems is rowers. Especially when they decide to stop fro a breather right in the spot where you are fishing. Sometimes asking them to just move on a little is met with abusive language, these aren't the well mannered Eton boys (tongue firmly in cheek) of course. Even worse is when their coach is riding on a bike and parks it right behind you and without warning bellows out instructions with a force that can blow a man's wig off. I had one such once and we ended up exchanging views about peace and tranquility, he eventually apologised upon his return, but left me at first with a bad impression of his manners.

 

[sam vimes]

I would really like to understand why there is so much antagonism on English rivers only.

From my angle. Because I generally pay for the priveledge of being there. Canoeists (Kayaks etc) don't seem to want to pay, for the most part they just bang on about their "rights".

Secondly, you describe the proportion of reasonable/unreasonable anglers. No mention of the proportion of reasonable/unreasonable canoeists. I have encountered a few reasonable canoeists, even in places I, and the landowner, believe they should not have been. I'd rather they didn't screw up my fishing but, if they have to, I do expect some effort at being contrite about doing so. An effort to communicate and minimize the disturbance is appreciated. Sadly, I've encountered quite a few with a screw you attitude the equal of the worst angler I've ever known.

What is the actual result of a canoe or kayak passing through a swim?

It depends entirely on the size of the river/stream concerned. Generally, the smaller and shallower, the worse the impact.
At worst, the scattering of a shoal which then won't return which the angler may have spent hours attracting with a lot of money's worth of free bait.

Go past me on the Tidal Trent and, provided you avoid my line(s), I'm not going to bat an eyelid. That's because it's a navigable river at that point and I accept the right for you to be there (along with the water skiers and barges, though I understand it's not likely to be the preferred venue for most canoeists).

Go past me on the upper Swale, with its relatively shallow pools, glides and riffles, where I don't believe you have any right to be (but is likely to be much more attractive to a canoeist), and you've probably ruined my fishing for an hour or two and quite possibly for the rest of the day. Can you really be all that surprised that anglers get annoyed, even more so if they get any kind of attitude from the canoeist?

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Jeff Richard says where its appropriate

Didn't think you'd need that spelling out as well. OK let's define what I take his "appropriate" to mean - WHERE THEY HAVE NAVIGATION RIGHTS, ok?

I tell you what, I'll ask the Trust if they can insist on Mr Benyon making available a 'Janet and John' translation version of all his speaches in future so there's no mistaking. What is it Benny? I know you like to be fair, but this is not just taking their side, it's fighting their cause for them. Time to decide which team you are on. I'll fight for them where it's 'approriate' (see above definition) and where it's not 'appropriate' I'll fight them like begorrah.

 

[twotrucks]

Simple. Disturbing settled and feeding fish, please refer to my previous post about feeding chub. But, if you have a right to navigate and this is born out with the EA, such as the main part of the Thames for example, then there can't be much of an issue from either side. If it is on a river or stream where you're not allowed to navigate, I can more than well understand the angler's bad attitude. You might find it's me!!!

OK, what I want to know is how to get along. How do I minimise the effect on your swim. Given that you don't know definitively if I have a right to be there I'm pretty sure the fish can't work it out!

Just retorting to "you shouldn't be here", "oh yes I should", "oh no you shouldn't" is a waste of everyone's time. Sooner or later we have to work out how to get along and learning what the issues are is surely the first step.

Incidentally I don't particularly let other people's bad attitude get to me, I'm pretty sure I have a legal right and certainly have a moral right to be there. If someone else starts behaving badly simply by my being there, so long as I am polite and keep my cool then they can deal with it. If their behaviour goes as far as a Section 5 public order or worse then I'm just going to turn on my helmet cam to record their actions for posterity, move off promptly and report the incident to the local police as soon as I'm off the water. If you have similar problems with un-provoked abuse from paddlers then I suggest you do the same. The sooner that unsavoury behaviour on both sides is stamped on the better.

 

[sam vimes]

I'm pretty sure I have a legal right and certainly have a moral right to be there.

There's the rub, you are "pretty sure" that you have the legal right to be there. I know damned well, by virtue of paying for the right, that I have the right to be there.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

(1) How do I minimise the effect on your swim. (2) Given that you don't know definitively if I have a right to be there I'm pretty sure the fish can't work it out!

1. Where you have a right of navigation, pass through as quickly as you can. Does no good paddling away from the angler as he can be fishing way over the middle of the river and you'll just end up going right over his baited area. Don't do like our local canoeists used to do and double back to the flume and start tipping over and righting themselves where an angler is fishing. The answer USED to be a pouch full of hempseed from a catapult from an angler legally baiting up his chosen area.

Yes, it did happen, but we now have an agreement now with the local canoe operators - if an angler is there, pass by quickly, if no one is there - enjoy yourselves... Simples. This is all on the NAVIGABLE Thames, BTW. It's just a matter of courtesy.

2. I will have checked with the EA if that part of the river is or is not navigable. If it is not, I may get very annoyed. When that happens I turn bright green and rip my shirt apart and you wouldn't like me when that happens.

I'm pretty sure I have a legal right and certainly have a moral right to be there.

No, no, and again, no! Check first of all with the EA or rivers trust, whoever controls it. Then with the landowners. If in doubt - stay out ... of the water. Simple as that. Saves everyone a lot of aggro. That's the MORAL and courteous way to go.

Helmet cams? Oh yes, like the ones the London cyclists are now wearing that show them up to be even more rude and aggressive than the other drivers they're accusing of being. Brill answer that. Save your money, we've had one fool on this website with his headcam exploits making himself look a right .... (rhymns with 'hat')

Were I you, I cease it with the veiled threats. Check out your right to navigate and paddle a river first. We all want to live in peace, but as has been said, some want just a bit (or lot) more than they are entitled to.

 

[twotrucks]

There's the rub, you are "pretty sure" that you have the legal right to be there. I know damned well, by virtue of paying for the right, that I have the right to be there.

Sam, we both have a right to be there and provided you have a rod licence and permission to fish then I'm also quite sure you also have a right to fish there which I don't. That isn't the issue.

Even if you don't and are consequently poaching, it is not my job to police the fishery and you would be right to be somewhat annoyed if every paddler that went past questioned your right to be there just in case.

The issue is that some people think that by buying a fishing licence they have a bought a right to prevent others from being there to do anything else. That isn't the same thing!

 

[bennygesserit]

Didn't think you'd need that spelling out as well. OK let's define what I take his "appropriate" to mean - WHERE THEY HAVE NAVIGATION RIGHTS, ok?

I tell you what, I'll ask the Trust if they can insist on Mr Benyon making available a 'Janet and John' translation version of all his speaches in future so there's no mistaking. What is it Benny? I know you like to be fair, but this is not just taking their side, it's fighting their cause for them. Time to decide which team you are on. I'll fight for them where it's 'approriate' (see above definition) and where it's not 'appropriate' I'll fight them like begorrah.

Whichever side I am on , I am still only interested in the truth.
Sotp and other paddlers have picked up on the ambiguity in Richard's language, politicians who would have thought it, and I can see the same ambiguity myself as I am sure others can, especially on an issue where so many on both sides are claiming to be right.

---------- Post added at 16:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:00 ----------

Sam, we both have a right to be there and provided you have a rod licence and permission to fish then I'm also quite sure you also have a right to fish there which I don't. That isn't the issue.

Even if you don't and are consequently poaching, it is not my job to police the fishery and you would be right to be somewhat annoyed if every paddler that went past questioned your right to be there just in case.

The issue is that some people think that by buying a fishing licence they have a bought a right to prevent others from being there to do anything else. That isn't the same thing!

Do you pay to be there ? I know that is a separate issue but I was surprised how many canoeists actually pay to paddle.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Sotp and other paddlers have picked up on the ambiguity in Richard's language, politicians who would have thought it, and I can see the same ambiguity myself as I am sure others can, especially on an issue where so many on both sides are claiming to be right.

As in the words of a Paul Simon song - Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

For me, the whole of Richard Benyons statements made perfect sense. I just thought, you wouldn't drive your car across someone's front lawn because that is not APPROPRIATE. You drive on the roads (restrictions permitting) where it is APPROPRIATE.

Clear?

I do believe on the business of 'truth' you have read Windy's responses. No it may not entriely be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it's as damned close as you're ever going to get. The man spent years in the legal profession, was a paddler, and therefore has no positional axe to grind. The only reason to question after question what people say it because it doesn't agree with what you want it to say. TOUGH! That's a fact of life, some things you just cannot have.

 

[sam vimes]

Sam, we both have a right to be there and provided you have a rod licence and permission to fish then I'm also quite sure you also have a right to fish there which I don't. That isn't the issue.

Even if you don't and are consequently poaching, it is not my job to police the fishery and you would be right to be somewhat annoyed if every paddler that went past questioned your right to be there just in case.

The issue is that some people think that by buying a fishing licence they have a bought a right to prevent others from being there to do anything else. That isn't the same thing!

No, you don't have the right. You just think you do, you've just said it yourself. It isn't about an EA fishing licence, that doesn't give you the right to fish anywhere. It's club/syndicate fees and daytickets that give the right to access the waters. However, I've no wish to prevent a canoeist or anyone else pursueing their pastime, provided they pay or have the demonstrable legal right to do so. At this point in time I don't believe that you do have an unarguable legal right and you don't pay for the priveledge.
You, or at least some of you, just ruin my day and cost me money, because you think you have the right to. I don't see much consideration in that.

I'm quite happy to tolerate canoeists, even when I don't believe that they should be there. However, you, despite being relatively polite about it, are demonstrating admirably what I was talking about when it comes to banging on about your rights. These rights of yours seem to have a higher priority than mine, despite me paying for mine and them not being legally contentious. As I said before, don't be surprised if anglers aren't your biggest fans, you can be screwing up their day completely. When they, rightly or wrongly, doubt your "right" to be there it's no surprise if they feel aggrieved.

I've had comparable experiences when shooting on private land. The bone of contention being the mistaken belief that some have that right to roam gives them the right to go wherever the hell they like. There's a fair chance that the shooters day has just been spoiled and that the walker will react negatively to the encounter. Most shooters won't be stupid enough to do or say much though as they know that threats while in possession of a firearm is not a good situation to find yourself in. However, assuming that the shooter is there with permission, they are doing nothing wrong. My last such encounter, where nothing at all was said by the walker at the point of meeting, ended with the walker being cautioned by the police.

 

[The bad one]

It depends entirely on the size of the river/stream concerned. Generally, the smaller and shallower, the worse the impact.
At worst, the scattering of a shoal which then won't return which the angler may have spent hours attracting with a lot of money's worth of free bait.

Go past me on the Tidal Trent and, provided you avoid my line(s), I'm not going to bat an eyelid. That's because it's a navigable river at that point and I accept the right for you to be there (along with the water skiers and barges, though I understand it's not likely to be the preferred venue for most canoeists).

Go past me on the upper Swale, with its relatively shallow pools, glides and riffles, where I don't believe you have any right to be (but is likely to be much more attractive to a canoeist), and you've probably ruined my fishing for an hour or two and quite possibly for the rest of the day. Can you really be all that surprised that anglers get annoyed, even more so if they get any kind of attitude from the canoeist?

Sam has nailed it here, the paddlers in the main don't want the quieter lowland rivers (boring) because they, other than the inexperience ones, want the Buzz of the Upland rivers and the challenges they perceive they offer.
Borne out by some of Jeff's accounts in the past of the paddlers on the Thames and the weirpools. Spelt out, they want ruff water even on this lowand river.

However, it is these rivers that have no navigation rights on them, other than lengths where they have acquired voluntary access rights (VAR). Usually, but not exclusively local authority land. What they don't do is recognise those VAR only give them access to that X number of yards of that river. They term this VAR as giving them the right to use the "whole" river.
Causing conflict with both anglers and landowners alike. On many of these rivers the flow depths are quite narrow, channeled and is where both need to use, even on river that at first look, look quite wide.
Again Sam points quite rightly to the problems this causes to the angler fishing there.
And pleased don't tell me this isn't the case. I have over 40 years experience of fishing these rivers and as a bailiff and water keeper, I've got quite an extensive photographic library of the antics many of the canoeists get up to on these types of rivers.

As to abuse, again don't tell me you the paddlers or your supports it doesn't come from you. Because I've personally been threatened with grevous ills for challinging paddlers on such rivers. Water of a ducks back to me, usually got a high resolution photo of them, their faces long before they are challenged as evidence in the event they want to get down and dirt.

 

[bennygesserit]

As in the words of a Paul Simon song - Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

For me, the whole of Richard Benyons statements made perfect sense. I just thought, you wouldn't drive your car across someone's front lawn because that is not APPROPRIATE. You drive on the roads (restrictions permitting) where it is APPROPRIATE.

Clear?

I do believe on the business of 'truth' you have read Windy's responses. No it may not entriely be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it's as damned close as you're ever going to get. The man spent years in the legal profession, was a paddler, and therefore has no positional axe to grind. The only reason to question after question what people say it because it doesn't agree with what you want it to say. TOUGH! That's a fact of life, some things you just cannot have.

There is a lot of ambiguity in this very complex issue, and lets face it we are not going to solve it here are we , the best we can do is comment on it and maybe enlighten each other a little.

I agree about rudeness in behaviour but to a canoeist and to continue your analogy , if you start playing snooker in the middle of a public road you shouldn't get upset when cars drive by.

I am not advocating any misbehaviour on either side , all I am doing is to try to offer some understanding of why canoeists think they have a right to be there , I am sorry if you think that undermines your cause , but it would have to be a pretty flimsy cause to be undermined by one man on a forum.

I do not fish rivers so I have no idea of the issues involved its just an interesting excercise to get to the truth of the matter which is that both sides think they are right and Richard's statement did not mention legality at all , it side stepped the issue. Well at least it seems obvious to me that he did, we obviously disagree.

 

[twotrucks]

Whichever side I am on , I am still only interested in the truth.
Sotp and other paddlers have picked up on the ambiguity in Richard's language, politicians who would have thought it, and I can see the same ambiguity myself as I am sure others can, especially on an issue where so many on both sides are claiming to be right.

Of course it is ambiguous, DEFRA have said all along and under all flavours of political master that they "encourage VAAs" as it requires them to do nothing which is the civil servants favourite action. It doesn't mean that other legal rights aren't involved, it just means that given the choice they don't want to get involved in arbitrating and would prefer we all just sorted it out for ourselves.

Do you pay to be there ? I know that is a separate issue but I was surprised how many canoeists actually pay to paddle.

Well I pay CE shed loads of money each year and in return they provide me with a card that gives me access to EA, C&RT regulated waterways, third party insurance etc. I also coach canoeing with a local club and a youth organisation and pay for all the training and certification required for this myself. I guess I probably spent north of £1500 all told last year on fees and safety kit so yes I do pay!!

I think paying is a bit of a red-herring though. I can go for a walk on a footpath for free, but if I want to take a shotgun with me and shoot game then unless I own the land I will be paying for the privilege. That doesn't mean I don't have any right to walk on the moor though.

When I drive my great big 4WD down the road I pay a huge tax burden because government has decided I need to defray some of the costs to society of the incremental pollution and general mayhem that such vehicles allegedly cause. That doesn't mean that a pedestrian or cyclist who doesn't pay has less of a right to use the roads and shouldn't be there if they get in my way.

 

[bennygesserit]

Of course it is ambiguous, DEFRA have said all along and under all flavours of political master that they "encourage VAAs" as it requires them to do nothing which is the civil servants favourite action. It doesn't mean that other legal rights aren't involved, it just means that given the choice they don't want to get involved in arbitrating and would prefer we all just sorted it out for ourselves.



Well I pay CE shed loads of money each year and in return they provide me with a card that gives me access to EA, C&RT regulated waterways, third party insurance etc. I also coach canoeing with a local club and a youth organisation and pay for all the training and certification required for this myself. I guess I probably spent north of £1500 all told last year on fees and safety kit so yes I do pay!!

I think paying is a bit of a red-herring though. I can go for a walk on a footpath for free, but if I want to take a shotgun with me and shoot game then unless I own the land I will be paying for the privilege. That doesn't mean I don't have any right to walk on the moor though.

When I drive my great big 4WD down the road I pay a huge tax burden because government has decided I need to defray some of the costs to society of the incremental pollution and general mayhem that such vehicles allegedly cause. That doesn't mean that a pedestrian or cyclist who doesn't pay has less of a right to use the roads and shouldn't be there if they get in my way.

Not just to show I am impartial but if you need a canoe England license and that is only for nominated waterways that implies you need permisson , how do you paddle waterways outside that license , are there any ? How do you have the right to paddle there if its outside your CE license ?

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:55 ----------

From the canoe England site this is worth a read Rivers Access Campaign Background Information

 

[sam vimes]

Well I pay CE shed loads of money each year and in return they provide me with a card that gives me access to EA, C&RT regulated waterways, third party insurance etc. I also coach canoeing with a local club and a youth organisation and pay for all the training and certification required for this myself. I guess I probably spent north of £1500 all told last year on fees and safety kit so yes I do pay!!

Great, and for those areas that you are paying for, knock yourself out. Any angler trying to prevent your lawful access and enjoyment of those areas is entirely in the wrong. However, claiming the right to paddle anywhere you like because of that is akin to me buying an EA licence and some club tickets for specific areas and then trying to suggest it gives me the right to fish anywhere. It doesn't, and I don't try to claim it does. It would be nice though.

However, if in your legal pursuit of your rights to navigate every inch of every river you can establish an anglers legal right to fish anywhere they choose, you may just get all the allies you could ever want!

 

[bennygesserit]

Here is an extract from the CE link I gave

In the England and Wales the canoeist does not have an automatic right to launch on to any river. The legal situation is different from all other countries in the world, where canoeists are generally able to paddle large and small non-tidal rivers without seeking permission, as the beds of these rivers are not privately owned and not vested in riparian owners.

---------- Post added at 17:23 ---------- Previous post was at 17:02 ----------

As far as I can tell this is the main governing body so pretty convincing to me

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Not just to show I am impartial but if you need a canoe England license and that is only for nominated waterways that implies you need permisson , how do you paddle waterways outside that license , are there any ? How do you have the right to paddle there if its outside your CE license ?

At last , he's got it, I think he's got it! This is a good thing, sorry Benny.

This to the paddlers - I was looking at the BCU site and found their literature on their campaign for access rights. so here are bits of it and my comments

Why is there a campaign?
In England, unlike elsewhere in the world, the public cannot assume there is an automatic right to have access to rivers. People are incredulous when they are made aware of this situation. The campaign is to secure this right as a matter of public interest.

The emboldened part of that statement is just what you’ve been told by posters on here. The BCU accepts there isn’t a ‘public right' to access rivers, hence the campaign.


Who is the campaign for?
A right of access will provide certainty for the future of water related sport and recreation. The campaign has gained support from many interest groups and
organisations who seek more access to enjoy the natural water environment - swimmers, anglers, walkers etc.

Hmmm, don’t think anglers will benefit, they are prepared to pay for what they use already and seek agreements with landowners so to do. Swimmers, well, I might ask David Walliams next time he passes my float (he passed us last year whilst training for his Thames swim BTW). Walkers have access to towpaths and public footpaths and permissable paths (voluntary), but not necessarily everywhere, I’ve not heard of much protest from them.


Has the ‘Right to Roam’ not helped?
No. The legal position for access to and along rivers in England and Wales continues to be a contentious matter. Parliament has never passed legislation for access to and along water and excluded it from the Countryside Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000, despite the efforts of Canoe England.

Now the BCU accepts that there is no right of navigation and that Parliamnet has never passed such legislation. Where is the problem? Campaign for it by all means, but don’t assume you already have it. The above is quite clear and completely unambiguous to me - and that's from your very own body!

What are we campaigning for?
Our aim is to achieve clarity through new legislation similar to the Scottish Land Reform Act 2003 (applicable to manually powered craft). The successfully implemented Act is codified by the Scottish Outdoor Access Code, giving responsibilities for access to land and water and protecting the rights of others and the environment.

Scottish watercourses are for the most part very different to ours. Most Scottish anglers are interested only in trout or salmon. However, I would think there would be restrictions on where you can paddle where the redds are otherwise I can see a few Scottish landowners throwing cabers at the paddlers.

Is there an alternative to legislation?
Out of 66,000 kilometres (41,000 miles) of rivers in England and Wales without a public right of navigation*, only 812 kilometres (504 miles) of highly restricted access has been negotiated.

504 miles isn’t what you would call a big effort. I can now see where those figures came from (the EA apparently).


Overall, what this document (and the one Benny linked to) says to me is that everything posters like Windy has recorded already is good sound advice. Paddlers, canoeists, or kayakers (whoever) do NOT have a right to paddle any river they like, their own UNION says that! Have a campaign by all means. Sound like the words from Richard Benyon are suggesting that you’ve lost that campaign, as he says “There will be no change to our policy of supporting voluntary access agreements as the only way forward.”

I’m afraid you will have to accept that as a fait accompli, for now.

 

[bennygesserit]

Canoe England has the same view Jeff.