Canoeing the facts, U.K.

[mikench]

I'm off out shortly to fish a river with 2+'on and rising. The game remains the same, except I'll be fishing an area with with slacker water than usual and sitting higher up the bank. Is there anything you don't wag your finger, shake your head and grumble about?

Take care Kev and leave your paddle board at home. Isn't there some quality supposedly possessed by adults called" common sense" . You at least are excercising it.?

 

[S-Kippy]

I agree wholeheartedly with Brother Chris on this one. Either its a free for all or these canoeist/paddle boarders etc pay for the priviledge like we do. Access is also an issue....they rock up and launch from pretty well wherever they like whereas we lose waters over daft parking. With a few exceptions most I've come across have been selfish,arrogant gits.....and dont get me started on bloody boat owners. Drive a car like some of them drive a boat and they would be nicked, breathalyzed and banned double sharp.

But if anything happens in the vicinity of water its almost always anglers who get the blame. It seems to be the default blame setting.

 

[steve2]

I'm off out shortly to fish a river with 2+'on and rising. The game remains the same, except I'll be fishing an area with with slacker water than usual and sitting higher up the bank. Is there anything you don't wag your finger, shake your head and grumble about?

Have a nice day.

One thing that puzzles me with fishing rights is just how much of the river is covered by your club lease, does it stop half way across if the banks are owned by different people. Can someone then paddle or swim down the half not leased by the club?
Anglers will never agree to water sharing just because we pay a couple of quid a year we like to think we own the place and will eventually lose out to other groups with more money and sway.

 

[mikench]

How many members exercise fishing rights on a river which they have negotiated just for them. I ask because whilst our club membership fees are modest in the main, the amount the club actually pays the riparian rights owner is rather more substantial. I have a feeling of déjà vue coming on. If you leased a shop and your landlord allowed some other bod to use part leased to you and, to add unacceptable insult to injury, for free , you would have a lot to say about it.

 

[no-one in particular]

How many members exercise fishing rights on a river which they have negotiated just for them. I ask because whilst our club membership fees are modest in the main, the amount the club actually pays the riparian rights owner is rather more substantial. I have a feeling of déjà vue coming on. If you leased a shop and your landlord allowed some other bod to use part leased to you and, to add unacceptable insult to injury, for free , you would have a lot to say about it.

Its not like for like though really, a river, a naturally occurring event is a lot different to a shop.

 

[steve2]

Its not like for like though really, a river, a naturally occurring event is a lot different to a shop.

Isn't it also up to the landowner to stop what anglers see as trespassers not the club and its members. So unless the owner is willing to do something about it the club can't do anything but moan.

 

[John Aston]

I agree wholeheartedly with Brother Chris on this one. Either its a free for all or these canoeist/paddle boarders etc pay for the priviledge like we do. Access is also an issue....they rock up and launch from pretty well wherever they like whereas we lose waters over daft parking. With a few exceptions most I've come across have been selfish,arrogant gits.....and dont get me started on bloody boat owners. Drive a car like some of them drive a boat and they would be nicked, breathalyzed and banned double sharp.

But if anything happens in the vicinity of water its almost always anglers who get the blame. It seems to be the default blame setting.

We all can all find examples of bad behaviour , especially in our own camp. 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone ' and all that . As for payment , aren't we just playing dog in the manger here? It's not up to anglers who should pay for other use of waterways , but up to the landowners . If they don't choose to levy a charge for canoeing or wild swimming , isn't that exactly the same as when we take advantage of 'free fishing '? The quotes are to emphasise that free fishing - as a right - only exist rarely (in the sea, on tidal rivers ) and elsewhere it's just a case of the landowner not choosing to enforce a right - because s/he can't be bothered or because s/he's happy to offer a public good .

We are no angels when it comes to legal stuff- like everybody else I've 'guested 'in my younger days, fished beyond the middle of a river when I only have a ticket for 'my' bank and stayed into dark when I am not supposed to . And when I hear of anglere getting stroppy with boat users on canals - what on earth do they think they were built for ? Boat users pay far more than we do , are often very friendly and return greetings and guess who the volunteers are on my local canal ? A clue - they're not anglers...

 

[no-one in particular]

Isn't it also up to the landowner to stop what anglers see as trespassers not the club and its members. So unless the owner is willing to do something about it the club can't do anything but moan.

Its all a very complicated issue, I just can't see that comparisons can be made. I personally just accept it as part of the landscape, annoying but just one of those things. I would be quite happy to share usage at organized times or days, the two stretches where I have a problem, quite happy if I could fish mons, weds and sats for example as long as the others were happy to use it on the other days, I don't see why that wouldn't work for me and them. Or on a bigger river, I fish one bank and they have to keep to the opposite bank, why wouldn't that work on a big river, no need to disturb each other at all..

 

[no-one in particular]

And when I hear of anglere getting stroppy with boat users on canals - what on earth do they think they were built for ?

Good point,

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Its not like for like though really, a river, a naturally occurring event is a lot different to a shop.

While the river is indeed "natural" it runs through privately owned property with riparian rights (and responsibilites) covering fishing etc.

We had an instance of a paddle board user launching from a public stretch of the Itchen and then proceeded to try to paddle through a private stretch and was given very short shrift by the river keeper.

Now, we pay a minimum of £1,500 per season to fly fish those beats, and that is just for every second Saturday or Sunday . . . a full membership is well over two and a half grand . . . .

So, please tell me why should the paddle boarder use those beats fo free?

We still do not really know the Law (despite what Mr Bailey has written) when it comes PRN on our rivers. The current "agreement" between the ATr and the BCU is, in my opinion wholly unworkable and needs to be tested in the courts. Until and unless that happens these problems will contine until there is a really serious incident.

 

[sam vimes]

Its not like for like though really, a river, a naturally occurring event is a lot different to a shop.

You may not see it that way, but in a legal sense it's exactly the same. I'm not sure what exactly is meant by a "naturally occurring event", but something being natural is no bar to private ownership in this country.

Isn't it also up to the landowner to stop what anglers see as trespassers not the club and its members. So unless the owner is willing to do something about it the club can't do anything but moan.

There is very little that anyone can do about trespass other than moan (unless a side order of property damage/other illegal actions go with it). That doesn't mean that trespass is acceptable or that folks should not moan about it. If I decided to camp in your back garden, or park a car in your drive, there's a reasonable chance that you could do very little about it. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't moan like hell about it, nor would it mean that I'd not be a complete git doing it. It's also worth bearing in mind that plenty of angling organizations own riparian rights (and the requisite access). Fishing in the UK is not based entirely on public ownership (so called free fishing), leasing and day/season tickets paid direct to a landowner.

 

[mikench]

Its not like for like though really, a river, a naturally occurring event is a lot different to a shop.

Neither is that. Is a butchers shop the same as a sex shop? Is a boutique the same as a chemist. Yes is the answer in that both sell commodities at a price , pay rates and are regulated by The Use Classes orders 1987 to 2021 and usually involve a lease of some kind. However so does the exclusive use of a river which is what riparian owners grant to angling associations. What the river contains fish wise and its accessibility can be as different as a butchers is to a sex shop. Planning is usually not applicable.

I have no real axe to grind and accept boats on rivers and canals which pay to navigate and to moor up. I don't accept paddle boarders and canoeists who do not and who often trespass to gain access.

 

[sam vimes]

What a tragedy. Who’s is going to take responsibility?

Haverfordwest paddleboarder deaths: Victim named as three die and one fights for life after river incident in Wales

A group of paddleboarders got into difficulties in the Cleddau River in Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, on Saturday, and dozens of police, firefighters, medics and other rescue experts were sent to the scene. A man and two women have died, and another woman is critically ill in hospital.

www.google.co.uk

Just for an unfortunate bit of balance.
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/body-found-search-fisherman-missing-22024575

It's not a good time to be on or near a river, particularly Pennine/Welsh rivers, regardless of the pursuit being undertaken.

 

[S-Kippy]

We pay licence fees for the right to carry rods for the purpose of angling but that licence does not give us the right to fish. Why cannot the same principle be applied to paddleboards,canoes and dinghies ?

Boats on canals are usually fairly well behaved. Its the morons on rivers travelling far too fast and/or careering all over the place hooting and hollering that annoy me. Not all are like that but a good many are in my experience.

 

[rayner]

In the 70s I with friends fished just outside Enniskillen on the river Shannon. We were moved on from fishing a stretch of river we accessed through a farmyard. It was recommended to us by a tour operator. In the late morning, a chap from the Irish tourist board came to explain the river was having a rest because of the King of Clubs match that was to be held on the Shannon. Whilst we moved as requested there were three separate boats were allowed to fish from their boats. We asked why the boats were to stay. The reason given was that the boats did not need to cross the land to fish.
I just never understood why, we had already given the farmer a bottle of whiskey to gain access through his land.

 

[no-one in particular]

While the river is indeed "natural" it runs through privately owned property with riparian rights (and responsibilites) covering fishing etc.

We had an instance of a paddle board user launching from a public stretch of the Itchen and then proceeded to try to paddle through a private stretch and was given very short shrift by the river keeper.

Now, we pay a minimum of £1,500 per season to fly fish those beats, and that is just for every second Saturday or Sunday . . . a full membership is well over two and a half grand . . . .

So, please tell me why should the paddle boarder use those beats fo free?

We still do not really know the Law (despite what Mr Bailey has written) when it comes PRN on our rivers. The current "agreement" between the ATr and the BCU is, in my opinion wholly unworkable and needs to be tested in the courts. Until and unless that happens these problems will contine until there is a really serious incident.

You pay £1500 to use the owners land and fish from it and take fish. Why should a canoeist pay the same when he does not use that land or touch the river bed or take anything from the river, it's just water, they are not using a beat for free, or are they? I don't know but is this an argument? Or can a landowner charge for something they do not own. Or a shop is always owned by someone, it was built and is not natural and has owners rights attached to it but who owns the water in a river? is it not "common" land?

 

[sam vimes]

You pay £1500 to use the owners land and fish from it and take fish. Why should a canoeist pay the same when he does not use that land or touch the river bed or take anything from the river, its just water, they are not using a beat for free, or are they? I don't know but is this an argument?

As the law stands (at least in England), a landowner doesn't own the water itself (he can't remove or divert the water without a licence to do so) or the fish in it (at least when it's flowing water). However, for the purposes of trespass (such as it is) ownership is based on the land beneath the water. It doesn't matter if a canoeist floats on that water or hovers in the air, without permission, it's still trespassing. For them to pass through legally, they require the permission of every riparian rights holder on the entire length of water they travel.

We may wish this wasn't the case, we may believe that this shouldn't be. However, at this point in time, that is the case. There are plenty of laws that are anachronistic and seemingly unfair remnants of a feudal time. However, if you chuck all of the laws that permit private ownership of land out of the window, it may just bite everyone that owns/rents any land or property on the backside.

 

[no-one in particular]

Right, I didn't know that, a bit unusual when the law likes to be exact and literal, I bet I know who made that the law.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Right, I didn't know that, a bit unusual when the law likes to be exact and literal, I bet I know who made that the law.

Riparian Rights (and Responsibilities) in England and Wales can be a legal minefield Mark . . . .

This might help: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreut...efault)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true

As for Fishing Rights: "This note looks at fishing rights, how they are held, presumptions of ownership in tidal and non-tidal waters and their acquisition by express grant and prescription. The note sets out information on the regulation of fishing rights by government agencies, including fishing bye-laws, close seasons and restocking. It considers whether a lease of fishing rights could acquire security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) and provides a brief overview of the tax consequences of a grant of fishing rights" . . . . as I said, a minefeld . . . (Trespass can be even more convoluted)

 

[no-one in particular]

Riparian Rights (and Responsibilities) in England and Wales can be a legal minefield Mark . . . .

This might help: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreut...efault)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true

As for Fishing Rights: "This note looks at fishing rights, how they are held, presumptions of ownership in tidal and non-tidal waters and their acquisition by express grant and prescription. The note sets out information on the regulation of fishing rights by government agencies, including fishing bye-laws, close seasons and restocking. It considers whether a lease of fishing rights could acquire security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) and provides a brief overview of the tax consequences of a grant of fishing rights" . . . . as I said, a minefeld . . . (Trespass can be even more convoluted)

I wouldn't know all the rights and laws around ownership or trespass and I bet it is a minefield, maybe I will have a look later but, I can understand them and in the case of fishing rights how someone who owns them can do what they like with them, sell them, lease them, keep them solely for themselves. But canoeing is not fishing rights or ownership as such of anything. However, I now understand how the laws stands. I should start charging airlines to go through the air that is above my garden.