Lets put it in a box and leave it behind

[Ken L]

Well Andy, given that you established in post #29 that you are redefining the law as you go long, it' hardly surprising to see you redefining the dictionary as you go along as well.

 

As both a kayaker and an angler (there you go, didn't expect that did you - I have a Moken 12), I have to say that you appear to be advocating anarchy. I'm quite happy to use the kayak on established routes but wont be ploughing through salmon reds and the like just because I have a craft that could.

 

You are attempting to justify your actions either with some sort of pathetic class war argument or by citing that barbel anglers have a vested interest in something that isn't a part of the river's natural ecology and that they are therefor wrong.

Do you understand what a logical fallacy is ?

This is an ad hominem fallacy.

What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying that because the Nazis were nasty people who did bad things, the Dachau data on the effects of pressure on a human body is worthless and should never be consulted - even though it forms the basis of modern dive tables and saves lives.

 

It doesn't matter that the barbel shouldn't be there. The fact is that they are. The fact is that the people fishing for them pay a lot of money to do so and that goes into supporting the local economy. That makes the people paying to fish the river stakeholders, Just as the people owning the land abutting the river are stakeholders. They get a say in how their joint resourse (the river) is used.

 

Lets imagine that the barbel were vanished away and the river reverted to a salmonid fishery. Now the trout season runs from March to October so do you somehow imagine that legions of fluff chuckers would suddenly welcome kayakers and canoes with open arms ?

 

I think not......

Edited April 9, 2012 by Ken L

[Nicepix]

I too owned a fishing kayak and used it on navigable inland waterways as well as in saltwater.

 

The fear that canoeists will use the banks of the river for unauthorised picnics and as a toilet facility is based on the experiences of landowners in areas where canoeists have river, but not bank access, including the UK and here in France.

 

What you are wanting is a change in the law that at present is being denied due to public pressure. And, as a spokeperson for canoeists I don't think you'll be earning any bonus this year.

 

Let's wind the clock back a few hundred years to when industrialists regarded rivers as a means of water and sewage. No rule, no regulations, just profit. Who was it that brought court cases against pollutants and abstractors? Canoeists? Bird Watchers? No - Anglers! Before the RSPB (Right Set of Parasitical Barstewards) began their campaign to clean the environment and tarnish anglers reputations, fishing clubs and associations throughout the land protected our rivers and made them what they are today - desirable objects for anyone who wants to use them for jet skiing, wild swimming and canoeing for example. If anglers had not been successful in their long campaigns against pollutants and abstracors this argument would not exist because no one would want what was there.

 

If you want to paddle inland I suggest that you consult the map of inland navigation. There are miles of canals available. Go play there.

[chesters1]

you have to be very careful concerning rivers ,you cant have the EA saying landowners dont own the rivers (if the EA want to relocate the fish) then say in the case of canoes they do?

its landowners not river owners

the landowner ownes the bank and the bed not the water if the water company want farmers X,s water theres little farmer x can do to prove its his to stop them ,therefore if landowners dont own the river (the watery bit) then they have no rights to say who or who not uses the watery bit ,if anglers could get to a river without using farmers land then i'm sure they would start actions saying the same ,at one time it was thought standing on a bridge could let you fish where you like but i think laws of passage (where you can use a footpath but not stop on it) was quickly brought in to foil such dastardly attempts by the masses to get away with such arrogance

 

"navigable" is such a loose term ,me and my mate canoed down many miles of water deemed to be unnavigable with ease ,unnavigable to what?

Edited April 9, 2012 by chesters1

[ayjay]

"navigable" is such a loose term ,me and my mate canoed down many miles of water deemed to be unnavigable with ease ,unnavigable to what?

 

Used in these circumstances it is a legal term, to define where you are and are not allowed to float your boat.

[chesters1]

generally its ships ,thats a mighty big canoe

our local village idiots (the village council) has deemed the river "unnavigable" to stop canoes but strangely have a yearly raft race and even more surprisingly theres canoeists looking out for any mishaps entailing the rafts ,strange that

 

one of the reasons was a mention of "weils disease upstream" i emailed the chap who used it as evidence to close the river for the source of his evidence and to date several years later i'm still waiting

not only canoes anglers as well ,strangely the local fluff chuckers are exempted though ,and me ofcourse the land was left to the "enjoyment of the villagers ",i live in the village they can have a funny run and have been told so

Edited April 9, 2012 by chesters1

[Sportsman]

I can's say that all canoeists are dicks as I haven't met all canoeists. I can however say that all canoeists that I have interacted with on or around a river have been dicks. This is based upon personal experience.

As an example I used to fish for Salmon and Sea trout in the river North Esk near to the town of Edzell in Angus. This river was very popular with canoeists in this area, for obvious reasons.

 

One day I was fishing in the pool directly below where the photo above was taken. A day ticket to fish this beat at this time of year was about £60.00.

A flotilla of canoes appeared above me and three paddlers landed and came down to the tail of the pool where I was fishing to assess the conditions.

They completely ignored me and the fact that I was fishing there. They decided that for safety reasons they would have to rig a line across the river. I pointed out to them that this would prevent me fishing but was told that A. they had "RIGHTS" and B. "if I didn't like it I should go and fish elsewhere"

I then had to stand and watch as they did what they wanted and came down the rapids one at a time, shrieking and screaming like little girls (no offence to little girls you understand) As they completed their run the milled around in the pool I had been recently fishing shouting at each other. I heard one say to another "who is the guy watching?" to be given the answer "He is just some fisherman, f*** him"

After an hour they left.

This was repeated in more or less the same way three times that day.

Canoeists seem very big on "RIGHTS" and not quite so keen on "RESPONSIBILITIES"

If you are looking for sympathy for your cause you will find it in the dictionary, somewhere between sh1t and syphilis.

[Nicepix]

Chesters old chap. It doesn't matter who owns the river itself, it is the banks owned by farmers and posh householders that will (based on what happens elsewhere) be used as picnic spots and toilets by canoeists. If you paid half a million quid for a nice riverside property would you be happy with a procession of urban oiks paddling past your pad while you were relaxing on the lawn enjoying the peace?

 

Also, your analogy about water craft being on rivers before anglers is dubious. What came first - the bank angler or the need to take to the water? And in any case, yesterday's practices aren't necessarily acceptable today.

 

'Navigable' in this sense means having the legal right to use a boat on the river or canal subject to regulations and fees. Many rivers and canals are not lawfully navigable but are used by canoeists in the same way that many footpaths are not rights of way for motor vehicles but are used by 4x4's and off-road motorbikes. If you are saying that the law is there to be broken then you have to question your role as a bailiff.

 

Many canoeists will have no idea that they have to pay for a permit to use many if not most navigable waters and from what I have read, others have no intention of paying for their proposed access.

[Anderoo]

What they said ^^

 

No sympathy from me whatsoever, it's a selfish crusade not an assertion of rights. There are a thousand places I'd love to fish that I don't have permission for. Rather than threatening to take everyone to court because my rights have been somehow infringed, or poaching them anyway, I accept that not everyone can have what they want just because they want it.

[ayjay]

Interesting, trying to figure out who's in the majority, and who's in the minority

 

I think we're getting there.

[chesters1]

What they said ^^

 

No sympathy from me whatsoever, it's a selfish crusade not an assertion of rights. There are a thousand places I'd love to fish that I don't have permission for. Rather than threatening to take everyone to court because my rights have been somehow infringed, or poaching them anyway, I accept that not everyone can have what they want just because they want it.

 

no your just excepting you cant fish there who says you cannot on a river? ,if anglers like walkers didnt stand up to those that think they have power anglers wouldt have anywhere to fish at all and walkers not get their right to roam into law ,whilst the latter isnt an option to walk on every inch of land its far better than bugger all.if canoeists wish to follow their sport let them.

 

as for saying canoes came first re read my sentence then come back

 

theres laws as written in law statute law ,common law and silly rules dreamt up by twits that have gained a little power and wish to show it somehow (like the village idiots) common law i follow and i choose only to follow laws or things other than that i think makes sense like club "rules" they aint laws but in the main are sensible

 

i am on the side of common sence i have no parly with canoeists but to purely see them as the enemy who have no rights is plain stupid they have just as many as you me or anyone else

 

anglers dont own rivers according to the EA no-one does so therefore no-one has the right to say who can or cannot use them ,if you buy land you own a "frontage" you dont own a river

Edited April 9, 2012 by chesters1