Tawe Hassle.

[Mikers]

Nogood Boyo,

To the best of your knowledge, what is the Tawe Anglers Assosiation's constructive position on a resolution to this debate?

"Git Orf moi waaterrrrr. Yir scaarin' moi fishies!"?

[MK123]

Nogood boyo,

Does the TAA own the land which it is claimed Canoeists trespass on?

[NogoodBoyo]

We are not arguing about riparian rights, we are arguing about public rights to navigate rivers.

The two are inextricable.

[NogoodBoyo]

To the best of your knowledge, what is the Tawe Anglers Assosiation's constructive position on a resolution to this debate?

I dunno. I'm not a member of and have no connection with Tawe & Tribs Angling Assoc'n (I know a couple of their officers but haven't discussed paddling with them for many months).

I'd also be keen to hear your own views on this?

I'd just like to achieve a common understanding of the legal position. Solutions become easier when everyone agrees on the problem.

[NogoodBoyo]

Trouble is, your pronouncements are always short of the whole story. Let me give you an example of a public footpath crossing private land; sure the 'owner' owns the land but this is subject to rights of others. This is also the case with inland waterways.

Sometimes. It's not the norm. Especially on white waters at the top of valleys.

[hereorkayaking]

To the best of your knowledge, what is the Tawe Anglers Assosiation's constructive position on a resolution to this debate?

I dunno. I'm not a member of and have no connection with Tawe & Tribs Angling Assoc'n (I know a couple of their officers but haven't discussed paddling with them for many months).

I'd also be keen to hear your own views on this?

I'd just like to achieve a common understanding of the legal position. Solutions become easier when everyone agrees on the problem.

Thank you.

Steve

[Strad]

I'd just like to achieve a common understanding of the legal position. Solutions become easier when everyone agrees on the problem.

And there in a nutshell is a main point of the issue, most of us believe that navigation along a river is fine, while many fishermen / land owners believe that it constitutes trespass. With no genuinely conclusive legal examples demonstrable that navigation is trespass, it is reasonable for us to assume that it is completely ok. Of course if anyone was to come up with a case that clearly sets legal precedent then we would be able to agree, but despite lots of asking, no fishing associations or land owners appear to be able to demonstrate that precedent.

[MikeB]

Im not trying to insult your intelligence but "Its illegal", and " you shouldnt be here", "its trespass" just arn't constructive points and sending this debate round in circles.

Steve

- lets be clear on this:

'It's illegal' is totally incorrect. There is no statutary law of trespass.

'You shouldn't be here' is merely someone's opinion, and so carries no weight whatsoever.

'It's trespass' - again, only in someone's opinion, and the lack of (a) specific legislation and (b) any case law to support the assertion tends rather towards suggesting it isn't. Crossing private land may, of course, be trespass, but we've all agree that anyway so please move on and deal with the specifics.

I'd quite like NgB's response to my earlier question incidentally - "Can you explain to me what ownership of riparian land has to do with paddling a river?". Please don't use Wiki as your source - it's not regarded as being definitive. Please quote relevant case law and/or statutory provision in support of your argument, especially if you want it to be credible and respected.

When you are in a position to do this, come back and post. Otherwise you are, I fear, appearing rather Troll like.

We are not arguing about riparian rights, we are arguing about public rights to navigate rivers.

The two are inextricable.

Incorrect - see above.

Thanks, Mike.

[hereorkayaking]

Im not trying to insult your intelligence but "Its illegal", and " you shouldnt be here", "its trespass" just arn't constructive points and sending this debate round in circles.

Steve

Ngb - lets be clear on this:

'It's illegal' is totally incorrect. There is no statutary law of trespass.

'You shouldn't be here' is merely someone's opinion, and so carries no weight whatsoever.

'It's trespass' - again, only in someone's opinion, and the lack of (a) specific legislation and (b) any case law to support the assertion tends rather towards suggesting it isn't. Crossing private land may, of course, be trespass, but we've all agree that anyway so please move on and deal with the specifics.

Sorry mike im confused.
I know its all topic related, but I wrote these as examples of potential outcomes to an earlier question. not Nogood Boyo.

Steve

[MikeB]

Im not trying to insult your intelligence but "Its illegal", and " you shouldnt be here", "its trespass" just arn't constructive points and sending this debate round in circles.

Steve

Ngb - lets be clear on this:

'It's illegal' is totally incorrect. There is no statutary law of trespass.

'You shouldn't be here' is merely someone's opinion, and so carries no weight whatsoever.

'It's trespass' - again, only in someone's opinion, and the lack of (a) specific legislation and (b) any case law to support the assertion tends rather towards suggesting it isn't. Crossing private land may, of course, be trespass, but we've all agree that anyway so please move on and deal with the specifics.

Sorry mike im confused.
I know its all topic related, but I wrote these as examples of potential outcomes to an earlier question. not Nogood Boyo.

Steve

No problem - I was using your post to address a specific individual though. I've just edited my post slightly to give greater clarity, addressed to a wider audience.Mike.

[Steve B]

"William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England articulated the common law principle cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos, translating from Latin as "for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell.""

Trouble is, your pronouncements are always short of the whole story. Let me give you an example of a public footpath crossing private land; sure the 'owner' owns the land but this is subject to rights of others. This is also the case with inland waterways.

Another example would be mineral rights - if a coal seam runs under your property you don't own it, it belongs to the state. Same applies to gold and silver. And for minerals which don't belong to the state, it is possible that mineral rights have been sold separately (not unlike fishing rights in fact) so they don't necessarily belong to the landowner. So much for "down to Hell".

[chrism]

The first bit acknowledges the common law position and says it's not "utilised". Lots of reasons for that - mainly evidence and cost.

Actually no - see the bit above you quoted - they acknowledge there's a perception.

Though I'm interested to see your agreement about it not being utilised - we could just stop the argument there. If a "law" isn't being utilised it might as well not exist (which it doesn't anyway).

The second bit is ambiguous - the position seems to be understood by owners and some users but not by all users.

I agree with the ambiguity - which you conveniently demonstrate. Because I'd suggest that the position is understood by paddlers, and distorted by everybody else.

The third bit "the current common law position with regard to trespass on waterways is not ... accurate with regard to the statutory position" is gibberish. Common law develops in the absence of statutory provisions. And in the area of riparian rights the common law is well-established.

Except there are statutory provisions, and how exactly does common law develop when it's not utilised? The law of riparian rights might be well established in some respects, but regarding paddlers using water which happens to incidentally pass through an area where there are riparian rights for other things, the establishment is on quicksand.

Remind me again what you as anglers pay the owners of the cars in the car park and the owner of the local fish and chip shop. The common law on this is just about as well established as that of riparian owners controlling paddlers access to navigations.

[NogoodBoyo]

A LANDSLIP has severed the main road link through the Upper Swansea Valley. Diversions have had to be put in place on the A4067, immediately north of Ynyswen, near Abercrave, after a portion of the busy road fell into the River Tawe.

"We have no main road between Swansea and Brecon for the first time in thousands of years."

Thank goodness the River Tawe is navigable...

Nogood Boyo

[inthedrink]

I love this thread! Bumpty bump! (Just found out what that means.)

Incidentally, if landowners can own the water on 'their' rivers, can we own the air above our houses? If so, British Airways owes my Nan loads.

[morsey]

Incidentally, if landowners can own the water on 'their' rivers, can we own the air above our houses? If so, British Airways owes my Nan loads.

They cannot and nor can we. The law is quite clear regards ownership of water and air and their use. The law is quite clear on authority to control navigation: There are a few navigation orders in place on the Wye and Thames for example. But for all other rivers there is no legislation that gives authority to control navigation to landowners/national parks/fisheries/anglers/hunters/EA/NT/Police.

The perpetuation of misunderstanding of the law is what has arrived at today's lack of clarity. The Welsh Assembly were asked to give clarity for all river users, that was not given, so we are left to take the view of current law and application:

Trespass does not count in respect of paddling a river, it applies only to land access. If you access/egress at public points, trespass does not apply. Also Trespass is a civil not criminal offence, so the Police have no jurisdiction in applying it in the first instance. (Fisheries will talk of aggravated trespass and mass trespass. It is utter nonsense, it does not apply to paddlers simply enjoying a river descent).
Rights to control angling do not extend to rights to control navigation. There is no legal reason to observe "No canoeing signs".
There is no law that states that access agreements are mandatory prior to navigation. There is no reason to observe "restrictions or so say agreements".

Canoe Wales do not support or endorse agreements. They, diplomatically, do not condemn agreements, but that does not mean they condone agreements.

Any agreements that you see presented in Wales have either been arranged between local groups, which applies to them only. Or, as in the case of the Wye Usk Foundation, have been totally fabricated to appear that they had negotiation with paddlers! Either way there is no reason to feel you have to honour those agreements or that those agreements will suffer if you do not observe the restrictions. They are not legally binding in the same way that navigation orders are and as such do not apply to the general public, i.e. all other paddlers.


Not much rain lately so I imagine that anglers have had a nice quiet time to themselves. Imagine if paddlers were of the same ilk as Anglers and Fisheries! We'd be sad old gimbo's going down to the river shouting at the anglers, telling they will get arrested, sticking our chests out and trying to look hard! So glad paddlers are not a bunch of sad muppets! :-)

We just keep on going paddling, and, sooner or later, the situation will get better. The idiots who have nothing better to do than shout at others enjoying themselves will hopefully shut up and go back to forums designed for their activity and concentrate on keeping their own house in order.

[NogoodBoyo]

The perpetuation of misunderstanding of the law is what has arrived at today's lack of clarity. The Welsh Assembly were asked to give clarity for all river users, that was not given, so we are left to take the view of current law and application:

On the contrary, the report stated quite clearly what the legal position is. You just don't agree with it.

Trespass does not count in respect of paddling a river, it applies only to land access. If you access/egress at public points, trespass does not apply.

Which is quite contrary to what the report said. Pages 12 and 13 here:
http://www.assemblywales.org/cr-ld8089-e.pdf

[Strad]

The perpetuation of misunderstanding of the law is what has arrived at today's lack of clarity. The Welsh Assembly were asked to give clarity for all river users, that was not given, so we are left to take the view of current law and application:

On the contrary, the report stated quite clearly what the legal position is. You just don't agree with it.

Trespass does not count in respect of paddling a river, it applies only to land access. If you access/egress at public points, trespass does not apply.

Which is quite contrary to what the report said. Pages 12 and 13 here:
http://www.assemblywales.org/cr-ld8089-e.pdf

Despite the general rule, a public right of navigation may exist in the case of non-tidal rivers and inland lakes and the existence of the right is established by evidence similar to that which is required to establish a public right of way over land.
19.Such a right can arise most commonly by:
- Immemorial Usage;
- Acts of Parliament or Orders made under Authority of Act of Parliament;
- express grant or dedication by the owner of the soil of the river.

enough said....

[NogoodBoyo]

Despite the general rule, a public right of navigation may exist in the case of non-tidal rivers and inland lakes and the existence of the right is established by evidence similar to that which is required to establish a public right of way over land.
19.Such a right can arise most commonly by:
- Immemorial Usage;
- Acts of Parliament or Orders made under Authority of Act of Parliament;
- express grant or dedication by the owner of the soil of the river.

enough said....

If you accept the general rule (which your quote implies), then you accept that there's no public right unless:
- the owner of the soil of the river grants permission (eg, via an Access Agreement); or
- Parliament legislates or a body with the authority of Parliament makes an Order (eg, parts of the Wye); or
- immemorial usage is established "by evidence similar to that which is required to establish a public right of way over land".

Nogood Boyo

[Strad]

Despite the general rule, a public right of navigation may exist in the case of non-tidal rivers and inland lakes and the existence of the right is established by evidence similar to that which is required to establish a public right of way over land.
19.Such a right can arise most commonly by:
- Immemorial Usage;
- Acts of Parliament or Orders made under Authority of Act of Parliament;
- express grant or dedication by the owner of the soil of the river.

enough said....

If you accept the general rule (which your quote implies), then you accept that there's no public right unless:
- the owner of the soil of the river grants permission (eg, via an Access Agreement); or
- Parliament legislates or a body with the authority of Parliament makes an Order (eg, parts of the Wye); or
- immemorial usage is established "by evidence similar to that which is required to establish a public right of way over land".

Nogood Boyo

you may choose to interpret it that it's implied, but I don't think it was, I just figured this was the easiest thing to point out...

whichever way you want to spin it you know in your heart of hearts that rivers belong to the many and not the few, this may not be true of the fishing rights, but there is long historic use of our rivers for swimming and other access such as coracles or other non-powered craft - (personally I think there is for fishing too, but that got overturned by greedy landowners - I would like to see it returned to such a state (other then for privately stocked lakes which are fair enough..))

[morsey]

The idiots who have nothing better to do than shout at others enjoying themselves will hopefully shut up and go back to forums designed for their activity and concentrate on keeping their own house in order.

If you do not understand the subtlety of that, until threats, abuse and damage from anglers stops, you have no right to think we will entertain civil discussion.

[NogoodBoyo]

The idiots who have nothing better to do than shout at others enjoying themselves will hopefully shut up and go back to forums designed for their activity and concentrate on keeping their own house in order.

If you do not understand the subtlety of that,

There's no subtlety in that

until threats, abuse and damage from anglers stops,

you can't accuse me of any of those

you have no right to think we will entertain civil discussion.

I claim no such right. Just seeking to inform... :-)

Nogood Boyo

[NogoodBoyo]

If you accept the general rule (which your quote implies), then you accept that there's no public right unless:
- the owner of the soil of the river grants permission (eg, via an Access Agreement); or
- Parliament legislates or a body with the authority of Parliament makes an Order (eg, parts of the Wye); or
- immemorial usage is established "by evidence similar to that which is required to establish a public right of way over land".

you may choose to interpret it that it's implied, but I don't think it was, I just figured this was the easiest thing to point out...

I think you'll find that comes under the heading "Argument By Selective Observation" (and its relatives) in the List of Fallacious Arguments here:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

whichever way you want to spin it you know in your heart of hearts that rivers belong to the many and not the few [...]

Interesting slant on "many" and "few"... In many cases riparian owners are fishing clubs, who have "many" members. I'm not aware of any cases where paddlers have become rparian owners. Relative numbers of anglers and paddlers were discussed in this thread recently. So I don't need to resort to my "heart of hearts" to conclude that "rivers belong to the many and not the few".

[vaughan21]

Lighter evenings are coming :) Nothing better than winding down after work with mates and some nice, warm evening whitewater, taking in some of the fine Tawe slides and rapids....Great river.

[morsey]

“The current position of the law is settled in that no general public
right to navigate is precluded in non-tidal rivers in England and Wales”.

[Strad]

If you accept the general rule (which your quote implies), then you accept that there's no public right unless:
- the owner of the soil of the river grants permission (eg, via an Access Agreement); or
- Parliament legislates or a body with the authority of Parliament makes an Order (eg, parts of the Wye); or
- immemorial usage is established "by evidence similar to that which is required to establish a public right of way over land".

you may choose to interpret it that it's implied, but I don't think it was, I just figured this was the easiest thing to point out...

I think you'll find that comes under the heading "Argument By Selective Observation" (and its relatives) in the List of Fallacious Arguments here:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

not really, just trying to point out a hole in your argument that hasn't been done to death - most of them have, surely you don't expect a repeat of every item each time someone responds to you?

whichever way you want to spin it you know in your heart of hearts that rivers belong to the many and not the few [...]

Interesting slant on "many" and "few"... In many cases riparian owners are fishing clubs, who have "many" members. I'm not aware of any cases where paddlers have become rparian owners. Relative numbers of anglers and paddlers were discussed in this thread recently. So I don't need to resort to my "heart of hearts" to conclude that "rivers belong to the many and not the few".

irrelevant argument? why would a paddler become a riparian owner when they have the right to navigate along the river (except when they fancy living next to a river). That said there are cases were there are paddlers who have become riparian owners, including some sites where facilities are then added.

As to the many and the few point - I think you misunderstand this point - many as in everyone or majority of people as opposed to few as in a fishing club or single riparian owner.

[NogoodBoyo]

“The current position of the law is settled in that no general public
right to navigate is precluded in non-tidal rivers in England and Wales”.

Falsifying quotes is a bit much... The original statement by the Angling Trust / Fish Legal, PDF at
http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp?section=29&itemid=220, reads:

The current position of the law is settled in that no general public right to navigate in non-tidal
rivers exists in England and Wales.

[morsey]

Don't presume to copy my words and attempt a discussion, I made it clear you will not be considered to be worthy of discussion, regardless of what you claim your position might be. Your words indicate you come under the same group as those who seek to restrict and harass.

[NogoodBoyo]

Don't presume to copy my words and attempt a discussion [...]

What makes you think I was trying to engage you in discussion? As far as I'm concerned, you've lost any credibility you might have had. But you aren't the only one frequenting this place and I was pointing out to others that the words you quoted appear to be a falsification.

[Ieuan Belshaw]

Nogoodboyo,

When we kayak on a river, does this effect you?

Yes: How?
No: Why are you still getting upset?

Simple answer please... Not looking for a debate, just some clarity.

[dj42]

Noogoodboyo please tell us all what you expect to achieve spending your time posting on a kayaking forum, I cant beleive that anyone on here is going to listen to a word you say so do us all a favour and dont bother, the rivers going to get paddled whether or not you want us to.