Lets put it in a box and leave it behind

[davedave]

Not really something I feel strongly about because I have never encountered canoeists on the rivers I fish (Isle, Parrett, Tone) but saying that I rarely encounter another angler for that matter, the rivers are generally quite quiet in Somerset.

 

If I did encounter a canoeist and they were respectful i'd have no problem. The rivers cant just be for fishermen and if they've paid their licenses like we have to to fish, keep to the rules and respect other river users then I have no issues.

 

Dave

[Nicepix]

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

 

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.

 

Strange talk from a bailiff. How can you enforce the regulations with that attitude?.

 

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

 

But that is just it. They have no rights to paddle on rivers with no lawful navigation. That is the point of this thread.

 

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

 

Parliament has the right. Elected by us.

 

if you buy land you own a "frontage" you dont own a river

 

No. But you have paid for privacy if the river is non navigable. And if you own the bank you don't necessarily want canoeists coming ashore to camp, picnic or crap on your land.

 

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

 

canoes have been on rivers far longer than recreational anglers

 

And that proves nothing. Horses were on roads before cars but you can't lawfully ride one down the M1.

[davedave]

Horses were on roads before cars but you can't lawfully ride one down the M1.

 

You could try

Edited April 9, 2012 by davedave

[Tigger]

Horses were on roads before cars but you can't lawfully ride one down the M1.

 

:lol:

[Rob Ward]

Barbel are not native to either of these catchments, but they continue to be artificially stocked in defiance of written assurances to the contrary from the Environment Agency.

 

Pretty sure they would have been at one point, all of the Eastern UK Rivers were once tributaries of the Rhine; Barbel are indiginous to the Rhine.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Rob Ward

[chesters1]

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.

 

Strange talk from a bailiff. How can you enforce the regulations with that attitude?.THe difference is the pond IS privately owned a river isnt

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

 

But that is just it. They have no rights to paddle on rivers with no lawful navigation. That is the point of this thread. Explain navigable if i owned a farm i could give rights to canoeists to use my land to launch canoes ,i know several despite being upstream of here if here is "unnavigable" then upstream must be as well? ,if i launched above the farms in question from a public space then what right do you have to stop me going downstream to another.

your main stance seems to revolve around "canoeists" coming on to private land to party picnic or **** i have never seen any do that perhaps they prefer your area?

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

 

Parliament has the right. Elected by us.Parliament doesnt introduce laws the government do and i doubt they care a jot who can or cannot use a canoe on a river ,if i owned a canoe can the law stop me using it or are you getting muddle up with local byelaws or rules? where the government is down to council byelaws which mean little

if you buy land you own a "frontage" you dont own a river

 

No. But you have paid for privacy if the river is non navigable. And if you own the bank you don't necessarily want canoeists coming ashore to camp, picnic or crap on your land. you have no right in law to a "view" or privacy

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

 

 

 

And that proves nothing. Horses were on roads before cars but you can't lawfully ride one down the M1. You did read it then but it is true

 

Strangely the local vicar used to rent canoes to use on the tiver ,they are still at the vicarage but the river was deemed "unnavigable" long ago the village idiots strangely forget that in their byelaws ,the "unnavigable" bit is to deter outsider canoes UNLESS their needed to look after the raft racers ,strange the rules dont apply fairly across the board but then its the same bending of rules some anglers use to get their own points across

as i said i have nothing to do with canoeists but i am sure if peta got some sort of river ban on angling canoeists would help us fight as users of rivers and i cannot fathom why anglers cannot support them

 

you only get the right to fish on a river (actually you get the right to stand on somones land to do it) you dont get the right to stop others enjoying it in their way ,if you think your more entitled to because you pay a license fee simply petitio the government to issue a paid for canoe licence ,trouble is if its enabled your wouldnt have anything to bitch about

 

i think in some theres a dangerous "our river" coming over thank goodness times are changing when not so long ago vast landowners had people with police powers to arrest anglers ,anglers do not own rivers nor do land owners therefore we have no rights to stop anyone using them ,if canoeists dont go onto private land your objections you use fall apart

 

all the time you object to other users the more you provide the rope to hang yourself ,if you respected canoeists the more they would respect you ,there will be idiots on both sides spoiling it for the majority there always is

Edited April 9, 2012 by chesters1

[grayson]

Strangely the local vicar used to rent canoes to use on the tiver ,they are still at the vicarage but the river was deemed "unnavigable" long ago the village idiots strangely forget that in their byelaws ,the "unnavigable" bit is to deter outsider canoes UNLESS their needed to look after the raft racers ,strange the rules dont apply fairly across the board but then its the same bending of rules some anglers use to get their own points across

as i said i have nothing to do with canoeists but i am sure if peta got some sort of river ban on angling canoeists would help us fight as users of rivers and i cannot fathom why anglers cannot support them

 

you only get the right to fish on a river (actually you get the right to stand on somones land to do it) you dont get the right to stop others enjoying it in their way ,if you think your more entitled to because you pay a license fee simply petitio the government to issue a paid for canoe licence ,trouble is if its enabled your wouldnt have anything to bitch about

 

i think in some theres a dangerous "our river" coming over thank goodness times are changing when not so long ago vast landowners had people with police powers to arrest anglers ,anglers do not own rivers nor do land owners therefore we have no rights to stop anyone using them ,if canoeists dont go onto private land your objections you use fall apart

 

all the time you object to other users the more you provide the rope to hang yourself ,if you respected canoeists the more they would respect you ,there will be idiots on both sides spoiling it for the majority there always is

 

 

 

A few points to clarify- in England and Wales you can canoe on rivers which are designated as navigable; relatively few are and most navigable water is on big wide rivers of little interest to canoeists. There is no legal right to canoe anywhere other than navigable water except if you own the river (ie you are a riparian owner) or you have obtained the consent of the landowner. Which may be a parish council of course- but parish councils have no legal power to make bylaws on waters in their area. What they can do is impose rules in their capacity as landowner- if relevant .

 

I do not like anybody claiming to fish or canoe as of right on other people's property. I have no issue with either group if they have consent and behave properly. I have no time at all for some canoeists- and a few fisherman actually -who have some bonkers notion of being freemen and only obeying their even more bonkers take on common law. Which bears little resemblance to the law I studied at University...

[chesters1]

are you talking about commercial navigability?

if no-one owns rivers who can say who goes on them ,a landowner as you know only owns the land beneath the river not the river itself otherwise the EA would have to apply for permission to go along it and i know from experience they do not ,is the EA above the law ,is there a law at all or just a notion you cannot ,as they say in america about personal taxation "show me the law"

we live in a jurisdiction which is roughly every thing is legal unless its stated as not legal ,show me the law in writing that say i chesters1 cannot canoe 5 miles upstream until i run out of water depth and turn back

obviously Paul Heiney had little trouble as i did in his escapades

Edited April 9, 2012 by chesters1

[Nicepix]

Chesters, can't you accept that if a river is deemed non-navigable by law you cannot give people permission to canoe on it even if you own both banks?

 

You seem to have little regard for laws and Parliament yet you proclaim to act as a bailiff, a bailiff being 'a legal officer to whom some degree of authority, care or jurisdiction is committed'? There is no difference at all in enforcing rules or laws on a privately owned pond, or on a river where the banks are privately owned.

 

You say that canoeists have the same rights as anglers yet the whole point of this debate is that they haven't. As has been said; just because someone wants to fish a particular water doesn't mean that they can. Just because someone fancies your plasma TV doesn't mean that they can take it from you. Just because horses were on the roads before cars doesn't mean you can take a horse and cart on the motorway. The principle is the same. Why on earth can't you see that?

[chesters1]

your talking crap i can go anywhere i please! show me the law unnavigable to what? ship? barge? boat? canoe? raft? log? duck?

your terribly muddled on a lake the landowner owns the lake all of it the water the fish everything bar ducks which tend to bugger off when told their owned ,in rivers the lanowner owns the land and if he owns both sides he owns all the land under the river ,hje does not own the river the fish or anything in it or on it .

 

a landowner gives you permission to fish but that means he gives you permission to fish from his land thats all ,he still doesnt own the fish nor the river ,if you float past his land but not touching it you break no laws ,even the word trespass today is fading into nothing ,he can escort you from his land only and only because he owns the land and has a right to say who goes on it ,if he shakes his fist at you in a canoe you by moving are leaving his "land" theres nothing in law to say how fast you need to leave it nor by what method

go find out who owns the nearest river to you and i mean the river not the land it travels across

if i was a bailiff on a river i would only have jurisdiction over anglers on it ,the actual act of walking on private land is muddled indeed and out of my jurisdiction unless i have the power given to eject non anglers as well even then i only have the power to "escort" people off it if they return i escort them off it again until one gives in ,how could i escort a canoe off i'm sure my free permit isnt enough to swim ,perhaps drown just to escort a canoe away to some unknown location ,if i "escort" a canoe to my neighbours land (or river that travels across it) then i'm aiding and abetting him to break these laws you think there are

Edited April 9, 2012 by chesters1