Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: Non-Navigable? What Does it mean?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Devon ..just up from the bottom and right a bit.
    Posts
    2,380

    Default Non-Navigable? What Does it mean?

    Ok... I'm not a big river paddler ..more estuaries and costal for me. Theres a thread going..well probably dozens that use the phrase 'non-navigable' within them..

    It may a dumb question but what does non-navigable actually mean in UK law ( ok English may differ from Scottish) .. Ive done a bit googling but cant find a true definition..in UK law that is.

    This may help some of our newer members (and me) understand access threads more clearly.

    A link to a statement of definition (official lawyer speak preferably not Wikimakeitupasyougoalong) would be blinding..

    Many thanks in advance , Ian.

  2. #2
    monkey_pork's Avatar
    monkey_pork is offline a wind age, a wolf age - before the world goes headlong Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    -
    Posts
    4,856

    Default

    If I understand the legal situation correctly ... there isn't an answer to this question. Indeed, this appears to be at the centre of the whole access question.

    I don't think that access to waterways / prohibition of access to waterways has ever actually made it into legislation anyway in 'general' terms (or certainly don't know of it, if it is codified therein) - there'll be some odd bits of location-specific legislation linked to commercial activity, canal use, Defence of the Realm type stuff, and any number of bylaws out there covering specific stretches of water, but access / no access in general appears to be the common law tort of 'trespass'.

    I've got something in mind about Magna Carta, and the removal of obstacles to allow navigation, but that's a kinda aside.

    I'm sure you've seen it, but either way; the thread 'The Legal Position & Background' has more on this ...

    (For me ... it just means there's not enough water to get a paddle into ).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,751

    Default

    Navigable has various meanings depending on the circumstances and context. Douglas Caffyn explains it here on page 39. Non Navigable or un-navigable would be the oppostite. It is very confusing.
    Keith

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Devon ..just up from the bottom and right a bit.
    Posts
    2,380

    Default

    Thanks for the replies so far. Indeed I now understand (or not) the bone of contention is the use of this word 'navigable'. Then 'un' comes into play.. I can here lawyers, QCs and Judges discussing this subject in wooden paneled rooms as I type... So who am I to say what I think it all means.

    Canoeists , anglers, land owners and any other river user commercial or not need clarity regards 'Rights of Navigation' to move forward with any access issues or campaigns. This can only be done in our courts of law or perhaps Parliament. Or we'll or just sit scratching our heads wondering if we are in the right or wrong.

    Sadly the only time I can see this issue being discussed meaningfully in law is perhaps in an enquiry after an incident on a river involving a guided party of canoeists. Where someone was injured or killed on a 'non-navigable' section of said river, and there was claim for compensation or prosecution pending. Has this happened already?

    It kind of reminds me of my mountain biking days regards accessable tracks ie R.U.P.P.S. , B.O.A.T.S and the other one.


    Thankyou Keith for the link and Monkey for your viewpoint .. Its got my tiny brain going. TB.
    Last edited by Teign Beaver; 27th-August-2012 at 07:48 AM. Reason: Swap the word answers for replies..Doh

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teign Beaver View Post
    Canoeists , anglers, land owners and any other river user commercial or not need clarity regards 'Rights of Navigation' to move forward with any access issues or campaigns. This can only be done in our courts of law or perhaps Parliament. Or we'll or just sit scratching our heads wondering if we are in the right or wrong.

    It kind of reminds me of my mountain biking days regards accessable tracks ie R.U.P.P.S. , B.O.A.T.S and the other one.
    In my mountain-biking days we had no problems if we kept to bridle-paths. In those days I had an MB designer mountain bike (not Muddy Fox rubbish). The frame was a super-lightweight moly 32lb job

    There are two ways of sorting all this out. The first is to go legal, or force legal action by legitimate protest. The obvious reluctance to do this by BCU and other canoeing bodies, and the sit-on-the-fence stance by the EA strongly suggest to me that this is not the cut-and dried solution which some think it may be.

    The other way is for anglers, paddlers, and anyone else who uses water for recreation to become locally pro-active. This is my preferred action. We are now moving a little way towards doing this on the upper Wye. We have confirmation, in writing, from the EA that the much-vaunted canoe access agreement doesn't exist. We (possibly but not necessarily under the auspices of the Wye Salmon Association) will be looking at some kind of action plan in due course. That will involve local paddlers.
    I'm pretty sure agreement of some kind will take place, even if it is to agree to disagree.

    It really isn't enough (nor in my book is it taking any responsibility for the situation) to simply say "you have the law on your side - just keep paddling!". The WUF are already rolling out their agreement which isn't an agreement, backed actively by the EA.

    How active? Well, the EA have already given funding to this non-agreement, and for it's roll-out from Wales to England on ten sites in Herefordshire. So no matter what they say, they will protect their corner and argue in favour of restricted access.
    Last edited by davidh; 27th-August-2012 at 08:40 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Devon ..just up from the bottom and right a bit.
    Posts
    2,380

    Default

    @ David H... Ha Ha my old GT was 29lb... I think, ..once I'd spent a grand on it (of 1992 money that is..gulp)

    Funny, Ive always liked to have the law on my side in what ever I do. But grey areas like rights to navigate ,everyone has the law on their side..or not! I'm a newbe to this really. I'd to like to see this all sorted out as a collective of anglers-canoeist-landowners at the helm.. Oh per chance to dream..

    I'm interested in this subject now and urge other SOTP'ers who may not be so keen on access issues to keep an eye such threads..I will.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    I'm pretty sure agreement of some kind will take place, even if it is to agree to disagree.
    You'll have to get over the first stage which is agreeing what the discussions are about. (Talks about talks)


    • Asking permission and being subservient.
    • disruption to wildlife and the environment. (there is a great deal of mistrust so it will need a major injection of authoritative independent expert advice. Starting by identifying where there is a real and substantial problem would be good.)
    • disruption to angling (usually cloaked in other issues). If canoeists are expected to discuss what we can do to make life better for anglers then it's also necessary to talk about what anglers can do to make life better for canoeists.
    Keith

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithD View Post
    You'll have to get over the first stage which is agreeing what the discussions are about. (Talks about talks)


    • Asking permission and being subservient.
    • disruption to wildlife and the environment. (there is a great deal of mistrust so it will need a major injection of authoritative independent expert advice. Starting by identifying where there is a real and substantial problem would be good.)
    • disruption to angling (usually cloaked in other issues). If canoeists are expected to discuss what we can do to make life better for anglers then it's also necessary to talk about what anglers can do to make life better for canoeists.
    No subservience needed or wanted, on either side. I see no reason why canoeists should talk about what they can do to make life better for anglers either.

    I agree with you about authoritative and expert independent advice about environmental issues. The EA is not independent - I think that's fairly obvious. My background is in science so getting hold of the necessary information should not be a problem. This will be Wye-specific though, and in the first instance upper Wye specific.

    The first stage is finding a vehicle from which to start looking at some kind of plan. I have one identified, but I don't know whether they will support me, and I'm bu**ered if I'm doing this alone.


    Teign Beaver - 29lbs? What was it, carbon?
    My mate had a Muddy Fox. First outing, weight on the pedals, ar*e behind the saddle (no helmet) bombing down a steep and very rough track in the Lakes he bent the forks.
    Back to the shop - "The forks are bent".
    Shop - "your own fault. These specialist ATBs shouldn't be taken off-road".
    Last edited by davidh; 27th-August-2012 at 09:53 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    21,969

    Default

    The only thing non-navigable means to me is that I really, really, can't get the canoe to fit down it....

    Its such a grey area. I get the term shouted at me (very rarely to be fair), and have to resist the temptation to retort back that "I seem to be navigating it quite happily, thank you very much". Best just to continue quietly.

    I still have a hope that one day common sense will prevail and all responsible folk will be able to continue navigating, fishing, swimming, owning and enjoying rivers without conflict.

    Actually, 95% of the time, that already happens, lets not forget that! Just do what you feel is right, knowing you have done no harm to anyone or anything. A lawful challenge is highly unlikely, as my opinion rests in the same area as the Rev Caffyn's, and even the "abuse" is incredibly rare.
    Paddler,blogger,camper,pyromaniac: Blog: Wilderness is a State of Mind

    Paddle Points - where to paddle

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    95% of the time?
    Facts?
    Figures?

    Not challenging - asking for hard data is all.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    21,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    95% of the time?
    Facts?
    Figures?

    Not challenging - asking for hard data is all.
    Its not hard data, just a personal observation that almost all my (many) paddles on rivers with or without "official" agreements/licences or whatever, are completely confrontation free. Its probably more like 99% for me, actually, but as I hear others occasionally do have issues, I rounded it down. Its merely an opinion that most paddlers will rarely come across problems. The point was, that most of the time its perfectly accepted, people are happy to see you, say hello, chat etc etc, if you're paddling responsibly and causing no harm.
    Paddler,blogger,camper,pyromaniac: Blog: Wilderness is a State of Mind

    Paddle Points - where to paddle

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,254

    Default

    My definitions

    Unnavigable - impossible to get a craft of any description along it.

    Non-navigable - capable of being navigated but for some reason navigation is impeded by some physical or legal restraint.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal Grey View Post
    Its not hard data, just a personal observation that almost all my (many) paddles on rivers with or without "official" agreements/licences or whatever, are completely confrontation free. Its probably more like 99% for me, actually, but as I hear others occasionally do have issues, I rounded it down. Its merely an opinion that most paddlers will rarely come across problems. The point was, that most of the time its perfectly accepted, people are happy to see you, say hello, chat etc etc, if you're paddling responsibly and causing no harm.
    With respect Mal, that's your own experience and I don't doubt your word, but I'm guessing you don't paddle the middle Wye, the Welsh Dee, and those parts of the Thames, Severn, Wear, Dart and Warwickshire Avon where there are problems?
    Last edited by davidh; 28th-August-2012 at 08:05 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,902

    Default

    Potentially a bit of a truism David. If you always paddle rivers where dispute often occurs, you are likely to come across it more. I'm with Mal, I paddle quite a variety of rivers and rarely have issues. Even when I've been on the middle Wye below Builth, I rarely have trouble with fly fishermen, I always look out for them and always try to give them space and pass quietly. Even with a large group, we get along quickly with the minimum of fuss.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post
    Potentially a bit of a truism David. If you always paddle rivers where dispute often occurs, you are likely to come across it more. I'm with Mal, I paddle quite a variety of rivers and rarely have issues. Even when I've been on the middle Wye below Builth, I rarely have trouble with fly fishermen, I always look out for them and always try to give them space and pass quietly. Even with a large group, we get along quickly with the minimum of fuss.
    Fair comment.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    21,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    With respect Mal, that's your own experience and I don't doubt your word, but I'm guessing you don't paddle the middle Wye, the Welsh Dee, and those parts of the Thames, Severn, Wear, Dart and Warwickshire Avon where there are problems?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post
    Potentially a bit of a truism David. If you always paddle rivers where dispute often occurs, you are likely to come across it more. I'm with Mal, I paddle quite a variety of rivers and rarely have issues. Even when I've been on the middle Wye below Builth, I rarely have trouble with fly fishermen, I always look out for them and always try to give them space and pass quietly. Even with a large group, we get along quickly with the minimum of fuss.
    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    Fair comment.
    You do have a point David, perhaps my rounding down is not enough, but I paddle with and speak to a lot of paddlers from all over the country and I still believe the incidents are very much in the minority. But maybe they are concentrated to certain flashpoints?

    On the Wye, I've only done the "normal" sections below Glasbury, so have had no issues. Same for the Dart, only the Loop, and I haven't yet paddled the other rivers. I do, though, paddle quite a lot of smaller rivers and streams in the south, including the off-Navigation Kennet & Wey, the Mole, and various tiny rivers which most folk haven't heard of (Ock, Lox...), and I regularly meet other river users, especially anglers, on these without incident. Probably the potentially most contentious places I've paddled are the Kennet backwaters (used to be regular), the Barle (once), and the Usk (only a few times). I've had one incident on the Kennet, nothing on the others. Issues on the Thames are incredibly rare I think, even above the top of the "Navigation" at Round House?

    I do feel for folk in those regions where this seems to be a bigger issue, especially those in parts of Wales who seem to have it worst.


    Anyway, slightly off topic!
    Paddler,blogger,camper,pyromaniac: Blog: Wilderness is a State of Mind

    Paddle Points - where to paddle

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Romsey, Paddle estuaries within an hour, also club member and coach, and scout canoeing helper
    Posts
    670

    Default

    Non - Navigable is a term used to describe non-tidal (inland rivers).
    1) Owership of the soil (sea or river bed) and rights in it
    The distinction beween tidal and inland waters had to be made because the ownership of the soil (bed of the river or sea) affected what rights people had. Historically this was relevant to rights of fishing, water use, and extraction.

    In Tidal waters the soil (seabed) was in crown ownership. For the purposes of fishing, private rights could only be establshed by grant from the crown, so in general, the public had a right to fish and other produce.

    In Inland waters (non-tidal) the rights to fish (and other rights related to ownership of property adjacent to a watercourse) are (in general) private, belonging to the owner of the soil, although these rights can become seperated (e.g. rights to fishing).

    In some inland waters there was a public right to fish - particularly where the river was regarded as a Kings Highway and hence owned by the crown.

    In law it was necessary to distinguish between the two types of water. As tidal and non tidal did not cover the exceptions, the legal terms navigable and non navigable are used in those cases where riparian rights are being considered.

    Navigable = crown ownership = possible public right to fish
    Non-navigable = private ownership = private rights to fish

    There are plenty of court cases over many centuries where this use is made. So if you fish inland and don't have permission you are breaking a long established legal right.

    Its confusing because it could also refer to
    2) The phsyical state of the waterway
    Acts authorising canals and improvements to rivers would give authority to 'make navigable' the waterway. The earliest navigation acts were necessary because Magna Carta and other acts forbade the obstruction of waterways by any means (including weirs and locks which would be necessary for creating conditions for navigating larger vessels)

    3) The right (of the public) to navigate along the waterway.
    Where a canal was built a right of navigation had to be created by the act because none could have existed before that.

    For natural inland waterways, 1889 was the first time a case was brought where this meaning was used in a court leading to a judgement where it would stop the public from doing navigating. Up to that point it had not been a legal issue, and it is argued that historically the public had a right to navigate on all rivers in England.

    So, one term, 3 meanings, and some dispute over what the meanings mean!

    Hope that helps.
    Brevan
    Brevan,
    The truth (about Rights of Navigation) is out there
    Romsey, Hampshire
    Twitter: BrevanM
    Follow my blog at http://riveraccessrights.blogspot.com/

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Devon ..just up from the bottom and right a bit.
    Posts
    2,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
    My definitions

    Unnavigable - impossible to get a craft of any description along it.

    Non-navigable - capable of being navigated but for some reason navigation is impeded by some physical or legal restraint.
    Quercus' is the easiest post for me to remember! Seems fairly common sensical* as well (*is that a word?).
    But as we all know rules/laws are not always derived from common sense.. Cheers Quercus.

    Brevans post previous to this one seems to point towards a legal definition (all 3 of them) regards non-navigable. Thankyou Brevan.

    I can still hear those legal bods in those court rooms beating out a definition in an ongoing case.

    Imagine if you will, I have insurance for my boat and I put a claim for damage to said canoe, I get a reply back from the insurance company 'Screwem & Runn' saying...

    "Regards claim 1234.. We are sorry Mr Beaver your claim against your losses has not been upheld due to the fact that that the incident causing damage to your craft was recorded as happening on a stretch of the river deemed Non-Navigable"

    Is that a possible senario?

    I think I'll stick to my estuary!

    Thanks for all the input .. TB.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    It really isn't enough (nor in my book is it taking any responsibility for the situation) to simply say "you have the law on your side - just keep paddling!". The WUF are already rolling out their agreement which isn't an agreement, backed actively by the EA.

    How active? Well, the EA have already given funding to this non-agreement, and for it's roll-out from Wales to England on ten sites in Herefordshire. So no matter what they say, they will protect their corner and argue in favour of restricted access.
    What is this all about? The EA have no remit for navigation unless they are the stautory navigation authority. Why are they backing anything to do with navigation? Details please. It looks like they need another one of my letters.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angut View Post
    What is this all about? The EA have no remit for navigation unless they are the stautory navigation authority. Why are they backing anything to do with navigation? Details please. It looks like they need another one of my letters.
    Its all on the Wye access thread - now locked but still readable I believe.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    solihull, west mids
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Folks,

    Sorry to resurrect all this but the whole arguement around access has just confused me - not difficult admittedly! I have canoed the Warwickshire Avon and gone through the booms across the river at Charlecote Park, which is owned by the NT. I was shouted at by some NT employee as I paddled past the house. I apologised and claimed ignorance, but could I have told him to politely sling his hook as I have a legal right of access? Equally a mate had a similiar problem at Warwick Castle where portage around the weir was met with loads of "trespassers will be executed" (slight exageration!) signs. Question is - if you have to porter around a weir, do you have implied access to the land to be able to do so?

    Its a beautiful bit of river down there and the closest to my home so I would like to go down there again armed with the facts just in case I get shouted at. Help!

    ta, Stu

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Warwick
    Posts
    120

    Default

    At Warwick Castle you are likely to be shouted at by employees of the Merlin Group (who amongst other places own Alton Towers). They like to emphasise the damage the trebuchet can cause despite the fact that even in summer they don't fire it three times a day at best.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angut View Post
    What is this all about? The EA have no remit for navigation unless they are the stautory navigation authority. Why are they backing anything to do with navigation? Details please. It looks like they need another one of my letters.
    The EA and their responsibility on the Wye. They will not even support the Act of Parliament on the Wye Navigation.

    My point on canoeing a river is, If I can float down and maybe progress up stream then it is navigable.

    There is no law that says canoeing is illegal!

    Even the antagonists have failed to find such a law.

    Doug
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stuk View Post
    Folks,

    Sorry to resurrect all this but the whole arguement around access has just confused me - not difficult admittedly! I have canoed the Warwickshire Avon and gone through the booms across the river at Charlecote Park, which is owned by the NT. I was shouted at by some NT employee as I paddled past the house. I apologised and claimed ignorance, but could I have told him to politely sling his hook as I have a legal right of access? Equally a mate had a similiar problem at Warwick Castle where portage around the weir was met with loads of "trespassers will be executed" (slight exageration!) signs. Question is - if you have to porter around a weir, do you have implied access to the land to be able to do so?

    Its a beautiful bit of river down there and the closest to my home so I would like to go down there again armed with the facts just in case I get shouted at. Help!

    ta, Stu
    I suppose you could tell him to sling his hook - I think you'll still be shouted at.
    If the paddle/portage is worth the aggro I would just carry on. Sadly there is no definitive answer currently.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stuk View Post
    Question is - if you have to porter around a weir, do you have implied access to the land to be able to do so?
    You've got to think that this would be like night follows day.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    On the question of weirs. It would be reasonable to ask if there was statutory authority for the construction or continuance of the weir, otherwise there unless the weir existed at its current height before 1189 then it is an unlawful obstruction to navigation and it would have been accruing fines of 50 (100Marks) potentially going back to three months after Michaelmas 1475. Since one is allowed to deviate from a highway if it becomes obstructed, it could be argued that an unlawful obstruction to navigation may be bypassed. In any event obstruction of a public right of navigation does not extinguish that right. [Rowland v EA]

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    706

    Default P,f,l,o,p

    Quote Originally Posted by Angut View Post
    On the question of weirs. It would be reasonable to ask if there was statutory authority for the construction or continuance of the weir, otherwise there unless the weir existed at its current height before 1189 then it is an unlawful obstruction to navigation and it would have been accruing fines of 50 (100Marks) potentially going back to three months after Michaelmas 1475. Since one is allowed to deviate from a highway if it becomes obstructed, it could be argued that an unlawful obstruction to navigation may be bypassed. In any event obstruction of a public right of navigation does not extinguish that right. [Rowland v EA]
    Yes....get that laminated, and if you are challenged as you portage around any weir, read it out in your best

    'Shakespearian' voice [you could practice at home first !], chances are who ever is questioning you, will be so

    shocked, that by the time they have regained their wits, you will be paddling around the next bend.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stuk View Post
    Folks,

    Sorry to resurrect all this but the whole arguement around access has just confused me - not difficult admittedly! I have canoed the Warwickshire Avon and gone through the booms across the river at Charlecote Park, which is owned by the NT. I was shouted at by some NT employee as I paddled past the house. I apologised and claimed ignorance, but could I have told him to politely sling his hook as I have a legal right of access?
    ta, Stu
    You have no need to apologise and could not only tell him to sling his hook but use the criminal law against harassment. I have written this e-mail to Charlecote Park. Let's see what they reply

    Dear Sirs,

    I am given to understand that your staff have been haranguing members of the public going about their lawful business on the public right of navigation that passes through your property and that you have erected booms in an attempt to prevent the exercise of that public right of navigation.

    As you are surely aware the public right of navigation is of long-standing and was recognised by Parliament in 1751. It has also been recognised by the courts, although out of social deference it was ordered that permission should be sort before proceeding and that no reasonable request should be denied. Since the House is no longer a private residence such considerations are no longer relevant. Furthermore, they conflict with the Human Rights Act and Convention.

    Placing of booms across a public right of navigation is just as unlawful as erecting barricades in the street. They should be removed forthwith.

    Haranguing persons going about their lawful business may constitute the criminal offence of harassment.

    I trust that these matters will soon be rectified.

    Andy

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,969

    Default

    Angut

    Is there any news of your legal case that you can share with us at this time?
    Doug Dew
    "The best is yet to come" My Father


  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Posts
    353

    Default

    stuk

    You might want to PM someone with knowledge of paddling this section of the Avon to seek (for which the past tense and past participle is "sought") further advice - see http://www.songofthepaddle.co.uk/for...addle-test-run for information from 2011.

    Cheers

    John
    Last edited by John Saunders; 10th-February-2013 at 10:32 PM. Reason: pedantic grammar note

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdew99 View Post
    Angut

    Is there any news of your legal case that you can share with us at this time?
    I think it is all over. Fish Legal gave me series of absolute deadlines then went quiet. Maybe they have run out of options. We have established that their claims that fishing rights gives them any say on navigation are unsupported assertions and have no legal basis so we can ignore the piscators. My new tactic is to directly challenge riparian owners to show that a public right of navigation has been extinguished by legislation of exercise of statutory powers. If they can not them go ahead and canoe. I'm trying this first in Dovedale, some nice scenery to canoe in. Any takers?

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angut View Post
    I think it is all over. Fish Legal gave me series of absolute deadlines then went quiet. Maybe they have run out of options. We have established that their claims that fishing rights gives them any say on navigation are unsupported assertions and have no legal basis so we can ignore the piscators. My new tactic is to directly challenge riparian owners to show that a public right of navigation has been extinguished by legislation of exercise of statutory powers. If they can not them go ahead and canoe. I'm trying this first in Dovedale, some nice scenery to canoe in. Any takers?
    Let us know when?

    Doug
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


  33. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    706

    Default P,f,l,o,p

    Quote Originally Posted by Angut View Post
    I think it is all over. Fish Legal gave me series of absolute deadlines then went quiet. Maybe they have run out of options. We have established that their claims that fishing rights gives them any say on navigation are unsupported assertions and have no legal basis so we can ignore the piscators. My new tactic is to directly challenge riparian owners to show that a public right of navigation has been extinguished by legislation of exercise of statutory powers. If they can not them go ahead and canoe. I'm trying this first in Dovedale, some nice scenery to canoe in. Any takers?

    Let us know the date, and I will endeavour to join you !

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Of course the definitive answer to the question of a Non-navigable river , is simply, the Angling Trust said so !!!

    What more do we need .

    "Haave a nice daayy", in my best American drawl (For our cousins from over the pond, please don't be offended it was not intended )

    Let's have a great paddle .

    Hope you all enjoy my silly moment?

    Doug
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •