Lets put it in a box and leave it behind

[ayjay]

Splendid defence Chesters, well done .... support from an unexpected quarter.

 

 

And the barbel fishermen don't like it. But rather than reply honestly to my request to disclose the barbel stocking history of the Hampshire Avon, which is what sparked the whole thing off, they have instead chosen to try and marginalise and ridicule both of us.

 

 

Andy

 

Don't get too excited about Chesters support, he just likes a good squabble of an evening.

 

I've seen no request from you on here for info about Barbel stocking on the Avon. I certainly don't have all the info anyway, but there hasn't been a lot of it done. The Barbel have had good spawning years a couple of times in my memory, (76 & 88) maybe they would do even better towards being self sustaining without the trout farms polluting the river.

 

If you're looking fora campaign I would seriously suggest you look into some of the facts concerning the Trout farms and direct your ire there, they have done and continue to do far more damage to the Avon than Barbel ever have.

[chesters1]

Don't get too excited about Chesters support, he just likes a good squabble of an evening.

 

I've seen no request from you on here for info about Barbel stocking on the Avon. I certainly don't have all the info anyway, but there hasn't been a lot of it done. The Barbel have had good spawning years a couple of times in my memory, (76 & 88) maybe they would do even better towards being self sustaining without the trout farms polluting the river.

 

If you're looking fora campaign I would seriously suggest you look into some of the facts concerning the Trout farms and direct your ire there, they have done and continue to do far more damage to the Avon than Barbel ever have.

 

quite right i fight my own battles and usually (although not in this case) put more than one sides stance across so more people can hate me ,more than anything i hate people who say "you cannot" when its up to another to choose their own decision (bearing in mind any consequences of that decision) i could be annoying anyone for anything ,its my fishing trips

as i say i take no-ones side mr young just voice my opinion with occasionally a bit of "right" behind it ,if others dont like it they can counter it but hopefully not just with bile and crap pseudo science or bullshine

if someone had just put up a link to the line in law where it says its illegal to put a canoe on unnavigable water and something to pin down what "navigable" is then i would have bit my tongue and grudgingly admitted i was wrong.

if evvery river has had a canoe along its entire lenght (which all most probably have) then all have been and most probably still are navigable ,if i go on water i navigate from X to Y thus its navigable

Edited April 10, 2012 by chesters1

[ayjay]

if evvery river has had a canoe along its entire lenght (which all most probably have) then all have been and most probably still are navigable ,if i go on water i navigate from X to Y thus its navigable

 

.........but unfortunately you still choose to have failed to see that there is a difference between navigable (a noun) in the legal sense and navigable (an adjective?) in an actual sense.

Edited April 10, 2012 by ayjay

[grayson]

exactly what i said just more elequently.

i suspect "navigable" rivers have to be maintained to remain so so making most of the rivers "non navigable" not a statement of fact but more of financial get out clause.

 

as to the statement elsewhere to put a canoe in a unnavigable river is nothing but illegal is ridiculous paul heiny did a complete series on canoeing from rivers sources and sportsman put a picture up of an undoubtedly unnavigable bit of river.

 

good series some should store their bile and watch it if it comes back on the TV ,scroll down the page to see the rivers canoed

http://www.g-vis.co.uk/acatalog/secret_rivers.html

 

is he in the nick despite this damming evidence ,ofcourse not its only a few greedy blinkered anglers and a few toffs that gives a crap who goes on a river

Youn misunderstand some of the points I made; canoeing on a river where you should not can potentially get you in fairly big trouble. Trespass is not illegal - it is not a crime but what is called a tort- a sort of civil crime if you like. What this means is that a landowner presented with a trespass problem is entitled to go to court and could be granted an injunction which would prohibit the trepasser from doing it again. And if they disobey - contempt of court - which is criminal and for which you can be fined or even jailed. I am aware Paul Heiny did some TV on canoeing- but so what - all it means is he either had consent or nobody could be arsed to do anything about his trespassing- if that is what he was doing. No idea what you mena by financial get out clause? Law is quite simple really - rivers are like most other types of property -just a bit damper..

[Nicepix]

quite right i fight my own battles and usually (although not in this case) put more than one sides stance across so more people can hate me ,more than anything i hate people who say "you cannot" when its up to another to choose their own decision (bearing in mind any consequences of that decision) i could be annoying anyone for anything ,its my fishing trips

as i say i take no-ones side mr young just voice my opinion with occasionally a bit of "right" behind it ,if others dont like it they can counter it but hopefully not just with bile and crap pseudo science or bullshine

if someone had just put up a link to the line in law where it says its illegal to put a canoe on unnavigable water and something to pin down what "navigable" is then i would have bit my tongue and grudgingly admitted i was wrong.

if evvery river has had a canoe along its entire lenght (which all most probably have) then all have been and most probably still are navigable ,if i go on water i navigate from X to Y thus its navigable

 

To be perfectly blunt you are not making any sense at all. Some waterways are legally defined as 'navigable' and some are not. That is why the OP has raised this thread. If canoeists were allowed to go anywhere why on earth do you think they are campaigning to get access?

 

If it was as easy as you make out to flaunt the laws regards navigation why are they canvassing MPs and mounting a publicity campaign?

 

If laws made up by Parliament are made to be broken how on earth can you justify acting as a bailiff using legal powers granted by that very same Parliament.

[chesters1]

To be perfectly blunt you are not making any sense at all. Some waterways are legally defined as 'navigable' and some are not. That is why the OP has raised this thread. If canoeists were allowed to go anywhere why on earth do you think they are campaigning to get access?

 

If it was as easy as you make out to flaunt the laws regards navigation why are they canvassing MPs and mounting a publicity campaign?

 

If laws made up by Parliament are made to be broken how on earth can you justify acting as a bailiff using legal powers granted by that very same Parliament.

 

the government didn't give me any powers ,i think your still confused old chap.

 

its already been established the law revolves around trespass ,i said it was hazy ,i mentioned all land owners can do is "escort" people off their land thats where the distinction is unlear and needs sorting is a river owned by a land owner ,if so then he can "escort" canoeists off it if not he has no rights to say who or who cannot travel over it .if theres no illegality in using rivers then the term navigable is just a word

 

if its unlawful to go on rivers why on earth is there bloody tv programs made about canoes going on rivers!

the term navigable is hazy navigable to what? ships or large boats usually ,look up the word if a vessel (unclear term) has enough width and enough draught and enough height to ply along a waterway its navigable ,a canoe by its very size can go almost anywhere

Edited April 10, 2012 by chesters1

[davedave]

[chesters1]

Youn misunderstand some of the points I made; canoeing on a river where you should not can potentially get you in fairly big trouble. Trespass is not illegal - it is not a crime but what is called a tort- a sort of civil crime if you like. What this means is that a landowner presented with a trespass problem is entitled to go to court and could be granted an injunction which would prohibit the trepasser from doing it again. And if they disobey - contempt of court - which is criminal and for which you can be fined or even jailed. I am aware Paul Heiny did some TV on canoeing- but so what - all it means is he either had consent or nobody could be arsed to do anything about his trespassing- if that is what he was doing. No idea what you mena by financial get out clause? Law is quite simple really - rivers are like most other types of property -just a bit damper..

 

the law of trespass ! thats all you have .trespass on what? land what land ,laws are not simple thats why lawyers are expensive

 

the financial get out clause is what i said a "navigation" has to be maintained ,it costs money to someone to do it ,its far easier to call something unnavigable and not maintain it .

if a craft went up a river 1000 years ago it was navigable whats changed who decided the river was now unnavigable? water authorities getting out of maintaining them ,land owners letting them silt up? its financial believe me

as i said show me the law

Angling interests successfully lobbied for the exclusion of rivers in England and Wales from CROW canoeists and other water users are at the moment lobbying for it to be changed ,i really hope they succeed rivers do not "belong" to anglers they belong to everyone

Edited April 10, 2012 by chesters1

[Nicepix]

If you are indeed a bailiff as you claim and not just someone who unofficially checks tickets then your position is enforced by law and that law was made by Parliament. Either way, your stance of defiance of any rules and regulations that you don't like makes you a hypocrite.

 

You also seem to be under a couple of misaprehensions. Firstly some rivers and parts of rivers are deemed navigable and they are the ones that canoeists can lawfully use. Secondly just because someone posts a video of them breaking the law by canoeing on a river where there is no lawful right of navigtion doesn't mean that you won't be prosecuted. It just means that they got away with it. Just like you can find thousands of Youtube vids of people with of road motorbikes in public places. Thay are committing offences whether they are prosecuted or not.

 

If someone uses a boat, and a canoe is a boat, on a river where there is no lawful right of navigation then they commit an offence. That offence can be prosecuted in Magistrate's Court. They could in certain circumstances also face claims for damages. If they use their canoes on navigable waterways without being registered they can be prosecuted by the relevant agencies and have to pay court costs and any damages.

 

I'm sorry to have to labour this over and over again, but if anyone could boat anywhere then this thread would not be necessary.

[ayjay]

the term navigable is hazy navigable to what? ships or large boats usually ,look up the word if a vessel (unclear term) has enough width and enough draught and enough height to ply along a waterway its navigable ,a canoe by its very size can go almost anywhere

 

There is nothing hazy about the word navigable to most of us; the only hazy thing here is your reluctance to accept the meaning of the word as it applies to this situation.

 

My car can travel at more than 70mph, it is not legal to do that in this country.

 

My canoe can travel on a non-navigable river, it's not legal to do that either.

 

You can either accept or reject that, it's your choice, but I'll not bother to explain it again.