Anglers v Canoeists – Court Case Looms…

[Peter Jacobs]

Your argument is weak Peter, as your only going on Opinions,

Ray,

It is not my opinion but Legal Opinion, do you know what that is?

If not then please read this:

http://www.fishingmagic.com/files.php?force&file=Conflict_on_the_Riverbank_726113330.pdf

And pay particular attention to Section 4 The Law On Navigation and then read APPENDIX B - Counsel’s Opinion and the Law
Extract of Advice from Counsel re Public Right of Navigation (PRN)

Further Legal Opinion can be found here from a specialist Fishing and Water Law Firm of Solicitors here in England:

http://www.anglinglaw.co.uk/9---water-law.html

Regarding your submission that "they will carry on" then please read Phil's posts regarding what happens in his area having first established with the Police that a crime has been committed.

For further deference on Crime Codes and the legal obligation for the Police to react and attend and investigate then please also read:

New Police code for Theft of Fishing Rights to make reporting crime easier - The Angling Trust

After having read, learned and inwardly digested the above, (i.e. with an informed view) then please come back and tell us if it is really so "weak"

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Ray,

It is not my opinion but Legal Opinion, do you know what that is?

If not then please read this:

http://www.fishingmagic.com/files.php?force&file=Conflict_on_the_Riverbank_726113330.pdf

And pay particular attention to Section 4 The Law On Navigation and then read APPENDIX B - Counsel’s Opinion and the Law
Extract of Advice from Counsel re Public Right of Navigation (PRN)

Further Legal Opinion can be found here from a specialist Fishing and Water Law Firm of Solicitors here in England:

Water Law - Simon Jackson Solicitors

Regarding your submission that "they will carry on" then please read Phil's posts regarding what happens in his area having first established with the Police that a crime has been committed.

For further deference on Crime Codes and the legal obligation for the Police to react and attend and investigate then please also read:

New Police code for Theft of Fishing Rights to make reporting crime easier - The Angling Trust

After having read, learned and inwardly digested the above, (i.e. with an informed view) then please come back and tell us if it is really so "weak"

Morning Peter,
Regardless of any laws, having read the two paragraphs below, one in a statement by Mark Lloyd within this thread and the second in a letter he has sent to the Angling Times.

I am surprised no one has picked up on the fact that the Angling Trust’s aim is for more rivers to be opened up to canoeing. I am sure that many anglers who are not members of the AT will be very disappointed to hear this seeing as the AT represent a minority of UK anglers.

Regards
Ray

Quote,
“I have tried very hard to make the point in the media over the past week that this action is intended to establish the law so that we can actually have more canoeing on rivers, but on the basis of a clear understanding of the law and with agreements in place to avoid damage to fish and fishing.”

“There are thousands of miles of navigable canals, lakes and rivers where there is a statutory right of navigation and we are not trying to limit access to these waters.
In fact, we think there are lots of opportunities for more canoeing to take place on some of the other rivers where there is currently no right of access. However, our members can’t draw up agreements to provide these opportunities if canoeing organisations won’t accept the law. Our challenge aims to get them to do this, if necessary by order of the court, so that we can have a solid foundation for agreements to open up more rivers for canoeing, at times and river heights which will avoid impact on the environment and fishing.” unquote.

 

[thecrow]

Morning Peter,
Regardless of any laws, having read the two paragraphs below, one in a statement by Mark Lloyd within this thread and the second in a letter he has sent to the Angling Times.

I am surprised no one has picked up on the fact that the Angling Trust’s aim is for more rivers to be opened up to canoeing. I am sure that many anglers who are not members of the AT will be very disappointed to hear this seeing as the AT represent a minority of UK anglers.

Regards
Ray

Quote,
“I have tried very hard to make the point in the media over the past week that this action is intended to establish the law so that we can actually have more canoeing on rivers, but on the basis of a clear understanding of the law and with agreements in place to avoid damage to fish and fishing.”

“There are thousands of miles of navigable canals, lakes and rivers where there is a statutory right of navigation and we are not trying to limit access to these waters.
In fact, we think there are lots of opportunities for more canoeing to take place on some of the other rivers where there is currently no right of access. However, our members can’t draw up agreements to provide these opportunities if canoeing organisations won’t accept the law. Our challenge aims to get them to do this, if necessary by order of the court, so that we can have a solid foundation for agreements to open up more rivers for canoeing, at times and river heights which will avoid impact on the environment and fishing.” unquote.

I did notice that Ray hence my post about being surprised, paddlers do not want any VAA now but the trust want to work with paddlers to get more access, I don't want more paddlers on the rivers I fish and I reasonably thought that was what this was about stopping paddlers on none PRN stretches.

How are more rivers to be opened up to paddlers if there is no PRN on these "other rivers"? if there is a PRN at the moment then paddlers can use them now so where are these other rivers?

As usual with the trust there is nearly always something that we are not told and in this case its them wanting more rivers with paddlers on them.

 

[sam vimes]

I am surprised no one has picked up on the fact that the Angling Trust’s aim is for more rivers to be opened up to canoeing. I am sure that many anglers who are not members of the AT will be very disappointed to hear this seeing as the AT represent a minority of UK anglers.

It's just politicking. I don't for one moment believe that paddlers will get greater access if the courts come out in favour of riparian owners/landowners. If that happens, the only way greater (legal) access will happen is if paddlers start paying for their priveledges.

 

[nicepix]

It's just politicking. I don't for one moment believe that paddlers will get greater access if the courts come out in favour of riparian owners/landowners. If that happens, the only way greater (legal) access will happen is if paddlers start paying for their priveledges.

That is how I understand it. But it is good for PR to offer some form of gesture, even if it comes at a cost.

 

[sam vimes]

That is how I understand it. But it is good for PR to offer some form of gesture, even if it comes at a cost.

Absolutely, it's simply a way of appearing to be as nice as possible about it. The actually reality of it may not be quite so nice for paddlers. As I said, it's just politicking.

 

[bennygesserit]

Absolutely, it's simply a way of appearing to be as nice as possible about it. The actually reality of it may not be quite so nice for paddlers. As I said, it's just politicking.

As I understand it this would be access , to suitable rivers ie not small shallow tributaries, when the river is deep enough.

Potentially at certain times of year too, i.e. the AT would be campaigning for the widening of VAAs.

 

[sam vimes]

As I understand it this would be access , to suitable rivers ie not small shallow tributaries, when the river is deep enough.

Potentially at certain times of year too, i.e. the AT would be campaigning for the widening of VAAs.

The AT can campaign for whatever it likes, they can't force owners to make voluntary agreements. Paddling's insistance on getting their wants for free are likely to scupper their chances of gaining a single concession.

You linked to Monbiot's article, it gives a fair indication of the realities unless the universal PRN is proven in court. Unless the law is changed/clarified in their favour, paddlers are going to have to face the reality of paying for access.

 

[bennygesserit]

The AT can campaign for whatever it likes, they can't force owners to make voluntary agreements. Paddling's insistance on getting their wants for free are likely to scupper their chances of gaining a single concession.

You linked to Monbiot's article, it gives a fair indication of the realities unless the universal PRN is proven in court. Unless the law is changed/clarified in their favour, paddlers are going to have to face the reality of paying for access.

Absolutely right but then that is the point of a VAA its voluntary so you volunteer access where it doesn't interfere with angling.

So I wouldn't imagine a prime chalk stream such as those listed by Peter would be amenable but Geoff Maynard might volunteer a couple of days a week, especially if that helped support no access on designated days.

 

[dalesman]

Where does a Club stand where they have purchased the fishing rights from the owner.

But owner openly allows schools and canoe clubs to launch from his property?

As it is happening locally in fact this morning 2 mini buses plus trailers.

 

[bennygesserit]

Where does a Club stand where they have purchased the fishing rights from the owner.

But owner openly allows schools and canoe clubs to launch from his property?

As it is happening locally in fact this morning 2 mini buses plus trailers.

I imagine the owner can do that , unless there was something in the riparian rights lease that specifically mentioned it.

 

[sam vimes]

Absolutely right but then that is the point of a VAA its voluntary so you volunteer access where it doesn't interfere with angling.

So I wouldn't imagine a prime chalk stream such as those listed by Peter would be amenable but Geoff Maynard might volunteer a couple of days a week, especially if that helped support no access on designated days.

Those that control and own are, in most cases nothing to do with anglers or angling. In most cases, they won't volunteer a single thing unless they get some cash. That's the reality, just the same as it is for angling. It's very rare to find any free angling unless the land is state owned. Everywhere else, the owners get their cash, by day ticket or leasing to a club or syndicate. The alternative is to sell rights completely or not allow angling.

Naturally, Geoff may do as he wishes, if it's within his gift to allow canoeists and allow them access rights across the adjoining land. I've no idea as to the extent of Geoff's control of his bit of the Wye.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Absolutely, it's simply a way of appearing to be as nice as possible about it. The actually reality of it may not be quite so nice for paddlers. As I said, it's just politicking.

. . . . or, as I mentioned earlier it is necessary to be seen to be "reasonable"

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------

Where does a Club stand where they have purchased the fishing rights from the owner.

But owner openly allows schools and canoe clubs to launch from his property?

As it is happening locally in fact this morning 2 mini buses plus trailers.

The first thing would be to study carefully the fishing lease agreement between the club and the owner(s)

Then if it does not specifically give "exclusive rights" or preclude "paddlers" then the club has but two choices:

1. To accept the status quo, or

2. Not renew the lease under the same conditions leading to the owner losing income.

 

[The bad one]

Where does a Club stand where they have purchased the fishing rights from the owner.

But owner openly allows schools and canoe clubs to launch from his property?

As it is happening locally in fact this morning 2 mini buses plus trailers.

That’s an interesting conundrum that one! I think what Dalesman is asking is if you “buy” the Fishing Rights from the Landowner, then they allow others to access the river across their land for splashing purposes, where do you the owners of the fishing rights stand?

There are two types of ownership and I can’t remember the legal terminology for it so bare with me here.

1. You buy them kind of freehold, which means you own the land as well to a point 5 metres from the high water mark. In this case the landowner next to the 5M strip you own has no right to give anybody permission to cross the 5M land strip you own.
2. You buy just the fishing rights with access to them but no ownership of the land they are on. Many clubs in this part of the world have done this historically as the cost is/was cheaper. But they were bought in times when paddling on rivers was not an issue, as it was accepted by them that they had no right to paddle a river that had no PRN.

My guess is that if it’s 2 then you’ll have to suck it up until you’ve sort very good legal advice as to whether there is anything legally you can do to stop the landowner granting access to them.

There’s a salutary lesson here for all clubs thinking of buy lengths of river, make sure you get 1. the freehold type sale of the fishing rights. Then the unscrupulous can’t stab you in the back at a later date.

 

[nicepix]

I know of a river that could be given over to canoes with little impact on angling. It is also an interesting river that would be a good ride for the paddlers and there wouldn't be a problem with landowners either. I'm sure that there other rivers here and there that could be sacrificed. But at the moment the BCU needs to be making some conciliatory measures before anything is offered to them.

 

[bennygesserit]

I know of a river that could be given over to canoes with little impact on angling. It is also an interesting river that would be a good ride for the paddlers and there wouldn't be a problem with landowners either. I'm sure that there other rivers here and there that could be sacrificed. But at the moment the BCU needs to be making some conciliatory measures before anything is offered to them.

Offered by who Clive ? That's the problem with the VAA you need everyone to agree

 

[nicepix]

Offered by who Clive ? That's the problem with the VAA you need everyone to agree

I'm not telling. But it wouldn't be a problem.

 

[The bad one]

Offered by who Clive ? That's the problem with the VAA you need everyone to agree

Don't see a problem with that given they believe their case is so strong their powers to persuade and negotiation such agreements shouldn't be very difficult really.

What? pigs don't fly! Well I never eh!

Guess they'll have to wait then until they reach Valhalla!

 

[geoffmaynard]

A Voluntary Access Agreement only needs the consent of the riparian owner. Nobody else has a say in it, whatever they might think or believe.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

A Voluntary Access Agreement only needs the consent of the riparian owner. Nobody else has a say in it, whatever they might think or believe.

I totally agree, and if the riparian owner puts caveats or restriction clauses into the agreement then that too is his choice.

Where I foresee problems however is on those stretches of river that are already rented out to angling clubs and associations, especially noting that the paddlers want free access whereas us anglers have to pay for the same . . . . . . . as it will come down to a case of one or the other in the majority of those situations.