It'll be interesting if it goes to Law to answer the question: "What price your 'quiet enjoyment' of what you've paid for?"
Anglers v Canoeists – Court Case Looms…
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
It will be, (but only in an academic sense) as I highly doubt that if the paddlers should win that many clubs currently renting fishing on rivers with no previous PRN would want to continue that arrangement.
It is precisely this that will sway riparian owners whether or not to enter into VAA's with the paddlers.
As Geoff rightly says, it will require the riparian owner alone to decide which way he wishes to go . . . . . . . to continue to earn revenue from anglers or lose that and gain nothing in return from the paddlers.
If the landowner is offering voluntary access to a river with no prn is the landowner aiding and abetting an illegal act?
B
binka
Guest
I'm only guessing here that the lack of a PRN is there to protect the riparian/landowners rights, if those rights are then voluntarily given up by allowing voluntary access then I can't see where any law has been broken or aided and abetted so long as the paddler stays within that particular landowners boundaries, assuming that neighbouring landowners have not agreed access and no PRN is in place.
Maybe???
Maybe???
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
I would think he is. And I would think the Welsh Govt is too, by promoting VAAs. But the law is a strange beast.
Nice to see you think canoeing outside a PRN is an illegal act too...
bennygesserit
Well-known member
The AT promote VAAs too , I think its the landowner who grants navigation not the riparian owner unless you have already signed that right away when you granted fishing rights.
I don't own a stretch Geoff , you do , so you should know but do you mean the owner retains navigation rights unless signed away, I would imagine access couldn't be granted where riparian rights had been bestowed on someone else.
Thr "navigation rights" are only applicable to those rivers where it exists.
Under the general principles of riparian Ownership you will find the following:
"the right to exclusive use if the waterbody is non-navigable. Riparian rights also depend upon "reasonable use" as it relates to other riparian owners to ensure that the rights of one riparian owner are weighed fairly and equitably with the rights of adjacent riparian owners"
To me that would indicate further problems for the Paddlers inasmuch as they would need the permission of owners either upstream or downstream in order not to infringe upon the rights of adjacent owners . . . . . . . . .
Given that the riparian ownership can, and very often does change in relatively short distances then this I see as another obstacle in obtaining VAA's.
For example, our syndicate stretch is just under 3 miles as the river flows, and that encompasses 5 different riparian owners . . . . . . . . . so to paddle over that distance would require 5 different VAA's and only providing that none of the owners took exception to an adjacent one.
Last edited:
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Navigation rights can be granted anywhere I wasn't saying that Navigation rights existed now , I have sympathy with the paddlers cause but I don't believe there is , legally , a general PRN.
General principles according to who ?
I think you can paddle within a granted stretch without permission of adjacent owners because there would be no infringement on adjacent riparian owners rights , presumably the mere sight of a paddler is not enough to put you off your fishing.
Also as already stated what are you quoting from , is there a template for granting Riparian rights ?
its true that's why VAAs seem to be very difficult to negotiate , but that does not change the legal position though, unclear as it is.
Benny, riparian water rights have their principles in Common Law.
"Riparian water rights (or simply riparian rights) is a system for allocating water among those who possess land along its path. It has its origins in English common law"
See: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights"]Riparian water rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Did you read the Flyfishing article?
If so you'd have seen that:
"Back in the 1980's the members of the Test and Itchen Fishing Association as it was then (the word fishing was dropped recently because it lacked inclusivity) clubbed together and pledged £70,000 to fight a court case against the British Canoe Union (BCU) who were asserting the right of navigation on the River Itchen.
It was a mighty sum of money to put at risk for an association that numbered less than two hundred and as Jim Glasspool reminded me should the judgment have gone against the T&I all the money would have been lost.
But, as things turned out, the BCU capitulated on the court steps, accepting there was no public right of navigation. Costs of £40,000 were awarded against the BCU and as an impoverished student I was pleased to get back £80 of the £100 I had pledged. And there the position has pretty well lain since then, excepting a similar fight on the River Derwent (funded in part by a £10,000 contribution by T&I members) a few years later, where the judgement was the same."
There may have been a passage of time from those case to now, but the interpretation of the Law remains the same.
Legal opinion is really not all that unclear Benny, all that is happening is that the Paddlers are employing the tactics of obfuscation and disingenuousness to cloud the issue.
Personally I will be truly happy to see this go to the Courts to make their deliverance.
---------- Post added at 13:25 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ----------
If any of the adjacent owners refused to grant permission then how do the paddlers get from that stretch to the one that has been granted permission?
My example of our syndicate stretch being a case in point, let's say that the first 2 owners agree a VAA but the third one does not?
That would mean that the paddlers would have to alight and find a non-trespassing manner to get from one stretch to another . . . . . . .
Last edited:
bennygesserit
Well-known member
No its a fair cop I didn't read it will do though !
When asked which law paddlers are breaking I say "trespass" what would you say Peter to the same question.
Alighting and finding a proper route to the next stretch is precisely what they would have to do.
Very good post Peter !
The bad one
Well-known member
Just a quick comment from me re FMs intervention on FF. The article lists the Yorkshire Dewent as a case in point, the author is incorrect to cite that case re paddlers, as the case hinged on powered craft having access to the river. Based on a historic right they once had for boats horse drawn and under sail. What the boating protagonists failed to mention in their attempt to exercise what they thought were their rights is that a disillusionment of navigational rights by act of parliament had taken place in 1935 Oops and more oops!
Arses well and truly kicked for them
I’ve spent most of the afternoon reading the Angling, Farmers and Naturalists submission report from 1978. Yep being the sad person that I am, a horder, I have a hardcopy of it from way back then.
To say it was excellent is an understatement, more visionary and argued it’s case as a case would be argued today under the present legislation.
If Atr argues it case half as well in the courts as this was for the inquiry then the paddlers are up the creek without a canoe let alone a paddle
Arses well and truly kicked for them
I’ve spent most of the afternoon reading the Angling, Farmers and Naturalists submission report from 1978. Yep being the sad person that I am, a horder, I have a hardcopy of it from way back then.
To say it was excellent is an understatement, more visionary and argued it’s case as a case would be argued today under the present legislation.
If Atr argues it case half as well in the courts as this was for the inquiry then the paddlers are up the creek without a canoe let alone a paddle
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
I think PJ has answered that. It's worth remembering what Windy told us: It's a sort of hierarchy. The river and banks and bed are all ultimately owned by the Crown. The freeholder (and anyone he subsequently leases the fishing rights to) get to use the river as if they owned it with all the rights associated with it, but really it's the Crown who own everything - including your house/land.
As for VVA's: Nobody signs anything 'away'. They can withdraw permission at a moments notice without affecting any of their rights.
I would generally agree on the trespass argument, however, I would also argue that (once the PRN ruling has been made) that then it would probably also be covered by either Statutory or Regulatory Law which is an altogether different matter.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
This from Songofthepaddle I must admit I had no idea this debate was taking place
From The Canoe England Facebook Page.
Can you help us demonstrate the importance of Outdoor Recreation to the government, and help is get the recognition and support it deserves?
The 'Government policy on outdoor sport and recreation' debate will take place in Westminster Hall on Wednesday 10th September between 14:30 and 16:00.
The Sport and Recreational Alliance (of which we are a member) is promoting this debate and we also encourage you to contact your MP to urge them to take part. If there is a good turnout and a lively debate, then they will be able to demonstrate to the Minister the importance of these issues.
A copy of the Reconomics report, detailing the economic impact of outdoor recreation, can be found at this link -http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk...rch/reconomics.
This report underlines the clear point that sport and active recreation should be near the top of the Government’s agenda as something where investment will reap huge benefits – for the waterway, for the visitors, for public health and for the local economy.
Notably there are some interesting figures on page 23 regarding overall watersports participation as part of the UK population. It is interesting to see how active water sports like canoeing, rowing, sailing and angling compare to other water activities such as canal boating. Compare this with how these activities are represented within the Government and there is a very clear mismatch!
Ask your MP to take part in this important debate by contacting them through MPs - UK Parliament
This is a small thing that each of us can do to engage our MPs in the benefits to the nation of canoeing and kayaking. You might want to mention the Sport and Recreation Alliance report Red Card to Red Tape http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/web/documents/pdf/Sport%20and%20Recreation%20Alliance-%20Red%20Card%20to%20Red%20Tape%20%28Summary%20report%2C%20low%20res%29.pdf and it's recommendation (see page 34) that -
DEFRA should introduce a statutory right of access in England and Wales for unpowered craft to inland water for recreational purposes.
This system of rights and responsibilities should be based on the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
Time is short as the debate is Wednesday so it would be good if this email were waiting for them Monday morning.
From The Canoe England Facebook Page.
Can you help us demonstrate the importance of Outdoor Recreation to the government, and help is get the recognition and support it deserves?
The 'Government policy on outdoor sport and recreation' debate will take place in Westminster Hall on Wednesday 10th September between 14:30 and 16:00.
The Sport and Recreational Alliance (of which we are a member) is promoting this debate and we also encourage you to contact your MP to urge them to take part. If there is a good turnout and a lively debate, then they will be able to demonstrate to the Minister the importance of these issues.
A copy of the Reconomics report, detailing the economic impact of outdoor recreation, can be found at this link -http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk...rch/reconomics.
This report underlines the clear point that sport and active recreation should be near the top of the Government’s agenda as something where investment will reap huge benefits – for the waterway, for the visitors, for public health and for the local economy.
Notably there are some interesting figures on page 23 regarding overall watersports participation as part of the UK population. It is interesting to see how active water sports like canoeing, rowing, sailing and angling compare to other water activities such as canal boating. Compare this with how these activities are represented within the Government and there is a very clear mismatch!
Ask your MP to take part in this important debate by contacting them through MPs - UK Parliament
This is a small thing that each of us can do to engage our MPs in the benefits to the nation of canoeing and kayaking. You might want to mention the Sport and Recreation Alliance report Red Card to Red Tape http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/web/documents/pdf/Sport%20and%20Recreation%20Alliance-%20Red%20Card%20to%20Red%20Tape%20%28Summary%20report%2C%20low%20res%29.pdf and it's recommendation (see page 34) that -
DEFRA should introduce a statutory right of access in England and Wales for unpowered craft to inland water for recreational purposes.
This system of rights and responsibilities should be based on the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
Time is short as the debate is Wednesday so it would be good if this email were waiting for them Monday morning.
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
Fine. I can't see much wrong with that. I'm all for outdoor sports, including canoeing - but only where it is legal.
I couldn't agree more.
I am all for legal paddling and truly hope they get as much enjoyment from it as I do from my legal and paid for fisihng . . . . .
The bad one
Well-known member
Me thinks they are panicking now or could be dumping in their pants!
Ray Daywalker Clarke
Well-known member
Your all still Dreaming then .
Canoeing is great, just as fishing is, but much cheaper
The bad one
Well-known member
So it took you a month to come up with that one Daydreamer? Keep up eh!