Indeed they do.And canoeists want what anglers want: clean, flowing water, diverse wildlife (including otters), and nice countryside.
Cakey you may well, but the BCU doesn't share your view. It wants and demands if for Jack Poo!as a canoeist Im willing to pay my way ......no one has never asked me to yet
Neil,Peter, that's a different issue. How to fund something (or share the cost of the amenity) is a very different matter from the principle of whether it should be permitted. A canoeing license would be about as enforceable as a rod license and is a potential means.
Sorry Geoff you wrong, they do if there are no navigation rights on the river, its trespass and enforceable through the civil courts. Unless the pricks cause distress, harassment or alarm and that's a criminal matter."Effectively, any Richard Head could turn up on your piece of river for nowt, and **** about in your swim till their hearts content. And YOU THE ANGLER, landowner would have no redress in law!"
That is already the case now and has always been. On a river, the land-owner owns the land, not the water. If any boat user is not anchored nor moored, then the land owner has no rights.
Neil,Peter, would your syndicate REALLY pull out if a few canoeists appeared? Especially if there was nowhere better to go to (because canoeists would be there too)?
And do you really think the number of canoeists would mushroom overnight, flooding our waterways?!