Keep canoes off our rivers, e.petition.

[snakey1]

Trouble is, Bob, that on some waters, access for canoes means no fishing. That's not my idea of live and let live, that's do what you like and sod anyone else.

 

Would you support the automatic right to take the dogs for a swim in match angler's pegs on commercials?

this is why i said anglers and canoists/kayakers should be able to share some not all waters as i agree there are some waters where the two activites would not mix however neither do i think that just blanketly denying them access is fair either it should be simply a case of compromise and courteous behaviour between the two parties.

As for the argument put forward earlier in an earlier post that we(the anglers) were there first then in the case of the canals your wrong as these were built as transportation networks firstly so does that mean that all fishing should be banned from them? as for rivers well they were also almost certainly used for transport before they were used for pleasure(catch & release) angling as well.

Edited March 21, 2007 by snakey1

[wearyone]

......and if it all gets too much for some of you ..........restrict yourselves to fishing commercial venues, you will not be bothered by canoes,kayaks,cruisers.

 

Wrong, so very wrong! Last summer my club had an open day on our newly developed stillwater complex. Other local groups were invited to come along and put forward ideas for the whole community to use it, even canoeists. We offered them one day a month on one of the waters (the largest) Oh no, they were not satisfied with that. Every weekend, Sat/Sunday, oh and could we remove a large sunken block of concrete, and build a slipway, etc, etc. At the end of the day they were told to .... .ff and not to come back.

 

Give them an inch and they will take thirty thousand miles.

[gozzer]

Who has said ban canoes all together?

Most have said, that the two don't mix on certain types of waters. The two pictures that Steve posted are a prime example of this. It's OK saying that on the Bure, Yare, Severn, or closer to my home the Yorks Ouse and Ure, canoes are not a problem, (I agree). But, anglers on rivers like the Nidd (about 2 rods wide in places), both pleasure and match, will have the whole day ruined by a few canoes going through.

No reasonable angler would want a total ban, and most would agree to some compromise. But, as I have said, the lads who came on here last year, IMO, made it quite clear that they wanted total right to roam. I don't call this a compromise.

 

As for the stereotypical grumpy anglers comment. We have a member on here that is also a canal boater, who used to have a similar viewpoint. I think that viewpoint has now changed due to frank and reasonable discussions on here.

 

John.

[Steve Burke]

As for paying the landowners for the right to fish i thought(please correct me if i'm wrong as i'm unsure of this) that anglers actually pay for the right to gain access to the river over the landowners property as the landowner does not actually own the water that flows over the land but owns the right to cross his land to access said water via the banks,

 

Canoeists are guilty of trespass if they don't have the landowner's permission to be on the water, regardless of whether they have crossed the owner's land to access the water. The only exception is where there is a statutary right of navigation. The latter applies to most tidal waters, some large rivers, and most canals amongst others.

 

Anglers pay for the right to fish the water, and this will normally include the right to cross the landowner's land as well. An angler who fishes without permission (whether from the bank or a canoe) is guilty not only of trespass but also of theft as he is deemed to be stealing the sporting rights of the owner. The main exception is on "public waters" - these are largely limited to tidal rivers.

 

The foregoing is taken from the excellent book "Anglers' Law" by R.I.Millichamp.

[Steve Walker]

Dogs are forbidden on most, if not all commercial venues

 

I know. But what if dog owners sought the right to have access to swim their dogs in any stillwater they choose? Would it be selfish to oppose that?

 

Anglers do not own rivers or the fish that inhabit them, despite paying for access rights ,fishing rights etc, the rivers are not "ours" so anglers cannot dictate the rules, on commercial venues the owner can and does dictate the rules and anglers do not get disturbed by other people

I don't think that's the case, indeed it can't be the case or the canoeists wouldn't be seeking to have the law changed!

 

some people like to paddle on a river at the weekend for pleasure, some like to fish.....live and let live.

 

Could we not have paddling stretches and angling stretches? Or angling days and paddling days? That seems fair to me, but it isn't what they're asking for. They are asking for ALL of those waters where canoeing would ruin the fishing to be exclusively paddling water. Is that fair?

[snakey1]

I did not mean that i thought people on here wanted a complete ban on kayaking/canoeing only that it seemed that some people thought if a river was used for angling then there was no way that canoeing/kayaking would be able to use it as well and therefore why should a right canoist/kayakers have a right to access.As for wanting total right to roam i still think that the BCU are pushing that as a way to get more access because they know they're not going to get 100% right to roam but may be offered 60% as opposed to asking for 60% and getting 20%.

[snakey1]

Canoeists are guilty of trespass if they don't have the landowner's permission to be on the water, regardless of whether they have crossed the owner's land to access the water. The only exception is where there is a statutary right of navigation. The latter applies to most tidal waters, some large rivers, and most canals amongst others.

 

Anglers pay for the right to fish the water, and this will normally include the right to cross the landowner's land as well. An angler who fishes without permission (whether from the bank or a canoe) is guilty not only of trespass but also of theft as he is deemed to be stealing the sporting rights of the owner. The main exception is on "public waters" - these are largely limited to tidal rivers.

 

The foregoing is taken from the excellent book "Anglers' Law" by R.I.Millichamp.

thanks for that it has made things a bit clearer.

snakey1

[Bob Bradford]

I know. But what if dog owners sought the right to have access to swim their dogs in any stillwater they choose? Would it be selfish to oppose that?

 

Steve, that is a non argument, the situation does not exist.

 

I don't think that's the case, indeed it can't be the case or the canoeists wouldn't be seeking to have the law changed!

 

So you believe that anglers own the rivers?

Could we not have paddling stretches and angling stretches? Or angling days and paddling days? That seems fair to me, but it isn't what they're asking for. They are asking for ALL of those waters where canoeing would ruin the fishing to be exclusively paddling water. Is that fair?

 

That seems fair enough Steve, how will it be policed?

[wearyone]

I suggest that no one/club/association follow the trespass line. Trespass is a civil matter and the BCU are wanting people to take them on in the courts.

 

Do not get involved in disputes/arguments. If possible advise them politely that they have no right to access (unless there already is an agreement in place)

 

Up here in the North East there are known gangs going about the rivers hoping to get into confrontational situations with anglers. If there are any disputes that turn into threats of violence (which has happened in this area and also in the North West) contact the police saying that a breach of the peace has occurred.

[Bob Bradford]

Steve, I asked how a shared scheme like the one you suggested could be policed? the truth is is cannot can it? Anglers do not own the rivers or the fish that inhabit them, if they did there would be no need for a poxy petition would there?

 

As anglers we are obliged to share the rivers with other water users and as I suggested earlier in this thread .....if you cannot or won't , then fish commercial venues, not leisure waters but proper purpose built commercial fisheries where the lakes and fish are owned by someone and THEY call the shots.

 

Anglers whinge and moan when others try to ban or curtail our activities don't they?

 

Well, we cannot have it both ways.