Swallow falls

[Mark Allen]

Just a quick note to say we were at Swallow falls on Friday and a guy called Tony gave us massive hassle, filmed us and the police came to our bunkhouse to see what happened. Apparantly he does this quite alot?

[seajunky]

This is a post that is on our site www.cpwf.co.uk. I feel that this could well be a catalyst for serious discussion, in the hope of finding a solution to this long running situation.


I believe the following to be sound, non confrontational and objective. You have it as it was received by me. Well worth a read and authoritative.

We have read the posts on the UKRGB forum regarding the incident at the Swallow Falls and would like to point out that there is no access agreement for canoeists to Swallow Falls or to any part of the river Llugwy from the falls to its confluence with the Conwy or for that matter on the river Conwy itself below the Conwy Falls. Any one on the river Llugwy or the Swallow Falls is trespassing unless/until an agreement can be put in place. The argument that if you are on the river you are not trespassing is incorrect. The right to access water over land rests with the owner/tenant of the riverbed unless there is an act of parliament to grant navigation or as in tidal waters the riverbed is owned by the Crown. Neither of these conditions applies on the Llugwy: the limits of Crown ownership of the riverbed is generally the highest point of the tide as shown on Ordnance Survey maps, navigation is only possible beyond this point if there is agreement from the owner of the riverbed. The lawful tenants on the Llugwy are Betws-y-Coed Anglers we lease these rights from the landowner on an exclusive basis for fishing. As lawful tenants of the river Llugwy Betws-y-Coed Anglers are within our rights to remove anyone found on the river without the permission of the landowner, the landowner has instructed us to do this.

It has been noted that the thread on UKRGB contains threats of personal violence to Betws-y-Coed Anglers River Keepers. The River Keepers are authorised by the club to ask anyone found trespassing to leave the river, in challenging canoeists they are exercising their rights as lawful tenants and this is not harassment as has been suggested. However, due to the threats of violence on the UKRGB forum we must now assume there is intention to disrupt the lawful occupier by any canoeist found trespassing on our property. We have requested that the Police respond to all requests when dealing with unlawful access due to these threats of violence as we have real concerns over the safety of our River Keepers. It also seems that some on the forum will go out of their way to damage the livelihood of one of our river keepers, the threads indicate that there is a campaign in progress to do just this. We are not prepared to put up with threats of intimidation or violence.

It seems that a small minority of canoeists consider themselves to be beyond the law and have no respect for the property rights of others or for the environment. The group involved in the incident at Swallow Falls, as I understand, had been advised by their peers not to canoe the North Wales Rivers due to the lack of water – they took no notice. The cold winter has slowed the development of both salmon/sea trout and trout eggs and as a result alevin are yet to emerge from the interspatial gaps in gravels and are susceptible to being crushed, in low water there is a greater risk of this happening. Some canoeists seem to have little regard to the damage they may be doing. The group involved in the incident at Swallow Falls were seen travelling around the rivers of North Wales at a time when there was a significant risk of environmental damage. It is not known how many rivers they paddled but the potential for environmental damage by their activity was high. It is obvious that peer pressure will not work with this small minority and they have set back the chance of gaining legitimate access for canoeists through their irresponsible action. With the help of the Police we will apply the law to its fullest extent for anyone found on the Llugwy from now on.

Despite what you may think we are not anti canoeing but we are not prepared to tolerate irresponsible behaviour or threats of violence. We have been working with the EA and others to find a solution which will provide conditional access to our rivers. The actions of a thoughtless few has now jeopardised all of this. However, we would be please to discuss access with any group prepared to sit down with us, there are still many hurdles but we believe we can find an amicable solution.

Steve

[Mark Allen]

We were not paddling sections of rivers. We paddled Swallow falls and Pont Cyfun falls - so please get your facts right before you come posting crap on here. As for peers, we never asked for advice and wouldnt ask for advice on a place we have been to many times before.

[Ross W]

I will be in Wales in the near future should you wish to sit down and talk about how filming people in an aggressive maner is acceptable. Once we've sorted that out - we shall move on to the access.

Oh, and Tony said that the kayaker was tresspassing because he had not paid. I was unaware he was sat watching everybody whom paid to enter the park, because if he did he would have realised that, All of us had paid to enter. good luck with your quest.

[Paul Stewart]

The argument that if you are on the river you are not trespassing is incorrect. The right to access water over land rests with the owner/tenant of the riverbed unless there is an act of parliament to grant navigation or as in tidal waters the riverbed is owned by the Crown. Neither of these conditions applies on the Llugwy: the limits of Crown ownership of the riverbed is generally the highest point of the tide as shown on Ordnance Survey maps, navigation is only possible beyond this point if there is agreement from the owner of the riverbed. The lawful tenants on the Llugwy are Betws-y-Coed Anglers we lease these rights from the landowner on an exclusive basis for fishing.

Steve

Perhaps you could convince me of this by posting up copies of the legal documents that prove this?

[Pete the kayaker]

This is a post that is on our site http://www.cpwf.co.uk. I feel that this could well be a catalyst for serious discussion, in the hope of finding a solution to this long running situation.

Here's a suggestion for a solution, why don't certain fishermen and their pals stop harassing other river users? Almost every kayaker is happy to share the rivers with others, so why do some fishermen have such difficulty? The Llugwy hasn't seen many incidents of kayakers coming along the river to give grief to fishermen has it? The confrontation is one way traffic.

I believe the following to be sound, non confrontational and objective. You have it as it was received by me. Well worth a read and authoritative.

Actually this is confrontational and highly subjective as I will explain below. It is not at all authoritative, it’s just another attempt to bully other users away from our natural heritage by a minority of the angling fraternity.

We have read the posts on the UKRGB forum regarding the incident at the Swallow Falls and would like to point out that there is no access agreement for canoeists to Swallow Falls or to any part of the river Llugwy from the falls to its confluence with the Conwy or for that matter on the river Conwy itself below the Conwy Falls.

This is the most accurate part of the whole post. All such restrictive “access agreements” have been repudiated by the WCA. The advice is to go and paddles as conditions allow, but take responsibility for yourself.

Any one on the river Llugwy or the Swallow Falls is trespassing unless/until an agreement can be put in place. The argument that if you are on the river you are not trespassing is incorrect.

The first sentence is entirely subjective, just Steve’s opinion. All land ownership, whether as a freehold (e.g. in fee simple) or as a leasehold or tenancy distils down to a set of rights over a certain property as defined in the law. The law does not state that anyone paddling down a main watercourse, such as the Llugwy, is trespassing. If it did, I’m sure that one of our angling correspondents would have pointed out the relevant statute or precedent by now, but the fact that they cannot speaks volumes. The second sentence here is purely confrontational and is unsupported.

The right to access water over land rests with the owner/tenant of the riverbed unless there is an act of parliament to grant navigation or as in tidal waters the riverbed is owned by the Crown.

Steve’s making another bold, but unsupported statement here. The riparian rights conferred to adjacent estates in land amount to various things such as fishing and water extraction, but do not confer the right to say who can pass down such a waterway. I’m sure if the law was clear on this point, Steve would have no hesitation in enlightening us with the relevant legislation or case law.

Neither of these conditions applies on the Llugwy: the limits of Crown ownership of the riverbed is generally the highest point of the tide as shown on Ordnance Survey maps, navigation is only possible beyond this point if there is agreement from the owner of the riverbed.

Again the subjective assumption that the riparian owner can determine who passes down a river – this is from where?

The lawful tenants on the Llugwy are Betws-y-Coed Anglers we lease these rights from the landowner on an exclusive basis for fishing. As lawful tenants of the river Llugwy Betws-y-Coed Anglers are within our rights to remove anyone found on the river without the permission of the landowner, the landowner has instructed us to do this.

No, if Steve or any of his pals molest anybody who is going about a lawful activity on the river, then they would be assaulting them. Their rights either as lessees of the fishing rights, or agents of the estate, do not allow them to use force against kayakers in this situation. This appears to be a direct threat by Steve (and possibly Betws-y-Coed Anglers) made as an attempt to intimidate other river users. This appears to be saying that they will take the law into their own hands.

It has been noted that the thread on UKRGB contains threats of personal violence to Betws-y-Coed Anglers River Keepers.

I think it was one silly remark, but I do not condone it. Our strength of feeling should be channelled more constructively.

The River Keepers are authorised by the club to ask anyone found trespassing to leave the river, in challenging canoeists they are exercising their rights as lawful tenants and this is not harassment as has been suggested.

No, they do not have any such rights, and yes, it is harassment. I expect the local Police will eventually be reminding them of this.

However, due to the threats of violence on the UKRGB forum we must now assume there is intention to disrupt the lawful occupier by any canoeist found trespassing on our property. We have requested that the Police respond to all requests when dealing with unlawful access due to these threats of violence as we have real concerns over the safety of our River Keepers. It also seems that some on the forum will go out of their way to damage the livelihood of one of our river keepers, the threads indicate that there is a campaign in progress to do just this. We are not prepared to put up with threats of intimidation or violence.

Again, Steve seems to be mistaking his assumptions for the law, but I’m sure that all kayakers would be happy to have a police presence on the Llugwy. However in reality, I fear that they have more pressing duties to attend than dealing with the imaginings of a section of the angling community.

It seems that a small minority of canoeists consider themselves to be beyond the law and have no respect for the property rights of others or for the environment.

It is remarkable how Steve wants to take the law into his own hands in one paragraph and then castigates kayakers as considering themselves beyond the law in another. He asks for respect of property rights, yet shows no respect for the rights of others.

The group involved in the incident at Swallow Falls, as I understand, had been advised by their peers not to canoe the North Wales Rivers due to the lack of water – they took no notice. The cold winter has slowed the development of both salmon/sea trout and trout eggs and as a result alevin are yet to emerge from the interspatial gaps in gravels and are susceptible to being crushed, in low water there is a greater risk of this happening. Some canoeists seem to have little regard to the damage they may be doing.

Whilst I understand that anglers wish to preserve stocks and protect the redds, and there is a case for a sensible minimum level to be set, this will not be implemented by anglers resorting to such rhetoric as witnessed in this post. Tony and his pals have been noted harassing boaters at all levels. This seems to confirm that they wish to prevent kayaking altogether, not just at low levels.

The group involved in the incident at Swallow Falls were seen travelling around the rivers of North Wales at a time when there was a significant risk of environmental damage. It is not known how many rivers they paddled but the potential for environmental damage by their activity was high. It is obvious that peer pressure will not work with this small minority and they have set back the chance of gaining legitimate access for canoeists through their irresponsible action. With the help of the Police we will apply the law to its fullest extent for anyone found on the Llugwy from now on.

I suspect the heddlu may be bored with Betws-y-Coed anglers already. Another threat against boaters, this is hardly the language of conciliation and finding a way forward. It gives the lie to the first sentence of the post "in the hope of finding a solution to this long running situation" and the first part of his next paragraph.

Despite what you may think we are not anti canoeing but we are not prepared to tolerate irresponsible behaviour or threats of violence.

Except when fishermen are behaving irresponsibly (e.g. Tony’s antics) or making the threats (as per the many regularly made on fishing websites), in which case it’s all fine (see, we do understand).

We have been working with the EA and others to find a solution which will provide conditional access to our rivers. The actions of a thoughtless few has now jeopardised all of this. However, we would be please to discuss access with any group prepared to sit down with us, there are still many hurdles but we believe we can find an amicable solution.

If Steve and the Betws y Coed anglers really wanted a solution, they would be talking to the WCA about the situation without first setting pre-conditions. It may surprise them to learn that kayakers consider the rivers to be ours also (but not just ours).

[seajunky]

Pete
As I said this post this thread is also on the SOTP site as well. Keith over there has made the suggestion that we broker the discussions on www.cpwf.co.uk so your good members can carry on without (what must be a frustrating) antaganising threads. How would you feel about that. For the record I am a kayak fisherman, and so would like to think that I can see both sides of the coin. In the end this is going to be about compramise ON BOTH SIDES.

Steve

[Chas C]

Steve - you caused this by posting up a thread that is clearly biased, did you not read it first, you claim your a kayaker/fisherman - could you not see that it would cause this type of reaction.

From what I have seen so far it does not look to me that you have a balanced view on the subject as you claim.

[RichA]

Innocent until proven guilty?

Go on then, prove that it is trespass to paddle a river with no 'access agreement/arrangement'. Laws and cases please.