Call from the Angling Trust in Hampshire

[Chunda]

During the daily office banter between the many fisher folk and the only paddler (me) I was forwarded the below from the Angling Trust, I do like the comment "The large, garish craft will also disturb the peace of the river and destroy anglers' enjoyment of their sport by scaring fish away": -


Angling Trust calls on British Canoe Union to Condemn Mass Trespass Protest

The Angling Trust, wrote to the Chief Executive of the British Canoe Union (BCU) today demanding that his organisation condemns a planned illegal trespass protest on Saturday 22 October 2011 on the Hampshire Avon. The Angling Trust has also asked for public confirmation that no BCU staff will be involved in the protest, and that the BCU will make it clear to participants that they will not be covered by public liability insurance while participating in an activity which is not recognised by the National Governing Body for Canoeing.

The illegal trespass event could damage the fragile ecology of the Hampshire Avon, which is currently suffering from low flows. Gravel beds used for spawning by fish, and beds of Ranunculus fluitans (a water weed which is a vital habitat for invertebrates) could be damaged by large numbers of canoes passing through shallow water. The large, garish craft will also disturb the peace of the river and destroy anglers' enjoyment of their sport by scaring fish away. An angling match for 30 anglers is planned on the day of the protest and this will be ruined by the illegal trespass. The Hampshire Avon is one of the most iconic rivers in the country for both coarse and game angling. The organisers are claiming in their e-mail promotion see note 1 that the event is not a mass trespass, but merely an exercise of an ancient right of access. The law is clear: no such right exists see note 2.

Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of the Angling Trust said: "This trespass is irresponsible and dangerous and could do physical damage to sensitive habitats in a river already suffering from over-abstraction and diffuse pollution. We urge the BCU to advise its members to stay away and to adopt a new position on canoe access that is less confrontational and works with angling clubs and riparian owners to secure new access - with sensible restrictions - for the country's canoeists. Any sniff of support for this illegal protest would be highly irresponsible from a National Governing Body. We have contacted the police and have asked them to take action to arrest anyone participating in aggravated trespass."

Stuart Wilson, the Riverkeeper employed by London Angling Association who have owned a stretch of the river since 1965, said: "Organising this event is completely unreasonable behaviour and will spoil the enjoyment of a group of anglers who pay a rod licence to fish and pay for a permit to fish at Britford. Their match has been organised for months and many will have travelled several hours to come and fish. They will be utterly disappointed if a group of canoeists who contribute nothing to the upkeep of the river come splashing through the river disturbing fish and other wildlife on an illegal process. They will spoil the fishing for the most of the rest of the morning."

Stuart Wilson has experienced an increase in illegal canoeing over the past 3 years which is affecting the fishing and the presence of wildlife such as water voles.

NOTES
1. A COPY OF THE TEXT OF THE E-MAIL WHICH WAS CIRCULATED:
Please forward this message to your club members or any other paddlers who you think might be interested. You are invited to join a paddle down the River Avon from Salisbury to
Fordingbridge on Saturday 22 October 2011. The background to this trip is to reconfirm the ancient Right of Navigation on the River Avon in the face of ongoing objections by vested interests.
However, this paddle is not intended to be a "mass protest" (or trespass across private land), but a positive demonstration of paddling as a legitimate activity on English and Welsh rivers. It's all about having a relaxing day out, in good company, and enjoying our natural environment. There is no formal organisation of this paddle, just turn up and paddle. More details (including route maps) on the Song Of The Paddle forum here: http://www.songofthepaddle.co.uk/forum/ ... light=avon

2. THE LAW OF NAVIGATION ON FRESHWATER IN ENGLAND AND WALES
The Angling Trust confirms its support for the Government's and the Environment Agency's clear position that the way forward for increased access for other waters users is by the creation of voluntary access arrangements. The Angling Trust is keen to promote voluntary access agreements on rivers at times and places where this is appropriate. It is not always appropriate that either angling or canoeing takes place on every day throughout the year.

The Trust does not advocate navigation or canoeing agreements on rivers:

I) Where there is potential for environmental damage to the river;

ii) On those small rivers where there is likely to be a significant risk of conflict between paddlers and anglers;

iii) On those where riparian owners, whose permission needs to be sought in law for access agreements, would suffer unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of their property.

The Angling Trust is very concerned that governing bodies of canoeing are frequently misstating the law on navigation on rivers in England and Wales and thereby encouraging conflict. This makes the commissioning of voluntary access agreements less likely or even impossible. However, this will not stop the Angling Trust continuing to promote access agreements as the way of increasing access for canoeists in line with Government and Environment Agency policy in both England and Wales.

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. While the public has the right of navigation in tidal waters (e.g. Gann v Free Fishers of Whitstable (1865) 11 H.L.Cas; Blundell v Caterall (1821) 5B & Ald. 268), this depends on the presumption of the Crown's ownership of the land beneath the water. This presumption is rebuttable and there are some instances where the tidal riverbed is under private ownership.

The presumption of rights of navigation on tidal rivers contrasts with the very limited right on non-tidal rivers. The default position is that there is no such general right of navigation. Above the flow of tide the land beneath a river or stream is privately owned so that while the public can acquire navigational rights over such waters they cannot have them as of right. It has been held that rights of navigation on inland waterways are not analogous to rights of way on land (Wills' Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School (1976) SLT 162 and AG
ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust and Malton Town Council v Brotherton [1992] 1 All ER 230).

Acquiring rights of navigation
Post-Wills Trustees, the public acquisition of a right to navigate on a non-tidal waterway cannot be based on the usual arguments used for "immemorial user" for rights of way on land. The basis of a public right of navigation in a non-tidal river should be treated as being in a legal class of its own. Of course, as is well recognised, a public right of navigation may also arise through statute. This is the most common way in which such rights arise.

No right for use of banks
Even in the situations where the public has a right of navigation in a non-tidal waterway (whether by grant, statute or immemorial user), this does not necessarily include the right to moor or to make use of the banks of the waterway in gaining access to or leaving the waterway. In A-G ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust and Malton Town Council v Brotherton [1992] 1 All ER 230, L Jauncy commented, obiter, that ". . .the public have no right to use the bed or banks of the river other than perhaps for anchoring in an emergency and for landing at a place where they are entitled so to do".

Therefore, to moor and access the river in such circumstances, canoeists would need the permission of the owner of the river bank to avoid to avoid trespassing.

[DaveBland]

All speculation and waffle apart from:
"In A-G ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust and Malton Town Council v Brotherton [1992] 1 All ER 230, L Jauncy commented, obiter, that ". . .the public have no right to use the bed or banks of the river other than perhaps for anchoring in an emergency and for landing at a place where they are entitled so to do".

Sounds fine. So get on and off at a publicly owned point and you're good to go.

[kayakingcallum]

sounds like a nice paddle ;-) think ill just ignore the rest of it haha

[Randy Fandango]

I was thinking it sounded a nice paddle but then I read that potentially we might disturb the poor little fragile water voles and I had what the alcoholics call a moment of clarity.
My God what are we doing??!! The poor poor poor little voles....!!
* Hides head in shame.......*
Giles

[quicky]

The large, garish craft will also disturb the peace of the river and destroy anglers' enjoyment of their sport by scaring fish away.

Better tell the EA officers on the Wye as well who do there patrols in a canoe that they must make sure they do not disturb the anglers....

[Strad]

The large, garish craft will also disturb the peace of the river and destroy anglers' enjoyment of their sport by scaring fish away.

Better tell the EA officers on the Wye as well who do there patrols in a canoe that they must make sure they do not disturb the anglers....

And of course kayak angling is such a fast growing sport because the fish get scared and you don't catch anything....

[Adrian Cooper]

I thought a public navigation meant the public could navigate. Maybe I am getting it all wrong.

I guess they are referring to a proposed outing by about half a dozen canoeists. Does that constitute a 'mass paddle'?

[Beefheart]

Doesn't the 'Right to Roam' legislation apply? I would have thought you could, within certain limits, roam in a kayak?

[quicky]

they would get it wrong as usual and class it as 'right to row'

[wezzzy]

I hadn't heard about this paddle until today, I think I might take the wife and kid out for the day.
Do we know the best place to stand (on public land of course) so they can shout, stomp and wave at the passing paddlers? (and plod in hot persuit)

[chrism]

I just love the fact that they're quoting Scottish law to try and support their case!

[otherted]

Interesting point. The Angling Trust clearly state in their new page that "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.". However they fail to mention this in their "Angling Trust Kayak Fishing Freshwater Code Of Conduct". Surely if "no general public right to navigate in non tidal rivers exists" they should be advising their members of this ?

Also if "Stuart Wilson has experienced an increase in illegal canoeing over the past 3 years " why has he not taken any legal action against the "illegal" paddlers ?

I would love to come down and support on the 22nd but it's just too far to drive for a flat paddle. Hope everyone who does paddle has an enjoyable and hassle free trip.

[SimonMW]

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.

My only answer to this would be another question. Where is it clarified as the current position of 'the law'? I didn't realise that 'the law' had a current position? Or do they simply mean their intepretation of the law? Maybe the mean the EA's statement on the law or the Government statements on the law? Maybe somebody could clarify it to them that it is the courts who decide whether people are in breach of the law and that one individual Government ministers interpretation, or rather misinterpretation, of the law is of no particular relevance.

I would also recommend forwarding on the Teifi access letter to them!

[otherted]

I thought I would ask the Angling Trust and have emailed them.

"Can you tell me what constitutes "illegal canoeing" as stated on your news page (Angling Trust call on British Canoe Union to condemn mass trespass protest).

I was unaware that canoeing or kayaking were crimes.

I also note in your article you state that "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."

I do not believe this to be the case and wonder if you are aware of the work of Rev Caffyn. You may find the attached article most informative http://www.caffynonrivers.co.uk/_resour ... _again.pdf.

I look forwards to your response."

I sent a similar email to the Llangollen Angling Association as they are also referring to "illegal canoeing" on their website.

Lets see if they reply.

[quicky]

http://www.facebook.com/#!/AnglingTrust

About the Angling Trust calls on British Canoe Union to Condemn Mass Trespass

Pete Harrison
sorry, but I cant see why the AT should get involved.....if anglers rights were threatened we would hold a mass meet, so in my opinion they have every right to do as they see fit to get publicity for their cause...Let me say im an angler an...d not a canoeist.....Im mainly a sea angler,and we have held large meets in south wales on private property to protect our fishing,on 3 venues ABP (associated British Ports) now leave us alone.

Martin Hurst
An ill worded press release for a kayak angler who has joined the kayak section of the AT!! Garish craft!! Got a great idea pete , next time you lads have a match I'll arrange for 200 of our lads to come and play in the surf. Of course cano...e/kayak access is a big thing for the fresh boys and wholly right that the AT should be involved protecting the rights and enjoyement of anglers. Confrontation is not the way forward!

and on a slightly different topic

Kayak Angling Course & Sidmouth Lifeboat Joint Training

Angling Trust
Video of the Angling Trust's Kayak Angling Foundation Course held on September 24th at Ladram Bay in Devon. These courses are run by our fully qualified Kayak Angling Coaches and cover all the essentials needed to get the beginner and inter...mediate safely on the water and catching fish. They cover kit lists, rescues, paddling technique, anchoring rigging a kayak, launching, rescue techniques, how to use a drogue and anchor a kayak, how to plan and log your trip, navigation basics, fish identification and safe handing plus much more that will stand you in good stead for a lifetime of safe kayak fishing. Emphasis will be on the on-the-water coaching so expect to get wet, enjoy yourself and meet like-minded 'yakkers. If you want to be notified of the next course email admin@anglingtrust.netSee more
27 September at 10:53 · LikeUnlike · 2 people

[chrism]

As fun as it might be (I did think of writing something throwing their own points back at them, but then thought of http://xkcd.com/386/), you do know that it's completely pointless conversing with bodies like that? Doubtless they have heard of Caffyn - not least because you won't be the first canoeist to mention him to them - but doubtless they'll just say he's wrong.

More significantly, given the publicity this seems to be getting, those participating ought to be prepared to meet obstruction to their legal progress - if I was taking part (I'm not) I'd take a helmet cam so as to record any illegal activity by those objecting to canoeists.

[chrism]

Looking at that FB page, it's interesting to see we have some aims in common though.
http://emarketing.blue-leaf.co.uk/t/r-6FBE1F470E2A0F29

[quicky]

In a democratic country people have a right to “protest” but is it a protest when there is a Navigation Act still on the river?

[quicky]

Please note .... the paddle is entitled the Hampshire Avon Autumn Paddle ... it is not called a protest or a mass paddle merely a group of individuals who are going out to enjoy the river ... The EA have said the salmon spawning season on the R Avon (Hants) is 1st November to end of March. The Hampshire Avon Autumn Paddle is on 22 October so there can be no any allegations of disturbing spawning fish.

[Jim]

Interesting that the paddlers email is quoted as being quite clear that it is not a protest or mass trespass that the AT has decided to spin it as though it is?

Also all the smoke and mirrors regarding rights of navigation - assuming the paddlers are right about there being an ancient right of navigation on the stretch then not only do they have every right to use it, but I think they/we need to use it to maintain it (reconfirm is the term used).

It is interesting to see that they have actually quoted a legal case where the judgement seems to have suggested that whilst there is no right to use the banks or moor, that perhaps there is in an emergency. This then means that as long as we plan to access and egress at places where we have a right or permission, any other arguments about non-legality of paddling are void. Any landowner/rights holder trying to argue that we can't paddle because we might need emergency access simply needs to be told to look up "A-G ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust and Malton Town Council v Brotherton [1992] 1 All ER 230" - it might be worth putting that on a laminated card.

Notwithstanding the current view that if there is a right to roam, then a right to carry a boat accross land must exist. It is already understood that there is no legal restriction to us being on the water, so why is access to water excluded? It is nonsense.

As a former, and probably future angler it angers me that there is so much intolerance amongst a significant proportion of the angling community.
I once witnessed another angler complaining about the sea cadets sailing boats passing through the swim he was fishing. Out of over 5 miles of riverbank we were entitled to fish, he had chosen a swim directly opposite their base and slipway - there is no reasoning with people like that.

[quicky]

Time to get a cipy of there statement before it dissapears or is changed....

[Randy Fandango]

Talking of smoke and mirrors the statement does actually include a nugget of absolute truth as far as the vocal minority of anglers are concerned:

The Angling Trust, wrote to the Chief Executive of the British Canoe Union (BCU) today .......
The large, garish craft will also disturb the ..........anglers' enjoyment of their sport

Its always amusing that they feel they have to disguise this comment in a web of nonsense, mistruths and classic legalese but then they're of course aware that this central point isn't one many outside their "sport" will really have any sympathy with.
Giles

[Strad]

Talking of smoke and mirrors the statement does actually include a nugget of absolute truth as far as the vocal minority of anglers are concerned:

The Angling Trust, wrote to the Chief Executive of the British Canoe Union (BCU) today .......
The large, garish craft will also disturb the ..........anglers' enjoyment of their sport

Its always amusing that they feel they have to disguise this comment in a web of nonsense, mistruths and classic legalese but then they're of course aware that this central point isn't one many outside their "sport" will really have any sympathy with.
Giles

It's more ridiculous then that, because truth is kayaking need not disturb their enjoyment, unless they are just looking to drown maggots as an excuse for some peace and quiet in the countryside, and a little bit of noise from a kayak is too much for them..

[tape34]

Interesting that the paddlers email is quoted as being quite clear that it is not a protest or mass trespass that the AT has decided to spin it as though it is?

Also all the smoke and mirrors regarding rights of navigation - assuming the paddlers are right about there being an ancient right of navigation on the stretch then not only do they have every right to use it, but I think they/we need to use it to maintain it (reconfirm is the term used)..
....................................

It's important that paddlers maintain that it is not a protest paddle, the right to public navigation on the Avon from Salisbury to the sea has been researched and documented by Rev Doug Caffyn and was reported in Canoeist magazine June 2007. http://www.canoeist.co.uk/wps/jun07/hq/page22.pdf
I sincerely hope that the BCU stand by this evidence in any reply to the Angling Trust.

Pete Ball

[Big Henry]

Two points sprung to my mind when I read this; the first being: I wonder if they will have any luck getting a reply from the BCU/CE, cos paddlers don't!?! The second, and probably more controversial one, was that maybe paddlers should not be paddling along that stretch of river on that day. I'm sure that people who have read my previous posts know my stance on access (it's legal) but I think as a community we paddlers should be showing ourselves to be the mature, considerate party in the arguments, and this means taking into consideration that there has been an angling match arranged for then for quite a while, and we should be being responsible and letting them have the river to themselves on such (rare) occasions. I agree with the arguments about our lack of disturbance of wildlife, but I think it's about being mature and sharing. (Despite my opposition to angling per se!)

To be honest, I believe that the Angling Trust have shot themselves in their own collective feet. If they had bitten the bullet and posted on the Song of the Paddle/here something like "we have a competition organised on that day, could you please avoid that stretch on that particular day?" then (I would suggest) most if not all the paddlers would have said "Fair enough" but the fact that they have turned this into a "mass protest" has stirred opinion against them to the point where I'm sure people will go and paddle then just to p&$$ them off (sorry "demonstrate our legal right to navigate stretches of inland water"). They have also created a Mexican stand-off, and many paddlers will not want to back off because of the attitude they have expressed towards the paddling community.

(Just in case any anglers are reading this, I grant you permission to quote me ONLY if you quote the WHOLE, COMPLETE and UNEDITTED comment, and NOT selected parts from it!)

[Strad]

well said Henry

I wasn't aware there was match on, AT perhaps could have used a better approach to just request not that weekend

[quicky]

Those pesky cormorants are fishing again..... How dare they.......

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fb ... =1&theater

[Mike Mayberry]

Those pesky cormorants are fishing again..... How dare they.......

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fb ... =1&theater

Yep, shocking!

Apparently more than 2000 were shot in 2010 alone. Natural England, that hands out licences to kill the birds, said the number of birds shot has increased from 500 to 2,133. The Government agency said the birds can only be shot if the population is healthy and there was no risk of them dying out. So far this year 1,636 cormorants have been shot by holders of government culling licences.

Figures from here.

[Jim]

(sorry "demonstrate our legal right to navigate stretches of inland water").

Nope, the paddle is an organised paddle along an ancient right of navigation in order to maintain that right of navigation by recording that it is still in use. It is specific to that section of river (apologise for my ignorance in not realising the Rev. Caffyn has documented it) and not a demonstration of legal right to navigate any other stretches. It is not a demonstration, or protest or mass trespass for anything, it is simply using an existing navigation to record usage to make sure the right of navigation is not withdrawn.

In my view the AT has picked a fight that they cannot possibly win given the weight of documentation that refutes many of the key points in their letter.

I still don't understand why there needs to be a fight?
When I used to fish we had enough trouble with the anti-bloodsports people picking fights with us, sure there are probably a few paddlers who support that point of view, but the vast majority of us just want to share the rivers and have no interest in stopping anglers enjoying them too.

(I quoted part of your comment because I'm not currently an angler so not covered by your release :-) )

[wezzzy]

The simplest form of conflict management is listening to both sides.
As said earlier if AT had come forward and talked to the paddlers it might have been sorted out with no hassle.

Which conversation would be better?
"I see you're planning a paddle on the 22nd"
"Yep, its to ensure the historic right of navigation on that stretch of river, here's the documentation"
"Oh I see, did you know we had a fishing competition on that day? Is there any chance of changing the day?"
"No, we didn't know, thanks for letting us know. Give me a few days to see if we can change the day, or maybe the time"
"Thanks"

Or

"You can't paddle"
"Oh yes we can"
"Oh no you can't"
"F*** you!"
"No, f*** you!"
"A***hole"
Right, we're going the BCU"
"Well we're going to the forums"
.
.
."GET ORF MOI LAAARND"

(All conversations are fictional and any similarity to actual conversations is purely coincidental)

We all need to talk about what is needed without mentioning "access agreements" coz we all know they are b******s.

I know this is easily said but compromises can be made on all sides (except on the Tawe, after my pregnant GF was verbally abused last year the gloves are off (figuratively speaking, I don't condone any violence)