Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this time?

Inland paddling
DaveB
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:21 pm
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by DaveB » Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:25 pm

But all the recent posts discussing how to persuade politicians/the general public only become relevant if the Anglers Trust does pursue an application for declaratory relief and gets the court to say that the law is what the AT hopes it is. The main object at this point must be to ginger up the BCU to fight our case through the courts(and as was said further up in the thread maybe it is time for a mass registration of new members, not just noncoach/non competitive paddlers but lots of paddlers from affiliated clubs for whom hitherto membership of the Union has been seen as irrelaevant)

paddler_linds
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:56 am

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by paddler_linds » Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:05 am

I am impressed by the quality of the arguments here folks and I have to say I don't think the anglers do as well on that front. I know this is an English law debate and I have to confeess to not knowing much about anything on that front, but I have posted a few income related topics from Scottish waters here for comparison.

http://www.rtc.org.uk/About_/Tweed_Econ ... urvey.html "The report estimates that the economic impact, the output generated in the Scottish Borders and that can be attributed to fishing on the Tweed system is just under £18 million and that this supports around 487 full time jobs" This is of course the highest earning river in Scotland and the other big ones, The Tay, The Spey and Dee will also have high figures. There are then all the countless other rivers to take into account. At present the Tweed estimate that and avaerage rent in £190 per day and many beats are significantly more.

Here is a link to currnt availability on West learmonth, http://www.fishpal.com/Scotland/Tweed/R ... &btcd=TWWL As you can see on 3 November a day's fishing will cost £720. Yes, tha's right folks!!

Here is an example of a syndicate rod which you fish in perpetuity on Lower Beauly. Week 24 one rod - Guide price £45,000

Here is an example of middle of the road fishing rights at Kinnaber Fishings on the North Esk £2,650,000 Guide price. http://search.savills.com/property-deta ... sbhs130093. Beats sell from £100,00 up to 10's of millions.

The Scottish Government reckon angling days sold for Salmon in Scotland was 545,048 with an income of 73 million. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 9079/34371 The Welsh income will be massive also as will SW England.

I was really persuaded by the welsh arguments on outdoor education income and thought they had a punch. Similar figures for the English and Welsh fishing rights must also be available, but I hope I have given you a flavour of what your up against with land owners spending millions and hope it was useful. I really don't think kayakers understand just how much anglers spend, sometimes it is mental with figures of £5-10,00 not uncommon for a weeks fishing.

SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by SimonMW » Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:29 am

Oh yes, we fully understand what we are up against in terms of the money spent on fishing rights. Though as someone told me yesterday, when they used to be an angler the biggest amounts of aggression they encountered was from other anglers.

User avatar
quicky
Posts: 2986
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Wirral,

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by quicky » Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:31 pm

Remember it is not an angler V paddler argument. But The AT making it so. they forget that there are loads of different sports and hobbies that used the water. They are making it anglers V everyone who has an interest in rivers.

User avatar
DaveBland
Posts: 3657
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:01 pm
Location: Calgary Canada
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by DaveBland » Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:53 pm

quicky wrote:Remember it is not an angler V paddler argument. But The AT making it so. they forget that there are loads of different sports and hobbies that used the water. They are making it anglers V everyone who has an interest in rivers.
Exactly. It's not about the economy, or who spends more or which sport is more hard done by. It's about the AT tying to exclude EVERYONE ELSE's right to use the waterways.
dave

User avatar
quicky
Posts: 2986
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Wirral,

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by quicky » Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:46 pm

From the AT FB page

https://www.facebook.com/AnglingTrust?ref=br_tf
Terry Wright 'Some anglers' deliver abuse to paddlers who are paddling on navigable waters and are in possession of a license to do so. In doing so the anglers are committing offences. Does the AT condemn such actions? How will anglers ever be prepared to share non-navigable water? Re: AY and kayak angling.. About 5 years ago I was present at a meeting with senior executives where in return for our membership fees they would embrace kayak angling. They promised to assist and support access negotiations with member clubs. How many clubs have granted kayak angling through this process? NONE! The AT liaised with the Angling Development Board and the Area representatives were tasked to deliver at least one new venue for kayak angling within 3 months. How many have been delivered? NONE!. The AT took subscriptions from kayak anglers and failed to deliver. Repeated requests to senior executives as to what they are doing for kayak angling go unresolved. If the AT treat their member who fish from kayaks like this what hope have paddlers WITHOUT a fishing rod got of being treated fairly?
Like · Reply · 3 · 15 August at 20:25

Nick Watkins I used to work for the AT as a development officer and this was on my agenda. I worked very hard to get kayaking involved but not one of the local waters would help out. Saying that, there is reasonable access on a local river and anglers and canoeists get along fine with respect being shown by both sides. The AT didn't let this slide, they were active in trying to develop it. As I no longer work for them I can't answer for current policy as I don't know what they are up to with regards this issue
Like · 16 August at 10:53
Terry Wright Access to the rivers, if navigable, did not need consent from the clubs, it was a right. It was the consent to fish that was not forthcoming. The only access, to my knowledge, that has been gained has been negotiated by myself and my colleagues, I do not know of a single water where angling access has been granted through work put in by the AT or ADB. I can list many clubs with Navigable waters where we have a right of access but the clubs will not allow us to fish. Much of these rivers is unfishable from the bank but perfect for a kayak. Take a look at the Severn and Trent for example. The AT have told me via email that they will not actively help kayak angling on freshwater until the battle with canoeists is over. I am 59 so it looks as if they will not be helping us in my lifetime . I have to say at this point that I have NEVER personally had any conflict with bank anglers, indeed all meeting have been friendly often with a discussion on my kayak.

twopigs
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:55 pm
Location: Stroud & Cheltenham
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by twopigs » Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:50 pm

paddler_linds wrote:I am impressed by the quality of the arguments here folks and I have to say I don't think the anglers do as well on that front. I know this is an English law debate and I have to confeess to not knowing much about anything on that front, but I have posted a few income related topics from Scottish waters here for comparison.

http://www.rtc.org.uk/About_/Tweed_Econ ... urvey.html "The report estimates that the economic impact, the output generated in the Scottish Borders and that can be attributed to fishing on the Tweed system is just under £18 million and that this supports around 487 full time jobs" This is of course the highest earning river in Scotland and the other big ones, The Tay, The Spey and Dee will also have high figures. There are then all the countless other rivers to take into account. At present the Tweed estimate that and avaerage rent in £190 per day and many beats are significantly more.

Here is a link to currnt availability on West learmonth, http://www.fishpal.com/Scotland/Tweed/R ... &btcd=TWWL As you can see on 3 November a day's fishing will cost £720. Yes, tha's right folks!!

Here is an example of a syndicate rod which you fish in perpetuity on Lower Beauly. Week 24 one rod - Guide price £45,000

Here is an example of middle of the road fishing rights at Kinnaber Fishings on the North Esk £2,650,000 Guide price. http://search.savills.com/property-deta ... sbhs130093. Beats sell from £100,00 up to 10's of millions.

The Scottish Government reckon angling days sold for Salmon in Scotland was 545,048 with an income of 73 million. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 9079/34371 The Welsh income will be massive also as will SW England.

I was really persuaded by the welsh arguments on outdoor education income and thought they had a punch. Similar figures for the English and Welsh fishing rights must also be available, but I hope I have given you a flavour of what your up against with land owners spending millions and hope it was useful. I really don't think kayakers understand just how much anglers spend, sometimes it is mental with figures of £5-10,00 not uncommon for a weeks fishing.
Just think how much more the landowners in England could charge if they shared the rivers as they do in Scotland..... Especially as I think Sunday is a day of rest for the fish in Scotland!
Canoeing - bigger boat, broken paddle, more skill!

Richard Gunton
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:27 pm

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by Richard Gunton » Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:03 pm

So its a bunch of toffs with too much money trying to prevent the masses from using the river, Fxxx them.

DaveWortley
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:01 pm

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by DaveWortley » Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:48 pm

Richard Gunton wrote:So its a bunch of toffs with too much money trying to prevent the masses from using the river, Fxxx them.
And it's quotes like that which will be used against us and highlighted by media. Holding the higher morale ground is always best in these situations.

CliveBishop
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:05 pm

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by CliveBishop » Tue Aug 19, 2014 3:33 pm

Just one point about the Angling Trust - they have 17500 voluntary members as it is not a requirement to ne a member. Most of those are coarse fishermen as the sea fishing group in the UK (which is the largest if you include day anglers (casuals)) have no real interest in the Angling Trust from what I can understand from a couple of the regional sea fishing associations.

What I have not directly seen in these posts are the views of kayak anglers. The Angling Trust has its own training courses for teaching kayaking / kayak fishing which their own instructors make it very clear is far superior to what the BCU offers - so there has to be a split in their camp??

Just food for thought as to: does the BCU through direct and affiliate membership have enough to sign a petition of action and it would be interesting to hear the views of the kayak anglers from within the Angling Trust??

User avatar
Lancs_lad
Posts: 1417
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:41 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by Lancs_lad » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:10 pm

There has been some exchanges recently on the River Lune, particularly the Halton rapids section.

Some examples

"This morning my Sister and I went down to Halton to do a bit of paddling at the rapids. I was parked in the ‘Canoe England Permit’ car park, and was displaying my BCU permit. While gearing up, a gentleman drove up to me and leaned out his window shouting we had better not be planning on going on the water. I informed him we had intended to do just that, he replied if we did he was going to ring the police. I informed him I was fine with that, and to go ahead. He then parked his vehicle and came up to me while on the phone. I heard him telling the officer that he wanted someone to come down and get rid of me. At this point the officer at the other end of the phone must have told him this wasn’t going to happen as it was a civil matter. He replied that they must send someone down before the is ‘A breach of the peace’.

To this point (indeed throughout the entire episode) I was calm, very approachable and had in no way given any indication I was going to get aggressive. I remarked to him that I had no intention of breaching the peace, that I’m not a thug and do not like being referred to as such. The officer on the line obviously told him he had no cause to be calling them, and that in future only to do so once a breach of the peace had occurred (I think my comment had been heard over the phone).

The gentleman then presented me with the paperwork I have scanned in and attached (fish legal letter). I was not interested in getting into a heated debate with this person, and so left it there and decided to go elsewhere, and read the paperwork later on.

I have now read the letters here posted, and a few thing immediately jump out at me. Firstly, this gent implied there had been an order for us to cease using this waterway, where, in fact, at no point in these letters is there any indication that an agreement, or court order has been issued. Further, the letter from Pat clearly states that they have tried at length to organise a meeting to attempt to come to some arrangement, which has been ignored by the Fishing representatives.

Just two things I spotted instantly, I’m sure going through it there will be many more points to contend.
I should point out that the gentleman in question indicated that he, and all the fishermen there, are incensed by the way they have been bullied by us paddlers, and that we show them no respect and are rude, aggressive, and use bad language towards them. He feels that we are the ones bullying them, and that they are ‘sick of it’. He also informed me that the Canoe England car park, and access has been built illegally (a point I’m fairly certain to be untrue as permission will have been required to do it, and further that if it hadn’t been granted, they would have had it removed by now).

The Gentleman in question identified himself as the Lune Fishing Manager, his name was Mr Austen Hall. He indicated he would be happy to discuss this matter further, and gave me his mobile phone number: ********
It is worth pointing out that we left it amicably, and it was more a discussion than a confrontation towards the end."

Another incident on the 14th of August

"A group of four kayakers were paddling on the River Lune near the Halton Army Camp. One of them was new to the sport and trying out a kayak they had recently purchased. When they saw the angler they moved into the centre of the river, the angler then made four attempts at attacking them with his line – on the fourth attempt he caught his hook in one of the paddler’s hands. Fortunately on of the paddlers caught it on video so the angler got caught out lying to the police about where and how it happened.

The police gave the injured paddler the option of pressing charges or making him do a face to face apology so he went for the latter, waste of time and public money to take him to court."

SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by SimonMW » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:22 pm

The police gave the injured paddler the option of pressing charges or making him do a face to face apology so he went for the latter, waste of time and public money to take him to court."
No it wouldn't. It would have been a pretty solid example to anglers who think about doing the same thing that there are criminal consequences. Letting them off with a face to face apology is sending the message that "hey, it's okay, commit assault and all you'll get is a bit of embarrassment"

Sorry, but people who purposefully go out to physically harm others need to be let known they cannot get away with it.

User avatar
Jim Pullen
Posts: 2237
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:21 am
Location: Darlington
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by Jim Pullen » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:30 pm

Were did you get those quotes from Anthony?

I thought the Halton Rapids bit was one where CE still wants to use restrictive dates as part of the arrangement (1st Nov - 15th Mar), see here.

Could the miffed fisher-person have been under the impression that the paddlers were using the river outside of the dates agreed with CE and therefore misunderstood the legal issues? Possibly another example of the perils of restrictive access agreements...
Done any NE/NW rivers not on the site? PM me!

User avatar
Lancs_lad
Posts: 1417
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:41 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by Lancs_lad » Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:47 pm

Jim Pullen wrote:Were did you get those quotes from Anthony?

I thought the Halton Rapids bit was one where CE still wants to use restrictive dates as part of the arrangement (1st Nov - 15th Mar), see here.

Could the miffed fisher-person have been under the impression that the paddlers were using the river outside of the dates agreed with CE and therefore misunderstood the legal issues? Possibly another example of the perils of restrictive access agreements...

Emails that have been sent out to the Committee of Lancaster Canoe Club.

First incident is a member of this club. The second I wasn't aware of until I received the emails. There was a pretty gruesome picture included also.

I have copies of the CE letter regards the use of Halton rapids and I also have the Fish Legal letter.

User avatar
quicky
Posts: 2986
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Wirral,

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by quicky » Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:22 pm

could you ask the people involved in the incidents to get in touch with me please.

Ken_T
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:26 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by Ken_T » Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:11 am

Hi Lancs_Lad,
Have the incidents been logged onto the rivers access map? It may be useful as things progress if there is one place where all the incidents can be referred to.
http://access.canoedaysout.com/input/incident/213
Ken

Keith Day
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by Keith Day » Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:06 am

Better to record the incident here which is thee section of river covering the Halton section.

chriscw
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:35 am
Location: Basingstoke
Contact:

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by chriscw » Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:07 am

I wonder if now that so many paddlers are using our legal right to paddle all rivers that we can get to perhaps the Angling trust feel they have nothing to loose by taking legal action. If they loose things stay much as they are with those paddlers who are currently running rivers which anglers would rather not share will carry on doing so anyway. If they win they would then be able to try and use the case law created as a precedent in future actions against those of us who want to paddle freely.

We on the other hand do have a lot to loose at the moment statute law is pretty clear all navigable rivers are public rights of navigation, so as long as we are polite and cause no damage we are clearly within our rights to paddle them. If the AT do get a court to declare that the law is what they would like it to be we loose that clarity.

I am afraid that although the ideals of the legal system are that everyone is equal before the law and the courts are there to protect everyone especially the less well off and more vulnerable in fact the courts will usually find in favour of the party with the best legal team. It has been said in the USA at the definition of a jury is a group of men and women whose job it is to decide in a court of law who has the best lawyer. Sadly all to often in this country it appears that this is what the judge's job is.

I do not really want to encourage the minority of anglers who do not want to share the rivers that are the heritage of us all to try and use the courts to get their way but I fear they may well decide to do just that. I would rather that if they feel they want to have a particular river at particular times to themselves they were to negotiate a voluntary non access agreement without prejudice and accepting that they are relying on our good will. Perhaps if such requests were not too numerous and not too extensive most of use would be happy to honour them.

The point is no one needs voluntary access agreements for navigation as that is a legal right. If some anglers want limited voluntary non access agreements then we should at least do them the courtesy of listening, suggesting bargaining and sometimes agreeing. Always without giving up our right to paddle any navigable river at any time but perhaps agreeing occasionally not to access that right.

In may areas this should allow both sides to get what they need if not what they want, there are however places where there are few rivers and we will all have to agree to share them in a friendly manner.
Chris Clarke-Williams
Location Basingstoke

Paddling Interests:
Touring, Coaching Beginners (I am an L2K), Surf White water trips, Weir Play (I'm not good enough to put freestyle!)

User avatar
Kayak-Bloke
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:56 pm
Location: (Ever Wet) South Wales

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by Kayak-Bloke » Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:51 am

One can't help but think back a couple of years; when we had one of the wettest summers on record, followed by one of the driest (and coldest!) winters ever recorded. Highlighting the problem with seasonally dependent 'agreements.'
Potentially, if a paddler were to ignore their right to navigation and agree to adhere to an agreement, as per my local river, they might not put paddle into water outside of a pool or the nearest white water course for a year...

So flipping it around for a moment:

Is anyone aware of an agreement that works well and is flexible enough for both parties to be happy?
I don't know of any?
My local river has an imposed 'agreement' (So not an agreement at all!). Where the local Angling Assosciation impose a restriction of no paddling between March and Oct and the local canoe club has completely bought into it, as if the Anglers actually had the legal right to restrict the right to navigation.
As ever with the 'agreements' that I know of there's no clause saying if the river's well up in the summer months that paddlers may take adavantage.
The reality is the river (which is a fly fishing river) is completly unsuitable for fishing once the waters run very fast and brown which occurs way more often than it hits true spate conditions.

Is there a single river in England or Wales where the two sides have got together and AGREED the tiimes of usage in an intelligent way?
Or to put it another way is there a model to consider putting forward to break the deadlock?

SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by SimonMW » Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:09 pm

I don't know of any. The only agreements should come from an equal standing, and then only be with regard to the environment. There is no reason why both parties cannot use the rivers at the same time.

I can count the number of times I have actually seen an angler on the fingers of one hand. Mile after mile of rivers such as the Usk and Wye, and rarely is there anyone actually on there fishing! That above all shows how ludicrous the ATs sabre rattling is. A whole group of people is excluded from the river just in case there might be one bloke on a 20 miles stretch of river who feels like doing a bit of fishing! Absolute madness.

The AT needs to realise, too, that opening up the countryside won't mean thousands more paddlers on the river. Grade 4 and up are for a relatively small number of people. But as I have mentioned in other posts, the ATs aim is to get rid of all other activities on the river apart from angling. They have no interest in access agreements, despite what they say publicly. If they have, it is only because they think that they can veto them and claim that canoeists were being unreasonable in their demands. In other words they make it look like they made an effort, but then make out that it is the canoeists who scuppered it all.

User avatar
Jim Pullen
Posts: 2237
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:21 am
Location: Darlington
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by Jim Pullen » Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:07 pm

SimonMW wrote:Is anyone aware of an agreement that works well and is flexible enough for both parties to be happy?
Keswick Greta works. 365 days access, but above a defined water level for two months during the spawning season.
Lancs_lad wrote:Emails that have been sent out to the Committee of Lancaster Canoe Club.

First incident is a member of this club. The second I wasn't aware of until I received the emails. There was a pretty gruesome picture included also.

I have copies of the CE letter regards the use of Halton rapids and I also have the Fish Legal letter.
Ant's sent me these letters now. The correspondence between the Angling trust and CE is interesting, although dated back in May, so not sure how this has altered. I'll see about getting them uploaded...

I'm still unclear as to whether CE's stance on Halton is that it's fine to use year round provided you access from the bank via the Lancaster co-housing land, or whether they still believe that we shouldn't use it during the fishing season?
Done any NE/NW rivers not on the site? PM me!

User avatar
Poke
Posts: 4844
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 4:35 pm
Location: Wigan
Been thanked: 12 times
Contact:

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by Poke » Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:07 pm

SimonMW wrote:
Kayak-Bloke wrote:Is there a single river in England or Wales where the two sides have got together and AGREED the tiimes of usage in an intelligent way?
I don't know of any. The only agreements should come from an equal standing, and then only be with regard to the environment. There is no reason why both parties cannot use the rivers at the same time.
The Greta in the Lakes is a pretty good agreement. Paddling 365 days a year, the only caveat is that in Nov/Dec (I think) the level needs to be above an agreed marker in order not to damage/disturb the redds. I'm not 100% in agreement with the height the level marker has been set at, but in principle I'd be happy with something like this if it applied to all rivers.
Uniyaker - Uni expeditions
Team Pyranha - My adventures

User avatar
DaveBland
Posts: 3657
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:01 pm
Location: Calgary Canada
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by DaveBland » Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:28 pm

I may be controversial with this, but access agreements have to be the best way forward.
But only if they start from the premise that both parties have the right to use the river whenever they like.
From there it's only a case of drawing up a compromise to cater for both [all] sports use.
dave

alanpuds
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by alanpuds » Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:45 pm

on angling trusts site

"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."
if i'm right, we pay for licences....mmmm
also, i see us paddlers getting out there and cleaning the rivers of rubbish....

User avatar
banzer
Posts: 3292
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by banzer » Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:55 pm

DaveBland wrote:I may be controversial with this, but access agreements have to be the best way forward.
But only if they start from the premise that both parties have the right to use the river whenever they like.
From there it's only a case of drawing up a compromise to cater for both [all] sports use.
Good in theory.... but how many rivers are there in the new EWW guide alone? And that's just the ones with rapids on. That's a hell of a lot of rivers requiring people to sit down and agree on things.
A. Boater wrote:It's all Pierre's fault
www.neviscanoes.co.uk

User avatar
DaveBland
Posts: 3657
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:01 pm
Location: Calgary Canada
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by DaveBland » Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:14 pm

banzer wrote:
DaveBland wrote:I may be controversial with this, but access agreements have to be the best way forward.
But only if they start from the premise that both parties have the right to use the river whenever they like.
From there it's only a case of drawing up a compromise to cater for both [all] sports use.
Good in theory.... but how many rivers are there in the new EWW guide alone? And that's just the ones with rapids on. That's a hell of a lot of rivers requiring people to sit down and agree on things.
That's fair, but I keep hearing "Access agreements don't work", and "we don't support access agreements". I'm sure that a true access agreement would work if it starts from an accepted open access standpoint. There would only need to be agreements on rivers where there are conflicts. And lets face it, it's the fish botherers that are the ones complaining, so should in practice be the ones asking for a compromise. Like the post above where they are worried about paddlers clashing with their event.

My view is that BCU should be stating that as far as they are aware/advised, there is open access to all navigable waterways and they fully support access agreements to fairly accommodate the wishes of both sports.
dave

Richard Gunton
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:27 pm

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by Richard Gunton » Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:49 pm

Lets see now, The anglers and land owners have millions to take kayakers to court , they haven't, because they know they wont win (Im pretty sure there is the odd judge and barrister who likes to fish and knows the law inside out) even worse for them it may set a president for unlimited access. Its a Non issue there is nothing they can do, nothing the police will do. In 15yrs of kayaking out side of agreements ive been confronted may be 2 or three times. And only by people who will always complain even if there where agreements.
There is a massive grey area in this world, don't live with in the boundaries others set, when there is no justice in those boundaries. If this makes me a Millie TANT then great, Amen brother !!!!

chriscw
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:35 am
Location: Basingstoke
Contact:

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by chriscw » Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:33 pm

Good point Simon, anglers on most river are something of a rarity and I don't think it is because they are scared they might see a paddler.

That said as others have posted on some of these wilder rivers they few who do fish them seem prepared to pay huge amounts to do it so the fishery owners presumably have quite a lot of cash they might throw at a legal case however flimsy.
Chris Clarke-Williams
Location Basingstoke

Paddling Interests:
Touring, Coaching Beginners (I am an L2K), Surf White water trips, Weir Play (I'm not good enough to put freestyle!)

SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by SimonMW » Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:09 am

My view is that BCU should be stating that as far as they are aware/advised, there is open access to all navigable waterways and they fully support access agreements to fairly accommodate the wishes of both sports.
They do already. That is their current standpoint, that there is evidence to suggest that there is a right of navigation, but that they support access agreements only if there is good reason, such as environmental reasons. But the start point must be an assumption that there is 365 days access from the beginning and then any locally based access agreements can be made from there.

The biggest issue with access agreements though are that they can have no legal standing at all. An agreement is only between the parties who made it. They cannot force anyone not involved in the discussions to follow them. Plus who are the negotiations with? Does an angling association have the right to negotiate an access agreement on behalf of a land owner? I highly doubt it, yet this is what they think they can do.

Then we have the issue of differing land owners along a stretch of river. Not even the land registry knows who over 70% of land owners are. This is because they only appear on the land registry if the land is sold. If the family has inherited the land for hundreds of years then they are often hard to trace.

Even then, if the rivers themselves were deemed only to be held in trust and not actually owned by riparians, then what right do they have to be negotiating access restrictions anyway?

Keith Day
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Angling Trust - More Saber rattling, or serious this tim

Post by Keith Day » Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:05 am

Lancs_lad wrote:The police gave the injured paddler the option of pressing charges or making him do a face to face apology so he went for the latter, waste of time and public money to take him to court."
I hope that was an apology and a Police Caution.

Post Reply

Return to “Whitewater and Touring”