Tawe Hassle.

[wezzzy]

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

I didn't see your spelling mistake either.

[chriscw]

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 status 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.

So does this imply that some of the landowners are also happy for us to paddle when we like if the conditions are right?

It is also not really clear who the anglers think we should be paying and what they think we should be paying for. Is there a particular (general not paddler related) environmental need that has to be met, or perhaps paddler related a needs for bank consolidation, fence reinforcement etc. at Access and Egress points. In the past paddling bodies have (quite rightly) been prepared to pay towards the cost of such work although often land owners seem to stump up for such things as they presumably are able to get collateral benefit. Anyway the question is who do the Tawe Anglers think we should be paying and for what?

[cobra]

Tawe Angling see paddlers as a source of revenue. The WCA had an agreement with them and from what I understand the sum involved was between £2000- 2500 per annum. (this may not be accurate). So can see it's quite lucrative in their eyes.
So basically what they want as I see it is control of the river and subsequent funds from the paddling fraternity to support their sport.
Now whilst they may be riparian owners in some parts, generally their own or lease either the sporting or fishing rights large sections of the river.
As far as the landowners I have spoken to they are unconcerned about paddlers passing through.

[chriscw]

Thanks for clearing that up Cobra. I was just curious as to whether there was anything the Tawe Anglers thought needed doing because the river was being paddled which otherwise would not need doing. Clearly as far as any of us know this is not the case. Since we do not presumably wish to fish while paddling there would seem no good reason for us to contribute to their leasing the fishing rights for the river.

[AlexHolt]

So, has anyone actually paddled the Tawe recently? is the situation sufficiently bad we'd need to leave someone with the cars to prevent vandalism?

[wezzzy]

So, has anyone actually paddled the Tawe recently? is the situation sufficiently bad we'd need to leave someone with the cars to prevent vandalism?

I don't know who's paddled the Tawe recently but I would say it would be safer to protect your cars.

[chriscw]

Unfortunately as long as angling remains legal there will be a sizeable lunatic minority of anglers who feel they own the rivers and are entitled to take the law in to their own hands if they believe someone else is enjoying them. It is a paddling hazard and like most acts on minor vandalism the police are not really able to do much other than record that a crime was committed, the cost of catching the perpetrator being out of proportion to the damage they do.

I do not personally think that people should torture fish for sport, but like with the fox hunting ban it is not an issue where the majority should be passing laws to ban the minority from their sport.

(engage tongue in cheek mode) I wonder if fitting roof racks to anglers cars or leaving paddling gear in them might be effective, anglers might then crack down on the lunatics if they themselves were victims (disengage tongue in cheek mode)

[wezzzy]

I wonder if fitting roof racks to anglers cars or leaving paddling gear in them might be effective, anglers might then crack down on the lunatics if they themselves were victims (disengage tongue in cheek mode)

We've thought about disguising paddlers cars with rods and fish stickers but your idea is an amazing one.
A few well placed Dagger/Pyranha stickers (other lkayak makes are available) and the odd bit of paddling kit placed near the boot or on the roof would camouflage it well.

I might try it soon :)

[bombproofgoblin]

Had an awesome spate run on the middle, a week or so ago - absolute ball. I use 'get ins' and 'get outs' specifically with the fishest in mind. I've probably paddled that section from Crag-y-nos down, 10 times in the last 18 months, and, apart from being confronted whilst briefly stopping the car near the fisheries to check levels, I haven't had a hint of trouble. In fact, I've had some really positive chats with a lot of lovely folk.
If you'd like to compare get ins and get outs, probably best to pm me - they're watching us....

[cobra]

Water levels have been generally low over the the summer and there have been few paddling opportunities. recent rain fall has brought out some boats. I have noticed at least one car on the top bridge in Abercrave but this may have been a fisher. Suggest
anyone that paddles, parks sensibly, somewhere populated and not the obvious quiet spots where they're at risk of criminal damage. There are plenty of places where cars can be parked relatively safely, maybe just a short hop from the river.

[RichA]

Tawe Angling see paddlers as a source of revenue. The WCA had an agreement with them and from what I understand the sum involved was between £2000- 2500 per annum. (this may not be accurate).

I appreciate that you said this might not be accurate Cobra, but are you implying that the WCA are (were?) actually paying Tawe Angling for the ability to paddle on this section/s of the Tawe? As in it's not just an 'access agreement', but paying for the right to paddle as well?

[tawe boy]

It appears that the tide is turning in the favour of law abiding angling clubs at last:-). John Griffiths the assembly minister for the environment has told the WCA (canoe wales) in no uncertain terms to go away and seek access agreements with angling clubs. Canoe Wales release a statement urging its members to do just this, then astoundingly in a public meating in Carmarthen apparently advise against it..... A slightly dodgy stance for an organisation which relys on the assembly for a huge chunk of its funding????? We are even starting to hear murmers that canoe wales are washing their hands of access agreements. All the above just show what a rudderless joke of an organisation they are with their management more concerned about self preservation than actually representing their members!!!! Excuse the pun gentlemen but the boat could well be sinking;-).

[kayakingcallum]

tawe boy you said there was a public meeting in carmarthen do you have any details on where and when it was and who was present?
ta

[Mike Mayberry]

From another discussion...

Heddlu Dyfed-Powys Police
Yn diogelu ein cymuned ~ Safeguarding our community
Gorsaf yr Heddlu, Pencader Sir Caerfyrddin, SA39 9HA
• Ffon/Tel.: 0845 330 2000 -
Pencader . Ffacs/Fax : 01559 384589
Pencader Police Station, Pencader, http://www.dyfed-powys.police.uk Carmarthenshire SA39 9HA

£ic/ic)././Yourref:N/A Go/ynntvch am:/Please ask tor: PC 561JONES
Ein cyf. /Our ref: TEIFI TROUT ASSOCIATION / LLANDYSUL PADDLERS.
04™ March 2009


BUDDSODDWYR MEWN POBL
INVESTORS IN PEOPLE

Dear Mr Bryant,
I write in an effort to clarify the Police position in relation to a dispute between the Teifi Trout Association and the Llandysul Paddlers. This dispute appears to Surround the usage of the river Teifi and adjoining land. Due to the complexity of this case I have sought advice and guidance from our Legal Services Department.
I will firstly comment on the usage of the river itself. The facts of this matter appear to be that the Teifi Trout Association own land alongside certain parts of the River Teifi and in addition they also appear to enjoy certain fishing rights that have been granted. The Llandysul Paddlers organise various events which involve passing through these sections of the river. In the past, the Llandysul Paddlers have sought consent from the Trout Association to pass through these sections of the river and it now appears as though they wish to introduce charge(s) for the continued use of the river by the Paddlers in this way. It is on this basis that the Teifi Trout Association maintains that should such an event take place in the future when no payment has been made by the Paddlers then they would consider that a criminal offence has taken place contrary to Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006. This section provides as follows: -
Obtaining services dishonestly
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he obtains services for himself or another—
(a) by a dishonest act, and
(b) in breach of subsection (2).
(2) A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if—
(a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of
them,
(b) he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in respect of them or without payment
having been made in full, and
(c) when he obtains them, he knows—
(I) that they are being made available on the basis described in paragraph (a), or (ii) that they might be, but intends mat payment will not be made, or will not be made in full.


Wates/tymra
, ,0800355111
' 1 «M*iiiMnM**MMbii»»ia«

Mr. Ian Arundale.- Prif Gwnstabl / Chief Constable
Mae Heddlu Dyfed-Powys yn croesawu gohebiaelh yny Gymraeg neu > Saesneg. Dyfed-Powys Police welcomes correspondence in either Welsh or English. 1
My first observation would be to question what service, if any, is being provided in a situation where the Paddlers are merely passing along the water course without more. They are not, for instance, looking to obtain fish from the river in the way that anglers would through the paying of a permit fee. I also doubt very much whether such action would be regarded as dishonest in the circumstances that are anticipated.
In any event, I cannot see that the Teifi Trout Association can make passage along the relevant sections of the river subject to a requirement that a fee is to be paid. I have caused some research to be carried out in relation to interests in water and rights in flowing water at common law. The position is that although certain rights as regards flowing water are incident to the ownership of riparian property (that is, land abutting the water) the water itself, whether flowing in a known and defined channel or percolating through the soil, is not, at common law, the subject of property or capable of being granted to anybody. Flowing or running water is therefore considered as public or common.
The Teifi Trout Association advises that they own certain parts of the river bed. By presumption of law and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the ownership of the bed of a non tidal river or stream belongs in equal halves to the owners of the riparian land. This presumption that the riparian owners, own the bed of the river as far as the centre line of the stream applies whether the land is freehold or leasehold and whether the river is navigable or non navigable. Ownership of the whole bed of the river will be presumed from ownership of the land on both sides unless it is a tidal river. Whilst, therefore, the Teifi Trout Association can own complete sections of the river bed, this is separate and distinct from the water that passes above it and any use that is made of it.'
It would appear that the Teifi Trout Association are trying to allege that criminal conduct exists within the context of a dispute which on a closer analysis is really a civil matter between the Trout Association and the Llandysul Paddlers. Obviously, if such dispute were to give rise to situations of public disorder and breach of the peace, as they appear to have done in the past, then we would look to attend and police this in the usual way through adopting our powers within this field.
Secondly 1 will comment on the use of Teifi Trout Association owned or controlled land for entry and egress onto the river Teifi.
I would agree that should members of the Llandysul Paddlers pass along land owned by the Teifi Trout Association, in order to gain access/egress from the river and in the clear knowledge that a fee should be paid and has not been paid, then potentially an offence could be made out contrary to Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006. In stating this, I am assuming that there are no public rights of way on the land and no rights of recreation pursuant to established custom in favour of the Paddlers.
Section 11 of the Fraud Act states that this section would also cover a situation where a person climbs over a wall and watches a football match without paying the entrance fee. Such a person is obtaining a service which is provided on the basis that people will pay for it. This scenario is not too dissimilar to that with which we are dealing in this case.
Notwithstanding the above the Crown Prosecution Service will have to consider the evidence presented before them ^ and also satisfy themselves that it is in the public interest to prosecute any offence(s) disclosed in these
circumstances. However, that is a decision for the CPS to take following investigation and placement of an evidence file before them by the Police.
To summarise, the Police will not be investigating any allegations of fraud relating to the usage of the river by canoeists but will investigate complaints relating to crossing land owned or controlled by Teifi Trout Association. This will not necessarily mean that a prosecution will follow as that decision will rest initially with supervisors and then if there is sufficient evidence with the CPS.
I will also be conferring with Mr Gareth Bryant at the Llandysul Paddlers to clarify the Police position within this dispute and advising him accordingly.
I hope this clarifies our position and provides you with the necessary information as to what to expect from the Police if called to deal with a reported incident relating to the use of the river Teifi and adjoining land..
Yours faithfully,

Rhydian Jones PC 561, Neighbourhood Officer, North Teifi Ward.

I have caused some research to be carried out in relation to interests in water and rights in flowing water at common law. The position is that although certain rights as regards flowing water are incident to the ownership of riparian property (that is, land abutting the water) the water itself, whether flowing in a known and defined channel or percolating through the soil, is not, at common law, the subject of property or capable of being granted to anybody. Flowing or running water is therefore considered as public or common.

Why would access to the Tawe be any different? You are living in a dream world.

[wezzzy]

It appears that the tide is turning in the favour of law abiding angling clubs

LAW ABIDING???

Intimidation and criminal damage isn't what I'd call law abiding.

[RichA]

murmers that canoe wales are washing their hands of access agreements.

Excellent!

[chriscw]

Tawe Boy, there is no need for access agreements to navigate a river they are all by law public rights or way. There is of course the need to negotiate access over private land in some cases to launch or exit the river. Canoe Wales and Canoe England are therefore quite right not to be a party to access agreements which purport to control use of a river for navigation. Access restriction agreements may have there place in very rare circumstances where there is a real environmental need not to paddle a river at certain times for a specific reason, perhaps to control the spread of infectious diseases etc.

It is very hard to imagine a reason to not paddle a river which would not also logically mean it could not be fished! Perhaps the only example is that some rivers are not navigable when there is very little water and of course some are not suitable for angling when the flows are very high but most of the time all rivers are in a suitable condition to share as long as both Anglers and Paddlers are accessing them from public land or from private land with the owner's consent. Let us hope to see a lot more of each other as we enjoy our beautiful rivers together!

Perhaps there are even times when we can work together on access across private land to get to rivers.

[tawe boy]

Chris Clarke Williams,
You are clearly ignorant to the laws regarding the rights of Navigation on inland rivers in Wales. There is no debate on the issue, the Welsh assembly (who are responsable for passing laws in our country) hae categorically stated in their sustainability report, and the minister for the environment has stated since that there is NO open access on inland waterways in Wales. I suggest you stay out of debATES ON SUBJECTS WHICH YOU QUITE CLEARLY HAVE LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE ON.

[Strad]

Oh dear Tawe Boy still stating things aren't true, the statement from the welsh assembly was that their legal advice stated that there was no right of navigation, however this was with no back up from demonstrated case law or by means of new legislation, smoke and mirrors???

[wezzzy]

It appears that the tide is turning in the favour of law abiding angling clubs

LAW ABIDING???

Intimidation and criminal damage isn't what I'd call law abiding.

No comment from our fav Tawe expert?

[chriscw]

Hi Tawe Boy,

I suggest you take a look at this site which clearly demonstrates the current law on navigation. http://www.caffynonrivers.co.uk/. The Welsh Assembly has passed no laws on navigation and concluded that it currently has no power to do so, it would perhaps be nice if they did. I agree many of us in that past contributed to the belief that there was not an automatic right of navigation on all rivers by signing up to things called access agreements. We cannot in all good conscience do that any more because there is no legal or moral basis for them. It would be more productive in future to talk about sharing arrangements that help all river users share the plentiful stretches of natural rivers we have on an equal footing. I know its a bit unfair on anglers because their sport is restricted by seasons for some species whereas other users can potentially enjoy their sport all year round but really that is not the fault of swimmers, boaters, walkers etc. The fact that you cannot fish for cetain species or on certain waters at various times cannot be used to demand exclusive use the rest of the time. Perhaps though if you demanded less and instead asked for something more reasonable like days when particular stretches were not paddled you would find that something could be worked out. Such arrangements though would clearly not be setting any precedent other than that we all want to share.

I assume from the rude insulting tone of your reply that you do not want to share the rivers with other people really that is a very childish attitude I am sorry if I have misjudged you but you do not seem to be as welcoming of other people and most paddlers and for that matter anglers are.

[tawe boy]

Hi Chris, If you look back at some of my earlier postings you will see that I do not think that anglers should have exclusive rights to our rivers. However open access on small spate rivers such as the tawe is simply not viable.TTAA previously had with the WCA allowed for canoeing during the close season- this was workable. I think it is time that the WCA and any other canoeing bodies for that matter need to realise that to have any kind of access to rivers for their members they will have to sit down with the anglers- the welsh assembly have said this yet they still refuse to do this. As I said in my earlier post they are on a sticky wicket when you consider that they are so heavily relaiant on assembly hand outs.I dont think I am incorrect when I say that over 50% of the managing director of canoe Wales` salary comes from handouts from the assembly. Relating to the title of this thread (Tawe Hassle) paddlers will continue to be hassled on the tawe until they stop tresspassing and make some kind of attempt to get an access ageement in place.
In response to Wezzy`s post there is not a shred of proof which could suggest that TTAA is responsable for any vandalism.

[Strad]

However open access on small spate rivers such as the tawe is simply not viable.

Why not? there is no reason for it not to work other then anglers desires.

TTAA previously had with the WCA allowed for canoeing during the close season- this was workable.

How comes so many fishermen are now arguing that fishing closed season is when paddlers should also be avoiding rivers unless in spate, yet this is when you want to encourage paddling? The instant deductions are-

1) You do not believe that paddlers impact fish while spawning as this is when you want to encourage paddling (this is the reason for the angling closed season yes?)
2) the only reason you do not want paddlers on the river is from a purely selfish perspective, there is no environmental basis
3) you continue to believe that navigating rivers is trespass despite being unable to show evidence as such
4) you still don't understand the concept that negotiating with a body such as WCA, even if you did reach an agreement, does not and cannot apply to all paddlers, at most this would apply to WCA members.
5) as you are aware Canoe Wales will not negotiate with you as it isn't needed due to there already being a legal right of way. However most kayakers would be willing to have open discussion and consideration for an occasional gentleman's agreement when there is a specific reason for the angling association to need exclusive access and also discuss the environmental needs of the river and it's ecosystem.

In response to Wezzy`s post there is not a shred of proof which could suggest that TTAA is responsable for any vandalism.

Are you also willing to say that as a representative of TTAA that such acts of vandalism are to be condemned and any member of TTAA shown to be involved would have their TTAA membership permanently revoked?

[christompzn]

I am thinking about coming down from Darlington in NE England to paddle this river it looks amazing apart from the idiots with rods causing trouble. just wondering a paddler must know somone who is a lawyer or solicitor or somthing who could help cast some light on this ?

does anyone know any good places to stay (preferably cheap)

[tawe boy]

Are you also willing to say that as a representative of TTAA that such acts of vandalism are to be condemned and any member of TTAA shown to be involved would have their TTAA membership permanently revoked?

It has been stated in numerous meetings and has been minuited that members are not to commit such acts and to report these acts if they know the perpetraters. Mebers are also encouraged not to verbally abuse kyakers. They have been directed by the local police to simply inform them that they are tresspassing and take names, car rega=istration numbers etc.
TTAA are a long established organisation which does a lot of work for the community in these parts, it is run by volunteers and have inititives in place to promote angling in the community, we have recently run both disabled and junior competions in conjunction with various community organisations. The notion that an organisation of this stature would condone acts of vandalism and intimidation is simply ludicrous. However TTAA are an organisation of approximatley 300 members and permit holders and when such disregard for our property is shown a small, mindless minority will always feel compelled to engage in such acts.

[Strad]

It has been stated in numerous meetings and has been minuited that members are not to commit such acts and to report these acts if they know the perpetraters. Mebers are also encouraged not to verbally abuse kyakers. They have been directed by the local police to simply inform them that they are tresspassing and take names, car rega=istration numbers etc.
TTAA are a long established organisation which does a lot of work for the community in these parts, it is run by volunteers and have inititives in place to promote angling in the community, we have recently run both disabled and junior competions in conjunction with various community organisations.

I applaude that TTAA take positive actions within the local community, you will actually find that many paddlers are great believers in positive action in the community.

The notion that an organisation of this stature would condone acts of vandalism and intimidation is simply ludicrous. However TTAA are an organisation of approximatley 300 members and permit holders and when such disregard for our property is shown a small, mindless minority will always feel compelled to engage in such acts.

So TTAA don't condone the acts, but you imply that they may happen, and that TTAA wouldn't take action w.r.t. members who perpetrated acts of vandalism. Just to clarify, I am not clear on what you refer to as 'disregard for your property', I haven't heard of kayakers damaging TTAA property in anyway, are you suggesting that this happens?

[wezzzy]

Mebers are also encouraged not to verbally abuse kyakers. They have been directed by the local police to simply inform them that they are tresspassing and take names, car rega=istration numbers etc.

The person who VERBALLY ABUSED my pregnant girlfriend identified himself as a TTAA member, she wasn't even in a car used by paddlers she was stood on the bridge.

[chriscw]

Hi Chris, If you look back at some of my earlier postings you will see that I do not think that anglers should have exclusive rights to our rivers. However open access on small spate rivers such as the tawe is simply not viable.TTAA previously had with the WCA allowed for canoeing during the close season- this was workable. I think it is time that the WCA and any other canoeing bodies for that matter need to realise that to have any kind of access to rivers for their members they will have to sit down with the anglers- the welsh assembly have said this yet they still refuse to do this. As I said in my earlier post they are on a sticky wicket when you consider that they are so heavily relaiant on assembly hand outs.I dont think I am incorrect when I say that over 50% of the managing director of canoe Wales` salary comes from handouts from the assembly. Relating to the title of this thread (Tawe Hassle) paddlers will continue to be hassled on the tawe until they stop tresspassing and make some kind of attempt to get an access ageement in place.
In response to Wezzy`s post there is not a shred of proof which could suggest that TTAA is responsable for any vandalism.

From a legal point of view it is not possible to be trespassing on a navigable river for two reasons, all navigable rivers are and always have been as far back as records go public rights of way but even more to the point to trespass, from a technical legal point of view, you have to cause damage and it is not possible to damage water by floating on it. Try a simple experiment put your hand in to a bucket of water then take it out and see what traces you have left on the water... It is possible to trespass on private land however and I'm sure most paddlers would agree that this is something we should not knowingly do.

I am really glad to see your later unequivocal condemnation of acts of aggression and vandalism.

As others have said there clearly is scope for things like agreeing not to paddle when there are fishing matches on or perhaps even not on a particular day of the week and certainly not when levels are low enough to cause damage to spawning fish or the river bed (this last should go without saying or need for any arrangement formal or otherwise).

The fact that a river is fished and that someone owns the fishing rights can however never be used a reason why other people should not use the river for other purposes. On one of my favourite local paddles I personally make a concious effort not to paddle during the first week or so of the fishing season although given how friendly and welcoming the anglers always seem to be I'm not sure they would mind at all, they appear to like the company of a passing paddler. Leaving the anglers a week or two of exclusive use of the particular bit of river in question just seems like a nice gesture.

[tawe boy]

The person who VERBALLY ABUSED my pregnant girlfriend identified himself as a TTAA member, she wasn't even in a car used by paddlers she was stood on the bridge.

Yawn yawn!!!!!!!!!!!!!;-))))

[wezzzy]

The person who VERBALLY ABUSED my pregnant girlfriend identified himself as a TTAA member, she wasn't even in a car used by paddlers she was stood on the bridge.

Yawn yawn!!!!!!!!!!!!!;-))))

Is that the official TTAA angle on the verbal abuse or just your own?