I
W
Wolfman Woody
Guest
This is an interesting case.
I'm not saying that Prince Albert have done anything wrong here, but from my POV, when council owned stretches are licenced off there should be a stipulation that day tickets MUST be made available, especially for local residents.
One reason being is that local ratepayers have already paid for the upkeep of the bank and access so it seems unfair to ask them to pay again to a club and especially one that isn't resident (based) in the vicinity of the river.
The one thing I hate is free stretches often run by councils because they are mostly abused and with a club looking after it (wardened or bailiffed) then that can only be a good thing. However, the local residents who may have previously enjoyed the fishing may well be denied membership either because -
So for my two-penn'orth, publicly owned stretches should only be licenced out under the strict condition that day tickets be made available.
We have to provide them for the Jubille River and that's EA owned on our bit.
I'm not saying that Prince Albert have done anything wrong here, but from my POV, when council owned stretches are licenced off there should be a stipulation that day tickets MUST be made available, especially for local residents.
One reason being is that local ratepayers have already paid for the upkeep of the bank and access so it seems unfair to ask them to pay again to a club and especially one that isn't resident (based) in the vicinity of the river.
The one thing I hate is free stretches often run by councils because they are mostly abused and with a club looking after it (wardened or bailiffed) then that can only be a good thing. However, the local residents who may have previously enjoyed the fishing may well be denied membership either because -
- Membership and entrance fees are too high for many to pay annually - and
- The new controlling club has a five year (let's say) waiting list
So for my two-penn'orth, publicly owned stretches should only be licenced out under the strict condition that day tickets be made available.
We have to provide them for the Jubille River and that's EA owned on our bit.
B
Baz (Angel of the North)
Guest
I think the fault lies with the council on this one. Having said that. P.A. are not backward in coming forward either.
It would be interesting to know if that when the five year lease runs out, (If it is allowed to stand) can P.A. lay claim to this stretch of river, as they have had it for the last five years?
It would be interesting to know if that when the five year lease runs out, (If it is allowed to stand) can P.A. lay claim to this stretch of river, as they have had it for the last five years?
E
Evan NotMightyAtAll
Guest
"The meadows were donated to the city by the Brown family nearly 100 years ago"
Time someone went and dug out the document setting out the terms of that donation methinks.
You'd be surprised - or perhaps you wouldn't - at just how many town councils etc seem to think they are free to let out, develop, use and abuse common lands and open waters as if they were a council asset when they are almost always nothing of the sort and they have no rights to do so at all.
Plus which it is a prevalent abuse for clubs to take over / lease formerly open stretches of city / urban centre water on condition that theymakeday tickets available to locals and visitors. And then don't. Or theoretically do, but in reality don't by either refusing or failing to answer any communication (whether by letter, telephone or published email address)or imposing ludicrously ridiculous procedural hurdles to any application for a day ticket, eg. "only issued on personal attendance at the club's offices not less than fourteen daysbefore you wish the day ticket to be issued, then on the day in question to collect the ticket, between 14.00 and 14.30 hrs only...."
And no, I'm not making that last one up, exaggerating only very slightly. Names witheld to avoid causing embarassment to North*** Angling Association....
Time someone went and dug out the document setting out the terms of that donation methinks.
You'd be surprised - or perhaps you wouldn't - at just how many town councils etc seem to think they are free to let out, develop, use and abuse common lands and open waters as if they were a council asset when they are almost always nothing of the sort and they have no rights to do so at all.
Plus which it is a prevalent abuse for clubs to take over / lease formerly open stretches of city / urban centre water on condition that theymakeday tickets available to locals and visitors. And then don't. Or theoretically do, but in reality don't by either refusing or failing to answer any communication (whether by letter, telephone or published email address)or imposing ludicrously ridiculous procedural hurdles to any application for a day ticket, eg. "only issued on personal attendance at the club's offices not less than fourteen daysbefore you wish the day ticket to be issued, then on the day in question to collect the ticket, between 14.00 and 14.30 hrs only...."
And no, I'm not making that last one up, exaggerating only very slightly. Names witheld to avoid causing embarassment to North*** Angling Association....
E
Evan NotMightyAtAll
Guest
Oh, and Baz, acquisition of ownership by prescription requires adverse possession - that is without permission or a lease - for 12 years or more and doesn't apply to water and fishing rights in any event. Though the law on prescription has been changed recently to make it harder to claim and I can't pretend to have bothered to bring myself up to date on all the changes....
W
Wolfman Woody
Guest
" requires adverse possession - that is without permission or a lease - for 12 years or more and doesn't apply to water"
Is that a fairly recent change, Evan, because it's how the LAA acquired a few of their waters?
One stretch near us where the LAA own, by adverse occupation, the fishing rights do not have the right to cross or occupy any land. So, they can fish from a boat, but not from the bank any longer.
Is that a fairly recent change, Evan, because it's how the LAA acquired a few of their waters?
One stretch near us where the LAA own, by adverse occupation, the fishing rights do not have the right to cross or occupy any land. So, they can fish from a boat, but not from the bank any longer.
E
Evan NotMightyAtAll
Guest
Don't ask me for chapter and verse on that one Woody, incredibly abstruse specialist area playing with fishing rights versus riparian rights versus land ownership, and as I say the law has recently been updated / changed so for all I know many details may have been changed, so don't quote me / research it first !.
Except that the concept of adverse possessioncan't change, it means exactly that; adverse use and occupationwithout the lawful landowners permission and a lease is obviously a form of permission, so no adverse period even starts to run while there is a lease in place.
Except that the concept of adverse possessioncan't change, it means exactly that; adverse use and occupationwithout the lawful landowners permission and a lease is obviously a form of permission, so no adverse period even starts to run while there is a lease in place.
W
Wolfman Woody
Guest
Exactly as I understand it, Evan. If the landowner discovers you're using the land and doesn't mind, as soon as he tells you so within the stated timescale, that's it, your anticipated claim is finished.
.
The case I cited goes back to the 19th century, but was challenged in the 90s because the farmer said they were trespassing on his land and he forbade them from fishing. If he was telling me the truth, then the courts upheld his claim, but stated that the society did own the fishing rights, yet had no right to cross his land. It was a strange case.
We did have a woman by the side of one of our lakes that claimed a little extra land stating that they'd "looked after it" for the past 15 years. It was a load of cobblers, as they'd occasionally parked a few cars on it WITH the permission of the previous owner. They were, as is common today, trying it on.
If a club buys, licences or rents fishing rights then, apparently, the owner HAS to grant access across his land othewise it's an unfair contract.
.
The case I cited goes back to the 19th century, but was challenged in the 90s because the farmer said they were trespassing on his land and he forbade them from fishing. If he was telling me the truth, then the courts upheld his claim, but stated that the society did own the fishing rights, yet had no right to cross his land. It was a strange case.
We did have a woman by the side of one of our lakes that claimed a little extra land stating that they'd "looked after it" for the past 15 years. It was a load of cobblers, as they'd occasionally parked a few cars on it WITH the permission of the previous owner. They were, as is common today, trying it on.
If a club buys, licences or rents fishing rights then, apparently, the owner HAS to grant access across his land othewise it's an unfair contract.
E
Evan NotMightyAtAll
Guest
<blockquote class=quote>
If a club buys, licences or rents fishing rights then, apparently, the owner HAS to grant access across his land othewise it's an unfair contract. </blockquote>
I think you'll find that is either an implied easement, an easement of necessity or the application of non-derogation from grant Woody.....
And yes, I will be trying out for the Welsh Olympic boring to death team...
If a club buys, licences or rents fishing rights then, apparently, the owner HAS to grant access across his land othewise it's an unfair contract. </blockquote>
I think you'll find that is either an implied easement, an easement of necessity or the application of non-derogation from grant Woody.....
And yes, I will be trying out for the Welsh Olympic boring to death team...
E
Evan NotMightyAtAll
Guest
On a slight tangent, not trying to hijack, but am I the only one who is more than a wee bit tired of big clubs collecting every water in sight as if filling in a stamp album, simply 'because they can' and have the spare money.
Thereby effectively sterilising the water and stopping all the locals, kids and others who might have had the odd harmless dabble every now and then but either can't afford the mega bucks it costs to join said big club or can't be arsed to wait two years or something silly to do so either and big club is too up itself to even consider selling a day ticket or two.....
There's mile upon mile of what is now almost completely unfished canal and navigation water round here in my corner of Surrey / West Sussex which, thanks to a couple of the larger 'monopoly money' dominant clubs, will no longer bring forth a fresh crop of kids messing about with a scrotty rod or two to graduate into the anglers of tomorrow.
Thereby effectively sterilising the water and stopping all the locals, kids and others who might have had the odd harmless dabble every now and then but either can't afford the mega bucks it costs to join said big club or can't be arsed to wait two years or something silly to do so either and big club is too up itself to even consider selling a day ticket or two.....
There's mile upon mile of what is now almost completely unfished canal and navigation water round here in my corner of Surrey / West Sussex which, thanks to a couple of the larger 'monopoly money' dominant clubs, will no longer bring forth a fresh crop of kids messing about with a scrotty rod or two to graduate into the anglers of tomorrow.
Evan
If there miles of unfished water that large clubs own - why not just fish it - you're not likely to gte caught then if you do say sorry didn't know - if well away from "Private fishing signs" or just "Take down" the sign for a while till you finish fishing then put it back up
If there miles of unfished water that large clubs own - why not just fish it - you're not likely to gte caught then if you do say sorry didn't know - if well away from "Private fishing signs" or just "Take down" the sign for a while till you finish fishing then put it back up
B
Baz (Angel of the North)
Guest
On a slight tangent, not trying to hijack, but am I the only one who is more than a wee bit tired of big clubs collecting every water in sight as if filling in a stamp album, simply 'because they can' and have the spare money.Thereby effectively sterilising the water and stopping all the locals, kids and others who might have had the odd harmless dabble every now and then but either can't afford the mega bucks it costs to join said big club or can't be arsed to wait two years or something silly to do so either and big club is too up itself to even consider selling a day ticket or two.....
No you aren't Evan. Hence my remark P.A. are not backward in coming forward either. It takes two to tango, and it seems there has been some dirty dancing going on here. I would have thought that P.A. were too big to pull a stroke like this.
No you aren't Evan. Hence my remark P.A. are not backward in coming forward either. It takes two to tango, and it seems there has been some dirty dancing going on here. I would have thought that P.A. were too big to pull a stroke like this.
There's a couple of council own ponds on land that had been set aside for a Nature reserve - fishing was allowed till one kid got a bit of a shock from an electric pylon he was fishing near.
The council took the big fish out of the ponds and out uo "No Fishing" signs - the kids still fish there and ignore the warning - I sometimes go down to see if one of the urchins will catch fire.
The council took the big fish out of the ponds and out uo "No Fishing" signs - the kids still fish there and ignore the warning - I sometimes go down to see if one of the urchins will catch fire.
E
EC
Guest
If I recall correctlyChester City Council actually advertised in the local papers and invited applications for the lease!
Baz - You seem to have a chip on your shoulder where PAAS is concerned? PAAS have done nothing wrong here and are honorable with their actions. Unlike some other NW based clubs they also conform to the NFA rules on such matters. The previous club ceased to exist. The council put the lease up for tender and PAAS took it on.
The original article loses credibility when it contains conveniently misleading statements i.e. 'Tom Parry, a Chester resident and angler, said: "It's annoying because the River Dee has been an important fishery for hundreds of years and now we have to pay £180 to fish there'. Well actually that includes a one off 50% joining fee and gives access to 200+ waters including other stretches of the Dee, making it the best value card around !
I also don't see why PAAS should be burdened with day tickets, given the admin side, issuing of said tickets, litter.........
Lord Paul – Be careful when it comes to encouraging people to poach as PAAS is not averse to taking legal action against persistent offenders .
Just my opinion and not that I speak for PAAS
Neil
The original article loses credibility when it contains conveniently misleading statements i.e. 'Tom Parry, a Chester resident and angler, said: "It's annoying because the River Dee has been an important fishery for hundreds of years and now we have to pay £180 to fish there'. Well actually that includes a one off 50% joining fee and gives access to 200+ waters including other stretches of the Dee, making it the best value card around !
I also don't see why PAAS should be burdened with day tickets, given the admin side, issuing of said tickets, litter.........
Lord Paul – Be careful when it comes to encouraging people to poach as PAAS is not averse to taking legal action against persistent offenders .
Just my opinion and not that I speak for PAAS
Neil
Evan
I don't think the waiting list applies to juniors and their membership is something like £10 for the year. About one tenth of the cost of the pair oftrainers they are wearing or a quarter of the price of one XBOX game.
I don't think the waiting list applies to juniors and their membership is something like £10 for the year. About one tenth of the cost of the pair oftrainers they are wearing or a quarter of the price of one XBOX game.
B
Baz (Angel of the North)
Guest
Twitcher. No chip at all get your facts right mate!
I clearly said the fault lies with the council. And having said that, both the council and P.A. will know there is an obligation to sell day tickets. P.A. are not stupid.
You also say; I also don't see why PAAS should be burdened with day tickets, given the admin side, issuing of said tickets, litter.........
Fair comment. But in that case the council should sell them. which is something that should have been thrashed out before the lease was let.
I clearly said the fault lies with the council. And having said that, both the council and P.A. will know there is an obligation to sell day tickets. P.A. are not stupid.
You also say; I also don't see why PAAS should be burdened with day tickets, given the admin side, issuing of said tickets, litter.........
Fair comment. But in that case the council should sell them. which is something that should have been thrashed out before the lease was let.
B
Baz (Angel of the North)
Guest
Paul C.
Doesn't the £10 membership for juniors depend if their parent is already a member or not?
Doesn't the £10 membership for juniors depend if their parent is already a member or not?