Jump to content

Navigation Rights continued


Recommended Posts

Guest bluedun

Thanks Newt.

 

There are similarities with the UK. One cannot go onto private land without permission, except in the case of public rights of way and some specific cases of right to roam, the details of which I don't know. The real problem is the grossly unequal distribution of land ownership, but that's another topic altogether.

 

The main difference here is that fishing rights can be owned, distinct though usually coincident with ownership of the water bed. Clubs generally lease these rights; occasionally they own them outright. For coarse anglers there is mostly wide access for the payment of a modest fee. In the case of trout and salmon the cost is not that modest, and can be extremely expensive. But there are cases where fishing access is only available to the privileged few, the most notable (infamous?) example the Houghton club on the R Test - membership extortionate and by invitation only; last I heard a very small (wealthy) membership paying some £13000 a year for 13 miles of fishing.

 

Personally I'd like this sort of privilege to end, but this is all tied up with issues of inequality, demand for the fishing, and no doubt other complications. I don't expect to see any change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks Newt.

 

There are similarities with the UK. One cannot go onto private land without permission, except in the case of public rights of way and some specific cases of right to roam, the details of which I don't know.

 

Please do not confuse matters still further by making sweeping statements about the UK when you actually mean England.

 

In Scotland there is a general right of access to the land.

 

 

Your access rights

Everyone can enjoy Scotland's outdoor access rights. In summary, some of the main features of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 are:

  • Everyone has the statutory right of access
  • Access rights apply to all land and inland waters, unless excluded (as below)
  • Access rights are for outdoor recreation, for crossing land and water, and for some educational and commercial purposes
  • Exercising access rights, and managing access land, must be done responsibly.

 

full details

 

http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/outdoors-responsibly/your-access-rights/

Nick

 

 

...life

what's it all about...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluedun

Please do not confuse matters still further by making sweeping statements about the UK when you actually mean England.

 

In Scotland there is a general right of access to the land.

 

 

full details

 

http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/outdoors-responsibly/your-access-rights/

Okay, okay, laws have changed somewhat in Scotland - not trying to tread on Scots' sensitivities here. But the point about the fishing, which is what we're really talking about, applies throughout the UK.

 

Actually, Scotland is an interesting case because half of it is owned by a relatively small number of individuals, few of them Scots, and not just the old aristocracy these days. Still some feudalism there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Scots sensitivities here, I'm English :-)

 

But I do appreciate accuracy, and I believe what we are talking about is canoe access :-)

Nick

 

 

...life

what's it all about...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All,

 

To expand on Newt's comments. In Missouri, my state, if you accept state assistance, i.e. stocking of fish, water quality issues, financial assistance in building the pond, etc then you have to provide access and an easement to the public (many land owners don't adhear to the law).

 

I agree with Newt in that access is SOooo different it's like apples and ducks.

 

BTW, I think the only thing in common with England is that we adopted the definition of shoreline. "Three feet from the historical high water mark".

 

A no trespassing sigh isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

Phone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A no trespassing sigh isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

I've read about what happens to canoeists who go where they are not welcome over there.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068473/

 

 

banjo2.jpg

Edited by Leon Roskilly

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh really? According to the moderator, it was locked because of insults from "the usual suspects" - which I take to mean someone with a track record.

 

It would be good to have a discussion without the dubious and peverse distinctions on what constitutes evidence, even in the face of common sense, which really are no more than false redoubts from which to attempt to defend positions.

 

But first of all, why is anyone here attempting to fly the flag for canoeing (except for the one or two who happen to be canoeists too)? This is more than a egalitarian call for free access: angling and canoeing in smaller rivers unavoidably conflict. If you are an angler who fishes these rivers you will know the interference canoes would cause, even leaving aside matters of damage to spawning. Canoeists have access to many miles of river anyway. If there are certain types of water they wish to canoe unavailable at present, I don't suppose it would be impossible to reach some accommodation here, but to demand free access is unrealistic.

 

Free access for angling is something else. Freshwater fishing in this country is very restricted and in some ways I would like to see wider access. But there is a case against, and this has been mentioned above already I think. Perhaps the Americans here could comment on how the freer access rights in the States works.

To demand free access is unrealistic, so i suppose what goes on in the majority of the rest of the civilised world is therefore unrealistic.

 

As for evidence, if someone is going to make statements about a sport causing damage to the environment and deaths amongst young birds and mammals and try to justify restricting access this way then I consider it perfectly reasonable to ask that they back up their statements with some body of evidence, after all if I were to say that bass were becoming too numerous and were causing damage to the stocks of juvenile fish of other species and imbalancing the delicate inshore ecosystems so should be culled post haste I think it would be only reasonable if someone asked me to produce some evidence to confirm my statement.

Edited by snakey1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluedun

To demand free access is unrealistic, so i suppose what goes on in the majority of the rest of the civilised world is therefore unrealistic.

Is this a diabolical attempt to push devil's advocacy to the limit, or a hilarious exercise in non sequiturs? Or both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is realistic in one place might be unrealistic in another. As far as fishing and access goes, I imagine population density will be a controlling factor.

 

For instance, from what I've read, some of the largish bodies of water in the Lake District are much more accessible than is the case in most of England. I imagine if we had anyone familiar with the situation in Japan, we'd hear about lots of restrictions but probably not any to speak of in the Amazon basin.

" My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!" - Harry Truman, 33rd US President

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.