Canoeing the facts, U.K.

[sam vimes]

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.

Lawyers, under the direction of the ruling classes. It's in the interests of both to make the laws of the land as impenetrable and full of grey areas as possible.

 

[John Aston]

Fishing rights aren't especially complicated in England - leaving tidal rivers apart the basic rules are -

- riparian owners own the river bed and control fishing rights on the watercourse up to the centre of the river
- they can licence or lease the fishing rights to anybody they wish - anything from a day ticket to a long term formal lease
- fishing rights can also be owned in perpetuity by somebody who no longer owns the adjoining land but has reserved the rights from a sale of the land ; such rights can be sold/inherited etc
- case law you can't acquire fishing rights by long usage alone (unlike the position re many other private rights (eg of way )

So far as trespass is concerned , forget what those signs say , trespass isn't a crime . It's a tort - a sort of civil crime - and although you can apply to the court for an injunction to stop a problem trespasser re-entering or staying on your land (breach of which is contempt of court) that is an expensive remedy for extreme cases in the real world. Realistically you have the right to ask a trespasser to leave and anything much more robust can be tricky.

Canoeing , paddle boarding or swimming a river without rights of navigation is not a crime- it is trespass and any formal legal remedies are pretty illusory in one off cases. But fishing without consent is a crime under the Theft Act and hence the police can be asked to intervene . If you are lucky , you might even encounter a police officer who knows this and doesn't refer you to the EA (who have no responsibility or powers when it comes to minor poaching incidents ) .

Re aircraft - until the Civil Aviation legislation you could , in theory, stop aeroplanes overflying on the grounds of trespass. The basic legal position is you control everything above and below your freehold property . That right has been massively eroded by legislation re coal , oil and underground railways etc

 

[steve2]

So basically swimmers, paddle boarders and rowers can just carry on where and when they like simply because no one really knows how to stop them or even cares.

 

[sam vimes]

So basically swimmers, paddle boarders and rowers can just carry on where and when they like simply because no one really knows how to stop them or even cares.

In as much as any trespasser (whether it concerns a watercourse or not) can, yes. Only if there is an aggravating factor can a great deal be done. An aggravating factor might include damage to property, threatening behaviour, theft etc.

 

[dorsetsteve]

So basically swimmers, paddle boarders and rowers can just carry on where and when they like simply because no one really knows how to stop them or even cares.

In much the same way your neighbours could sit in your front garden.

 

[dorsetsteve]

In fact Steve now you mentioned it, a chap round here lucky enough to have the Stour running through the bottom of the garden came out after hearing voices. On arriving in the garden he found a group of kayakers who had “stopped for lunch” on his lawn.

 

[keora]

So basically swimmers, paddle boarders and rowers can just carry on where and when they like simply because no one really knows how to stop them or even cares.

I don't think that's a balanced summary of the law relating to public navigation on rivers. Many anglers know the law relating to navigation on rivers - in fact Fish Legal has spent a lot of time and effort paying for legal advice and explaining it to members - see this:

Canoeing and Navigation

Many angling clubs and fishery owners have in recent years suffered a steady increase in unlawful canoeing throughout England and Wales which has often prevented them fishing in peace, and has affected the capital and amenity value of their fishing. There have been numerous incidents of...

anglingtrust.net

Stopping canoeists from illegally boating is difficult to do but not impossible. I know of one occasion on a local river where club members persuaded two canoeists to take their boats out of the water and drag them to the main raid.

Anglers can ask canoeists to leave the water but they cannot force them. The canoeists are breaking civil law, not criminal law. Police won't attend an infringement of civil law, so anglers have to identify the canoeists and start expensive legal proceedings.

Steve, as a matter of interest, have you ever spoke to canoeists/paddleboarders on a river and asked them to leave?

 

[dorsetsteve]

Keora, me or the other Steve?

 

[no-one in particular]

Lawyers, under the direction of the ruling classes. It's in the interests of both to make the laws of the land as impenetrable and full of grey areas as possible.

And who were the ruling classes, the the land owners!

 

[steve2]

If it me the answer yes I just let pass and got on with my fishing just can't be bothered. In one case there were over 30 who exercising there rights of navigation over the river once a year. This was on the Suffolk Stour between Long Melford and Flatford Mill all this water was club owned. But this river does have a history of navigation many years ago.

 

[no-one in particular]

bbb

Fishing rights aren't especially complicated in England - leaving tidal rivers apart the basic rules are -

- riparian owners own the river bed and control fishing rights on the watercourse up to the centre of the river

To me. that needs to be much more specific, owning the river bed does not mean owning the water in my minds eye, the law might interpret as such but it is too vague.

 

[nottskev]

As for what you own, above and below your little plot, the scholar/poet William Empson - a degree in Mathematics followed by a degree in Literature, published his path-breaking Seven Types of Ambiguity aged 24 - makes it all as clear as mud.

LEGAL FICTION
Law makes long spokes of the short stakes of men.
Your well fenced out real estate of mind
No high flat of the nomad citizen
Looks over, or train leaves behind.
Your rights extend under and above your claim
Without bound; you own land in Heaven and Hell;
Your part of earth's surface and mass the same,
Of all cosmos' volume, and all stars as well.
Your rights reach down where all owners meet, in Hell's
Pointed exclusive conclave, at earth's centre
(Your spun farm's root still on that axis dwells);
And up, through galaxies, a growing sector.
You are nomad yet; the lighthouse beam you own
Flashes, like Lucifer, through the firmament.
Earth's axis varies; your dark central cone
Wavers, a candle's shadow, at the end.
William Empson, 1906-1984

 

[steve2]

bbb

To me. that needs to be much more specific, owning the river bed does not mean owning the water in my minds eye, the law might interpret as such but it is too vague.

Also if the banks are have two different owners they only own their half of the river bed and the fishing can be leased to two different clubs even on very small streams.

 

[John Aston]

bbb

To me. that needs to be much more specific, owning the river bed does not mean owning the water in my minds eye, the law might interpret as such but it is too vague.

You cant , and don't 'own 'water in a river . The stuff tends to move downstream , pretty sharpish at the moment . But you do enjoy rights and control over what can be done in or on it while it overflows your land . It is no different in practice to the air above your home. You don't own it , but if , for example , your neighbour erects an extension intruding into your air space then you can take action against them for trespass .

Remember too that the rights I've talked about are traditional 'common law ' rights , and not usually covered by specific legislation . Instead , the law on trespass evolves through case law , which clarifies and refines it over the years. And the general principles about land/ river ownership are eroded by legislation(Acts of Parliament and Regulations made under them (aka Statutory Instruments ) ) . So , even though you may own miles of river on both banks , you can't ignore the close season , you still need a licence , you can't abstract vast amounts of water nor do anything which needs planning permission or other consent without getting it first.

Better shut up now - ten years since I retired and , err, rather more since I started my law degree. Flashbacks loom , eek

 

[no-one in particular]

But you do enjoy rights and control over what can be done in or on it while it overflows your land .

I still think that bit should be made clearer especially the in/on bit, but thanks, I understand it a lot better now.

 

[John Aston]

God no , man - if everything was simple you wouldn't need lawyers. And that would never do - I'd have been out of a job for one thing

 

[Molehill]

Thinking back on my fishing in New Zealand and the "queens chain" that everyone referred to and access to rivers (or not in places). I have no idea where other water users come in but presumably their rights are the same as anglers - just a fraction of the population over there which is the big difference.
But they clearly also have some legal problems and times change:

"The access to public recreational resources that we have enjoyed in the past is being eroded through changing land use and changing land ownership.
The nation’s natural resources are part of the public estate and comprise a central element of what differentiates New Zealand from the “landed gentry” structure in the UK that settlers came to New Zealand to escape."


Makes a short interesting read: https://fishandgame.org.nz/about/f-...anders have practical,and to public land; and

 

[steve2]

One for the bank side Lawyers.
If your club owns the rights to one bank and you wade past half way and fish down the far bank would you consider yourself trespassing just like the rowers?

 

[sam vimes]

One for the bank side Lawyers.
If your club owns the rights to one bank and you wade past half way and fish down the far bank would you consider yourself trespassing just like the rowers?

Yes, you are. However, there's an inevitable grey area. The legal middle of the waterway may not actually be in the centre of the waterway (i.e. 20m across a 40m wide river). It's certainly the easiest way to think of it and most will take it that way. However, the middle of the channel may actually be the deepest point of that channel rather than the measured centre.

Aren't laws great! I don't know for sure how this law evolved. However, I suspect that it'll have something to do with shipping/boat channels. On rivers where there is no right of navigation, measured centre of the river seems to be the go to way of doing things. Even that can be interesting when a river shifts or changes course completely. There was an instance fairly recently on a local river where a farmer "lost" about 50 acres of land and a syndicate lost a couple of miles of river. The river changed course completely and left a large meander high and dry.

 

[John Aston]

Yes ,and then there's the old wives' tale that you can wade across , and fish , as far as you want , but only as long as you are not facing your 'own' bank . Common sense is a good starting point - I've been for a walk along my local beck this morning . My club has one bank , another club the 'far' bank . As it's only six feet across in places , the letter of the law is best left in the lawbook when it comes to where I fish and wade .

On rivers moving course there is Victorian case law on this .My head will hurt if I read the whole chapter of my old text book in its brain crushing detail but the starting point is that in the case of a slow , imperceptible change over the years the rights 'move' with the river but in the case of a sudden change of course they don't - you lose it .