Paddlers rights of access

laguna

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
27
Location
Bradford, West Yorkshire
Update from Angling Trust & Fish Legal about Canoe Access.

Last year, Fish Legal, working closely with the Angling Trust, challenged the Canoe Governing Bodies (British Canoe Union/British Canoeing, Canoe England and Canoe Wales) to get them to change the information that they were publishing suggesting that the law regarding rights of access to rivers is unclear in England and Wales. This included reference to the academic works of Rev Dr Douglas Caffyn. We felt that this information was contributing to a widespread increase in unlawful canoeing.
We have spent many months of work and several thousands of pounds on this legal case and we are making slow but significant progress. This included commissioning an eminent QC to advise on the legal position and review the works of Rev Dr Caffyn. The QC’s Advice is very clear. The summary of the Advice is set out below and we aim to publish the full document (which runs to 19 pages) in the coming weeks after further discussion with the Canoeing Governing Bodies.
Thank you very much for your support.
Advice Summary
1. There is no general Public Right of Navigation (PRN) on English and Welsh non-tidal rivers for canoeists.
2. A PRN can only be established by long use of vessels on the relevant stretch of river, fulfilling all of the criteria below.
3. That use must have been regular and habitual, and must have made the river of substantial practical value as a channel of communication or transport.
4. The time for which that use must be established is “time immemorial.”
5. The law is entirely clear on the above issues.
6. The law is, however, not absolutely clear on how long is required to establish “time immemorial”, but it is likely that between 60 to 80 years of use needs to be established by those who assert a PRN.
7. Additionally, the use must also not have been under protest from the riparian owners, or by permission from them. On the contrary, use cannot be established unless it is shown that the owners have acquiesced with the passage of canoeists or other vessels throughout the period of use.
8. A PRN, if established, does not entitle paddlers to walk on the soil of the river bed or indeed go onto the river banks, again unless long usage of either has been established as against the owners.
9. In the absence of a PRN established by use, and assuming there is no agreed access, express dedication, or a statutory PRN, canoeists will be trespassing when they paddle in non-tidal waters.
 

maggot_dangler

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
1,330
Reaction score
424
Location
Market Drayton Shropshire
Well a step in the right direction at least, wonder how this holds up on canals after all they are non tidal waters

PG...

Sent from my 8055 using Tapatalk
 
B

binka

Guest
Thanks for posting the update Chris.

Unfortunately this only seems to confirm what we already know and clarifying the law further won't deter militant paddlers in the least, certainly not the ones who I come across anyway.

I wonder how it currently stands with regards to prosecution eg. Can this only be carried out upon complaint from the riparian owner or could an Angling Club effectively call for prosecution as the leaseholder of the riparian rights, without consent of the actual owner?

The reason I ask is that I can't see riparian owners (Geoff excepted) in general going too far out of their way to enforce their rights, especially as they hardly if ever witness the trespass and unlike Anglers see little if any consequence to it.

It's why the paddlers have gotten away with it for so long.

Same old I'm afraid, clarification is a blunt instrument without some kind of enforcement as the paddlers will simply continue to do as they do now which is to trespass both on land and in water.

Paddlers play the current system which I think has already been clarified enough by the then Sports Minister Richard Benyon and they are nothing more than law disregarding scum in my opinion.

The enforcement side could be something for the EA to get involved with perhaps?
 

greenie62

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
3,433
Reaction score
3
Location
Wigan
....wonder how this holds up on canals after all they are non tidal waters

:confused: I guess a canal is deemed to have a PRN - after all boating is a bit of a raison d'etre for them - and I understood the C&RT had already conceded this. :eek::eek:mg:
 
B

binka

Guest
Just thinking about this a bit more the whole thing could be self-regulating although I doubt very much it will ever be... It's far too simple and common sense.

Simply make it law that every canoe/kayak type of watercraft has to be registered and clearly display it's own unique serial ID similar with tough fines for those that don't/won't, it's simple enough and I had to do it when I rode a pwc.

The paddlers can hardly object as it's their own militant element that have brought about the necessity.

Most people carry a smart phone these days and a quick snap of the offender showing the surrounding area with all the time and location properties and it's a simple case of reporting it and letting due procedure take over.

Nah... Way too simple :rolleyes:
 

maggot_dangler

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
1,330
Reaction score
424
Location
Market Drayton Shropshire
:confused: I guess a canal is deemed to have a PRN - after all boating is a bit of a raison d'etre for them - and I understood the C&RT had already conceded this. :eek::eek:mg:

Out come the double tube snot gun then :D :wh

But that said they have not launched their canoes from a proper launch facility so therefore there is a question as to the legality oof their entry into the water is there not .....???


PG ...
 
Last edited:
B

binka

Guest
Don't worry about the canals MD, there's plenty of old WWII pill boxes dotted along their lengths that could be taken out of mothballs and reinstated :eek: ;) :D
 

laguna

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
27
Location
Bradford, West Yorkshire
I once reported someone I know who is an illegal paddler/angler. He boasts that he paddles wherever he wants and fishes out of sight from the general public. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have a rod licence, certainly not a member of any angling club as far as I know. Clearly its not fair to the rest of us who have to pay to fish and gain access to waters.

Clarifying the law is obviously the first step in securing any possible chance of a prosecution. But if were asking for the oppositions help to alter their wording which would potentially reduce their membership as a result, then you've got to ask yourself why should they, what's in it for them the paddlers? There could only ever be a compromise ironing it all out, possibly rewording to suit all. Time immemorial could mean anything, a phrase meaning time extending beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition, indefinitely ancient, "ancient beyond memory or record". The law as it stands as far as my own understanding is very complex and littered with such archaic phrases. The water is not owned and trespassing in itself is not illegal. Trespassing with intent to cause damage is an entirely different matter but very tricky to prove.

Establishing a legal precedent is likely to be very expensive. Is it really worth it?
 

Alan Tyler

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
51
Location
Barnet, S.Herts/N. London
The water may not be owned, but the land over which it flows definitely is, and navigating over private land without consent is like picnicking on a canoeist's front lawn without theirs. Especially if the gate was open...
Heaven forfend.
 

thecrow

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
7,607
Reaction score
5
Location
Old Arley home of the Crows
The Angling Trust can clarify all they want but the fact remains that it is anglers that are the ones that against paddlers doing whatever they wish although there are some that think its ok for anglers to have to put up with it.

The general none angling public haven't a clue about PRNs or access agreements so they wont police it, land owners cant be at the river 24/7 so its down to anglers to do it but the only way for that to happen is as Steve said for all paddlers craft to be identified with a licence number and I just cannot see that happening, this will just rumble on and on with the trust spending money and the paddlers laughing at us.

How many members are there of the trusts paddling section?
 
Top