Defra Publishes Legal Opinion on Canoeists’ ‘Unconvincing’ Access Claims

[bennygesserit]

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.

That's a fair point Peter

 

[geoffmaynard]

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.

Don't let your obvious dislike of the ATr (or its CEO?) confuse the facts Mr Crow. The 'members' referred to here are the fishery-owning members, not the angler-members. These pay far more for membership than individuals but can represent a whole raft of anglers. It's very likely that you (and many other ATr detractors) fish in waters where the fishing rights owner is an ATr Fishery member. On these waters the Atr is protecting you and your fishing wether you want them to or not

 

[thecrow]

Don't let your obvious dislike of the ATr (or its CEO?) confuse the facts Mr Crow. The 'members' referred to here are the fishery-owning members, not the angler-members. These pay far more for membership than individuals but can represent a whole raft of anglers. It's very likely that you (and many other ATr detractors) fish in waters where the fishing rights owner is an ATr Fishery member. On these waters the Atr is protecting you and your fishing wether you want them to or not

Geoff I have no dislike for either the trust or its CEO, I do however have a dislike for some of the things that the trust has done, as for the CEO I am afraid you are wrong to judge what I think of someone on the strength of one post, I don't know him and have no view of him.

The members referred to in the letter are not defined in the letter and to me "most members" means just that, you obviously have more "inside" information on who the members are. Perhaps that should have been made clear in the letter no confusion then for anyone that read it, and when a letter is made public on an open forum lots will read it and draw their own conclusions.

 

[geoffmaynard]

Geoff I have no dislike for either the trust or its CEO, I do however have a dislike for some of the things that the trust has done, as for the CEO I am afraid you are wrong to judge what I think of someone on the strength of one post, I don't know him and have no view of him.

The members referred to in the letter are not defined in the letter and to me "most members" means just that, you obviously have more "inside" information on who the members are. Perhaps that should have been made clear in the letter no confusion then for anyone that read it, and when a letter is made public on an open forum lots will read it and draw their own conclusions.

Apologies then. I assumed from post 15 that you were an ATr "knocker". Of course they are going to make decisions which won't please everyone - there's some things I'm not crazy about either - but whilst there is nowhere else to go, I'm backing them. United we stand etc.
I am a fishery member so that's why I know about these different layers of membership although it's not a secret, it's all detailed in their joining documentation.
Until the time is right to contest the canoe issue in court, the VAA option appears to be the only way to go. It's through gritted teeth I say this but it's an essential hoop which has to be jumped through to prove navigation permission is required and accepted by anyone wanting to canoe. A step on the ladder...

 

[thecrow]

I have doubts about this ever being contested in court, where would the money come from? TBO's idea was one I would contribute to but for fishery owners to jump through the VAA hoop would be IMO the thin end of the wedge, a wedge that could cost both fishery owners and the trust dearly with clubs giving stretches up and members leaving.

 

[nicepix]

This issue could easily be settled with one Member's Bill adding to or amending the Fixed Penalty Notices for Antisocial Behaviour. That would give local police officers the power to issue tickets to canoeists. I accept the difficulties of catching them 'in the act'. But as with the off road motorbike offences, there are ways and means of catching them loading their canoes onto their cars. It isn't rocket science.

The government's reluctance to do this simple measure without explanation is of concern.

 

[bennygesserit]

This issue could easily be settled with one Member's Bill adding to or amending the Fixed Penalty Notices for Antisocial Behaviour. That would give local police officers the power to issue tickets to canoeists. I accept the difficulties of catching them 'in the act'. But as with the off road motorbike offences, there are ways and means of catching them loading their canoes onto their cars. It isn't rocket science.

The government's reluctance to do this simple measure without explanation is of concern.

What do you think of the great Fish Legal announcement ? A definitive view of the legal situation as announced or a damp squib ?

Certainly publishing half a Minister's exchange from ten years ago isnt shattering news

 

[nicepix]

What do you think of the great Fish Legal announcement ? A definitive view of the legal situation as announced or a damp squib ?

Certainly publishing half a Minister's exchange from ten years ago isnt shattering news

I said right at the start that the canoeists were clinging to a student's thesis that just happened to coincide with their interests and had no basis in law. There had been many private member's bills started in Parliament that had fizzled out without being taken to the required stage. And yet there was no clarification from the Government as to the definitive legal position. The latter has allowed this situation to continue to the detriment of angling.

 

[bennygesserit]

I said right at the start that the canoeists were clinging to a student's thesis that just happened to coincide with their interests and had no basis in law. There had been many private member's bills started in Parliament that had fizzled out without being taken to the required stage. And yet there was no clarification from the Government as to the definitive legal position. The latter has allowed this situation to continue to the detriment of angling.

And do you think this is clarification ? What the minister actually sent out was unconvincing which part do you see as a definite , clear , rule ?

 

[nicepix]

And do you think this is clarification ? What the minister actually sent out was unconvincing which part do you see as a definite , clear , rule ?

Well, its the clearest statement yet from a Government department:

The soil of rivers is vested not in the Crown, but in the riparian owners and in the case of inland lakes, in the adjoining proprietors. This is established in a series of common law cases...

And the canoeist's case is based on:

The Reverend Caffyn attempts to argue against these and against Halsbury's Laws of England but without giving any real or convincing reason why he considers them to be incorrect

To overturn previous judgements requires the canoeists to bring a case and if unsuccessful challenge the decision through a higher court. And that puts the ball firmly in their court.

 

[bennygesserit]

Well, its the clearest statement yet from a Government department:



And the canoeist's case is based on:



To overturn previous judgements requires the canoeists to bring a case and if unsuccessful challenge the decision through a higher court. And that puts the ball firmly in their court.

The things you quoted though were not the officially release ministerial statement though that ( quoted by me several posts back ) seems enormously less definite. Have you read it ? I am interested in your thoughts

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

This one

 

[nicepix]

Is that the full reply? If so, it means absolutely nothing.

That letter is addressed to the BCU. Perhaps the letter addressed to the AT was worded differently?

 

[bennygesserit]

Well, its the clearest statement yet from a Government department:



And the canoeist's case is based on:



To overturn previous judgements requires the canoeists to bring a case and if unsuccessful challenge the decision through a higher court. And that puts the ball firmly in their court.

You are quoting from the unofficial guidance given to the Minister what Alun Michael was actually prepared to put his name to and sign was very different and quoted ( by me ) above.

 

[geoffmaynard]

You are quoting from the unofficial guidance given to the Minister what Alun Michael was actually prepared to put his name to and sign was very different and quoted ( by me ) above.

Is that the entire letter Benny? It seems to be cropped, I was wondering if there is more?

 

[bennygesserit]

Is that the entire letter Benny? It seems to be cropped, I was wondering if there is more?

I will dig it out - though its on one of the links ( I cropped it on my ipad - fat fingers )

Geoff do you know how Fish Legal came to make the very specific FOI request for this correspondence ? Was it because it was being quoted on Paddlers forums ?

---------- Post added at 13:53 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ----------

its strange I had loads of trouble getting the third page

the advice to the Minister unsigned ( damming for the canoeist case and quoted by FL )

The covering letter that went with it ( all personal opinion of course )

And the actual memo the Minister saw fit to publish after unknown consultation with the rest of his legal staff

Actually its still cropped Geoff you can find the entire thing on page 3 ( good luck ) of this link

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-of-navigation-on-non-tidal-rivers

 

[nicepix]

I honestly don't see what you are getting at Benny. The canoeists are basing their whole case on a student's essay. Everything points towards there being no legal right of navigation on non-tidal waters and if the BCU wish to challenge this then they will have to go to court.

Tally-Ho!

 

[bennygesserit]

I honestly don't see what you are getting at Benny. The canoeists are basing their whole case on a student's essay. Everything points towards there being no legal right of navigation on non-tidal waters and if the BCU wish to challenge this then they will have to go to court.

Tally-Ho!

Ha ha the games afoot , my point being fish legal made a fuss about this as if it were something new , its ten years old , and its not all the facts to say DEFRA made a definitive legal statement they didn't , after further unknown consultation the minister released a very different message.
Whatever your views on canoeists its not nice to be deliberately misled.

 

[nicepix]

Ha ha the games afoot , my point being fish legal made a fuss about this as if it were something new , its ten years old , and its not all the facts to say DEFRA made a definitive legal statement they didn't , after further unknown consultation the minister released a very different message.
Whatever your views on canoeists its not nice to be deliberately misled.

Whenever it was published the legal opinion will hardly have changed.

 

[bennygesserit]

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.

I read many many accounts from canoeists and anglers who simply are not bothered if they encounter each other and just give each other a friendly wave, ( its been said many times on here). Now there are certain honey pots like parts of the Wye where there are too many untrained stag do type paddlers and other much smaller rivers where paddlers shouldnt be there because of river levels or because a canoe going past might ruin your swim.

So I am convinced that if the river is wide enough most anglers are not bothered by the odd canoe , also a lot of paddlers say they go for miles without seeing any anglers.

In my view the Trust should stop promoting an antagonistic and in this case misleading anti canoe campaign there appear to be many places where a compromise has already been reached and friendly encounters happen everyday.

If the trust work together with the BCU then you are much more likely to get voluntary codes in place which remove canoeists from the more controversial smaller rivers which should result in less disturbance to anglers. Similarly the BCU should then help reduce unlicensed paddlers on the Wye.

I can't help feeling ordinary anglers are being whipped up into a frenzy by the Trust who like to be seen to be strong leaders ( just as they did with the seal fiasco ) that same Angling Trust who has such strong ties with the Countryside Alliance - you know the sort who are pals with Richard Benyon the mega rich land owner who wants to keep the oiks of his stretch of the river.

So cue the usual response of the movers and shakers who are actively involved in the Trust. All I am saying is if you read the forums on this matter , and I have read absolutely tons of them , the majority of anglers are not really bothered by canoes and I think the Trust should be reflecting the views of ordinary anglers as evidenced on numerous forums. Practical compromise , on both sides , is always the way forward.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

If the trust work together with the BCU then you are much more likely to get voluntary codes in place which remove canoeists from the more controversial smaller rivers which should result in less disturbance to anglers.

The problem with that as I see it is that it is the BCU have stated that they are wholly against Voluntary Agreements and in fact counsel their clubs and members not to engage in the protocol?

If that is correct, then as a member of the Angling Trust I for one am very happy for them to continue a policy of non-alignment with the paddlers.

I am also a member of the Countryside Alliance and can really assure you that your view of the CA is simply not right.

The vast majority of the 100,000 plus members simply want to see rural areas remain rural, to enjoy our sports and pass-times in peace and are just ordinary people without any ties to mega-rich land owners.

---------- Post added at 08:40 ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 ----------

he majority of anglers are not really bothered by canoes

That in my opinion is because those anglers fish on rivers where paddling is already allowed, so really have no choice in the matter. I would far prefer for the Angling Trust to continue to fight to ensure that paddlers are kept off of rivers where they have no legal right to be in the first place.

If they (the paddlers) really believe in the hype about the legality then for goodness sake take us to court and be done with it.