Tawe Hassle.

[Ieuan Belshaw]

I've never seen anyone fish on it ever and I've paddled The Tawe more times then I can remember *at all times of year.

Just came across this from a few months back. http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/foru ... =3&t=75830

[chriscw]

I don't understand why we're getting dragged into a discussion about numbers. Way more people fish than paddle, that's obviously true. It's also completely irrelevant to any of the issues in this thread.

I quibbled because:

Assuming all anglers have a rod licence and are therefore fishing legally then there are fewer of them that there are paddlers never mind other boaters, wild swimmers, dog walkers and so on. Anglers are a minority of river users.

and there's already enough nonsense in this thread without statements like that.

True, plenty in nonsense from both sides.
It doesn't matter who has more participants or who thinks paddlers are trespassing, neither will stop us from paddling on the Tawe or any other river with public access points.

According to the EA £19 million is raised from Rod Licences, that equates to fewer than 1 million anglers and we are told that more people than that paddle, so anglers are a minority of river users even if ONLY paddlers are considered. BUT I do not think however horrible and cruel their sport is it should be banned, you cannot have majority groups telling minorities they cannot do something they love or for that matter vice versa.

[NogoodBoyo]

According to the EA £19 million is raised from Rod Licences, that equates to fewer than 1 million anglers and we are told that more people than that paddle, so anglers are a minority of river users even if ONLY paddlers are considered.

Where are we told that more than a million paddle?

[hereorkayaking]

According to the EA £19 million is raised from Rod Licences, that equates to fewer than 1 million anglers and we are told that more people than that paddle, so anglers are a minority of river users even if ONLY paddlers are considered.

Where are we told that more than a million paddle?

Information on number of participation in paddle sport can be found here.

http://www.bcu.org.uk/files/Participant ... %20v.4.pdf

Information can be found in
Section 4.
On Page 8.

Steve

[NogoodBoyo]

Information on number of participation in paddle sport can be found here.

http://www.bcu.org.uk/files/Participant ... %20v.4.pdf

Thanks for that. At least it's a source (like the one I provided) that can be examined and considered.

Information can be found in
Section 4.
On Page 8.

I prefer Page 9

There is a considerable contrast between those who dabble with the sport, or try the sport once (perhaps in an activity centre or on holiday), and those who are more regular participants. There are perhaps 1.63 million children and adults who are exposed to Paddlesports in any given year that do not take up the sport more regularly! Perhaps about 150,000 participate regularly i.e. more than once a month.

Nogood Boyo

[wezzzy]

I don't understand why we're getting dragged into a discussion about numbers. Way more people fish than paddle, that's obviously true. It's also completely irrelevant to any of the issues in this thread.

I thought I'd quote this one again.

[NogoodBoyo]

I don't understand why we're getting dragged into a discussion about numbers. Way more people fish than paddle, that's obviously true. It's also completely irrelevant to any of the issues in this thread.

I thought I'd quote this one again.

Except that, when making a case for increased, easier access, paddlers often claim high numbers of users. Just trying to clarify things in the light of the claim made by chriscw.

Nogood Boyo

[hereorkayaking]

I still feel numbers are irrelivant to the over all debate. Its nice to know the numbers but they're still irrelivant.

Just because there is a majority on one side, does not give grounds, to have the other side cut off from the resource.

Steve

[NogoodBoyo]

I still feel numbers are irrelivant to the over all debate. Its nice to know the numbers but they're still irrelivant.

Just because there is a majority on one side, does not give grounds, to have the other side cut off from the resource.

Neither "side" is shut off from the resource. What many people overlook is that, when it comes to obtaining access from owners, paddlers and anglers are in exactly the same position. Anglers have organised themselves and obtained access from owners by paying for it. Paddlers don't seem to be prepared to do the same.

Nogood Boyo
(back to lurking mode)

[MK123]

I still feel numbers are irrelivant to the over all debate. Its nice to know the numbers but they're still irrelivant.

Just because there is a majority on one side, does not give grounds, to have the other side cut off from the resource.

Neither "side" is shut off from the resource. What many people overlook is that, when it comes to obtaining access from owners, paddlers and anglers are in exactly the same position. Anglers have organised themselves and obtained access from owners by paying for it. Paddlers don't seem to be prepared to do the same.

Nogood Boyo
(back to lurking mode)

But paddlers use publicly accessible points to get on and off rivers??

[chrism]

What many people overlook is that, when it comes to obtaining access from owners, paddlers and anglers are in exactly the same position. Anglers have organised themselves and obtained access from owners by paying for it. Paddlers don't seem to be prepared to do the same.

Well there you're wrong. All paddlers pay the owners of the water.

[NogoodBoyo]

What many people overlook is that, when it comes to obtaining access from owners, paddlers and anglers are in exactly the same position. Anglers have organised themselves and obtained access from owners by paying for it. Paddlers don't seem to be prepared to do the same.

Well there you're wrong. All paddlers pay the owners of the water.

I was talking about owners of the riparian land and associated rights.

[Strad]

What many people overlook is that, when it comes to obtaining access from owners, paddlers and anglers are in exactly the same position. Anglers have organised themselves and obtained access from owners by paying for it. Paddlers don't seem to be prepared to do the same.

Well there you're wrong. All paddlers pay the owners of the water.

I was talking about owners of the riparian land and associated rights.

I'll take the bait :-) what have riparian rights got to do with navigation along a river and why should we pay a riparian rights holder?

Riparian rights are a system of rights and duties that determine the reasonable use, duties, and allocations of water to owners of waterfront property. Riparian rights are rooted in English common law, so they are typically implemented in former British colonies such as the eastern United States and Canada. In principle, these rights ensure that riparian owners can make reasonable use of water adjacent to their property while protecting the rights of other riparian owners.

A person must own land adjacent to a body of water to be considered a riparian owner. Generally, a riparian owner has inherent riparian rights included in his property rights. The owner usually has exclusive rights to his bottomland for anchoring docks or rafts, his beach, and his upland, but not to the water itself. The owner cannot infringe upon the rights of other riparian owners or the public to make reasonable use of the water. Reasonable use is weighed by proportion of land owned that abuts the water and the needs of other users.

[MikeB]

What many people overlook is that, when it comes to obtaining access from owners, paddlers and anglers are in exactly the same position. Anglers have organised themselves and obtained access from owners by paying for it. Paddlers don't seem to be prepared to do the same.

Well there you're wrong. All paddlers pay the owners of the water.

I was talking about owners of the riparian land and associated rights.

I'm sorry - I'm baffled now. Can you explain to me what ownership of riparian land has to do with paddling a river? Mike.

[chrism]

What many people overlook is that, when it comes to obtaining access from owners, paddlers and anglers are in exactly the same position. Anglers have organised themselves and obtained access from owners by paying for it. Paddlers don't seem to be prepared to do the same.

Well there you're wrong. All paddlers pay the owners of the water.

I was talking about owners of the riparian land and associated rights.

What about the owners of the cars parked in the nearby car park, or the owners of the local fish and chip shop. As anglers have you paid them?

Though I'm glad to see you acknowledge that the riparian owners don't own the water.

[NogoodBoyo]

What about the owners of the cars parked in the nearby car park, or the owners of the local fish and chip shop. As anglers have you paid them?

What about them? Why would anyone pay them? You've got me baffled now.

[chrism]

What about the owners of the cars parked in the nearby car park, or the owners of the local fish and chip shop. As anglers have you paid them?

What about them? Why would anyone pay them? You've got me baffled now.

Well you started it by suggesting that paddlers should pay riparian owners.

[wezzzy]

What about the owners of the cars parked in the nearby car park, or the owners of the local fish and chip shop. As anglers have you paid them?

What about them? Why would anyone pay them? You've got me baffled now.

Chris, you have me baffled as well.
BUT
If I was to go into the chippy and want some chips I would have to pay, if I wanted to put my car in a carpark I would have to pay.
BUT
If I was walking/driving/paddling past the chippy/carpark I wouldnt expect to pay anything.

I'm sure that could be put into a paddling/maggot drowning context somehow.

[chrism]

What about the owners of the cars parked in the nearby car park, or the owners of the local fish and chip shop. As anglers have you paid them?

What about them? Why would anyone pay them? You've got me baffled now.

Chris, you have me baffled as well.
BUT
If I was to go into the chippy and want some chips I would have to pay, if I wanted to put my car in a carpark I would have to pay.
BUT
If I was walking/driving/paddling past the chippy/carpark I wouldnt expect to pay anything.

I'm sure that could be put into a paddling/maggot drowning context somehow.

I was just coming up with examples of people who owned things the angler wasn't using - just like the paddler and the riparian owner.

[NogoodBoyo]

I was just coming up with examples of people who owned things the angler wasn't using - just like the paddler and the riparian owner.

Ah, I now understand the point you were making. But you're wrong and your analogy is flawed. Paddlers travelling over privately owned riverbed are using land belonging to the riparian owner. Even Canoe Wales accepts that:

Canoe Wales accept that the current perception in common law supports the position that where rights are not explicit Navigation may constitute a trespass

http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/foru ... 79#p616359

[Strad]

I was just coming up with examples of people who owned things the angler wasn't using - just like the paddler and the riparian owner.

Ah, I now understand the point you were making. But you're wrong and your analogy is flawed. Paddlers travelling over privately owned riverbed are using land belonging to the riparian owner. Even Canoe Wales accepts that:

Canoe Wales accept that the current perception in common law supports the position that where rights are not explicit Navigation may constitute a trespass

http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/foru ... 79#p616359

So Canoe Wales understand there is a perception, they haven't stated that is legal fact, in fact they refute the perception as incorrect.

[chrism]

I was just coming up with examples of people who owned things the angler wasn't using - just like the paddler and the riparian owner.

Ah, I now understand the point you were making. But you're wrong and your analogy is flawed. Paddlers travelling over privately owned riverbed are using land belonging to the riparian owner. Even Canoe Wales accepts that:

Canoe Wales accept that the current perception in common law supports the position that where rights are not explicit Navigation may constitute a trespass

http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/foru ... 79#p616359

Actually no they don't - they accept there is a perception. You missed out the next bit of what you were quoting (thanks for the link to make it easy to find):

"Canoe Wales holds the opinion that the current common law position with regard to trespass on waterways is not utilised, understood or accurate with regard to the statutory position"

Anyway, you don't need to be a legal eagle to realise that your statement is fundamentally flawed - the paddlers aren't using the land, they're using the water - you've already agreed that the riparian owner doesn't own that.

[NogoodBoyo]

Paddlers travelling over privately owned riverbed are using land belonging to the riparian owner. Even Canoe Wales accepts that:

Canoe Wales accept that the current perception in common law supports the position that where rights are not explicit Navigation may constitute a trespass

http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/foru ... 79#p616359

Actually no they don't - they accept there is a perception. You missed out the next bit of what you were quoting (thanks for the link to make it easy to find):

"Canoe Wales holds the opinion that the current common law position with regard to trespass on waterways is not utilised, understood or accurate with regard to the statutory position"

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

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

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.

Anyway, you don't need to be a legal eagle to realise that your statement is fundamentally flawed - the paddlers aren't using the land, they're using the water - you've already agreed that the riparian owner doesn't own that.

Travelling without permission on the water (which is not owned) over river bed (which is owned) is trespass. Well-established in common law and acknowledged by the statement that I drew attention to.

Nogood Boyo.

[hereorkayaking]

Travelling without permission on the water (which is not owned) over river bed (which is owned) is trespass. Well-established in common law and acknowledged by the statement that I drew attention to.

Nogood Boyo.

Im interested, is this the same for planes, paragliders, hanggliders etc flying over a riparian owners air space? Does this class as trespass?
Because in my eyes, i fail to find a difference between floating over or past someones property, and someone flying over it?

Nogood Boyo, what is your postition on the ownership of the water?

Steve

[NogoodBoyo]

Im interested, is this the same for planes, paragliders, hanggliders etc flying over a riparian owners air space? Does this class as trespass?
Because in my eyes, I fail to find a difference between floating over or past someones property, and someone flying over it?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass

"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.""

The point about airspace is covered there.

Nogood Boyo, what is your postition on the ownership of the water?

Er... Read the bit of my post that you actually quoted...

Nogood Boyo

[Mikers]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (April 2011)

Nogoodboyo, you Sir (and I use that term despite my misgivings) are a troll.

[hereorkayaking]

I do apologise, i miss read your comment.

Im sorry however, that anything quoted from wikipedia is pretty much garbage. If i had quoted a referance from wiki when i was in college. I would have failed my assignment. (College rules not mine, wiki can be edited by general public and therefore not reliable for accurate quoting).

Steve

[NogoodBoyo]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (April 2011)

Nogoodboyo, you Sir (and I use that term despite my misgivings) are a troll.

The article as a whole might "deal primarily with the United States" but the two relevant paragraphs (the one I quoted from and the Airspace one) cover the position in "England" as well, with plenty of "English" cases quoted.

Not a troll :-) I'm genuinely trying to make sure that subscribers to this thread are aware of these things. I know they won't be well-received but at least I try to support my posts with authoritative sources. OK, Wikipedia might not stand up in court but it's a useful guide. Better than some of the stuff posted here.

Nogood Boyo

[Adrian Cooper]

"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.

And another example of your obfuscation:

Common law develops in the absence of statutory provisions. And in the area of riparian rights the common law is well-established.

Common law only develops in the absence of statute when there are judicial precendents to move it along or change it. We are not arguing about riparian rights, we are arguing about public rights to navigate rivers. I think you will find only one authoritative treatise on this subject.

[hereorkayaking]

Adrian has beaten me to it.

Nogood Boyo,

To the best of your knowledge, what is the Tawe Anglers Assosiation's constructive position on a resolution to this debate?
I'd also be keen to hear your own views on this?
What do they/you want to see happen?
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