Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[Berty]

What's camping on a garden got to do with it when we are talking about paddling down a river. Trying to argue using analogies is never a good way to understand a situation, just creates more heat than light, but if you want to try that how about: it is pretty reasonable of me to ask people camping on my garden to leave, but if I stand at the end of my drive screaming abuse at everyone who drives or walks past then I run the risk of being regarded as a bit of a loon. Further if my threats cause significant alarm or annoyance then I am likely to be having a chat with the local constabulary sooner or later.

To stop this before it gets silly, my analogy is about as rubbish as yours, rivers aren't gardens and they aren't highways either (although I would assert that historically they have been regarded as closer to the latter than the former). Paddling isn't camping.

Who said the angler would scream abuse???? your problem is you just dont want to admit you are wrong and therefore you ridicule all comparisons!! Camping on private ground is exactly the same as trespassing in a canoe!!

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Who said the angler would scream abuse????

I would. Like I said it's the third one would cop it. And the fourth, and the fifth, and then I reach for the hempseed.

 

[Berty]

I'm training to be a little sun beam


Anyway, he don't know what type of "camping" i meant.

 

[waterways]

Can we all agree on this?

Virtually every Angler who posts here thinks that canoeists do not have a legal right to paddle freely on English rivers.

Virtually every canoeist who posts here believes that he does have a legal right to paddle freely on English rivers unless there is a river-specific piece of legislation to prevent him.

No amount of argument, name-calling, arguments by non-lawyers, arguments by lawyers will change anyone's opinion.

Generally, Canoeists who post here are not trying to stop Anglers fishing and happy to share.

Generally, Anglers who post here do want to stop canoeists paddling on English rivers where they believe no right to paddle exists and do not want to share.

Everyone can quote examples of inconsiderate behavior by both sides.

With the advent of social media, forums, twitter etc, these issues are being discussed more widely and the instances of conflict between anglers and canoeists may grow and receive more publicity.

Canoeists are now actively campaigning via Song of the Paddle Forum : : The call of the Open Canadian Canoe - Home and Rivers Access for All to get recognition for the rights they believe they have.

The two peak bodies, the BCU and the Anglers Trust have a history on non-co-operation in addressing these issues.

Both bodies feel powerless to resolve this situation through the courts because of the risk of very high payments to the legal fraternity and no certainty as to the outcome.

In general terms the Government supports the Anglers' position, though are not prepared to come out with a direct statement which says the Canoeists are wrong as to the law itself.

Is this the current situation? It would be good to start from an agreed understanding.

 

[sam vimes]

Generally, Canoeists who post here are not trying to stop Anglers fishing and happy to share.

Generally, Anglers who post here do want to stop canoeists paddling on English rivers where they believe no right to paddle exists and do not want to share.

Of course canoeists are happy to share, they have nowt but an unproven and entirely theoretical "right". There's no compromise on your behalf, just another group having a paddy about their "rights".
Canoeists just can't seem to accept that a paddle through a swim, no matter how brief, causes any harm. Sorry, it can and does. Don't expect a warm welcome from anglers. Quite often you are spoiling their day.

Canoeists are desperate for anglers and landowners to prove that canoeists have no right to be there. Turn it round 180 degrees. You lot go to the expense of proving that you do. The onus is entirely yours. I'll actually listen to what canoeists have to say when that's done. Until then, I'll just about manage to stay civil when canoeists ruin my day. Be grateful that most aren't going to be confrontational. Which is in effect exactly what you are being just by paddling a stretch of water where you really shouldn't be.

 

[Berty]

Can we all agree on this?

Virtually every Angler who posts here thinks that canoeists do not have a legal right to paddle freely on English rivers.

Virtually every canoeist who posts here believes that he does have a legal right to paddle freely on English rivers unless there is a river-specific piece of legislation to prevent him.

No amount of argument, name-calling, arguments by non-lawyers, arguments by lawyers will change anyone's opinion.

Generally, Canoeists who post here are not trying to stop Anglers fishing and happy to share.

Generally, Anglers who post here do want to stop canoeists paddling on English rivers where they believe no right to paddle exists and do not want to share.

Everyone can quote examples of inconsiderate behavior by both sides.

With the advent of social media, forums, twitter etc, these issues are being discussed more widely and the instances of conflict between anglers and canoeists may grow and receive more publicity.

Canoeists are now actively campaigning via Song of the Paddle Forum : : The call of the Open Canadian Canoe - Home and Rivers Access for All to get recognition for the rights they believe they have.

The two peak bodies, the BCU and the Anglers Trust have a history on non-co-operation in addressing these issues.

Both bodies feel powerless to resolve this situation through the courts because of the risk of very high payments to the legal fraternity and no certainty as to the outcome.

In general terms the Government supports the Anglers' position, though are not prepared to come out with a direct statement which says the Canoeists are wrong as to the law itself.

Is this the current situation? It would be good to start from an agreed understanding.

We are all entitled to an opinion and this is mine...you are attempting to get your own way but without thinking of the true consequences.

IF navigation was deemed allowable on all waterways the result would simply be a a load of nails in the coffin for a lot of our rivers.....sorry but thats a fact, the damage they would incur would be horrific with hoards of paddlers on them, the joke that is the Wye in "canoe season" proves this.

You, and by "you" i mean paddlers as a whole, have no regard for other river users whatsover, OK, there are amongst you some who "understand" but they are hidden away in the masses.

You HAVE been told in no uncertain terms that what you want is illegall, you simply choose to twist and turn and ignore anything we say.

Those of you amongst the horde who do "understand" would have been better off just keeping stum and swiftly passing by......."coming out" may well lose you more than it gains.

Personally i could always accept and even envy the "run silent run fast" lone canoeist whose desire to be out alone on a wonderful water was similar to my own.

I'll fight any way i can though to keep the "hoardes" away from where they have no right to be...either legally or ethically.

 

[barney20]

I'm not answering for Windy, in fact i may be wrong, but i believe you could have your equipment confiscated, we (anglers) certainly can for illegal acts.

I think the confiscating of anglers equipment for illegal acts is because fishing without a licence is poaching.
I don't believe that there is a similar right to confiscate canoeists or anyone elses equipment without a specific court order, which would only be granted to deal with repeat offenders.

 

[twotrucks]

I would. Like I said it's the third one would cop it. And the fourth, and the fifth, and then I reach for the hempseed.

Quite incredible really. I've been called a liar, criminal and most recently a thief even though canoeing down a river makes me none of these. My crime: holding a view on river navigation which is held by a huge proportion of the population and is contrary to the ATs "we want it all to ourselves all of the time and every one else can ****** off". The folks that have criticised me most certainly don't know me and have written me off as some sort of class war type anarchist hell bent purely on ruining their fun which is about as far from reality as you can possibly get. I'm pretty sure that I've never upset an anglers days fishing in my life. I actively avoid fishing rivers in anything like conditions where I'm likely to either encounter folks fishing or do any harm during the spawning season. I certainly wouldn't dream of taking a group into a place where any of these could occur and paddle on my own or in a very small group on "quiet" rivers anyway.

On the other hand, another poster openly encourages intimidation and assault and that is seen as a laughing matter by all.

There is actually much common ground between serious paddlers and anglers (and some of us do both in some limited way!). We appreciate the beauty of our river heritage, that is why we want to be out there. There are big common issues like the carnage caused by irresponsible hire companies on rivers like the Wye which needs to be curtailed and certainly not spread to other rivers that we both enjoy.

Having said that I find some angling attitudes like "we want to fish all the time between March and October so you need to stay completely away then" or "the spawning reds are all over this river system, we won't tell you exactly where so just stay away from Oct-Dec as well", or even worse "you can canoe for one weekend a year" gratuitously selfish. Can I just ask, are the vociferous AT folks representative of opinions in angling as a whole?

If they are then I guess that I'm wasting my breath and there will probably be one of a few possible outcomes to the current nobody gives an inch war of the press releases:
1) there is a hugely expensive test case, "angling" loses and every river in England and Wales becomes a Wye style free for all (you would be surprised how many paddlers don't want this).
2) same but paddling loses and another generation of paddlers are shoehorned into hotspots or really start a campaign of civil disobedience to force govt to legislate.
3) things just rumble on with everyone irritating the heck out of everyone else until there is an incident where some poor kid ends up getting a hook in the eye or fisherman ends up taking a fatal swim because someone thought that getting into an argument to defend their "rights" was more important than behaving in a civilised manner.

The hold out to the death with the "rivers are private property so you can clear off unless I say so" vs "there is or should be a general PRN so we can do what we want" will not end well for some or all of us. Do the regular mass of either anglers or paddlers really want to bet the future of their sport on getting the right outcome or do we want to get round a table and negotiate a national access code which grants rights and matches them with responsibilities.

 

[barney20]

Hmmm firing the gun without checking you have the right cartridges can lead to a blowback... Another misinterpretation of what I said, but I guess that suits your cause.

The EA's local offices are fully aware of which waterways and sections thereof have a PRN and will tell you, albeit there might well be an obscure bit of river where the rights (voluntary perhaps) have never been established, but they will be few on the ground. If you ask them who to seek permissions from to navigate the Grand Union Canal they will tell you the C&RT now. They're not stupid, but you won't ever have saught their advice I take it.

You see Mr Two Trucks, whatever is offered whether evidence or what, you don't want to believe it because it doesn't suit your purpose.

We anglers could play at that game (in fact it used to be played in olden times when communication was poor), but it would be pretty short lived these days. For us, it's known as poaching and if you do it at night there's an even greater suspicion that it's for stealing fish. Now you may think you're not stealing anything, but you are robbing the rights to a pleasure that anglers have paid for if you're not supposed to be there. You might say it's like the bus would go on its journey with or without me and without me there would just be an empty seat, but you try getting on it without paying and it's THEFT!

But what's the use, you're not going to listen to any reason whatsoever, like I said, anarchists. And if that upsets you, think about effects your actions have and don't be surprised by the abuse you will receive, sadly.

The EA will tell you if they are the navigation authority for a section of river, and they will tell you who the navigation authorities are for other rivers and canals.

If a river or section of river has no navigation authority their official position is that they don't comment on navigation. The fact that some members of staff don't keep to this is understandable, but doesn't change the official position.

I would assume they have adopted their official position because they are aware navigation rights are contested and they don't want to get drawn into a situation which is outside their remit.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Canoeists who post here are not trying to stop Anglers fishing and happy to share.

As Sam says

Of course canoeists are happy to share, they have nowt but an unproven and entirely theoretical "right".

I know of quite a few homeless folk who this Christmas will have nowhere to sleep and no Christmas dinner, mind if they pop round yours and share?

Of course not, bung a couple of quid in the Sally Army bin, but you wouldn't want them invading your privacy, would you now?

If there's no PRN, then we do not share. As has been expressed more times on here than should be necessary, if you want that right, pay for it.

Saw Chris Tarrant's programme the other night about the Indian Konkan railway that was built twenty years ago. They had to negotiate with 42,000 landowners to get the rights to cross their land. Now there's an example, if the Indians can do it, so can you. Then we can share.

 

[Berty]

I think the confiscating of anglers equipment for illegal acts is because fishing without a licence is poaching.
I don't believe that there is a similar right to confiscate canoeists or anyone elses equipment without a specific court order, which would only be granted to deal with repeat offenders.

You may be right, i don't know.....but the angler is deemed to be poaching if he is illegally there without permission.....even if he has a licence!.....yet you want to do it without either!!!!!

Would the land owner be within his/her rights to assemble steel wires with hanging hooks across the river (erecting warning signs if required) to stop trespasers on his/her section of river?

You seem very ready to break the law?.......even at the cost of our rivers!

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

The EA will tell you if they are the navigation authority for a section of river, and they will tell you who the navigation authorities are for other rivers and canals. If a river or section of river has no navigation authority their official position is that they don't comment on navigation. The fact that some members of staff don't keep to this is understandable, but doesn't change the official position. I would assume they have adopted their official position because they are aware navigation rights are contested and they don't want to get drawn into a situation which is outside their remit.

No, it's probably more the case that if they don't know then there is none. You cannot comment on something that doesn't exist (although I bet your Revd Caffryn does quite a few times from the pulpit so he's used to it. [Sorry Mods - religious comment, I will wear the hair shirt over the Christmas period for that.])

 

[barney20]

We are all entitled to an opinion and this is mine...you are attempting to get your own way but without thinking of the true consequences.

IF navigation was deemed allowable on all waterways the result would simply be a a load of nails in the coffin for a lot of our rivers.....sorry but thats a fact, the damage they would incur would be horrific with hoards of paddlers on them, the joke that is the Wye in "canoe season" proves this.

You, and by "you" i mean paddlers as a whole, have no regard for other river users whatsover, OK, there are amongst you some who "understand" but they are hidden away in the masses.

You HAVE been told in no uncertain terms that what you want is illegall, you simply choose to twist and turn and ignore anything we say.

Those of you amongst the horde who do "understand" would have been better off just keeping stum and swiftly passing by......."coming out" may well lose you more than it gains.

Personally i could always accept and even envy the "run silent run fast" lone canoeist whose desire to be out alone on a wonderful water was similar to my own.

I'll fight any way i can though to keep the "hoardes" away from where they have no right to be...either legally or ethically.

If there was open access to all rivers it is likely that canoeists would spread out more and therefore the congestion on the Wye would be reduced. There are not enough canoeists in the country to make all rivers like the Wye.

The only person who could tell us "in no uncertain terms that what you want is illegal" would be a judge in a court.
We have been told that people believe that what we want is illegal, but no one has actually fully explained their reasoning behind this.
Windy says he is working on a full response to the pro navigation case, and I will read that with interest, as it will be far more informative than some of the unthought out opinions posted on this thread.

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

No, it's probably more the case that if they don't know then there is none. You cannot comment on something that doesn't exist (although I bet your Revd Caffryn does quite a few times from the pulpit so he's used to it. [Sorry Mods - religious comment, I will wear the hair shirt over the Christmas period for that.])

The official line is "no comment", the staff are not supposed to say that there is no right to navigate. If you don't believe me ask a senior EA official.

 

[Berty]

If there was open access to all rivers it is likely that canoeists would spread out more and therefore the congestion on the Wye would be reduced. There are not enough canoeists in the country to make all rivers like the Wye.

The only person who could tell us "in no uncertain terms that what you want is illegal" would be a judge in a court.
We have been told that people believe that what we want is illegal, but no one has actually fully explained their reasoning behind this.
Windy says he is working on a full response to the pro navigation case, and I will read that with interest, as it will be far more informative than some of the unthought out opinions posted on this thread.

You simply have a mental blockage!!......the upper rivers CANNOT take the pressure and you will destroy them with ILLEGAL acts........you have been told why it is illegal but choose to ignore it!!

Windy is wasting his time, you will ignore anything he comes up with........the only UNTHOUGHT out threads on this post is from your quarter, you simply have no THOUGHT for either our rivers or those who use them.

So long as you can go where you want you simply dont give a damn!

 

[barney20]

You may be right, i don't know.....but the angler is deemed to be poaching if he is illegally there without permission.....even if he has a licence!.....yet you want to do it without either!!!!!

Would the land owner be within his/her rights to assemble steel wires with hanging hooks across the river (erecting warning signs if required) to stop trespasers on his/her section of river?

You seem very ready to break the law?.......even at the cost of our rivers!

The confiscation of equipment issue is to do with poaching not trespass, if you don't like it complain to the government, not me.

I would be happy to pay a navigation licence fee in the same way that anglers pay for a rod licence.

No I don't think the landowner would be allowed to do that, again that is down to laws made by the government not me.

At what point have I said I am ready to break the law? I am simply trying to find out what the law is. As yet no one has answered this point, although Windy is working on an answer.

---------- Post added at 13:59 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

You simply have a mental blockage!!......the upper rivers CANNOT take the pressure and you will destroy them with ILLEGAL acts........you have been told why it is illegal but choose to ignore it!!

Windy is wasting his time, you will ignore anything he comes up with........the only UNTHOUGHT out threads on this post is from your quarter, you simply have no THOUGHT for either our rivers or those who use them.

So long as you can go where you want you simply dont give a damn!

Please will people stop assuming that I have or will do things that I have made no mention of.

No one (not even Windy) would say that it is illegal to canoe upper rivers because they would be destroyed by canoeing. The anti navigation case is based on the claim that the rivers are private property and using them is trespass.

Why am I explaining your own case to you?

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

The only person who could tell us "in no uncertain terms that what you want is illegal" would be a judge in a court.

Go for it then. The BCU claims to have 50,000 members and I'm sure there's more (one or two of you lot by admission) who are not members. Let's say that to push it to the Court costs £1m, that £20 each of 50,000. Cheap as chips and you get your way, if it goes your way. Even if it cost £100 each (tot. £5m), if it was something I believed so strongly in I 'd pay that willingly.

Stump or shut up - has been said before.

Nah, just like cyclists want their own rights of way but don't want to pay....

 

[Berty]

The confiscation of equipment issue is to do with poaching not trespass, if you don't like it complain to the government, not me.

I would be happy to pay a navigation licence fee in the same way that anglers pay for a rod licence.

No I don't think the landowner would be allowed to do that, again that is down to laws made by the government not me.

At what point have I said I am ready to break the law? I am simply trying to find out what the law is. As yet no one has answered this point, although Windy is working on an answer.

I have no need to complain to the gov....i accept the land owners right to allow me to fish his waters IF he chooses. (or face the consequences if i "guest")

The landowner wouldn't be allowed to do that?......why? what are you basing your answers on? do not paddlers stretch out cables or ropes on rivers?

Your whole campaign is based on breaking existing laws!

 

[sam vimes]

Having said that I find some angling attitudes like "we want to fish all the time between March and October so you need to stay completely away then" or "the spawning reds are all over this river system, we won't tell you exactly where so just stay away from Oct-Dec as well", or even worse "you can canoe for one weekend a year" gratuitously selfish. Can I just ask, are the vociferous AT folks representative of opinions in angling as a whole?

This rather reinforces the suggestion that there's an element of class war nonsense. It may may not be coming from you, but it looks to be in the propaganda you are being fed. You do realise that the dates/seasons you are talking about are for game fish? I urge you to take the game fishing fraternity on though, that's where the big money is and those with real power are far more likely to be involved. I really don't fancy your chances of rolling over the Duke of Wherever and Lord Whatshisname in a legal battle. All power to you if you manage it though.

Most, not all, involved here are coarse anglers. The coarse closed season is 15th March to 15th of June (inc). Coarse fish spawn between late February right through to July/August depending on the species and conditions.
The reality is that there is no part of the year when some form of angling can't legally take place on a river.

Canoeists have a compromise now. Generally, no one stops them doing what they do, even if it does annoy. If that isn't enough, I can only suggest that you go the legal route. Good luck, I hope you have deep pockets. However, please stop asking anglers to compromise when all you really mean is give us what we want and do it now. Don't pee up my back and tell me that it's raining. Genuine compromise is a two way street. As yet I see nothing from canoeists to suggest that they wish to compromise anything whatsoever, they just want their own way.

---------- Post added at 21:14 ---------- Previous post was at 21:09 ----------

I would be happy to pay a navigation licence fee in the same way that anglers pay for a rod licence.

And what about the fee to each individual landowner of the stretch/stretches you intend to paddle? Again, there seems to be a misconception amongst paddlers that anglers pay for a rod licence and fish anywhere. It's simply not the case.

 

[barney20]

I have no need to complain to the gov....i accept the land owners right to allow me to fish his waters IF he chooses. (or face the consequences if i "guest")

The landowner wouldn't be allowed to do that?......why? what are you basing your answers on? do not paddlers stretch out cables or ropes on rivers?

Your whole campaign is based on breaking existing laws!

I thought you were objecting to the fact that anglers could have there equipment confiscated for breaking the rules, but canoeists can't. I can see that it doesn't seem fair.

Kayakers stretch ropes across rivers to hang slalom gates or poles on, and they should only do this with the permission of the landowners on both sides of the rivers.
Hanging hooks would look like it had been done deliberately to cause harm, it would be viewed by a court as similar to setting traps to injure trespassers in woodlands or on fields. So in theory they may be able to hang the hooks up, but they would be in serious trouble if they injured someone.

The access campaign is not based on intentionally breaking the law, it is based on a different interpretation of the law. And a request for the law to be clarified.

I accept there may be a few radicals, or "all property is theft" types who would like to use the access campaign for there own ends. But the vast majority of people who support the campaign do not hold those views and are not anti anglers.

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:18 ----------

And what about the fee to each individual landowner of the stretch/stretches you intend to paddle? Again, there seems to be a misconception amongst paddlers that anglers pay for a rod licence and fish anywhere. It's simply not the case.

I understand that in many places anglers need to pay for the right to fish in addition to their rod licence.

On rivers with a navigation authority no fee is paid to the landowners, the navigation authority charges fees and uses the money to maintain the navigation. Fees can be charged by landowners for launching, parking, changing rooms and toilets etc.
This is the same as public rights of way, you can't be charged to use them, but landowners may be able to find ways of making money out of them.

 

[Berty]

I thought you were objecting to the fact that anglers could have there equipment confiscated for breaking the rules, but canoeists can't. I can see that it doesn't seem fair.

Kayakers stretch ropes across rivers to hang slalom gates or poles on, and they should only do this with the permission of the landowners on both sides of the rivers.
Hanging hooks would look like it had been done deliberately to cause harm, it would be viewed by a court as similar to setting traps to injure trespassers in woodlands or on fields. So in theory they may be able to hang the hooks up, but they would be in serious trouble if they injured someone.

The access campaign is not based on intentionally breaking the law, it is based on a different interpretation of the law. And a request for the law to be clarified.

I accept there may be a few radicals, or "all property is theft" types who would like to use the access campaign for there own ends. But the vast majority of people who support the campaign do not hold those views and are not anti anglers.

Of course you are anti angler!!........thats why you are here trying to explain why you want to break the law, you can fudge over it as much as you like but thats what this is all about!

Back to those cables.....they render fishing totally out, so (leaving out the hooks, unless the anglers right to fish movement kicks off) i presume, with land owners permission, it would be OK for anglers ( and other anti militant paddlers) to have something in place to enhance their right to a decent days fishing on stretches of river that have no navigation and/or trespass rights?

The whole argument can get sillier and sillier.......but the fact remains that you WILL destroy our rivers if allowed free for all passage.

I am now off for a malt........cross swords again soon.