right of access

[barry luxton]

Two accounts ehh, is that legal?

[lutra]

Thanks very much snakey, is this the report bluedan is distancing himself from? It would be good to see anything of substance to challenge this report, I don't hold out much hope though. I note that the anglers within the report, where claiming damage to the beds, yet nothing of substance to back it up.

 

this bit is most interesting, the salmon use riffles during late autumn, winter, so that lets the canoeists off the hook on that one, followed by most course fish use plant to lay their eggs, while just the dace was used as evidence of using gravel to spawn. So this one report has enough as far as I can see to challenge bluedan to put up.

 

I also remember reading on the trusts web site their concern for disturbance of fish spawn by the canoeists over the gravel beds, This one report, certainly challenges their claim somewhat.

Most coarse fish may use plants to lay their eggs on, but I think if you look at river coarse fish that live in the faster flowing river that are relevant to this topic, I think that is far from true. Dace, chub, barbel,.... are gravel spawners.

 

As far as I can see canoeists already get a very good deal, better than anglers anyway. There must be thousand of miles of free navigable water and if they sort it with the land owners first (like anglers have to) they can go where ever they like, but they don't need a licence. Plus no closed season for them on rivers.

 

Personally I think people like Mr. Youngs and his friends already have enough opportunity to break the law and do how they please. Don't see why we should give them any more.

[snakey1]

Most coarse fish may use plants to lay their eggs on, but I think if you look at river coarse fish that live in the faster flowing river that are relevant to this topic, I think that is far from true. Dace, chub, barbel,.... are gravel spawners.

 

As far as I can see canoeists already get a very good deal, better than anglers anyway. There must be thousand of miles of free navigable water and if they sort it with the land owners first (like anglers have to) they can go where ever they like, but they don't need a licence. Plus no closed season for them on rivers.

 

Personally I think people like Mr. Youngs and his friends already have enough opportunity to break the law and do how they please. Don't see why we should give them any more.

Wrong unfortunately Lutra currently only 4% of the English water ways are Navigable (unless of course you believe as some do that all rivers have a public right of navigation upon them that dates back to the magna carta and also to the wears and fishgarths act of 1472 and that has never been extinguished or repealed) and yes you do need a licence to use them (which is available as part of BCU membership or individually from the navigation authorities concerned)

[andy_youngs]

Most coarse fish may use plants to lay their eggs on, but I think if you look at river coarse fish that live in the faster flowing river that are relevant to this topic, I think that is far from true. Dace, chub, barbel,.... are gravel spawners.

 

As far as I can see canoeists already get a very good deal, better than anglers anyway. There must be thousand of miles of free navigable water and if they sort it with the land owners first (like anglers have to) they can go where ever they like, but they don't need a licence. Plus no closed season for them on rivers.

 

Personally I think people like Mr. Youngs and his friends already have enough opportunity to break the law and do how they please. Don't see why we should give them any more.

this debate has gone so far, and also encouraged that it runs to more than a few pages.

I'm surprised the debate has run this far (6 + pages). I've skimmed through it all. A few offensive posts but nothing that I can get too worked up about (life's too short).

 

Nothing constructive about Benyon's lamentable efforts to bring the canoeing and angling factions together, nor anything tangable which explains why he is preventing me from paddling through his private estate on the River Kennet.

[Phone]

All,

 

Is this still germane to the topic?

 

""""The tidal reaches of many rivers, where the sea flows in and out of the mouth of the river, have public rights of navigation. Harbour authorities may have some control in these reaches. The Environment Agency has control over navigation for some waterways only, and will not become involved in disputes or give legal advice about navigating any other waterways.""""

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/31626.aspx

 

There is a world of information that "implies" boaters have public access to about 3% of UK waterways (mostly tidal). The rest is the responsibility of the 'riparian owner'

It looks as though, to me, the EA suggests this "owner" has full liability for accident or injury - that may result in death as a caretaker of an attractive nuisance. (namely the river).

 

Question - - - Would the land owner be justified in limiting his liability by limiting access?

 

Phone

[lutra]

Wrong unfortunately Lutra currently only 4% of the English water ways are Navigable (unless of course you believe as some do that all rivers have a public right of navigation upon them that dates back to the magna carta and also to the wears and fishgarths act of 1472 and that has never been extinguished or repealed) and yes you do need a licence to use them (which is available as part of BCU membership or individually from the navigation authorities concerned)

Am I? Whats 4% in miles? Used a canoe many time and never been asked to buy a licence for one.

[barry luxton]

how come Scotland have appeared to have sorted the access problem yet in England it's all too difficult, can't be done?

[snakey1]

Am I? Whats 4% in miles? Used a canoe many time and never been asked to buy a licence for one.

And I've been fishing hundreds of times and never been asked to produce a rod licence doesn't mean I don't need one though.

[gozzer]

And I've been fishing hundreds of times and never been asked to produce a rod licence doesn't mean I don't need one though.

 

To use a rod and line to fish legally in England and Wales, you need to first buy a license from the EA. It isn't available as part of joining the A Tr (not yet luckily). You then have to agree access to a stretch of water with the owner, either directly, or through someone leasing it. This usually involves payment on a seasonal, or daily basis. Then they are required to obey national rules, plus, any imposed by those that control the water.

 

Most of the canoeists, I've spoken to/heard from, want to just buy a canoe and get on the water, any water.

 

Can't you see a difference?

 

John.

[Guest bluedun]

Apparently rights of navigation are based on commercial need (as it was); there is no such thing as recreational need in England & Wales. Canoes must be licensed to exercise the right where it exists, with a small number of exceptions. Otherwise land owners apparently do have the right to refuse access to passage along a river where they own the riparian, just as they can refuse permission to fish.