- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Anglers v Canoeists – Court Case Looms…
Anglers v Canoeists – Court Case Looms…
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
thecrow
Well-known member
I wonder what the kayak members of the trust will think about this? talk about double standards.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
You can see what the opposition ate saying here Threatened Legal Action by Angling Trust
I think that the vast majority of Kayak anglers do their fishing in estuaries and coastal areas, although there are some who use the canals as well.
I don't really see this as a case of double standards at all but one where there are pretty firm lines of division.
As to the potential for a court case then I look forward to a positive result in favour of anglers and angling, that said I do believe that any legal decision might only be discrete and only cover an area specifically mentioned in the case details.
Time will tell, but I very much doubt of the Paddlers organizations will want to settle this without a court hearing . . . . . .
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Anyone who fishes would understand the requirement for permits , its kind of ingrained.
I can't see this being solved easily but it looks like the AT are determined to address the issues at the forefront of anglers minds , I am convinced they spend at least some time reading the bigger forums like this one.
I can't see this being solved easily but it looks like the AT are determined to address the issues at the forefront of anglers minds , I am convinced they spend at least some time reading the bigger forums like this one.
As illustrated (NOT) by the Nash video in the 'Darn People' thread where the angler 'only' breaks the rules for his convenience - like I said in that thread it could ultimately be a disservice to angling!
bennygesserit
Well-known member
thecrow
Well-known member
IF this comes to a court case and I don't think it will fish legal must be very sure of winning or the case could cost more than fish legal can afford to loose. It just looks like posturing to me.
If they are sure of winning don't threaten, do it.
If they are sure of winning don't threaten, do it.
dangermouse
Well-known member
I love how people see only what they want to see in a piece of text.
"Know ye that whereas the great rivers in our kingdom aforesaid ought to be held common and open for the passage of ships and boats..."
And that`s obviously where they stop reading because the next part of the sentence quantifies the reason for the right of navigation.
"... passing with victuals and other merchandise from place to place by the same rivers..."
So even if this piece of legislation is still valid (and I seem to recall Windy saying it wasn`t) then unless the canoeists want to start a cottage industry ferrying goods or perhaps selling sarnies to anglers then their argument doesn`t seem to hold much water.
"Know ye that whereas the great rivers in our kingdom aforesaid ought to be held common and open for the passage of ships and boats..."
And that`s obviously where they stop reading because the next part of the sentence quantifies the reason for the right of navigation.
"... passing with victuals and other merchandise from place to place by the same rivers..."
So even if this piece of legislation is still valid (and I seem to recall Windy saying it wasn`t) then unless the canoeists want to start a cottage industry ferrying goods or perhaps selling sarnies to anglers then their argument doesn`t seem to hold much water.
Perhaps they'll have to join in with the Merchant Navy and be subject to Marine freightage regs including having a 'plimsoll line' painted on the side of the canoe - they could then of course call on the Royal Navy to protect them against Fish Legal - 'gunboat diplomacy' on the Wye perhaps?
mg:bennygesserit
Well-known member
The paddlers reply , or at least one of them , would be that Fish legal's position also says this of a PRN
"It cannot be lost as a result of mere disuse."
Interestingly fish legal and the Trust are quite entitled to put resources into this , I am not so sure the paddlers are given that most of their funding is for the sport itself e.g. Elite athletes for the olympics ( millions of it ) , anyway thats an unknown for me at the moment , however this does present a very strong case for joining the Trust or at least supporting fish legal with a donation.
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
This published mis and dis-information is not only restricted to the canoe bodies literature and websites. Virtually every tourist information, national park advice, the EA and WUF all lead people to believe they have a right to canoe wherever they like. They write stuff like 'there is a public right of navigation from Hay downstream' and then go on to advise Glasbury as 'a popular canoeing area'. Of course, tourists have no idea of the local geography and don't realise Glasbury is upstream of Hay.
So I hope the ATr widens the range of this mail-shot and includes all the offenders...
So I hope the ATr widens the range of this mail-shot and includes all the offenders...
The bad one
Well-known member
AND ABOUT BLOODY TIME TOO!!!!!
It's one of the reasons I dropped out of ATr lack of bleeding action on this issue!
It's one of the reasons I dropped out of ATr lack of bleeding action on this issue!
stu_the_blank
Well-known member
You have to go through a dance in civil cases. If you turn up in court having made no effort to settle, it counts against youin the awarding of costs. Fish Legal and the ACA before them have a fantastic record, with all due respect Crow, I'd back their judgement against yours.
Stu
thecrow
Well-known member
I know that fish legal and before them the ACA have a good record, I was a member of the ACA for many years, one reason they had such a good record was they only took on cases they knew they would win, cost excluded anything else.
I doubt very much that this will get to court, I also doubt that if it did and fish legal won that it would make any difference to paddlers that do what they please now with no repercussions because like most things in angling there is nobody to police it and apart from anglers the public don't care. I would like to think that if the case was won the paddlers would stick to the judgement but I cant see it.
I have to agree with you Phil on this one.
It is probably one of the few issues that the Angling Trust could have championed that would unite the vast majority of anglers, rather than embark on campaigns that would so obviously divide us:
:think close season debate for starters . . . . . .
Still, applause where it is due and I am really pleased to see the Angling Trust take this on, and hopefully see it to a logical conclusion.
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
But there is of course. There's the police, the EA, NRW, local county councils... the problem is to get them to actually do what they are paid to do, instead of spending their time (and our money) thinking up excuses NOT to do it!
nicepix
Well-known member
Sadly that is exactly what was happening when I was working. My force employed people to 'manage' crime statistics reducing violent crime such as robberies by re-classifying it as theft and minor assault, burglary dwellings became burglary non-dwellings and so on.
As I keep saying; the thing to do is to play the system to ensure that your reports are acted upon. don't report trespass, report harassment. They have to act on that.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Geoff this is a letter before action to the BCU to force them to alter their policy of promoting a universal PRN its not to prevent trespass by canoeists , its a first step , is that how you see it !
As such its very easily enforceable , whether it results in less trespass remains to be seen , some paddlers are hesitant about breaking the law clarity would help them decide.
Does that about sum it up ?
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
No. It's about canoe organisations (and other bodies) effectively telling people it's okay to break the law, on their websites and in their literature. To me, that's like the AA telling people to park where they like and go whatever speed they like.