Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[FishingMagic]

This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

 

[geoffmaynard]

Excellent stuff. Benyon has made it clear. Now all they need to do is enforce it.

"ext from Fisheries and Natural Environment Minister Richard Benyon's interview on canoeists:

Q - Angling Trust: Will you rule out a statutory 'right to paddle' for canoeists?
A - Richard Benyon: I want to be really clear about this. While we want more people to get out and enjoy activities in the countryside they must be complimentary. 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. Anglers and fishery owners spend a lot of time and money caring for our rivers and streams and their rights deserve to be respected"

 

[bennygesserit]

you can see what the canoeists themselves are saying here Angling Trust statement

---------- Post added at 19:09 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------

to which I posted

As an Angling Trust member I invite you to share your views with Anglers , directly , here

http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/f...-campaign.html

Have Fun ! and remember its all a game

Just to add this quote

Richard Benyon: I want to be really clear about this. While we want more people to get out and enjoy activities in the countryside they must be complimentary. 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. Anglers and fishery owners spend a lot of time and money caring for our rivers and streams and their rights deserve to be respected

 

[Terry wright]

Benyon has said nothing new. There is nothing in the statement that validates the suggestion that public rights of navigation do not exist.

The AT are so sure that the canoeists are breaking the law that the have cases pending for prosection of these wicked trespassers don't they?

Oh no......they have no cases pending despit their open statements that it is in contravention of ' the law of the land'.
If it is so cut and dried do you not think the AT would proceed with prosecutions?

Just remember that the trespass generally referred to is trespassing on land to gain access to the water. The water itself is not 'owned'. It flows from spring to sea and as it is not 'owned' it cannot be trespassed upon. I believe that the Angling Trust have conceded as much in previous statements.

 

[geoffmaynard]

I looked at that forum but I don't think there's much point in debating with people of fixed opinions who think the laws of trespass don't apply to them and don't want to understand that navigation is navigation, be it in a canoe, kayak or anything else which floats. If they have a problem with the laws of the land, that's for them to attempt to change in the courts or parliament. As the existing laws stand, they are committing an offence when navigating through a private stretch of water without the riparian owners permission.

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:33 ----------

Just remember that the trespass generally referred to is trespassing on land to gain access to the water. The water itself is not 'owned'. It flows from spring to sea and as it is not 'owned' it cannot be trespassed upon.

Wrong. That's wishful thinking on behalf of the trespassers

 

[Terry wright]

Geoff mate if that law is so clear cut could you share the legislation details with us all?

Indeed perhaps if you let the AT know then Fish Legal could prosecute paddlers promptly instead of leaving angling clubs with narrow stretches of river with paddlers on to wonder who is going to help them.

 

[geoffmaynard]

Geoff mate if that law is so clear cut could you share the legislation details with us all?

Indeed perhaps if you let the AT know then Fish Legal could prosecute paddlers promptly instead of leaving angling clubs with narrow stretches of river with paddlers on to wonder who is going to help them.

Terry, according to the 'logic' you present, every time it rains, anyone can trespass anywhere because they are walking on water, not land. mg:

 

[bennygesserit]

Terry, according to the 'logic' you present, every time it rains, anyone can trespass anywhere because they are walking on water, not land. mg:

Geoff what is the law that says canoeists cannot navigate any river ?

 

[Terry wright]

Geoff,
If you are an advocate for anglers, I have been one for over 50 years by the way, then please try and answer in a way that does not make them or you look silly.

Re the puddle unfortunately I cannot walk on water so that would not apply to me.

I asked a clear and concise question, please have the maturity to answer it clearly and concisely without sarchasm. That way you will show that you deserve the respect that at this point I am showing you.

 

[geoffmaynard]

Geoff,
If you are an advocate for anglers, I have been one for over 50 years by the way, then please try and answer in a way that does not make them or you look silly.

Re the puddle unfortunately I cannot walk on water so that would not apply to me.

I asked a clear and concise question, please have the maturity to answer it clearly and concisely without sarchasm. That way you will show that you deserve the respect that at this point I am showing you.

This is like trying to explain to someone why water is wet. If they don't want to believe it then nothing I can say will cause them to change their mind. There is a law called aggravated trespass which you can google which should explain things, especially when a paddler is deliberately interfering with legitimate anglers. If one chooses to attempt to misinterpret that law then thats his choice and he can defend it in court when and if he is summoned.
You explained your simplistic view of a river but it's not how I or the law sees it. A river might start out with a spring in a marshy piece of grass but it becomes a river due to water catchment - which is rain by any other name. Therefor a canoeist is paddling on nothing more than rainwater in the eyes of the law. Same as if it was a puddle in a field. Hence my walking on water comment. Not sarcasm, just trying to condense the points I'm making.

---------- Post added at 23:15 ---------- Previous post was at 22:58 ----------

Geoff what is the law that says canoeists cannot navigate any river ?

Ah. Prove the negative approach... Here goes:
Rights of navigation are legally granted by the authority of the day. That was once the royal prerogative but has since been delegated to various water authorities as history progressed. These days the rights are are granted by harbour navigation authorities in tidal areas and generally by the EA in freshwater reaches. Where a river has a right of navigation it is listed and defined by law and you can find it written down in our laws. Where there is no right granted, you will find nothing - because no right has been granted. Therefor the question should be reversed - find the law that says they CAN navigate our rivers! If so, on places like the thames etc, they have a legal right to do so. On rivers where no such right exists, they are trespassing.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I asked a clear and concise question, please have the maturity to answer it clearly and concisely without sarchasm.

Terry, I'm the other Jeff, we were twins at one time, but that's another story.

The point is the ownership of a river comes in three parts, the owner of the banks/land, the owner of the fishing rights, and the owner of the river bed. All three can be owned by the same person or body and all three can be under completely separate ownership. When someone wants to paddle through a river, it's not the water because as you say, no one owns that, but that land over which it runs, i.e the river bed, does belong to someone. Paddling over that land is just the same as walking on it.

Now I haev my differences with paddlers on points like these and all I would ask it that they should respect the wishes of those owners not to trespass. At the same time, I am right now fighting with and on behalf of paddlers to have and retain a rightful passge through the Thames and that includes safe passage over the weirs. The reason for my fight is the proposal to build hydropower plants on many weirs and this in some cases will restrict canoeists' access. The Thames (and similar) is a navigable river for all craft, BTW.

I hope this answers your question to my twin...


Edited bit: I see he came at it front a different perspective. Still correct as well. My version applies to voluntary access.

 

[Terry wright]

I think you refer to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994:

Offence of aggravated trespass.(1)A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land [F20in the open air] and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land [F21in the open air] , does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
(a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b)of obstructing that activity, or
(c)of disrupting that activity.

You will see that it is only an offence when there is ' intent' to do a.b. or c. The onus of proof is on the prosecution.

So if a paddler says: "I was out for a quiet paddle, I spoke nicely to the angler and asked him which side of the river he wanted me to pass". Innocent I guess.

If the angler then uses any "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour" which has indeed been captured on video by numerous paddlers, then
Criminal Justice Act 1967 Sections 5, 4 &4A come into force.

So the paddler is accused of a minor offence which would be very difficult to prove and the angler 'might' be charged with an offence the frequently carries a custodial sentence.

I am afraid Geoff that if the aggravated trespass offence was valid then many paddlers would have been prosecuted.

Humour me for one moment here......I have a BCU navigation permit( I also have £90 worth of angling season tickets) and I paddle legally along the Th Grand Union Canal at say.... Yardley Gobian where there is a Winter League Match and I paddle through 100 swims. If you witness 4 of these anglers swear at me, threaten me and fire SSG at me will you be a prosecution witness or will you be fill your catty with groundbait, maggots or shot and tell me to go forth and multiply?

 

[bennygesserit]

This is like trying to explain to someone why water is wet. If they don't want to believe it then nothing I can say will cause them to change their mind. There is a law called aggravated trespass which you can google which should explain things, especially when a paddler is deliberately interfering with legitimate anglers. If one chooses to attempt to misinterpret that law then thats his choice and he can defend it in court when and if he is summoned.
You explained your simplistic view of a river but it's not how I or the law sees it. A river might start out with a spring in a marshy piece of grass but it becomes a river due to water catchment - which is rain by any other name. Therefor a canoeist is paddling on nothing more than rainwater in the eyes of the law. Same as if it was a puddle in a field. Hence my walking on water comment. Not sarcasm, just trying to condense the points I'm making.

---------- Post added at 23:15 ---------- Previous post was at 22:58 ----------



Ah. Prove the negative approach... Here goes:
Rights of navigation are legally granted by the authority of the day. That was once the royal prerogative but has since been delegated to various water authorities as history progressed. These days the rights are are granted by harbour navigation authorities in tidal areas and generally by the EA in freshwater reaches. Where a river has a right of navigation it is listed and defined by law and you can find it written down in our laws. Where there is no right granted, you will find nothing - because no right has been granted. Therefor the question should be reversed - find the law that says they CAN navigate our rivers! If so, on places like the thames etc, they have a legal right to do so. On rivers where no such right exists, they are trespassing.

Isn't it a bit like common land , or , say the forest of dean , its been accepted for years that it belongs to all , so to change the rules at the last moment seems unfair.

 

[Terry wright]

Jeff,

I cannot agree with you over the fact that as a paddler is on the water he is on the land. That is just not so. Speak directly withAngling Trust's David Mitchell I believe he will confirm this.

It has also been stated by the police that floating on the wter is not trespass per se.

Other than that thanks for you reasoned response.

Terry

 

[geoffmaynard]

If you witness 4 of these anglers swear at me, threaten me and fire SSG at me will you be a prosecution witness or will you be fill your catty with groundbait, maggots or shot and tell me to go forth and multiply?

I will defend your legal right to navigate, if you have one, and protest if you don't. I too use boats in our waterways and understand both sides.

 

[Paul Boote]

Ah yes, the BCU Hardcore...

Reminds me of the time, several years ago, almost a decade ago, when NO ANGLER had sounded off about such sorts, but I did: on the old Fly Fishing Forums (before the serial, unmoderated, politically motivated character assassinators appeared), on AnglersNet, on BFW, and probably here, about how my experiences with "Rad" Canoeists thirty-odd years ago, on a piece of very fine sea-trout and salmon water that I was living beside in West Wales, quite coloured my opinion of such types.

I didn't so much "sound off" but first dismantled the arguments of some mouthy, drive-by Rad Paddler named Dave McSomething (I have a copies of those exchanges somewhere), then tellingly, wryly humorously responding to his increasingly intemperate and incoherent threats, rants and insults before finally, reluctantly, blowing the chap out of the water.

And what did he do then?

Some splashing on the BCU site and others...

Came back with a "killer" link to the online reminiscences of a "Paul Boote" active on the Manchester / NW Gay Club Scene in the 1980s.

Very much the wrong man, as those of you know me will know.

Said a lot about people that our p-poor politicos are now, years later, trying to score themselves Brownie Points (with the likes of us) by hitting on and issuing soundbites and Press Releases to prove it.

 

[geoffmaynard]

Isn't it a bit like common land , or , say the forest of dean , its been accepted for years that it belongs to all , so to change the rules at the last moment seems unfair.

There is very little in this country which is 'common land' - the Enclosures Act saw to that. Just about everything everywhere is Property, owned by someone. The very roads you drive on aka the Kings Highway or that other favoured transportation route, the river

 

[Terry wright]

Ah. Prove the negative approach... Here goes:
Rights of navigation are legally granted by the authority of the day. That was once the royal prerogative but has since been delegated to various water authorities as history progressed. These days the rights are are granted by harbour navigation authorities in tidal areas and generally by the EA in freshwater reaches. Where a river has a right of navigation it is listed and defined by law and you can find it written down in our laws. Where there is no right granted, you will find nothing - because no right has been granted. Therefor the question should be reversed - find the law that says they CAN navigate our rivers! If so, on places like the thames etc, they have a legal right to do so. On rivers where no such right exists, they are trespassing.

So you are telling me that you commit an offence when there is no legislation prohibiting your actions? I eagerly await the solicitor who tries to prosecute that one.
You can of course show evidence of this by case law from previous prosecutions.

If you say it is so then I guess I have to accept it.

 

[geoffmaynard]

That is all just hearsay which I am sure paddlers will want to hear. What I have told you is not hearsay but fact. Where you have a public right of navigation I would defend your rights but where you don't....
Intent:
If there are signs or other warnings forbidding paddlers and they ignore them, they have intent - and claims of ignorance of the law is, as we know, no defence.

---------- Post added at 00:07 ---------- Previous post was at 00:02 ----------

So you are telling me that you commit an offence when there is no legislation prohibiting your actions?

In this case, yes. If there is no right of navigation granted, there is NO right of navigation. That's what paddlers need to understand.

 

[Terry wright]

But Geoff the mere act of paddling is not an offence and as such no amount of signs can prohibit it.

You have to prove the 'intent to cause a, b, or c.'

Geoff please direct me to the legislation and case law that prove you statements on navigation. That is all I have been asking. As I say senior members of the Angling Trust, who will be very knowledgeable on this, concede this point I believe.