Canoe Navigation Rights Sunk

This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Canoe Navigation Rights Sunk

To me, that is a clear case of:

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR . . . . . . . . .


Well done to Fish Legal and the Angling Trust for their stirling work on this case.

They prove, once again, that we have to be constantly vigilant even when a case might appear, at first glance, to be simply frivolous or based on a clear misinterpretation of the Law




If only for this work alone I reckon the Anlging Trust is more than worth an annual punt, don't you?

As a fellow angler and a paddler i can tell you that there will never be a "voluntary access agreement" that works to an acceptable level for both parties. It may work on a few stretches and i'm sure some "know it all" will contradict this but it will never work on the vast majority of rivers.

I very rarely get into a boat these days and certainly spend more time on the river bank with a rod. I can honestly say that i do not appreciate canoeists paddling through my swim esp when they're noisy and/or unorganised. Providing they're well behaved and quietly pass by, i can tolerate it. So i know where everyone is coming from!

At the same time i have often come across very angry anglers when in a canoe. This has usually occurred when i've been leading a group of youngster on a navigable stretch although i have also had the same type of anger when paddling stretches without navigable rights. Obviously i accept that i shouldn't really be there but i'll explain why i was in a moment. It always amazes me that an angler would prefer to have a stand up shouting match with a canoeist that may last several minutes rather than letting them quietly go by.

Again, at the risk of some "know it all" contradicting me,there are very few miles of river that have open access for canoeists. A team of paddlers managed to organise voluntary access to the river Dee for several years but its now completely failed due to increasing demands from anglers. That section of river is now teaming with paddlers a certain times so were those demands beneficial? No! The main problem comes from money. We anglers pay to use relatively short stretches of water whilst canoeists pay nothing for potentially miles of river (they do pay the BCU but this is effectively an insurance policy) so why should paddlers have any rights. There is no fix, because paddler can't pay every land owner that they come across as every trip that they embarked on would be a logistical nightmare and very expensive. So, do they stick to those few short stretches? If they did, the impact on the environment on those stretches could be enormous.

To put everyone in the correct picture, if your stretch of river contains exciting rapids in the winter then thats when/where experienced paddlers want to be. If your stretch could be described as a lovely, slow, scenic river with reasonable depths in the summer then it could attract families and inexperienced group during the better weather. What i'm saying is that even if there was open access to all rivers all year round they wouldn't all get used and some would be winter only where as some would be summer only. A few may be all year round venues but i can't imagine many. A lot of anglers think that open access would instantly mean a flood of paddlers entering their stretch but if you use some common sense that simply isn't the case.

I'm not really sure what exactly occurred in this story as the information is limited but i suspect that there's more to it.

Anglers and Canoeist both need educating about each others needs and both parties need to understand the problem before a solution could ever be agree upon.

Before you slate me, please remember that i'm (at the moment) 80% angler, 20% paddler and i'm only being honest.

Andrew Greensmith 2 said:

It always amazes me that an angler would prefer to have a stand up shouting match with a canoeist that may last several minutes rather than letting them quietly go by.

Click to expand...

I cannot imagine any condition whereby you should be "amazed" inasmuch as the angler is informing you of his disapproval of your (collective) actions, whereas to remain silent would indicate some form of (misguided) tacit approval; and believe me, that is not the case!

---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------

Andrew Greensmith 2 said:

There is no fix, because paddler can't pay every land owner that they come across as every trip that they embarked on would be a logistical nightmare and very expensive.

Click to expand...

Why not? We do.

If I want to fish a beat on the Test or Itchen it will cost me in the region of £1400 to £2000 per season; if I then want to fish the next beat upstream, and that belongs to a different Riparian owner, then I pay again, and so on.

So, why should it be any different to others who wish to use the river where I am paying dearly for my fishing?

Andrew Greensmith 2 said:

As a fellow angler and a paddler i can tell you that there will never be a "voluntary access agreement" that works to an acceptable level for both parties. It may work on a few stretches and i'm sure some "know it all" will contradict this but it will never work on the vast majority of rivers.

I very rarely get into a boat these days and certainly spend more time on the river bank with a rod. I can honestly say that i do not appreciate canoeists paddling through my swim esp when they're noisy and/or unorganised. Providing they're well behaved and quietly pass by, i can tolerate it. So i know where everyone is coming from!

At the same time i have often come across very angry anglers when in a canoe. This has usually occurred when i've been leading a group of youngster on a navigable stretch although i have also had the same type of anger when paddling stretches without navigable rights. Obviously i accept that i shouldn't really be there but i'll explain why i was in a moment. It always amazes me that an angler would prefer to have a stand up shouting match with a canoeist that may last several minutes rather than letting them quietly go by.

Again, at the risk of some "know it all" contradicting me,there are very few miles of river that have open access for canoeists. A team of paddlers managed to organise voluntary access to the river Dee for several years but its now completely failed due to increasing demands from anglers. That section of river is now teaming with paddlers a certain times so were those demands beneficial? No! The main problem comes from money. We anglers pay to use relatively short stretches of water whilst canoeists pay nothing for potentially miles of river (they do pay the BCU but this is effectively an insurance policy) so why should paddlers have any rights. There is no fix, because paddler can't pay every land owner that they come across as every trip that they embarked on would be a logistical nightmare and very expensive. So, do they stick to those few short stretches? If they did, the impact on the environment on those stretches could be enormous.

To put everyone in the correct picture, if your stretch of river contains exciting rapids in the winter then thats when/where experienced paddlers want to be. If your stretch could be described as a lovely, slow, scenic river with reasonable depths in the summer then it could attract families and inexperienced group during the better weather. What i'm saying is that even if there was open access to all rivers all year round they wouldn't all get used and some would be winter only where as some would be summer only. A few may be all year round venues but i can't imagine many. A lot of anglers think that open access would instantly mean a flood of paddlers entering their stretch but if you use some common sense that simply isn't the case.

I'm not really sure what exactly occurred in this story as the information is limited but i suspect that there's more to it.

Anglers and Canoeist both need educating about each others needs and both parties need to understand the problem before a solution could ever be agree upon.

Before you slate me, please remember that i'm (at the moment) 80% angler, 20% paddler and i'm only being honest.

Click to expand...

It looks fairly obvious to me Andrew that this chap was prepared to go to court but then when challenged changed his mind as he knew he would loose and withdrew his case.

It is interesting to note that ATr threw its legal weight behind its member club, but BCU didn't behind the plaintiff who was attempting to establish its claimed rights.
Did they know their game was up I wonder? And the report by the good Rev they put great store by was a little bit dodgy?

Now what did they say in the last endless thread put your money where you’re mouth is! We did, you don’t seem to have done! Why is that?

The bad one said:

Now what did they say in the last endless thread put your money where you’re mouth is! We did, you don’t seem to have done! Why is that?

Click to expand...

Maybe the answer lies in Daniel 5.27 (English Standard Version)

The bad one said:

Bloody hell Peter I’m an atheist so it’s lost on me that one! And I have no wish or desire to go looking for a bible to find out what it says.

Click to expand...

Daniel 5: 27 "you have been weighed in the ballances and found wanting"

(not you, them )

Peter Jacobs said:

Daniel 5: 27 "you have been weighed in the ballances and found wanting"

(not you, them )

Click to expand...

The earliest known example of a 19lb 15oz carp I believe.

No posts from SOTP MEMBERS??? ( I don't mean you Benny)

Please, don't bring bloody religion in to my one and only sport Guess what? I too am athiest.

Kevan Farmer said:

Please, don't bring bloody religion in to my one and only sport Guess what? I too am athiest.

Click to expand...

Well then, I wonder if a quotation taken from the world of movies might assuage your religious frailty?

"You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting"

Taken from the movie "A Knight's Tale"

Peter Jacobs said:

Well then, I wonder if a quotation taken from the world of movies might assuage your religious frailty?

"You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting"

Taken from the movie "A Knight's Tale"

Click to expand...

I have been weighed and measured at the doctors this morning and found to overweight.

the blanker said:

No posts from SOTP MEMBERS??? ( I don't mean you Benny)

Click to expand...

I left sotp because they started to pre moderate the access forum and hardly any of mine were getting through , having done a lot of reading and thinking on this I come to the conlusion that its not suitable for forum discussion as it just goes round and round in a circle.

I don't think the canoeists legal position holds up but they are convinced.

I don't think its fair for an angler to have his day of stalking ruined on a small river.

I don't think that a passing single canoe would spoil a days fishing on a medium or large river.

I think Benyons influence or at least those of the rich landowners /. Country alliance can be seen in a campaign to keeps the oiks away.

I think canoeists may trample redds or spread crayfish / invasive species in their arrogance and refusal to accept that they might do.

I don't think VAA work well as you have to negotiate with lots of seperate landowners.

I don't agree with the canoeists premise that angling is subdidised by taxes when you see how much Tax goes to support canoeing.

I have read lots of stories of very rude canoeists and on SOTP they always deny that could ever happen.

I think I would be hopping mad if I bought a house with a garden that backed onto the river and found some canoeist taking a dump in my garden.

I understand the WYE is full of drunken day ticket canoeists and letting them paddle anywhere would only result in more of this rather than diluting the problem.

I believe most anglers and canoeists would rather get along.

The only way that this can be proven either way is to get it into court in some way by a summons , that summons would probably be just for trespass unless you can prove aggravation , the Landowner has to sue not the angler so I don,t think its gonna happen.

My socialist outlook rebels against some fat cat owning a river which I think belongs to the people but thats not really a practical view.

I firmly believe the AT stirs up trouble over this which results in the threat of violence on some rivers and its a shame to make needless political capital out of that better to work together to fight hydro for instance.


Sorry probably bored you with that lot , the article seems to indicate a step forward for my side

Haven't proof read this yet

Flippin eck Benny I asked about posts from SOTP I said not you because I didn't want you to think I meant you.

the blanker said:

Flippin eck Benny I asked about posts from SOTP I said not you because I didn't want you to think I meant you.

Click to expand...

Ha ha I tried to get it all in one post , cos like I said I have seen this go round and round , just checked out sotp and no mention I would like to find out more about whats actually gone on, to be honest it was the thread about the Dove which caused the fuss on SOTP with a lot of canoeists saying it was too shallow to paddle , even Andy himself who posts on SOTP a lot sounded like he was reconsidering.



Interesting reading this

http://www.andybiddulph.co.uk/navigation.html

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:35 ----------

I attempted to sue Burton Mutual Angling Association for intefering with the public right of navigation on the River Dove. I had to withdraw because the public nuisance elemnt of my case colud only be brought by the Attorney General. Here are the case papers.

http://andybiddulph.co.uk/ESW/Files/Case_for_Claimant.pdf

http://andybiddulph.co.uk/ESW/Files/Defence001.pdf

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

Last one ( probably ) nothing , again has actually been proved here or not has it , its more of a win by technicality.

I agree that this one case seems to have been decided on a technicality. However, the canoeists case seems to be based on a student's thesis that is not statute, not case law and is only one person's opinion.

Its funny really, The river Waveney abounds with canoeists in the Summer. Yes they are a minor inconvenience... But the fish are so used to the activity - its no worse than a swans or a geese alighting in your swim.

Nearly every canoeist goes out of their way to be polite and courteous in this context.

There does seem to be a militant branch of canoeists who wish to agitate with a right to roam where they please - is this a fair assumption? It was certainly known that a group of canoeists willfully trespassed on Throop last season and through their actions it would seem they were quite happy to be as belligerent as possible.

In line with Bennygesserit - I find access to inland water ways deplorable. Would it be so unacceptable to be able to fish a river without having to pay (Jeeze...) £1400 to £2000 for a seasons fishingmg:

I would welcome a right to roam for both angler and canoeist.....

chav professor said:

Would it be so unacceptable to be able to fish a river without having to pay (Jeeze...) £1400 to £2000 for a seasons fishing

Click to expand...

Yes, that's right, and remember that is for one rod every second Saturday from April 24th to end September only. Go up on the Test and it is more, a lot more!

So, if I'm paying that why should some paddler expect to use that stretch of the river for free?