River signage

[barry luxton]

absolutly appalling post.

[andy_youngs]

I have been salmon fishing on the river N. Esk and been invaded by 20 canoeists who spent 40 minutes paddling about in the best pool on the beat, taking it in turns to shoot a small waterfall, setting up safety ropes across the river, all this whilst shouting, screaming and swearing at the top of their voices and verbally abusing and threatening me when I dared to complain.

They also blocked all of the access points to the river for several miles with their vehicles.

This was by no means an isolated incident on this particular river, a favourite with canoeists.

I paid quite a lot of money for my day on the river, they, as usual, paid nothing.

Not invasive?? Hah

Now you say that it should be OK for your special interest group to have free access wherever and whenever you want but not any other special interest group you don't happen to have a specific interest in.

Doesn't strike you as a touch hypocritical?

To tell the truth, you're just like me. You want it all to yourself, the difference is you just don't want to pay for it.

Then you come on here whining about the rights that you would happily ignore when it suits you.

Sorry, if you're looking for sympathy you'll find it in the dictionary, somewhere between sh1t and syphilis.

Thanks for posting. You've said it better than I ever could

[andy_youngs]

This is a link to the second river signage video :

 

I'll keep posting them on Youtube for as long as disgruntled members of the public keep sending them me the pics.

Edited November 8, 2012 by andy_youngs

[Sportsman]

Thanks for posting. You've said it better than I ever could

 

The fact is that the picture you wish to portray of canoeists being gentle creatures whose only ambition is to glide sedately down waterways is just not the case.

The ones that I have personal experience of are louts and thugs who want to pursue their own enjoyment at others expense, and I do mean expense.

 

Why should someone who has paid to acquire a property be deprived of his PRIVATE enjoyment of it by those who want to use it but contribute nothing, financially or otherwise.

I see that you have also avoided answering the question of your own hypocrisy in regard to free access to the waterways for others.

As stated I have no sympathy for your case. If you want to use a facility then either buy one for yourself or rent it by the day, just like many of us have to.

That, by the way, is feedback to your original post, as requested. Sorry it's probably not what you wanted.

[andy_youngs]

The fact is that the picture you wish to portray of canoeists being gentle creatures whose only ambition is to glide sedately down waterways is just not the case.

The ones that I have personal experience of are louts and thugs who want to pursue their own enjoyment at others expense, and I do mean expense.

 

Why should someone who has paid to acquire a property be deprived of his PRIVATE enjoyment of it by those who want to use it but contribute nothing, financially or otherwise.

I see that you have also avoided answering the question of your own hypocrisy in regard to free access to the waterways for others.

As stated I have no sympathy for your case. If you want to use a facility then either buy one for yourself or rent it by the day, just like many of us have to.

That, by the way, is feedback to your original post, as requested. Sorry it's probably not what you wanted.

No that's fine sportsman, you are entitled to your views. I'm just trying to concentrate on the issues, and not to get drawn into personal acrimony.

[robtherake]

When you say "members of the public" surely you could narrow it down a bit, Andy. I very much doubt that the vast majority of the public own or use a canoe, or possess the intent to navigate every last trickle of water just to prove a point.

 

I've been on the receiving end of the attentions of the members of the public that you seem to represent; not once has the experience been pleasant, and twice now I've been threatened with drowning - I assume they took offence that I was angling quietly, since I attempted no contact, verbal or otherwise.

 

I'm quite happy to share the river; these guys clearly see things differently.

[andy_youngs]

When you say "members of the public" surely you could narrow it down a bit, Andy. I very much doubt that the vast majority of the public own or use a canoe, or possess the intent to navigate every last trickle of water just to prove a point.

 

I've been on the receiving end of the attentions of the members of the public that you seem to represent; not once has the experience been pleasant, and twice now I've been threatened with drowning - I assume they took offence that I was angling quietly, since I attempted no contact, verbal or otherwise.

 

I'm quite happy to share the river; these guys clearly see things differently.

It would be foolish to ban shopping just because someone gets caught shoplifting. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with canoeists Rob, but I don't think you should use that as a reason to keep poeple off the water,

[Phone]

Andy,

 

You still don't make any rational or logical sense about the issue.

 

Why couldn't you equally say, laws are the enforcible body of official rules and regulations, established by THE people to govern the affairs of THE people in a society.

 

Shouldn't "Castle Doctrine"apply? Historic English common law dictates that "an Englishman's home is his castle". I don't have to tell you it applies to rivers and ponds on the property - you probably know that. It's at least 700 or 800 years old in England.

 

You might add this to your signage. We borrowed the Castle Doctrine and added - "The term "Make My Day Law" arose at the time of the 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader [of owned rented or leased real property]. IT"S THE LAW!

 

Guess you're lucky in England, maybe you're not expected to obey the law.

 

Phone

[andy_youngs]

Andy,

 

You still don't make any rational or logical sense about the issue.

 

Why couldn't you equally say, laws are the enforcible body of official rules and regulations, established by THE people to govern the affairs of THE people in a society.

 

Shouldn't "Castle Doctrine"apply? Historic English common law dictates that "an Englishman's home is his castle". I don't have to tell you it applies to rivers and ponds on the property - you probably know that. It's at least 700 or 800 years old in England.

 

You might add this to your signage. We borrowed the Castle Doctrine and added - "The term "Make My Day Law" arose at the time of the 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader [of owned rented or leased real property]. IT"S THE LAW!

 

Guess you're lucky in England, maybe you're not expected to obey the law.

 

Phone

 

Phone, we are luckier in England, cos we got something older. It's called Magna Carta. It was written in 1215, and Article 16 states that Kydells (whicker fish traps) can only be laid on the bed of a river so as not to impede navigation. And as far as I'm aware, it has never been repealed.

Therefore, I guess I get to appeal to HM, and you don't.

[gozzer]

Erm, my understanding is that virtually the whole world outside of England, Wales and Northern Ireland has a recognised right to paddle their waterways.

 

If I'm not mistaken Andy, you live inside the area you mention. What happens outside that area, has no bearing on this discussion.

 

 

John.