right of access

[snakey1]

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.

You wouldn't like to provide a link to some evidence supporting this opinion would you

Edited August 6, 2013 by snakey1

[Phone]

Snakey,

 

I did - - - - from the EA and several local government entities

 

Phone

[Guest bluedun]

You wouldn't like to provide a link to some evidence supporting this opinion would you

Dear me, the evidence bug is spreading. Not opinion: the law. See Phone's post or just do a straightforward search; google is your friend as the techies like to say.

[snakey1]

Well yes when your claiming something is the law then i would like to see evidence to prove that.

I looked at phones post and the EA site and it says this "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." which doesnt translate as riparian owners have the right to control navigation to me.

They have also stated "that there is no clear case law on whether a ‘common law right of navigation’ exists on unregulated rivers. This is widely accepted to be an unclear and unresolved issue.”

So not the law just your opinion unless you have some sort of evidence to prove otherwise, as you say google is your friend.

Edited August 6, 2013 by snakey1

[Guest bluedun]

I looked at phones post and the EA site and it says this "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." which doesnt translate as riparian owners have the right to control navigation to me.

They have also stated "that there is no clear case law on whether a ‘common law right of navigation’ exists on unregulated rivers. This is widely accepted to be an unclear and unresolved issue.”

So not the law just your opinion unless you have some sort of evidence to prove otherwise, as you say google is your friend.

Sigh! Since you are having trouble finding a reference, try this http://www.naturenet.net/law/rivers.html

It's not exhaustive. For more you'll have to look up the full legislation yourself. It's not a question of opinion: that is how the law stands. Laws are of course open to interpretation, established from time to time through test cases.

[snakey1]

Interesting however there are many people who believe that the magna carta and the 1472 wears and fishgarths act show that there is a general public right of navigation on all rivers and that this right has never been extinguished or repealed and therefore this right overides any riparian rights which are secondary in English law to public rights. see http://www.riveraccessforall.co.uk/what_is_the_evidence.php#summary

[barry luxton]

Ha ha ha, yet again snakey has it, love this bit from your link, appears to make the brief's comment that it was all a miss-understanding look utterly foolish, quote your link;

 

You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senator

Not everyone agrees with the view that a general public right of navigation continues to exist on all rivers physically capable of navigation subject only to the physical constraints of the river and the craft using them.

This page is to detail how and when those that hold these views believe the PRN ended.

If you would like to submit some information here please email us. Click here to contact us

Please don't talk about Riparian Rights. These are private rights which are secondary in English law to public rights.

Whilst they have some significance where there is no public right of navigation, they can play no part in extinguishing a public right of navigation which can only be by statute or exercise of statutory authority. See here for more details.

So if you know of such a statute or exercise of statutory authority, please tell us here. Click here to contact us

We will publish below all serious views on how this is claimed to have happened. If there is nothing there it's because no one has any sensible suggestion for Statutes or exercise of statutory authority that has removed the general Public Right of Navigation.

Nothing has yet been suggested.

[lutra]

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.

 

Or maybe its because there is no such thing as a national canoe licence. There's a thing that gets called a licence, but that only applies to part of the 4500km of navigable waterways canoeists can use. Its more like an anglers permit or club card really as far as I can tell and not needed at all elsewhere in England.

[gozzer]

Oh my god! If we're sticking to the Magna Carta, then we'd better start reshaping the whole of the countryside!

 

The three paragraphs they say are pertinent to access on waterways.

 

33) All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.

 

(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly.

*(48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.

 

 

John

Edited August 6, 2013 by gozzer

[snakey1]

You know its funny but it seems to be okay to quote from and use the magna carta went it suits anglers (i.e like this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sea-anglers-dig-in-to-protect-rights-under-magna-carta-an-inquiry-today-will-hear-an-appeal-over-a-ban-on-taking-worms-that-threatens-to-set-a-precedent-oliver-gillie-reports-1429148.html ).

For those who can't be bothered to read the whole article the relevant part being "The move to restrict bait digging follows a Court of Appeal decision last year that, under Magna Carta, anglers have a lawful right to dig for worms. In 1215, the barons forced King John to sign Magna Carta at Runnymede because he had been selling monopolies over common resources such as fishing. Magna Carta acknowledged that there was a right to fish, to have passage by sea and other matters. However, it was not until last year that the Court of Appeal decided that there was a right to dig for bait on the foreshore, which is ancillary to the right to fish.

The decision means that the right to dig for bait must be acknowledged in court and authorities can only enforce by-laws which forbid bait digging if they can provide an adequate argument against it.".

Unfortunately whats good for the goose as the say.

Edited August 6, 2013 by snakey1