Anglers v Canoeists – Court Case Looms…

[thecrow]

To be fair crow, and from an onlookers point of view...

In response to your comment above it appears to me that Stu has done considerably more by backing the organisation that are trying to address this issue of paddlers.

If it weren't for Stu and people like him then the funding wouldn't be there to support the organisation and without the organisation who's gonna fight our corner?

And not just on this issue...

Insert huge black hole > here <

Binka I was a member of the trust( and a member of the old ACA for years) so I think I have paid my dues, haven't the trust said that any action would be funded by donations? who's to say I wouldn't make a donation? how long do they expect donations to continue? I have said nothing on this thread about the trust other than to question whether there are double standards involved and what the kayaking members would think of such a move. Indeed the forming of the paddling arm of the trust was one of the reasons for me not renewing among lots of other things.

Other than the above I have said that I don't think this will get to court, my reason for thinking this is cost, its a battle that could go on for a very long time, a loss would almost certainly IMO bankrupt the trust if suitable donations are not forthcoming.

I have no idea of what finances CE have but as mentioned earlier in the thread the monies they receive from Sport England are for the benefit of elite athletes not to fight court cases. Perhaps they too will form a fighting fund with donations.

I have also said that if it gets to court and the trust wins who will police it? laws are already there but without them being enforced they are toothless.

So that's the total of my input to this thread, haven't had a dig at the trust, haven't mentioned "jobs for the boys" or any of the other things that I could mention about the trust, as it stands I don't have a lot of time for the trust that might change over time. my view of some posters on here will not, (I don't include yourself in that)

 

[binka]

Binka I was a member of the trust( and a member of the old ACA for years) so I think I have paid my dues, haven't the trust said that any action would be funded by donations? who's to say I wouldn't make a donation? how long do they expect donations to continue? I have said nothing on this thread about the trust other than to question whether there are double standards involved and what the kayaking members would think of such a move. Indeed the forming of the paddling arm of the trust was one of the reasons for me not renewing among lots of other things.

Other than the above I have said that I don't think this will get to court, my reason for thinking this is cost, its a battle that could go on for a very long time, a loss would almost certainly IMO bankrupt the trust if suitable donations are not forthcoming.

I have no idea of what finances CE have but as mentioned earlier in the thread the monies they receive from Sport England are for the benefit of elite athletes not to fight court cases. Perhaps they too will form a fighting fund with donations.

I have also said that if it gets to court and the trust wins who will police it? laws are already there but without them being enforced they are toothless.

So that's the total of my input to this thread, haven't had a dig at the trust, haven't mentioned "jobs for the boys" or any of the other things that I could mention about the trust, as it stands I don't have a lot of time for the trust that might change over time. my view of some posters on here will not, (I don't include yourself in that)

Well, thanks for the response crow.

However, I was simply responding to the comment which I quoted... I don't necessarily have any issues with anything else.

On the subject of the old ACA, lapsed ATr members etc it's very commendable that people have put themselves out to provide support and financial backing and it's helped in many instances for all of our benefit I'm sure... But the problems we face today need our support now, not to mention what the future will throw at us.

 

[nicepix]

This step in my opinion is only part of the overall politics. The battle ground will be at club and angler level. Getting the message across to the BCU is only one small part of the problem. The rogue, unlicenced canoeists are a different ball game altogether.

It would be interesting to see the canoeists reaction if the Angling Trust offered to buy a half page advert in their magazine to outline the angler's case.

 

[thecrow]

Well, thanks for the response crow.

However, I was simply responding to the comment which I quoted... I don't necessarily have any issues with anything else.

On the subject of the old ACA, lapsed ATr members etc it's very commendable that people have put themselves out to provide support and financial backing and it's helped in many instances for all of our benefit I'm sure... But the problems we face today need our support now, not to mention what the future will throw at us.

I do support them but not directly through the 3 clubs I belong to who are members, but then if I want to fish their waters I have no choice.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

We don't own the rivers as anglers, and how are you going to stop these people if and thats a big IF, it goes to court and angling wins ?????

Forget about police, EA etc etc, they can't check anglers without a licence, so there is no way they will be coming to the bank side every time someone reports a canoe gong down river.

Canoes have been on parts of our rivers for years and years.

This will Alienate Angling even more, and no doubt give the anti's more ammo in future.

As anglers, SOME think we can control who, what and where people can go, as and when we want, the worlds changing, get used to it.

Court or no court, they will carry on.

Put it this way, would you stop fishing if the courts said you had to ??? I am F**ked if i would. What about you ???

 

[geoffmaynard]

Indeed the forming of the paddling arm of the trust was one of the reasons for me not renewing among lots of other things.

That seems strange to me. Fishing from boats/dingies/punts/rafts/canoes is a perfectly normal thing for anglers to do, provided they are operating within the law and the local rules. There are dozens of guys on FM who fish from and own boats, me included.

 

[thecrow]

That seems strange to me. Fishing from boats/dingies/punts/rafts/canoes is a perfectly normal thing for anglers to do, provided they are operating within the law and the local rules. There are dozens of guys on FM who fish from and own boats, me included.

Not on the river that I fish Geoff, its to small and fishing from any craft would be daft.

---------- Post added at 09:37 ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 ----------

We don't own the rivers as anglers, and how are you going to stop these people if and thats a big IF, it goes to court and angling wins ?????

Forget about police, EA etc etc, they can't check anglers without a licence, so there is no way they will be coming to the bank side every time someone reports a canoe gong down river.

Canoes have been on parts of our rivers for years and years.

This will Alienate Angling even more, and no doubt give the anti's more ammo in future.

As anglers, SOME think we can control who, what and where people can go, as and when we want, the worlds changing, get used to it.

Court or no court, they will carry on.

Put it this way, would you stop fishing if the courts said you had to ??? I am F**ked if i would. What about you ???[/QUOTE]





No Ray I wouldn't.

 

[bennygesserit]

I'm interested in Mark's point of view I was convinced from reading SOTP that there were at least some encounters between anglers and paddlers that were friendly , depends on the circumstances of course ( and who is saying it ). When I proposed that on here though It was vehemently denied and some quoted instances of paddlers deliberately ruining swims , or ruining swims simply by being there. I suspect that some anglers , Sam Vimes made me think this , that might return a wave to a paddler are really not pleased to see them.

So is there a silent majority of anglers who don't mind paddlers ? If there are its simply not relevant anyway as at the moment its a legal matter , but if there is a silent majority of paddlers who are worried about breaking the law then it's very relevant. There is evidence on fora that some paddlers hesitate to trespass being reluctant to break the law , if their national body had to give clear guidance in the riparian owners favour then I am sure the numbers of paddlers would reduce effectively policing itself.

Of course there would still be militant paddlers making bandit runs but , for the moment , they are going to paddle anyway.. That's why , if I understand it correctly , i think this is such a clever move by Fish Legal especially if the funding for elite athletes comes under threat , and especially ( being a leftie I hate to say this ) if the AT has the right connections with Landowners like Richard Benyon etc to exert influence in the right places.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I'm interested in Mark's point of view I was convinced from reading SOTP that there were at least some encounters between anglers and paddlers that were friendly , depends on the circumstances of course. When I proposed that on hear though It was vehemently denied and some quoted instances of paddlers deliberately ruining swims , or ruining swims somply by being there. I suspect that some anglers , Sam Vimes made me think this , that might return a wave to a paddler are really not pleased to see them.

Let me be quite clear to all, I have no problem with paddlers on stretches of the rivers where they have aright to be. In fact I have had some pleasant exchanges with paddlers on the Thames

What I do not, and will not accept, is those who seem tothink that they can paddle with impunity where they do not belong!

So is there a silent majority of anglers who don't mind paddlers ? If there are its simply not relevant anyway as at the moment its a legal matter , but if there is a silent majority of paddlers who are worried about breaking the law then that is very relevant. There is evidence on fora that some paddlers hesitate , if their national body had to give clear guidance in the riparian owners favour then I am sure the numbers of paddlers would reduce effectively policing itself.

The problem right now is that their organisations are actively encouraging these idiots to go where they do not belong!
Those are the ones who give the whole lot a truly stinky name.



Of course there would still be militant paddlers making bandit runs but , for the moment , they are going to paddle anyway.. That's why , if I understand it correctly , i think this is such a clever move by Fish Legal especially if the funding for elite athletes comes under threat , and especially ( being a leftie I hate to say this ) if the AT has the right connections with Landowners like Richard Benyon etc to exert influence in the right places.

The letter lays it out very clearly, so the ball is in the paddlers organisations court for now

Not going to be quick but you have to admire the intelligence of the move.

It will obviously take a long time, but we need this first step in the right direction.

 

[no-one in particular]

Not so much a point of view Benny as just my life experience in this. Perhaps Peters right I am just lucky in that I have never had any problems with other river users. And I don't secretly hate them, I am genuinely pleased to see family's passing me on a boat and their kids wave at me. My conversation with the last two canoeists was "nice day for canoeing", "we have just come in from the sea", "well done" and I meant it, they must have paddled a long way in a choppy sea. If my swim was disturbed, I just accept it as one of those things, I live with it.
A woman cycling once on a tow path collided with a kid coming the other way and fell into my maggots. I did get a bit annoyed then , but she was none too happy about it either. Posh sort, full Monty, tweed skirt, hush puppies, it was near Weybridge, nice accent, funny hearing language like that in a posh voice.
Anyway, that's just my take on it generally, it will not be everyone's experience and I accept that.
I have been looking for a quote from Izaak Walton, couldn't find it. I will have a go myself "Lay down your weapons brothers and come fishing with me", he would have liked that.

And just one more last thought, I reckon canoeists will be able to tick a lot of nice boxes in court that unfortunately anglers will not be able to. I would worry about that before I took them on in court.

 

[bennygesserit]

Not so much a point of view Benny as just my life experience in this. Perhaps Peters right I am just lucky in that I have never had any problems with other river users. And I don't secretly hate them, I am genuinely pleased to see family's passing me on a boat and their kids wave at me. My conversation with the last two canoeists was "nice day for canoeing", "we have just come in from the sea", "well done" and I meant it, they must have paddled a long way in a choppy sea. If my swim was disturbed, I just accept it as one of those things, I live with it.
A woman cycling once on a tow path collided with a kid coming the other way and fell into my maggots. I did get a bit annoyed then , but she was none too happy about it either. Posh sort, full Monty, tweed skirt, hush puppies, it was near Weybridge, nice accent, funny hearing language like that in a posh voice.
Anyway, that's just my take on it generally, it will not be everyone's experience and I accept that.
I have been looking for a quote from Izaak Walton, couldn't find it. I will have a go myself "Lay down your weapons brothers and come fishing with me", he would have liked that.

And just one more last thought, I reckon canoeists will be able to tick a lot of nice boxes in court that unfortunately anglers will not be able to. I would worry about that before I took them on in court.

Careful Mark no one likes a tree hugging lefty canoe sympathiser ! Though on this forum at least everyone seems able to discuss things amicably, of course though you and I have to recognise that some have been extremely badly affected by this problem Geoff for instance.

Which boxes do they tick ? This initiative is about upholding the current law it wouldn't be a debate about who benefits the environment more , if thats what you mean.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

And just one more last thought, I reckon canoeists will be able to tick a lot of nice boxes in court that unfortunately anglers will not be able to. I would worry about that before I took them on in court.

Mark,

It is not about "ticking boxes" it is about the Law of the Land and compliance with the same.

Please do a little research here on FM and dig out the posts made by "Windy" who is our retired barrister on previous threads.

After reading them all I think you would have to agree that legally the paddlers are . . . . . well, up the creek without one!

The case is really that they, paddlers, will not go to court as they know they are legally legless . . . . .

Let me ask you thins if I may.

Now, I pay about £1400 per season to fish a section of the river Itchen for Brown Trout, and for that I only get every second Saturday from May to early October.

Now, do you think it right that my fishing should be spoiled by paddlers crashing through my beat, on a river where they have no legal rights to be?

Note, there is no PRN on the Itchen . . . . . .

How about the salmon anglers as well who pay well over £2000 per season for exclusive rights to fish beats on the same river, or those on the Test who are paying well over five grand per season.

If I wanted to fish between Gators Mill to let's say, Winchester then it is going to cost me about £11 grand per season, not a full year, but a season.

So, is it right therefore for paddlers to use those stretches and pay . . . . nothing, nada, zero, zilch, ****** all

I think I know the answer . . . . . Here is my deal for them, if you want to paddle on my bit of the river, then put yer hands in your pockets and pay exactly what we do, and for each and every stretch you disturb on your way . . . . . . . as the Meerkat says . . . . . . SIMPLES!

 

[thecrow]

Not so much a point of view Benny as just my life experience in this. Perhaps Peters right I am just lucky in that I have never had any problems with other river users. And I don't secretly hate them, I am genuinely pleased to see family's passing me on a boat and their kids wave at me. My conversation with the last two canoeists was "nice day for canoeing", "we have just come in from the sea", "well done" and I meant it, they must have paddled a long way in a choppy sea. If my swim was disturbed, I just accept it as one of those things, I live with it.
A woman cycling once on a tow path collided with a kid coming the other way and fell into my maggots. I did get a bit annoyed then , but she was none too happy about it either. Posh sort, full Monty, tweed skirt, hush puppies, it was near Weybridge, nice accent, funny hearing language like that in a posh voice.
Anyway, that's just my take on it generally, it will not be everyone's experience and I accept that.
I have been looking for a quote from Izaak Walton, couldn't find it. I will have a go myself "Lay down your weapons brothers and come fishing with me", he would have liked that.

And just one more last thought, I reckon canoeists will be able to tick a lot of nice boxes in court that unfortunately anglers will not be able to. I would worry about that before I took them on in court.

Yes m'lord I did rob the victims house but I was very pleasant to them while I did it no offence meant Mark.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Angling is having a laugh if it thinks it can win this.

I saw M,Lloyd on the TV the other day regarding this matter. There he was, fly rod in hand acting like a TOFF, the wrong side of the sport to show for a start, and that only gets the anti's backs up more.

If your going to show angling in a good light, then do it with Juniors, showing the fun they get from it, with their parents there giving their input, on how angling gets the kids away from computer games, TV. Also show how angling isn't just about catching fish, but about nature as a whole. You might get some support from other organisations.

With Lloyd showing off you won't, and your alienate angling even more, if the AT haven't already.

I don't have, and never have had a problem with canoes, paddlers or boat users, we don't own the rivers, and we don't have the right to stop anyone else.

Now, who's going to stop fishing if the courts say you have to ??/ Only Crow seems to have the balls to speak up.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Now, who's going to stop fishing if the courts say you have to ??/ Only Crow seems to have the balls to speak up.

Ray, there is no answer as it is a wholly mute point.

There is not, and never will be, a law to prevent anglers from fishing so it is one of those questions akin to how many angels (or anglers?) can you get on the head of a pin?

We might not "own" the rivers Ray, but the law says that there is no PRN on the vast majority of them. Whereas on the other hand we do, via leases etc., obtain the rights to use the rivers and the access ways to and from said leased sections of the river, another important point against the case of the paddlers.

Anglers need to stow their myopic or biased views of the Angling Trust on this issue and all, (to use a nautical term?) PULL TOGETHER!

 

[no-one in particular]

I am not a canoeist sympathizer, I just have no personal quarrel with them and I believe everyone has the right to enjoy the river just as much as me. That's just me on a general level.

However Peter has pointed out a specific problem, its outside the norm, its more complicated as quite large sums of money have been paid, that puts a different complexion on the matter. The rivers he mentions I know fairly well, They must be some of the most expensive prime chalk stream fishing in the country. This will hold a lot of clout in court for sure and the lack of legal right to canoe will as well.
But this is not typical of most of the country, its an exception, not the norm, because of that I dont think its good for a general argument about canoes. perhaps there should be two arguments. I do not pay anything to fish. Others pay a small proportion of their club monies to fish sections of rivers. Does this small amount give them the right to deny canoes access. How much do you have to pay before you can claim I have more right than you to use this river.? £50, £500, £1000, whats the price? It begins to become a even more complicated matter and in some peoples eyes a certain sort of morality starts to creep in. Will this be used in court? I do not know "I just think"
.
My point about ticking boxes was not being on the canoes side. I just look at things from all angles. I think this could be blown up into a anglers versus canoes case by the press and the forums media etc ""whether it is or not"". If it starts to become a general argument; painting canoeists as environmental friendly by ticking all the boxes could be part of the play. I could list all the boxes but, why should I do their work for them, but if it came down to an argument who does the less harm to the flora and fauna of a river environment , anglers or canoeists, the argument would not look good for the anglers. Who would get the sympathy.?
I don't know, I may talk a load of cob wash, I just put my unbiased cap on and surmise the various arguments and angles. I am on the anglers side, I hope Peter resolves the problem. I just don't want to make an enemy of canoeists generally, see to much of a argument develop on a bigger scale, maybe they could make life more difficult for us than we them. that's not me being on their side , just being cautious.

It will depend on the court case, what it is specifically about and how it pans out. But, they will use every argument available if allowed so, be prepared.

Poor old Izaak, he must be turning over in his grave. I am off to find a beetle grub and have a nice kip.

 

[bennygesserit]

I am not a canoeist sympathizer, I just have no personal quarrel with them and I believe everyone has the right to enjoy the river just as much as me. That's just me on a general level.

However Peter has pointed out a specific problem, its outside the norm, its more complicated as quite large sums of money have been paid, that puts a different complexion on the matter. The rivers he mentions I know fairly well, They must be some of the most expensive prime chalk stream fishing in the country. This will hold a lot of clout in court for sure and the lack of legal right to canoe will as well.
But this is not typical of most of the country, its an exception, not the norm. I do not pay anything to fish. Others pay a small proportion of their club monies to fish sections of rivers. Does this small amount give them the right to deny canoes access. How much do you have to pay before you can claim I have more right than you to use this river.? £50, £500, £1000, whats the price? It begins to become a even more complicated matter and a certain sort of morality starts to creep in. Which way this could play in a court I do not know "I just think"
.

Mark anglers are almost incidental in this ,its the person who owns the land alongside the river bank and therefore half the riverbed Who are in fact being trespassed against.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

But this is not typical of most of the country, its an exception, not the norm. I do not pay anything to fish. Others pay a small proportion of their club monies to fish sections of rivers. Does this small amount give them the right to deny canoes access. How much do you have to pay before you can claim I have more right than you to use this river.? £50, £500, £1000, whats the price? It begins to become a even more complicated matter and a certain sort of morality starts to creep in.

Firstly Mark, my points are not aimed at you but at the points raised, okay?

It isn't just the expensive stretches of the Chalk Streams either, take the Hampshire Avon for an example.

Between CAC and RDAA there are likely to be about 5000 member all paying, what, £140 per annum?

Now, these subs are used to secure the right to fish from the various riparian Owners of which there are dozens from just above Christchurch to just below Salisbury.

These leases form an important part of the owners annual incomes, which believe me, if paddlers ever won unlimited free access would disappear in a heart beat. I wonder if the paddlers would like to make good the owners losses by paying for the right to canoe on those stretches as well?
No, of course they won't because they want unlimited and free access all over.

So, it is not simply a case of the expensive stretches on the more famous chalk streams but a cause for great concern for farmers and land owners up and down the Country.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Ray, there is no answer as it is a wholly mute point.

There is not, and never will be, a law to prevent anglers from fishing so it is one of those questions akin to how many angels (or anglers?) can you get on the head of a pin?

We might not "own" the rivers Ray, but the law says that there is no PRN on the vast majority of them. Whereas on the other hand we do, via leases etc., obtain the rights to use the rivers and the access ways to and from said leased sections of the river, another important point against the case of the paddlers.

Anglers need to stow their myopic or biased views of the Angling Trust on this issue and all, (to use a nautical term?) PULL TOGETHER!

Its not a mute point Peter, not if the Antis get their way.

What makes you so sure angling will never be banned ??? It's banned on many lakes in the UK because of wildlife already, and if the RSPB get their way, it will be banned on many more.

Or are you not prepared to break the law if angling was banned ????

As i said we don't own the rivers, and there is nothing to stop canoes from getting access and leasing rivers themselves.

If they break the law they do so at their own risk, just as i would if angling was ever banned.

Canoes do no more damage than anglers that row boats etc on our rivers, but its ok because we are anglers is it ??? NOT.

The more using our rivers the better, as long as they pay, and help maintain it.

The more eyes and ears, the better we can help protect it.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Its not a mute point Peter, not if the Antis get their way.

What makes you so sure angling will never be banned ??? It's banned on many lakes in the UK because of wildlife already, and if the RSPB get their way, it will be banned on many more.

Or are you not prepared to break the law if angling was banned ????

As i said we don't own the rivers, and there is nothing to stop canoes from getting access and leasing rivers themselves.

If they break the law they do so at their own risk, just as i would if angling was ever banned.

Canoes do no more damage than anglers that row boats etc on our rivers, but its ok because we are anglers is it ??? NOT.

The more using our rivers the better, as long as they pay, and help maintain it.

The more eyes and ears, the better we can help protect it.

I'm sorry Ray but, no, I don't see angling ever being banned in this Country, firstly as it is far too big a business for that to happen and secondly because the soap-dodging antis have far softer targets to go after.

You seem to be deliberately avoiding the issue of PRN in all of your replies, so what is your view on that?

Finally, if you are seeking an answer, then yes, if angling were ever banned in this country then I would obey the law and find another country to do my fishing in, for example Norway.