Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd fail to deliver again

[andy_youngs]

Andy,

 

In America we say, "I don't have a dog in this fight". From the outside looking in on the debate (which I enjoy) you're loosing. Make your point again. What's the subject? What do you want to happen?

 

Phone

 

Sorry Phone, I don't really agree that I'm losing the argument. This thread gives visibility to just a tiny fraction of the issues. "What do I want to happen?" Well, how about being able to canoe my local river without being verbally abused by anglers. You're lucky, you don't have that problem in the States. Over there public navigation rights are recognised.

Edited January 3, 2012 by andy_youngs

[Bob Shotter]

Sorry Phone, I don't really agree that I'm losing the argument. This thread gives visibility to just a tiny fraction of the issues. "What do I want to happen?" Well, how about being able to canoe my local river without being verbally abused by anglers. You're lucky, you don't have that problem in the States. Over there public navigation rights are recognised.

 

Andy with all due respect you have no argument were there are no rights of navigation, further you have no argument if navigating a river and you encounter anglers who may well be paying a lot of money to fish that particular river. You might have an argument if both you and the anglers have right of access but this would be sensibly resolved by who was there first, for example I would not go to a beach and start fishing in an area where there are surfers any more than it would be right for surfers to start surfing where fishermen were already fishing. It’s called courtesy or using some simple common sense for goodness sake. More to the point I would avoid fishing areas where such conflict might arise and would suggest you and your cannoning chums do the same.

 

So is this topic worthy of a public debate? I don’t think so any more than I would expect you find much support here let alone from the Angling Trust.

[andy_youngs]

Make your point again. What's the subject? What do you want to happen?

 

Phone

OK.

 

Present Angling Trust policy is that the default legal position is that the riparian owners consent must be sought by canoeists before they attempt to paddle down a river. I object to this policy on legal, moral and practical grounds.

 

Firstly, the legal arguments. The Angling Trust advise their members that this interpretation is an uncontested legal fact. It isn't. It is an untested legal opinion and a great deal of research has been published which challenges this view, see http://www.caffynonrivers.co.uk/. None of this research has been challenged by Fish Legal, and no efforts have been made to instigate a test case, presumably for fear that the Angling Trust would lose.

 

Secondly, the moral arguments. The Angling Trust recently wrote to Canoe England requesting that they condemn a proposed paddle down the Hampshire Avon as illegal trespass (which they declined to do). Notwithstanding the uncertain legal position, and the fact that this request came from anglers rather than landowners, suggesting that prior consent of every riparian owner must be obtained is in fact a euphomism for saying 'you're not allowed to canoe the river'. Neither the Environment Agency nor Canoe England have the resources to negotiate access agreements on a river by river basis. The Angling Trusts policy is therefore unrealistic, ensures that 98% of rivers remain off-limits to canoeists, and simply serves to perpetuate conflict between anglers and other user groups. As it stands, I can't take kids paddling on a river, because I can never be sure that some militant angler isn't going to jump out from behind a bush shouting abuse with, apparently, the full blessing of the Angling Trust.

 

Thirdly, the practical arguments. The reality is that this policy is totally unenforceable in a court of law. Even if a court was to rule that paddling down a river without having first obtained the permission of every riparian owner constitutes trespass (which is highly doubtful), then there's still nothing anyone could do to stop people paddling down a river other than standing on the riverbank shouting hot air at canoeists.

 

What do I want to happen? I would like the Angling Trust to acknowledge that access is not contested to the vast majority of our inland waterways (99% of landowners couldn't give two hoots whether people paddle the river), to identify and publish the relatively small number of locations where tensions exist, and to actively engage with canoeists at these locations to diffuse the situation through mutual negotiation. At present, they're simply saying 'there is no right of access', which is like trying to put a fire out with petrol (Phone - read 'gasoline').

 

Appointing Salter to the Angling Trust exacerbates the situation because he had the perfect opportunity to put a sensible, sustainable legislative framework in place when he was an MP, but he chose not to do it. Instead, he chose to pander to a small (if vocal) element within the angling community

Edited January 3, 2012 by andy_youngs

[andy_youngs]

It’s called courtesy or using some simple common sense for goodness sake. More to the point I would avoid fishing areas where such conflict might arise and would suggest you and your cannoning chums do the same.

I would certainly agree that people should exercise courtesy and common sense. Would you, for instance, start patrolling a riverbank during the closed fishing season hurling abuse at canoeists? Or worse still, threaten to string razor wire across the river? Because I can assure you that is precisely what's happenning at the moment

 

So is this topic worthy of a public debate? I don’t think so any more than I would expect you find much support here let alone from the Angling Trust.

Really? I notice you're still here

Edited January 3, 2012 by andy_youngs

[barry luxton]

brilliant link you put up Andy. I note from hundreds of years ago to date the only challenge with regards to free access was when they made so many rivers navigable for larger craft and they charged a toll for those boats, to recoup the cost, yet the smaller craft always had access even to date as you have said. No access had ever been denyed, as you say, Un-challenged.

 

So those copping out or think cannoes have no right really aught to read and digest. Thats the problem with those who concider assumption as fact. Ha ha ha,nice one. Angling only came on the scene in later days, so, chicken and eggs situation, what came first, boating of course, angling and the landowners don't have the right to deny access, landowners haven't, according to your link.

 

3. A right of navigation can only be extinguished by statute or

because the section of river becomes physically un-navigable.

 

4. There is, therefore, a public right of navigation on all rivers

which are physically usable.

 

You keep on with this public discussion Andy, very interesting, you put those denyers to shame you do.

 

The trust are aware of your link as they are very wise to state that there is a need for local agreement, thats the very least they could have done, while sitting on the fence.

Edited January 3, 2012 by barry luxton

[barry luxton]

Andy with all due respect you have no argument were there are no rights of navigation, further you have no argument if navigating a river and you encounter anglers who may well be paying a lot of money to fish that particular river. You might have an argument if both you and the anglers have right of access but this would be sensibly resolved by who was there first, for example I would not go to a beach and start fishing in an area where there are surfers any more than it would be right for surfers to start surfing where fishermen were already fishing. It’s called courtesy or using some simple common sense for goodness sake. More to the point I would avoid fishing areas where such conflict might arise and would suggest you and your cannoning chums do the same.

 

So is this topic worthy of a public debate? I don’t think so any more than I would expect you find much support here let alone from the Angling Trust.

 

 

Really, Andy has provided some historic facts to base his argument on. Have you some facts, links, to counter Andy's. Or is the above just your own personal untested opinion.

[andy_youngs]

Thanks for the kind words of support Barry. One point I would just make is that you state "angling only came on the scene in later years". Not strictly true. Our rivers have been fished for as long as they've been navigated. That's why Magna Carta in 1215 stated that fish traps must only be only be laid on the bed of a river so as not to obstruct passing boat traffic. One of the few clauses in Magna Carta which has never been repealed by statute.

Edited January 3, 2012 by andy_youngs

[barry luxton]

Thanks for the kind words of support Barry. One point I would just make that you state "angling only came on the scene in later years". Not strictly true. Our rivers have been fished for as long as they've been navigated. That's why Magna Carta in 1215 stated that fish traps must only be only be laid on the bed of a river so as not to obstruct boat traffic. One of few clauses in Magna Carta which has never been repealed by statute.

 

I appreciate what you say Andy, i am sure the author reffered it to latter day pleasure angling and not catching for food, i.e. before the trusts ideal of catch and release.

 

I also note that benyon has poked his nose in and states that more should be done to allow more access for canoes, well my interpretation of your link again states that they already have navigation rights. So what's needed to be done is the likes of benyon to either scrap access, if he dares or reinforce it in parliament with unequivical legislation to suit current needs.

Edited January 3, 2012 by barry luxton

[Bob Shotter]

Really, Andy has provided some historic facts to base his argument on. Have you some facts, links, to counter Andy's. Or is the above just your own personal untested opinion.

 

You will see that I have made it quite clear the views posted by me are mine Barry while Andy has now put up some more information from the outset this thread has lacked much detail. While there may well be plenty on the other site.

 

The idea that something has not been challenged in law does not make any infringement right.

What also should be taken into account are the closed angling seasons, presumably to allow for spawning, the question then has to be ‘does cannoning during these time affect fish spawning?’

 

To ask the Angling Trust ‘to acknowledge that access is not contested to the vast majority of our inland waterways’ is a no brainer why would they irrespective of there being any credibility of Andy’s claim ‘(99% of landowners couldn't give two hoots whether people paddle the river).

 

‘To identify and publish the relatively small number of locations where tensions exist, and to actively engage with canoeists at these locations to diffuse the situation through mutual negotiation.’ is a reasonable request but again the Angling Trust rightly points out that ‘at present, 'there is no right of access', that is a ‘LEAGL’ fact and while you may view this of little significance it will have to be dealt with before the Trust or anyone else including the Canoeing union can enter into any form of mutual negotiation.

 

Finally Andy I think you need to distinguish between support and interest, I’m still here because I find the topic one of ‘interest’ and remain dubious that you will find a great amount of support either here or from the Angling Trust.

[andy_youngs]

The idea that something has not been challenged in law does not make any infringement right. What also should be taken into account are the closed angling seasons, presumably to allow for spawning, the question then has to be ‘does cannoning during these time affect fish spawning?’

That's a good idea, why don't we ban canoeing during the closed fishing season. That way, we'll avoid any possibility of the canoeists annoying the fish

 

The Angling Trust rightly points out that ‘at present, 'there is no right of access', that is a ‘LEAGL’ fact and while you may view this of little significance it will have to be dealt with before the Trust or anyone else including the Canoeing union can enter into any form of mutual negotiation.

Well ok, so there is 'no legal right of access'. Is that a legal fact? I re-iterate my assertion that this is like trying to put a fire out with petrol (or in phones case, gasoline).

 

Finally Andy I think you need to distinguish between support and interest, I’m still here because I find the topic one of ‘interest’ and remain dubious that you will find a great amount of support either here or from the Angling Trust.

Bob, I thanked Barry for supporting my posts, and I thank you for showing an interest. Believe me, I don't take either of those things for granted.

Edited January 3, 2012 by andy_youngs