EA Prosecution

Inland paddling
User avatar
morsey
Posts: 6269
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:36 pm
Location: West Country :-)

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by morsey » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:41 am

This is not about testing Police Officer's resolve.

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Big Henry » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:38 pm

Randy Fandango wrote:Whilst I agree with everything you've put Simon, I do wonder what the effect of telling a police officer they're just plain wrong would be and then insisting on it, whilst a baying pack of 3rd parties loudly tell the bobby that they're in the right.
Probably an arrest to keep the peace for the unlucky paddler I should think :-/
Giles
Maybe a pre-emptive call for the baying pack to be arrested on Breach of the Peace charges before they suggest it to you? But then again, I'm sure Plod would rather arrest the innocent victim than the baying anglers!

User avatar
Tom_Laws
Posts: 8122
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:37 am
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Tom_Laws » Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:57 am

I rode over the Mawddach on my bike about the time you guys were huckin and getting in trouble. Glad you enjoyed your run.

Mawddach
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:02 am

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Mawddach » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:15 am

Isn't the basic problem here the fact that there is no access agreement in place for paddling on any of the rivers except Glaslyn and Tryweryn? SAFFA doesn't come into it really. Until CW / Canoeclubs can agree terms with landwoners, angling clubs etc for access then there should be no paddling on these waters. I paddle on the sea and will not go anywhere where i've got no permission to do so. I would also be willing to pay for access, anglers pay to fish, why shouldn't we pay for enjoying the rivers too? I'm sure there would be much less aggro if we paid to get on these waters.

BristolBob
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:58 am

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by BristolBob » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:21 am

Mawddach wrote:Isn't the basic problem here the fact that there is no access agreement in place for paddling on any of the rivers except Glaslyn and Tryweryn? SAFFA doesn't come into it really. Until CW / Canoeclubs can agree terms with landwoners, angling clubs etc for access then there should be no paddling on these waters. I paddle on the sea and will not go anywhere where I've got no permission to do so. I would also be willing to pay for access, anglers pay to fish, why shouldn't we pay for enjoying the rivers too? I'm sure there would be much less aggro if we paid to get on these waters.
Who is this 'we' you are talking about, fisherman?

The real problem is that angling clubs do not recognise the fact that there is a universal right of access over natural rivers dating back to medieval times. We don't have to pay because we already have the right. You have to pay to fish because the law -- which again dates back to medieval times -- says you need permission from the owner of the fishing rights to take fish from the river.

Regardless of the law, though, we can't agree terms with angling clubs because angling clubs will not offer terms. The few that do demand grossly unreasonable restrictions and forelock-tugging deference.

So I will continue to paddle any river in Britain as of right. It doesn't stop you fishing so I don't see how you can complain.

User avatar
KrisH
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: Near Heathrow

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by KrisH » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:57 pm

Mawddach wrote:Isn't the basic problem here the fact that there is no access agreement in place for paddling on any of the rivers except Glaslyn and Tryweryn? SAFFA doesn't come into it really. Until CW / Canoeclubs can agree terms with landwoners, angling clubs etc for access then there should be no paddling on these waters. I paddle on the sea and will not go anywhere where I've got no permission to do so. I would also be willing to pay for access, anglers pay to fish, why shouldn't we pay for enjoying the rivers too? I'm sure there would be much less aggro if we paid to get on these waters.
No, the basic problem here is that fishing clubs and landowners DON'T own the water but refuse to accept this as an established legal fact.

The reason behind this ? Money, pure and simple.

If you are a member of the BCU then as part of the membership you already pay for a river and waterways licence....oh and best not to forget the taxes that we ALL pay that goes to wards financing the EA and upkeep of the rivers and waterways....so kayakers and canoeists do already pay more than there fair share to use Britains rivers.

User avatar
Uisce
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:02 am

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Uisce » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:27 pm

Mawddach wrote: I would also be willing to pay for access, anglers pay to fish, why shouldn't we pay for enjoying the rivers too? I'm sure there would be much less aggro if we paid to get on these waters.
My partner has a legal right of way passing through her garden. It would be no more appropriate for me to pay for water access than it would be to charge ramblers passing by the house.

As for why shouldn't we pay to enjoy rivers?....shouldn't you be asking why should we pay to enjoy our rivers. Speaks volumes about your view of the society you want to live in. No thanks.

Steve B
Posts: 5699
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Taunton, Somerset

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Steve B » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:04 pm

KrisH wrote:If you are a member of the BCU then as part of the membership you already pay for a river and waterways licence.
Just on a point of information - it's a British Waterways licence, which mainly covers canals. The situation with canals is completely different from rivers, because they are man-made structures which legitimately belong to someone. Few would claim a historical right to paddle them.
Steve Balcombe

User avatar
Mark R
Posts: 24108
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 6:17 pm
Location: Dorset
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Mark R » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:39 pm

Mawddach wrote:Isn't the basic problem here the fact that there is no access agreement in place for paddling on any of the rivers except Glaslyn and Tryweryn? SAFFA doesn't come into it really. Until CW / Canoeclubs can agree terms with landwoners, angling clubs etc for access then there should be no paddling on these waters. I paddle on the sea and will not go anywhere where I've got no permission to do so. I would also be willing to pay for access, anglers pay to fish, why shouldn't we pay for enjoying the rivers too? I'm sure there would be much less aggro if we paid to get on these waters.
Mawddach, I would like to hear your personal opinion on a few things...
- Should Environment Agency Wales be openly favouring the desires of landowners and angling clubs to maintain selfish use of our river heritage?
- Surely - if they can't do the decent thing and assist in ensuring equitable and legally enshrined access - the EA should at least follow their own national policy and butt right out of the access issue, over which they have highly dubious legal authority anyway?
- And finally - what do you think should happen to a named EA official who was to behave in a way such as that I've suggested above? What would the Welsh media (and indeed his line managers) have to say about this?

Seriously, Mawddach - what do you think? Love to hear more from you.
Mark Rainsley
FACEBOOK

User avatar
Mark R
Posts: 24108
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 6:17 pm
Location: Dorset
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Mark R » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:43 pm

Mark Rainsley
FACEBOOK

User avatar
shanclan
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: Monmouth
Contact:

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by shanclan » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:53 pm

Image

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 5809
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Sheffield

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by TheKrikkitWars » Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:19 pm

Randy Fandango wrote:Whilst I agree with everything you've put Simon, I do wonder what the effect of telling a police officer they're just plain wrong would be and then insisting on it, whilst a baying pack of 3rd parties loudly tell the bobby that they're in the right.
Probably an arrest to keep the peace for the unlucky paddler I should think :-/
Giles
In that situation, surely the first thing you want to do is ask the officer very politely if there is somewhere you can sit and discuss the situation privately (like the back of their patrol car); Suitably isolated from outside interference, you can then explain the guidance you've been given. Telling them that you're sorry that they've been troubled and that you empathise with their situation (but stopping short of admitting that you've done anything wrong) is also a good call.

In fact the last time I saw a policeman called to a river* he pre-empted this by asking each of us in turn to get into the car and talk to him / give our details; Several short chats later, we were free to go and never heard any more of the incident.

*That most contentious of stretches, the lower llugwy.
ONE BLADE, ONE LOVE, [TOO] MANY PIES


Joshua Kelly

Rdscott
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Rdscott » Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:29 pm

Josh has apoint but I would make sure there was more thanjust yourself and the police officer pressent. Secondly i wouldnt ask to have the conversation in there car i would ask to have to conversation some where else however some where there is no power distrabution (I know this shouldnt happen but it may) Unless of course you have waterpooling up in your kit and fancy soaking there car in smally river water.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 5809
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Sheffield

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by TheKrikkitWars » Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:54 pm

Rdscott wrote:Josh has apoint but I would make sure there was more thanjust yourself and the police officer pressent. Secondly I wouldnt ask to have the conversation in there car I would ask to have to conversation some where else however some where there is no power distrabution (I know this shouldnt happen but it may) Unless of course you have waterpooling up in your kit and fancy soaking there car in smally river water.
Ideally, somewhere private wouldn't be their car; but as there is unlikely to be anywhere else then it's convenient, and the back seats are usually wipe-down plastic.

I'm not sure about asking someone else to be there... I can see why you'd say that, but it kind of undermines what you're trying to achive; If you put the officer at ease as much as possible and give the impression that you trust them to do their job in an impartial and efficient manner; then you're much more likely to get a favourable (or at least non-negative) outcome... Police officers are, after all people like the rest of us.
ONE BLADE, ONE LOVE, [TOO] MANY PIES


Joshua Kelly

Rdscott
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Rdscott » Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:57 pm

i say to take some one else with you for your own safety, bearing in mind that if the decision of the officer isn't in your favour your "witness" may be of use. Im not really aware of the back seats of police cars,however i onlysuggest this as nutral ground is always a better place. you could always ask themtojoin you in a kayak on the river or is that a little cheeky.

Mawddach
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:02 am

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Mawddach » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:59 pm

I really cannot see what the issue with payment is, once we've got a licence in place for canoeing we would have a right to access, the fact that its not the riparian owners water doesn't make it a canoesits property to use and enjoy for free. Everything in Wales seems to be free for everyone, nothing much left now that someone wants toextract for free.
The EA may be supporting the anglers rights because they pay for a licence, the fee goes to the EA to support their work improving the rivers.
Pay your money and get decent access and egress points, get access to more water, less hassle.

User avatar
Adrian Cooper
Posts: 9560
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 2:26 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Adrian Cooper » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:05 pm

You have come to this late and clearly do not understand the issues. You need to do some research.

dory
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:53 am

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by dory » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:37 pm

There's plenty of links here
http://access.canoedaysout.com/cgi-bin/ ... .py#Access Campaign

I don't pay because I don't believe I need to. Seems fairly simple.

User avatar
DaveBland
Posts: 3497
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:01 pm
Location: Calgary Canada
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by DaveBland » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:51 pm

If I walk down a public footpath, I don't pay. If I walk down a public footpath and take apples off the trees, I should pay.
dave

User avatar
Mark R
Posts: 24108
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 6:17 pm
Location: Dorset
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Mark R » Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:44 pm

Mawddach, did you read my questions to you? I'd be very interested to hear your personal opinions on these issues, relating to impartiality and professional standards among EA officers.

I just have a feeling that you might be able to offer some insight here.
Mark Rainsley
FACEBOOK

sleepybubble
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:48 pm
Location: Isle of Lewis

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by sleepybubble » Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:07 pm

Mark R wrote:Mawddach, did you read my questions to you? I'd be very interested to hear your personal opinions on these issues, relating to impartiality and professional standards among EA officers.

I just have a feeling that you might be able to offer some insight here.
I love it when this happens.... I may be presuming something though :)

B.Lowe
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:48 pm

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by B.Lowe » Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:29 pm

Mawddach wrote:I really cannot see what the issue with payment is, once we've got a licence in place for canoeing we would have a right to access, the fact that its not the riparian owners water doesn't make it a canoesits property to use and enjoy for free. Everything in Wales seems to be free for everyone, nothing much left now that someone wants toextract for free.
The EA may be supporting the anglers rights because they pay for a licence, the fee goes to the EA to support their work improving the rivers.
Pay your money and get decent access and egress points, get access to more water, less hassle.

What exactly would we be paying for? The right to use a completly natural feature, which requires no additional maintanence and in a way which causes no damage to it?

Unless of course we're paying for the exclusive use of that feature and in doing so destroying the enjoyment of that enviroment for anyone other than the small group of people who have the same interests as ourselfs? I have no interest in doing that. I would rather share the enjoyment of the river with as many people as possible whether thats canoeists, fisherman, walkers, mountain bikers etc. Is that such an infeasible idea?
Ben Lowe

Dave McCraw
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:10 pm

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Dave McCraw » Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:45 pm

Mawddach wrote:Everything in Wales seems to be free for everyone, nothing much left now that someone wants toextract for free.
Laughable nonsense. Is there not much air left in Wales because people can breathe for free? Not much sea left in Wales because people can swim in it for free? No hills left in Wales because people can walk up them for free?

When the public enjoy their natural river heritage they are in no way "extracting" that heritage.

The only argument that holds water (ahem) is that fishermen don't like the public accessing rivers (paid or for free) because their enjoyment comes not just from fishing, but from keeping the public off the river while they do so.

Framing the debate in terms of canoeists vs anglers is weak and ignores the 60,000,000 people who'd potentially like to enjoy their shared natural river heritage but can't, whether they'd choose to do it by canoe or otherwise, because of the interference of a tiny privileged minority - and the failure of institutions such as the EA who pander to them.

User avatar
RichA
Posts: 2830
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:51 am

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by RichA » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:01 pm

Mawddach wrote:Pay your money and get decent access and egress points, get access to more water, less hassle.
It sounds like you are keen to have licenses for water users. Does that mean that you thought that the voluntary access agreements of the past were not satisfactory?

If licences were put in place, would you be happy, or would you like to see environmental considerations also, e.g. minimum water level?

User avatar
Adrian Cooper
Posts: 9560
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 2:26 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Adrian Cooper » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:14 pm

Walk up Snowdon? Pay for your licence at Llanberis. Canoe down Cwn Llan for free.

User avatar
KrisH
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: Near Heathrow

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by KrisH » Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:16 pm

Mawddach wrote:I really cannot see what the issue with payment is.....
The EA may be supporting the anglers rights because they pay for a licence, the fee goes to the EA to support their work improving the rivers. Pay your money and get decent access and egress points, get access to more water, less hassle.
You don't get it do you ? ... WE DO PAY .... anglers arent the sole fund for the EA .....the amount of revenue from the sale of Rod licences is a TINY proportion of the funding the EA gets to do it's work ... the rest of the funds for their budget comes from the taxpayer ..i.e everyone in the country who pays taxes ...which includes, yes you guessed it ..us kayakers and canoeists .... so we do pay .... and by your own argument should have equal access to the water the same as everyone else.

Unlike anglers, we arent asking for sole access to the water, we're more than happy to share the water with other users such as angler, swimmers, other boaters , walkers etc

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Big Henry » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:17 am

Mawddach wrote:I really cannot see what the issue with payment is, once we've got a licence in place for canoeing we would have a right to access, the fact that its not the riparian owners water doesn't make it a canoesits property to use and enjoy for free. Everything in Wales seems to be free for everyone, nothing much left now that someone wants toextract for free.
The EA may be supporting the anglers rights because they pay for a licence, the fee goes to the EA to support their work improving the rivers.
Pay your money and get decent access and egress points, get access to more water, less hassle.
Image
Image

User avatar
morsey
Posts: 6269
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:36 pm
Location: West Country :-)

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by morsey » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:22 am

Adrian Cooper wrote:Walk up Snowdon? Pay for your licence at Llanberis. Canoe down Cwn Llan for free.
Walking up Snowdon is so last year. 4X4 is all the rage these days!

User avatar
Adrian Cooper
Posts: 9560
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 2:26 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Adrian Cooper » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:34 am

I understand the fees are quite high.

User avatar
Randy Fandango
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:10 pm
Location: London/Kent/Somewhere flat and dry

Re: EA Prosecution

Post by Randy Fandango » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:39 pm

Adrian Cooper wrote:I understand the fees are quite high.
Yes -- about 3500 feet.....
I'll get me coat.
Giles

Post Reply