Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 60 of 434

Thread: Angling Trust statement

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    203

    Default Angling Trust statement

    AT have posted this on their FB page and AT website.I am surprised that this is being heralded as a success. Or am I missing something?

    http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp...ws&itemid=1444



    My reply:
    Does that statement change anything? I am afraid not. If the AT get a prosecution in court to prove the BCU and CE are wrong in their beliefs on Public Rights of Navigation then things may change. When will the AT make a formal challenge through the courts?

    Terry

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    4,824

    Default

    This stood out
    Organised trespasses are becoming all the more commonplace and are promoted through the 'independent' website 'Song of the Paddle' http://www.songofthepaddle.co.uk/ which promotes what they call 'open canoeing'.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    203

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus2 View Post
    This stood out
    Organised trespasses are becoming all the more commonplace and are promoted through the 'independent' website 'Song of the Paddle' http://www.songofthepaddle.co.uk/ which promotes what they call 'open canoeing'.
    I burst out laughing when I read that. These people clearly have no idea. In addition, this bit caught my eye:

    We also have well worked voluntary access agreements in place which allow canoeing on some rivers such as the Dart and the upper Wye at times of high water when fishing will not be affected.
    There is no voluntary access agreement in place on the Dart despite the continuing assurances of the fishy folk that there is! To have an agreement both parties have to sign up to it.
    ​Change is inevitable; progress is optional.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    S-o-T, U.K.
    Posts
    4,673

    Default

    Mad as a bag of frogs ... and I'm an angler (too)

    The AT really should engage their brains, or find and talk to a sensible sentient being before plastering nonsense on their website.

    .... but I do have the 3* Open Canoe cert .... the Anglers Trust now seem to imply that this is a certificate to paddle anywhere
    DCUK
    Can't ytpe or roopf read

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

    Default

    THE LAW OF THE LAND!

    As stated by .............................................?

    I don't think the statement made any reference to which law of the land they were referring to. I got the impression that Mr Beynon didn't know either. I am sure if there was a law which established their belief they would have told us what it was.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    near Newcastle
    Posts
    2,616

    Wink

    Hmmm, yes well

    I find this paragraph rather interesting:

    Organised trespasses are becoming all the more commonplace and are promoted through the 'independent' website 'Song of the Paddle' http://www.songofthepaddle.co.uk/ which promotes what they call 'open canoeing'.

    I wasn't aware that SoTP was anything other than a site run by John Kelly, assisted by various moderators and funded, as far as I understand it, by voluntary subscriptions from the likes of myself ( who before now couldn't give a toss about access issues, as I've never had any!)

    So going off the 'independent' touch above, are these paranoid clowns suggesting that we are in fact funded by 'hidden and subversive forces', a.k.a B.C.U., C.E.etc?

    I have to say that the bit about promoting "what they call 'open canoeing' " is absolutely hilarious!!

    What else would you call it? apart, of course, from "Canadian canoeing" which would then lead these people to believe that we are in fact all Canadian!!!

    That actually suggests very strongly that they really, genuinely, have no idea of the difference between "open canoes" (ie: Canadian canoes or "open boats") and kayaks etc and may well believe that we are some sort of splinter, combat or militant arm, of the "canoeist hoards".

    Deary, deary me!
    Last edited by rancid badger; 13th-December-2012 at 05:20 PM.


    Now paddling Either a Gumotex Palava 400 Or a Gumotex Solar Pro 410c and LOVING IT!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Western Lake District
    Posts
    1,109

    Default

    Slightly one sided methinks and another example of mis-information being produced. Saying that, it must be working as even Ministers are agreeing with it.

    Time for a militant trespass in these mysterious 'open canoes' they speak of.......what a waste of valuable web space.
    Death is natures way of telling you to slow down.

  9. #9

    Default

    As an Angling Trust member I invite you to share your views with Anglers , directly , here

    http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/f...-campaign.html

    Have Fun ! and remember its all a game

    Just to add this quote

    Richard Benyon: I want to be really clear about this. While we want more people to get out and enjoy activities in the countryside they must be complimentary. There are plenty of places to canoe where it is appropriate and others where it is not. There will be no change to our policy of supporting voluntary access agreements as the only way forward. Anglers and fishery owners spend a lot of time and money caring for our rivers and streams and their rights deserve to be respected

  10. #10
    Crow's Avatar
    Crow is offline こんにちは。私はカラスと私はスコットラ ンドの出身で す。
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    16,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus2 View Post
    This stood out
    Organised trespasses are becoming all the more commonplace and are promoted through the 'independent' website 'Song of the Paddle' http://www.songofthepaddle.co.uk/ which promotes what they call 'open canoeing'.
    Sounds like an interesting interpretation of open canoeing.

    Here comes the future and you can't run from it
    If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it


    Crow Trip Log

  11. #11
    Crow's Avatar
    Crow is offline こんにちは。私はカラスと私はスコットラ ンドの出身で す。
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    16,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BennyGesserit View Post
    As an Angling Trust member I invite you to share your views with Anglers , directly , here

    http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/f...-campaign.html

    Have Fun ! and remember its all a game

    Just to add this quote

    Richard Benyon: I want to be really clear about this. While we want more people to get out and enjoy activities in the countryside they must be complimentary. There are plenty of places to canoe where it is appropriate and others where it is not. There will be no change to our policy of supporting voluntary access agreements as the only way forward. Anglers and fishery owners spend a lot of time and money caring for our rivers and streams and their rights deserve to be respected
    Greetings Reverend Mother. Nice to see a Dune afficionado on here. I didn't know the Sisterhood were big on angling. Is it mostly sandtrout you go for?

    A Frank Herbert quote might have been better.

    On a serious note, welcome and enjoy the debate.

    Here comes the future and you can't run from it
    If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it


    Crow Trip Log

  12. #12

    Default

    Thank you Crow , the hook size required to secure a worm would be fishing too heavy for me.

    I kind of understand the universal access thing you guys are fighting for - how would you counter the old oft seen angling forum post "Anglers pay , quite a bit , which goes directly to the EA whereas canoeists don't" , or at least I don't think you do.

  13. #13
    Crow's Avatar
    Crow is offline こんにちは。私はカラスと私はスコットラ ンドの出身で す。
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    16,117

    Default

    TBH I don't know. But I'm sure someone else will. Do you not pay to the landowners for fishing rights, and they keep the proceeds?

    But how would you counter the point that free access works perfectly well north off the border, and anglers and canoeists seem to cope well with free access there?

    Here comes the future and you can't run from it
    If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it


    Crow Trip Log

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BennyGesserit View Post
    - how would you counter the old oft seen angling forum post "Anglers pay , quite a bit , which goes directly to the EA whereas canoeists don't" , or at least I don't think you do.
    Canoeists pay for a licence to canoe navigations controlled by the EA and other authorities.

    Anglers pay for the right to hook fish out of the water. To dangle a bit of string without a hook in a river is completely free.

    Canoeists don't take fish out of the water.

    It's quite simple really.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crow View Post
    TBH I don't know. But I'm sure someone else will. Do you not pay to the landowners for fishing rights, and they keep the proceeds?

    But how would you counter the point that free access works perfectly well north off the border, and anglers and canoeists seem to cope well with free access there?
    No idea either ! In addition to paying the landowner we also pay £28 or more directly to the EA in the form of a fishing license.

    TBH I don't know enough about either subject to be an authority , I thought it was fun to see two completely different views of the same subject , fun but I assume it will end badly forums usually do, though the good outweighs the bad normally.

    canoeists , otters , cormorants and Hydro are a sure fire way to fire up an angling forum.

    So I suppose we have Hydro in common then.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BennyGesserit View Post
    Thank you Crow , the hook size required to secure a worm would be fishing too heavy for me.

    I kind of understand the universal access thing you guys are fighting for - how would you counter the old oft seen angling forum post "Anglers pay , quite a bit , which goes directly to the EA whereas canoeists don't" , or at least I don't think you do.

    Dear Benny,

    Please look more carefully at the accounts. The non-fishing tax payers contribute more for your sport than you do. Rod licences are heavily supported by all tax payers. Unless of course you are one of the elite that pays "no tax".

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


  17. #17
    Crow's Avatar
    Crow is offline こんにちは。私はカラスと私はスコットラ ンドの出身で す。
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    16,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BennyGesserit View Post
    Thank you Crow , the hook size required to secure a worm would be fishing too heavy for me.

    I kind of understand the universal access thing you guys are fighting for - how would you counter the old oft seen angling forum post "Anglers pay , quite a bit , which goes directly to the EA whereas canoeists don't" , or at least I don't think you do.
    Do you need a special licence for Shai Hulud and do you have to spice up the bait?

    Or are you fishing for canoeists? No licence required.

    Here comes the future and you can't run from it
    If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it


    Crow Trip Log

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Izzetafox, you've been making a commendable effort in trying to moderate some of the ill-informed and anti-social comments on the AT FB page, but I think that the root cause of the stupidity displayed in some of the comments in response to the announcement is the appalling levels of ignorance evidenced throughout the original AT statement.

    You should offer your services as a consultant (at an appropriate fee of course , and let's face it, if you scroll down on the AT FB page to the post about chalkstreams, there's a few people who could afford a voice of reason, although they have no need to listen to one) to help the AT move forward in the interests of their members, as they clearly have no idea about the damage they are doing to their cause. The AT statement isn't just a self-inflicted small calibre flesh wound, it's more of a shotgun taking off their feet, but the likes of Richard Benyon and Martin Salter won't be the people who suffer the consequences.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    I had to go to my man cave and cool down, I did sharpen a few chisels while I was there, before writing this.

    Me thinks Mr Benyon MP is getting worried.

    He must have read the petition asking for clarification over Public Rights of Navigation based on Magna Carta and The1472 An Act for Wears and Fishgarths and why the DEFRA does not support this Act.

    Reading between the lines he is raising the hackles of those that do not have the law in their favour. This to me is very naughty, rebel rousing and trouble making.

    There is no law to say we cannot canoe on any river.

    Doug,

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


  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougoutcanoe View Post
    Dear Benny,

    Please look more carefully at the accounts. The non-fishing tax payers contribute more for your sport than you do. Rod licences are heavily supported by all tax payers. Unless of course you are one of the elite that pays "no tax".

    Doug

    There are several ways to look at that , I am not familiar with the accounts , if you are then you have the advantage.
    There are several million anglers who buy licenses so our contribution seems significant , I also pay tax , so you i contribute twice.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crow View Post
    Do you need a special licence for Shai Hulud and do you have to spice up the bait?

    Or are you fishing for canoeists? No licence required.
    Yes i agree it does seem like a troll , so I hesitated , but personally i am mostly open minded and if you look through some of my old old posts on FM you will see I have a lot of sympathy with what I perceive your point to be - the river belongs to us all.

    But anglers are trying to enjoy the water too and there must be a reason that the AT have their concerns.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    I can't remember the amount that the taxpayer spent on subsidising angling last year, but I think it was more than the sum generated by rod licences.

    Regardless of the money involved, when those wishing to participate in river based activities would be restricted by the AT to 4% of the rivers in this country, it would seem that the current situation is hardly just.
    ​Change is inevitable; progress is optional.

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

    Default

    The Angling Trust news, indicates what canoeists and other water users are up against. I am hoping that the petition when it is accepted will highlight that we have a national and legal right of navigation which has been on the statute for hundreds of years.


    In all cases of failed talks with riparian owners and fisheries they have not presented a law that canoeists have broken. We now need the existing law to be made clear to Benyon MP and the fishy folk.


    Benyon's action in this statement with the Angling Trust is raising opposition against water users and increasing the antagonism we suffer because of his unwarranted statements. We have too much trouble from those that think they own the rivers or pay for them (but that is all about fishing rights not navigation).


    Isn't there a law against stirring up trouble? The same one that is used against rioters using social networks to raise trouble.




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


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colchester, Essex
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BennyGesserit View Post
    Thank you Crow , the hook size required to secure a worm would be fishing too heavy for me.

    I kind of understand the universal access thing you guys are fighting for - how would you counter the old oft seen angling forum post "Anglers pay , quite a bit , which goes directly to the EA whereas canoeists don't" , or at least I don't think you do.
    Anglers need a rod licence, which is paid to the EA. Boats including canoes need a navigation licence, which is paid to the navigation authority, this is the EA on some rivers, and the CRT on most canals and a few rivers, there are other navigation authorities on other rivers and canals. The EA Rod licence is £27, an EA canoe licence is £32.

    The EA spend more on angling than they receive from rod licences, and more on navigation than they receive from navigation licences, both these activities are subsidised by the general tax payer.
    Exact breakdowns of how much they spend on and receive from particular forms of navigation eg canoes, are not available. The same also applies to different types of angling.

    Many anglers pay extra money to angling clubs and landowners, some of this is invested in maintaining and improving the river and fish stocks, while this is done for the anglers benefit, it may also benefit the wider environment. A lot of the money paid to landowners is viewed as a profit by them and will not be invested in rivers.

    Canoeists also help to maintain the rivers, most commonly by collecting rubbish, either as individuals or as part of (semi) organised clear ups.

    As far as I can see the arguement that "Anglers pay , quite a bit , which goes directly to the EA whereas canoeists don't" does really stand up because,
    A) The anglers don't seem to pay more than the canoeists
    B) It has been shown on many occasions that anglers and canoeists can share a river, without effecting the fishing, so just because one or other party has invested more money is no reason to exclude the other party.
    C) The rivers are not and can not be privately owned, anyone investing money in them should be made aware of this. They can still use their money to improve the rivers but they should understand this will not give them any increased rights over the rivers.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BennyGesserit View Post
    ...so you I contribute twice.
    For your chosen sport.

    We pay for our sport too but none of it comes out of the national coffers.

    Well said Barney #24 much better than my attempt.

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


  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    S-o-T, U.K.
    Posts
    4,673

    Default

    Hi Benny & welcome,

    You are obviously a non-migratory species angler, the 2012 EA fee for which was £27 and for some reason you & I get eels thrown in for free(?), as a Salmon & Sea Trout license was somewhat more expensive at £72. My BCU membership/license costs more than my fishing one. Then there is membership of clubs ... both fishing and canoeing/kayaking.
    Anglers pay ... so do canoeists/kayakers ... and all of us (taxpayers) do too.

    But rivers are a national resource, the water falls from the sky onto the land, peculates into ditches & streams and on into rivers ... at what point should someone be able to say that's my water and nobody else can touch it or go on it. Well maybe they could if it was a lake on their land and the water stayed put but rivers flow. So "their" bit of water has gone down river and is adjacent to someone elses land now, so have they stolen it? ... it's a nonsense ... I'm surprised there aren't howls of protest because the fish can move "off syndicate" too.

    This forum is "mainly" an "open canoe" forum ... there is nothing sinister in that ... an "open" is a canoe that is open to the elements, i.e. it's top surface is not covered or enclosed like a kayak.

    The rivers and watercourses were thoughfares, utilized to transport folks, goods, fishermen (i.e. coracles in Wales and elsewhere) ... The Rivers Access for All website is crying out for folks to put forward the legal case for restricting access to rivers where any such exists ... nothing has yet been put forwards as far as I can tell.
    DCUK
    Can't ytpe or roopf read

  27. #27

    Default

    Barney , dugout like I said I am open minded , that was a complete surprise to me.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    203

    Default

    I think the 'tax payer subsidises the EA for anglers ' argument is the weakest tool that paddlers can use and it is time to drop it.

    Tax payers pay to the EA who maintain a lot of water, bankside equipment, lock, sluices, navigation that all have a significant advantage for padllers. It is probable that floating water users powered or non-powered are also subsidised by the tax payer.....judging by BCU membership revenue and the suggested gross number of paddlers.

    So,,,,let's stick the the matters that can be verified rather than speculation.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colchester, Essex
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Izzetafox View Post
    I think the 'tax payer subsidises the EA for anglers ' argument is the weakest tool that paddlers can use and it is time to drop it.

    Tax payers pay to the EA who maintain a lot of water, bankside equipment, lock, sluices, navigation that all have a significant advantage for padllers. It is probable that floating water users powered or non-powered are also subsidised by the tax payer.....judging by BCU membership revenue and the suggested gross number of paddlers.

    So,,,,let's stick the the matters that can be verified rather than speculation.
    The EA publish there accounts so these matters can be verified.
    The amount they spend on angling is more then they receive from rod licences and other angling charges.
    The amount they spend on navigation is more than they receive from navigation licences and other navigation charges.
    Therefore both of these things are subsidised by the general taxpayer.

    Here is a link to the Welsh EA's accounts. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...010_and_11.pdf
    Page 22 shows clearly that angling is subsidised, operational income from from fisheries was £1,905,000 and they spent £6,541,000.
    It also shows that navigation is subsidised, but there is no breakdown to show the figures for canoeing.
    Last edited by Barney; 13th-December-2012 at 09:01 PM. Reason: add link etc

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barney View Post
    The EA publish there accounts so these matters can be verified.
    The amount they spend on angling is more then they receive from rod licences and other angling charges.
    The amount they spend on navigation is more than they receive from navigation licences and other navigation charges.
    Therefore both of these things are subsidised by the general taxpayer.


    .
    I think that was the jist of my post.... both groups are 'nett gainers'. So the argument favours neither group, let it drop.
    I shall try and add a link to the accounts later

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colchester, Essex
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Izzetafox View Post
    I think that was the jist of my post.... both groups are 'nett gainers'. So the argument favours neither group, let it drop.
    I shall try and add a link to the accounts later
    I accept both groups are net gainers, the only reason this was raised is because BennyGesserit asked " how would you counter the old oft seen angling forum post "Anglers pay , quite a bit , which goes directly to the EA whereas canoeists don't".
    The simple answer is both groups pay, and neither group pays enough to cover all there costs.
    So I would agree the financial arguement should be dropped because it doesn't benefit either group.

  32. #32

    Default

    To be honest guys I think I may quit while I'm ahead but I have learned something new so thats cool.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    4,824

    Default

    BennyGesserit,well done for having the nuts to come here,also well done all for keeping things civil.Now go have your Melange

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Nr Guildford, Surrey
    Posts
    78

    Default

    Seems like I pay 3 times each year for access to the rivers: My Rod Licence, my BCU licence and as a tax payer, subsidise myself at the same time..... confused.com

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOldHobbit View Post
    Seems like I pay 3 times each year for access to the rivers: My Rod Licence, my BCU licence and as a tax payer, subsidise myself at the same time..... confused.com
    Hobbit mate there are many of us and now I also pay for web space for the idiots that call themselves coarse kayak anglers. Feet in both camps and either appear traitor to both or voice of reason.

    Hey ho new kayak coming on Monday from the states for review, wonder where I should paddle it..........

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Worcestershire
    Posts
    459

    Default

    [COLOR=#000000]Benyon's action in this statement with the Angling Trust is raising opposition against water users and increasing the antagonism we suffer because of his unwarranted statements. We have too much trouble from those that think they own the rivers or pay for them (but that is all about fishing rights not navigation).
    Mr Benyon's comments might have had some weight if only he could tell us under which precise law he thinks canoeing is restricted under.

    Benny, I can't post on that forum, but perhaps you could point Geoff to this page which puts forward all the evidence for public rights of navigation. The fact is that there is far, FAR more evidence in favour of PRN than there is against. In fact pretty much all arguments by the AT have been totally debunked left right and centre with historical and highly researched legal fact.

    The trouble with the AT and their ilk is that they keep telling us that it is illegal and trespass to paddle on a river without permission, but they can't actually tell us the law to which they are talking about! On the other side of the fence websites such as the River Access For All site outline all the evidence in black and white, including original legal texts, case histories etc.

    The single biggest mistake that the AT etc make is when they talk about rivers like the Thames, and how navigation was granted. It wasn't "granted" through navigation acts. All the navigation acts did was allow modification to the river in order that larger vessels could travel further inland more consistently for trade and carrying goods etc. The right to navigate existed on the rivers already before the navigation acts.

    PS, very nice of them to post Martin Salter's phone number 07976 946033
    Last edited by SimonMW; 13th-December-2012 at 10:42 PM. Reason: Link fixed

  37. #37

    Default

    Posted , link doesn't work on my ipad though

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Worcestershire
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Further, I noticed that Geoff bloke put this;
    In this case, yes. If there is no right of navigation granted, there is NO right of navigation. That's what paddlers need to understand.
    The trouble with that is that historically it can be shown that a right of navigation HAS been granted! Every shred of evidence, historically, legally, and empirically shows this. There is NO evidence that shows historically, legally and empirically that navigation was legally restricted. And that is the evidence we are asking for from the likes of the Angling Trust, but they simply cannot give it, because there is no evidence or laws. There is no law or act that repealed the public right of navigation. It isn't rocket science. Either there is evidence or there isn't. And in this case the AT, Richard Benyon, Martin Salter etc, not one of them has shown any sort of historical, legal, or empirical evidence to back up their claims other than random heresy obtained from a single textbook that has since been proved to be inaccurate.

    What Geoff doesn't appear to grasp is that laws are there to prevent actions, not to say that they can be done! If the PRN had been extinguished there would be an act of Parliament to say so. There isn't.
    Last edited by SimonMW; 13th-December-2012 at 10:38 PM.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    706

    Default P,f,l,o,p

    Well at least we seem to have got their attention, which implies they see us as a growing threat.

    I have a vain hope that BCU,,CE will be spurred into action, to counter the nasty lies put out by

    the Anglers Truss, I agree that the statement says nothing new, its the same hot air we have heard

    many times before. In the unlikely event that Richard Benyon had said something in favour of open

    access,along the same lines as Scotland has, then I do not think the Truss would have reported it.

    Our resolution for the coming New Year,and all that follow should be, Keep Calm, And Paddle on,

    the Law is on our side..

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonMW View Post
    Mr Benyon's comments might have had some weight if only he could tell us under which precise law he thinks canoeing is restricted under.

    Benny, I can't post on that forum, but perhaps you could point Geoff to this page which puts forward all the evidence for public rights of navigation. The fact is that there is far, FAR more evidence in favour of PRN than there is against. In fact pretty much all arguments by the AT have been totally debunked left right and centre with historical and highly researched legal fact.

    The trouble with the AT and their ilk is that they keep telling us that it is illegal and trespass to paddle on a river without permission, but they can't actually tell us the law to which they are talking about! On the other side of the fence websites such as the River Access For All site outline all the evidence in black and white, including original legal texts, case histories etc.

    The single biggest mistake that the AT etc make is when they talk about rivers like the Thames, and how navigation was granted. It wasn't "granted" through navigation acts. All the navigation acts did was allow modification to the river in order that larger vessels could travel further inland more consistently for trade and carrying goods etc. The right to navigate existed on the rivers already before the navigation acts.

    PS, very nice of them to post Martin Salter's phone number
    Ok I reposted the fixed link , but to be honest I am dissapointed that you seek to re-publish a phone number in a manner that looks to invite harassment.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonMW View Post
    Further, I noticed that Geoff bloke put this;

    The trouble with that is that historically it can be shown that a right of navigation HAS been granted! Every shred of evidence, historically, legally, and empirically shows this. There is NO evidence that shows historically, legally and empirically that navigation was legally restricted. And that is the evidence we are asking for from the likes of the Angling Trust, but they simply cannot give it, because there is no evidence or laws. There is no law or act that repealed the public right of navigation. It isn't rocket science. Either there is evidence or there isn't. And in this case the AT, Richard Benyon, Martin Salter etc, not one of them has shown any sort of historical, legal, or empirical evidence to back up their claims other than random heresy obtained from a single textbook that has since been proved to be inaccurate.

    What Geoff doesn't appear to grasp is that laws are there to prevent actions, not to say that they can be done! If the PRN had been extinguished there would be an act of Parliament to say so. There isn't.
    I suggest you engage him direct , its obviously an emotive subject for you ( nothing wrong with that ) but , just to be clear , its a friendly invitation to share views.

  42. #42

    Default

    From the Trust website

    THE LAW OF NAVIGATION ON FRESHWATER IN ENGLAND AND WALES
    Introduction
    The current position of the law is settled in that no general public right to navigate in non-
    tidal rivers exists in England and Wales.
    While the public has the right of navigation in tidal waters (e.g. Gann v Free Fishers of
    Whitstable (1865) 11 H.L.Cas; Blundell v Caterall (1821) 5B & Ald. 268), this depends on the
    presumption of the Crown’s ownership of the land beneath the water. This presumption is
    rebuttable and there are some instances where the tidal riverbed is under private
    ownership.
    The presumption of rights of navigation on tidal rivers contrasts with the very limited right
    on non-tidal rivers. The default position is that there is no such general right of navigation.
    Above the flow of tide the land beneath a river or stream is privately owned so that while
    the public can acquire navigational rights over such waters they cannot have them as of
    right
    It has been held that rights of navigation on inland waterways are not analogous to rights of
    way on land (Wills’ Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School (1976) SLT 162 and AG
    ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust and Malton Town Council v Brotherton [1992] 1 All ER 230).
    Acquiring rights of navigation
    Post-Wills Trustees, the public acquisition of a right to navigate on a non-tidal waterway
    cannot be based on the usual arguments used for “immemorial user” for rights of way on
    land. The basis of a public right of navigation in a non-tidal river should be treated as being
    in a legal class of its own.
    Of course, as is well recognised, a public right of navigation may also arise through statute.
    This is the most common way in which such rights arise.
    No right for use of banks
    Even in the situations where the public has a right of navigation in a non-tidal waterway
    (whether by grant, statute or immemorial user), this does not necessarily include the right
    to moor or to make use of the banks of the waterway in gaining access to or leaving thewaterway. In A-G ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust and Malton Town Council v Brotherton
    [1992] 1 All ER 230, L Jauncy commented, obiter, that “. . .the public have no right to use
    the bed or banks of the river other than perhaps for anchoring in an emergency and for
    landing at a place where they are entitled so to do”.
    Therefore, to moor and access the river in such circumstances, canoeists would need the
    permission of the owner of the river bank to avoid trespassing.
    Remedies for the owners of fishing rights
    In Rawson and Others v Peters (1972) 116 SJ 884; 225 EG 89, CA, the plaintiffs (claimants)
    owned fishing rights on the River Wharfe but did not own the bed or bank. They claimed an
    injunction and damages against defendant canoeists for interference with their rights. The
    case was heard at the Court of Appeal where Lord Denning decided that it was possible for
    an action to lie against the canoeists without proving damage to the fishing although this
    was not, strictly speaking, trespass to land in the usual sense. Nominal damages were
    awarded, with liberty to apply to the County Court for an injunction.
    This case leaves fishing clubs with the remedy of an injunction against canoeists to restrain
    them from trespassing where there is no right of public navigation.
    End.

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Worcestershire
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Benny, most of those things listed have been debunked through evidence based research by both Douglas Caffyn and the River Access For All website. The Angling Trust's quote from Wills’ Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School are rather economical, since there are many quotes from the judges in that case which rather go against the AT's point of view!

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,969

    Default

    "Text from Fisheries and Natural Environment Minister Richard Benyon's interview on canoeists

    1. Will you rule out a statutory 'right to paddle' for canoeists?
    I want to be really clear about this. While we want more people to get out and enjoy activities in the countryside they must be complimentary. There are plenty of places to canoe where it is appropriate and others where it is not. There will be no change to our policy of supporting voluntary access agreements as the only way forward. Anglers and fishery owners spend a lot of time and money caring for our rivers and streams and their rights deserve to be respected"

    This is very good news for us... Mr Benyon does not directly answer the question. He avoids it by restating a policy. If he thought that there was no statutory right to paddle, he would have stated it... E.g. "I want to be really clear about this. There is no statutory right to paddle in England and Wales"

    He does not say this. He hides behind words like "appropriate" "the only way forward" "rights deserved to be respected"

    I look forward to a very robust response from the BCU, correcting the obvious errors of fact as to the existence of voluntary agreements, and the generally misleading information. Clearly the Anglers Trust do not any help from us to make fools of themselves.

    I also look forward to the BCU asking Mr Benyon a very specific question about the issue, as did the Anglers Trust, and publishing his response.
    Doug Dew
    "The best is yet to come" My Father


  45. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdew99 View Post
    "Text from Fisheries and Natural Environment Minister Richard Benyon's interview on canoeists


    I look forward to a very robust response from the BCU, correcting the obvious errors of fact as to the existence of voluntary agreements, and the generally misleading information. Clearly the Anglers Trust do not any help from us to make fools of themselves.

    I also look forward to the BCU asking Mr Benyon a very specific question about the issue, as did the Anglers Trust, and publishing his response.


    The BCU and CE are aware of the petition that is going through parliament re. Public Rights of Navigation.

    I suspect that Benyon's comments are a reaction to the petition. ie. A chat with his mates to bring out the fighting spirit.

    It is time to bring the full force of the law to bear on the illegal attempts to force canoeists off our rivers. How? I don't know yet but......

    I want to paddle my open canoe openly, without harassment or threats.

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


  46. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    289

    Default

    The current position of the law is settled in that no general public right to navigate in non-tidal rivers exists in England and Wales.
    According to Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage,
    if a lawyer opens a statement with a cliché such as “it is settled”, the following “weasel words” are likely to have very little substance to them.

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Coventry (from Stoke on Trent)
    Posts
    1,525

    Default

    You have to admit the Anglers Trust are brilliant at what they do.
    Twisting things to suit there cause.

    Access for Your Angling

    Worried about access and restrictions on kayak angling? We understand the unique concerns that kayak anglers have and your membership and involvement in the process will give us more weight when it comes to fighting for your rights on these issues.
    Hmmmm I wonder how they are going to sort this one. talk about false advertisment, how can they fight for kayak canoeist rights when they are actually doing the oppersite.

    Canal and River Trust Pack for Anglers - SAVE £46
    Are you a coarse or game angler? We've negotiated a Canal and River Trust Pack which includes the Riverboat License but we know that as an angler that's not enough and you want more great places to fish too, so we've also included the all important Waterways Wanderer permit to give you access to fishing along 300+ miles of canal network in England and Wales that are not controlled by clubs. The Canal and River Trust is the new name for British Waterways
    And again they include the riverboat licence but are actually fighting to restrict this. So they also throw in 300 miles of canals as a sweetner. But make sure you dont use club water.

    Maybe the kayak canoeist should be informed that if they join the BCU they can canoe any river or canal and and save money too.

    With the access issue I believe that the Anglers Trust are hoping that if they shout louder enough they will get what they want.
    BCU needs to start shouting but someone please lend them a megaphone.


    Ratty (Russ)

    I know only that what is moral is you feel good after. What is immoral is what you feel bad after.
    Ernest Hemingway

  48. #48
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what type of canoe is being used in the picture used by the AT to illustrate the PR?

  49. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Knoydart
    Posts
    936

    Default

    They look a bit like the 'old school' unsinkables we used in the Ardeche many moons ago..! They were made mostly by DAG.

    http://www.dag-kayak.com/uk-index.php

  50. #50
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
    You have to admit the Anglers Trust are brilliant at what they do.
    They're not that great, and perhaps ought to read this. Is it just me or does the sentence "While we want more people to get out and enjoy activities in the countryside they must be complimentary." sound like Richard Benyon is saying either a) that he wants people to say nice things about the countryside, or b) that activities in the countryside should be free?

  51. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Coventry (from Stoke on Trent)
    Posts
    1,525

    Default

    Were was the pic taken ? UK ?
    Ratty (Russ)

    I know only that what is moral is you feel good after. What is immoral is what you feel bad after.
    Ernest Hemingway

  52. #52
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattT View Post
    They look a bit like the 'old school' unsinkables we used in the Ardeche many moons ago..! They were made mostly by DAG.

    http://www.dag-kayak.com/uk-index.php
    Thanks mattT. I'd never heard of this company until I started looking around last night, as I was interested in the provenance of the photo. It's the same one that was used at the time of the Hants. Avon paddle. Looks like a hire group, and it would be amusing if it was taken on a French river.

  53. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Coventry (from Stoke on Trent)
    Posts
    1,525

    Default

    There are plenty of places to canoe where it is appropriate and others where it is not.

    Very vague and open to interpritation. ( I like this smiley)
    Ratty (Russ)

    I know only that what is moral is you feel good after. What is immoral is what you feel bad after.
    Ernest Hemingway

  54. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,969

    Default

    Check out the Angling Trust Facebook page... their supporters are threatening violence... of course they will say "Ha Ha we were only joking"... It is a crime to make violent threats.. Angling Trust Campaigns Coordinator, Martin Salter, I respectfully suggest you remove these criminal posts and apologize to the Canoeing community. You would get a lot of respect if you did that.

    "Or just have a rod with a 3 oz lead to hand for when they come past!!!!"

    "I found big spinners and 50lb line works well cast over the top and pull hard"

    "You mean a catty with AAA in?"

    "maggots do the job nicely, and no worry over being convicted for abh!"
    Doug Dew
    "The best is yet to come" My Father


  55. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Read this thread for the latest news. Petition to the House of Commons

    Weasely words indeed. humph!

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


  56. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdew99 View Post
    "maggots do the job nicely, and no worry over being convicted for abh!"

    The fellow that tried that on me probably will not do it again. I landed and quietly collected the maggots, walked back to his position, (he was a pale and insipid looking character by the time I got there) and dropped them in his lap. All I said was, "I think these are yours"

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


  57. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    4,824

    Default

    When I worked in a tackle shop I had to clean 7 gallons of maggot every delivery,stripped to the waist and up to the armpits in them so that would 'really' worry me

  58. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdew99 View Post
    Check out the Angling Trust Facebook page... their supporters are threatening violence... of course they will say "Ha Ha we were only joking"... It is a crime to make violent threats.. Angling Trust Campaigns Coordinator, Martin Salter, I respectfully suggest you remove these criminal posts and apologize to the Canoeing community. You would get a lot of respect if you did that.

    "Or just have a rod with a 3 oz lead to hand for when they come past!!!!"

    "I found big spinners and 50lb line works well cast over the top and pull hard"

    "You mean a catty with AAA in?"

    "maggots do the job nicely, and no worry over being convicted for abh!"
    Facebook take threats like this very seriously and can close accounts.

    Just complain. To report a page click on the small point down triangle near "message" and select "report page" then select appropriate comment. click OK

    Doug

    And in searching for the offensive comments found this
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


  59. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus2 View Post
    When I worked in a tackle shop I had to clean 7 gallons of maggot every delivery,stripped to the waist and up to the armpits in them so that would 'really' worry me
    Maggots don't worry me but I think I worried the shooter.
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


  60. #60
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Angling Trust chief executive Mark Lloyd has now put his name to the fact that AT clearly haven't got a clue by repeating the 'open canoeing' misconception (followed by a picture of kayakers this time ) in an AT Blog post on the Angler's Mail Blog.

    He continues by saying:
    We’re not anti-canoeing, by any means. All we want to see are some sensible rules, agreed on a river-by-river basis, that make sure that canoeing doesn’t interfere with anglers (who pay a licence and a permit to fish) and that canoeing doesn’t cause damage to the natural environment.

    Most sensible canoeists support these agreements, because they don’t want conflict and they are generally very keen to protect rivers.

    The BCU is standing in the way of these agreements, because they insist that any agreement must allow them to go paddling whenever and wherever they like.

    We’d all like to be able to go fishing wherever and whenever we liked, but there are rules in place to restrict angling so that there aren’t hundreds of anglers fishing the same pool and to protect the natural environment.

    We’d all also like not to have to pay for our fishing, or carry a rod licence, buy by doing so we help fund the management of our waters and we can also be identified if any of us breaks the rules.

    The BCU expects their members to be able to paddle wherever they want, pay nothing to anyone and carry no registration so that it’s difficult to identify paddlers who break the law.

    I don’t think that’s a responsible position for a national governing body of a sport to adopt, and we have written to the BCU to say so.

    Previous experience suggests that this will fall on deaf ears, but at least the Angling Trust’s position is supported by the Government and the Environment Agency.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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