- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Defra Publishes Legal Opinion on Canoeists’ ‘Unconvincing’ Access Claims
Defra Publishes Legal Opinion on Canoeists’ ‘Unconvincing’ Access Claims
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
Well, at long last!
All I have to say on this issue can be summed up here . . . . . . .
Arsenal Football Chants - It's All Gone Quiet Over There - with Lyrics - YouTube
Also, didn't our member Windy tell them that ages ago, right here on FM?
All I have to say on this issue can be summed up here . . . . . . .
Arsenal Football Chants - It's All Gone Quiet Over There - with Lyrics - YouTube
Also, didn't our member Windy tell them that ages ago, right here on FM?
Last edited:
bennygesserit
Well-known member
does anyone have a link to where it has been published ?
---------- Post added at 13:09 ---------- Previous post was at 13:05 ----------
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-of-navigation-on-non-tidal-rivers
---------- Post added at 13:30 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------
Did anyone read this and understand that its actually an FOI request that publishes a 2004 letter from the then rural affairs Minister Alun Michael giving the view of Defra's legal department. Personally that is far from clear ( to me anyway ) in the Fish legal statement Defra publishes legal opinion on Canoeists’ “unconvincing” claims of universal access - The Angling Trust
While its a definite blow , I believe , to the case of Andy Biddulph and CO I don't think its yet the administration of the priest.
---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:30 ----------
I have to say as well that the FM article is cutting and pasting at the worst and is totally p** poor journalism.
---------- Post added at 13:09 ---------- Previous post was at 13:05 ----------
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-of-navigation-on-non-tidal-rivers
---------- Post added at 13:30 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------
Did anyone read this and understand that its actually an FOI request that publishes a 2004 letter from the then rural affairs Minister Alun Michael giving the view of Defra's legal department. Personally that is far from clear ( to me anyway ) in the Fish legal statement Defra publishes legal opinion on Canoeists’ “unconvincing” claims of universal access - The Angling Trust
While its a definite blow , I believe , to the case of Andy Biddulph and CO I don't think its yet the administration of the priest.
---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:30 ----------
I have to say as well that the FM article is cutting and pasting at the worst and is totally p** poor journalism.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
Yes, of course it is cut and pasted - it is not a 'story' it is a press release by Angling Trust / Fish Legal as is clearly stated in the source of the article. We do not alter the content of press releases, except to correct grammar and punctuation.
The bad one
Well-known member
seem clear to me who wrote it and where it came from
Defra Publishes Legal Opinion on Canoeists’ ‘Unconvincing’ Access Claims
By Angling Trust / Fish Legal
Defra Publishes Legal Opinion on Canoeists’ ‘Unconvincing’ Access Claims
By Angling Trust / Fish Legal
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Peter TBO it must have been more obvious to you then that this is simply the re-publishing of a ten year old Minister's letter in response to an FOI request rather than DEFRA suddenly seeing fit to confirm their stance , I found that part misleading to be honest.
Whether that changes anything is a matter of opinion, certainly the paddlers haven't gone quiet over there
Whether that changes anything is a matter of opinion, certainly the paddlers haven't gone quiet over there
thecrow
Well-known member
Peter TBO it must have been more obvious to you then that this is simply the re-publishing of a ten year old Minister's letter in response to an FOI request rather than DEFRA suddenly seeing fit to confirm their stance , I found that part misleading to be honest.
Whether that changes anything is a matter of opinion, certainly the paddlers haven't gone quiet over there
The Angling Trust misleading? no surely not.
The bad one
Well-known member
Quite! And it will only be settled in law when one of the protagonists has the balls to take it before the courts for a legal ruling on it. I’ve said before several times, one of the reasons I dropped out of AT membership, an organisation I helped form, was and is the wishy-washy attitude they take with paddlers. On the one hand sounding off as per this press release and on the other offering them insurance cover for paddling…. WTF is that all about? My view is if they believe they have no automatic right to paddle on non-tidal waters other than the ones recognised they do have. Stop p*ssing about with VAAs and get them in court prove the point, and have done with the matter.Peter TBO it must have been more obvious to you then that this is simply the re-publishing of a ten year old Minister's letter in response to an FOI request rather than DEFRA suddenly seeing fit to confirm their stance , I found that part misleading to be honest.
Whether that changes anything is a matter of opinion, certainly the paddlers haven't gone quiet over there
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Not to p*** on anyones chips but the actual letter to the BCU paints a very different picture to the internal advice to the minister of course I am no lawyer
thecrow
Well-known member
Interesting and somewhat enlightening stuff on SOTP,
Mark Lloyd say's in a letter that the trust and most of their members are committed to more VAA's how would they know what their members want concerning paddlers? have they surveyed them?
Mark Lloyd say's in a letter that the trust and most of their members are committed to more VAA's how would they know what their members want concerning paddlers? have they surveyed them?
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
Sort of. Those who have issues with canoes give them feedback. Although 'committed' is probably not the right word - more 'persuaded that there is little other route to take without incurring massive court costs, win or lose'
The bad one
Well-known member
Geoff they need to take a leaf out of the RSPB et al's book and appeal direct to all anglers for the funds to bring such an action. And it would affect all anglers including stillwater anglers of every hue, as they believe they have an Unfettered right of access to all waterbodies.
Therefore it's in all anglers interests to back them with £s in any such action.
I for one despite my differences with them would contribute to such a fund, as I suspect many others would.
Therefore it's in all anglers interests to back them with £s in any such action.
I for one despite my differences with them would contribute to such a fund, as I suspect many others would.
thecrow
Well-known member
The truth is Geoff that he doesn't know that most members are committed to more VAA's so why say it? just another example of the trust that claims to represent all anglers arrogantly thinking that all anglers think the same as them, they don't.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
So you do not want VAAs to be negotiated then ? Even on those rivers where they go miles without ever seeing an angler ?
---------- Post added at 07:32 ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 ----------
Out of interest Fish Legal never actually referred to the actual letter sent by the Minister to the BCU they seemed content only to quote internal advice ( i am still not clear on how they knew to ask for this very specifically via an FOI other than it being quoted on various canoe forums )
Just because you might go for miles without seeing an angler doesn't mean that the river is not in a fragile state; too low water or during spawning periods or with over abstraction taking place.
As for my local rivers, the Hampshire Avon, the Test and the Itchen together with the Wylyie and the Nadder then my answer is a resounding; No!
I definitely do not want or need to see bloody canoes on any of these tender environments.
Last edited:
thecrow
Well-known member
bennygesserit;1298301[B said:]So you do not want VAAs to be negotiated then ? Even on those rivers where they go miles without ever seeing an angler ?[/B]
---------- Post added at 07:32 ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 ----------
Out of interest Fish Legal never actually referred to the actual letter sent by the Minister to the BCU they seemed content only to quote internal advice ( i am still not clear on how they knew to ask for this very specifically via an FOI other than it being quoted on various canoe forums )
Correct ..............
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Peter so if the level was sufficient and the river was only sparsely fished what would your objection be then ?
Spoiling the fishing that many anglers on these rivers pay between £1,250 and £5,000 per season for a starter.
There are simply some rivers where paddlers and (particularly) fly fishermen will never mix. This is because no riparian owner will be prepared to lose the income from valuable chalk stream fisheries for the pittances that the paddler might, in their generosity, decide to pay.
If, however, the paddlers want to pay the same amounts as we do in order to "use" that part of the river, then, well, fair do's I suppose.
Somehow I just cannot see that happening, after all these characters want to "right" to roam freely without putting their hand in their pockets, don't they.