Home | News/Events | News | Anglers v Canoeists – Court Case Looms…

Anglers v Canoeists – Court Case Looms…

By

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font
Fish Legal has sent a legal ‘letter before action’ to the canoeing national governing bodies. Fish Legal has sent a legal ‘letter before action’ to the canoeing national governing bodies.

Fish Legal has launched a legal challenge for anglers against the canoeing national governing bodies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Angling Trust



Following a steady increase in complaints of canoe trespass incidents from angling clubs and fishery owners, Fish Legal has sent a legal ‘letter before action’ to the British Canoe Union (BCU), Canoe Wales (CW) and Canoe England (CE) demanding that they stop publishing information suggesting that there is a general right of navigation on non-tidal waterways in England and Wales, and/or that the law relating to navigation on rivers is unclear.  There is no such general right of navigation in law and permission for access is required for people to use boats on rivers.


Fish Legal and the Angling Trust have written repeatedly to the BCU over the past few years to explain the law and to ask that incorrect information is removed from web sites and other publications, but these requests have been ignored.  Legal action to force these organisations to stop publishing this information - which can encourage unlawful behaviour - now seems to be the only option.  The action will be backed by subscription income from Fish Legal members along with donations made over the past year from more than 100 angling clubs to the Sustainable Access Campaign Cymru.


A response to the ‘letter before action’ is pending and the Angling Trust and Fish Legal hope that taking this formal step may encourage the BCU, CE and CW to resolve matters constructively, without the need to go to court.


Fish Legal will seek ‘declaratory relief’ through the courts unless BCU, CW and CE amend their publications and stop publishing inaccurate information about the law to their members and the public.  The recent upsurge in unlawful canoeing in England and Wales has damaged the rights of several angling clubs and fishery owners.  Many canoeists have the false impression that they can take their boats down rivers wherever and whenever they like. The Angling Trust and Fish Legal believe that the actions of BCU, CW and CE have contributed to this widespread trespass.


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

“We are taking action to stop the canoeing governing bodies publishing inaccurate information and to protect the rights of our member angling clubs and riparian owners.  This may now include court proceedings. Our members have often tried to make agreements with canoeing clubs for greater access, with reasonable conditions to protect the water environment and avoid interference with fishing.  However, these offers are repeatedly rejected, because the canoeing governing bodies insist that such agreements must allow unlimited access, or that permission is not needed.”


He added:

“We hope that this legal action, if it proves necessary, will settle beyond any doubt the issue of rights to navigate on rivers.  We need the canoeing governing bodies to recognise that the law is clear and that permission is required.  If this occurs, then we will be happy to work closely with them and our members to develop access agreements which make it possible for more people to go canoeing more often, without breaking the law or unreasonably interfering with angling.”


More Information

The 'Conflict on the Riverbank' dossier, which contains numerous examples of inaccurate statements by the canoeing governing bodies, is  appended to the attachment section of this web page (top right) and available for download.







By the Same Author



Rate this article

0




Comments (257 posted):

thecrow on 15/08/2014 09:39:14
avatar
I wonder what the kayak members of the trust will think about this? talk about double standards.
bennygesserit on 15/08/2014 09:45:49
avatar
You can see what the opposition ate saying here Threatened Legal Action by Angling Trust
Peter Jacobs on 15/08/2014 10:03:17
avatar
I wonder what the kayak members of the trust will think about this? talk about double standards. I think that the vast majority of Kayak anglers do their fishing in estuaries and coastal areas, although there are some who use the canals as well. I don't really see this as a case of double standards at all but one where there are pretty firm lines of division. As to the potential for a court case then I look forward to a positive result in favour of anglers and angling, that said I do believe that any legal decision might only be discrete and only cover an area specifically mentioned in the case details. Time will tell, but I very much doubt of the Paddlers organizations will want to settle this without a court hearing . . . . . .
bennygesserit on 15/08/2014 10:16:08
avatar
Anyone who fishes would understand the requirement for permits , its kind of ingrained. I can't see this being solved easily but it looks like the AT are determined to address the issues at the forefront of anglers minds , I am convinced they spend at least some time reading the bigger forums like this one.
greenie62 on 15/08/2014 10:23:19
avatar
Anyone who fishes would understand the requirement for permits , its kind of ingrained. As illustrated (NOT) by the Nash video in the 'Darn People' thread where the angler 'only' breaks the rules for his convenience - like I said in that thread it could ultimately be a disservice to angling!
bennygesserit on 15/08/2014 10:24:52
avatar
As illustrated (NOT) by the Nash video in the 'Darn People' thread where the angler 'only' breaks the rules for his convenience - like I said in that thread it could ultimately be a disservice to angling! Fair play - you got me there I have no answer to that one :)
thecrow on 15/08/2014 11:03:08
avatar
IF this comes to a court case and I don't think it will fish legal must be very sure of winning or the case could cost more than fish legal can afford to loose. It just looks like posturing to me. If they are sure of winning don't threaten, do it.
dangermouse on 15/08/2014 11:14:39
avatar
I love how people see only what they want to see in a piece of text. "Know ye that whereas the great rivers in our kingdom aforesaid ought to be held common and open for the passage of ships and boats..." And that`s obviously where they stop reading because the next part of the sentence quantifies the reason for the right of navigation. "... passing with victuals and other merchandise from place to place by the same rivers..." So even if this piece of legislation is still valid (and I seem to recall Windy saying it wasn`t) then unless the canoeists want to start a cottage industry ferrying goods or perhaps selling sarnies to anglers then their argument doesn`t seem to hold much water.
greenie62 on 15/08/2014 11:27:50
avatar
"... passing with victuals and other merchandise from place to place by the same rivers..." Perhaps they'll have to join in with the Merchant Navy and be subject to Marine freightage regs including having a 'plimsoll line' painted on the side of the canoe - they could then of course call on the Royal Navy to protect them against Fish Legal - 'gunboat diplomacy' on the Wye perhaps? ;):rolleyes::omg:
bennygesserit on 15/08/2014 11:54:14
avatar
I love how people see only what they want to see in a piece of text. "Know ye that whereas the great rivers in our kingdom aforesaid ought to be held common and open for the passage of ships and boats..." And that`s obviously where they stop reading because the next part of the sentence quantifies the reason for the right of navigation. "... passing with victuals and other merchandise from place to place by the same rivers..." So even if this piece of legislation is still valid (and I seem to recall Windy saying it wasn`t) then unless the canoeists want to start a cottage industry ferrying goods or perhaps selling sarnies to anglers then their argument doesn`t seem to hold much water. The paddlers reply , or at least one of them , would be that Fish legal's position also says this of a PRN "It cannot be lost as a result of mere disuse." Interestingly fish legal and the Trust are quite entitled to put resources into this , I am not so sure the paddlers are given that most of their funding is for the sport itself e.g. Elite athletes for the olympics ( millions of it ) , anyway thats an unknown for me at the moment , however this does present a very strong case for joining the Trust or at least supporting fish legal with a donation.
geoffmaynard on 15/08/2014 11:55:39
avatar
This published mis and dis-information is not only restricted to the canoe bodies literature and websites. Virtually every tourist information, national park advice, the EA and WUF all lead people to believe they have a right to canoe wherever they like. They write stuff like 'there is a public right of navigation from Hay downstream' and then go on to advise Glasbury as 'a popular canoeing area'. Of course, tourists have no idea of the local geography and don't realise Glasbury is upstream of Hay. So I hope the ATr widens the range of this mail-shot and includes all the offenders...
The bad one on 15/08/2014 14:25:15
avatar
AND ABOUT BLOODY TIME TOO!!!!! It's one of the reasons I dropped out of ATr lack of bleeding action on this issue!
stu_the_blank on 15/08/2014 17:59:10
avatar
If they are sure of winning don't threaten, do it.You have to go through a dance in civil cases. If you turn up in court having made no effort to settle, it counts against youin the awarding of costs. Fish Legal and the ACA before them have a fantastic record, with all due respect Crow, I'd back their judgement against yours. Stu
thecrow on 15/08/2014 18:18:04
avatar
You have to go through a dance in civil cases. If you turn up in court having made no effort to settle, it counts against youin the awarding of costs. Fish Legal and the ACA before them have a fantastic record, with all due respect Crow, I'd back their judgement against yours. Stu I know that fish legal and before them the ACA have a good record, I was a member of the ACA for many years, one reason they had such a good record was they only took on cases they knew they would win, cost excluded anything else. I doubt very much that this will get to court, I also doubt that if it did and fish legal won that it would make any difference to paddlers that do what they please now with no repercussions because like most things in angling there is nobody to police it and apart from anglers the public don't care. I would like to think that if the case was won the paddlers would stick to the judgement but I cant see it.
Peter Jacobs on 15/08/2014 20:33:43
avatar
AND ABOUT BLOODY TIME TOO!!!!! It's one of the reasons I dropped out of ATr lack of bleeding action on this issue! I have to agree with you Phil on this one. It is probably one of the few issues that the Angling Trust could have championed that would unite the vast majority of anglers, rather than embark on campaigns that would so obviously divide us: :think close season debate for starters . . . . . . Still, applause where it is due and I am really pleased to see the Angling Trust take this on, and hopefully see it to a logical conclusion.
geoffmaynard on 15/08/2014 20:40:33
avatar
there is nobody to police it But there is of course. There's the police, the EA, NRW, local county councils... the problem is to get them to actually do what they are paid to do, instead of spending their time (and our money) thinking up excuses NOT to do it!
nicepix on 15/08/2014 20:51:53
avatar
But there is of course. There's the police, the EA, NRW, local county councils... the problem is to get them to actually do what they are paid to do, instead of spending their time (and our money) thinking up excuses NOT to do it! Sadly that is exactly what was happening when I was working. My force employed people to 'manage' crime statistics reducing violent crime such as robberies by re-classifying it as theft and minor assault, burglary dwellings became burglary non-dwellings and so on. As I keep saying; the thing to do is to play the system to ensure that your reports are acted upon. don't report trespass, report harassment. They have to act on that.
bennygesserit on 15/08/2014 20:55:32
avatar
But there is of course. There's the police, the EA, NRW, local county councils... the problem is to get them to actually do what they are paid to do, instead of spending their time (and our money) thinking up excuses NOT to do it! Geoff this is a letter before action to the BCU to force them to alter their policy of promoting a universal PRN its not to prevent trespass by canoeists , its a first step , is that how you see it ! As such its very easily enforceable , whether it results in less trespass remains to be seen , some paddlers are hesitant about breaking the law clarity would help them decide. Does that about sum it up ?
geoffmaynard on 15/08/2014 21:55:49
avatar
Does that about sum it up ? No. It's about canoe organisations (and other bodies) effectively telling people it's okay to break the law, on their websites and in their literature. To me, that's like the AA telling people to park where they like and go whatever speed they like.
bennygesserit on 15/08/2014 21:59:03
avatar
No. It's about canoe organisations (and other bodies) effectively telling people it's okay to break the law, on their websites and in their literature. To me, that's like the AA telling people to park where they like and go whatever speed they like. We mis understand each other that's exactly what I thought I had just said.
thecrow on 16/08/2014 07:27:29
avatar
But there is of course. There's the police, the EA, NRW, local county councils... the problem is to get them to actually do what they are paid to do, instead of spending their time (and our money) thinking up excuses NOT to do it! Yes your correct Geoff, should have said willing to police it. ---------- Post added at 08:27 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ---------- No. It's about canoe organisations (and other bodies) effectively telling people it's okay to break the law, on their websites and in their literature. To me, that's like the AA telling people to park where they like and go whatever speed they like. Is there a law against organisations promoting the breaking of the law?
Peter Jacobs on 16/08/2014 07:58:35
avatar
Is there a law against organisations promoting the breaking of the law? Yes, there are, but first you have to have an established Law and that is what we anglers need to have defined by a Court.
stu_the_blank on 16/08/2014 10:24:28
avatar
Yes, there are, but first you have to have an established Law and that is what we anglers need to have defined by a Court.Well let's hope that Fish Legal are successful then! After all, nobody else is likely to have a go. We'll just keep on moaning, very effective. Stu
Peter Jacobs on 16/08/2014 13:10:20
avatar
Well let's hope that Fish Legal are successful then! After all, nobody else is likely to have a go. We'll just keep on moaning, very effective. Stu Personally I am not expecting the Paddlers organisations to bring anything to the party until and unless this finally goes to the Courts. This ATr. letter is just the first round fired in what will be a long battle before this particular was is won. So I say, well done to the Angling trust and I hope we keep the pressure up and not allow this initiative to fall by the wayside . . . . . . . .
thecrow on 16/08/2014 15:55:46
avatar
Well let's hope that Fish Legal are successful then! After all, nobody else is likely to have a go. We'll just keep on moaning, very effective. Stu Perhaps its the moans that have brought about this and other action by the trust.
nicepix on 16/08/2014 16:08:46
avatar
Personally I am not expecting the Paddlers organisations to bring anything to the party until and unless this finally goes to the Courts. This ATr. letter is just the first round fired in what will be a long battle before this particular was is won. So I say, well done to the Angling trust and I hope we keep the pressure up and not allow this initiative to fall by the wayside . . . . . . . . I agree. It is one step of a long process, but it must be done to show that everything has been tried before legal action is taken through the courts. As Chairman Mao said; "Every journey begins with the first step."
bennygesserit on 16/08/2014 16:49:24
avatar
Perhaps its the moans that have brought about this and other action by the trust. I think that may be true the fish legal PDF certainly mentions forums
binka on 16/08/2014 20:33:02
avatar
Is there a law against organisations promoting the breaking of the law? Aiding and abetting?
geoffmaynard on 16/08/2014 20:53:26
avatar
Perhaps its the moans that have brought about this and other action by the trust. No. They've been working on it in the background for a couple of years, it's a lengthy task putting a case together though. I know Will Rundle at Fish Legal and he's very thorough. ---------- Post added at 21:53 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ---------- Yes, there are, but first you have to have an established Law and that is what we anglers need to have defined by a Court. But, we already have the laws Peter. What we don't have is any of the authorities with the balls to enforce them.
markg on 17/08/2014 04:24:55
avatar
I have fished all over southern England for years, I cannot remember ever having one problem with a canoeist or anyone really come to that.. Of course I read a few incidences every now and then on the websites, laws of averages and all that but, I just cannot see how this is such a big problem to worry about. That will be another group of people who will hate us eventually, the list will grow. I worry about this, the long term affects of all this belligerence. I don't like it much.
stu_the_blank on 17/08/2014 06:31:58
avatar
Perhaps its the moans that have brought about this and other action by the trust. Constructive engagement might get a response, sniping from the sidelines from the cover of anonymity and hiding behind a keyboard won't, don't kid yourself. As Geoff pointed out, they've been working on this for a long time, these issues are not easy to resolve, they require a great deal of thought and hard work. You should be thankful that there is somebody out there prepared to take it on, on our behalf. Alternatively, keep on sniping and let the paddlers quietly take over! Stu
Peter Jacobs on 17/08/2014 07:35:45
avatar
I have fished all over southern England for years, I cannot remember ever having one problem with a canoeist or anyone really come to that.. Of course I read a few incidences every now and then on the websites, laws of averages and all that but, I just cannot see how this is such a big problem to worry about. That will be another group of people who will hate us eventually, the list will grow. I worry about this, the long term affects of all this belligerence. I don't like it much. All I can say then Mark is that you have been very fortunate indeed not to have had your fishing path crossed by paddlers who have no rights on most rivers in the Hampshire and Wiltshire counties. Personally I would be very worried indeed if the paddlers achieved their aim of a silent but effective take over of our rivers. We pay huge sums of money annually to fish rivers like the Avon, Test, Itchen, Nadder and Wylye while the paddlers want absolute and total right of access for nothing . . . . . . . and not to mention their activities in shallow water during spawning season that they appear to care nothing about! If the price of uninterrupted fishing on these rivers coupled with trouble-free spawning for the fish turns out to be a group of people who "hate us" then so be it. To be honest I am not at all enamored by them or their illegal antics . . . . . .
markg on 17/08/2014 09:10:04
avatar
All I can say then Mark is that you have been very fortunate indeed not to have had your fishing path crossed by paddlers who have no rights on most rivers in the Hampshire and Wiltshire counties. Personally I would be very worried indeed if the paddlers achieved their aim of a silent but effective take over of our rivers. We pay huge sums of money annually to fish rivers like the Avon, Test, Itchen, Nadder and Wylye while the paddlers want absolute and total right of access for nothing . . . . . . . and not to mention their activities in shallow water during spawning season that they appear to care nothing about! If the price of uninterrupted fishing on these rivers coupled with trouble-free spawning for the fish turns out to be a group of people who "hate us" then so be it. To be honest I am not at all enamored by them or their illegal antics . . . . . . Fair comment Peter-I used to fish the Hamp Avon quite a lot in the 80's and 90's and I used to visit relatives in Winchester and walk the Itchen quite a lot as well. I cannot recall seeing canoes on either river. Not once. The situation must have changed a lot since then and I had not thought of the spawning aspect. Two canoes passed me two weeks ago and they moved to the far side of the river. I exchanged a few pleasantries with them and that was it. That's my usual experience, boats as well, sometimes they even cut their engines as they pass. I appreciate this probably not the norm for some anglers however, How many anglers went out this weekend and had a problem with canoes? Most went to a commercial or their club waters which I doubt any canoes were present. The 20% say that went to a river; I doubt 1% experienced a problem if that. I just cannot see it as regular national problem. Local problems as you mentioned should be dealt with as that. If we are going to have a national campaign to restrict every canoeist freedom which is probably what it will come to, they will just be another enemy. The two canoeists I met two weeks ago will, in future slough right through my swim deliberately whilst saluting me.! I don't know, I just wonder if we are making a bigger rod for our backs sometimes.
Peter Jacobs on 17/08/2014 09:28:13
avatar
Most went to a commercial or their club waters which I doubt any canoes were present. The 20% say that went to a river; I doubt 1% experienced a problem if that. I just cannot see it as regular national problem. The problem is exactly with what you have said here. Most of our rivers here in the southern counties see little angling pressure, and many are just too expensive for most people to afford. And it is for his very reason that the paddlers feel that they can flaunt the existing laws regarding PRN with impunity. In the last 9 days I have seen, and reported to the Police paddlers on stretches of the Hampshire Avon that they have absolutely no right to be on whatsoever. If we are going to have a national campaign to restrict every canoeist freedom Therein Mark lies the crux of the problem, they simply don't have the right to freely paddle on rivers where no PRN exists, and currently they are being encouraged to paddle we here they know it is not legal by their relative associations and union. It is because of exactly this that the Angling Trust have rightly taken up the anglers cause and are prepared to fight this in the Courts to get a once and for all ruling on the matter.
thecrow on 17/08/2014 10:16:12
avatar
Constructive engagement might get a response, sniping from the sidelines from the cover of anonymity and hiding behind a keyboard won't, don't kid yourself. As Geoff pointed out, they've been working on this for a long time, these issues are not easy to resolve, they require a great deal of thought and hard work. You should be thankful that there is somebody out there prepared to take it on, on our behalf. Alternatively, keep on sniping and let the paddlers quietly take over! Stu And you sniping at my posts does nothing either, anonymity? is your user name your real name ? pots and kettles? The trust may have been working on this for a couple of year (and you knew that of coarse didn't you?) what initiated the work? couldn't have been complaints about paddlers could it? Can you show me where I have "sniped" at the trust in this thread please? or where I have said I would like to see the paddlers take over or even how my posts would have anything to do with that? Could you tell me what you have done about the canoe problem? and how you know I have done nothing?????? ---------- Post added at 11:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 ---------- I have fished all over southern England for years, I cannot remember ever having one problem with a canoeist or anyone really come to that.. Of course I read a few incidences every now and then on the websites, laws of averages and all that but, I just cannot see how this is such a big problem to worry about. That will be another group of people who will hate us eventually, the list will grow. I worry about this, the long term affects of all this belligerence. I don't like it much.[/QUOTE] Again, anglers are to bothered about what others might think of us, most of the public don't know the first thing about angling and the good it does and whats worse is they don't care. If a few paddlers the majority of whom if what I see on TSOTP is correct think less of anglers because they cant get their own way I for one couldn't give a toss.
markg on 17/08/2014 10:44:12
avatar
The problem is exactly with what you have said here. Most of our rivers here in the southern counties see little angling pressure, and many are just too expensive for most people to afford. And it is for his very reason that the paddlers feel that they can flaunt the existing laws regarding PRN with impunity. In the last 9 days I have seen, and reported to the Police paddlers on stretches of the Hampshire Avon that they have absolutely no right to be on whatsoever. Therein Mark lies the crux of the problem, they simply don't have the right to freely paddle on rivers where no PRN exists, and currently they are being encouraged to paddle we here they know it is not legal by their relative associations and union. It is because of exactly this that the Angling Trust have rightly taken up the anglers cause and are prepared to fight this in the Courts to get a once and for all ruling on the matter. You will have a more in depth knowledge of this than me. I appreciate there is a problem in some areas that needs to be dealt with. I hope its successful. I also hope it doesn't become an all out national war between canoeists/boats and anglers. My own experience for the most part has been polite and amicable (although I also appreciate that's not the case for everyone) and I wouldn't like that to change. We will just have to wait and see. ---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ---------- Again, anglers are to bothered about what others might think of us, most of the public don't know the first thing about angling and the good it does and whats worse is they don't care. If a few paddlers the majority of whom if what I see on TSOTP is correct think less of anglers because they cant get their own way I for one couldn't give a toss. I wouldn't say I overly worry about it but, over the years I have enjoyed a fairly amicable relationship with the general public. Boat users , canoe users, walkers, bird watchers farmers, and generally most people. And I think that would be a better thing to maintain if possible. I don't think it will be.
stu_the_blank on 17/08/2014 13:54:38
avatar
And you sniping at my posts does nothing either, anonymity? is your user name your real name ? pots and kettles?My name is Stuart Birrell for what it's worth. Grow up. ---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:49 ---------- The trust may have been working on this for a couple of year (and you knew that of coarse didn't you?) what initiated the work? couldn't have been complaints about paddlers could it?Yes I did. I am a riparian owner of a stretch of river. I have to deal with the problem and have been in discussions with the ATr for a while about the problems. ---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:50 ---------- Can you show me where I have "sniped" at the trust in this thread please? or where I have said I would like to see the paddlers take over or even how my posts would have anything to do with that? 'Jobs for the Boys and a snipe at every opportunity Crow, I can't believe that you're bothering to make the point, back to what you consider clever debate no doubt. You haven't but if all we've got to defend ourselves against this extension to 'Right to Roam' is people like you, we've got less than Bob Hope. ---------- Post added at 14:54 ---------- Previous post was at 14:53 ---------- Could you tell me what you have done about the canoe problem? and how you know I have done nothing?????? See above. Just a wild guess. Stu
thecrow on 17/08/2014 13:56:42
avatar
My name is Stuart Birrell for what it's worth. Grow up. ---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:49 ---------- Yes I did. I am a riparian owner of a stretch of river. I have to deal with the problem and have been in discussions with the ATr for a while about the problems. ---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:50 ---------- 'Jobs for the Boys and a snipe at every opportunity Crow, I can't believe that you're bothering to make the point, back to what you consider clever debate no doubt. You haven't but if all we've got to defend ourselves against this extension to 'Right to Roam' is people like you, we've got less than Bob Hope. ---------- Post added at 14:54 ---------- Previous post was at 14:53 ---------- See above. Just a wild guess. Stu So you have done no more than I have then, time for the ignore button I think.
binka on 17/08/2014 17:27:19
avatar
So you have done no more than I have then 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 < :)
thecrow on 17/08/2014 18:14:03
avatar
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 on 17/08/2014 19:13:20
avatar
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 on 17/08/2014 19:17:04
avatar
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 on 17/08/2014 19:23:46
avatar
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 on 17/08/2014 19:47:12
avatar
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 on 17/08/2014 21:46:22
avatar
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 on 18/08/2014 08:37:22
avatar
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 on 18/08/2014 11:27:36
avatar
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 on 18/08/2014 11:57:09
avatar
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.
markg on 18/08/2014 14:25:27
avatar
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 on 18/08/2014 16:08:42
avatar
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 on 18/08/2014 16:21:46
avatar
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 on 18/08/2014 17:08:28
avatar
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 :D no offence meant Mark.
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 18/08/2014 19:32:28
avatar
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 on 18/08/2014 20:49:25
avatar
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!
markg on 18/08/2014 21:04:40
avatar
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 on 18/08/2014 21:12:57
avatar
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 on 18/08/2014 21:19:05
avatar
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 on 18/08/2014 21:38:43
avatar
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 on 18/08/2014 21:45:55
avatar
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.
geoffmaynard on 18/08/2014 21:52:28
avatar
Riparian owners also have the right to 'quiet enjoyment' of their property in law. But this thread is about the latest ATr attack on the canoe national bodies. Even if CE and CW and BCU or whatever they call themselves these days are forced by a court to stop publishing 'paddle anywhere you like' disinformation, there's still nobody out there prepared to enforce the laws, so there are still many rungs on this ladder yet to climb.
markg on 18/08/2014 23:23:32
avatar
Firstly Mark, my points are not aimed at you but at the points raised, okay? I did not take your points as being made against me Peter, nor were mine aimed at you. I was just pointing out the different lines of arguments and the different way people will look at this. They are not even my own views most of it. I just know the way different people think. I can do that, use my thinking in a rational way without any personal view. Realistically, the more money you pay the more right you have than someone who pays less or nothing at all. I would think that and a court will probably take that view as well. But, it can be looked at another way and I was pointing that out. It all depends on the Judge, the mindset of whom the argument is made with ! I do not care what you pay, or were you fish but, you raised it as a point in your personal case against the canoe issue. As I am sure it would be a big issue in any court case if it goes that far so, it warrants discussion. My points raised are entirely impersonal and meant to be objective only..And may I say, they very rarely are anything else to anyone and whatever subject raised. ---------- Post added at 23:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ---------- Thinking on I am beginning to see another angle-I am concerned about this paying for the right to fish argument, whatever the payment/cost. Is it really an argument-Is it a lease to fish the river? It does not make anyone the owner. You do not buy the right to decide who can use the river. Its only a payment to a owner fish it, that's all. Would a court hold that view? So, over to the owner to go to court. He may well argue he does not want canoeists on his river. However, I am mindful of landowners who did not want ramblers on their land, they were breaking the trespass laws and in court they lost spectacularly. Canoeists might make the same arguments, a river is an ancient right of way. So whatever the law says at present on certain sections of rivers about canoeists were they are banned, a judge might overturn that. Could it all backfire? I don't know, not taking a side-just thinking...just thinking.. At least on sections of rivers that Peters mentions their is a standing law against canoes NOW, the only problem is to get those laws policed and enforced. Dragging it through courts could be dodgy. I am only saying Peter, you have to think of these things; look at all the angles.. I am not trying to do your brain in.
greenie62 on 19/08/2014 00:10:21
avatar
I am not trying to do your brain in. Mark - be careful - you are implying Mods have brains !!! Sorry Peter - just joking - we know the pre-frontal lobotomy :eek: is part of the induction training! ;):omg:
markg on 19/08/2014 08:30:50
avatar
I am lucky, where I fish there are hardly any anglers and few canoes and boats. everyone has time to be deferential and polite and there is not a clash. I recognize that's not the case everywhere, where there are lots of anglers and boats, interests clash and there should be a angling only or canoe only areas. It should come down on the anglers side in these areas as they have less freedom than canoes and they usually have paid money. I have just thought of some of the arguments that could be made and they will be argued more professionally and forcibly than I can if it goes through the courts, its just not as cut and dried as it first looked to me. I hope it does not become too big and a wider issue, I can see some problems if it does. I hope it all turns out in our favour. Only time will tell. Good luck with it Peter and the AT/Fish Legal.etc.
Peter Jacobs on 19/08/2014 10:27:01
avatar
Good luck with it Peter and the AT/Fish Legal.etc. Well it is the Angling Trust's fight, not mine personally as I'm just a very interested by stander in all this, and yet one who is passionate about maintaining our current rights as anglers.
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 19/08/2014 19:39:36
avatar
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. See there you go Peter, you would give in, i wouldn't, NEVER. The canoes can use the rivers, it doesn't bother me, and angling won't win, as they will just carry on as now, and rightly so, WE DONT OWN THE RIVERS I have made that clear from my first post on this matter. ---------- Post added at 20:39 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ---------- The other point being, the law doesn't have to ban angling, the land owners can do that, and many do as they don't want anglers on the land, for many different reasons. There are vast sections of rivers and lakes out of reach of angling, just as for canoeists, yet anglers still poach them. Anglers are not Angels, far from it. Canoeists have the right to use rivers just as we do, and i am happy to see more people on our rivers. Anglers only lease the fishing rights, use of the bank, you don't have a lease for the river. Peter where have I avoided the issue regarding the PRN ?? you haven't asked until now, and no one else has either. As you have now asked i will tell you. I don't give a Toss, I go fishing, I don't have anything against others using the water ways, I enjoy the Wildlife, and don't Trust the AT.. I pay for my fishing and also get free fishing on some waters as others do. If others get away without paying to use our water ways, then good on them. I would rather we all paid, but thats how things are, so get on with it, simple. Now i would be happy to see canoes on our rivers. I would be happy to see the rod licence become a water way licence, meaning everyone using rivers, lakes, etc etc has to buy one. The AT have made a rod for anglings back on this matter, maybe it's time to back the canoeists against the AT, thats something i would enjoy.
Peter Jacobs on 19/08/2014 20:15:44
avatar
I don't give a Toss, I go fishing, I don't have anything against others using the water ways, I enjoy the Wildlife, and don't Trust the AT.. . . . . and that Ray, really says it all. You have had issues with the Angling trust ever since their inception, as have I on certain issues. However, on this particular issue the law states there is no PRN on the rivers where I regularly fish; they don't belong there, they have no right to be there, and if it means going to court to establish that fact for once an for all, then; so be it! End of! As for Mark's other point it wouldn't be the anglers but the landowners and riparian owners who are standing to lose a heck of a lot of money, and they know that the paddlers won't make up those loses. So who's side do you think they will be taking? As for: "Canoeists might make the same arguments, a river is an ancient right of way" then please, please search and find Windy's legal opinion on that nonsense and you'll see, as I said earlier, the paddlers are up the proverbial creek without one! Until we see what the paddlers associations have to say on this matter there is really little else to debate, as it seems that some anglers will never be convinced.
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 19/08/2014 20:30:06
avatar
. . . . and that Ray, really says it all. You have had issues with the Angling trust ever since their inception, as have I on certain issues. However, on this particular issue the law states there is no PRN on the rivers where I regularly fish; they don't belong there, they have no right to be there, and if it means going to court to establish that fact for once an for all, then; so be it! End of! As for Mark's other point it wouldn't be the anglers but the landowners and riparian owners who are standing to lose a heck of a lot of money, and they know that the paddlers won't make up those loses. So who's side do you think they will be taking? As for: "Canoeists might make the same arguments, a river is an ancient right of way" then please, please search and find Windy's legal opinion on that nonsense and you'll see, as I said earlier, the paddlers are up the proverbial creek without one! Until we see what the paddlers associations have to say on this matter there is really little else to debate, as it seems that some anglers will never be convinced. Peter, It doesn't matter what Windy or any courts have to say on the matter. The canoeists will carry on as they are now, thats why we are on this thread. This isn't about who has right of way, lease for this and that, it's about the trout and salmon boys, and money, thats it, end of. If Trout and Salmon anglers want to pay silly money, then thats up to them. canoeists shouldn't have to pay the same for using that part of the river, your paying for the fish, they only want to paddle down the river, catching nothing. It doesn't bother me Peter if people want to paddle down a river, and i don't need to be convinced by anyone regarding this matter, as we don't own the rivers, and never will. Canoeists will carry on regardless of the law, just as i would if angling was banned on rivers and lakes i fish. Simple as that. As you know Peter, I see the AT as jobs for the boys, nothing more. The only thing they do for Angling is give it a bad name and Alienate it more and more.
markg on 20/08/2014 07:28:12
avatar
. . . . As for Mark's other point it wouldn't be the anglers but the landowners and riparian owners who are standing to lose a heck of a lot of money, and they know that the paddlers won't make up those loses. So who's side do you think they will be taking? As for: "Canoeists might make the same arguments, a river is an ancient right of way" then please, please search and find Windy's legal opinion on that nonsense and you'll see, as I said earlier, the paddlers are up the proverbial creek without one! Mark-Sorry Peter , I was going to leave this as I have said enough. However, you mistake my point-I know who's sides the land owners would be on. My point was who's side would the court be on? Attitudes change and the laws change. That's why I stated the case of ramblers. They were trespassers, end of, they were breaking the law. But, the laws changed and they won their right to ramble in court. You will hear many farmers these days talk about themselves as custodians of the land rather than owners and they allow a lot more access to their land.. The days are gone when they could get their shotguns out and blast someone off. Because attitudes change and the law often follows suit.. Whether the courts will take the same vein in this case I have no idea, but they could, especially as this line of argument is going to be put amongst others and with the prevailing changes in attitudes , will it be the same for those that own rivers! The AT may end up not just be fighting to uphold the law, but stopping it changing! The law may well be on your side as it stands now but, that's not a guarantee of a favorable outcome. They will probably rule that anglers and canoeists have to use the river alternate days,weekends or weeks. Like a divorce, who gets the baby (river) and when! I will leave you to ponder that one because I just thought of it. ! Keep you on your toes. cant have you falling asleep.
sam vimes on 20/08/2014 08:12:09
avatar
Attitudes change and the laws change. That's why I stated the case of ramblers. They were trespassers, end of, they were breaking the law. But, the laws changed and they won their right to ramble in court. You will hear many farmers these days talk about themselves as custodians of the land rather than owners and they allow a lot more access to their land.. The days are gone when they could get their shotguns out and blast someone off. Because attitudes change and the law often follows suit. I suspect, along with a large proportion of the population, you misunderstand the "right to roam" legislation. Despite popular misconception, vast tracts of normal land remains private and there is no right to roam over it. Try bimbleing through most lowland farms, where there's no public footpath (or alternative right of way), and you'll still get short shrift from Farmer Palmer. You have no right to roam whatsoever. No more than I do to walk round your back garden. Right to roam is an inappropriately named myth. In that respect it has an awful lot in common with the paddlers imagined universal navigation rights.:wh
Peter Jacobs on 20/08/2014 08:47:30
avatar
It doesn't matter what Windy or any courts have to say on the matter. The canoeists will carry on as they are now, thats why we are on this thread Oh for crying out aloud, of course it matters! And once proved in favour of the angling community then it will be enforceable against any idiot wanting to test it out. While I am here, let's put the old chestnut on the misnamed "Right to Roam" nonsense to bed as well. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) was gradually implemented from 2000 onwards to give the general public the conditional right to walk in certainareas of the English and Welsh countryside: principally downland, moorland, heathland and coastal land. It does not give anyone any rights whatsoever over most privately owned land, or rivers adjacent to said land, that does not fall into those categories! Remember too that Angling interests successfully lobbied for the exclusion of rivers in England and Wales from CROW. It is so obviously wholly inappropriate, and ludicrous for the paddlers to attempt to rely on said act in their argument against not being allowed on rivers with no PRN There are a few who have contributed here who seem to apparently have the propensity to find the most hypothetical of arguments while failing to recognise the current legal opinions.
greenie62 on 20/08/2014 08:58:00
avatar
interests successfully lobbied for the exclusion of rivers in England and Wales from CROW. I know his peck-peck-pecking can get a bit annoying at times but to pass a law against thecrow to ban him off all rivers in the two countries is a bit much! :eek:;) - he's got a licence after all! ;):rolleyes::D
thecrow on 20/08/2014 10:32:55
avatar
I know his peck-peck-pecking can get a bit annoying at times but to pass a law against thecrow to ban him off all rivers in the two countries is a bit much! :eek:;) - he's got a licence after all! ;):rolleyes::D That's what I told you lot :) who really knows??? I haven't been asked anyway and doubt I will be ;) Mind if angling were made illegal I wouldn't need one.
markg on 20/08/2014 12:29:45
avatar
The common man did not have any land rights once in the days of the land barons, along came the Magna Carta and it all changed. Since then millions of laws have been changed, Acts amended. I believe they are all stored at Kew. There is whole vaults of them. Many of them in recent times giving common people more rights , more access. People are demanding more, more rights and it will go on in this crowded land. Most of it through courts as indeed is the case here and many Laws, Acts of Parliament etc will, get changed , amended all the time. No Law is sacrosanct. A court is going to listen to both arguments in this, they will consider all the arguments. They will be forcibly put on both sides. I have hypothetically imagined some of the arguments the canoeists might make. Can anyone GUARANTEE to me that they wont take the canoeists side/arguments and decide they have a point and allow them some sort of access to the river, change whatever law exists, despite who owns it. . More access than they have now.? I just do not see this a one sided case as some have it. I think it will be won, I am just not so complacent about it. Over confidence can be a bad thing.
bennygesserit on 20/08/2014 12:34:54
avatar
Originally Posted by Ray Daywalker Clarke It doesn't matter what Windy or any courts have to say on the matter. The canoeists will carry on as they are now, thats why we are on this thread Oh for crying out aloud, of course it matters! And once proved in favour of the angling community then it will be enforceable against any idiot wanting to test it out. If Fish Legal are successful in stopping the BCU , and others , promoting a universal PRN on their web sites then that will instantly reduce the number of illegal paddlers, a lot are unwilling to break the law and are being coerced and cajoled into it by their more militant fellow forum members. As many have said this is a first step , is it real or a publicity stunt on behalf of the AT , only time will tell , it certainly seems real to me.
markg on 20/08/2014 14:12:20
avatar
I suspect, along with a large proportion of the population, you misunderstand the "right to roam" legislation. Despite popular misconception, vast tracts of normal land remains private and there is no right to roam over it. Try bimbleing through most lowland farms, where there's no public footpath (or alternative right of way), and you'll still get short shrift from Farmer Palmer. You have no right to roam whatsoever. No more than I do to walk round your back garden. Right to roam is an inappropriately named myth. In that respect it has an awful lot in common with the paddlers imagined universal navigation rights.:wh I have not misunderstood-many ramblers associations took specific land owners to court and obtained the legal right to walk through there land across specific areas, usually based on ancient forgotten pathways. The land owners lost in many cases and have to allow access and maintain these walkways. I don't know if it was the other way round, if a landowner went to court to maintain a trespass law and lost; possibly, its the same difference. I do not know anything about a freedom to roam anywhere. This case seems to center on a similar vein, landowners stopping "trespassers" using their river. I can see the similarities and I was pointing that out.
nicepix on 20/08/2014 14:12:58
avatar
My view is that this is a necessary step to show that anglers are going about this the right way and of course, if the BCU refuse to comply, they won't look good in any subsequent legal case. BUT, I suspect that the biggest problem that anglers and riparian owners face is not from BCU badged paddlers, but those who buy a play boat from Decathalon, chuck it on the river and don't give a duck about what is right and wrong. In my view the example of illegal off-road motorbikes in parks and estates is nearest to the canoeing problem. The police can solve it to a large extent. But they don't want to spend a lot of time and money on it and so just pay lip service to the issue.
thecrow on 20/08/2014 14:31:20
avatar
My view is that this is a necessary step to show that anglers are going about this the right way and of course, if the BCU refuse to comply, they won't look good in any subsequent legal case. BUT, I suspect that the biggest problem that anglers and riparian owners face is not from BCU badged paddlers, but those who buy a play boat from Decathalon, chuck it on the river and don't give a duck about what is right and wrong. In my view the example of illegal off-road motorbikes in parks and estates is nearest to the canoeing problem. The police can solve it to a large extent. But they don't want to spend a lot of time and money on it and so just pay lip service to the issue. Your analogy is spot on, those that ride off road legally i.e. race or ride at practice tracks or even green lane are not the ones that are likely to be found riding where they shouldn't be, if this gets to court and FL win the illegal paddlers will continue to be illegal paddlers and I suspect that if any are caught the punishment will be derisory, certainly not in the same category as fishing without a licence.
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 20/08/2014 19:49:31
avatar
Oh for crying out aloud, of course it matters! And once proved in favour of the angling community then it will be enforceable against any idiot wanting to test it out. While I am here, let's put the old chestnut on the misnamed "Right to Roam" nonsense to bed as well. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) was gradually implemented from 2000 onwards to give the general public the conditional right to walk in certainareas of the English and Welsh countryside: principally downland, moorland, heathland and coastal land. It does not give anyone any rights whatsoever over most privately owned land, or rivers adjacent to said land, that does not fall into those categories! Remember too that Angling interests successfully lobbied for the exclusion of rivers in England and Wales from CROW. It is so obviously wholly inappropriate, and ludicrous for the paddlers to attempt to rely on said act in their argument against not being allowed on rivers with no PRN There are a few who have contributed here who seem to apparently have the propensity to find the most hypothetical of arguments while failing to recognise the current legal opinions. Peter, It doesn't matter to those who WILL carry on, law or not, and thats what you don't seem to understand. You can quote laws or what ever you like, they WILL carry on, just as they are now. I for one don't care about paddlers canoeists etc etc. I have fished with them up and down rivers for years, and never had a problem. Current legal opinions, are just that, Opinions. I will repeat again to make it very very clear, if a law ever banned angling, I WOULD IGNORE IT AND CARRY ON FISHING, just as some PRN members will do, and rightly so, the rivers are for all. There is NO WAY to police such a law that may ban paddlers etc etc. I can see it now, 999, there's a paddler going down the river, OK we are on our way, 999, there's a hold up going on at the bank, SORRY we are after a paddler on the river. There a far more important things going on in the world, than some one having fun paddling down a river. Public right of way on all public footpaths, sign posted or not. If they are not sign posted, it's because the land owner has removed the sign as he doesn't want to comply with the law. I suppose thats OK in some peoples eyes. This isn't about paddlers, it's about the trout and salmon boys wanting to keep everything to themselves, nothing new there then.
bennygesserit on 20/08/2014 20:25:37
avatar
Peter, It doesn't matter to those who WILL carry on, law or not, and thats what you don't seem to understand. You can quote laws or what ever you like, they WILL carry on, just as they are now. I for one don't care about paddlers canoeists etc etc. I have fished with them up and down rivers for years, and never had a problem. Current legal opinions, are just that, Opinions. I will repeat again to make it very very clear, if a law ever banned angling, I WOULD IGNORE IT AND CARRY ON FISHING, just as some PRN members will do, and rightly so, the rivers are for all. There is NO WAY to police such a law that may ban paddlers etc etc. I can see it now, 999, there's a paddler going down the river, OK we are on our way, 999, there's a hold up going on at the bank, SORRY we are after a paddler on the river. There a far more important things going on in the world, than some one having fun paddling down a river. Public right of way on all public footpaths, sign posted or not. If they are not sign posted, it's because the land owner has removed the sign as he doesn't want to comply with the law. I suppose thats OK in some peoples eyes. This isn't about paddlers, it's about the trout and salmon boys wanting to keep everything to themselves, nothing new there then. How do you reconcile that with Geoff Maynard who has invested in a stretch of river , which is outside of a PRN , a dream come true for many of us , but who often cannot fish it because of large number of illegal paddlers , this is always the thing that struck me having had many debates with paddlers on SOTP. Though I admit I do have some sympathy with your views.
sam vimes on 20/08/2014 20:48:36
avatar
I have not misunderstood-many ramblers associations took specific land owners to court and obtained the legal right to walk through there land across specific areas, usually based on ancient forgotten pathways. The land owners lost in many cases and have to allow access and maintain these walkways. I don't know if it was the other way round, if a landowner went to court to maintain a trespass law and lost; possibly, its the same difference. I do not know anything about a freedom to roam anywhere. This case seems to center on a similar vein, landowners stopping "trespassers" using their river. I can see the similarities and I was pointing that out. Indeed, but any suggestion that someone has a "right to roam" over private land (farmland or not), with no public highways, byways or footpaths, is a myth. A myth that numpties will happily spout when they are caught where they shouldn't be. Farmer Palmer exists now just as much as he did before. Any differences have nothing to do with right to roam and everything to do with ways of increasing income, be it from diversification grants or having something to sell to the public directly. If there's nothing in it for them, they'll chuck you off their land just as quickly as they ever would. Snoop around farm buildings and you are likely to trigger silent alarms, be recorded on cctv and have coppers turn up in reasonably short order. Rural crime costs many farmers dearly, some have even paid with their lives. The majority that have nothing to gain from the public having access are just as unwilling to have folks trespass on their land as they ever were.
Tee-Cee on 21/08/2014 06:13:19
avatar
the crow.....Yes, but who is going to police this?? To prosecute anyone you first (obviously) have to physically catch them, don't you ? Someone sees a paddler, phones the police and thy come running....then what?..They are going to follow him downstream - I don't think so !! You say 'not in the same category as fishing without a Licence' - well how many of them are prosecuted every year from being 'caught' on the bank, as I haven't seen a EA chap for years! Okay, most anglers carry mobiles and they, if they can be bothered, could phone the police, but would they....On my stretches of narrow river most anglers tutt-tutt and look cross, BUT generally speaking they just wait until the paddlers have passed by .. Perhaps 'chalk streams' and the like, being policed by bailiffs etc would be a different matter, but on other general club waters I cannot see that many folk wanting to become involved TBH..............................might be totally wrong though!!! This is not meant to be argumentative, or to deride what you've said in any way, but more to look at the practical side of 'policing' should anglers (ATr) 'win'................. I realise many on FM are passionate about this, but the general fishing fraternity....I'm not too sure............................................ ps I don't know how many times you've phoned the law following a 'break-in' or some such, but the response times are not too swift in my area, so chasing canoeist(s) down a river.................perhaps I'm simplifying the matter ?
nicepix on 21/08/2014 07:07:46
avatar
The way that many paddlers could be caught is when they unload and load their vehicles. They have to park their vehicles near to where they can access the river and that is the obvious ambush point. Deal with them when they are coming off the river. I used similar tactics to dobby off road motorcyclists. Canoeists will be much easier to deal with as they can't simply ride home across the fields :)
Peter Jacobs on 21/08/2014 07:52:35
avatar
The way that many paddlers could be caught is when they unload and load their vehicles. They have to park their vehicles near to where they can access the river and that is the obvious ambush point. Deal with them when they are coming off the river. Absolutely. On my syndicate stretch we have confronted illegal paddlers and taken photos of their license plates. They became rather belligerent and a little aggressive until one of our team, (a Police Sergeant from Hampshire) calmed them down . . . . . . . . and moved them on! If a club are organised then having members at set distances along the bank is a simple matter, and as Nicepix says, they have to eventually get out of the water at some point to load their cars.
markg on 21/08/2014 08:01:53
avatar
I think Ray Daywalker makes a very good point. generally speaking the idea of banning canoes and policing it are a waste of time. The general law should be paddles can paddle, rivers are through fares and or there for everyone. At least I think so whatever the law is says.. I think there should be exceptions though. Known spawning areas and some of the waters Peter mentions, I can see a case for but, not all.. These are universally unique, rare and exceptional fishing stations and because of that, they should be kept so. This would make a better argument in court in my opinion and paddlers have plenty of other waters to use.. Therefore I can see there are a few exceptional cases, but not many. Generally though, paddlers have as much right to paddle as I do fish even though they can be on occasions be a nuisance. Anglers are just as often a nuisance to other water users. A national campaign to make canoeists more aware of anglers and how to treat them would be more useful. Co operation with all the canoeing clubs and organizations in this would achieve a lot more rather than a war. I would rather see the AT spend some time and money on something like this. A well advertised code of conduct maybe. Too often it seems to me, they appear to want to fight everyone, take all comers on and turning anglers into just becoming another militant pain. Will the general public have any understanding of this banning paddlers on a river? Co operation and education will achieve more in my opinion.
geoffmaynard on 21/08/2014 08:55:15
avatar
The general law should be paddles can paddle, rivers are through fares and or there for everyone. With no restrictions on the number of traffic? I'm already getting over 1000 people a month paddle through my stretch in peak periods and it's projected to double over the next 10 years. Anyone flyfishing, wading in the river between 10am and 5pm is taking his life in his hands on a Bank Holiday weekend. How does this square with a riparian owners right to 'quiet enjoyment'? You speak from a position of no experience of the real issues Mark.
thecrow on 21/08/2014 09:40:39
avatar
the crow.....Yes, but who is going to police this?? To prosecute anyone you first (obviously) have to physically catch them, don't you ? Someone sees a paddler, phones the police and thy come running....then what?..They are going to follow him downstream - I don't think so !! You say 'not in the same category as fishing without a Licence' - well how many of them are prosecuted every year from being 'caught' on the bank, as I haven't seen a EA chap for years! Okay, most anglers carry mobiles and they, if they can be bothered, could phone the police, but would they....On my stretches of narrow river most anglers tutt-tutt and look cross, BUT generally speaking they just wait until the paddlers have passed by .. Perhaps 'chalk streams' and the like, being policed by bailiffs etc would be a different matter, but on other general club waters I cannot see that many folk wanting to become involved TBH..............................might be totally wrong though!!! This is not meant to be argumentative, or to deride what you've said in any way, but more to look at the practical side of 'policing' should anglers (ATr) 'win'................. I realise many on FM are passionate about this, but the general fishing fraternity....I'm not too sure............................................ ps I don't know how many times you've phoned the law following a 'break-in' or some such, but the response times are not too swift in my area, so chasing canoeist(s) down a river.................perhaps I'm simplifying the matter ? Tee-Cee I think you have misread my post, I said that punishments if caught would not be as sever as fishing without a licence. I also asked who would police it as due to cutbacks there are less officers to do the job. I also compared paddlers being reported to other crimes and asked which would get priority. ---------- Post added at 10:40 ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 ---------- I think Ray Daywalker makes a very good point. generally speaking the idea of banning canoes and policing it are a waste of time. The general law should be paddles can paddle, rivers are through fares and or there for everyone. At least I think so whatever the law is says.. I think there should be exceptions though. Known spawning areas and some of the waters Peter mentions, I can see a case for but, not all.. These are universally unique, rare and exceptional fishing stations and because of that, they should be kept so. This would make a better argument in court in my opinion and paddlers have plenty of other waters to use.. Therefore I can see there are a few exceptional cases, but not many. Generally though, paddlers have as much right to paddle as I do fish even though they can be on occasions be a nuisance. Anglers are just as often a nuisance to other water users. A national campaign to make canoeists more aware of anglers and how to treat them would be more useful. Co operation with all the canoeing clubs and organizations in this would achieve a lot more rather than a war. I would rather see the AT spend some time and money on something like this. A well advertised code of conduct maybe. Too often it seems to me, they appear to want to fight everyone, take all comers on and turning anglers into just becoming another militant pain. Will the general public have any understanding of this banning paddlers on a river? Co operation and education will achieve more in my opinion. So other than a few exceptions anglers wouldn't need to pay for their fishing? because that's what paddlers want to do, paddle for free. All rivers are unique not just Chalk streams.
Peter Jacobs on 21/08/2014 09:42:49
avatar
Generally though, paddlers have as much right to paddle as I do fish even though they can be on occasions be a nuisance Well Mark: No They Don't, not on river without a PRN Plain and simple, a fact of life and law. Why do you persist in making these outrageous statements? The paddlers were given the option of negotiating VAA's (Voluntary Access Agreements) but their Union have told them not to enter into these. Hence the necessity of the Legal Action by the Angling trust. And the sooner the better. Each time you have posted you have received legal opinion and current law statements and yet you continue to adopt this let's all love together approach. It ain't going to happen, not in our lifetime.
markg on 21/08/2014 11:57:49
avatar
So other than a few exceptions anglers wouldn't need to pay for their fishing? because that's what paddlers want to do, paddle for free. All rivers are unique not just Chalk streams. I don't have any ideas about our license fee. I pay it, I mind a tiny bit but, if we could fish for free, I wouldn't mind. Should canoes pay a license fee? I don't see why not. But it ll gets too complicated for me. yachts, boats, swimmers, anglers where do you draw the line or should they all pay or none at all. I don't really know where I stand on that one.. All rivers are unique, some are more unique than others. Some of the most unique ones could be preserved in favor of the fisherman over the canoe.. Some chalk streams could fall into that category. I believe they are a rare commodity throughout the world and they offer some unique types of fishing. Originally Posted by markg View Post Generally though, paddlers have as much right to paddle as I do fish even though they can be on occasions be a nuisance Well Mark: No They Don't, not on river without a PRN Plain and simple, a fact of life and law. Perhaps I should have qualified that. In principle I think they do have as much right. If all things were equal, why should a angler have preference over a canoeists.? I would like it if they did but, I cannot think of a reason why it should be so. Maybe the license money does make it so but, that's not all things being equal because they don't pay for one. But generally and in principle and with all things being equal either side has as much right. In my opinion. Hope you understand that, I didn't but, it sounded good. I am not suggesting a love in, just some good initiatives that might improve the situation between canoeists and anglers in general. I think it would help a lot all round for both sides. A clear code of conduct, published and made aware of. The first code would be-1) Check you have the legal right to canoe in the river, observe and obey the law. 2)-
nicepix on 21/08/2014 12:31:08
avatar
Anglers don't have a right over canoeists where there is a PRN. The problem is when canoeists use waters where no PRN has existed. Anglers and riparian owners, plus people with riverside properties have paid whatever was necessary on the basis that no one would use the river for navigation. On that basis those people may have suffered a financial penalty because of the unlawful actions by canoeists.
bennygesserit on 21/08/2014 12:31:21
avatar
A clear code of conduct, published and made aware of. The first code would be-1) Check you have the legal right to canoe in the river, observe and obey the law. 2)- Mark you need to be clearer in what you say , especially on a forum , are you now saying that we should establish whether a universal PRN exists , certainly that's what your quote suggests to me.
markg on 21/08/2014 13:14:18
avatar
With no restrictions on the number of traffic? I'm already getting over 1000 people a month paddle through my stretch in peak periods and it's projected to double over the next 10 years. Anyone flyfishing, wading in the river between 10am and 5pm is taking his life in his hands on a Bank Holiday weekend. How does this square with a riparian owners right to 'quiet enjoyment'? You speak from a position of no experience of the real issues Mark. Its true, I do not speak from experience. The situation you describe is a symptom of this isle becoming over crowded. More and more this is going to create issues and friction, not just between anglers and canoeists. More and more the courts are going to have to sort things out. Whats the answer to your problem? I don't have the skills of a judge or the judgement. All I can say there will be areas where its just not viable that canoeists can practicably coexists through sheer numbers even if a clear code of conducted existed. A court might rule such areas should be angling or canoeing only. Or, angling or canoeing allowed on alternate days. I don't know, I am just guessing but, I don't deny there's work to be done and there's problems I have no experience of. ---------- Post added at 13:14 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ---------- Mark you need to be clearer in what you say , especially on a forum , are you now saying that we should establish whether a universal PRN exists , certainly that's what your quote suggests to me. Benny, I don't know all the laws and the in and out of this. I just got interested in the debate and I have considered both sides of the argument and offered my thoughts. Geoff's right, I don't have experience of all the situations, all the legal permutations, I just read what I read and think about it and speak whats in my mind. I am sure there are many flaws in my opinions, solutions. I am not going to be careful on a forum because its just a forum, a conversation held between anglers. If I get picked to bits, fair enough. If I make some salient points that resonate then I have contributed, if I haven't then that's just tough luck on me, I will be a chump.. I have progressed through this debate and I accept there are some good reasons in some areas where it would be wise to ban paddlers and in such areas the paddlers should be aware of the law, the reasons why and should be encouraged to obey the law. As many have pointed out, its hard to enforce any law, costly to go to court and might be a waste of time although it would seem to me that's the way its going to go. More time and money and co operation might achieve a lot more. I don't know, I just surmise. More understanding and clarity might help. Is there a canoeists bible, is their a code of conduct regarding anglers and the law enshrined in it? Ps-if any ones fed up with me and I am sure they are just ignore me, I soon go away. It does not offend me, if I make no points worth answering then I am not making a point worth answering.
nicepix on 21/08/2014 14:27:43
avatar
Mark, everyone is entitled to their opinions. But you seem to make statements that don't bear up to scrutiny - the right to roam argument for example. Also, the suggestion that the canoeing issue is down to an increase in population. They are lazy arguments, cliches even, that have no basis in fact and don't do your standing any favours.
The bad one on 21/08/2014 15:46:43
avatar
Mark you are wrong if you think only the Chalk streams are the ones that need protection. Very Wrong actually! The Spate rivers of the north are the ones that suffer most from the illegal activities of paddlers. Why? Because we have high hills and steep descents of those rivers and for them, paddlers, more challenging water because of it. Our rivers rise fast because in this Tory Wasteland we get lots of rain, they drop thankfully just as fast. A point the paddlers who come up the M6 from the south really don't give a sh*t about. They just illegally plough through regardless of who’s in the river, be that a salmon angler or a stickfloater right through the run you are fishing because at low water that’s only place they can get enough draft for the canoe to get down the river. Only yesterday when bailiffing a member was telling me he’d been wiped out both rods in the morning by two canoeists. Who then berated him for fishing in the run. And this was on a river that has no PNR and never likely too either. And you want them to access our rivers here in the north? Because sure as egg are eggs, they won't be using your slow southern ditches for their activates. As there is no "fun" or challenge in them for them. You really have no conception of the damage and hostility these people are doing or causing on the spate rivers.
on 21/08/2014 15:54:25
avatar
How do you reconcile that with Geoff Maynard who has invested in a stretch of river , which is outside of a PRN , a dream come true for many of us , but who often cannot fish it because of large number of illegal paddlers , this is always the thing that struck me having had many debates with paddlers on SOTP. Though I admit I do have some sympathy with your views. I don't follow that, "can't fish it because of a large number of paddlers", well I suppose if said paddlers decided to just mill about it might interfere with someone fishing, but I would think that generally speaking the very nature of canoeing means they are on the move, so not in one place for more than a few seconds at a time, why can't you just give 'em a wave as they pass by, then carry on fishing? Cheers, Charlie.
The bad one on 21/08/2014 16:01:57
avatar
I don't follow that, "can't fish it because of a large number of paddlers", well I suppose if said paddlers decided to just mill about it might interfere with someone fishing, but I would think that generally speaking the very nature of canoeing means they are on the move, so not in one place for more than a few seconds at a time, why can't you just give 'em a wave as they pass by, then carry on fishing? Cheers, Charlie. Prick! Yet another who has no concept! I know what I'd like to do and that ain't wave at them, it's both barrels from the 12 bore.
on 21/08/2014 16:23:34
avatar
Prick! Yet another who has no concept! I know what I'd like to do and that ain't wave at them, it's both barrels from the 12 bore. Well now, that little flair up certainly helped you get your point across.......Not! I am inclined to lean more in Ray's and Mark's direction more now than ever I was before. I really am getting the feeling that it's just a case of the wealthy who pay stupid money to fish a river, wanting to flex their muscles. I don't think we have a particular problem between anglers and canoeists down this neck of the woods, maybe that is because we are willing to share the rivers with each other without cutting up nasty with each other. I have never believed that someone can own a river, to me it's tantamount to someone claiming they own the rain, a ludicrous notion at the best of times. It always makes me laugh when people claim ownership of a river and the fish in it, simply because they stocked the river with fish at some time, to me that is like throwing twenty pound notes in the river, and watching them float away on the current. Just as stupid as claiming to own the rain. Still the wealthy have always had friends in high places, and so far the have got away with an awful lot, but as Mark has pointed out, "the times they are a changing". My own view is that we should be seeking ways of sharing the resources we have, if wealthy anglers want to pay to fish certain rivers, that's fine by me, but as far as I am concerned, all they are paying for is the fish they take away. If you think about it, all a canoeist is doing is shooting through, there one minute and gone the next, what the big deal about that? Yeah alright, so some of them are a r s e h o l e s, but angling has more than it's fair share of those doesn't it Mr Bad One?:) Share and share alike, and live and let live, that's what I think!
sam vimes on 21/08/2014 16:59:07
avatar
I wish I lived in Utopia, as some folks seem to. I'm perplexed that so many dismiss the concepts of ownership that, right or wrong, have been part and parcel of our country for countless generations. Presumeably, it's easy to be free and easy in principle and with other people's property. Do the idealists still maintain such laissez-faire when it comes to their own property? I rather doubt it. Someone wandering round their back garden isn't likely to be tolerated. Gypsies setting up on a verge just down the road aren't likely to be welcome. Why not? Share and share alike. If such principles of ownership are condemned to the history books, it will affect everyone, not just those that are deemed to be landed toffs. Seems to me that this is the essence of what this is about, misconceptions and the politics of envy. Where the idea that only "wealthy anglers" are paying to fish rivers, and take fish, comes from is quite beyond me. That might apply to some chalk streams and the main salmon/sea trout rivers, but that's a relatively small percentage of UK rivers. Most coarse anglers/clubs don't (and often can't) pay a fortune and very rarely take a fish, certainly not coarse fish. The idea that canoeists just shoot through and disappear is also an erroneous assumption. On the type of river they really want to be on, they'll happily find a feature they like, ride it, stop, turn, paddle back (or drag the canoe out and walk upstream) and do it again, and again. Woe betide the angler that's unfortunate enough to be in the section a canoeist takes a fancy to. It strikes me that quite a few have little understanding of the issues they're talking about. They've no real idea what canoeing entails and no understanding or acceptance of the concept of ownership. Idealist but, sadly, not realists. I'll happily be part of this Utopian ideal of sharing the rivers with canoeists if they either pay for the priveledge as anglers do, or rivers genuinely become free for all, including anglers. Until that time (or the time they prove a universal right of navigation in court), whilst I'm paying for my priveledges and they aren't, I'll reserve the right to be absolutely livid (though I'll probably never show it) with what are, at this point in time, illegal paddlers.
on 21/08/2014 17:20:28
avatar
I wish I lived in Utopia, as some folks seem to. I'm perplexed that so many dismiss the concepts of ownership that, right or wrong, have been part and parcel of our country for countless generations. Presumeably, it's easy to be free and easy in principle and with other people's property. Do the idealists still maintain such laissez-faire when it comes to their own property? I rather doubt it. Someone wandering round their back garden isn't likely to be tolerated. Gypsies setting up on a verge just down the road aren't likely to be welcome. Why not? Share and share alike. If such principles of ownership are condemned to the history books, it will affect everyone, not just those that are deemed to be landed toffs. Seems to me that this is the essence of what this is about, misconceptions and the politics of envy. Where the idea that only "wealthy anglers" are paying to fish rivers, and take fish, comes from is quite beyond me. That might apply to some chalk streams and the main salmon/sea trout rivers, but that's a relatively small percentage of UK rivers. Most coarse anglers/clubs don't (and often can't) pay a fortune and very rarely take a fish, certainly not coarse fish. The idea that canoeists just shoot through and disappear is also an erroneous assumption. On the type of river they really want to be on, they'll happily find a feature they like, ride it, stop, turn, paddle back (or drag the canoe out and walk upstream) and do it again, and again. Woe betide the angler that's unfortunate enough to be in the section a canoeist takes a fancy to. It strikes me that quite a few have little understanding of the issues they're talking about. They've no real idea what canoeing entails and no understanding or acceptance of the concept of ownership. Idealist but, sadly, not realists. I'll happily be part of this Utopian ideal of sharing the rivers with canoeists if they either pay for the priveledge as anglers do, or rivers genuinely become free for all, including anglers. Until that time (or the time they prove a universal right of navigation in court), whilst I'm paying for my priveledges and they aren't, I'll reserve the right to be absolutely livid (though I'll probably never show it) with what are, at this point in time, illegal paddlers. Utopia??? No not really, just that I don't recognise the problem that some of you claim exists. What I do recognise, is wealthy or comfortably off angler claiming exclusive rights, sorry but that just goes against the grain a bit. Me laddo above also decided to call me a prick because he thought I disagreed with his idea of how things should be, on top of that, he then proceeds to tell all and sundry how he would like to give canoeists both barrels of a shotgun!!!!!!! What a lot of you people don't realise is that you too have to live in the real world, and as Mark has pointed out to you, the real world is changing, and the way I have been addressed on this forum wins you no allies. I wouldn't back your cause now for any reason whatsoever, I was though willing to be convinced, but not now, and you can thank rentagob for that. You carry on though, just as you are, you will no doubt by the time you are finished give the anti brigade plenty more ammunition to fire at you. Cheers, Charlie.
sam vimes on 21/08/2014 17:45:47
avatar
Utopia??? No not really, just that I don't recognise the problem that some of you claim exists. What I do recognise, is wealthy or comfortably off angler claiming exclusive rights, sorry but that just goes against the grain a bit. Me laddo above also decided to call me a prick because he thought I disagreed with his idea of how things should be, on top of that, he then proceeds to tell all and sundry how he would like to give canoeists both barrels of a shotgun!!!!!!! What a lot of you people don't realise is that you too have to live in the real world, and as Mark has pointed out to you, the real world is changing, and the way I have been addressed on this forum wins you no allies. I wouldn't back your cause now for any reason whatsoever, I was though willing to be convinced, but not now, and you can thank rentagob for that. You carry on though, just as you are, you will no doubt by the time you are finished give the anti brigade plenty more ammunition to fire at you. Cheers, Charlie. Just because something is beyond your experience is not a valid reason to deny its existence. The idea of anyone of an opposite view to you being "wealthy or comfortably off" is absolutely laughable. I know for sure that I'm neither of those things, just a normal, run of the mill coarse angler. I'm afraid that I consider that, regardless of the imagined world changes you talk of, I do live in the real world. Yours, and others, seems to be one of ill informed fantasy and idealism. "Me laddo" may have been far too abrupt in his admonishment of you. However, he was correct in the respect that you plainly have little understanding of what you are talking about. As for giving antis ammunition, I don't think so. If that's the case, then you are loading and aiming the rifle for them. If and when the laws change or a universal PRN is proven in court, I'll happily accept paddlers, just as I do on rivers that have a current PRN. Until then, I'll continue to believe that they are law breakers that have no right to do what they do. I'm not going to go down the road of appeasing law breakers, even if it's just because they don't affect me.
dangermouse on 21/08/2014 17:49:07
avatar
Utopia??? No not really, just that I don't recognise the problem that some of you claim exists. What I do recognise, is wealthy or comfortably off angler claiming exclusive rights, sorry but that just goes against the grain a bit. I can safely say that the guys in my club who had their fishing match rudely interrupted by a number of canoes passing through their swims are fully aware of this problem. And I doubt the fact they only pay £15 a year for their fishing rights lessened their annoyance. It`s really irrelevent whether you`re paying £15 or £15,000 to fish a stretch. The point is you are paying and as such you have a right to be there and they aren`t paying and don`t have the right. I`m not against canoeists in general. I`ll happily have a chat with them or give them a wave on the canal or on a navigable section of river where they have the right to be. But I think it`s quite understandable to be annoyed when they are trespassing. I doubt you`d be happy if a bunch turned up at a club pond and commenced practising their eskimo rolls and I don`t really see the difference between doing that and with them shooting down a section of river.
Peter Jacobs on 21/08/2014 17:53:04
avatar
What a lot of you people don't realise is that you too have to live in the real world, and as Mark has pointed out to you, the real world is changing, and the way I have been addressed on this forum wins you no allies. I wouldn't back your cause now for any reason whatsoever, I was though willing to be convinced, but not now, and you can thank rentagob for that. Moderator Hat in the Off position i.e. personal comment: Okay, here is the real world as far as the southern chalk streams are concerned: the paddlers have absolutely no right to be on those rivers, as there is no PRN in existence. Fact, end of as far as the anglers are concerned. For that "real world" to change then the paddlers union and associations are going to have to go to the Courts and plead and win their case; again, real world! It seems that one sparrow makes an entire season for you then, one insult and you are 100% anti whatever that chap represents? Why not do a complete search on here and learn the facts before you make erroneous assumptions? At least then you run a good risk of being taken seriously. Has it dawned on you that many anglers on here, very experienced anglers, with an long and seriosu history in the specimen world like TBO, might just be getting fed up to the back teeth with bleeding heart liberals who come on here spouting unsupportable and incitable comments? I am still waiting for anyone on the paddlers side to tell me exactly why (under current legislation) they should be given free right to paddle on rivers where us anglers pay several thousands of pounds a year for the privilege of fishing? Now, with your apparent socialistic principles you might think that to be a complete miscarriage, joint ownership for all and sundry? The FACT again is that, of course, it is not. You cannot even walk on privately owned land unless their is a PRoW or you have the owners express and prior permission. So why do you think that even if the paddlers won their thinly weak case that riparian owners would then surrender the tens of thousands of pounds that they earn per annum by renting out beats to syndicates and angling associations? Unless of course you are waiting for a workers revolution? If so, then good luck with that, I think it has been tried many times before in the annals of our history. Moderator hat back on.
geoffmaynard on 21/08/2014 18:23:34
avatar
Just as stupid as claiming to own the rain. Charlie: Let me put this to you. If it's just rained, does that give everyone the right to come and have a party in your garden, just because the ground is wet? After all, using your logic, they are standing on the 'rain' not on your ground. If a riparian owner owns both banks of a river, he also owns the river bed, right across the river, even if the river dies up. If it's wet or if it's dry, he still owns it. The degree of wetness doesn't change anything. PS: Don't let TBOs comments offend you. He's spoken to me in much the same manner in the past. He can't help straight speaking and he's actually very rarely wrong :)
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 21/08/2014 18:56:52
avatar
I have to laugh at this, as your all missing the main point, the LAW. Now if we are to take it that PRN don't have a right of way on many rivers, then there must be a law that says they can't. If there is a Law, then why the hell are the AT taking this to court ???? It will make no difference, because the Law isn't being recognised now, is it ? It is UN-Policeable. On a part of the Ouse I fish, the Canoes are dropped off, then the car drives off and picks them up, where ever they decide to stop, just like the Hot Air Balloons do, don't tell me, the AT want to stop that also. Now the only problem the farmer has is, WITH ANGLERS, because they think they can park, as and where they like. When you tell them to move, they get all Gobby, then you tell them move or don't fish, they try and be nice, to late far to late. Anglers dont use the rivers as we used to, and like it or not, there will be less and less fishing rivers in years to come, thats the way angling and the world is changing. Anglers now want to park behind their swim, or drop their gear off. Carp Mud holes, with Pasty fish, thats what angling is becoming. As for Geoff Maynard, i do feel for him, but things are not going to change, even if the Law says so. As Geoff said, in 10 years paddlers etc are set to double, now what does that tell you ?? We can't say angling is set to double in 10 years, more like decline by 50% or more on our rivers. NO not due to Canoes, due to the fact, that many of the up and coming anglers can't be ars*d to walk, or just want to sit behind alarms. Ask some to set up a float rod, it's laughable. You can see by this threat how anglers react when someone doesn't agree with them, they call them Pricks, and threaten to shoot people, Yeh yeh heard it all before. I said before, times change, now angling has to change with it, or be lost for good in time to come. As for the Mods on this site, time you got your act together as abuse isn't part of the forum rules, or is it a matter of, thats ok, he is backing the AT on this matter. :wh:eek: what never. ---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ---------- PS: He can't help straight speaking and he's actually very rarely wrong :) Sorry Geoff, He is a Bully who doesn't like it when people are right and he is wrong, he has been banned from here before, but that shows FM rules don't work, just as the Law doesn't work against Paddlers etc etc. Too-shay
sam vimes on 21/08/2014 19:13:55
avatar
If there is a Law, then why the hell are the AT taking this to court ???? Because they are trying to force the BCU/CE/CW to desist in public incitement to break the current law. Just because the law as it stands isn't well enforced doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are umpteen laws where this is, or has been, the case.
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 21/08/2014 19:25:45
avatar
Because they are trying to force the BCU/CE/CW to desist in public incitement to break the current law. Just because the law as it stands isn't well enforced doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are umpteen laws where this is, or has been, the case. Sam, I have never said they don't exist, just they don't work, and never will, because they are simply un policeable, as we already know. Paddle down rivers, anyone you like. No different from anglers fishing when there is NO Fishing, and they do, even those who make Fishing programs and like to boost their Egos in the press.
sam vimes on 21/08/2014 19:41:57
avatar
Sam, I have never said they don't exist, just they don't work, and never will, because they are simply un policeable, as we already know. Paddle down rivers, anyone you like. No different from anglers fishing when there is NO Fishing, and they do, even those who make Fishing programs and like to boost their Egos in the press. That doesn't mean that a law should be scrapped or we should pretend they don't exist. Theft is nigh on impossible to stop, plenty get away with pinching stuff and never get caught. Should we therefore just pretend that it isn't against the law or scrap the law altogether? It may well be little different from anglers fishing where or when they aren't allowed, I won't defend, ignore or excuse that either. Just because some of our number do it, and don't get caught, is no excuse. There's a legal name for such activity, poaching. It definitely isn't the euphamistic, and bizarrely romanticised, "guesting" that some go on about. You aren't "guesting", you are poaching. Anyone doing so should be prosecuted. In the case of the big names, that have written about their "guesting" exploits in books and magazines, I'm surprised that no one has ever taken them to court for self confessed criminal activity.
on 21/08/2014 19:52:18
avatar
Well now, I have read through about 95% of this thread, and it's laughable really, some of the things that have been said to me I must be a socialist waiting for the workers revolution?? This from a moderator? Saying your moderators hat is switched off don't cut it. I have been called a prick, again by somebody that doesn't know me, and I have seen that same person say he would like to blow canoeists away with a shotgun! My observations about wealthy anglers paying big bucks to fish fashionable swims holds true I think, and I think they are the prime movers of this attack on canoeists, you have got to be wealthy or at least comfortably off to pay the perishing silly money that is asked for using some of those fashionable beats, or perhaps I should say you must be wealthy or at least comfortably off to be able to afford to do so. Oh aye, I did wonder how long it would be before somebody brought up the politics of envy, funny how they always do that when somebody points out that these people are wealthy or privileged, never mind though, all par for the course. Like Ray, I too am saying yes, the law may well try to deny navigation to canoeists and others, but it doesn't work. I Happen to think that working together to come to a common understanding and arrangement is far better than all this confrontation. That idea doesn't seem to suit a lot of the anglers on here does it, because you want it all, and you wont accept any form of compromise. Well I wish you all well with it, for myself, I will depart this thread now, before I get more abuse, for daring to have a different opinion. Cheers, Charlie.
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 21/08/2014 19:58:48
avatar
That doesn't mean that a law should be scrapped or we should pretend they don't exist. Theft is nigh on impossible to stop, plenty get away with pinching stuff and never get caught. Should we therefore just pretend that it isn't against the law or scrap the law altogether? It may well be little different from anglers fishing where or when they aren't allowed, I won't defend, ignore or excuse that either. Just because some of our number do it, and don't get caught, is no excuse. There's a legal name for such activity, poaching. It definitely isn't the euphamistic, and bizarrely romanticised, "guesting" that some go on about. You aren't "guesting", you are poaching. Anyone doing so should be prosecuted. In the case of the big names, that have written about their "guesting" exploits in books and magazines, I'm surprised that no one has ever taken them to court for self confessed criminal activity. Sam, I have never said we should pretend the Law isn't there,. Just the FACT that laws will, and are broken. In this case, the so called Law, doesn't work and isn't policeable. FACT, thats why we have the Paddlers etc etc, doing as they want. ---------- Post added at 20:58 ---------- Previous post was at 20:54 ---------- Well now, I have read through about 95% of this thread, and it's laughable really, some of the things that have been said to me I must be a socialist waiting for the workers revolution?? This from a moderator? Saying your moderators hat is switched off don't cut it. I have been called a prick, again by somebody that doesn't know me, and I have seen that same person say he would like to blow canoeists away with a shotgun! My observations about wealthy anglers paying big bucks to fish fashionable swims holds true I think, and I think they are the prime movers of this attack on canoeists, you have got to be wealthy or at least comfortably off to pay the perishing silly money that is asked for using some of those fashionable beats, or perhaps I should say you must be wealthy or at least comfortably off to be able to afford to do so. Oh aye, I did wonder how long it would be before somebody brought up the politics of envy, funny how they always do that when somebody points out that these people are wealthy or privileged, never mind though, all par for the course. Like Ray, I too am saying yes, the law may well try to deny navigation to canoeists and others, but it doesn't work. I Happen to think that working together to come to a common understanding and arrangement is far better than all this confrontation. That idea doesn't seem to suit a lot of the anglers on here does it, because you want it all, and you wont accept any form of compromise. Well I wish you all well with it, for myself, I will depart this thread now, before I get more abuse, for daring to have a different opinion. Cheers, Charlie. Charlie, DONT LET THE ***** GET TO YOU. Now see who like that :wh
on 21/08/2014 20:06:54
avatar
[QUOTE Charlie, DONT LET THE ***** GET TO YOU. Now see who like that :wh Yeah that'll do for 'em, nobody likes being called an asterisk do they!:D:wh Cheers, Charlie.
Peter Jacobs on 21/08/2014 20:19:37
avatar
Saying your moderators hat is switched off don't cut it. Well, it works fro me Charlie because it denotes a distinct separation of my personal views to those of the site management or owners. As an angler for over 55 years I believe I am entitled to a personal opinion regardless of my position as one of the 4 moderators on this site. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone having a different view to mine. What I do object to (on a personal standpoint) is when someone is either ignoring the full argument or being deliberately obtuse in order to make a point. As has been pointed out a few times, it matters not whether one pays £20, £50 or £2000 for the right to fish on a private part of the river where no PRN (that's Public Right of Navigation, Ray) exists. Whether or not a law is presently not being enforced is neither here nor there in the full analysis, so to argue otherwise is simply disingenuous in the extreme. Finally, and with regards to "working together to come to a common understanding and arrangement is far better than all this confrontation", well, again this has been tried and it has failed due to the reticence of the paddlers associations to attempt getting into VAA's. The reason being that they believe that by so doing it totally destroys their case, which in terms of logical argument I can understand.
sam vimes on 21/08/2014 20:47:52
avatar
My observations about wealthy anglers paying big bucks to fish fashionable swims holds true I think, and I think they are the prime movers of this attack on canoeists, you have got to be wealthy or at least comfortably off to pay the perishing silly money that is asked for using some of those fashionable beats, or perhaps I should say you must be wealthy or at least comfortably off to be able to afford to do so. Oh aye, I did wonder how long it would be before somebody brought up the politics of envy, funny how they always do that when somebody points out that these people are wealthy or privileged, never mind though, all par for the course. You are thinking purely of certain rivers. You certainly don't have the northern dales rivers in mind. Nothing remotely wealthy about 99% of the coarse anglers on them, nothing remotely fashionable about the swims on them. Beats and silly money aren't in evidence. There a pretty high chance of having a clear, shallow swim completely buggered by an illegal and inconsiderate paddler though. Canoeists would far rather be on this type of river than on some lowland ditch that barely flows. Don't complain that you are being painted in a certain light by folks that don't know you, then do exactly the same to them by trying, laughably, to suggest that "they" are all wealthy and priveledged. ---------- Post added at 21:47 ---------- Previous post was at 21:32 ---------- Sam, I have never said we should pretend the Law isn't there,. Just the FACT that laws will, and are broken. In this case, the so called Law, doesn't work and isn't policeable. FACT, thats why we have the Paddlers etc etc, doing as they want. No, the reason that paddlers do what they like is only partly down to a lack of enforcement. Add a dollop of wilful and quite deliberate ignorance, a good measure of legal confuscation and a further dose of incitement by governing bodies and individual activists. We may not be able to get the police to enforce the law, but we might be able to stop the governing bodies inciting the breaking of them. As I said before, just because a law is difficult to enforce and police does not mean that we should simply disregard that law. Dress it up any way you like, just because you, and others, don't think it works is irrelevant. I don't notice prostitution or drugs use being legalised. Many try to suggest that laws prohibit them should be dropped for exactly the same reasons as you cite. Ultimately your argument is one of "if you can get away with it, what's the point of the law?". That is equally applicable from murder right down to the most minor offence.
on 21/08/2014 20:53:31
avatar
You are thinking purely of certain rivers. You certainly don't have the northern dales rivers in mind. Nothing remotely wealthy about 99% of the coarse anglers on them, nothing remotely fashionable about the swims on them. Beats and silly money aren't in evidence. There a pretty high chance of having a clear, shallow swim completely buggered by an illegal and inconsiderate paddler though. Canoeists would far rather be on this type of river than on some lowland ditch that barely flows. Don't complain that you are being painted in a certain light by folks that don't know you, then do exactly the same to them by trying, laughably, to suggest that "they" are all wealthy and priveledged. Just a quicky, I don't think I said that "they" were all wealthy and privileged I was trying to suggest that the movement to stop canoeists using the rivers is like as not lead by the wealthy and privileged, because as they are the ones that are paying large sums of money to fish those fashionable and very expensive beats. Look I know as well as anybody that there are thousands of anglers out there that are just ordinary joes like me, but it also strikes me that if it's true what people are saying about river fishing, and it's in serious decline, because folk don't want to walk the bank to get to a peg that might be some yards away, or they just prefer the convenience of commercials, then it isn't these folk who are doing the moaning and groaning. To Peter Jacobs, The last thing I want to do is fall out with anybody, but I wonder as a new boy here, if I had been abusive to someone like me laddo was to me, would I have been allowed to get away with it? Don't worry yourself about it, I got a pretty thick skin really, and my making reference to his little outburst as much as I have, is just my way of rubbing his nose in it a bit..........Hey! I been called worse!:D Cheers, Charlie.
sam vimes on 21/08/2014 21:06:49
avatar
Just a quicky, I don't think I said that "they" were all wealthy and privileged I was trying to suggest that the movement to stop canoeists using the rivers is like as not lead by the wealthy and privileged, because as they are the ones that are paying large sums of money to fish those fashionable and very expensive beats. Look I know as well as anybody that there are thousands of anglers out there that are just ordinary joes like me, but it also strikes me that if it's true what people are saying about river fishing, and it's in serious decline, because folk don't want to walk the bank to get to a peg that might be some yards away, or they just prefer the convenience of commercials, then it isn't these folk who are doing the moaning and groaning. You still aren't grasping the concept. I'm one of those "ordinary joes", but I do fish rivers. I rather suspect that The Bad One is just the same. The only people I ever see on rivers are ordinary joes. I'd go as far as suggesting that most of them aren't wealthy enough to fish their local commercial as often as they do their river. The impression you have that the only people against canoeists are wealthy and priveledged is just plain wrong. However, ultimately, it shouldn't matter if those moaning are wealthy and priveledged. Laws are supposed to be followed by all, regardless of rank or status, or lack of it. Despite some people seemingly wanting it to be, this isn't some class war. Canoeists are not the anti-hunt lobby. Anglers are not the hunting gentry. That scenario was unfairly turned into a class war, strikes me that some are trying to turn canoeists v anglers the same way.
on 21/08/2014 21:19:49
avatar
You still aren't grasping the concept. I'm one of those "ordinary joes", but I do fish rivers. I rather suspect that The Bad One is just the same. The only people I ever see on rivers are ordinary joes. I'd go as far as suggesting that most of them aren't wealthy enough to fish their local commercial as often as they do their river. The impression you have that the only people against canoeists are wealthy and priveledged is just plain wrong. However, ultimately, it shouldn't matter if those moaning are wealthy and priveledged. Laws are supposed to be followed by all, regardless of rank or status, or lack of it. Despite some people seemingly wanting it to be, this isn't some class war. Canoeists are not the anti-hunt lobby. Anglers are not the hunting gentry. That scenario was unfairly turned into a class war, strikes me that some are trying to turn canoeists v anglers the same way. Sam, you are not reading what I wrote properly, I did not say that the only folk who are against the canoeists are the the wealthy and privileged, what I said was I think the campaign is driven by them. The reason I think that is because in my opinion, they have most to loose. If the current law is in fact as you believe it to be, but is unenforceable, there really seems little point in banging your collective heads against the big lump of concrete that it has become. I think it would be much better to find a way forward that works, and preferably for everyone, then you just might find that you have a workable solution, but if anglers keep doggedly refusing to compromise, then I fear that the canoeists wont be the only ones to loose out. Now good night dear Sirs, it's way past my bedtime!;) Charlie.
bennygesserit on 21/08/2014 21:23:08
avatar
You still aren't grasping the concept. I'm one of those "ordinary joes", but I do fish rivers. I rather suspect that The Bad One is just the same. The only people I ever see on rivers are ordinary joes. I'd go as far as suggesting that most of them aren't wealthy enough to fish their local commercial as often as they do their river. The impression you have that the only people against canoeists are wealthy and priveledged is just plain wrong. However, ultimately, it shouldn't matter if those moaning are wealthy and priveledged. Laws are supposed to be followed by all, regardless of rank or status, or lack of it. Despite some people seemingly wanting it to be, this isn't some class war. Canoeists are not the anti-hunt lobby. Anglers are not the hunting gentry. That scenario was unfairly turned into a class war, strikes me that some are trying to turn canoeists v anglers the same way. It certainly is a class issue when you consider who owns most of the land involved and where how the power in this country lies with the monied and priveleged, in virtually every other european country including Scotland there is a universal PRN, this fight is between paddlers and landowners. However having said that I have to completely agree with you that legally paddlers are trespassing , when paddling outside the PRN, and should be campaigning to change the law if they want a shift in the status quo. ---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ---------- Sam, you are not reading what I wrote properly, I did not say that the only folk who are against the canoeists are the the wealthy and privileged, what I said was I think the campaign is driven by them. The reason I think that is because in my opinion, they have most to loose. If the current law is in fact as you believe it to be, but is unenforceable, there really seems little point in banging your collective heads against the big lump of concrete that it has become. I think it would be much better to find a way forward that works, and preferably for everyone, then you just might find that you have a workable solution, but if anglers keep doggedly refusing to compromise, then I fear that the canoeists wont be the only ones to loose out. Now good night dear Sirs, it's way past my bedtime!;) Charlie. I don't think there is any need to compromise when the law is on your side. If the BCU stops promoting illegal activity then the number of paddlers will be reduced and perhaps VAAs will make a comeback.
sam vimes on 21/08/2014 21:42:13
avatar
It certainly is a class issue when you consider who owns most of the land involved and where how the power in this country lies with the monied and priveleged, in virtually every other european country including Scotland there is a universal PRN, this fight is between paddlers and landowners. I don't necessarily disagree. That still doesn't change the standing laws of this land and gives no one the right to disregard them. However, as I said earlier, if you really wish to go down the avenue of challenging laws on ownership that, have existed for generations, be prepared for it to fundamentally change your life as well as the large scale landowners. If someone with the means, or hereditary good fortune, can't legally own large tracts of land, you or I also can't own our meagre bit of land, or pile of ellaborately arranged bricks that stand on it. ---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:33 ---------- Sam, you are not reading what I wrote properly, I did not say that the only folk who are against the canoeists are the the wealthy and privileged, what I said was I think the campaign is driven by them. The reason I think that is because in my opinion, they have most to loose. I've little doubt that the landowners will ultimately have greater say than mere anglers. There's no doubt that they have more to lose too. However, I don't for one moment believe that they are the driving force behind the ATr campaign. Nor do I believe that the anglers that might back the ATr campaign are just the wealthy and priveledged ones.
The bad one on 22/08/2014 00:34:28
avatar
Sorry Geoff, He is a Bully who doesn't like it when people are right and he is wrong, he has been banned from here before, but that shows FM rules don't work, just as the Law doesn't work against Paddlers etc etc. Too-shay No I haven't and as Geoff say I'm always right :D And had the guy read what I wrote before his comment he wouldn't have looked and wrote like prick would he! And you calling anybody a Bully is rich to say the least!!!! I see you've not continued your contention that we don't own parts of the river after Sams comment. Now I wonder why? May be because my club's deeds say we do on many lengths of the rivers we bought them of the landowners. Funny that ain't it! Oh and Mr Smerf why on earth should we give up our exclusive rights, which has been demonstrated to you several time we have and pay for to a bunch of illegal freeloaders? Oh because you like waving at them as they pass by :omg:
nicepix on 22/08/2014 06:30:47
avatar
All this kerfuffle about canoeists might seem irrelevant to those who don't look beyond their noses. IF canoeists were not challenged the situation would become much, much worse. Before you know it every Tom, Dick and Harry would think it OK to put a dinghy on your stretch of river or lake, or maybe a jet ski or power boat if the venue was big enough to hold one. And they wouldn't care a fig about spoiling your day as long as they were having a good time. There are too many people who as Sam Vimes previously described as not having any moral responsibility and who feel that laws are for other people to observe and not necessarily them.
Peter Jacobs on 22/08/2014 07:28:31
avatar
The last thing I want to do is fall out with anybody, but I wonder as a new boy here, if I had been abusive to someone like me laddo was to me, would I have been allowed to get away with it? The moderation team here on FM have all been anglers and members for a long time. We try to facilitate the debates rather than interject too soon preferring to see how a thread develops before taking any action. If we acted on the first sign of an inappropriate comment then it would lead to a very dull and sterile forum indeed. Notwithstanding however, and if you feel aggrieved and wish to complain, then please feel free to contact the Editor directly. You can do this by going to the very top of the page, clicking on the "Contact" button and then clicking on the second button down that says "contact the Editor"
on 22/08/2014 09:46:23
avatar
The moderation team here on FM have all been anglers and members for a long time. We try to facilitate the debates rather than interject too soon preferring to see how a thread develops before taking any action. If we acted on the first sign of an inappropriate comment then it would lead to a very dull and sterile forum indeed. Notwithstanding however, and if you feel aggrieved and wish to complain, then please feel free to contact the Editor directly. You can do this by going to the very top of the page, clicking on the "Contact" button and then clicking on the second button down that says "contact the Editor" Morning! As I said in the post that you have incompletely quoted.............. "Don't worry yourself about it, I got a pretty thick skin really, and my making reference to his little outburst as much as I have, is just my way of rubbing his nose in it a bit..........Hey! I been called worse!" If you think I am being a little touchy, let me explain why, I was banned from a forum recently just for speaking my mind in a polite manner. I do feel a bit aggrieved about that, hence my question about being allowed to get away with it. Never mind though, that incident was nothing to do with you or this forum, I am hoping still that this forum is not run by dictatorial martinets as I feel that other one was.:) All the best, Charlie. ---------- Post added at 10:46 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ---------- All this kerfuffle about canoeists might seem irrelevant to those who don't look beyond their noses. IF canoeists were not challenged the situation would become much, much worse. Before you know it every Tom, Dick and Harry would think it OK to put a dinghy on your stretch of river or lake, or maybe a jet ski or power boat if the venue was big enough to hold one. And they wouldn't care a fig about spoiling your day as long as they were having a good time. There are too many people who as Sam Vimes previously described as not having any moral responsibility and who feel that laws are for other people to observe and not necessarily them. Morning me ex Old Bill, I'm sorry, but I think that is one of the most potty posts I have read on this thread so far. Did make I smile though!:D Cheers, Charlie.
markg on 22/08/2014 10:07:07
avatar
I was researching this morning to acquaint myself more with the problem. Came across "riveraccessforall.co.uk". Below is just a very small part of their campaign, there is a lot of it. I thought we should be aware of this although my standing will suffer for it (thanks Nicepix, didnt know I had one). Reading through it apparently this whole PRN business has not been tested fully in court yet. Believe me this is just a small part of what they will use:- Following Roman law, a permanently flowing non-tidal river was regarded as public property (res publicae). Thus, any member of the public who could navigate the river had the right to do so. Magna Carta (sealed by King John in 1215 and confirmed at least 44 times in the next 200 years) confirmed the public rights of navigation on "the Thames*, the Medway*, AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF ENGLAND" and ordered the removal of all obstructions. (* the Thames and the Medway had been subject to earlier charters). "By the time of Henry VI riparian owners had come to own the bed of the river but, it is submitted, those owners took their new property subject to the public right of navigation over it that had existed from time immemorial." J.H. Bates, Water and Drainage Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1990), para 13.18 Whilst it was normal for riparian landowners to be compensated for any losses arising from these Acts of Parliament (such as land for structures and disruption to other activities) none of them was awarded compensation for the loss of the right to control navigation. Again the inference is clear - riparian owners did not have the right to control navigation and therefore couldn't be compensated for the loss of it! Whilst they have some significance where there is no public right of navigation, they can play no part in extinguishing a public right of navigation which can only be by statute or exercise of statutory authority.
sam vimes on 22/08/2014 10:24:21
avatar
I was researching this morning to acquaint myself more with the problem. Came across "riveraccessforall.co.uk". Below is just a very small part of their campaign, there is a lot of it. I thought we should be aware of this although my standing will suffer for it (thanks Nicepix, didnt know I had one). Reading through it apparently this whole PRN business has not been tested fully in court yet. Believe me this is just a small part of what they will use:- Following Roman law, a permanently flowing non-tidal river was regarded as public property (res publicae). Thus, any member of the public who could navigate the river had the right to do so. Magna Carta (sealed by King John in 1215 and confirmed at least 44 times in the next 200 years) confirmed the public rights of navigation on "the Thames*, the Medway*, AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF ENGLAND" and ordered the removal of all obstructions. (* the Thames and the Medway had been subject to earlier charters). "By the time of Henry VI riparian owners had come to own the bed of the river but, it is submitted, those owners took their new property subject to the public right of navigation over it that had existed from time immemorial." J.H. Bates, Water and Drainage Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1990), para 13.18 Whilst it was normal for riparian landowners to be compensated for any losses arising from these Acts of Parliament (such as land for structures and disruption to other activities) none of them was awarded compensation for the loss of the right to control navigation. Again the inference is clear - riparian owners did not have the right to control navigation and therefore couldn't be compensated for the loss of it! Whilst they have some significance where there is no public right of navigation, they can play no part in extinguishing a public right of navigation which can only be by statute or exercise of statutory authority. Well done, you've found a canoeing propaganda site, there are a few. You're right enough in that it's the kind of stuff they'll attempt to use. They'll also lean on Caffyn rather heavily, as if it were established legal opinion rather than the thesis of a student. However, they're not exactly keen on testing their theories in court. Those that have flirted with it keep backing out before a legal conclusion is reached. Honestly, I'm sick to death of the uncertainty. So much so that I'm not that bothered which way a legal case goes. It'll be a great relief to simply have the law clarified one way or another. That way I'll know for sure that I have to smile sweetly and bite my lip or that I'm perfectly entitled to let rip at inconsiderate law breakers. BTW, relying on Roman law, that's a laugh. If that one washes then I guess slavery must be OK, it was for the Romans.
Peter Jacobs on 22/08/2014 11:00:48
avatar
I was researching this morning to acquaint myself more with the problem. Came across "riveraccessforall.co.uk". Below is just a very small part of their campaign, there is a lot of it. I thought we should be aware of this although my standing will suffer for it (thanks Nicepix, didnt know I had one). Reading through it apparently this whole PRN business has not been tested fully in court yet. Believe me this is just a small part of what they will use:- Following Roman law, a permanently flowing non-tidal river was regarded as public property (res publicae). Thus, any member of the public who could navigate the river had the right to do so. Magna Carta (sealed by King John in 1215 and confirmed at least 44 times in the next 200 years) confirmed the public rights of navigation on "the Thames*, the Medway*, AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF ENGLAND" and ordered the removal of all obstructions. (* the Thames and the Medway had been subject to earlier charters). "By the time of Henry VI riparian owners had come to own the bed of the river but, it is submitted, those owners took their new property subject to the public right of navigation over it that had existed from time immemorial." J.H. Bates, Water and Drainage Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1990), para 13.18 Whilst it was normal for riparian landowners to be compensated for any losses arising from these Acts of Parliament (such as land for structures and disruption to other activities) none of them was awarded compensation for the loss of the right to control navigation. Again the inference is clear - riparian owners did not have the right to control navigation and therefore couldn't be compensated for the loss of it! Whilst they have some significance where there is no public right of navigation, they can play no part in extinguishing a public right of navigation which can only be by statute or exercise of statutory authority. Mark, That is all well and good, except of course when it almost got to Court guess which side dropped out? The pieces that you quoted are cherry picked and exclude the obvious rebuttals that followed, but then you wouldn't expect the paddlers to highlight anything that might impair their case, like the "obstructions" being defined as anything that hinders . . . fish passage . . . . . . . Please, please do a search on here to find Windy's post of legal opinion (he was a barrister) on all of what you have reproduced here. I think you will find, as an angler, that his reasoning is not only logical and based on the Law but also a sound veiw of the likely outcome. I would do the search myself for you other than I am somewhat busy today. If any of our regular contributors has it bookmarked then please put the link up here . . . . . thanks.
on 22/08/2014 11:03:04
avatar
Well done, you've found a canoeing propaganda site, there are a few. You're right enough in that it's the kind of stuff they'll attempt to use. They'll also lean on Caffyn rather heavily, as if it were established legal opinion rather than the thesis of a student. However, they're not exactly keen on testing their theories in court. Those that have flirted with it keep backing out before a legal conclusion is reached. Honestly, I'm sick to death of the uncertainty. So much so that I'm not that bothered which way a legal case goes. It'll be a great relief to simply have the law clarified one way or another. That way I'll know for sure that I have to smile sweetly and bite my lip or that I'm perfectly entitled to let rip at inconsiderate law breakers. BTW, relying on Roman law, that's a laugh. If that one washes then I guess slavery must be OK, it was for the Romans. Well I dunno! I think if this hoo-ha ever gets into court, it might well be the entertainment of the century, as far as the protagonists are concerned:D I aint going to argue with anybody over it anymore, I have speaked me piece, and most on here have speaked theirs........ I guess we will all have to wait and see. I know one thing though, I am certainly not going to get all hot and bothered because some canoeist paddles by, mind you, they would be struggling to do it on a lot of the streams and rivers hereabouts, I reckon they would be grinding off the bottom of their canoes more than they would be paddling! I think they know that as much as we do, and the canoeists tend to use the tidal part of the Torridge more than further upstream. To be honest, I just don't see the point of getting worked up over canoeists on rivers, they are not enough of a problem to me to be worth it, what they are doing may well be illegal, but if the powers that be can't be bothered to police the situation, I am buggered if I am going to do it for them. By the way Sam, the British thought slavery was a mighty fine enterprise at one time, and many of the landowning families got very rich and fat from it.:) Have a great day everybody, I might take meself off to Torrington this afternoon, I have discovered what looks like a most excellent emporium trading under the name of River Reads.........See here...https://www.riverreads.co.uk/ Looks very interesting indeed! Cheers, Charlie.
geoffmaynard on 22/08/2014 11:09:31
avatar
All of that magna carta BS was rubbished by Windy (anyone got the link to it) and in a less verbose manner was clarified on the BBC news last year when a QC told the canoeists that they had 'misunderstood' the laws. The laws are NOT unclear. Claiming they are is just an attempt to muddy the water. All this talk of class is nonsense too (Sorry Charlie). The freeholders might be wealthy landowners but the fishing rights are generally owned by angling clubs and the like, who then become riparian owners.
Peter Jacobs on 22/08/2014 11:23:16
avatar
Magna Carta (sealed by King John in 1215 and confirmed at least 44 times in the next 200 years) confirmed the public rights of navigation on "the Thames*, the Medway*, AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF ENGLAND" and ordered the removal of all obstructions. (* the Thames and the Medway had been subject to earlier charters). Ahm, the good old Magna Carta argument: It is applicable? No; It was repealed almost immediately after signature by Papal Bull. A Papal Bull had direct effect in English law at the time, was valid and final. Various provisions and clauses which were in the Magna Carta were re-enacted and re-framed in various charters and statutes thereafter. It is more than arguable that the effect of Papal Bull was to render such re-enactments void ab initio, but in any event almost all of the clauses so re-enacted have been repealed or over ruled by subsequent and more modern (ie. circa post 1700) statutes. Anyone invoking the Magna Carta in an argument about English law is IMHO just invoking a sub-division of Godwins law and loses credibility from there on. Like Sam, I can harldly wait for this to get to the Courts to be the subject of determination Okay, this is the link to probably the best ever thread on this topic. It is some 60-odd pages long but deep within you will find Windy's assessment (and subsequent legal demolition of the paddlers case) which I would strongly suggest everyone on here reads before making further comment? [url=http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/fm-news-feature-comments/324929-benyon-rejects-canoeistsa-right-paddlea-campaign-76.html][url]http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/fm-news-feature-comments/324929-benyon-rejects-canoeistsa-right-paddlea-campaign-76.html ---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 ---------- I might take meself off to Torrington this afternoon, I have discovered what looks like a most excellent emporium trading under the name of River Reads..... If you do go I know you will receive a warm welcome from Sandy and Keith. It is a great place to spend some long time browsing and having a good old chin-wag, I've known them ever since they started and have bought some classic books from them. See if they still have that Hardy 17' Dapping Rod, it is a real beastie, I just wish I was strong enough to use it or it would be in my tackle room now! You should be in for a nice day.
sam vimes on 22/08/2014 11:26:17
avatar
Well I dunno! I think if this hoo-ha ever gets into court, it might well be the entertainment of the century, as far as the protagonists are concerned:D I aint going to argue with anybody over it anymore, I have speaked me piece, and most on here have speaked theirs........ I guess we will all have to wait and see. I know one thing though, I am certainly not going to get all hot and bothered because some canoeist paddles by, mind you, they would be struggling to do it on a lot of the streams and rivers hereabouts, I reckon they would be grinding off the bottom of their canoes more than they would be paddling! I think they know that as much as we do, and the canoeists tend to use the tidal part of the Torridge more than further upstream. To be honest, I just don't see the point of getting worked up over canoeists on rivers, they are not enough of a problem to me to be worth it, what they are doing may well be illegal, but if the powers that be can't be bothered to police the situation, I am buggered if I am going to do it for them. By the way Sam, the British thought slavery was a mighty fine enterprise at one time, and many of the landowning families got very rich and fat from it.:) Have a great day everybody, I might take meself off to Torrington this afternoon, I have discovered what looks like a most excellent emporium trading under the name of River Reads.........See here...https://www.riverreads.co.uk/ Looks very interesting indeed! Cheers, Charlie. Charlie, do me a favour, don't try giving me egg sucking granny type history lessons, they are as redundant as your English lessons would be. ;) :eek: :rolleyes: :omg: As I've said before, your perceptions are coloured entirely by your experience (or lack of) of canoes. Throw in a slight lean to the left of centre politics and, hey presto, you've got your take on the whole thing. Fish in other parts of the country and your experience of canoeists is going to be very different. Just like you, I couldn't care less about a canoeist on a tidal stretch of river. For a start, chances are they have every right to be there and, provided they don't go out of their way, they aren't going to have any effect on someone fishing. Totally different ball game on pretty much all of the mid/upper reaches of rivers north of a line drawn from Humber to Mersey. As far as my fishing is concerned, I'd not care if a canoeist passsed me on many stretches of the lower Swale. I couldn't care one jot if a canoe went right over my swim of the tidal Trent. Totally different ball game on most of the middle and upper Swale that I visit far more regularly. An illegal paddler going through your swim is very likely to ruin your day completely. That seems to be the issue that so many anglers are unable to grasp. Many seem to have absolutely no concept of the nature of these rivers or the impact that a canoeist might have on them.
nicepix on 22/08/2014 11:33:43
avatar
Markg, Don't forget the Human Rights Act. I'm sure you could argue that we are denying the canoeists human rights in your desperation to prove a point :D
on 22/08/2014 11:52:20
avatar
Charlie, do me a favour, don't try giving me egg sucking granny type history lessons, they are as redundant as your English lessons would be. ;) :eek: :rolleyes: :omg: As I've said before, your perceptions are coloured entirely by your experience (or lack of) of canoes. Throw in a slight lean to the left of centre politics and, hey presto, you've got your take on the whole thing. Fish in other parts of the country and your experience of canoeists is going to be very different. Just like you, I couldn't care less about a canoeist on a tidal stretch of river. For a start, chances are they have every right to be there and, provided they don't go out of their way, they aren't going to have any effect on someone fishing. Totally different ball game on pretty much all of the mid/upper reaches of rivers north of a line drawn from Humber to Mersey. As far as my fishing is concerned, I'd not care if a canoeist passsed me on many stretches of the lower Swale. I couldn't care one jot if a canoe went right over my swim of the tidal Trent. Totally different ball game on most of the middle and upper Swale that I visit far more regularly. An illegal paddler going through your swim is very likely to ruin your day completely. That seems to be the issue that so many anglers are unable to grasp. Many seem to have absolutely no concept of the nature of these rivers or the impact that a canoeist might have on them. Alright then I promise I wont give you anymore history lessons, I apologise for my poor english, it isn't my native language, I speaks Devonian mostly me ans!:D Youed be wrong to be thinking that I have the idea that this issue is down to some sort of class struggle thing, though I can understand why you might think that, by the things that I said, no I am/was simply pointing out that it seems to me that the main drivers of the resistance to canoes on rivers comes from the riparian owners, ie. wealthy and privileged people that stand to loose, or think they do, large sums of money. My opinions on this mater have very little to do with any sort of class struggle. Now like I said, I aint going to have anymore disagreements with folk on this one, we done all that already. Cheers, Charlie. ---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ---------- Markg, Don't forget the Human Rights Act. I'm sure you could argue that we are denying the canoeists human rights in your desperation to prove a point :D Well aren't you?:p Cheers, Charlie. ---------- Post added at 12:52 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ---------- Peter Jacobs wrote... "If you do go I know you will receive a warm welcome from Sandy and Keith. It is a great place to spend some long time browsing and having a good old chin-wag, I've known them ever since they started and have bought some classic books from them. See if they still have that Hardy 17' Dapping Rod, it is a real beastie, I just wish I was strong enough to use it or it would be in my tackle room now! You should be in for a nice day." Hi Peter, I saw that dapping rod on their website back along, it do look a bit formidable don't it!:eek: I reckon a couple of flicks of that, and I would have to have a lie down!:D I have been wanting to go have a look there for a while now, and today has just presented a window, so maybe I will get there. Sorry to everyone else for the Fred Drift.:wh Cheers, Charlie.
bennygesserit on 22/08/2014 11:52:41
avatar
I don't think he demolished the case I thought Windy gave an opinion , which would subsequently need testing legally , I agree with his view ( he is a barrister ) and certainly on one side ( the paddlers ) you appear to have a lot of amateur , barrack room lawyers and DR Caffyn who wrote and published a thesis conveniently seized upon by those who wanted to agree with him. But there certainly does not appear to be the direct , easily quotable , set of statutes that categorically and clearly disprove what the paddlers. Like I said having spent a long time knee deep in paddler propaganda I have to agree with Windy and Fish legal and the various QCs quoted on the BBC and the opinion the Civil Service gave to their minister Alun Michael (2004) recently quoted by Fish Legal in their FOI. However in that same FOI [url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-of-navigation-on-non-tidal-rivers][url]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-of-navigation-on-non-tidal-rivers the minister's aids appear to demolish Caffyn's work but the Minister advised the BCU that these rights could only be really determined in a Court of Law , of course this isn't a legally binding statement but its also not an absolutely clear refutation either. And that is what these amateur lawyers are seizing on , their answer will always be show me the law that says its illegal to paddle on rivers.
markg on 22/08/2014 14:07:27
avatar
Markg, Don't forget the Human Rights Act. I'm sure you could argue that we are denying the canoeists human rights in your desperation to prove a point :D I am not desperate to prove a point. I am taking part in a debate and looking at both sides of the argument. I am interested who would win a case of PRN. I cannot do that unless I look at both sides. In doing so I am challenging some of the arguments put forward or seeing how they will be counter challenge as they would be put. And I have progressed through and learned a lot. Historically it appears to me there once was a accepted PRN. I accept Peters point that this can be challenged in court via his link. I also accept that the At and fish legal will win their case in getting the bcu to stop publishing false information regarding PRN as it stands now. Whether that case will lead on to a bigger case regarding the whole issue of PRN and how it will turn out is still debatable. I am debating it. Pick on any points I make and disprove them or make me see they have no validity by all means. ---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ---------- A couple of questions, if a craft sails down the river and does not technically touch the river bottom or the land, is that technically trespassing. If I owned a bit of land on the non tidal Thames and the bloke opposite the same. And checking the deeds we owned the river bottom between us, And then we got together and decided to ban any craft passing, could we do so. And could we charge a toll for every craft that wanted to run through.?
Peter Jacobs on 22/08/2014 14:58:18
avatar
A couple of questions, if a craft sails down the river and does not technically touch the river bottom or the land, is that technically trespassing. Yes, you only have to be on the river regardless of being in contact with banks or bottom; but only of course on a river where a PRN does not exist. If a PRN does exist then you have the right to be there anyway. Remember also, you don't have to cause, or be seen to cause any form of damage either; your mere presence there is trespass. If I owned a bit of land on the non tidal Thames and the bloke opposite the same. And checking the deeds we owned the river bottom between us, And then we got together and decided to ban any craft passing, could we do so. And could we charge a toll for every craft that wanted to run through.? The River Thames has PRN so your question is non sequitur being logically fallacious. . . . . Excuse me for saying so Mark, but by asking these questions is is obvious that you really don't grasp the basic argument at all. So, please, go back and read the case put forward by Windy, and others, as it is most illuminating.
The bad one on 22/08/2014 15:32:11
avatar
Mark the ATr stance is if the paddlers want access to a river or "all" rivers then they should negotiate PRN and Voluntary Agreement with the riparian owners on each a river they want it on, and pay for that agreement. Such an agreement would only give them access to the land/river that a riparian owner owns not the land/river they don’t own. Unless that agreement is a universal one with all owners on that river. And yes that would mean them having 1000s of Agreement nationally but it no different than what Angling has to do is it? That offer has been on the table for many years, but they don't want it that way and more crucially don’t want to pay for that right. So they have created the smokescreen they have, citing the Roman acts, Magna Carte, Shep the bleedin dog and the bloke down the pub.
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 22/08/2014 18:49:37
avatar
No I haven't and as Geoff say I'm always right :D And had the guy read what I wrote before his comment he wouldn't have looked and wrote like prick would he! And you calling anybody a Bully is rich to say the least!!!! I see you've not continued your contention that we don't own parts of the river after Sams comment. Now I wonder why? May be because my club's deeds say we do on many lengths of the rivers we bought them of the landowners. Funny that ain't it! Oh and Mr Smerf why on earth should we give up our exclusive rights, which has been demonstrated to you several time we have and pay for to a bunch of illegal freeloaders? Oh because you like waving at them as they pass by :omg: Hahahaha, you do write some rubbish. The reason i haven't posted anything since my last post is simple, I haven't been around to see whats been said, Doh, didn't think of that did you. Law or No law, it is clear the paddlers do what they want, when they want, or are you all saying otherwise now ??? It will be very interesting to see what happens if the PRN call upon the European courts to back them, seeing they have universal rights in most of Europe, being in the EU might just give angling a kick in the nuts. As for these out of date laws, i wonder if they will hang any of the sheep Rustlers that seem to have doubled in the last couple of years ?? ---------- Post added at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ---------- No, the reason that paddlers do what they like is only partly down to a lack of enforcement. Add a dollop of wilful and quite deliberate ignorance, a good measure of legal confuscation and a further dose of incitement by governing bodies and individual activists. We may not be able to get the police to enforce the law, but we might be able to stop the governing bodies inciting the breaking of them. As I said before, just because a law is difficult to enforce and police does not mean that we should simply disregard that law. Dress it up any way you like, just because you, and others, don't think it works is irrelevant. I don't notice prostitution or drugs use being legalised. Many try to suggest that laws prohibit them should be dropped for exactly the same reasons as you cite. Ultimately your argument is one of "if you can get away with it, what's the point of the law?". That is equally applicable from murder right down to the most minor offence. Sam, Your going round and round mate, Your dressing it up, does the Law stop paddlers from paddling, NO. I haven't said anything about dropping the Law, or thats it's irrelevant, just the fact it doesn't work. So it's time to try something else. Angling is on the decline on our rivers, Big Time, so rather than fight every Tom, Dick and Harry that wants to use them, Angling needs to move with the times and work with them. All this will do is Alienate Angling even more, just what angling doesn't need. As i said before we don't own the rivers, clubs may own river banks, and have fishing rights, but thats it, they don't own the river.
peter crabtree on 22/08/2014 19:30:16
avatar
---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ---------- A couple of questions, if a craft sails down the river and does not technically touch the river bottom or the land, is that technically trespassing. If I owned a bit of land on the non tidal Thames and the bloke opposite the same. And checking the deeds we owned the river bottom between us, And then we got together and decided to ban any craft passing, could we do so. And could we charge a toll for every craft that wanted to run through.? Respectfully Mark, maybe you could, but how would you collect the toll money with the all the boat traffic on the Thames?
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 22/08/2014 19:33:52
avatar
This will carry on going round and round. Old laws or new Laws, there will always be someone who will do what they want, regardless of the law. Not saying it's right, but this is one Angling will never win. Law or Not. Subject finished. ---------- Post added at 20:33 ---------- Previous post was at 20:31 ---------- Respectfully Mark, maybe you could, but how would you collect the toll money with the all the boat traffic on the Thames? From a Canoe :) :D
geoffmaynard on 22/08/2014 20:33:58
avatar
Old laws or new Laws, there will always be someone who will do what they want, regardless of the law. Not saying it's right, but this is one Angling will never win. Law or Not. Subject finished. Disagree. All it would take is someone in authority to actually do their bloody job and enforce the existing laws.
Peter Jacobs on 22/08/2014 21:23:42
avatar
Old laws or new Laws, there will always be someone who will do what they want, regardless of the law. Not saying it's right, but this is one Angling will never win. Law or Not. Subject finished. Well Ray, it seems as if you are the one going around in ever-decreasing circles basing your argument on nothing but some erroneous thoughts about the Law, and whether it is enforced or not. It remains to be determined in a Court of Law to see if Angling will win, and to my mind everything points to the the fact that we will win. Once said determination has been made then the Police will be obliged to enforce the Law with all purpose, or face the consequences themselves, in much the same way as they are now obliged to enforce the the crime of stealing fishing rights. (being another well supported move by the Angling Trust, see: http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp?itemid=2101&itemTitle=New+Police+code+for+Theft+of+Fishing+Rights+to+make+reporting+crime+easier§ion=29§ionTitle=Angling+Trust+News) It has taken Angling a long time to get to this point so you would be wise to recognise the fact, and support the move. So, as to being "finished" then no, I am afraid it is only just really beginning . . . . . . .
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 22/08/2014 22:43:12
avatar
Disagree. All it would take is someone in authority to actually do their bloody job and enforce the existing laws. What as they are now you mean ?? Not going to happen. ---------- Post added at 23:43 ---------- Previous post was at 23:09 ---------- Well Ray, it seems as if you are the one going around in ever-decreasing circles basing your argument on nothing but some erroneous thoughts about the Law, and whether it is enforced or not. It remains to be determined in a Court of Law to see if Angling will win, and to my mind everything points to the the fact that we will win. Once said determination has been made then the Police will be obliged to enforce the Law with all purpose, or face the consequences themselves, in much the same way as they are now obliged to enforce the the crime of stealing fishing rights. (being another well supported move by the Angling Trust, see: New Police code for Theft of Fishing Rights to make reporting crime easier - The Angling Trust) It has taken Angling a long time to get to this point so you would be wise to recognise the fact, and support the move. So, as to being "finished" then no, I am afraid it is only just really beginning . . . . . . . Sorry Peter, But if you think that this going to court is going to change anything, then you underestimate those who paddle, canoe etc etc, it won't make any difference, as it hasn't already, has it. So your the ones going round and round, because win or not, they will carry on, thats what you don't seem to understand, it just doesn't matter to them. You can go on and on about Laws, and how the Police then have a duty to police it. I think you need to get real if you think the police are going to start spending time paddling after canoes. I can see them now, going down river on Jet Ski's with blue flashing lights, No they won't, i doubt they will even bother to go and even investigate, they don't have the funds or the man power, as they don't now, do they. Don't tell me, the AT are going to fund it. NO, I don't need to recognise or support the move, as I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to use the rivers, unlike yourselves. I think you all need to recognise that Angling is in decline and will be a minority sport/hobby in years to come, ( its getting there now) unlike years gone by when you had trouble getting a swim on our rivers. By fighting every Tom, Dick and Harry, Angling will become outcast of support from other Organisations that may have supported us in the past. I will come back to this, IF it gets to court and IF angling wins. You will still be saying, those bloody paddlers are still on our rivers, no matter what the out come.
The bad one on 23/08/2014 00:51:34
avatar
I see the Oracle has spoken, so that’s it guys its done and dusted because the Oracle has said so. With the perverse logic he has, no doubt he’ll make the pronouncement shortly on crime, “We can’t tackle it, so we’ll remove the outdated laws on crime, then we’ll have no crime. Job done, cutesy of Day Dreamer Clarke! Now which end of the telescope do you look through????
bennygesserit on 23/08/2014 05:47:39
avatar
What as they are now you mean ?? Not going to happen. ---------- Post added at 23:43 ---------- Previous post was at 23:09 ---------- Sorry Peter, But if you think that this going to court is going to change anything, then you underestimate those who paddle, canoe etc etc, it won't make any difference, as it hasn't already, has it. So your the ones going round and round, because win or not, they will carry on, thats what you don't seem to understand, it just doesn't matter to them. You can go on and on about Laws, and how the Police then have a duty to police it. I think you need to get real if you think the police are going to start spending time paddling after canoes. I can see them now, going down river on Jet Ski's with blue flashing lights, No they won't, i doubt they will even bother to go and even investigate, they don't have the funds or the man power, as they don't now, do they. Don't tell me, the AT are going to fund it. NO, I don't need to recognise or support the move, as I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to use the rivers, unlike yourselves. I think you all need to recognise that Angling is in decline and will be a minority sport/hobby in years to come, ( its getting there now) unlike years gone by when you had trouble getting a swim on our rivers. By fighting every Tom, Dick and Harry, Angling will become outcast of support from other Organisations that may have supported us in the past. I will come back to this, IF it gets to court and IF angling wins. You will still be saying, those bloody paddlers are still on our rivers, no matter what the out come. Certainly a common paddler complaint is "you don't see an angler for miles", but that still doesn't change what I believe the legal position to be. However having spent a lot of time on paddlers forums , because the access debate is so interesting , I regularly see paddlers who worry about illegal paddling. Especially those with kids and those in charge of organised group. So , ok at the moment , as the legality isn't clear , they are still paddling but without the endorsement of the BCU I am sure it will be different. Also the BCU receives a lot of funding ( they employ over a hundred people ) and with more and more cuts coming they are probably a target whereas the AT is self funded. ---------- Post added at 06:47 ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 ---------- I see the Oracle has spoken, so that’s it guys its done and dusted because the Oracle has said so. With the perverse logic he has, no doubt he’ll make the pronouncement shortly on crime, “We can’t tackle it, so we’ll remove the outdated laws on crime, then we’ll have no crime. Job done, cutesy of Day Dreamer Clarke! Now which end of the telescope do you look through???? Making the argument personal on a forum is pointless, have a look at Gofishing.co.uk most topics haven't been updated for over 10 days , arguments ( some of them mine ) have killed it.
nicepix on 23/08/2014 06:40:22
avatar
You are right Benny. It is the uncertainty that is largely responsible for the increase in canoeists paddling where there is no PRN. That is down to the government to sort out and they have been sitting on their hands for too long. If the paddlers had a real chance of winning I think that all those MP's private member's bills about increasing canoe access wouldn't have faltered as they all did.
Peter Jacobs on 23/08/2014 07:05:02
avatar
The BCU and other paddler's organisations have clearly taken legal advice on this matter, if they haven't then they are really adopting an Ostrich stance, and failing their membership. Legal opinion appears to be clearly on the side of Angling so I doubt very much if the paddler associations will want this to to go to the Courts. As for the erroneous argument that even if Angling wins it won't stop illegal paddling then, sorry, I totally fail to see any logic in that argument. I wonder how many of these paddlers would really like to have a conviction on their record? They won't then get a visa to the USA if they have nor will they pass the screening procedure to be certificated to work with children, so no helping out at the school footy matches or canoeing instruction for kids . . . . . As far as the BCU is concerned then I wonder how much funding they might continue to receive from Sport England given their propensity to encourage paddlers to break the law? The rationale behind the ATr's letter is to force the paddler's organisations cease and desist from encouraging their members to paddle on rivers where they have no right to be. Once the legal determination regarding PRN has been made then of course it is the as enforceable as any other law in the Country, to argue otherwise is wholly vacuous
bennygesserit on 23/08/2014 07:44:24
avatar
The BCU and other paddler's organisations have clearly taken legal advice on this matter, if they haven't then they are really adopting an Ostrich stance, and failing their membership. Legal opinion appears to be clearly on the side of Angling so I doubt very much if the paddler associations will want this to to go to the Courts. As for the erroneous argument that even if Angling wins it won't stop illegal paddling then, sorry, I totally fail to see any logic in that argument. I wonder how many of these paddlers would really like to have a conviction on their record? They won't then get a visa to the USA if they have nor will they pass the screening procedure to be certificated to work with children, so no helping out at the school footy matches or canoeing instruction for kids . . . . . As far as the BCU is concerned then I wonder how much funding they might continue to receive from Sport England given their propensity to encourage paddlers to break the law? The rationale behind the ATr's letter is to force the paddler's organisations cease and desist from encouraging their members to paddle on rivers where they have no right to be. Once the legal determination regarding PRN has been made then of course it is the as enforceable as any other law in the Country, to argue otherwise is wholly vacuous Spot on this is really where the AT seem to be going ---------- Post added at 08:44 ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 ---------- You are right Benny. It is the uncertainty that is largely responsible for the increase in canoeists paddling where there is no PRN. That is down to the government to sort out and they have been sitting on their hands for too long. If the paddlers had a real chance of winning I think that all those MP's private member's bills about increasing canoe access wouldn't have faltered as they all did. Its rather like when you are leaving a football match , there are so many people that the cars just have to wait even though they have right of way , but any hesitation on the fans part and the cars start moving again.
markg on 23/08/2014 08:08:32
avatar
The River Thames has PRN so your question is non sequitur being logically fallacious. . . . . Excuse me for saying so Mark, but by asking these questions is is obvious that you really don't grasp the basic argument at all. So, please, go back and read the case put forward by Windy, and others, as it is most illuminating. Sorry Peter, I know I am trying your patience, I will buy you a pint one day or a large brandy, you will need one before this thread has ended. I cannot read through the windy thread to find the relevant points. I have tried and I just do not have the time, its 50 pages. I posed my 2nd question wrongly, my line of thought was "IF" a owner has the navigational rights he could legally charge a toll to use the river. I imagined this could be very lucrative in some areas and I wondered why this has not been tried, at least I have never heard of it. So, I was wondering why not. Has it been tried and disallowed by a court for example some time in the past. If they did try it would there be a uproar over it. You do not have to answer, it was just thoughts running through my mind. I appreciate I have not grasped it all however, I now grasp a lot more than I did when I started and I will follow any subsequent cases with more interest and knowledge than I would have been able to. Thanks.
Peter Jacobs on 23/08/2014 08:25:18
avatar
I posed my 2nd question wrongly, my line of thought was "IF" a owner has the navigational rights he could legally charge a toll to use the river. I imagined this could be very lucrative in some areas and I wondered why this has not been tried, at least I have never heard of it. So, I was wondering why not. Has it been tried and disallowed by a court for example some time in the past. If they did try it would there be a uproar over it. Without any legal reference; I would imagine that it is not possible for an individual to place what is in effect a toll on the regular passage of craft though a navigable river It is legal however to build a crossing place and charge a toll for that, evidence the Severn Road Bridge and others, and has been since, I believe 1663. Interestingly these toll places were originally "guarded" by Turnpikers who would collect the toll for passage. These guards were often itinerant labourers employed for short terms in busy periods. Many believe that the term "Pikey" came from a shortening of the word: Turnpikers. So, as Michael Caine never actually said: Not a lot of people know that . . . . . .
on 23/08/2014 08:31:03
avatar
The BCU and other paddler's organisations have clearly taken legal advice on this matter, if they haven't then they are really adopting an Ostrich stance, and failing their membership. Legal opinion appears to be clearly on the side of Angling so I doubt very much if the paddler associations will want this to to go to the Courts. As for the erroneous argument that even if Angling wins it won't stop illegal paddling then, sorry, I totally fail to see any logic in that argument. Well it isn't stopping it now, there is no reason to believe it will stop it in the future, in fact once the paddlers realise how poorly it is policed, it may in fact exacerbate the situation I wonder how many of these paddlers would really like to have a conviction on their record? You got to catch 'em first, and like I said above, if it's poorly policed, the likelihood of catching any paddlers is a bit slim, I would also point out that any vigilante style actions on the part of anglers would be frowned on most severely by the courts. They won't then get a visa to the USA if they have nor will they pass the screening procedure to be certificated to work with children, so no helping out at the school footy matches or canoeing instruction for kids . . . . . That just isn't necessarily so, maybe you should have a read of this. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/249429/dbs-factsheet-relevant-offences.pdf You might die or start to feel ill before you get to the end, but nowhere in it does it mention being banned from working with children for having a paddling conviction As far as the BCU is concerned then I wonder how much funding they might continue to receive from Sport England given their propensity to encourage paddlers to break the law? That is a matter of pure conjecture, depends entirely on Sport Englands view of the matter, do you know what that is? The rationale behind the ATr's letter is to force the paddler's organisations cease and desist from encouraging their members to paddle on rivers where they have no right to be. All I can say is good luck with that. Once the legal determination regarding PRN has been made then of course it is the as enforceable as any other law in the Country, to argue otherwise is wholly vacuous As far as I can see it is not enforceable now, (well it is in theory, but not in any real sense), so I don't see the police suddenly forming river patrols, or anti paddling task forces to combat this heinous crime! What is it Churchill said, jaw, jaw jaw, is better than war, war, war? He said a load of other stuff too, like "We will fight them on the beaches" and so on. I know some of you think I am absolutely wrong, and that you are absolutely right, but I happen to think that this is maybe one of those situations where things are not quite as absolute as they might at first appear. I suppose I just feel very uncomfortable with the way some anglers are trying to demand that they, and no-one else should have exclusive use of our rivers. I also have a great deal of difficulty in recognising that someone can own a river, I am ok with owning the land next to the river, and I guess I am ok with a landowner preventing access to the waterside where, and only where he has a legal right to do so. The thing is, no-one can own the water that is flowing by the land owners banks, how could you possibly do so? The perishing stuff isn't in any one place long enough!:) As to owning the fish in it, that is plain ludicrous too, what you going to do, start branding them?? I think the whole shebang is just an enormous waste of time, and I think if I was a judge and you brought it into my court, I would be telling you all to bu99er off and sort it out amongst yourselves Ok look, you might think I am being a bit disingenuous, and maybe I am a bit, but I just think that spoiling your days and getting as hot under the collar as some of you do is just a waste of time and energy. Cheers all, Charlie.
thecrow on 23/08/2014 08:54:58
avatar
As far as I can see it is not enforceable now, (well it is in theory, but not in any real sense), so I don't see the police suddenly forming river patrols, or anti paddling task forces to combat this heinous crime! What is it Churchill said, jaw, jaw jaw, is better than war, war, war? He said a load of other stuff too, like "We will fight them on the beaches" and so on. I know some of you think I am absolutely wrong, and that you are absolutely right, but I happen to think that this is maybe one of those situations where things are not quite as absolute as they might at first appear. I suppose I just feel very uncomfortable with the way some anglers are trying to demand that they, and no-one else should have exclusive use of our rivers. I also have a great deal of difficulty in recognising that someone can own a river, I am ok with owning the land next to the river, and I guess I am ok with a landowner preventing access to the waterside where, and only where he has a legal right to do so. The thing is, no-one can own the water that is flowing by the land owners banks, how could you possibly do so? The perishing stuff isn't in any one place long enough!:) As to owning the fish in it, that is plain ludicrous too, what you going to do, start branding them?? I think the whole shebang is just an enormous waste of time, and I think if I was a judge and you brought it into my court, I would be telling you all to bu99er off and sort it out amongst yourselves Ok look, you might think I am being a bit disingenuous, and maybe I am a bit, but I just think that spoiling your days and getting as hot under the collar as some of you do is just a waste of time and energy. Cheers all, Charlie. Fish in a river are classed as wild, i.e. not owned by anyone as opposed to fish in a Stillwater which can be owned.
Peter Jacobs on 23/08/2014 09:11:19
avatar
I think if I was a judge and you brought it into my court, I would be telling you all to bu99er off and sort it out amongst yourselves . . then it is a good job that our Judges are challenged to make their determinations based on law and their interpretation of said law based on their long experience and education . . . . . . I think the whole shebang is just an enormous waste of time If that be the case then why has this particular topic taken up the vast majority of your contributions since joining Charlie? depends entirely on Sport Englands view of the matter, do you know what that is? Only they can know what their view will be, although it is a sensible to assume that they would not want to be associated with any organisation that continued to encourage anyone to break the law, once that law had been established that is.
sam vimes on 23/08/2014 09:41:12
avatar
Well I never, someone invoking Churchill whilst actually having an outlook closer to Chamberlain. How very strange.:omg:
on 23/08/2014 09:47:14
avatar
. . then it is a good job that our Judges are challenged to make their determinations based on law and their interpretation of said law based on their long experience and education . . . . . . If that be the case then why has this particular topic taken up the vast majority of your contributions since joining Charlie? Only they can know what their view will be, although it is a sensible to assume that they would not want to be associated with any organisation that continued to encourage anyone to break the law, once that law had been established that is. Damn it!!! There you got me!!:D I suppose I find the debate fairly enjoyable, except where folk get a bit too excited. Debate is good, and some people have made points that have changed my point of view a little, all to the good, doesn't pay to be too rigid in ones thinking. I have a lot to catch up on, after 30 years away, times have changed tremendously, as have attitudes, but this issue of canoe v angler is a sad one really I think. Here we have two groups of people that both enjoy being out in our wonderful British countryside, both enjoy being on our rivers, and both deeply interested in preserving the ecology of our rivers, but for some of each group the two groups are mortal enemies????:confused: What a carry on!:) All the best, Charlie.
Peter Jacobs on 23/08/2014 09:51:01
avatar
Well I never, someone invoking Churchill whilst actually having an outlook closer to Chamberlain. How very strange. Yes, but then isn't a forum Churchill reference really just a corollary to Godwin's Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
on 23/08/2014 09:52:43
avatar
Well I never, someone invoking Churchill whilst actually having an outlook closer to Chamberlain. How very strange.:omg: Scuse me mister man!!!! That is just your interpretation of my political outlook, and it is not particularly accurate. Now go away and wash your mouth out with soap!!!:D All the best, Charlie. PS I didn't invoke Churchill, I just quoted him, and maybe not very accurately:) ---------- Post added at 10:52 ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 ---------- Yes, but then isn't a forum Churchill reference really just a corollary to Godwin's Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? DON"T DO IT!!!!!!!!!:eek::eek:
sam vimes on 23/08/2014 09:59:23
avatar
Scuse me mister man!!!! That is just your interpretation of my political outlook, and it is not particularly accurate. Nothing to do with your political outlook, rather your stated preference of appeasing an illigitimate aggressor.
on 23/08/2014 10:32:53
avatar
Nothing to do with your political outlook, rather your stated preference of appeasing an illigitimate aggressor. My stated preference??? Illegitimate aggressor????Once again your interpretation and grossly inaccurate as well. I am not advocating appeasement, I am simply saying over and over as it turns out because some of you seem a little hard of reading, better to negotiate a meaningful peace than to go to war and even if you win just create resentment and a situation that people will ignore and no-one will police properly........ You might not like that point of view, but it is mine and I am entitled not to have it twisted in some stupid points scoring pissing contest. Cheers, Charlie.
sam vimes on 23/08/2014 10:59:44
avatar
My stated preference??? Illegitimate aggressor????Once again your interpretation and grossly inaccurate as well. I am not advocating appeasement, I am simply saying over and over as it turns out because some of you seem a little hard of reading, better to negotiate a meaningful peace than to go to war and even if you win just create resentment and a situation that people will ignore and no-one will police properly........ You might not like that point of view, but it is mine and I am entitled not to have it twisted in some stupid points scoring pissing contest. Cheers, Charlie. Illigitimate aggressor = Canoeing. Knowingly doing something illegal and refusing to accept the law as it stands. Your stated preference = You are advocating talking to canoeist to reach some kind of settlement. You are perfectly entitled to your view, as I am to mine. I see yours as rolling over to the demands of canoieng when it looks like the lagal case means we have no need to do so. Dress that any way you like, and despite it obviously riling you, it sounds like appeasement to me. Unlike you, I don't wish to see angling roll over for canoeing. I couldn't care less if they don't like us. If they follow the law of the land, I'll be less belligerent about it. Whilst they refuse to accept the law, they can ****** off. If the law is clarified or changed in their favour, so be it, I can accept that.
thecrow on 23/08/2014 11:04:55
avatar
Damn it!!! There you got me!!:D I suppose I find the debate fairly enjoyable, except where folk get a bit too excited. Debate is good, and some people have made points that have changed my point of view a little, all to the good, doesn't pay to be too rigid in ones thinking. I have a lot to catch up on, after 30 years away, times have changed tremendously, as have attitudes, but this issue of canoe v angler is a sad one really I think. Here we have two groups of people that both enjoy being out in our wonderful British countryside, both enjoy being on our rivers, and both deeply interested in preserving the ecology of our rivers, but for some of each group the two groups are mortal enemies????:confused: What a carry on!:) All the best, Charlie. Except when paddling through spawning redds, I have yet to see any paddling organisation take polluters to court. I fish a small very clear river, I pay for the privilege of doing so, there is no PRN on the parts that I fish, it can take hours of careful feeding to coax the fish out from whatever cover they are hiding under/in, all this can be ruined by one illegal paddler going through the swim in fact the whole day is ruined. Do you think that this is ok? I don't, he has no right to be there and its this type of thing that the BCU and others encourage, hardly the act of anyone that wants to get on with other river users is it? The fact is they want to do whatever they want when they want and how they want without paying for it, fact is that for paddlers there is no compromise its got to be how they want it to be.
Peter Jacobs on 23/08/2014 11:21:11
avatar
better to negotiate a meaningful peace than to go to war and even if you win just create resentment and a situation that people will ignore and no-one will police properly........ Charlie, How do you negotiate with an organisation who have repeatedly stated that they will not enter into VAA's (Voluntary Access Agreements) as they believe that they already have the right to paddle everywhere? Given their intransigent stance then the only recourse it at Law, and if it is ruled in favour of the Angling Community and the paddlers don't like it, well . . . . . . . . tough sh!t - I will not lose one iota of sleep over it. This is not the first time that this point has been made in the last few days, (that the paddlers union won't negotiate) so if anyone is "hard of reading" then old boy it would appear to be you.
The bad one on 23/08/2014 11:32:39
avatar
Making the argument personal on a forum is pointless, have a look at Gofishing.co.uk most topics haven't been updated for over 10 days , arguments ( some of them mine ) have killed it. Think you need to address that to Day Dreamer Benny he turned it personal accusing me of being once banned from this site. Reality is in the 20 years I've been using this site I have Never been banned for it. That's NEVER BEEN BANNED! So the guy lied and has not acknowledged that fact, So yes it is personal until he corrects that wrong and apologies.
on 23/08/2014 11:52:56
avatar
Illigitimate aggressor = Canoeing. Knowingly doing something illegal and refusing to accept the law as it stands. Your stated preference = You are advocating takling to canoeist to reach some kind of settlement. You are perfectly entitled to your view, as I am to mine. I see yours as rolling over to the demands of canoieng when it looks like the lagal case means we have no need to do so. Dress that any way you like, and despite it obviously riling you, it sounds like appeasement to me. Unlike you, I don't wish to see angling roll over for canoeing. I couldn't care less if they don't like us. If they follow the law of the land, I'll be less belligerent about it. Whilst they refuse to accept the law, they can ****** off. If the law is clarified or changed in their favour, so be it, I can accept that. So what you are saying then is in your view negotiation is rolling over, or weakness, well ok, there we will have to differ, as I see a negotiated settlement as likely to bring a more permanent and workable settlement to the issue. Lets take it a bit further, so you go to court, and the court decides to go with your argument, then what, you are back where you started, and the canoeists will simply carry on carrying on because then as now, there will be no-one policing the situation, and what will you have gained? sweet bu99erall............Sorry, yes you will, you will have gained a whole raft of canoeists who will feel a lot more aggressive towards you, will that make you feel good? I doubt it somehow, especially if their behaviour is even more militant than it is now. Look, here is where I am really coming from, You may not think it, but if shove comes to push, I am on the side of the anglers, I have to be, cos I aint a paddler!:D Where I disagree with you and some of the others is on how you want to go about sorting the problem. To me it seems like you just think that the law, is the law, is the law......well it may be, but sometimes it isn't enough, you see we are a nation of people that are still policed by consent, and if the canoeists don't consent, where are you? I will tell you, you will be back to where you are now, because if you are right, and the law states what you say it does, the situation then will be the same as the situation is now, completely unworkable, because no-one is going to be able to police the situation properly. Just look at the way people have reacted to the mobile phone laws, they can be fined huge amounts for using a phone whilst driving, but they still do it! Why is that? Simply because they don't think that the law is right, (I happen to think it is by the way), it's much easier to catch people using a mobile phone whilst driving than to catch canoeists paddling along some river out in the sticks. Human nature is what you are up against. Sorry if this sounds a bit ranty, I don't mean it to be. I just don't see that taking anyone to court will give you what you desire. Cheers, Charlie. ---------- Post added at 12:52 ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 ---------- Charlie, How do you negotiate with an organisation who have repeatedly stated that they will not enter into VAA's (Voluntary Access Agreements) as they believe that they already have the right to paddle everywhere? Given their intransigent stance then the only recourse it at Law, and if it is ruled in favour of the Angling Community and the paddlers don't like it, well . . . . . . . . tough sh!t - I will not lose one iota of sleep over it. This is not the first time that this point has been made in the last few days, (that the paddlers union won't negotiate) so if anyone is "hard of reading" then old boy it would appear to be you. Like I just said to Sam, even if the court rules in our favour, we will be back to where we are now, we won't be any further forward, because it will take a ruling in our favour, and a serious commitment from the powers that be to police the situation properly to make any difference. Well that's how I feel about it, only time will tell. I guess we will have to agree to disagree:) Cheers, Charlie.
Peter Jacobs on 23/08/2014 12:04:20
avatar
Like I just said to Sam, even if the court rules in our favour, we will be back to where we are now, we won't be any further forward, because it will take a ruling in our favour, and a serious commitment from the powers that be to police the situation properly to make any difference. Tell me Charlie, have you been following the development of the Theft Of fishing Rights that has been going on relatively recently? Well recently this offense has been given a Crime Code, Ref: 116/11. Accordingly anyone calling the Police to report an incident under this code has to result in the Police following it up. The exact same thing will result after the Courts rule on the PRN Case. A Crime code will be issued and from then onwards the Police are obliged to act. They cannot prevaricate or decide that it is too petty to investigate. New Code for Theft of Fishing Rights: 116/11 - Quote this code when reporting incidents of Fishing Without Permission to the Police - The Angling Trust This is what the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had to say on the matter: Gerry Wareham, the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor, recently acknowledged the error, apologised, and instructed all CPS lawyers to proceed with such cases - and if in doubt liaise with Andrew Vaughan, the Lead Prosecutor. This really is a major step forward. So, you see we will be much further forward once this determination has been made, so why on earth would we (Anglers) want to stop now?
nicepix on 23/08/2014 12:24:38
avatar
My own opinion is that the police are presently reluctant to deal with these matters for a number of reasons, one being the uncertainty of the law as it stands. Until someone can come up with the Act & Section police officers will not be able to take one side or the other. That is where the clarity is needed.
on 23/08/2014 13:29:27
avatar
Tell me Charlie, have you been following the development of the Theft Of fishing Rights that has been going on relatively recently? Well recently this offense has been given a Crime Code, Ref: 116/11. Accordingly anyone calling the Police to report an incident under this code has to result in the Police following it up. The exact same thing will result after the Courts rule on the PRN Case. A Crime code will be issued and from then onwards the Police are obliged to act. They cannot prevaricate or decide that it is too petty to investigate. New Code for Theft of Fishing Rights: 116/11 - Quote this code when reporting incidents of Fishing Without Permission to the Police - The Angling Trust This is what the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had to say on the matter: Gerry Wareham, the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor, recently acknowledged the error, apologised, and instructed all CPS lawyers to proceed with such cases - and if in doubt liaise with Andrew Vaughan, the Lead Prosecutor. This really is a major step forward. So, you see we will be much further forward once this determination has been made, so why on earth would we (Anglers) want to stop now? Yes I was reading about the 116/11 coding the other day, I'll just say this, if you can get a code for paddling without permission and you can get the police to act on it, assuming they have the man power to act on it, because it will get prioritised, and it wont get shoved up ahead of a burglary or any other more serious crime. Then yes, you will have made progress of a sort, but you may also make a rod to beat our backs with. Someone brought up the issue of public support the other day, I do wonder who the public will feel an affinity with, anglers or paddlers? Some on here may not think it matters, but I do. No sorry, I cannot support the notion of court action over negotiating with folk, even if they give the impression they don't want to talk. So like I said previously, we will just have to agree to disagree.:) Cheers, Charlie
thecrow on 23/08/2014 13:51:10
avatar
Yes I was reading about the 116/11 coding the other day, I'll just say this, if you can get a code for paddling without permission and you can get the police to act on it, assuming they have the man power to act on it, because it will get prioritised, and it wont get shoved up ahead of a burglary or any other more serious crime. Then yes, you will have made progress of a sort, but you may also make a rod to beat our backs with. Someone brought up the issue of public support the other day, I do wonder who the public will feel an affinity with, anglers or paddlers? Some on here may not think it matters, but I do. No sorry, I cannot support the notion of court action over negotiating with folk, even if they give the impression they don't want to talk. So like I said previously, we will just have to agree to disagree.:) Cheers, Charlie Its not an impression that they give its a fact that they refuse to negotiate any VAA's, so how do anglers negotiate with someone that thinks they are in the right now and refuse any negotiation?
bennygesserit on 23/08/2014 14:12:24
avatar
Think you need to address that to Day Dreamer Benny he turned it personal accusing me of being once banned from this site. Reality is in the 20 years I've been using this site I have Never been banned for it. That's NEVER BEEN BANNED! So the guy lied and has not acknowledged that fact, So yes it is personal until he corrects that wrong and apologies. Aah I was wrong, my apologies. ---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:09 ---------- My own opinion is that the police are presently reluctant to deal with these matters for a number of reasons, one being the uncertainty of the law as it stands. Until someone can come up with the Act & Section police officers will not be able to take one side or the other. That is where the clarity is needed. its trespass isn't it , if the law is not clear then what you have just said to paddlers is that they have every right to be on our rivers as the law isn't clear.
nicepix on 23/08/2014 14:42:43
avatar
Aah I was wrong, my apologies. ---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:09 ---------- its trespass isn't it , if the law is not clear then what you have just said to paddlers is that they have every right to be on our rivers as the law isn't clear. No. They have no right to be on rivers without a PRN in my opinion. However, until the government get around to clarifying this and suggesting appropriate penalties as they have done with other similar offences, the police will find it difficult to get a prosecution through CPS and their 'in the public interest' filter. Again, in my opinion, this matter has been left festering and historically there has been no need to clarify the law until relatively recently. When I started back in 1987 we could arrest anybody for anything under the old 1361 Breach of the Peace Act and put them straight before the next Magistrate's Court. Because that law started to get mis-used it was removed from the statute book. The PRN is another ancient law that needs reviewing and amending.
on 23/08/2014 14:46:52
avatar
Its not an impression that they give its a fact that they refuse to negotiate any VAA's, so how do anglers negotiate with someone that thinks they are in the right now and refuse any negotiation? The Crow said..... "so how do ******* negotiate with someone that thinks they are in the right now and refuse any negotiation?" Seems to be some of that on both sides doesn't there? On the one hand we seem to have anglers on here at least that are saying we want exclusive use of all the rivers, unless a R of N can be proven to exist, and the paddlers are saying no we can't have that, we want to use the rivers as well. Seriously chap, I think it's all come to a sorry pass really, and there is belligerence on both sides. So no I certainly don't have any answers, but then why would I, 30 years is a long time to be away from something, and I had not a clue that all this was going on, and to be honest, it just saddens me a bit, so does being called names because I don't have the same opinion as some others on here, not enough to chuck me toys out me pram, but saddens me a bit none the less. It seems to me that this problem may have a regional aspect to it? What I mean is, that some areas are getting more of a problem than others? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that there is more of a problem in areas where there is a fair bit of white water, and faster moving water? I don't think it has any real bearing on the matter, other than for the anglers that feel aggrieved by it, but we certainly don't seem to have much of a problem down this way. I suppose that could be because in Devon and Cornwall we have a lot of estuarine waters where canoeing can take place without harm or hindrance to anyone? It's obvious that a lot of you feel very strongly about this issue, I'm afraid you will have to forgive me if I don't feel the same. Cheers, Charlie.
Peter Jacobs on 23/08/2014 16:03:06
avatar
It seems to me that this problem may have a regional aspect to it? As far as the paddlers are concerned Charlie there is no regionalism about it, they want it all! They want to paddle white water as well as the dreamy slow-moving waters of the Chalk streams regardless of the spawning redds that they will devastate as they go. It's obvious that a lot of you feel very strongly about this issue, I'm afraid you will have to forgive me if I don't feel the same. I don't have a problem with anyone who has a different view to mine, it may be galling to me but I'd still fight to defend your right to your view. The alternative I guess would be found in Matthew 12-30 . . . . . . . or for the atheist in the words of Gaston, in The Beauty and The Beast . . . . . right?
thecrow on 23/08/2014 17:22:24
avatar
The Crow said..... "so how do ******* negotiate with someone that thinks they are in the right now and refuse any negotiation?" Seems to be some of that on both sides doesn't there? On the one hand we seem to have anglers on here at least that are saying we want exclusive use of all the rivers, unless a R of N can be proven to exist, and the paddlers are saying no we can't have that, we want to use the rivers as well. Seriously chap, I think it's all come to a sorry pass really, and there is belligerence on both sides. So no I certainly don't have any answers, but then why would I, 30 years is a long time to be away from something, and I had not a clue that all this was going on, and to be honest, it just saddens me a bit, so does being called names because I don't have the same opinion as some others on here, not enough to chuck me toys out me pram, but saddens me a bit none the less. It seems to me that this problem may have a regional aspect to it? What I mean is, that some areas are getting more of a problem than others? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that there is more of a problem in areas where there is a fair bit of white water, and faster moving water? I don't think it has any real bearing on the matter, other than for the anglers that feel aggrieved by it, but we certainly don't seem to have much of a problem down this way. I suppose that could be because in Devon and Cornwall we have a lot of estuarine waters where canoeing can take place without harm or hindrance to anyone? It's obvious that a lot of you feel very strongly about this issue, I'm afraid you will have to forgive me if I don't feel the same. Cheers, Charlie. Not feeling the same as other anglers is your choice, what I am not happy about is you misquoting my post and changing where I posted the word anglers for a line of asterisks which intimate a word that is not allowed through the swear filter, I have no idea why you would choose to do that. No I don't believe that this problem has a regional aspect to it as the paddlers on your rivers could quiet easily move to other rivers where no PRN exists. No there isn't a lack of negotiation on the anglers side, some local VAA are in operation, its the BCU and others that will not negotiate and continue to promote paddling where there is no PRN or VAA, your statement that "you don't seem to have much of a problem down here" smacks of I'm alright Jack pull the ladder up.
on 23/08/2014 17:43:56
avatar
Not feeling the same as other anglers is your choice, what I am not happy about is you misquoting my post and changing where I posted the word anglers for a line of asterisks which intimate a word that is not allowed through the swear filter, I have no idea why you would choose to do that. No I don't believe that this problem has a regional aspect to it as the paddlers on your rivers could quiet easily move to other rivers where no PRN exists. No there isn't a lack of negotiation on the anglers side, some local VAA are in operation, its the BCU and others that will not negotiate and continue to promote paddling where there is no PRN or VAA, your statement that "you don't seem to have much of a problem down here" smacks of I'm alright Jack pull the ladder up. Apologies, all I meant by putting the line of asterisks was put any word you like there, in other words it could be anglers or paddlers, anyway, sorry if I gave you offence, it wasn't intended. What I meant by we don't seem to have a problem down here was just that, to the best of my knowledge we don't. I am not saying I'm alright jack, and I am certainly not pulling up any ladders, and as I have already said, if shove comes to push I am on the anglers side, and I may not agree with what some are saying but like PJ says, I would absolutely defend your right to say it, and I can understand how if you are having your fishing ruined by inconsiderate people why you would feel like you do. Seeing as PJ mentioned it, I am not doing a Mathew 12-30. I am not your enemy, I just don't think that going to court is the best way of getting over this issue. By the way the regional aspect I was talking about is that someone on this thread mentioned earlier that they thought it was the faster and rockier waters that are more attractive to paddlers, that was all I was alluding to. I am sorry if my opinion is not currying any favour amongst a lot of you, but there it is, I can't win 'em all.:) You must do what you think fit I suppose, I wish you all success, but if when we anglers have had our day in court, I hope that all those that wanted it, don't have cause to regret it. On a lighter note, to PJ, I didn't get to River Reads, management decided she needed to be somewhere else, but I am hoping to get there one day next week. Cheers all, Charlie.
The bad one on 24/08/2014 01:40:28
avatar
By the way the regional aspect I was talking about is that someone on this thread mentioned earlier that they thought it was the faster and rockier waters that are more attractive to paddlers, that was all I was alluding to. Cheers all, Charlie. That someone was me, as think you knew very well, and yes there is a regionalism to it the NW NE has all the white water in England as anybody with a cursory knowledge of Geography would now. It no coincidence that blue ribbon events of canoeing are the white water events. It what most paddlers aspire to, so they seek such water out on the NW/NE rivers to be the wannabes as seen on the telly. Funnily enough it's bank holiday weekend and today I fished a river where the M6 crosses it. In the 6 or so hours I was there, I counted 37 cars and vans with trailers carrying canoes. No doubt heading for other rivers in Lancashire and Cumbria to illegally paddle on because I can assure you they don't have any PNR or VAA on any of them. And yes we did had some rain in the region yesterday and last night but by the time they will have got to where they were going that water will be long gone through when they reached their destination and the rivers will be back to NSL. I really feel sorry and bloody angry for the guys fishing those rivers this weekend, know what is more than likely heading their way all weekend. And you think we should negotiate with these people to increase the ruin still further of our fishing rights in these regions. And you wonder why I described you as thous! :omg: My pram by the way is full of toys and I haven't thrown anything anywhere! But blatant liars are a different matter entirely.
markg on 24/08/2014 07:19:55
avatar
Not everyone will be aware of all the problems with canoes because of where they fish and taking a opposite view or looking at other ways of dealing with the problem shouldn't be a bad thing. What do you want, everyone to agree, afraid to differ in case they don't make friends or get bullied. Anyone p can do that and you would have some very boring debates. Actually, you wouldn't have any debate at all. Play the ball not the man. Charlie has some, balls that is. Credit where credits due. Just a question, why cant I string some old river punts across each end of my beat on a weekend, sit a old age pensioner each end, charge £20 for a canoe too pass, OAP keeps half. Or even just stop any traffic passing at all. Assuming I have the navigation rights of course. I cannot see it would be illegal, I could charge someone to walk through my garden ! The word would soon go round the paddlers and they would keep away. Or is that not possible?
nicepix on 24/08/2014 07:57:11
avatar
Markg, If you can't be bothered to read what has gone before how can you expect to debate this subject? Every point that you have made has already been covered. As for Charley; he's a wind up merchant - pure and simple. He's arguing both ends against the middle just for arguments sake.
markg on 24/08/2014 09:46:11
avatar
Markg, If you can't be bothered to read what has gone before how can you expect to debate this subject? Every point that you have made has already been covered. As for Charley; he's a wind up merchant - pure and simple. He's arguing both ends against the middle just for arguments sake. Okay, bear with me-I have not read every bit of this thread. Some mornings there has been a lot of it and I have skipped some it. I tend to read the first paragraph and move on if it does not seem relevant to me. A lot of the political or personal stuff for example. Indeed I have even missed a couple of mornings and there's even more to get through. I have the same problem with Windy's thread where I expect this has been covered as well, if it had a index, I could find the relevant bit quickly but, that's not possible. So its possible I have missed the answer to my question. Plus I am thick, its a pain I appreciate but, sometimes I have to have things explained to me more than once, I just ask forbearance and patience. I am pretty much done with this thread, in fact, I am pretty sure this is my last question and I am just still curious about the question. I did touch on it myself but, I am still not clear on it. I just don't understand, if I own the land I can put a fence round it and keep people out, or if I fancy charge people to walk through it. I am failing to understand why I cannot in effect do the same if I own the river as well. It seems a possible solution to me that could be effected in some cases. I get that you would not be allowed to restrict the flow of a river but, you wouldn't be or you could keep the barrier open and just close it just when you wanted to stop someone passing. As to Charlie, I have no idea if he as just winding people up, possibly, who knows-if not, he has not done the easy thing and just backed down. he is a new member I believe so, I will give him the benefit of doubt. And playing the ball not the man frequently is a better thing to do in my experience; regardless.
on 24/08/2014 09:52:46
avatar
Markg, If you can't be bothered to read what has gone before how can you expect to debate this subject? Every point that you have made has already been covered. As for Charley; he's a wind up merchant - pure and simple. He's arguing both ends against the middle just for arguments sake. Well don't worry about it old chap, I won't be bothering you anymore on this subject. I'll tell you this though, after 30 years away from angling, coming back to it as I nearly have, has been quite a culture shock. Some of the attitudes that have been displayed on this thread and on others if I am honest, have left me with a slight feeling of revulsion, I just don't recognise them as being the attitudes a decent angler would have had back in the day. Personally, I think some of you would eat your own children. Cheerio, Charlie.
sam vimes on 24/08/2014 10:11:44
avatar
I just don't understand, if I own the land I can put a fence round it and keep people out, or if I fancy charge people to walk through it. I am failing to understand why I cannot in effect do the same if I own the river as well. It seems a possible solution to me that could be effected in some cases. I get that you would not be allowed to restrict the flow of a river but, you wouldn't be or you could keep the barrier open and just close it just when you wanted to stop someone passing. It would be an impressive barrier that was low enough to stop a canoeist passing in summer levels, yet miraculously didn't impede the flow of the river at winter levels or in flood. The structure would also have to be pretty substantial to withstand floods and the debris they bring. Such a large structure is likely to need planning permission too. What chance do you think there is of actually getting that planning permission? I'm sure canoe transits could be blocked, but I doubt that any method of doing it would be strictly legal, one way or another. I'm getting the distinct impression, from this thread and many others, that some people have no comprehension whatsoever about the nature and vaguaries of rivers that rise in real upland areas, such as the Pennines.
chub_on_the_block on 24/08/2014 10:37:20
avatar
Theres a lot of conflicting uses of rivers by society. I am with Benny in the sense that so far as "society" is concerned angling may not be a more legitimate or desirable pursuit than say, canoeing. Society may even dictate that it wants to use rivers in the cheapest way possible to dispose of sewage or floodwater and that these uses are paramount - there is the view out there that an entirely artificial floodplain with much needed housing and a concrete flood channel that is fenced off on health and safety grounds is actually the way to go. In that context canoeists and anglers could be on the same side. In my view access agreements should be determined on a case by case basis - some rivers are more suitable for angling and canoeing to co-exist. Where they cannot, angling should take precedence if it is the established use and has paid for the privelige. ---------- Post added at 11:37 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ---------- It would be an impressive barrier that was low enough to stop a canoeist passing in summer levels, yet miraculously didn't impede the flow of the river at winter levels or in flood. The structure would also have to be pretty substantial to withstand floods and the debris they bring. On little chalk streams i have seen barbed wire fencing cross the river channel to stop sheep/cows wandering off from their chosen field. Bridges, overhanging trees and shallows can form impassable obstructions to canoeists on smaller rivers - eg the upper Cam in my neck of the woods. If the channel is impassable, and a route around on the bank is too onerous, then the barrier is effective to all but the most determined.
sam vimes on 24/08/2014 11:07:14
avatar
Theres a lot of conflicting uses of rivers by society. I am with Benny in the sense that so far as "society" is concerned angling may not be a more legitimate or desirable pursuit than say, canoeing. Society may even dictate that it wants to use rivers in the cheapest way possible to dispose of sewage or floodwater and that these uses are paramount - there is the view out there that an entirely artificial floodplain with much needed housing and a concrete flood channel that is fenced off on health and safety grounds is actually the way to go. In that context canoeists and anglers could be on the same side. In my view access agreements should be determined on a case by case basis - some rivers are more suitable for angling and canoeing to co-exist. Where they cannot, angling should take precedence if it is the established use and has paid for the privelige. I can't knock any of that. My only issue is the way that individual canoeists, and their governing bodies, are hell bent on ignoring existing laws. If they are prepared to obey the law and pay for their access where necessary, in exactly the same way that (the vast majority of) anglers do, good luck to them. I'm not averse to tolerating their presence on rivers, provided they are there legitimately. There are many places where I doubt I could co-exist with paddlers. If they negotiate legitimate access in those places, I'll just go elsewhere without complaint. Ultimately, landowners will go with whatever gives them the greater income or with their principles. Plenty of stretches of river will never be available to anglers because the landowner doesn't like angling, doesn't want/need the money it might bring, or simply doesn't want anyone on their land. If canoeists didn't want total access for free, and dropped their objections to VAAs (paid or not), they could easily exploit those areas. Many angling clubs are very small these days, sub 100 members isn't particularly uncommon, yet they can still afford to pay for their access. If canoeing bit the bullet and clubbed together, they could quite easily outbid angling for exclusive use of river sections. Not for one moment do I believe that anglers should automatically have exclusive rights to our rivers. I don't even think we should have a particular precedence in some kind of pecking order. However, as it stands, the law does appear to be in our favour. Until paddlers accept that, are forced to by legal action, or they start paying for their access (bit by bit, as anglers do), then I'll continue to object to their illegitimate and seemingly illegal presence. I fail to understand why anyone believes canoes should have free and unfettered access to our rivers (unless they get the legal ruling backing their pet universal PRN theory), particularly when angling does not.
markg on 24/08/2014 11:11:36
avatar
It would be an impressive barrier that was low enough to stop a canoeist passing in summer levels, yet miraculously didn't impede the flow of the river at winter levels or in flood. The structure would also have to be pretty substantial to withstand floods and the debris they bring. Such a large structure is likely to need planning permission too. What chance do you think there is of actually getting that planning permission? I'm sure canoe transits could be blocked, but I doubt that any method of doing it would be strictly legal, one way or another. I'm getting the distinct impression, from this thread and many others, that some people have no comprehension whatsoever about the nature and vaguaries of rivers that rise in real upland areas, such as the Pennines. My question stated a few old river punts strung across the river, not a permanent impressive barrier, just something that is easily removed or put in place. On a narrow river it may be even just a one or two. Why would you need planning permission for a semi permanent barrier applied only weekends for example. I also stated that it could be effected in some areas not all. I realize it would not be practical on all places but, I can think of some where it would,be (I have fished all sorts of rivers over many years). . Why would it be illegal if applied in the way I have suggested and if its not, why hasn't it been tried where practical to do so? Chalk streams for example do not fluctuate much in depth., Some rivers the same except in times of floods, but on a weekend with steady flows, why not, the word would get round and deter canoeists.
sam vimes on 24/08/2014 11:13:00
avatar
On little chalk streams i have seen barbed wire fencing cross the river channel to stop sheep/cows wandering off from their chosen field. Bridges, overhanging trees and shallows can form impassable obstructions to canoeists on smaller rivers - eg the upper Cam in my neck of the woods. If the channel is impassable, and a route around on the bank is too onerous, then the barrier is effective to all but the most determined. As I've suggested before your idea of what constitutes a river is quite different to the reality of rivers in other areas. It's also very different to those that paddlers really want to be on. Barbed wire fencing across most of the natural becks in this part of the world would last until the first proper flood. The same fence across one of the rivers would last until the first downpour up the dale.
nicepix on 24/08/2014 11:14:26
avatar
My question stated a few old river punts strung across the river, not a permanent impressive barrier, just something that is easily removed or put in place. On a narrow river it may be even just a one or two. Why would you need planning permission for a semi permanent barrier applied only weekends for example. I also stated that it could be effected in some areas not all. I realize it would not be practical on all places but, I can think of some where it would,be (I have fished all sorts of rivers over many years). . Why would it be illegal if applied in the way I have suggested and if its not, why hasn't it been tried where practical to do so? Peter Jacobs answered your question a few days ago. If you can't be bothered to read all the posts you can't expect others to repeat things for your benefit especially when you might or might not read it anyway.
markg on 24/08/2014 11:56:46
avatar
Peter Jacobs answered your question a few days ago. If you can't be bothered to read all the posts you can't expect others to repeat things for your benefit especially when you might or might not read it anyway. I thought I had explained that, its not a case of not being bothered, its a case not having the time to read them all, at least the ones that don't concern me or my questions. I endeavor to read all replies to my particular questions and have done so I believe. I remember Peters reply and it was as he imagined a toll gate having to be built at great expense etc. I have imagined the same question but, in a different way so, I am exploring it differently and I am seeing if there's any weight in it as put in a different way. Why don't you cut the **** and PM me and explain what your real problem is.
Peter Jacobs on 24/08/2014 12:28:12
avatar
Let me try to explain again: If the river has a PRN then legally you would not be entitled to construct any barrier to navigation, regardless of whatever ownership you may have. Legal structures, bridges etc., are subject to proper Planning Permission however. If the river does not have a PRN then it is a moot point inasmuch as there shouldn't be any "traffic" on said river . . . . . . .
The bad one on 24/08/2014 12:44:48
avatar
Mark I'd really like to see you string some "old punts" across the big NW/NE rivers with 2 metres on. And that's an average spate during the winter. It bring down full mature trees, logs and anything else society has thrown in the river. I kid you not on one occasion and intact large garden shed came floating by in one such spate whilst I was fishing. That debris would pulverise your old punts into matchwood and the poor pensioner you want to inflict these ills on would at some point be found very dead on Morecambe Sands. What you got against pensioners anyway to want to sit the poor ****** in a punt freezing his/her nuts off?
bennygesserit on 24/08/2014 14:36:29
avatar
Let me try to explain again: If the river has a PRN then legally you would not be entitled to construct any barrier to navigation, regardless of whatever ownership you may have. Legal structures, bridges etc., are subject to proper Planning Permission however. If the river does not have a PRN then it is a moot point inasmuch as there shouldn't be any "traffic" on said river . . . . . . . Yes but you would or may be obstructing the river which isn't allowed prn or not
markg on 24/08/2014 14:41:05
avatar
Let me try to explain again: If the river has a PRN then legally you would not be entitled to construct any barrier to navigation, regardless of whatever ownership you may have. Legal structures, bridges etc., are subject to proper Planning Permission however. If the river does not have a PRN then it is a moot point inasmuch as there shouldn't be any "traffic" on said river . . . . . . . Peter , what about the traffic coming down the river from a PRN section into my section where they have no PRN. Wouldn't it stop them. And wouldn't it stop those that trespass on my land and enter the river in my section where they have no PRN. I would catch them out as well because essentially they would be trapped or at least unable to avoid detection because eventually they would come across my barrier. And these barriers would only be a temporary, removable, easily put in place ones. No need for planning permission ?!. I will leave it now but, its just been niggling away in my mind.--- I know if this was happening on my land and I was losing anglers/money and if practical, I would do this, let them take me to court and prove I am doing something illegal.!! Now that would be interesting ! Bad One- I have fished from the Findhorn in Scotland to the Torridge. I understand rivers, how they work in all their forms. I know this just would,t work or be an option on many rivers or sections of rivers. but, I can think of many were it could be. Sorry about Charlie, at least he took part and had the balls to speak his mind, not just snip from the sidelines. The post angling trust fish legal world of angling is not as nice as yesteryear. I think he got that right. I am pretty ****ed off with it myself if I am honest. Im done, Nicepix has not sent me a PM, don't bother mate-not interested.
Peter Jacobs on 24/08/2014 15:00:36
avatar
If the river does not have a PRN then it is a moot point inasmuch as there shouldn't be any "traffic" on said river . . . . . . . Yes but you would or may be obstructing the river which isn't allowed prn or not I should have known that there was no place here for Socratic irony. [insert huge great flaming smiley thang > > > > HERE to avoid further misunderestimation LOL] ---------- Post added at 16:00 ---------- Previous post was at 15:49 ---------- Sorry about Charlie, at least he took part and had the balls to speak his mind, not just snip from the sidelines. The post angling trust fish legal world of angling is not as nice as yesteryear. I think he got that right. I am pretty ****ed off with it myself if I am honest. Well, hopefully Charlie will be back soon enough on another topic . . . . . . . As for the post ACA new Fish Legal World of Angling I think it is more a case of time moving forwards and the angling world having to move with it or be trampled underfoot by the likes of the BCU extolling the illegal practices of paddling where there is no PRN. Also, don't forget the continued classical ACA-type of work of bringing polluters to book and gaining valuable compensation for angling clubs and societies that otherwise could have had their venues ruined by unthinking companies or individuals. Sadly, the softer and more gentile days when one could just go a-angling are long gone I'm afraid, and while I too greatly mourn their passing I firmly believe that we have to move with the times or be overtaken by them. Would that I could return to old Ma' Bennetts tackle shop to get 6 penny worth of gentles that would last me for a whole day's fishing for Roach, Dace and Bleak on the Thames. Instead I now have to buy copious quantities of pellet, corn and luncheon meat to feed the ravenous Carps in the local commercial . . . . . . . .
nicepix on 24/08/2014 15:32:33
avatar
Peter , what about the traffic coming down the river from a PRN section into my section where they have no PRN. Wouldn't it stop them. And wouldn't it stop those that trespass on my land and enter the river in my section where they have no PRN. I would catch them out as well because essentially they would be trapped or at least unable to avoid detection because eventually they would come across my barrier. And these barriers would only be a temporary, removable, easily put in place ones. No need for planning permission ?!. I will leave it now but, its just been niggling away in my mind.--- I know if this was happening on my land and I was losing anglers/money and if practical, I would do this, let them take me to court and prove I am doing something illegal.!! Now that would be interesting ! Bad One- I have fished from the Findhorn in Scotland to the Torridge. I understand rivers, how they work in all their forms. I know this just would,t work or be an option on many rivers or sections of rivers. but, I can think of many were it could be. Sorry about Charlie, at least he took part and had the balls to speak his mind, not just snip from the sidelines. The post angling trust fish legal world of angling is not as nice as yesteryear. I think he got that right. I am pretty ****ed off with it myself if I am honest. Im done, Nicepix has not sent me a PM, don't bother mate-not interested. Hasn't it crossed your tiny little mind that I might not be at the computer 24/7 waiting to answer questions from people who can't be bothered to read posts containing everything they are asking about? I won't send a PM anyway as you probably will be too busy to read it :rolleyes:
on 24/08/2014 15:42:54
avatar
Well, hopefully Charlie will be back soon enough on another topic . . . . . . . Much snipping Sadly, the softer and more gentile days when one could just go a-angling are long gone I'm afraid, and while I too greatly mourn their passing I firmly believe that we have to move with the times or be overtaken by them. Would that I could return to old Ma' Bennetts tackle shop to get 6 penny worth of gentles that would last me for a whole day's fishing for Roach, Dace and Bleak on the Thames. Instead I now have to buy copious quantities of pellet, corn and luncheon meat to feed the ravenous Carps in the local commercial . . . . . . . . I haven't gone anywhere, I just don't want to participate in the canoe v angling row anymore:) I believe if you know where to look, old Ma' Bennetts tackle shop is still to be found, and so are many free or cheap waters that are productive for shall I say the more traditional anglers amongst us? I think you will find too that the days of we can just go a-angling are still here, you just might have to look a bit harder to find them, and it may be true to say that they have changed their format a little. Anyway, apologies for the thread drift, I wont chip in again.:) Cheers, Charlie. PS. I just like to quickly say that I am pleased that I have found this forum, as I have already made a few new friends and offers of help and advice, which I am really pleased about.:thumbs:
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 24/08/2014 16:49:12
avatar
I see the Oracle has spoken, so that’s it guys its done and dusted because the Oracle has said so. With the perverse logic he has, no doubt he’ll make the pronouncement shortly on crime, “We can’t tackle it, so we’ll remove the outdated laws on crime, then we’ll have no crime. Job done, cutesy of Day Dreamer Clarke! Now which end of the telescope do you look through???? Well we could all smell what you were going to say, More Bull*hit The point being that the law isn't working now, or being in forced, and any new Law won't make a difference, or be in forced. As they will just carry on. Doh. All the Angels on here, talk about double standards. I can see them now, speeding down the road until a speed camera comes up, slow down to pass, then speed up again. Park where you shouldn't just to nip into a shop for 2 minutes and get away with it. Don't say none of you do it, and it's just the same as the PRN, you do it, you break the law, but you get away with it, just as they do. Yet here you are talking chapter and verse on Law, yet breaking the law yourselves. Even on this thread the Law has been broken by one Dick head, yet the Mods do nothing, DOUBLE STANDARDS FM, but nothing new there as always. See you when i join the paddlers down the rivers Angling doesn't own.:D:D Charlie, If you don't agree with them, don't say anything mate, they think that winning in court will stop this, it won't, even if the Law they preach says so. Laws get broken, as it has been by paddlers for years,but none of these Angels have ever done that.
Peter Jacobs on 24/08/2014 17:28:29
avatar
I believe if you know where to look, old Ma' Bennetts tackle shop is still to be found, and so are many free or cheap waters that are productive for shall I say the more traditional anglers amongst us? If you knew me from a hole in the ground then you'd know that I am equally happy with a Wallis Wizard or a Mk IV in my hand with centrepin reels than I am with 16m of carbon or modern pellet waggler rods. For my fly fishing I am even more traditional, as any one on here who has fished with me will tell you. It appears that you rush to incorrect conclusions without researching what you are about to write . . . . . . ---------- Post added at 18:28 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ---------- Yet here you are talking chapter and verse on Law, yet breaking the law yourselves. Even on this thread the Law has been broken by one Dick head, yet the Mods do nothing, DOUBLE STANDARDS FM, but nothing new there as always. Ray, as I said to Charlie, the moderation team allow a certain level of leeway in order to facilitate and stimulate the discussions, otherwise this forum would be very dull indeed. If you would care to PM me or tell me on here where someone has Broken the Law then we will look in into it thoroughly. As always however, if you feel aggrieved or have been treated harshly then please feel free to contact the Editor in order to complain.
on 24/08/2014 17:49:36
avatar
Peter Jacobs said..... "If you knew me form a hole in the ground then you'd know that I am equally happy with a Wallis Wizard or a Mk IV in my hand with centrepin reels than I am with 16m of carbon or modern pellet waggler rods. For my fly fishing I am even more traditional, as any one on here who has fished with me will tell you. It appears that you rush to incorrect conclusions without researching what you are about to write . . . . . ." Good grief what have I done now?? What have I written that you are taking umbrage with? I just saying that what you alluded to was still out there, maybe not as much as it once was, but it's still there. Why have you taken exception to that? I wasn't aware that I was rushing to any conclusions, I already gathered that you had at least an interest in such things from what you said to me about River Reads. Cheers, Charlie.
bennygesserit on 24/08/2014 20:33:54
avatar
I can't knock any of that. My only issue is the way that individual canoeists, and their governing bodies, are hell bent on ignoring existing laws. If they are prepared to obey the law and pay for their access where necessary, in exactly the same way that (the vast majority of) anglers do, good luck to them. I'm not averse to tolerating their presence on rivers, provided they are there legitimately. There are many places where I doubt I could co-exist with paddlers. If they negotiate legitimate access in those places, I'll just go elsewhere without complaint. Ultimately, landowners will go with whatever gives them the greater income or with their principles. Plenty of stretches of river will never be available to anglers because the landowner doesn't like angling, doesn't want/need the money it might bring, or simply doesn't want anyone on their land. If canoeists didn't want total access for free, and dropped their objections to VAAs (paid or not), they could easily exploit those areas. Many angling clubs are very small these days, sub 100 members isn't particularly uncommon, yet they can still afford to pay for their access. If canoeing bit the bullet and clubbed together, they could quite easily outbid angling for exclusive use of river sections. Not for one moment do I believe that anglers should automatically have exclusive rights to our rivers. I don't even think we should have a particular precedence in some kind of pecking order. However, as it stands, the law does appear to be in our favour. Until paddlers accept that, are forced to by legal action, or they start paying for their access (bit by bit, as anglers do), then I'll continue to object to their illegitimate and seemingly illegal presence. I fail to understand why anyone believes canoes should have free and unfettered access to our rivers (unless they get the legal ruling backing their pet universal PRN theory), particularly when angling does not. 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
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 24/08/2014 21:10:56
avatar
If you knew me from a hole in the ground then you'd know that I am equally happy with a Wallis Wizard or a Mk IV in my hand with centrepin reels than I am with 16m of carbon or modern pellet waggler rods. For my fly fishing I am even more traditional, as any one on here who has fished with me will tell you. It appears that you rush to incorrect conclusions without researching what you are about to write . . . . . . ---------- Post added at 18:28 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ---------- Ray, as I said to Charlie, the moderation team allow a certain level of leeway in order to facilitate and stimulate the discussions, otherwise this forum would be very dull indeed. If you would care to PM me or tell me on here where someone has Broken the Law then we will look in into it thoroughly. As always however, if you feel aggrieved or have been treated harshly then please feel free to contact the Editor in order to complain. Peter, I agree with the leeway and always have for the reasons you state. i don't feel aggrieved or harshly treated at all, i can state that 100%, but you can't preach chapter and verse on Law, whilst you have FM members threatening to shoot people with both barrels of a 12 bore, or is it that thats allowed because he backs the AT ?????????????? So lets get it right, practice what is preached, or don't preach law at all.
greenie62 on 24/08/2014 21:33:13
avatar
.... I kid you not on one occasion an intact large garden shed came floating by in one such spate whilst I was fishing...... As an antidote to the bile and bluster on this thread - I noted TBO's comment on the garden shed and it reminded me of a local Wigan joke: Bert and Alf were coming home from the pub one evening in a downpour - as they crossed the Dougie they noticed it was well up its banks and a large garden shed was floating down it! Eh up Alf, int that yure shed floatin down there? Can't be mine Bert, Ah've still got t'kay in me pocket! :rolleyes::omg:
sam vimes on 24/08/2014 21:53:06
avatar
you have FM members threatening to shoot people with both barrels of a 12 bore, I know what I'd like to do and that ain't wave at them, it's both barrels from the 12 bore. 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.
Peter Jacobs on 24/08/2014 23:23:41
avatar
but you can't preach chapter and verse on Law, whilst you have FM members threatening to shoot people with both barrels of a 12 bore, or is it that thats allowed because he backs the AT ?????????????? 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. Secondly, regarding Phil's attitude towards the Angling Trust, and as he was one of those who left shortly after it was inaugurated, I don't think you'd count him as a serious supporter of the Trust per se, but simply a highly experienced and well respected angler who has done an enormous amount to have specimen angling recognised within our sport. He simple agree with this initiative but not necessary everything else that the Trust proposes. If nothing else at least this thread demonstrates the intense strength of feeling among ordinary anglers regarding the illegal paddling on certain rivers.
bennygesserit on 25/08/2014 07:03:31
avatar
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. Secondly, regarding Phil's attitude towards the Angling Trust, and as he was one of those who left shortly after it was inaugurated, I don't think you'd count him as a serious supporter of the Trust per se, but simply a highly experienced and well respected angler who has done an enormous amount to have specimen angling recognised within our sport. He simple agree with this initiative but not necessary everything else that the Trust proposes. If nothing else at least this thread demonstrates the intense strength of feeling among ordinary anglers regarding the illegal paddling on certain rivers. how many anglers have stated this intensity 4 , maybe 5 ? A nearly equal amount have professed sympathy with the paddlers case , which is brave really as on a fishing forum that usually enlists name calling "Oh why don't you go and buy a canoe Benny you tree hugger" or the more sinister PM or email. I think this is why Mark was so anxious not to be seen as a "paddler sympathiser" , you get the opposite on militant paddler forums , usually anyone who states that they are reluctant to break the law gets shouted down. Certainly a proper poll of all anglers views would be interesting and also how the AT profess to reflect anglers views , do they read forums ? Talk to their mates in the Countryside Alliance , just make it up. Just to be clear my view is that paddlers should adhere to the law and that their legal case based , mostly , on the Magna Carta is massively flawed, but I am a lefty and proud and have never done anything to a tree apart from the normal stuff.
Peter Jacobs on 25/08/2014 07:21:40
avatar
how many anglers have stated this intensity 4 , maybe 5 ? A nearly equal amount have professed sympathy with the paddlers case , which is brave really as on a fishing forum that usually enlists name calling "Oh why don't you go and buy a canoe Benny you tree hugger" or the more sinister PM or email. I think this is why Mark was so anxious not to be seen as a "paddler sympathiser" , you get the opposite on militant paddler forums , usually anyone who states that they are reluctant to break the law gets shouted down. Certainly a proper poll of all anglers views would be interesting and also how the AT profess to reflect anglers views , do they read forums ? Talk to their mates in the Countryside Alliance , just make it up. Just to be clear my view is that paddlers should adhere to the law and that their legal case based , mostly , on the Magna Carta is massively flawed, but I am a lefty and proud and have never done anything to a tree apart from the normal stuff. 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.
bennygesserit on 25/08/2014 07:30:40
avatar
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.


Add a comment

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

Audio Player

Tagged as:

angling trust, Fish Legal, British Canoe Union

Follow FishingMagic!