Navigation Rights continued

[Jim Roper]

If that's the case then a good barrister should be able to clarify such misinterpretation without problem.

Anyone wanting to clear up the misinterpretation should take their canoes on Radipole Lake, Weymouth and let the RSPB, who rent it, start the litigation. It is a very wide river.

[snakey1]

Commies in canoes perhaps we should be tugging our forelocks at the "master" in the big house as we pass. Best not though we peasents should know our place afterall.

[Jim Roper]

Like Tracy Ullman said. "In America, your class is defined by how much money you earn. In this country it is defined the minute you open your mouth".

Edited August 12, 2013 by Jim Roper

[snakey1]

Reds in the Redds

[gozzer]

Seems perfectly logical to me Gozzer assuming those craft cause damage in the first place.

I can give evidence of damage and disruption by canoeists, but my witnessed evidence, is your anecdotal evidence, and we are back to opinion and supposition, just like the link you provided.

 

You're confusing me a little snakey. Are you trying to make a case for canoeists, or make one against anglers? Some of your posts leave it open to question.

 

John.

[snakey1]

Gozzer I think angling is restricted enough (even though some would like it restricted even more, bass & mullet as C & R only anyone) however I also feel that the restrictions on access for canoes and kayaks are well over the top.

I believe responsible access as in Scotland (and most of the rest of the world) is the right way to go. Restrictions on access because of environmentally sensitive areas are enforced in Scotland even though it already has the right responsible access (try getting close to the nest of a white tailed sea eagle and see how quickly your nicked). I also feel that claiming canoes do enough damage to the environment to warrant the current wide levels of restrictions while taking part in a sport that via the actions of some of its participents causes well documented damage to wildlife and the environment and whose governing body wants to ,ahem, "manage" (for those who prefer plain english exterminate) any sort of wildlife that may predate on fish from cormorants & goosander to otters and even the odd lost seal, is a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black and those who suggest this and claim they are that concerned about the damage various other sports and activities do to the flora and fauna need to sit back and seriously consider the effects that angling has before throwing mud in other directions.

I can't make you believe the link I posted Gozzer and thats fair enough, it was produced using anecdotal evidence from both sides of the argument though to be fair.

Edited August 12, 2013 by snakey1

[ayjay]

Angling isn't just restricted, it is banned on rivers during the close season.

 

 

Unless you want to fish for trout - which I've always felt is closer to the real reason for a coarse fish close season.

[barry luxton]

More to the point, you agree that canoeists cause the death of young birds and mammals as they disturb the river environment during the breeding season.

ohh come on Leon, give the trust their way and they would like to see many thousands of cormorants killed, based on anecdotal evidence.

[andy_youngs]

Andy_y

 

Are the riparian owners liable for your safety?

 

Phone

Only Benyon. He's a Minister of the Queen, and he's solemnly sworn to protect my safety. I'm not sure quite when it was writtten down for the first time. My guess would be sometime around Magna Carta..

Edited August 12, 2013 by andy_youngs

[Sportsman]

Snake

What makes you think that canoe access in Scotland is responsible?

Like Gozzer's, my personal experience and eye witness accounts are your anecdotal evidence