Home | News/Events | News | Canoe Navigation Rights Sunk

Canoe Navigation Rights Sunk

By

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font
It is the long accepted position of the Courts, and all respected legal books, that there is no general public right of navigation on non-tidal rivers It is the long accepted position of the Courts, and all respected legal books, that there is no general public right of navigation on non-tidal rivers

Fish Legal court case proves, yet again, that there is no general public right of navigation on non-tidal rivers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Fish Legal report that:

 

A campaigner for universal canoe access, Mr. Andrew Biddulph, who tried to claim £4,000 from an angling club for restricting access to the River Dove, has been ordered by the Court to rewrite his claim or withdraw it and pay Fish Legal’s costs. 


The case is a further blow to the incorrect claims of Mr. Biddulph and other campaigners – supported by Canoe England and the British Canoe Union – that there ‘might’ be a general right of navigation on all rivers.


The Burton-on-Trent Mutual Angling Association allows canoeists to use their part of the River Dove under an agreement with the local canoeing club for set times in the season. But Mr Biddulph demanded that the club recognise ‘an ancient right’ to canoe whenever and wherever he wished, or be taken to court.


Local anglers were shocked by the ultimatum but (as it was such an unusual case) Fish Legal agreed to help its member club defend its legal right to fish without the threat of constant disturbance from canoeing.


The canoeist’s arguments came from a university thesis which says that canoeists are entitled to paddle on all rivers in England.  The case was an attempt to put this theory into effect by challenging the current law, but also to extract money from the angling club.


Fish Legal made a court application to strike out his claim as an abuse of process and because it provided no reasonable (or legally recognisable) grounds for bringing the claim.  After the application hearing Mr Biddulph chose to withdraw his claim, apparently accepting his case was without any merit.


It is the long accepted position of the Courts, and all respected legal books, that there is no general public right of navigation on non-tidal rivers.  Unfortunately, Canoe England and the British Canoe Union create confusion amongst its members by suggesting that there is such a right.


Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of the Angling Trust and Fish Legal said:

“The law about navigation is absolutely clear: apart from on a few identified navigable rivers, there is no right of navigation without permission.  The failure of this claim goes to show that such challenges to the law are bound to fail.

The BCU and Canoe England should wake up to this fact and work with us to promote sensible voluntary access agreements.  Many of our members have attempted to draw up agreements with local canoe clubs, only to find that the national canoeing bodies have ordered them not to sign agreements because they do not allow access at all times, or because they would have to accept that they need permission.  We call on them to accept the law of the land, respect other people’s property rights and to work with the Angling Trust and its members to increase access for canoes in a sustainable way to avoid further conflicts of this type.”

 







By the Same Author



Rate this article

0




Comments (54 posted):

Peter Jacobs on 11/04/2013 10:37:09
avatar
To me, that is a clear case of: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR . . . . . . . . . Well done to Fish Legal and the Angling Trust for their stirling work on this case. They prove, once again, that we have to be constantly vigilant even when a case might appear, at first glance, to be simply frivolous or based on a clear misinterpretation of the Law If only for this work alone I reckon the Anlging Trust is more than worth an annual punt, don't you?
Andrew Greensmith 2 on 11/04/2013 12:01:10
avatar
As a fellow angler and a paddler i can tell you that there will never be a "voluntary access agreement" that works to an acceptable level for both parties. It may work on a few stretches and i'm sure some "know it all" will contradict this but it will never work on the vast majority of rivers. I very rarely get into a boat these days and certainly spend more time on the river bank with a rod. I can honestly say that i do not appreciate canoeists paddling through my swim esp when they're noisy and/or unorganised. Providing they're well behaved and quietly pass by, i can tolerate it. So i know where everyone is coming from! At the same time i have often come across very angry anglers when in a canoe. This has usually occurred when i've been leading a group of youngster on a navigable stretch although i have also had the same type of anger when paddling stretches without navigable rights. Obviously i accept that i shouldn't really be there but i'll explain why i was in a moment. It always amazes me that an angler would prefer to have a stand up shouting match with a canoeist that may last several minutes rather than letting them quietly go by. Again, at the risk of some "know it all" contradicting me,there are very few miles of river that have open access for canoeists. A team of paddlers managed to organise voluntary access to the river Dee for several years but its now completely failed due to increasing demands from anglers. That section of river is now teaming with paddlers a certain times so were those demands beneficial? No! The main problem comes from money. We anglers pay to use relatively short stretches of water whilst canoeists pay nothing for potentially miles of river (they do pay the BCU but this is effectively an insurance policy) so why should paddlers have any rights. There is no fix, because paddler can't pay every land owner that they come across as every trip that they embarked on would be a logistical nightmare and very expensive. So, do they stick to those few short stretches? If they did, the impact on the environment on those stretches could be enormous. To put everyone in the correct picture, if your stretch of river contains exciting rapids in the winter then thats when/where experienced paddlers want to be. If your stretch could be described as a lovely, slow, scenic river with reasonable depths in the summer then it could attract families and inexperienced group during the better weather. What i'm saying is that even if there was open access to all rivers all year round they wouldn't all get used and some would be winter only where as some would be summer only. A few may be all year round venues but i can't imagine many. A lot of anglers think that open access would instantly mean a flood of paddlers entering their stretch but if you use some common sense that simply isn't the case. I'm not really sure what exactly occurred in this story as the information is limited but i suspect that there's more to it. Anglers and Canoeist both need educating about each others needs and both parties need to understand the problem before a solution could ever be agree upon. Before you slate me, please remember that i'm (at the moment) 80% angler, 20% paddler and i'm only being honest.
Peter Jacobs on 11/04/2013 12:12:29
avatar
It always amazes me that an angler would prefer to have a stand up shouting match with a canoeist that may last several minutes rather than letting them quietly go by. I cannot imagine any condition whereby you should be "amazed" inasmuch as the angler is informing you of his disapproval of your (collective) actions, whereas to remain silent would indicate some form of (misguided) tacit approval; and believe me, that is not the case! ---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ---------- There is no fix, because paddler can't pay every land owner that they come across as every trip that they embarked on would be a logistical nightmare and very expensive. Why not? We do. If I want to fish a beat on the Test or Itchen it will cost me in the region of £1400 to £2000 per season; if I then want to fish the next beat upstream, and that belongs to a different Riparian owner, then I pay again, and so on. So, why should it be any different to others who wish to use the river where I am paying dearly for my fishing?
the blanker on 11/04/2013 12:49:46
avatar
As a fellow angler and a paddler i can tell you that there will never be a "voluntary access agreement" that works to an acceptable level for both parties. It may work on a few stretches and i'm sure some "know it all" will contradict this but it will never work on the vast majority of rivers. I very rarely get into a boat these days and certainly spend more time on the river bank with a rod. I can honestly say that i do not appreciate canoeists paddling through my swim esp when they're noisy and/or unorganised. Providing they're well behaved and quietly pass by, i can tolerate it. So i know where everyone is coming from! At the same time i have often come across very angry anglers when in a canoe. This has usually occurred when i've been leading a group of youngster on a navigable stretch although i have also had the same type of anger when paddling stretches without navigable rights. Obviously i accept that i shouldn't really be there but i'll explain why i was in a moment. It always amazes me that an angler would prefer to have a stand up shouting match with a canoeist that may last several minutes rather than letting them quietly go by. Again, at the risk of some "know it all" contradicting me,there are very few miles of river that have open access for canoeists. A team of paddlers managed to organise voluntary access to the river Dee for several years but its now completely failed due to increasing demands from anglers. That section of river is now teaming with paddlers a certain times so were those demands beneficial? No! The main problem comes from money. We anglers pay to use relatively short stretches of water whilst canoeists pay nothing for potentially miles of river (they do pay the BCU but this is effectively an insurance policy) so why should paddlers have any rights. There is no fix, because paddler can't pay every land owner that they come across as every trip that they embarked on would be a logistical nightmare and very expensive. So, do they stick to those few short stretches? If they did, the impact on the environment on those stretches could be enormous. To put everyone in the correct picture, if your stretch of river contains exciting rapids in the winter then thats when/where experienced paddlers want to be. If your stretch could be described as a lovely, slow, scenic river with reasonable depths in the summer then it could attract families and inexperienced group during the better weather. What i'm saying is that even if there was open access to all rivers all year round they wouldn't all get used and some would be winter only where as some would be summer only. A few may be all year round venues but i can't imagine many. A lot of anglers think that open access would instantly mean a flood of paddlers entering their stretch but if you use some common sense that simply isn't the case. I'm not really sure what exactly occurred in this story as the information is limited but i suspect that there's more to it. Anglers and Canoeist both need educating about each others needs and both parties need to understand the problem before a solution could ever be agree upon. Before you slate me, please remember that i'm (at the moment) 80% angler, 20% paddler and i'm only being honest. It looks fairly obvious to me Andrew that this chap was prepared to go to court but then when challenged changed his mind as he knew he would loose and withdrew his case.
The bad one on 11/04/2013 14:42:05
avatar
It is interesting to note that ATr threw its legal weight behind its member club, but BCU didn't behind the plaintiff who was attempting to establish its claimed rights. Did they know their game was up I wonder? And the report by the good Rev they put great store by was a little bit dodgy? Now what did they say in the last endless thread put your money where you’re mouth is! We did, you don’t seem to have done! Why is that?
Peter Jacobs on 11/04/2013 15:02:56
avatar
Now what did they say in the last endless thread put your money where you’re mouth is! We did, you don’t seem to have done! Why is that? Maybe the answer lies in Daniel 5.27 (English Standard Version)
The bad one on 11/04/2013 15:31:03
avatar
Bloody hell Peter I’m an atheist so it’s lost on me that one! And I have no wish or desire to go looking for a bible to find out what it says. :D
Peter Jacobs on 11/04/2013 15:40:05
avatar
Bloody hell Peter I’m an atheist so it’s lost on me that one! And I have no wish or desire to go looking for a bible to find out what it says. Daniel 5: 27 "you have been weighed in the ballances and found wanting" (not you, them )
nicepix on 11/04/2013 15:59:48
avatar
Daniel 5: 27 "you have been weighed in the ballances and found wanting" (not you, them ) The earliest known example of a 19lb 15oz carp I believe.
the blanker on 11/04/2013 16:08:55
avatar
No posts from SOTP MEMBERS??? ( I don't mean you Benny)
Kevan Farmer on 11/04/2013 16:09:57
avatar
Please, don't bring bloody religion in to my one and only sport :( Guess what? I too am athiest.
Peter Jacobs on 11/04/2013 16:30:53
avatar
Please, don't bring bloody religion in to my one and only sport Guess what? I too am athiest. Well then, I wonder if a quotation taken from the world of movies might assuage your religious frailty? "You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting" Taken from the movie "A Knight's Tale"
the blanker on 11/04/2013 16:35:16
avatar
Well then, I wonder if a quotation taken from the world of movies might assuage your religious frailty? "You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting" Taken from the movie "A Knight's Tale" I have been weighed and measured at the doctors this morning and found to overweight.
bennygesserit on 11/04/2013 17:22:31
avatar
No posts from SOTP MEMBERS??? ( I don't mean you Benny) I left sotp because they started to pre moderate the access forum and hardly any of mine were getting through , having done a lot of reading and thinking on this I come to the conlusion that its not suitable for forum discussion as it just goes round and round in a circle. I don't think the canoeists legal position holds up but they are convinced. I don't think its fair for an angler to have his day of stalking ruined on a small river. I don't think that a passing single canoe would spoil a days fishing on a medium or large river. I think Benyons influence or at least those of the rich landowners /. Country alliance can be seen in a campaign to keeps the oiks away. I think canoeists may trample redds or spread crayfish / invasive species in their arrogance and refusal to accept that they might do. I don't think VAA work well as you have to negotiate with lots of seperate landowners. I don't agree with the canoeists premise that angling is subdidised by taxes when you see how much Tax goes to support canoeing. I have read lots of stories of very rude canoeists and on SOTP they always deny that could ever happen. I think I would be hopping mad if I bought a house with a garden that backed onto the river and found some canoeist taking a dump in my garden. I understand the WYE is full of drunken day ticket canoeists and letting them paddle anywhere would only result in more of this rather than diluting the problem. I believe most anglers and canoeists would rather get along. The only way that this can be proven either way is to get it into court in some way by a summons , that summons would probably be just for trespass unless you can prove aggravation , the Landowner has to sue not the angler so I don,t think its gonna happen. My socialist outlook rebels against some fat cat owning a river which I think belongs to the people but thats not really a practical view. I firmly believe the AT stirs up trouble over this which results in the threat of violence on some rivers and its a shame to make needless political capital out of that better to work together to fight hydro for instance. Sorry probably bored you with that lot , the article seems to indicate a step forward for my side :) Haven't proof read this yet
the blanker on 11/04/2013 17:27:27
avatar
Flippin eck Benny I asked about posts from SOTP I said not you because I didn't want you to think I meant you.
bennygesserit on 11/04/2013 18:03:20
avatar
Flippin eck Benny I asked about posts from SOTP I said not you because I didn't want you to think I meant you. Ha ha I tried to get it all in one post , cos like I said I have seen this go round and round , just checked out sotp and no mention I would like to find out more about whats actually gone on, to be honest it was the thread about the Dove which caused the fuss on SOTP with a lot of canoeists saying it was too shallow to paddle , even Andy himself who posts on SOTP a lot sounded like he was reconsidering. Interesting reading this [url=http://www.andybiddulph.co.uk/navigation.html]http://www.andybiddulph.co.uk/navigation.html ---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:35 ---------- I attempted to sue Burton Mutual Angling Association for intefering with the public right of navigation on the River Dove. I had to withdraw because the public nuisance elemnt of my case colud only be brought by the Attorney General. Here are the case papers. [url=http://andybiddulph.co.uk/ESW/Files/Case_for_Claimant.pdf]http://andybiddulph.co.uk/ESW/Files/Case_for_Claimant.pdf [url=http://andybiddulph.co.uk/ESW/Files/Defence001.pdf]http://andybiddulph.co.uk/ESW/Files/Defence001.pdf ---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ---------- Last one ( probably ) nothing , again has actually been proved here or not has it , its more of a win by technicality.
nicepix on 11/04/2013 19:49:35
avatar
I agree that this one case seems to have been decided on a technicality. However, the canoeists case seems to be based on a student's thesis that is not statute, not case law and is only one person's opinion.
chav professor on 12/04/2013 09:03:54
avatar
Its funny really, The river Waveney abounds with canoeists in the Summer. Yes they are a minor inconvenience... But the fish are so used to the activity - its no worse than a swans or a geese alighting in your swim. Nearly every canoeist goes out of their way to be polite and courteous in this context. There does seem to be a militant branch of canoeists who wish to agitate with a right to roam where they please - is this a fair assumption? It was certainly known that a group of canoeists willfully trespassed on Throop last season and through their actions it would seem they were quite happy to be as belligerent as possible. In line with Bennygesserit - I find access to inland water ways deplorable. Would it be so unacceptable to be able to fish a river without having to pay (Jeeze...) £1400 to £2000 for a seasons fishing:omg: I would welcome a right to roam for both angler and canoeist.....
Peter Jacobs on 12/04/2013 09:10:25
avatar
Would it be so unacceptable to be able to fish a river without having to pay (Jeeze...) £1400 to £2000 for a seasons fishing Yes, that's right, and remember that is for one rod every second Saturday from April 24th to end September only. Go up on the Test and it is more, a lot more! So, if I'm paying that why should some paddler expect to use that stretch of the river for free?
chav professor on 12/04/2013 09:16:06
avatar
Yes, that's right, and remember that is for one rod every second Saturday from April 24th to end September only. Go up on the Test and it is more, a lot more! So, if I'm paying that why should some paddler expect to use that stretch of the river for free? Agreed.... But that sort of money.... I personally don't appreciate how this country stitches up so much of our natural heritage.
Peter Jacobs on 12/04/2013 09:22:54
avatar
Agreed.... But that sort of money.... I personally don't appreciate how this country stitches up so much of our natural heritage. It is really simple, it is private land and privately held fishing rights. The so called R2R Act was enough of a disaster in my opinion, we don't need anymore like that for anyone; angler or paddler. I pay for excellent Trout fishing on a chalk stream venue with little or no interferance from anyone else. Each beat only has one rod per day so you can basically fish from dawn to dusk and not see another soul. Well, not quite "dawn" as then the keeper is out undertaking vermin control . . . . . . . so many rats you know
guest39 on 12/04/2013 09:28:17
avatar
Well, not quite "dawn" as then the keeper is out undertaking vermin control . . . . . . . so many rats you know Are these the flying rats, generally black in colour and characterised by a sawbill?
Peter Jacobs on 12/04/2013 09:51:45
avatar
Are these the flying rats, generally black in colour and characterised by a sawbill? Ah well, you might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment . . . . . . . [insert U-No-Wot > > > HERE]
Neil Maidment on 12/04/2013 22:55:20
avatar
There does seem to be a militant branch of canoeists who wish to agitate with a right to roam where they please - is this a fair assumption? It was certainly known that a group of canoeists willfully trespassed on Throop last season and through their actions it would seem they were quite happy to be as belligerent as possible. Yes, several times at the back end of the season. I was there on one occasion when this group gained access via private land without permission and then onto the Stour where it flows through the private Malmsbury Estate. No Public Footpath or Right of Way exists. They eventually came to the New Weir where for a short distance a Public Footpath exists. They were politely challenged by the Fishery Manager and Bailiffs, Police were notified. The paddlers carried on down the path and launched again (trespassing again as they did so). They then carried on downstream presumably down to the Tidal Stretch. They knew exactly what they were doing and couldn't give a damn for anyone else. The Police did not attend but the Estate and Club are trying to pursue the matter with witnesses and photographic evidence similar to this (50x Optical Zoom comes in handy!) [URL=""]
Andrew Greensmith 2 on 17/04/2013 11:31:50
avatar
"I understand the WYE is full of drunken day ticket canoeists and letting them paddle anywhere would only result in more of this rather than diluting the problem." This is extremely narrow minded! This is just as annoying as a paddler saying that all fisherman use dangerous rigs and leave litter on the banks. Obviously this is not the case, most of us (paddlers and anglers) are conscientious and want to protect our sport. The paying for every stretch thing isn't even worth my time, sorry. The outcome in my opinion is that the narrow mindedness of both parties, the greed for every possible penny and the need for one party to "WIN" the battle will ultimately lead to a right to roam policy occurring in England just as it has already done so in Scotland. I don't want this but i have no doubt that it will happen. Then we'll all have something to really complain about.
Peter Jacobs on 17/04/2013 11:38:48
avatar
Moderator Hat: Off, (personal comment) The paying for every stretch thing isn't even worth my time, sorry. Would that be because you have no sensible answer to the question then? . . . . . . and the need for one party to "WIN" the battle will ultimately lead to a right to roam policy occurring in England just as it has already done so in Scotland. I don't want this but i have no doubt that it will happen A R2R policy on our rivers? Yes, in your dreams . . . . . . as if, don't you wish! . Surely this cannot be the best that the paddlers can respond with, is it? And only 36 days after the event too? Moderator Hat - back on
bennygesserit on 17/04/2013 11:43:21
avatar
"I understand the WYE is full of drunken day ticket canoeists and letting them paddle anywhere would only result in more of this rather than diluting the problem." This is extremely narrow minded! This is just as annoying as a paddler saying that all fisherman use dangerous rigs and leave litter on the banks. Obviously this is not the case, most of us (paddlers and anglers) are conscientious and want to protect our sport. The paying for every stretch thing isn't even worth my time, sorry. The outcome in my opinion is that the narrow mindedness of both parties, the greed for every possible penny and the need for one party to "WIN" the battle will ultimately lead to a right to roam policy occurring in England just as it has already done so in Scotland. I don't want this but i have no doubt that it will happen. Then we'll all have something to really complain about. Ok since you quoted me I'll admit that it was a generality and not caveated in the best manner but from reading a lot of fishing AND canoeing forums the WYE is the example that is always used when talking about what the future might hold if these casual day ticket paddling experiences proliferate. I have seen canoeists themselves deploring the drunken stag and hen parties that often take up these days, but you are right I should have differentiated between those and the more responsible paddler, still that isn't a reason to acknowledge the problem does exist.
Andrew Greensmith 2 on 18/04/2013 09:39:42
avatar
Peter, you seem to think that i'm on the paddlers side but i'm not. I've paddled the Wye on many occasions with groups and have seen the stag parties which in my opinion are as welcome to me as seeing a stag party on the bank trying to fish. (Just in case they're, not welcome). Many people didn't believe that the R2R would actually come into affect but it did. The land reform act in Scotland is similar to Englands R2R but it extends to waterways. Most people didn't think that would ever get through either, but it did. Its worth pointing out that fishing rights in Scotland are extremely expensive due salmon etc. I've paddled lots of rivers in Scotland including the Tay and the Spey. Simply awesome rivers and teaming with Salmon. I always feel a pang of guilt when guiding a group past fellow anglers as i'm fully aware of how much its costing them but its not my fault that it so expensive. I'd also like to point out that i've never had a run in with an angler in Scotland whereas i've had several in England. There seems to be a very different outlook there. Similarly i usually feel green with envy when i paddle past a fellow angler on the Wye because i'd much prefer to be behind a rod than in a boat there. If you want to read more about the Land Reform Act: Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 There's also a misconception that all paddlers are trespassing when paddling through private land. This isn't the case. It all about ACCESS. If the paddler has to trespass to gain access to/from a river then they are in the wrong. Whilst the boat is afloat and the river bed is not being touched they simply aren't trespassing. I guess this is similar to flying over private land, again not trespassing unless you land. Sorry. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_Access_Campaign"]Rivers Access Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] The reason i can't be bothered to reply to the money issue is that a river trip isn't going cover a single beat or short stretch it'll cover many so its simply impossible to organise that structure. Paddlers pay the BCU, they're just an insurance company however if they were to pay ALL land owners in the country how much should they pay each one. Should it be a set rate per mile? Its unworkable. Would this help? I don't think so. If a compromise doesn't come about we (as anglers) will suffer. It seems that i'm in an extreme minority where i've got a vested interest in both angles and perhaps as a result i can see it a little more clearly than others. Also, i want to reiterate. I've not paddled for just over a year now. The next time i plan to be in a boat is during June where i'll be running a couple of trips to the Wye. In terms of angling, i've been spending plenty of time on the bank and am due to head off to France next week so i'm certainly further into the anglers camp than the paddlers. I'm just saying it as it is.
geoffmaynard on 18/04/2013 14:09:11
avatar
There's also a misconception that all paddlers are trespassing when paddling through private land. This isn't the case. It all about ACCESS. If the paddler has to trespass to gain access to/from a river then they are in the wrong. Whilst the boat is afloat and the river bed is not being touched they simply aren't trespassing. I guess this is similar to flying over private land, again not trespassing unless you land. Sorry. I think you are wrong here Andrew. As I understand it, the owner of a stretch with both banks has the fishing rights AND the navigation rights (unless there is a PRN). The owners's permission is therefor required to paddle the stretch.
nicepix on 18/04/2013 14:22:07
avatar
Yes, several times at the back end of the season. I was there on one occasion when this group gained access via private land without permission and then onto the Stour where it flows through the private Malmsbury Estate. No Public Footpath or Right of Way exists. They eventually came to the New Weir where for a short distance a Public Footpath exists. They were politely challenged by the Fishery Manager and Bailiffs, Police were notified. The paddlers carried on down the path and launched again (trespassing again as they did so). They then carried on downstream presumably down to the Tidal Stretch. They knew exactly what they were doing and couldn't give a damn for anyone else. The Police did not attend but the Estate and Club are trying to pursue the matter with witnesses and photographic evidence similar to this (50x Optical Zoom comes in handy!) [URL=""] Looking at those boats they aren't the type used by the independent paddler. I reckon it was a club outing designed as you say to test the laws. Did you manage to identify that logo on the front of the canoe?
flightliner on 18/04/2013 17:01:06
avatar
Did you manage to identify that logo on the front of the canoe? Share Share this post on Twitter Share on Facebook | Like its the one that they all have-- Its laying claim to go where they like.
Neil Maidment on 18/04/2013 18:03:50
avatar
Looking at those boats they aren't the type used by the independent paddler. I reckon it was a club outing designed as you say to test the laws. Did you manage to identify that logo on the front of the canoe? I took a load of images far more detailed than these. Individual face close ups, and all/any boat IDs/markings plus a record of their progress from private land, to public footpath and back onto private land. 50x optical zoom gives great detail. Once back in their boats, judging by their "friendly" waves, gestures and comments, they clearly thought they were out of any useful range of the cameras on the opposite bank. Three or four others, including the Fishery Manager and controlling Club Bailiffs have similar images and videos. It was this particular groups second trip in as many weeks. They know exactly what they're are doing, have no intention of entering into any conversation, and totally ignore any request.
nicepix on 18/04/2013 18:34:19
avatar
I would try and engage with the Inspector in charge of the Safer Neighbourhood Team where these guys operate and make a report of Harassment. As long as you claim that you or others were alarmed, distressed or harassed by the canoeists behaviour he / she is obliged to record it and investigate the matter.
bennygesserit on 18/04/2013 19:11:11
avatar
I would try and engage with the Inspector in charge of the Safer Neighbourhood Team where these guys operate and make a report of Harassment. As long as you claim that you or others were alarmed, distressed or harassed by the canoeists behaviour he / she is obliged to record it and investigate the matter. But why do that ? Neil didn't seem alarmed, distressed or harassed so why waste Police time ?
dangermouse on 18/04/2013 22:30:04
avatar
Once back in their boats, judging by their "friendly" waves, gestures and comments, they clearly thought they were out of any useful range of the cameras on the opposite bank. It was this particular groups second trip in as many weeks. They know exactly what they're are doing, have no intention of entering into any conversation, and totally ignore any request. But why do that ? Neil didn't seem alarmed, distressed or harassed so why waste Police time ? harassment Web definitions a feeling of intense annoyance caused by being tormented Neil was obviously annoyed enough to break off fishing, take out his camera and take photos. Seems to cover it imo.
bennygesserit on 19/04/2013 06:57:27
avatar
harassment Web definitions a feeling of intense annoyance caused by being tormented Neil was obviously annoyed enough to break off fishing, take out his camera and take photos. Seems to cover it imo. Do you think he would have been so annoyed if for the last few years the AT had been preaching that we should join with our fellow rivers users , such as canoeists ?
dangermouse on 19/04/2013 07:17:00
avatar
Do you think he would have been so annoyed if for the last few years the AT had been preaching that we should join with our fellow rivers users , such as canoeists ? No idea, you`d have to ask him.
Neil Maidment on 19/04/2013 07:24:19
avatar
My annoyance and anger is directed at that particular type of paddler. They have absolute disregard for and no respect of private property. In this case they haven't a clue about any sort of countryside code or behaviour in terms of fencing and gates and wilfully put livestock at risk. They treat other users - anglers, walkers, cyclists - with complete disdain and utter contempt. I try not to pre-judge other paddlers by this type of action but it's very difficult.
Peter Jacobs on 19/04/2013 07:36:57
avatar
Do you think he would have been so annoyed if for the last few years the AT had been preaching that we should join with our fellow rivers users , such as canoeists ? Benny, If that ever happens I'll be the first to leave the ATr . . . . . . That said, I for one will take Nicepix' advice and call the Police if I ever see paddlers on my local stretches on the river
bennygesserit on 19/04/2013 08:11:12
avatar
My annoyance and anger is directed at that particular type of paddler. They have absolute disregard for and no respect of private property. In this case they haven't a clue about any sort of countryside code or behaviour in terms of fencing and gates and wilfully put livestock at risk. They treat other users - anglers, walkers, cyclists - with complete disdain and utter contempt. I try not to pre-judge other paddlers by this type of action but it's very difficult. Aah thanks for clarifying i can only agree that this behaviour is abhorrent. I am confused though on other fishing forums canoes don't seem to attract the vehement reaction they do on FM , that reaction coming , at a guess , from about 8 people , admittedly on no forum is anyone coming forwards saying we love paddlers , apart from those that both canoe and fish. Maybe I should stay out of what is largely an interesting conundrum for me , rather than something real , as I haven't fished a river for years , and the 8 or so people who are active i these threads seem to get tetchy , I certainly do aswell iif its something that i am personally involved in. It is not my intention to wind people up over this but I am still convinced that in the right circumstances ( mostly not on small rivers and not in groups ) most anglers will simply give a friendly wave to a passing canoeist.
the blanker on 19/04/2013 08:35:19
avatar
Aah thanks for clarifying i can only agree that this behaviour is abhorrent. I am confused though on other fishing forums canoes don't seem to attract the vehement reaction they do on FM , that reaction coming , at a guess , from about 8 people , admittedly on no forum is anyone coming forwards saying we love paddlers , apart from those that both canoe and fish. Maybe I should stay out of what is largely an interesting conundrum for me , rather than something real , as I haven't fished a river for years , and the 8 or so people who are active i these threads seem to get tetchy , I certainly do aswell iif its something that i am personally involved in. It is not my intention to wind people up over this but I am still convinced that in the right circumstances ( mostly not on small rivers and not in groups ) most anglers will simply give a friendly wave to a passing canoeist. I am one of the 8 that have posted against canoes on this thread, I have experienced both good and bad paddlers on larger rivers unfortunately the bad have far outweighed the good. the good are usually lone or a couple of paddlers who pass quietly with little or no damage to my day, the bad vary from drunks to the downright arrogant who seem to delight in ruining my and other anglers sport which I have paid for As for canoes on small rivers, they are no matter how the paddlers behave something I will never accept, they ruin my paid for sport for the day.
Peter Jacobs on 19/04/2013 08:45:36
avatar
As for canoes on small rivers, they are no matter how the paddlers behave something I will never accept, they ruin my paid for sport for the day. I would totally agree with this sentiment too. We do not need, nor do we want, paddlers on the Chalk Streams in the South and I would include the Stour below Blandford Forum as well. Talk to some of the Riparain owners and hear their thoughts, typically it is "no thanks, not in a million years" and these are the people who own the access land, and the fishing rights.
bennygesserit on 19/04/2013 10:06:59
avatar
Talk to some of the Riparain owners and hear their thoughts, typically it is "no thanks, not in a million years" and these are the people who own the access land, and the fishing rights. Now you see thats the bit that jangles , when those Land Owners are people like Benyon whose family have owned that land for hundreds of years and who seem to want to deny access to the oiks , whether they be canoeists or walkers and , possibly , even coarse anglers to me rivers are like any other national resource , they should be there for all to enjoy , not just the rich. With the provisos about small rivers, small groups of licensed paddlers etc etc detailed in my previous posts.
geoffmaynard on 19/04/2013 14:41:53
avatar
You've just got a class-war chip on your shoulder Benny. What does the size of the owners bank balance have to do with anything? This is about the law which is there to protect rich and poor alike.
bennygesserit on 19/04/2013 16:06:52
avatar
You've just got a class-war chip on your shoulder Benny. What does the size of the owners bank balance have to do with anything? This is about the law which is there to protect rich and poor alike. Geoff do you seriously think you have the same rights in this Country as Richard Benyon ? Most coarse anglers , as long as the river is of sufficient size don't appear that fussed by the odd canoeist so lets look for a compromise between angler , landowner and canoeist not just be a mouthpiece for the landed gentry like we are now.
the blanker on 19/04/2013 17:41:49
avatar
Been looking on SOTP just out of curiosity, found something that bothered me, a thread was started about paddling the upper Loddon, I have no idea if this is navigable but what bothered me was the fact that posts were advising the fishing close season as the best time to do it, obviously not bothered about damage they could cause to spawning fish/grounds, for me another reason to not come to any compromise.
barbelboi on 19/04/2013 18:59:20
avatar
Been looking on SOTP just out of curiosity, found something that bothered me, a thread was started about paddling the upper Loddon, I have no idea if this is navigable but what bothered me was the fact that posts were advising the fishing close season as the best time to do it, obviously not bothered about damage they could cause to spawning fish/grounds, for me another reason to not come to any compromise. Thanks for the heads up blanker, the Loddon is one of my locals and is certainly not navigable to the areas that I fish (not upper) although we have been troubled by the disruptive elements from the paddling fraternity in the past. Jerry
bennygesserit on 19/04/2013 19:12:44
avatar
Been looking on SOTP just out of curiosity, found something that bothered me, a thread was started about paddling the upper Loddon, I have no idea if this is navigable but what bothered me was the fact that posts were advising the fishing close season as the best time to do it, obviously not bothered about damage they could cause to spawning fish/grounds, for me another reason to not come to any compromise. I haven't seen that one - will take a look , the one I saw was Andy Biddulph talking about suing the fishing clubs associated with Dovedale. Interesting for 2 reasons - Andy was hailing it as an enormous victory which I failed to understand at all and secondly a lot of paddlers were telling him that the stretches he was talking about paddling were totally unsuitable being too shallow and a SSSI. Its posts from guys like these , rather than the frankly fanatical Andy , many of whom fish , that convince me that a middle ground is there waiting to be seized, rather than the hassle and abuse which both anglers and paddlers are reporting. I think its good to look at these sites - get to know the enemy or even find common ground , strangely a lot of them wish they were as united as us anglers which makes me smile when I see it, ---------- Post added at 20:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ---------- from SOTP At present the AT have the upper hand because they have a clear purpose, the angling community is united and they put a lot more resources and effort into promoting their case. Richard Beynon (Fisheries) and Owen Paterson regard the BCU as the only conduit for paddlers' interests and this government is not going to listen to individual paddlers or ad hoc access groups. At the moment the Angling Trust is viewed as the sensible, responsible party with the BCU having nothing to say on the matter or worse - being recalcitrant and therefore to be ignored.
Neil Maidment on 19/04/2013 22:02:01
avatar
I fish various stretches of the upper Loddon. Any paddlers up that far in the close season and summer will be walking the fields a damn sight more than paddling the river. During the coarse close season, they'll also be various River Keepers working on their beats - that should prompt some interesting conversations.
The bad one on 20/04/2013 01:45:24
avatar
Benny the middle ground is there comply with the law of the land. Pay and negotiate for your access where you can. And that's from a pragmatic socialist.
the blanker on 20/04/2013 08:55:57
avatar
I haven't seen that one - will take a look , the one I saw was Andy Biddulph talking about suing the fishing clubs associated with Dovedale. Interesting for 2 reasons - Andy was hailing it as an enormous victory which I failed to understand at all and secondly a lot of paddlers were telling him that the stretches he was talking about paddling were totally unsuitable being too shallow and a SSSI. Its posts from guys like these , rather than the frankly fanatical Andy , many of whom fish , that convince me that a middle ground is there waiting to be seized, rather than the hassle and abuse which both anglers and paddlers are reporting. I think its good to look at these sites - get to know the enemy or even find common ground , strangely a lot of them wish they were as united as us anglers which makes me smile when I see it, ---------- Post added at 20:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ---------- from SOTP At present the AT have the upper hand because they have a clear purpose, the angling community is united and they put a lot more resources and effort into promoting their case. Richard Beynon (Fisheries) and Owen Paterson regard the BCU as the only conduit for paddlers' interests and this government is not going to listen to individual paddlers or ad hoc access groups. At the moment the Angling Trust is viewed as the sensible, responsible party with the BCU having nothing to say on the matter or worse - being recalcitrant and therefore to be ignored. The Loddon thread was posted 10/3/13 page 2 of general
wlfdac on 12/07/2013 07:51:42
avatar
The BBC seem to be stirring things up again! They seem to be a bit biased!!! BBC News - The fight for England's rivers: Canoeists call for greater access
Peter Jacobs on 12/07/2013 07:56:14
avatar
The BBC seem to be stirring things up again! They seem to be a bit biased!!! BBC News - The fight for England's rivers: Canoeists call for greater access No, as usual they are very biased whenever it concerns anling or anglers.
wlfdac on 12/07/2013 07:58:55
avatar
No, as usual they are very biased whenever it concerns anling or anglers. I was going to say that, but thought I might get moderated!!!!!!! :omg::)


Add a comment

  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text

Tagged as:

Fish Legal, River Dove, navigation rights

Follow FishingMagic!