chav professor
Well-known member
Agreed.... But that sort of money.... I personally don't appreciate how this country stitches up so much of our natural heritage.
Canoe Navigation Rights Sunk
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
Agreed.... But that sort of money.... I personally don't appreciate how this country stitches up so much of our natural heritage.
It is really simple, it is private land and privately held fishing rights.
The so called R2R Act was enough of a disaster in my opinion, we don't need anymore like that for anyone; angler or paddler.
I pay for excellent Trout fishing on a chalk stream venue with little or no interferance from anyone else.
Each beat only has one rod per day so you can basically fish from dawn to dusk and not see another soul.
Well, not quite "dawn" as then the keeper is out undertaking vermin control . . . . . . . so many rats you know
Are these the flying rats, generally black in colour and characterised by a sawbill?
Ah well, you might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment . . . . . . .
[insert U-No-Wot > > > HERE]
Neil Maidment
Moderator
Yes, several times at the back end of the season. I was there on one occasion when this group gained access via private land without permission and then onto the Stour where it flows through the private Malmsbury Estate. No Public Footpath or Right of Way exists.
They eventually came to the New Weir where for a short distance a Public Footpath exists. They were politely challenged by the Fishery Manager and Bailiffs, Police were notified. The paddlers carried on down the path and launched again (trespassing again as they did so). They then carried on downstream presumably down to the Tidal Stretch.
They knew exactly what they were doing and couldn't give a damn for anyone else. The Police did not attend but the Estate and Club are trying to pursue the matter with witnesses and photographic evidence similar to this (50x Optical Zoom comes in handy!)
[url=http://postimg.org/image/3ruchjhqp/]
[/URL]
Andrew Greensmith 2
New member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
"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."
This is extremely narrow minded! This is just as annoying as a paddler saying that all fisherman use dangerous rigs and leave litter on the banks. Obviously this is not the case, most of us (paddlers and anglers) are conscientious and want to protect our sport.
The paying for every stretch thing isn't even worth my time, sorry.
The outcome in my opinion is that the narrow mindedness of both parties, the greed for every possible penny and the need for one party to "WIN" the battle will ultimately lead to a right to roam policy occurring in England just as it has already done so in Scotland.
I don't want this but i have no doubt that it will happen. Then we'll all have something to really complain about.
This is extremely narrow minded! This is just as annoying as a paddler saying that all fisherman use dangerous rigs and leave litter on the banks. Obviously this is not the case, most of us (paddlers and anglers) are conscientious and want to protect our sport.
The paying for every stretch thing isn't even worth my time, sorry.
The outcome in my opinion is that the narrow mindedness of both parties, the greed for every possible penny and the need for one party to "WIN" the battle will ultimately lead to a right to roam policy occurring in England just as it has already done so in Scotland.
I don't want this but i have no doubt that it will happen. Then we'll all have something to really complain about.
Moderator Hat: Off, (personal comment)
Surely this cannot be the best that the paddlers can respond with, is it? And only 36 days after the event too?
Moderator Hat - back on
Surely this cannot be the best that the paddlers can respond with, is it? And only 36 days after the event too?
Moderator Hat - back on
Last edited:
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Ok since you quoted me I'll admit that it was a generality and not caveated in the best manner but from reading a lot of fishing AND canoeing forums the WYE is the example that is always used when talking about what the future might hold if these casual day ticket paddling experiences proliferate. I have seen canoeists themselves deploring the drunken stag and hen parties that often take up these days, but you are right I should have differentiated between those and the more responsible paddler, still that isn't a reason to acknowledge the problem does exist.
Andrew Greensmith 2
New member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
Peter, you seem to think that i'm on the paddlers side but i'm not. I've paddled the Wye on many occasions with groups and have seen the stag parties which in my opinion are as welcome to me as seeing a stag party on the bank trying to fish. (Just in case they're, not welcome).
Many people didn't believe that the R2R would actually come into affect but it did. The land reform act in Scotland is similar to Englands R2R but it extends to waterways. Most people didn't think that would ever get through either, but it did. Its worth pointing out that fishing rights in Scotland are extremely expensive due salmon etc. I've paddled lots of rivers in Scotland including the Tay and the Spey. Simply awesome rivers and teaming with Salmon. I always feel a pang of guilt when guiding a group past fellow anglers as i'm fully aware of how much its costing them but its not my fault that it so expensive. I'd also like to point out that i've never had a run in with an angler in Scotland whereas i've had several in England. There seems to be a very different outlook there.
Similarly i usually feel green with envy when i paddle past a fellow angler on the Wye because i'd much prefer to be behind a rod than in a boat there.
If you want to read more about the Land Reform Act: Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003
There's also a misconception that all paddlers are trespassing when paddling through private land. This isn't the case. It all about ACCESS. If the paddler has to trespass to gain access to/from a river then they are in the wrong. Whilst the boat is afloat and the river bed is not being touched they simply aren't trespassing. I guess this is similar to flying over private land, again not trespassing unless you land. Sorry. Rivers Access Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The reason i can't be bothered to reply to the money issue is that a river trip isn't going cover a single beat or short stretch it'll cover many so its simply impossible to organise that structure. Paddlers pay the BCU, they're just an insurance company however if they were to pay ALL land owners in the country how much should they pay each one. Should it be a set rate per mile? Its unworkable. Would this help? I don't think so.
If a compromise doesn't come about we (as anglers) will suffer. It seems that i'm in an extreme minority where i've got a vested interest in both angles and perhaps as a result i can see it a little more clearly than others.
Also, i want to reiterate. I've not paddled for just over a year now. The next time i plan to be in a boat is during June where i'll be running a couple of trips to the Wye. In terms of angling, i've been spending plenty of time on the bank and am due to head off to France next week so i'm certainly further into the anglers camp than the paddlers. I'm just saying it as it is.
Many people didn't believe that the R2R would actually come into affect but it did. The land reform act in Scotland is similar to Englands R2R but it extends to waterways. Most people didn't think that would ever get through either, but it did. Its worth pointing out that fishing rights in Scotland are extremely expensive due salmon etc. I've paddled lots of rivers in Scotland including the Tay and the Spey. Simply awesome rivers and teaming with Salmon. I always feel a pang of guilt when guiding a group past fellow anglers as i'm fully aware of how much its costing them but its not my fault that it so expensive. I'd also like to point out that i've never had a run in with an angler in Scotland whereas i've had several in England. There seems to be a very different outlook there.
Similarly i usually feel green with envy when i paddle past a fellow angler on the Wye because i'd much prefer to be behind a rod than in a boat there.
If you want to read more about the Land Reform Act: Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003
There's also a misconception that all paddlers are trespassing when paddling through private land. This isn't the case. It all about ACCESS. If the paddler has to trespass to gain access to/from a river then they are in the wrong. Whilst the boat is afloat and the river bed is not being touched they simply aren't trespassing. I guess this is similar to flying over private land, again not trespassing unless you land. Sorry. Rivers Access Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The reason i can't be bothered to reply to the money issue is that a river trip isn't going cover a single beat or short stretch it'll cover many so its simply impossible to organise that structure. Paddlers pay the BCU, they're just an insurance company however if they were to pay ALL land owners in the country how much should they pay each one. Should it be a set rate per mile? Its unworkable. Would this help? I don't think so.
If a compromise doesn't come about we (as anglers) will suffer. It seems that i'm in an extreme minority where i've got a vested interest in both angles and perhaps as a result i can see it a little more clearly than others.
Also, i want to reiterate. I've not paddled for just over a year now. The next time i plan to be in a boat is during June where i'll be running a couple of trips to the Wye. In terms of angling, i've been spending plenty of time on the bank and am due to head off to France next week so i'm certainly further into the anglers camp than the paddlers. I'm just saying it as it is.
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
I think you are wrong here Andrew. As I understand it, the owner of a stretch with both banks has the fishing rights AND the navigation rights (unless there is a PRN). The owners's permission is therefor required to paddle the stretch.
nicepix
Well-known member
Yes, several times at the back end of the season. I was there on one occasion when this group gained access via private land without permission and then onto the Stour where it flows through the private Malmsbury Estate. No Public Footpath or Right of Way exists.
They eventually came to the New Weir where for a short distance a Public Footpath exists. They were politely challenged by the Fishery Manager and Bailiffs, Police were notified. The paddlers carried on down the path and launched again (trespassing again as they did so). They then carried on downstream presumably down to the Tidal Stretch.
They knew exactly what they were doing and couldn't give a damn for anyone else. The Police did not attend but the Estate and Club are trying to pursue the matter with witnesses and photographic evidence similar to this (50x Optical Zoom comes in handy!)
[url=http://postimg.org/image/3ruchjhqp/][/URL]
Looking at those boats they aren't the type used by the independent paddler. I reckon it was a club outing designed as you say to test the laws. Did you manage to identify that logo on the front of the canoe?
flightliner
Well-known member
its the one that they all have-- Its laying claim to go where they like.
Neil Maidment
Moderator
I took a load of images far more detailed than these. Individual face close ups, and all/any boat IDs/markings plus a record of their progress from private land, to public footpath and back onto private land. 50x optical zoom gives great detail. Once back in their boats, judging by their "friendly" waves, gestures and comments, they clearly thought they were out of any useful range of the cameras on the opposite bank.
Three or four others, including the Fishery Manager and controlling Club Bailiffs have similar images and videos.
It was this particular groups second trip in as many weeks. They know exactly what they're are doing, have no intention of entering into any conversation, and totally ignore any request.
nicepix
Well-known member
I would try and engage with the Inspector in charge of the Safer Neighbourhood Team where these guys operate and make a report of Harassment. As long as you claim that you or others were alarmed, distressed or harassed by the canoeists behaviour he / she is obliged to record it and investigate the matter.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
But why do that ? Neil didn't seem alarmed, distressed or harassed so why waste Police time ?
dangermouse
Well-known member
harassment
Web definitions
a feeling of intense annoyance caused by being tormented
Neil was obviously annoyed enough to break off fishing, take out his camera and take photos. Seems to cover it imo.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Do you think he would have been so annoyed if for the last few years the AT had been preaching that we should join with our fellow rivers users , such as canoeists ?
dangermouse
Well-known member
No idea, you`d have to ask him.
Neil Maidment
Moderator
My annoyance and anger is directed at that particular type of paddler. They have absolute disregard for and no respect of private property. In this case they haven't a clue about any sort of countryside code or behaviour in terms of fencing and gates and wilfully put livestock at risk.
They treat other users - anglers, walkers, cyclists - with complete disdain and utter contempt.
I try not to pre-judge other paddlers by this type of action but it's very difficult.
They treat other users - anglers, walkers, cyclists - with complete disdain and utter contempt.
I try not to pre-judge other paddlers by this type of action but it's very difficult.
Benny,
If that ever happens I'll be the first to leave the ATr . . . . . .
That said, I for one will take Nicepix' advice and call the Police if I ever see paddlers on my local stretches on the river