Tawe Hassle.

[Mikers]

The arguement that fishermen must pay to use a river - therefore kayakers must also pay is getting tedious.

Motorised vehicle users must pay a Vehicle Excise Duty (car tax)to operate their cars on the road. They must also have a license, which may at the discretion of the courts be revoked.
Yet cyclists do not. It's unfair! Cyclists should pay! Cyclists should be forced to take a test!

It matters not one jot whether you agree with this sentiment or not. Cyclists have a right to use the public highway. Drivers are only granted a licence.

Can we all see the analogy here? Kayakers have a right to paddle, fishermen do not have a right to fish.

Get over it.

[NogoodBoyo]

The arguement that fishermen must pay to use a river - therefore kayakers must also pay is getting tedious.

Motorised vehicle users must pay a Vehicle Excise Duty (car tax)to operate their cars on the road. They must also have a license, which may at the discretion of the courts be revoked.
Yet cyclists do not. It's unfair! Cyclists should pay! Cyclists should be forced to take a test!

It matters not one jot whether you agree with this sentiment or not. Cyclists have a right to use the public highway. Drivers are only granted a licence.

Can we all see the analogy here? Kayakers have a right to paddle, fishermen do not have a right to fish.

Get over it.

Oh well, I tried, but I can't compete with that sort of logic.

[MikeB]

Can we all see the analogy here? Kayakers have a right to paddle, fishermen do not have a right to fish.

Get over it.

Oh well, I tried, but I can't compete with that sort of logic.

Oh surely you can? After all, you set yourself up earlier as being the person who would educate us paddlers. I quote: "I only do so to help others who don't seem to understand things so clearly."

The analogy is excellent. There is no legislation which says it is illegal to paddle a river, or indeed that doing so should be subject to payment to anyone. There is certainly some dubeity, but that doesn't indicate a presumption to either having to pay someone, or not doing so.

So far, I've refrained from referencing the situation in Scotland which is, as you've pointed out yourself, a country with it's own laws. There, as you know, the legal right exists to access the water (among other things). A recent university survey has indicated that stakeholders have no appetite to have any of the rights of responsible access altered.

Accepting that your argument is biased towards some nebulous concept requring payment, can you explain to us exactly why the situation should be different in Wales? Then again, perhaps another repititon of that which has already been debated at length is un-necessary. So lets not.

[jmmoxon]

it's a bit like preaching to the unconvertable...

Mike

[NogoodBoyo]

it's a bit like preaching to the unconvertable...

Indeed. I've said most of what I wanted to say, so I won't prolong the agony. :-)

[MikeB]

it's a bit like preaching to the unconvertable...

Indeed. I've said most of what I wanted to say, so I won't prolong the agony. :-)

Lovely - all the best and thanks for the fish.

Such a pity though - "I only do so to help others who don't seem to understand things so clearly." Could it be that, perhaps, we do understand things?

Next?

[NogoodBoyo]

Could it be that, perhaps, we do understand things?

Some understand and keep quiet. Some don't understand - for various reasons. Some understand and deliberately spread misinformation. Many more people read this thread than post, so perhaps some will now understand better. :-)

[Kayak-Bloke]

I'm still bemused by a seemingly intelligent man (that's you nogood) that is incapable of seeing the difference between a pastime which is a form of hunting and a sport which is a form of travel?

Yet you continually say WE do not understand. Perhaps you do understand but that little part of you that perceives us as getting 'something for nothing' insists on trying to say the two should be treated the same because they occur in the same environment?

Some people see only what they want to see as you rightly stated. Still it's March now so any day soon and it all kicks off again.
But what I do know for certain is I won't be seeing any paddlers brought to court over paddling just like last year and the year before and the year before.....

The only other thing I know for certain is I will still be paddling, whenever the conditions are right.

Ho hum. The circle is complete.

[Mikers]

Oh well, I tried, but I can't compete with that sort of logic.

I'm amazed that you find my argument so utterly convincing!
:)

But basically, we do believe that we have a legally granted right to paddle just as cyclists have a legally granted right to use the public highway. Charging or registration of cyclists would be difficult to instigate, impossible to enforce, illegal(without a change in the law) and would not yield any tangible benefits. The very same thing can be said for charging or registration of paddlers.

Like most other paddlers here I've read Caffyn's work and am familiar with Rawson versus Peters. On balance of this evidence I believe that any court case brought by riparians for trespass by a kayak over water would fail dismally.

In these things you are indeed preaching to the unconvertable.

Now I do believe that there is room for compromise and that there is a place for access agreements. I accept that it must be damned annoying to have to keep winding in your fish torture thingy to allow kayakers to pass. In certain circumstances, I agree that rivers should be closed to paddlers. For example if the angling club were running a fishing competition, then it's right that you guys should be able to do so without interference from paddlers. I do not accept that kayaking disturbs the fishies - it's a matter of you guys not having to constantly wind in and re-cast. Two or three competitions per year, per river doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

I'd also be thankfull of an access agreement that provided decent access and egress points ( I don't think it's unreasonable for us to pay to maintain these). Or that sought to limit dangerous or antisocial parking.

I would have thought that by now the fishing fraternity would have realised that we're not here to upset you, the waterways of this country are not yours and we do not accept that riparians can stop us using water that flows over thier land. I think the majority of paddlers are moderate in their views and would like to help you guys to enjoy the water WITH us.


One final point- to those earlier in this thread calling for a mass trespass. You're not trespassing if you have a right to be there.

[MikeB]

In certain circumstances, I agree that rivers should be closed to paddlers. For example if the angling club were running a fishing competition

Were the right of access formally enshrined in law, as in Scotland, then a temporary restriction would be put in place for such activity. From the fishers perspective, this is of course an excellent thing.

Could it be that, perhaps, we do understand things?

Some understand and keep quiet. Some don't understand - for various reasons. Some understand and deliberately spread misinformation. Many more people read this thread than post, so perhaps some will now understand better. :-)

Indeed they do - there are still some paddlers who beleive they need to get permission to paddle a river. They don't now. Hopefully you've found the discussion enlightening as well and better understand the views of the paddling community.

Mike.

[morsey]

My understanding is that:

1. People connected with angling on the Tawe damaged canoeists cars.

2. People connected with angling on the Tawe are doing lots of talking on a canoeing forum.

3. People connected with angling on the Tawe need to get their house in order, report the culprits of the damage to the police and see that the victims are reimbursed.


Nogoodboyo, run along now and come back when you have completed number three above. No ifs, no buts, no excuses.

[NogoodBoyo]

My understanding is that:

1. People connected with angling on the Tawe damaged canoeists cars.

2. People connected with angling on the Tawe are doing lots of talking on a canoeing forum.

3. People connected with angling on the Tawe need to get their house in order, report the culprits of the damage to the police and see that the victims are reimbursed.

Nogoodboyo, run along now and come back when you have completed number three above. No ifs, no buts, no excuses.

I have absolutely no knowledge of that or any other incident and no involvement in the affairs of T&TAA (not even a member).

[Adrian Cooper]

no involvement in the affairs of T&TAA (not even a member).

I don't think Morsey said you did.

[NogoodBoyo]

no involvement in the affairs of T&TAA (not even a member).

I don't think Morsey said you did.

Just making my position clear. He did say that I ought to

run along now and come back when you have completed number three

which included

report the culprits of the damage to the police and see that the victims are reimbursed

which I'm not in a position to do. Incidentally, for the avoidance of doubt, I deplore the vandalism.

[morsey]

Nogoodboyo, 24 posts on ukrgb, all on this thread about the Tawe Hassle, and yet you missed the opening post and several following, most notably this one!?!:
http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=70147&p=535586&hilit=my+car#p535586

Convenient, some might say!

I'll make it clearer, all anglers along the Tawe, all fisheries along the Tawe, all fishing clubs along the Tawe, all anglers in Wales, all fisheries in Wales, all fishing clubs in Wales, all those who see fit to write on behalf of, and make representation for, anglers/fisheries/clubs, it is your responsibility to address the issue. You are all associated, no matter how hard you try to protest otherwise. So like I said, no excuses, run along and sort the overwhelming issue of why this thread is in existence. You have no argument whilst thuggish behaviour continues.

[NogoodBoyo]

I'll make it clearer, all anglers along the Tawe, all fisheries along the Tawe, all fishing clubs along the Tawe, all anglers in Wales, all fisheries in Wales, all fishing clubs in Wales, all those who see fit to write on behalf of, and make representation for, anglers/fisheries/clubs, it is your responsibility to address the issue.

OK, glad you weren't suggesting that I had any knowledge of the incident.

[Chas C]

Some understand and keep quiet. Some don't understand - for various reasons. Some understand and deliberately spread misinformation. Many more people read this thread than post, so perhaps some will now understand better. :-)

TROLL and WUM come to mind which is why until now I have not commented on your posts and I suspect many others, here ends my input.

[Adrian Cooper]

OK, glad you weren't suggesting that I had any knowledge of the incident.

We don't know if you do or not. But it is interesting that you seem to be sticking up for the restrictive activities of anglers particularly on the Tawe.

[NogoodBoyo]

We don't know if you do or not. But it is interesting that you seem to be sticking up for the restrictive activities of anglers particularly on the Tawe.

It's also interesting that there have now been several ad hominem posts...

I told you the other day that I've said most of what I wanted to say and that I've given up trying to convert anyone. Just maintaining a watching brief now.

[shanclan]

...... I suppose you are asking me whether I can quote any civil cases to support my assertion. Yes I can. Rawson v Peters, Court of Appeal 1972 - judgement by Lord Denning (Master of the Rolls). Although disagreeing with it, Canoe Wales have accepted that the law as it stands is based on this case. Let me know if you want details.

Details here:

"(1972) 225 E.G. 89
(1972) 116 S.J. 884
Times, November 2, 1972

Summary

Subject: Environmental health

Keywords: Damage; Fishing; Remedies; Riparian rights

Catchphrases: Riparian rights; fishery; interference by boats; damages and injunction

Summary: A canoeist who disturbs the fish in a river and interferes with the right of fishing is liable for substantial interference with an incorporeal fishery even though no actual damage has been caused and no-one was fishing at the time. In the present case no damage had been caused; nominal damages of 50p were awarded, together with liberty to apply to the county court for an injunction. (Fitzgerald v Firbank [1897] 2 Ch. 96 followed and Holford v Bailey (1849) 13 Q.B. 426 followed).

Cases Cited

Fitzgerald v Firbank, [1897] 2 Ch. 96 (CA)
Holford v Bailey, (1849) 13 Q.B. 426
END OF DOCUMENT"

The case will be forty years old next year and it hasn't been used since because the judgement is clearly bollocks.

[NogoodBoyo]

The case will be forty years old next year and it hasn't been used since because the judgement is clearly bollocks.

I wish I'd known you were allowed to use words like bollocks in this forum. :-)

[morsey]

Try this logic out for size.

Both Taweboy and Nogoodboyo as soon as they are asked to do the right thing and actively campaign within angling circles to put an end to the illegal acts of those connected to fishing on the Tawe, demonstrate their complete lack of social values by making quick excuses and deciding to leave the discussion. A watching brief, whether it be standing by actually watching an event or refusing to address the prime problems identified in this thread, does not absolve you of association and responsibility. If you want to talk access then first off get your house in order, secondly as pointed out you are just covering old ground with spurious claims. Thirdly have some gumption and provide reference that allows people to see clearly who you are. Currently you are just a faceless chump with little value to bring to the discussion of hassle on the Tawe, verbal abuse, violent threats and illegal damage to vehicles. All of which there is absolutely no justification for under UK law.

You simply have nothing to add of value, jog on.

[Mikers]

Oh c'mon Morsey.

I agree that the fish ticklers have a lot to answer for. The illegal actions of a few people associated with their sport is deplorable and not enough is being dome by the clubs to ban those thugs.

There is a larger faction of fishermen who are actively seeking to wipe our sport from every river in the land and they are looking for ways to do it legally. The difference is that these guys (I believe) are largely more moderate. Seeking to antagonise this group will do nothing for our cause. I'm not saying we cow tow, those days are over. But if fisherfolk come on here to debate sensibly with us (let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are interested in listening), let's be polite and state our case.

We all know the boating we do can be carried out without harming the fishies. We know that our presence doesn't affect a fishermans chance of catching. We also strongly believe that we are not breaking the law by paddling. The only obstacle remaining - as I see it - is to educate the fishermen and break down the years of bias that exists on both sides. Name calling from either side is not going to help.

[kayak1]

Hi
What was the outcome of the meetings!
Cheers

[kayak1]

I take it then that no progression has been made, rumors have it that the kayaking representatives were asked on entry to the meeting (how much are you going to pay for the use of the river) which I suppose ended the meeting at that point if true!! Any further information would be appreciated.
Thanks

[jmmoxon]

Who cares - the Tawe is running this morning...

Mike

[Oinky23]

If you have to pay to go to the river, we'd better stop at the bank.

hehe

Seriously though the fishermen need to go away.

[cobra]

Having had a chat with some of the local fishers in Brecon, I did have a sort of plan to make an approach regarding some form of access agreement. However, having spoken to my fellow water users and indeed to a few landowners we have come to the conclusion that the fishers have little to offer. whilst we remain approachable and the local fishers now know at least who I am, our present position is to go along with the staus quo.
Kayak 1 is right that the fishers are only interested in money and have stated ' not to bother coming to the table unless we intend to pay'. We are prepared to participate in any discussions which have no preconditions.

[wezzzy]

our present position is to go along with the staus quo.

As far as I was aware there is no "status quo", they say stay off their river or else.
They want us to pay, we refuse to pay. Stalemate on any agrrement, we paddle anyway (leaving someone to look after the vehicles)

[cobra]

Whatever, hadn't picked up my spelling mistakes.
By status quo I meant ' We paddle, they don't like it'