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

[Wildswimmer Pete]

I've just posted a reply on my FB page together with a link to this thread: https://www.facebook.com/WildswimmerPete. Also shared with a few FB wild swimming groups.

Wildswimmer Pete

[rockhopper]

Nice little article by David Aaronovitch in The Times today:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/c ... 182360.ece

think you need to sign up to see it in full on line though!

Rog.

[SimonMW]

Quite a good article and mostly pro paddler and for using the Scottish model here.

Extract for those who can't see it. You can sign up temporarily for £1.

Why? Broadly because rivers deemed un-navigable (ie by powered craft) essentially belong to the people whose land they run through. Not the water, of course, but the riverbed. And some of these landowners don’t like strangers crossing their properties on principle (and will invent fantastic damages that can be caused) while others make money — a lot of it — by leasing their banks to anglers.

If this sounds a bit like the grouse-moor objection to the right to roam (the renewed liberty essentially brought into English law in 2000), that’s about right. So why then, you may ask, does the right to roam not apply to paddling a little boat down a stream?
The simple answer is because the government either did not want to offend millions of anglers or else it accepted the arguments of the angling bodies whose strenuous lobbying kept our rivers exclusive. Instead it was recommended that the different bodies negotiate access with each other voluntarily, river by river, stretch by stretch. As Oscar Hammerstein put it in Oklahoma!, the cowman and the farmer should be friends.

[CliveBishop]

Perhaps cut and paste the article here as yes you need a subscription for the times online

[Poke]

Perhaps cut and paste the article here as yes you need a subscription for the times online

I think there's a beautiful irony somewhere in this post given the other thread that's top of the forum today.

[CliveBishop]

I think there's a beautiful irony somewhere in this post given the other thread that's top of the forum today.

Difference is that I was a subscriber to the magazine but not interested in online generic newspapers... :-)

[SimonMW]

Another quote from the article;

"The fact is that anglers are anal and canoeists are phallic."

[Wildswimmer Pete]

Given that Faecesbook is about user-friendly as a cornered rat and its interface so complicated to understand, this is the text of my FB post:

"I've stated in other posts on FB that what we know as wild swimming was almost legislated out of existence by 2000 but there was a group of diehards who formed RALSA to oppose powerful vested interests (usually the angling industry) together with the jackboots of the 'Elf'n'safety Gestapo. Looks as though we swimmers could be again under attack by powerful vested angling interests. It's very important to bear in mind that wild- and open water swimmers are allied with paddlesport - in fact RALSA's founder Yacov Lev forged connections with the BCU's Rivers Access Campaign. Looks like our ability to swim in rivers in England and Wales could again be under threat from the angling industry. Of course this doesn't apply to Scotland where's a "Right to Swim". Generally you can swim in natural flowing rivers including canalised rivers (aka navigations) but not canals. Access should be from public land but away from public access points as long your feet don't touch the bed you can't be accused of committing trespass - no-one owns the water flowing along a river. If challenged, say nothing, get dressed and walk away. You cannot be arrested for simple trespass (real or imaginary). NEVER threaten anyone because that can become aggravated trespass which is a criminal offence for which you can be arrested. The "Git orf my laaand" brigade are very fond of that and they have the necessary contacts within the police and other authorities to have it enforced."

I'm doing my best to publicise the problem but I need support from paddlers with contacts in the world of swimming. In the old days I was one of the ringleaders against "the enemy" and like my contemporaries I'm very much "in yer face" however the current bunch of "come lately Joes and Marys" need reminding that the freedom to swim in natural rivers is the price of eternal vigilance.

Wildswimmer Pete

[Angut]

All this talk about agreements begs the question as to who may make such an agreement. Canoeists are just members of the public who happen to have the use of a canoe, So only Parliament may make any agreement on our behalf [The Mayor and Burgesses of the Town of Nottingham v Richard Lambert 1738] No preivate agreement may be enforced on anyone who has not signed it. Agreements are not enforcable as byelaws. Agreements made by CE are not enforceable.

[Lancs_lad]

This evening at Halton Rapids, approx 30 paddlers enjoying the rapids.







Apparently he paid the EA £15 for a day licence. The bank I was standing on the licence fee is 4 figures!! More money than sense!!

[tfraser]

I can see how moving down a river is navigating,but I would not like to test out playing in a rapid/surf wave/hole constantly in a legal case.

[Mark Dixon]

I dont know the rapid so cant be certain but I'm not so sure thats good sharing as the angler doesnt have a chance of any fishing, if hes on holiday or travelled and constant playing is there he may as well not fish. I think for rapids like this the European agreement of 6pm finish would be fair, that way all users get a fair shot.
I think these sort of places will be good ammunition for the Anglers in court and long term may go against us.

[SimonMW]

I think for rapids like this the European agreement of 6pm finish would be fair, that way all users get a fair shot.

I don't fully agree because where would that leave some clubs?

What I do think, though, is that more communication is needed. Obviously I don't know the circumstances of the photos above, but quite often kayakers will ignore an angler in those sorts of situations.

At Nafford weir, which is popular with clubs, there is a local angler there regularly. We went and spoke with him to say hello and ask him where he'd be putting his line, and that we would try to avoid the area where he was fishing. Although said that if someone swims they may end up going down there. We had quite a chat about how his day was going etc.

He was absolutely fine about it. He was stunned that we had spoken to him and told us that the one thing that really gets his goat is being ignored. He had no problem with kayakers being there, but he just wished that they wouldn't ignore him.

It looks like the photos above illustrate that kind of situation where kayakers are in a play spot, there is clearly an angler already there, and they have carried on playing regardless and ignored him. If the angler was there first then you can't really just play on the waves and water all around him and expect him to be content with it.

On the other hand if the kayakers were there first then maybe he should have found a spot a bit further down.

[Chalky723]

I don't know the river, but looking at the pictures it looks like it'd be possible to agree with the angler an area to keep away from - even by using the argument you'd be herding fish towards him!!

If he then caught fish while kayakers were on the water it'd possibly help change perceptions.

Even if the kayakers were there first, I'd encourage budging up if there was room. I see sharing the river as exactly that - it's possibly easier for the boats to give him room than it is for him to find another safe area to stand in the river on that stretch.

C

[Whitey1]

I think for rapids like this the European agreement of 6pm finish would be fair, that way all users get a fair shot.

Not a bad suggestion, and I guess if I'd paid to fish that spot I'd be aggrieved too, not necessarily at the kayakers but maybe at the club or authority who didn't inform me there could be kayakers there on a Thursday night. BUT how are we ever going to reach these sensible agreements when people like the AT simply want to exclude us from 'their' rivers? The Kent and Lune and Leven say are classic cases. All within reach of each other, roughly similar in nature and grade (and please I don't want to start a thread about which is grade 3/4 ) and all roughly within the same catchment so they tend to run on the same days and all prone to confrontation with fishermen Why don't the angling clubs put forward a constructive suggestion, to say for example on even numbered dates the Kent is for anglers, the Leven for kayakers and the Lune for both. On odd diary dates the Lune for anglers, the Kent for kayakers, the Leven for both. You get the gist. To ensure no damage to redds both groups take EA advice on what is minimal level to kayak (or fish) during spawning season. Ok someone earlier posted that agreements as such have no legal binding but I think the communities of both would frown and apply peer pressure upon members who deliberately flaunted an agreement that was seen as fair and equitable. To bring other parties on board, I'd be quite happy to share river days with Wildswimmers, Ghyll scramblers etc. so the anglers can even have their agreed days in total peace. So why won't it happen?
To answer my own question as to why angling clubs don't put forward constructive ideas, sadly it seems they don't want us on the rivers at all, or at least those with a real vested interest (usually money, maybe power) don't want us there. When you read their spurious nonsense you have to wonder at their leaderships' intelligence. There is "nothing quite so obvious as a vested interested disguising itself as a moral crusade!"
So why don't we as kayakers make the constructive suggestions? Maybe we do already, I'm not knowledgable enough to know what real attempts have been made over the years. I do know this though, we don't need to, we have the law already with us (or let's face it we'd all have been arrested many times over by now) BUT regardless of the law I'd be happy to avoid certain rivers on certain days if there were viable alternatives nearby and if such agreements meant I didn't need to worry about harassment, abuse, potential danger traps (remember the barbed wire on the Kent) or even property vandalism on some of my favourite rivers.

[SimonMW]

sadly it seems they don't want us on the rivers at all

Therein lies the problem. From their standpoint we have no standing or negotiating position in such discussions because according to them we have no right to be on the river at all. Their point of view is "No, we'll tell YOU when you can use the river, and you can take what you are given, however small…"

Access negotiations are flaky enough without one party thinking they are coming to the table with all the cards.

But such access agreements aren't simply about the binding between the anglers and the kayakers involved in such discussions. It isn't just about how such access agreements don't affect kayakers and canoeists etc who weren't involved, and how they may be frowned upon if they ignore the agreement.

It is also about landowners and other angling associations who either weren't involved in the discussions, or refused to take part.

The Wye & Usk situation is a case in point. There is a seasonal, non legally binding agreement in place. Well, more like a dictation of terms by the WUF rather than an agreement. Anyway, the main landowner along the Usk from Senibridge to Brecon was not involved in any discussions, and doesn't actually want kayakers or canoeists on the river at ANY time of year!

If you look for the giving of evidence at the Welsh Sustainability Committee in 2009 on the BBC site you can see and hear him giving evidence and stating this, and his feelings on the matter (as a point of interest you can even see Shanclan from this forum giving his evidence there too).

These are long videos. I think there are a few more too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/ ... 267251.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/ ... 351186.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/ ... 342950.stm

[Lancs_lad]

The river is not for sole use by people who pay for it. 3 weeks ago (during the warm weather) this section of the river was full of families and groups playing and swimming in the river, I was one of them as I live 5 minutes from it. Not once did a fisherman come and moan at us or hand out any letters.

As for context of the pictures. As far as I am aware the Fisherman was there before the club arrived but not in the position he is photographed in. The talk was pleasant and was the usual exchange regarding this site. It was suggested he move up the bank to the top of rapids as there were loads of fish jumping up the small weir. He said there was no point now as the kayaks will of ruined the area.

Without a kayaking head on "30 people including children enjoying the river (exercise etc in the era of obesity etc) vs 1 fisherman"

Who would the public support?

[Poke]

Who would the public support?

Who would a well chosen* judge support? :-)

* from an Angling Trust's perspective.

[Ken_T]

Hi Whitey,
The problem that paddlers have when they have tried to talk to angling interests (in the very small number of examples of which I have any knowledge, so this statement is anecdotal not well researched) is the precondition to any discussion that the paddlers representatives accept in writing that the angling interests have complete control of navigation.
Ken

[Whitey1]

[/uis the precondition to any discussion that the paddlers representatives accept in writing that the angling interests have complete control of navigation.]

Sadly this goes back to what I'm saying about their vested interests. Whatever they say re legality, and idiotic claims of environmental damage.....it's about the money. Let me give you a for instance slightly outwith kayaking. Last year on two separate occasions a group of us witnessed Ospreys on a river where they are not known. No mistake they were Ospreys, we even found the fresh grayling one of them dropped as we approached. I reported this to the local RSPB and the message was keep it quiet. Their best chance of success is if no one knows they are there. But someone knows because it turns out there has been at least four instances of Ospreys persecution on this river in the past ten years. For persecution read killing! Some environmentalists eh?? The reason....the fishermen. Not as you may think because Ospreys take all their best fish, though with the mentality of some of them I wouldn't put that past their thinking. No the reason is that if it were known Ospreys were there the bird watchers of the UK would be there in droves (on public land I might add, at least on one side of the river) to view them and obviously that could damage the fishing revenue. It's about the money!

[Keith Day]

Another quote from the article;

"The fact is that anglers are anal and canoeists are phallic."

He obviously hasn't seen my paddling!

I liked

In the matter of rights the canoeists have it. In Scotland the Land Reform Act of 2003 gave canoeists rights to be on any river, and in principle that has to be correct and disaster has not ensued.

Yet even that is not the end of it. Just because you have the right to do something or stop something else, doesn’t necessarily mean that you should do it or stop it. In other incarnations — as walkers, say, on paths that cyclists want to use — canoeists may wish others to be considerate. That essential gentility and civic-mindedness, an ability to see the other chap’s side of it, is what holds us together as much as the law ever does.

[SimonMW]

Mark Lloyd really has been a busy lad...
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152657298946252

[Wildswimmer Pete]

Mark Lloyd really has been a busy lad...
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152657298946252

Page comes up as "currently unavailable"!

Wildswimmer Pete

[icklepaddler]

More reports, this time on the bbc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28903607

[quicky]

SimonMW wrote:Mark Lloyd really has been a busy lad...
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152657298946252
Page comes up as "currently unavailable"!

You might have to join South west Kayakers to see it....

Strange the way Mark Lloyd had paid to fish exactly were the ITV film crew where...... he he

I bet ITV would not do one saying Mark Lloyd is talking cobblers, and they are promoting a bunch of lies....

[Pat R]

From Mark Lloyd, Fish Legal http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/gene ... ost1314271

Our legal case continues, we are just working through a 14 page response from the BCU's solicitors.

[damppaddler]

14 pages?

I could have replied with 2 pages, 1 word on each page in a large font

But it is nice to hear the BCU have responded

[Randy Fandango]

The sheer gobsmacking arrogance of Mark Lloyd's:

"It is important to stress that any access to rivers by canoes must be agreed on a river-by-river basis by the landowners and angling clubs concerned, to reflect the local fishing seasons and to protect fish and fishing."

It's always 'refreshing' to be reminded we're dealing with a mindset that actually believes rivers primarily exist for fishing and ANY other use (such as navigation) comes a long way second.
Giles

[Franky]

Since fish are at the centre of the whole debate, it is worth pointing out that not one fish has signed an access agreement. Whether this is because fish were not invited to the discussions (WHICH I STRONGLY SUSPECT), or whether it is because they do not accept the terms, the lack of the consent of fish is VERY TELLING.

[Adrian Cooper]

Rivers were the highways of the medieval period; because there were no roads. Angling was not really taken up until the 15th century.