Anglers v Canoeists – Court Case Looms…

[bennygesserit]

Peter I thought I also made the point that moderate opinion on paddlers forums elicits a response from the militant element , not that any part of the angling fraternity could be classed as militant.

Regarding the CA thats mostly gathered through left wing propaganda about Richard Benyon - maybe you have me there and its my lefty paranoia coming out I'll get back to you.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Peter I thought I also made the point that moderate opinion on paddlers forums elicits a response from the militant element , not that any part of the angling fraternity could be classed as militant.

Regarding the CA thats mostly gathered through left wing propaganda about Richard Benyon - maybe you have me there and its my lefty paranoia coming out I'll get back to you.

On the odd occasion I have visited that SoTP Site it does seem that many of them are what could easily be described as militant, I totally agree.

As for anglers being militant, well, the depth of feeling down here is certainly growing and to be honest I am concerned as to if this might ever boil over.
I have attended "working parties" on our stretch and have seen how easily this confrontation could turn really nasty. Thankfully common sense always prevails.

That said and noted, I am not, and never would support any form of violence, all i am saying is that I can understand how this could arise.

For that reason alone I am more than happy to see the Angling Trust take a lead on this and push for a final determination, and one that I hope both sides would honour for the future.

 

[bennygesserit]

Song of the paddle gets mentioned a lot on here , they are talking about this issue here is an example of a militant paddler post that will enrage all on here , it did me , and an example of a more usual and moderate response.

Yesterday, 01:03 PM #17 cloudman
More posts than a more established member
My location
Join Date
Jun 2010
Location
Cheshire UK
Posts
802

So the gloves are off, this is their first move towards their aim of destroying our sport as we know it. If they succeed we will be reduced to paddling only where they decide to let us, that must never happen.

It is time we started to look at their activities and fight back in any way we can, the laws protecting fishing rights were formed to protect the right to control and harvest an important food supply from our rivers, we should look at how relevant they are to the current activity of playing with fish, there is a big difference in playing with an animal just for your own pleasure and protecting an important food supply.

The Anglers think their position is untouchable due to their over inflated financial benefits to the economy claims, but their activities in their present form are supported on a very fragile prop, that being their exclusion from the Animal Welfare Act 2006 this is their big weakness, we should exploit it and give them something to think about that is far more important than we are, all is fair in love and war.
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.
Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 01:51 PM #18 Izzetafox
Established member
My location
Join Date
Mar 2011
Location
Leicester
Posts
199

Totally disagree!

There is nothing to be gained by attacking the 'rank and file' angler. He is not an enemy as most encounters prove.

It is the Angling Trust that need to be challenged but do it correctly and in the knowledge that the paddlers have used the law applicable to paddling.
Many anglers happily share their waters, why alienate them? Many of them have no allegiance to AT and may indeed be supportive.

I run a freshwater kayak angling forum and face similar and perhaps more challenges. I use the by line:
" Responsible access to appropriate water" which is not an unreasonable request."

Terry
Home | Coarse Kayak Fishing

 

[thecrow]

Song of the paddle gets mentioned a lot on here , they are talking about this issue here is an example of a militant paddler post that will enrage all on here , it did me , and an example of a more usual and moderate response.

Yesterday, 01:03 PM #17 cloudman
More posts than a more established member
My location
Join Date
Jun 2010
Location
Cheshire UK
Posts
802

So the gloves are off, this is their first move towards their aim of destroying our sport as we know it. If they succeed we will be reduced to paddling only where they decide to let us, that must never happen.

It is time we started to look at their activities and fight back in any way we can, the laws protecting fishing rights were formed to protect the right to control and harvest an important food supply from our rivers, we should look at how relevant they are to the current activity of playing with fish, there is a big difference in playing with an animal just for your own pleasure and protecting an important food supply.

The Anglers think their position is untouchable due to their over inflated financial benefits to the economy claims, but their activities in their present form are supported on a very fragile prop, that being their exclusion from the Animal Welfare Act 2006 this is their big weakness, we should exploit it and give them something to think about that is far more important than we are, all is fair in love and war.
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.
Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 01:51 PM #18 Izzetafox
Established member
My location
Join Date
Mar 2011
Location
Leicester
Posts
199

Totally disagree!

There is nothing to be gained by attacking the 'rank and file' angler. He is not an enemy as most encounters prove.

It is the Angling Trust that need to be challenged but do it correctly and in the knowledge that the paddlers have used the law applicable to paddling.
Many anglers happily share their waters, why alienate them? Many of them have no allegiance to AT and may indeed be supportive.

I run a freshwater kayak angling forum and face similar and perhaps more challenges. I use the by line:
" Responsible access to appropriate water" which is not an unreasonable request."

Terry
Home | Coarse Kayak Fishing

It isn't anglers that decide where they can paddle, its the law, all the trust are doing is trying to get them to adhere to the law.

How the paddlers intend to use the law to challenge the trust is quite funny, didn't one of there ilk try that and backed down when told he had no case ?

I haven't heard of these laws that were put in place to allow the harvesting of an important food source, anyone else?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

haven't heard of these laws that were put in place to allow the harvesting of an important food source, anyone else?

Me neither, unless he is (incorrectly) referring to the Mundella Act of 1878 which provided for the first introduction of a close Season for coarse Fish in England and Wales, which has of course been updated and amended many times since then . . . . . .

 

[thecrow]

Me neither, unless he is (incorrectly) referring to the Mundella Act of 1878 which provided for the first introduction of a close Season for coarse Fish in England and Wales, which has of course been updated and amended many times since then . . . . . .

That's the only thing I could think of but that was never meant to protect stocks to allow them to be harvested.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

That's the only thing I could think of but that was never meant to protect stocks to allow them to be harvested.

Quite right, not to mention that the Act has been totally re-scripted and revised and amended many times since 1878, hence my comment about "incorrectly" . . . . . . . .

It just goes to show how some of those more militant paddlers will try to twist things to their advantage, a case in point being these outlandish references to the Magna Carta.

 

[nicepix]

Quite right, not to mention that the Act has been totally re-scripted and revised and amended many times since 1878, hence my comment about "incorrectly" . . . . . . . .

It just goes to show how some of those more militant paddlers will try to twist things to their advantage, a case in point being these outlandish references to the Magna Carta.

Yes. Remember Magna Carta. Did she die in vain? (apologies to Tony Hancock)

You will get all sorts of people quoting rubbish to try and win their case. The simple fact is that paddlers seem to want what we have protected and paid for over generations, and they want it for nowt. It was bad enough with the RSPB muscling in on some angler's waters without this lot thinking that they can have access just because they want it.

 

[The bad one]

This summarises the situation almost perfectly for me and I agree about following the path of what is currently legal but as everyone eventually admits the law doesn't appear to be very clear , hence this thread , hence all the other threads on various forums, I'd say the balance is in favour of the Anglers but Its not possible to quote anything that succinctly says that.

VAAs are difficult to negotiate as there might be any number of different parties in any one stretch , does one negotiate with the angling club or the landowner ?

Bad one And others who are vehemently anti canoeing , i would be interested in how many canoes you encounter and what the circumstances are.

---------- Post added at 21:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------

I thought it strange that Peter didn't seem to know about obstructing a river so I looked this term up

Socratic Irony

1. (Philosophy) philosophy a means by which the pretended ignorance of a skilful questioner leads the person answering to expose his own ignorance

On the principle river I fish and River Keeper for, which has no PRN or VAAs on it, every weekend. In numbers from 5 -20 ploughing through. On one length we have a natural rock weir with a shoot through it in the middle. Which then opens up into a large pool. What they attempt do until I or the farmer catches them is shoot the weir into the pool drag the canoe out and carry it back up above the weir to do it again for as long as they can. That pool is the best fish holding pool on the length. Thankfully the farmer is very proactive in policing his land, which they are trespassing on, and bu&&ers them off. Had it not been for his vigilance and policing that pool would be unfishable to our members during daylight.

I've already mentioned above the incident that happened last week to one of our members which is a quite common occurrence. As are the incidents with the stickfloat and salmon fly anglers fishing a run, the only one with enough water in it for the paddlers to get through without grounding the canoe. Sooner or later someone is going to get knocked over in one of these runs and there are many on the river. And/or the fed up angler who’s having his sport ruined, will take it upon themselves to beat the sh!t out of one of them.

Contrary to the BS from Day Dreamer Clarke and what he keeps coming out with, once the law has been qualified thanks to the ATr, my club will go to town on the police to start to attend incidents when reported to them over illegal paddling on the river. And as to the police not being able to catch them on this river, there’s only 4 possible places where they can put in and haul out. All are know to the clubs who have lengths on the river, so it’s not to difficult to point them in the direction of the likely haul out place.

No doubt Day Dreamer will say they won’t attend due to priorities. Well they said that about poaching on the river and thanks to the ATr highlighting Theft of Fishing Rights and the Home Office code they did a month ago and nicked two poachers. It didn’t stop at that though because of the powers they have, they impounded their vehicle and confiscated all their fishing tackle.

So may be I won’t after all have to give the paddlers both barrels when the ATr easily win this case. I’ll just let the police impounded their vehicle and confiscate their canoes. I really can’t wait to start using this I really can’t

 

[thecrow]

Have the trust/FL given a time scale for the BCU/CW/CE to respond?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Have the trust/FL given a time scale for the BCU/CW/CE to respond?

I don't think that there is a time limit requirement, however, failure to respond would not be looked upon kindly in any resulting proceedings.

In cases such as this each party are expected to act reasonably, therefore failure to respond would be considered in all probability to be unreasonable.

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

On the principle river I fish and River Keeper for, which has no PRN or VAAs on it, every weekend. In numbers from 5 -20 ploughing through. On one length we have a natural rock weir with a shoot through it in the middle. Which then opens up into a large pool. What they attempt do until I or the farmer catches them is shoot the weir into the pool drag the canoe out and carry it back up above the weir to do it again for as long as they can. That pool is the best fish holding pool on the length. Thankfully the farmer is very proactive in policing his land, which they are trespassing on, and bu&&ers them off. Had it not been for his vigilance and policing that pool would be unfishable to our members during daylight.

I've already mentioned above the incident that happened last week to one of our members which is a quite common occurrence. As are the incidents with the stickfloat and salmon fly anglers fishing a run, the only one with enough water in it for the paddlers to get through without grounding the canoe. Sooner or later someone is going to get knocked over in one of these runs and there are many on the river. And/or the fed up angler who’s having his sport ruined, will take it upon themselves to beat the sh!t out of one of them.

. . . . . . . . . . once the law has been qualified thanks to the ATr, my club will go to town on the police to start to attend incidents when reported to them over illegal paddling on the river. And as to the police not being able to catch them on this river, there’s only 4 possible places where they can put in and haul out. All are know to the clubs who have lengths on the river, so it’s not to difficult to point them in the direction of the likely haul out place.

No doubt Day Dreamer will say they won’t attend due to priorities. Well they said that about poaching on the river and thanks to the ATr highlighting Theft of Fishing Rights and the Home Office code they did a month ago and nicked two poachers. It didn’t stop at that though because of the powers they have, they impounded their vehicle and confiscated all their fishing tackle.

I is not only interesting Phil but very encouraging to see that in your area the constabulary are carrying out their duty accordingly, and is a good example to those who seem to believe that even if proven in favor of the Anglers that the Law would not then be enforced accordingly.

 

[mark lloyd at]

Hello everyone,
It's a rainy bank holiday, so I thought I'd read what people are saying about the action Fish Legal and the Angling Trust are taking on this and found this thread. I read about 10 pages of it, so apologies if I've missed some of what has been written.
We have been working on the canoe issue since the launch of the Trust in 2009, when I remember taking on Griff Rhys Jones who was publicising his TV show by encouraging canoeists to paddle where they like. We've been working on it steadily since then. We have had a steady increase in complaints from angling clubs and riparian owners throughout the country since then. In fact I would say that this is probably one of the most common issues we are contacted about by our members. I am aware that not all anglers are affected (yet?), so I can understand why some people on here are saying "problem, what problem?".
Our action is against the canoeing bodies to get them to stop giving people the impression that it is OK to canoe wherever they like. If we succeed, they would have to make it clear what the law actually says, which is that on non-navigable rivers permission is required. This would apply throughout England and Wales.
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. The media of course have just focused on the conflict side of things.
I can assure everyone that this is not sabre rattling and that we intend to take it all the way to court unless the BCU/CE/CW are advised to agree a settlement before it gets that far.
Pasted below is the text of a letter I've written to The Times, which I hope will be published on Tuesday, albeit edited for space, which I hope explains our position better.
I'm afraid I won't be back on here, as I have a busy week of meetings and can't spend time debating individual points, but I hope that by setting out our position in more detail, it will help the debate. I must say that I wish people would be a bit less aggressive with each other on forums. We are all anglers and will have different views on most subjects, but some of the personal attacks on here turn a lot of people away from reading otherwise interesting discussions, including me.
Thank you to those of you who have encouraged people to join the Angling Trust & Fish Legal as a result of this action, and to anyone who has joined us recently. We can only do this kind of thing because of the support we get from anglers. If your club is a member, please consider joining as an individual member. Club membership is for the club as a body, but we really need many more individual anglers to join us than the 17,500 who have so far. It's only £25 a year and we are achieving far more for the benefit of angling than any organisation has done in the past.
All best wishes,
Mark

Here's that letter:
Sir,
I am writing in response to David Aaronovitch’s article “Don’t let this petty row mess with the river” (Thursday 21 August) about Fish Legal’s legal challenge to the canoeing bodies to accept the legal position with regard to access to rivers by canoeists and other boats.
The Angling Trust and Fish Legal are not trying to stop people canoeing. 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.
The canoeing governing bodies have recently resisted signing agreements with any restrictions. In a crowded land, it isn’t possible to have a free-for-all; it is perfectly reasonable to have rules so that everyone can enjoy our wonderful rivers. On smaller rivers even a few canoes can completely destroy the chances of catching anything.
Getting the canoeing governing bodies to stop suggesting that the law might be unclear is the first step in the process of making it possible for more people to go canoeing on more rivers, lawfully and without causing conflict.
Yours faithfully,
Mark Lloyd
Chief Executive,
Angling Trust & Fish Legal

 

[thecrow]

Hello everyone,
It's a rainy bank holiday, so I thought I'd read what people are saying about the action Fish Legal and the Angling Trust are taking on this and found this thread. I read about 10 pages of it, so apologies if I've missed some of what has been written.
We have been working on the canoe issue since the launch of the Trust in 2009, when I remember taking on Griff Rhys Jones who was publicising his TV show by encouraging canoeists to paddle where they like. We've been working on it steadily since then. We have had a steady increase in complaints from angling clubs and riparian owners throughout the country since then. In fact I would say that this is probably one of the most common issues we are contacted about by our members. I am aware that not all anglers are affected (yet?), so I can understand why some people on here are saying "problem, what problem?".
Our action is against the canoeing bodies to get them to stop giving people the impression that it is OK to canoe wherever they like. If we succeed, they would have to make it clear what the law actually says, which is that on non-navigable rivers permission is required. This would apply throughout England and Wales.
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. The media of course have just focused on the conflict side of things.
I can assure everyone that this is not sabre rattling and that we intend to take it all the way to court unless the BCU/CE/CW are advised to agree a settlement before it gets that far.
Pasted below is the text of a letter I've written to The Times, which I hope will be published on Tuesday, albeit edited for space, which I hope explains our position better.
I'm afraid I won't be back on here, as I have a busy week of meetings and can't spend time debating individual points, but I hope that by setting out our position in more detail, it will help the debate. I must say that I wish people would be a bit less aggressive with each other on forums. We are all anglers and will have different views on most subjects, but some of the personal attacks on here turn a lot of people away from reading otherwise interesting discussions, including me.
Thank you to those of you who have encouraged people to join the Angling Trust & Fish Legal as a result of this action, and to anyone who has joined us recently. We can only do this kind of thing because of the support we get from anglers. If your club is a member, please consider joining as an individual member. Club membership is for the club as a body, but we really need many more individual anglers to join us than the 17,500 who have so far. It's only £25 a year and we are achieving far more for the benefit of angling than any organisation has done in the past.
All best wishes,
Mark

Here's that letter:
Sir,
I am writing in response to David Aaronovitch’s article “Don’t let this petty row mess with the river” (Thursday 21 August) about Fish Legal’s legal challenge to the canoeing bodies to accept the legal position with regard to access to rivers by canoeists and other boats.
The Angling Trust and Fish Legal are not trying to stop people canoeing. 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.
The canoeing governing bodies have recently resisted signing agreements with any restrictions. In a crowded land, it isn’t possible to have a free-for-all; it is perfectly reasonable to have rules so that everyone can enjoy our wonderful rivers. On smaller rivers even a few canoes can completely destroy the chances of catching anything.
Getting the canoeing governing bodies to stop suggesting that the law might be unclear is the first step in the process of making it possible for more people to go canoeing on more rivers, lawfully and without causing conflict.
Yours faithfully,
Mark Lloyd
Chief Executive,
Angling Trust & Fish Legal

Well that has come as a complete surprise to me, I notice there is no mention of paddlers paying for this access to other rivers.

 

[nicepix]

There's one thing for sure Crow old chap. And that at the end of this process canoeists will be forced to pay for river access they now enjoy for free just as all other river craft do. Now won't that be sweet?

 

[bennygesserit]

Benny,

The point I was making was aimed as equally appropriate to both sides of the argument, those for and those against, as both sides have shown an intensity of comment.

As to a poll I for one don't agree.

Currently legal opinion is that the paddlers are in the wrong, so, why on earth should there be a poll?
As a matter of right versus wrong then a poll doesn't enter into the picture.

I am a member of the CA but I cannot remember seeing anything of their site regarding PRN or the problems it causes. If you have a link then I'd be happy to see it though.

I was convinced the CA and AT were linked , some googling reveals lots of common ground but no full on national anti paddling conspiracy as I first surmised there is this though which is significant in terms of where the action was at the time

SACC - Home and this
http://www.countryside-alliance.org/ca/wales-news/access-cymru-welsh-groups-unite-for-sustainable-access

Oh and just for balance a left wing tirade against the imbalance of land ownership and how that relates to access to our countryside http://www.monbiot.com/2013/04/05/political-barbed-wire/ be warned you may be offended or enlightened

 

[chub_on_the_block]

Thanks for those links Benny. Interesting reading - i am in full agreement with much (but not all) of what Monbiot writes. This is not surprising as I am more of an urban tree-hugging left wing idealist who detests being ruled by a tiny self-serving landowning elite, than a natural supporter of all things hunting, fishing and countryman.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Now, come on Ray, let's be sensible here.

Firstly the words that Phil used were solely to ilustrate a point and were in no way, shape or form intended seriously.

I see, so now Threatening behaviour is ok is it, funny as that is breaking the Law, and as members are banging on about Law, FM mods should not be allowing the breaking of Law on this site. A word to any offender is all thats needed.

Having said that, I DONT have anything against Phil at all, he says what he thinks as I and others do, thats what makes the debate. As you well know Peter, they have been many fish ins when things could have got heated between members, but fishing has a strange way of over coming those difficult situations, and most end up having a pint and chat after, by the way your round next time.

As i have said many times, i have nothing against canoes, Paddlers etc. The law is being broken now, so we are informed, and my opinion is, it will be IF this gets to court and the AT win, because nothing would have changed as far as the Paddlers and co are concerned, right or wrong, that is how it is. I think some need to wake up and live in the real world rather than dream of days gone by when anglers lined the river banks week in week out. Times have changed.

As for Opinion being in favour of angling, thats all they are Opinions, just as the members opinions on here. The Judge will decide, IF it goes to court, and you wouldn't want to bet on a Judge making a ruling, as they are about as reliable as a chocolate saucepan.

---------- Post added at 00:12 ---------- Previous post was at 00:08 ----------

Without suggesting it's a sensible "wish" to have, it's a fair stretch of the imagination to interpret those words as a real threat. If you really think it is, you should be contacting the police.

No Need the mods should deal with it. The paddlers and canoeist's might be able to use it in their court case if it ever gets to court.:wh
Pasted copied and kept.

---------- Post added at 00:15 ---------- Previous post was at 00:12 ----------

There's one thing for sure Crow old chap. And that at the end of this process canoeists will be forced to pay for river access they now enjoy for free just as all other river craft do. Now won't that be sweet?

I think that would be right, but i have said before, the rod licence should become a water ways licence, and anyone using the rivers etc should have to buy one.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I see, so now Threatening behaviour is ok is it, funny as that is breaking the Law, and as members are banging on about Law, FM mods should not be allowing the breaking of Law on this site. A word to any offender is all thats needed.

Ray,

If you truly believe that Phil's word were meant seriously then I implore you to contact the relevant authorities and complain.

The fact of the matter is that your argument is so weak, and has been rebutted by Phil and others that you are employing the tactics of obfuscation in order to deflect or becloud from the main points.

If, for one moment I, or any of the other moderators here, thought that there was any serious intent behind what Phil wrote then the appropriate action would have been taken.

The words used were no more a "threat" than what the Mayor of London said about jihadists yesterday when he commented that they should be "introduced to their heavenly virgins at the earliest opportunity"

No Need the mods should deal with it. The paddlers and canoeist's might be able to use it in their court case if it ever gets to court.{Whistle} Pasted copied and kept.

Again Ray, I find this quite incredible coming from someone who has been pleading on this debate for the rest of us to "come into the real world" . . . . . . . . . . . .

I think that would be right, but i have said before, the rod licence should become a water ways licence, and anyone using the rivers etc should have to buy one.

The rod license only gives one the right to use a fishing rod, on top of that we all pay annual club fees, syndicate memberships and for day tickets for our access to the rivers.

My view, and that of many anglers, is that if the paddlers want to use the same stretches of river as we do, then they should pay an equal amount and be governed by the same rules as we are.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Contrary to the BS from Day Dreamer Clarke and what he keeps coming out with, once the law has been qualified thanks to the ATr, my club will go to town on the police to start to attend incidents when reported to them over illegal paddling on the river. And as to the police not being able to catch them on this river, there’s only 4 possible places where they can put in and haul out. All are know to the clubs who have lengths on the river, so it’s not to difficult to point them in the direction of the likely haul out place.

No doubt Day Dreamer will say they won’t attend due to priorities. Well they said that about poaching on the river and thanks to the ATr highlighting Theft of Fishing Rights and the Home Office code they did a month ago and nicked two poachers. It didn’t stop at that though because of the powers they have, they impounded their vehicle and confiscated all their fishing tackle.

So may be I won’t after all have to give the paddlers both barrels when the ATr easily win this case. I’ll just let the police impounded their vehicle and confiscate their canoes. I really can’t wait to start using this I really can’t

I knew i could smell more S*it from the Dung One,

Your still living a Dream, how many paddle on your river ?? you don't know because you State 5 - 20, so you can't count then ???

If you think the police are going to attend every time some one calls about a canoeist, then you need to attend a clinic for a check up, but they won't find anything in that head of yours other than air.

There were two poachers caught around here the other year, two out of god knows how many, and they got off with £35 fines, that was it, and it wasn't the police that caught them either, it was anglers who called the EA.

The police get plenty of calls in this area, but the facts are they don't have the man power, or the funds to go after poachers, paddlers etc. Which isn't a surprise, as they attended a break in to a house the day after it was reported. All the home owner got was, we got here as soon as we could. They took finger prints, that was another 6 hours later, only to tell the owner, doubt we will catch them. 6 months later his car was found, in a container at the docks, never found his wife's car, or any of their other belongings. NO one was caught, what a surprise.

Should have got The Dung One to go down the police station for them, he would have had the police out after them with dogs, helicopters, couple of dozen cars, no doubt he will have the SAS on stand by soon.

---------- Post added at 01:03 ---------- Previous post was at 00:46 ----------

Ray,

If you truly believe that Phil's word were meant seriously then I implore you to contact the relevant authorities and complain.

The fact of the matter is that your argument is so weak, and has been rebutted by Phil and others that you are employing the tactics of obfuscation in order to deflect or becloud from the main points.

Your argument is weak Peter, as your only going on Opinions, My arguments are FACT, they paddle, canoe now, breaking the law, nothing will change IF the AT go to court and win, they will carry on. That is a FACT you and others don't want to hear, because you will be back where you are now. It won't matter to them.

---------- Post added at 01:17 ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 ----------

Again Ray, I find this quite incredible coming from someone who has been pleading on this debate for the rest of us to "come into the real world" . . . . . . . . . . . .

Again Peter, I am in the real world, because i know what is going to happen, court case or not. They will carry on. You don't have a clue how big and fast this sport is growing.
Come along to the Olympic white water centre just down the road from me and see for yourself. Their clubs memberships are growing, Fast, and getting stronger finically. Angling is going the opposite way, quicker on rivers. Now who's in the real world, you haven't seen it, so you don't know.

---------- Post added at 01:22 ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 ----------

The rod license only gives one the right to use a fishing rod, on top of that we all pay annual club fees, syndicate memberships and for day tickets for our access to the rivers.

My view, and that of many anglers, is that if the paddlers want to use the same stretches of river as we do, then they should pay an equal amount and be governed by the same rules as we are.

As i have said many times before regarding those using the water ways, all should pay.

As for the rod licence, i said it should become a water ways licence and all should have one if they want to use the waters, not hard to change that, but all the red tape would take time, as always.

 

[The bad one]

I knew i could smell more S*it from the Dung One,

Your still living a Dream, how many paddle on your river ?? you don't know because you State 5 - 20, so you can't count then ???

If you think the police are going to attend every time some one calls about a canoeist, then you need to attend a clinic for a check up, but they won't find anything in that head of yours other than air.

There were two poachers caught around here the other year, two out of god knows how many, and they got off with £35 fines, that was it, and it wasn't the police that caught them either, it was anglers who called the EA.

The police get plenty of calls in this area, but the facts are they don't have the man power, or the funds to go after poachers, paddlers etc. Which isn't a surprise, as they attended a break in to a house the day after it was reported. All the home owner got was, we got here as soon as we could. They took finger prints, that was another 6 hours later, only to tell the owner, doubt we will catch them. 6 months later his car was found, in a container at the docks, never found his wife's car, or any of their other belongings. NO one was caught, what a surprise.

Should have got The Dung One to go down the police station for them, he would have had the police out after them with dogs, helicopters, couple of dozen cars, no doubt he will have the SAS on stand by soon.

Keep digging Day Dreamer because with every spade full you become a bigger fool than you were in your last post. mg:

Nowt to do with the EA the Theft of Fishing Rights (Its an established police matter, falls under the Theft Act) all they (EA) will do is make sure they hold a current licence... Yep they turned up as well when the poachers were nicked to check they had a licence each. Yep one of HM finest Dog and handler also turned up, didn't need the chopper though. May be next time eh! Providing there is a next time because it gone very quite on the poaching front since the words got out what the police will do and did!
Terrible shame that you have a cr*p force but you get the policing you deserve, and we've got a very good effective force around our parts on far deeper cuts than the Thames Force have ever had pro rata. They must be far better here at being efficient and creative with the resources they have eh! Or it could just be that we up north are far better at getting them to do the job we pay them for. But hey, if the attitude you display on here is the way you deal with the police down there, then I'm not surprised in the slightest that you get no or little service from them! mg: