Sadly then his thoughts are not echoed by his Employer then, seeing as how the C of E is one of, if not the, largest land owners in the Country
Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
Sadly then his thoughts are not echoed by his Employer then, seeing as how the C of E is one of, if not the, largest land owners in the Country
david perry
Active member
I've gone through just about 23 pages on this thread.
Just some points that I can't leave go:-
Windy, you mentioned (Regarding the activist's canoeing lobby) that..
." their interest is in fomenting class war and dragging a large number of otherwise well meaning members into unlawful behaviour that will have long term and damaging consequences for them personally and for the paddling sports in general"
Come on!!! Class war indeed!! I've never met canoeists who even think of fishermen in terms of lower class anyway so you' e no worries on that front. Seriously though I don't know anyone who thinks that way.
There's different types of canoeing and folk who go canoeing/kayaking just as the same as fishing. We seam to be tarred with the same brush. I am generally an 'Open' canoeist or Canadian canoeist - one paddle!! Virtually all the forum members on the SOTP forum are open canoeists although a few will also paddle kayaks.
In general the various debates on the canoeing forum Song of The Paddle are of roughly similar to this one moderate tone, passioned debate and various confusion over what the law is (or isn't). Of course there has been the odd cry of mass trespass and so on, but we've moved on a bit from Kinder Scout think, and the vast majority on SOTP wouldn't take part or necessarily think it a good idea. Thus I don't think it fair to claim, as one poster has here.... That we want to promote "civil disorder".
I notice that the River Wye has been commented upon a couple of times in this thread too. It's also come up on the SOTP site too in regards to the hire of canoes to stag parties and rowdy behaviour. The behaviour of some of these groups was condemned on the forum. Their behaviour does not replicate the behaviour of the canoeists I've paddled with and if I was a fisherman I too would be furious if they paddled past my pitch.
Tempting though it is, I try not to condemn all other fishermen for the damage a few do to river banks, the litter they leave, or the tangled line in the trees, sometimes with dead birds hanging from it. ...
So, as difficult as it may be. Please do not treat all canoeists the same.
Just some points that I can't leave go:-
Windy, you mentioned (Regarding the activist's canoeing lobby) that..
." their interest is in fomenting class war and dragging a large number of otherwise well meaning members into unlawful behaviour that will have long term and damaging consequences for them personally and for the paddling sports in general"
Come on!!! Class war indeed!! I've never met canoeists who even think of fishermen in terms of lower class anyway so you' e no worries on that front. Seriously though I don't know anyone who thinks that way.
There's different types of canoeing and folk who go canoeing/kayaking just as the same as fishing. We seam to be tarred with the same brush. I am generally an 'Open' canoeist or Canadian canoeist - one paddle!! Virtually all the forum members on the SOTP forum are open canoeists although a few will also paddle kayaks.
In general the various debates on the canoeing forum Song of The Paddle are of roughly similar to this one moderate tone, passioned debate and various confusion over what the law is (or isn't). Of course there has been the odd cry of mass trespass and so on, but we've moved on a bit from Kinder Scout think, and the vast majority on SOTP wouldn't take part or necessarily think it a good idea. Thus I don't think it fair to claim, as one poster has here.... That we want to promote "civil disorder".
I notice that the River Wye has been commented upon a couple of times in this thread too. It's also come up on the SOTP site too in regards to the hire of canoes to stag parties and rowdy behaviour. The behaviour of some of these groups was condemned on the forum. Their behaviour does not replicate the behaviour of the canoeists I've paddled with and if I was a fisherman I too would be furious if they paddled past my pitch.
Tempting though it is, I try not to condemn all other fishermen for the damage a few do to river banks, the litter they leave, or the tangled line in the trees, sometimes with dead birds hanging from it. ...
So, as difficult as it may be. Please do not treat all canoeists the same.
B
Berty
Guest
David, i don't believe any of the anglers commenting on this thread have a problem with people like you.
We have a problem with the call for free for all access, can you imagine what would become of our upper rivers if access to some of the Wye idiots is allowed?
You know that can't be right really, don't you?
PS, sometimes keeping stum and enjoying what you have is for the best
We have a problem with the call for free for all access, can you imagine what would become of our upper rivers if access to some of the Wye idiots is allowed?
You know that can't be right really, don't you?
PS, sometimes keeping stum and enjoying what you have is for the best
sam vimes
Well-known member
The way I read it was as canoeists, or at least the militant element of them, versus those they percieve as toffs. The well heeled salmon anglers and landowners. Quite similar to the way that the anti-hunt types painted foxhunting and foxhunters.
I hope this thread can serve as a forum where anglers and paddlers can engage in reasonable mutual respectful discussion and debate, with no name calling or other abuse. There is a lunatic fringe of both anglers and canoeists who both want to cause trouble, not solve a problem where both parties feel powerless.
We should start where we agree, which is that we both love the English natural heritage of rivers, and we both want to enjoy this heritage, without interfering with the enjoyment of others. We both passionately want to protect this environment. We want rivers to be thriving with abundant nature in all its glory.
We are the 99% who are reasonable and capable of compromise... Well, I hope we are...
We should start where we agree, which is that we both love the English natural heritage of rivers, and we both want to enjoy this heritage, without interfering with the enjoyment of others. We both passionately want to protect this environment. We want rivers to be thriving with abundant nature in all its glory.
We are the 99% who are reasonable and capable of compromise... Well, I hope we are...
sam vimes
Well-known member
Nothing too controversial in that. However, I would like canoeists to acknowledge on thing. That is that, despite their common perception, even if they are considerate, decent people, simply travelling through my swim once can screw up an entire days fishing. Don't be surprised if you aren't greeted like long lost friends, especially where an angler believes (rightly or wrongly) you have no right to be.
david perry
Active member
Sorry Sam!!
I should have put a smiley after that comment re class war. It was a bit tongue in cheek. And no, I'd hate it if the likes of stag parties et al. canoed (or fished) in our rivers or lakes.
Angling Trust statement
Only three pages long but the link above is the mirror of this thread on SOTP.
I should have put a smiley after that comment re class war. It was a bit tongue in cheek.
And no, I'd hate it if the likes of stag parties et al. canoed (or fished) in our rivers or lakes.Angling Trust statement
Only three pages long but the link above is the mirror of this thread on SOTP.
Windy
Well-known member
That's the one, better than I put it.
A quarter century of explaining every detail of your thoughts, word processes and logic does not make for a short and succinct verbal or colloquial written style. As I am afraid the longer standing members of FM have had to put up with from me, with ocasional protests... (and sorry Neil :wh). Too late to change established mental processes
As I well remember, way back when I was....
Hence the nickname.... not related to my ability to either generate fundamental wind or to attract adverse weather to any fish-in
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
I think in general that is true for most anglers and probably most paddlers. At the moment we need your help in quashing these plans to put hydro power plants on all the weirs and you don't need them because they'll get in your way and reduce the flows over the remainder of the weirs. Hence we have a joint vested interest.
The problem only come where there are much narrower and often shallower stretches of river that are non-navigable (what determines that I don't know but the EA will tell you which are and which aren't) and anglers fishing interests are constantly disturbed by canoeists whether polite or not. It's usually the third one down that gets the earful.
- First, "Damn!"
- Second, "'kin 'ell, how many more? "
- Third, "Just what the ******** **** do you think you're doin' I've been here since ??am" etc.,
Those are the issues we want to settle. If it isn't navigable and there's no VAA, canoeists shouldn't be there. Simple. Saves a lot of aggro.
Have you actually READ any of the posts Windy has made? Or are you a Vogon poet?
---------- Post added at 01:00 ---------- Previous post was at 00:54 ----------
(Sorry, that reads as if I intend to be rude but I don't.)
Yes I have read Windy's posts, and at no point does he make any statements about the rights of Mr Benyon to make the law up. The one thing that both sides are in full agreement on is that this issue is a matter of law, matters of law are decided by courts, not government ministers.
Windy's posts are to do with what the law says or doesn't say, which is how this should be settled.
Please, if you are going to reply to my posts, read them first.
Windy
I was wondering if you could answer this question... It is fundamental to the current situation where canoeists think they can paddle anywhere without risk of serious legal sanction. It changes the whole dynamic of the issue. Again apologies if I have misunderstood or missed a previous answer.
B
Berty
Guest
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.
Sorry, that is simply not true. Certainly not any more and I don't know if it ever was.
The EA will tell you if they are the statutorily appointed navigation authority for a stretch of river. If they are then it means that they control navigation on the river and can tell you the conditions under which navigation takes place.
If they are not the appointed navigation authority then their formal position is that they have no opinion about navigation.
Lord Smith of Finsbury wrote formally in Nov 2011 "I can confirm that we have no remit in the regulation of navigation on non-tidal rivers where we are not the appointed navigation authority". So anyone at the EA who pronounces on the navigability or otherwise of a river is likely to be acting outside of their authority.
Please could you tell us when and by whom at the EA you have been told that a river is not navigable?
Given you are basing your "simple" opinion on something that you have apparently been told by an organisation that says it has no remit to tell you, I suggest you do a little more investigation before being so certain.
Last edited:
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
It is simple! If there is no PRN then it is not navigable; unless you have the permission of the owner. (An agreement in other words).
You are correct that the EA have no opinion on waters outside their remit but this does not mean that where that occurs, a PRN automatically exists. It doesn't.
As I understand Windy: All property is owned. To use/paddle that property, the permission of the owner is required otherwise it is trespass. If an anticipatory injunction is brought against the tresspasser(s), he and his co-trespassers are also guilty of Contempt of Court. And that's where the major penalties kick in.
Not so simple then!
There are a heck of a lot more "if"s in even your logic than Jeffs simplistic view and quite enough that an angler sitting on the river bank has no idea if a canoeist should be there or not.
I agree that if you are right and there is no general PRN which it looks like historically there is, and if there is no specific PRN for that river, and if the owner(s) of the bed of the river object to the canoeist being there and if they manage to persuade a Judge that there is no general PRN or specific PRN and are awarded an injunction to forbid the canoeist from being there then the canoeist shouldn't be there.
That doesn't sound like good grounds though for a average angler to make pronouncements like "you shouldn't be here" to everyone that paddles past. Sorry!
B
Berty
Guest
Two ..cks.
Given your views i presume it's OK for a coach load of us to come and camp on your garden and you won't be saying "you shouldn't be here" ?
If an angler is fishing with permission and legally in as much as he has paid his licence fee and also any other fee.....which could be considerable, he then has every trucking right to say to the same!!!
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
Nonsense. If there is no PRN he shouldn't be there, unless he has the owners permission.
How simple is that?
---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------
....
It only 'looks' that way to would-be trespassers, because it's their attempt to wriggle out of obeying the law! You know it and I know it.
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.
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
The difference as you well know is that trespass takes place on private property and a road is not private property. It is public. Unlike rivers which are for the most part, private.
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
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.