Setting the clock backwards on the Dart?

[Mark Allen]

Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Act

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentc ... dg_4003239

If you do a Freedom of Information/ Environmental Information request to CE they are obliged to answer within 20 working days and you can complain to the information commissioner if they don't reply. You will have to read the details.

[Pete the kayaker]

Er... The BCU (AKA CE) are a private company limited by guarantee, i.e. not a public authority (despite their "governing body" claims). Does the FOI Act actually apply to them?

[morsey]

BCU/CE are rolling these agreements out across the South West, it was obvious from when the info first came to light, and as with all things BCU/CE, ask them a direct question and it is proved correct by their silence! No more chasing of information from BCU, we simply take direct action to draw attention to the issue.


We organise a protest, peaceful, quiet and reserved, at the next Slalom selection event at Lee valley, discussion with the domestic slalom paddlers who face the same restrictions of access to rivers as recreational paddlers should bolster the support.
We invite the national press, and use the coverage to get the issue of access to rivers into the public domain.
You simply could not create a better media attention scenario than an Olympic venue, with a national issue and a way that politician can press the "Games Legacy" button. Does not need to be massive, fifty boaters will be enough, a couple of well versed speakers to deliver the message to the press and loads of info sent out to the media before hand.

This way we do not have to run to BCU agenda, we make use of the situation presented to us and act upon it!

[Strad]

I had an answer to my mail to the CE today...

My original mail

Hi,

Mark Rainsley wrote on facebook
So, please...is CE currently negotiating an Access 'Agreement' on the Dart or not? Before this question is deemed as 'inappropriate', I might point out that the Dart is among the most popular whitewater rivers in the UK, that the BCU/CE Rivers Access 'Campaign' has repeatedly pointed out that the strategy of negotiating restrictive agreements is a failure, and that any restrictions agreed upon (beyond those based on verified environmental considerations) will, as now, quite obviously be ignored by most paddlers. None of these points are particularly controversial or debatable, so this can hardly be an inappropriate issue. So...is CE currently negotiating an Access 'Agreement' on the Dart or not?
This a rumour that has been going around for several weeks, and which I too posted on facebook about, although it was deemed inappropriate and removed. The DAA posted minutes on their website that implied that VAAs are being negotiated and that they won't follow what was Adam Box's guidance of 365 day access above agreed levels / paying attention to environmental concerns.

Like Mark and many others I am concerned about this implication, please tell me

1) whether CE / BCU or a representative of the CE such as a voluntary advisor (or whatever you call local access guys at the moment) is negotiating a VAA
2) whether that negotiation will keep to Adam's guidance (even though he is no longer in office)

I have some further questions

3) please can you explain why the access team believe it is easier to answer to multiple emails instead of giving one transparent answer on a webpage or social media area such as facebook.
4) does the access team have particular reason to not want to be transparent and publish replies in open format to media such as the CE website, RAC site and the CE facebook page
5) will the access team continue to support the guidance that Adam gave in that if a VAA is negotiated it will only be on the basis of 365 day access with considered levels and environmental constraints, or given Caffyn's work and the belief of many paddlers that rivers have an open right of navigation will there be no more VAA negotiated
6) is there a timeline to get the RAC moving again and to update / modernise the RAC website.
7) Please explain what are the blocking issues to CE doing the following: a) declaring that Caffyn's work shows that we have access to rivers, it has not yet been disputed and that the only access negotiations will be based about the physical getting to / from a river and not 'along' the river b) openly stating that support will be given to CE in the case of a legal dispute of Caffyn's work (i.e. if a land owner or riparian rights owner tries to bring a test case you will support the paddlers)

Final one :) -
Given the links that new staff members have to the EA will there be a conscientious effort to apply pressure to the EA to act within it's remit of encouragement of all to use the water and to not favour one group of users over another as part of the ongoing RAC campaign.

A thought with the Go Canoeing days that are advertised, wouldn't it be great if the RAC worked with the clubs involved to invite their local MPs to each of these events and get them out to enjoy our waterways en mass?

I look forward to your responses, I appreciate some of these may take a few days to reply, so if you cannot respond to all the questions quickly, could you please answer questions 1 and 2 as soon as possible and then follow up with the others.

Regards,

Graham

CE Answer..

Dear Graham



Thank you for your enquiry. The Waterways and Environment Dept are currently looking at answering your questions through the production of a FAQ page which will be placed on the Canoe England (Waterways & Environment) website next week.

This will help answer any similar questions which members may wish answering.

Access is a very complex subject and the work of our Waterways and Environment Department covers a huge subject area of which access to and along water is a part. There will be a comprehensive article in our In House magazine Canoe Focus in April 2012 as to the work being undertaken by the Waterways and Environment Department for Canoe England.



Customer Services
<snip>
“Helping and inspiring people to go canoeing”



The British Canoe Union is registered in England as a company limited by guarantee without a share capital. Registered office: 18 Market Place, Bingham, Nottinghamshire, NG13 8AP. Registered company number 152 54 84. VAT no 347 364441. This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the British Canoe Union or Canoe England. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe that you have received this email in error.

so the bits to note...

No answer until they put up an FAQ page..
According to the small print the answer may not actually be the view of CE? the mail footer implies I shouldn't share it, but I can't see anything confidential in the reply

great tag line - “Helping and inspiring people to go canoeing”.

[morsey]

April 12th - 15th is the selection event at Lee Valley.

[robp]

I think that it is time to help guide CE/BCU by finding out what paddlers think about access.

I've put a little surveymonkey together that I intend to publicise via as many avenues as possible:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/289KXT6

Feedback welcome from any sane and/or literate folks here who want to test it and suggest improvements I can make before it goes live? It does use question logic so you will get sent on different paths depending on whether you say you are a current BCU member do or don't think that access agreements are a good idea at all etc.

Feedback by PM please.

Don't spend ages completing it though as this is just a test instance before it goes live. Your answers will not count!

[morsey]

I think that it is time to help guide CE/BCU by finding out what paddlers think about access.

Go to the CE facebook and read the comments, it gives you a very clear picture of the response of paddlers to this and other agreements. Then observe, not a 'reluctance' to communicate, but a total refusal to do so and your intention, well thought and honourable, to guide, becomes obsolete because of BCU/CE complete lack of engagement.

[Adrian Cooper]

Reading through the double-talk, I note that the news item on the CE website does not say the agreement is on the SW website. What it seems to say is that CE SW are working on an agreement (arrangement) and details of other arrangements are on the SW website.

Bottom line is the information is not being provided.

Eat your greens!

[robp]

Go to the CE facebook and read the comments, it gives you a very clear picture of the response of paddlers to this and other agreements. Then observe, not a 'reluctance' to communicate, but a total refusal to do so and your intention, well thought and honourable, to guide, becomes obsolete because of BCU/CE complete lack of engagement.

"guide" was a euphemism. Some of the later questions in the survey...

(if not a member) Would you consider (re-)joining the BCU as part of a campaign to make it more democratic and represent the interests of all paddlers in the UK on key issues like access?
...
Would you be prepared to support a call for an Extraordinary General Meeting of the BCU to put motions related to membership influence and access campaign reform?
...
Would you be prepared to lend your support to formal motions at the 2013 BCU AGM related to membership influence and access campaign reform?
...
Which of the following outline motions do you think you may be prepared to support?
A motion obliges the BCU to formally withdraw any involvement in and renounce any access agreements that don't meet certain minimum standards (e.g. 365 days)
A motion calling for a percentage or fixed amount of financial or headcount resources to be deployed on specific access campaign or recreational paddling support actions
A motion calling for the BCU to persue a specific legal or policy position on access
A motion to replace current methods of appointing executive board members with a system of democratic election by the whole membership
...

[morsey]

The Dart season for canoeing is Oct 1st to Feb 28th (or 29th if we're in a Leap Year) The Loop is open for all of these months, the Upper from Dec 1st to end of Feb and the Lower (below River Dart Country Park to Totnes) closes at the end of Jan.

Middle/Lower Sections - Newbridge, Poundsgate to Totnes Weir 1st October to 14th March
Upper Section - Dartmeet carpark to Newbridge, Poundsgate 1st November to 14th March

There is the progress for ten years of BCU/CE negotiations

[SimonMW]

Who are the BCU representing in these negotiations? Their members havent asked them to negotiate (the complete opposite in fact), and non members don't care anyway.

[Randy Fandango]

Who are the BCU representing in these negotiations? Their members havent asked them to negotiate (the complete opposite in fact), and non members don't care anyway.

I still find myself gaping at the staggering arrogance that makes the BCU feel it has the right to negotiate on behalf of an entire sport, totally uncaring whether participants are its members or not.
Giles

[DaveBland]

+1 Giles.

[twopigs]

Who are the BCU representing in these negotiations? Their members havent asked them to negotiate (the complete opposite in fact), and non members don't care anyway.

I still find myself gaping at the staggering arrogance that makes the BCU feel it has the right to negotiate on behalf of an entire sport, totally uncaring whether participants are its members or not.
Giles

I claim to speak for the majority of paddlers - the BCU can negotiate what they want - I'll paddle when I think fit. What we need is leadership......... so Simon Morse - How are we going to take over our NGB and make it representative of its' members? But remember - If voting changed anything they'd abolish it!

[SteveW]

If we are to generate wider interest in protest at the BCU CE's apparent lack of progress on access; on the Dart in particular, but also the Barle, it would be useful to pull together the facts on the recent negotiations on the Dart into one place. My understanding is that there is a general statement on the BCU page pointing to a link on the SW page that has no details. We also have some statements from Adam Box. Since the BCU cannot provide the clarity it claims! Could someone wiser than me pull together the threads as links so that we can provide explanations to others based on fact not feelings?

[morsey]

SteveW the reason for this thread and the request for information from BCU/CE on the regional forum is based on this

Canoeing – after two years of finding it very difficult to negotiate with Canoe England, due to their insistence that any Voluntary Access Agreement had to be based on 365 days access. it now looks as if we may be able to negotiate a “ VAA” which formally allows canoeing below Dartmeet only between October 15th [below Newbridge from October 1st] and March 15th.

It is confirmed by the lack of the term "365 days" in any word from Adam Box and cemented with "The purpose of any such arrangement is therefore to allow unchallenged access on rivers during the fishing close season".

There is no mention of summer paddling.

[Adrian Cooper]

I keep saying it but this

a “ VAA” which formally allows canoeing

is very dangerous. If the 'other side' feel they are in a position to 'allow' or 'disallow' canoeing, it imperative that 'our side' insist that they do not. Signing up to any agreement weakens one's future argument.

[morsey]

It is worse than them just taking that position, the DAA are stating this as 'the' Legal Position.
http://www.riverdartdevon.co.uk/canoeinglaw2.pdf

I know he is no longer the RAO, but that point is contradictory to the very basis of all argument given by Adam Box for necessity of negotiating agreements.

[SteveW]

Morsey thanks for the info. In summary our Ngb has left us in a very difficult position and has failed to emphasise that their interpretation of Common Law and it's applicability to rivers on England and Wales is not recognised by that NGB, it's members or any other canoeists/kayakers.

[SteveW]

..by "their interpretation" I meant the anglers

[dougoutcanoe]

The fishy folk are too willing to take the law into their own hands, whether that law exists or not!!!!

Those that are negotiating from our side should clarify what members really want and not assume they are doing it correctly. Negotiation is not necessary with common law in our favour.

Frustrating,

Doug

[SteveW]

Doug. That would be fine but my understanding is that the more recent interpretations of common law viz the 2 cases the angling trust quote in their own legal interpretation of the public rights of navigation over non-tidal inland waterways, is not in our favour. And that the point of Rev C's work is demonstrating that the interpretation of common law in those cases was wrong and that under the still extant clause 9 of he magna carta the navigation rights do still exist and have been exercised consistently through history. But to overturn the precedent set by the above common law cases requires a challenge in a higher court. And the BCU/CE do not want to pursue that because of cost and the danger of losing at the whim of fly fishing judge. The challenge to that stance could be that we pay our NGB to representvour interest, access is top of our list so get on with it, and challeng any interest conflict of appointed judiciary. Note that the US supreme court based a similar ruling in favour of waterway users on our clause 9! On the other hand paddle want you want when you want with due care to the environment, and wait for the anglers to make the move in court. The big question would then be if the NGB would provide legal support to either a member or non-member. If not I would certainly be happy to support a fundraising campaign to underpin the defence.

[Keith Day]

Doug. That would be fine but my understanding is that the more recent interpretations of common law viz the 2 cases the angling trust quote in their own legal interpretation of the public rights of navigation over non-tidal inland waterways, is not in our favour.

That's what the Angling Trust want you to believe!

The Derwent case was resolved by consideration of five issues:-
(1) Was there a right of navigation on the river before 1702.
(2) and (3) What, if any, rights of navigation were created by the 1702 Act and how were they created.
(4) Did the order revoking the Act extinguish all rights of navigation on the river.
(5) Could a right of navigation be acquired by long user under section 1 of the Right of Way Act 1932.

The answers were:-
(1) In the case of this river it was stated that it was agreed by the parties that there was a right of navigation from Sutton to Stamford Bridge. No reasons were given. This was not a ruling by the court.
(2) and (3) The court ruled that the 1702 navigation act (which made no mention of a right of navigation) must have at least created a public right of navigation by implication. This is the basis of the claim that other such rivers with Navigation Acts would (if they did not already have a public right of navigation) also have a right of navigation created by implication by their Act.
(4) The River Derwent Navigation Act Revocation Order 1935 extinguished any rights that had been created by the 1702 Navigation Act. There are many rivers subject to Navigation Acts which have not been revoked or repealed but which have simply been abandoned by their proprietors (sometimes with an Act of Parliament authorising the abandonment) and the rulings in the Derwent case would establish that they still have a right of navigation implied by their navigation Act.
(5) The Court ruled that the Right of Way Act 1932 was not intended to apply to rivers. As part of the ruling however it was indicated that a right of way could still be created if public money was involved in making it navigable "or that by long continuance of time it hath been freely devoted to a publick use."

The courts involved in this case also ruled that a river either has a public right of navigation or not. Therefore a right created for/by floating logs, or by commercial craft also creates a right for canoes.

So the Angling Trust claim that the case ruled that the Right of Way Act 1932 did not apply is true...... but a very long way from the whole truth. Perhaps they were trained by accountants!:)

Douglas Caffyn explains it all at http://www.caffynonrivers.co.uk/_resour ... r_1830.pdf see page 140

[AJC Box]

In response to some recent posts:

I still find myself gaping at the staggering arrogance that makes the BCU feel it has the right to negotiate on behalf of an entire sport, totally uncaring whether participants are its members or not.
Giles

The BCU and I were roundly castigated by many paddlers in the years that access agreements only applied to BCU members, and we insisted on changing the terms so that members and non members alike could paddle on rivers which had agreements. Seems you just can't win! However, be wary of falling into the trap of believing you speak for a majority of paddlers, there are an awful lot of people who happily applied for (and even paid for!) permits to use the Dart when they were part of the access scene and the relatively small number of contributors to this thread should not assume they represent the views of everyone in the sport.

SteveW the reason for this thread and the request for information from BCU/CE on the regional forum is based on this
Dart Angling Association 2012AGM report wrote:
Canoeing – after two years of finding it very difficult to negotiate with Canoe England, due to their insistence that any Voluntary Access Agreement had to be based on 365 days access. it now looks as if we may be able to negotiate a “ VAA” which formally allows canoeing below Dartmeet only between October 15th [below Newbridge from October 1st] and March 15th.
It is confirmed by the lack of the term "365 days" in any word from Adam Box and cemented with "The purpose of any such arrangement is therefore to allow unchallenged access on rivers during the fishing close season".

There is no mention of summer paddling.

Firstly, that was written by the DFA and that means it is not necessarily accurate. Certainly, the word 'allow' is one which prevented us from accepting the terms of the arrangement, just as we refused to allow the use of the word 'permission', and other such words and phrases which gave the impression that we accepted their right to control access. I have copied below the draft version of the arrangement which I was grudgingly prepared to accept but which was not signed by the time I threw in the towel:

CANOEING ON THE RIVER DART

The following statement has been developed through discussion between the Dart Fisheries Association and Canoe England. It outlines how the varying interests on the river can work together harmoniously.

1.0 Aim: The aim of this arrangement is to allow canoeing to take place on the River Dart without confrontation or challenge, and without prejudice to the views of either Canoe England or riparian owners.

2.0 Information for Canoeists
2.1 CANOEISTS ARE WELCOME TO CANOE ON THE RIVER BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING DATES:
• UPPER SECTION – BELOW DARTMEET BRIDGE TO NEWBRIDGE FROM 15TH OCTOBER UNTIL 14TH MARCH
• MIDDLE/LOWER SECTION – NEWBRIDGE, POUNDSGATE TO TOTNES WEIR FROM 1ST OCTOBER TO 14TH MARCH

2.2 PLEASE NOTE THAT:
2.2.1 Canoeists descend the river entirely at their own risk
2.2.2 Canoeists are urged to take every care to conserve the environment in this SSSI (Site of special scientific interest) and SAC (Special Area of Conservation)

2.3 You are requested only to enter or leave the river at the following Points:
• At Dartmeet, immediately downstream of the bridge over the East Dart
• At Newbridge, immediately upstream of the bridge
• On Canoe England land on the left bank at Holne Weir
• At River Dart Country Park, on the right bank above Waterworks Bridge
• Above Kilbury Weir on the right bank
• In Totnes


PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT CANOEING HAS NEVER BEEN WELCOMED UPSTREAM OF DARTMEET AT ANY TIME, TO PREVENT POSSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE RIVER’S MAIN SPAWNING GROUNDS, NOR DOWNSTREAM OF DARTMEET EXCEPT BETWEEN THE ABOVE DATES.

You will see that there is no reference to permission or to them allowing access, but as Simon points out there is no reference to summer paddling. This is because the arrangement describes the conditions under which paddlers will not be challenged, and summer paddling is very likely to result in a challenge. There is no conspiracy here Simon, it is very straightforward: a lot of people want to paddle during the winter months without getting shouted at and without worrying about the rights and wrongs of the legal situation. This type of arrangement allows that without preventing anyone else from using the river when they may come into conflict with the fishermen.

As far as I can ascertain the 365 day requirement had never been CE national policy but it was dropped in the SW as soon as Andy Green left. Andy Green had instructed me to drop all agreements which were not 365 days and not to negotiate new ones unless they allowed for 365 day access (though much of this could be under spate agreements), as I reported on UKRGB. However, contributors to this forum have identified other regions in the country where old fashioned, restrictive cap-doffing agreements are still in place and are still being renewed today, so I view the SW arrangements as somewhat progressive in comparison! Look at the proposed arrangement above and see how much movement there has been from only a few years ago when agreements stated that 'the DFA gives consent to canoeists to use their river ....' and that 'canoeing may not take place above Dartmeet, or at other times of the year'. We have been very successful in changing the expectations and mindset of the riparian owners in the SW, and in the current legal uncertainty that should be applauded rather than constantly denigrated.

Finally, I don't intend to reply to many more posts here as that should be done by CE. I would like to say many thanks to those people who have PM'd me with supportive messages, they are much appreciated.

Adam

Adam Box

[Simon Westgarth]

Finally, I don't intend to reply to many more posts here as that should be done by CE.

Thank you for the post. What's on offer appears fair and reasonable during the closed game fishing season. It's a shame that we could get no movement upstream of Dartmeet. Another project to work on for the next generation. In reality there is probably a dozen at most descents a year on the West Dart and less on the East, so not much demand to create conflict.

[Randy Fandango]

In response to some recent posts:

I still find myself gaping at the staggering arrogance that makes the BCU feel it has the right to negotiate on behalf of an entire sport, totally uncaring whether participants are its members or not.
Giles

The BCU and I were roundly castigated by many paddlers in the years that access agreements only applied to BCU members, and we insisted on changing the terms so that members and non members alike could paddle on rivers which had agreements. Seems you just can't win!

Good lord. How on earth did the BCU feel it ever had the right to negotiate and agree to restrictions to paddling on behalf of people it had absolutely no authority over?
The mind genuinely boggles.
I wonder they didn't appoint themselves to negotiate on behalf of all river users: sailers, wild swimmers, anglers.....
Now there's an idea....
Giles

[Mark R]

What's on offer appears fair and reasonable during the closed game fishing season.

I'm sorry? On offer? From whom? Who exactly has the authority in all this to decide what to 'offer' us?

a shame that we could get no movement upstream of Dartmeet. Another project to work on for the next generation. In reality there is probably a dozen at most descents a year on the West Dart and less on the East, so not much demand to create conflict.

Simon, did you just give up on the Dart tribs for the next twenty years? Those same Dart tribs which see multiple times many more descents than you claim, and would see many more, were some paddlers not detered by inaccurate National Park signs, threatening park wardens with their own agenda, and an EA rep who openly wants to prosecute paddlers?

[Simon Westgarth]

a shame that we could get no movement upstream of Dartmeet. Another project to work on for the next generation. In reality there is probably a dozen at most descents a year on the West Dart and less on the East, so not much demand to create conflict.

Simon, did you just give up on the Dart tribs for the next twenty years? Those same Dart tribs which see multiple times many more descents than you claim, and would see many more, were some paddlers not detered by inaccurate National Park signs, threatening park wardens with their own agenda, and an EA rep who openly wants to prosecute paddlers?

Firstly, I have not given up, my actions engaging the other river users is clear enough of my intentions. Which are to know the argument from their point of view and find a way through. We have an informal compromise as to where we can get on the West Dart, so we do not attract the attentions of the EA, and DNPA, still the Duchy of Cornwall's tenants our are main issue on the West Dart.

Secondly, I do not believe that there are that many runs of the West Dart in a season, it does not run that much when paddler's are around.

Thirdly, I do agree that some of the signs warning of salmon redds are not helpful, and the Park Warden's a little zealous of their conservation role for the West Dart, as once all the bluster has gone, they wish to know if I have seen any otters... The EA Fisheries Officer has a job of work to do, and protecting the redds on Cherry Brook, Black Brook and at Two Bridges are important to the EA's conservation efforts. I do not begrudge him for doing his work, and if that is to be stern with paddler's seal launch in at Cherry Brook in high water, then so be it, there are other options, and better places to put on.

Lastly, I feel that the access agreement on offer, is perfectly fine for this wishing to paddle in the closed game fishing season from below Dartmeet. For the minority of us wishing to paddle at other times and on other sections, it is not, but to start with I will take whats on offer and move forward. The reason, neither the West nor East Dart are in there, is that the parking is an issue at Hexworthy, paddlers have repeatedly blocked the drive way of residences, and given that local people see the chaos at Newbridge, they fear the worst if the West Dart was seen to be more popular. Upstream at Prince's Hall, there us less parking, and here the local farmer is not at all welcoming, he see's his livelihood marginal a sit is on top of Dartmoor, so to add half a dozen cars blocking the narrow road would not help matter's, it's the same story on the East Dart. The paddling popularity of the Dart, especially since the RDCP opened it's doors, has brought more paddlers more often to Dartmoor, and some local people see this as an increasing issue. Myself, I say find a way where you can benefit, there will be more paddling still in the coming years, so the trick is to shape this, not stop it.

For paddling during the game fishing season during spate runoff, I have no issue with this, yet I know the salmon are best caught off the back of a flood event, when the river is still quite paddlable. So we have in theory a conflict of users meeting each other on the river. In reality, the locals paddlers say that a few times, they have meet fishermen on the Upper Dart in the last 5 years, it is not at all common, in fact it's rather rare indeed. Sea Trout is fished for at night in the main part, so we have little issue with that. We are more likely to get paddling on the West Dart in an agreement, long before Summer spate paddling, as I know the fishermen do not wish to see us on the river when they are fishing. I fish and understand the nature of the sport and as such I have an accord with them. It's a matter of knowing the when best to go paddling in Summer spate, and what to look for to avoid direct conflict, which is quite easy.

[Strad]

I got a reply from CE - in summary - they're too scared that doing anything other then going back to VAAs will get them involved in an expensive court case.

Please find our response to your questions below:

Is CE or a representative of the CE such as Waterways Advisor negotiating any Access Arrangements?

Yes. The River Dearne and Calder in Yorkshire. The Crake and Lune in Cumbria are examples of AA that CE have been involved with.


Will any negotiation on River Dart will keep to Adam Box’s guidance (even though he is no longer in office)?

The RWA for the SW was incorrectly informed by CE that only all year round AA’s should be entertained.

There are environmental conditions that preclude all year round access. Canoe England has arranged for these to be reviewed on the River Dart later this year.

Please can you explain why the access team believe it is easier to answer to multiple emails instead of giving one transparent answer on a webpage or social media area such as facebook?

W&E are a very small team where they maybe out of the office for several days at a time and so for administration purposes and to ensure we keep track of enquiries sent to us we have all access enquiries placed into a single W&E Dept receiving point

access@canoe-england.org.uk

The Waterways & Environment Team are establishing a FAQ section on the Canoe England website (Waterways and Environment Section) and will update this as and when new issue and other questions arise.



Will the access team continue to support the guidance that Adam gave in that if a VAA is negotiated it will only be on the basis of 365 day access with considered levels and environmental constraints, or given Caffyn's work and the belief of many paddlers that rivers have an open right of navigation will there be no more VAA negotiated

· The Rev’d Dr Caffyn’s historical research has made a key contribution in discussing the case for the restoration of rights to non-tidal waters. However, the BCU or Canoe England does not have the legal expertise to either accept or challenge his work.

· Canoe England and the BCU are not aware of any meaningful challenge to his work and its conclusion there is a public right on all unregulated rivers that are physically useable. It could be an indication of the difficulty this poses for other interests and their reluctance to openly argue against it, mindful of the possible consequence on the present understanding of the law.

· Canoe England recognises that only the judicial system can interpret the law and that neither it nor the BCU is a legal authority.



Is there a timeline to get the RAC moving again and to update / modernise the RAC website.

The Rivers Access Campaign website is currently being rebuilt and will be launched shortly.



· Please explain what are the blocking issues to CE doing the following: a) declaring that Caffyn's work shows that we have access to rivers, it has not yet been disputed and that the only access negotiations will be based about the physical getting to / from a river and not 'along' the river b) openly stating that support will be given to CE in the case of a legal dispute of Caffyn's work (i.e. if a land owner or riparian rights owner tries to bring a test case you will support the paddlers)



· The Rev’d Dr Caffyn’s historical research has made a key contribution in discussing the case for the restoration of rights to non-tidal waters. However, the BCU or Canoe England does not have the legal expertise to either accept or challenge his work.

· Canoe England and the BCU are not aware of any meaningful challenge to his work and its conclusion there is a public right on all unregulated rivers that are physically useable. It could be an indication of the difficulty this poses for other interests and their reluctance to openly argue against it, mindful of the possible consequence on the present understanding of the law.

· Canoe England recognises that only the judicial system can interpret the law and that neither it nor the BCU is a legal authority.

CE recognises that a lot of watersport in England takes place on a de facto basis without objection and that the lack of a clearly understandable legal position can lead to localised conflict but this is in fact minimal.
The financial costs involved could be astronomical bearing in mind that it would be escalated upwards to eventually house of lords, European court etc. Canoe England needs to balance membership expectation as to how the capital is allocated for their benefit and the promotion of the sport. Whilst an important part of CE membership would see this as a laudable use of CE’s money a high proportion would not want their funds spent in this way, indeed the recent participation survey (November 2011) suggests that for many of our members access is not a key issue.



Given the links that new staff members have to the EA will there be a conscientious effort to apply pressure to the EA to act within its remit of encouragement of all to use the water and to not favour one group of users over another as part of the ongoing RAC campaign.

We are already working with organisations such as Environment Agency to develop and promote recreational paddling through working in partnership with them and others which include Rivers Trusts on specific projects such as the Water Framework Directive. Huge amounts of funding are available to improve the natural environment of certain rivers which do not reach a satisfactory standard. As a major partner, CE will be seeking to include recreational improvements within these plans.

A thought with the Go Canoeing days that are advertised, wouldn't it be great if the RAC worked with the clubs involved to invite their local MPs to each of these events and get them out to enjoy our waterways en mass?

When the Waterways and Environment Charter was launched last summer all MPs were sent a copy and invited to come and visit a local canoe club/centre or if one was not available for us to take them out on the water. Many MPs did come along and other wrote in support of the Charter.
In addition many clubs already invite their MPs to come down and meet them when they hold events to promote the sport and recreational side of canoeing. Many of these meetings have been reported in Canoe Focus but we are always encouraging our members and clubs to have links with their MPs and others with political influence in their areas.

I hope this response answers your questions.

Regards

Thw Waterways and Environment Dept

[Mike A]

I do worry with this reversal in position on "no agreements unless 365" position that those who oppose paddlers may be reinvigorated in their quite nasty campaigns / tactics to keep us off the rivers?

Indeed, although actually in Wales, I wonder if this change in posture by BCU / CE could be linked to the reported recent push by the Dee fisheries aginst landowners who allow paddlers to launch? Things have been so much easier since we (except the competition paddlers who tried to negotiate their own access at that time) rejected the Dee access agreements and just paddled with the view that we had the right to be on the water.

And as for

"· Canoe England and the BCU are not aware of any meaningful challenge to his work and its conclusion there is a public right on all unregulated rivers that are physically useable. It could be an indication of the difficulty this poses for other interests and their reluctance to openly argue against it, mindful of the possible consequence on the present understanding of the law. "

Surely this acknowledgment that others may be afraid to question Caffyns position should be a rallying point for CE. Why not state, "This is what we believe, if you have a problem with it, prove it. Until proved otherwise we will paddle"

Final point, CE stating that a high proportion of paddlers do not want money spent on the fight for access, what group of paddlers could that be?