Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 61 to 120 of 120

Thread: Welsh Dee access

  1. #61

    Default

    Call me a Polly Anna if you like, but Robbo makes a positive contribution to this thread because he provides some knowledge of this issue presented from the 'other side' and thereby tests the position which canoeists want to believe. Nothing much would be served if we all simply agreed with each other... he also gives us some advanced warning of what we might hear if Anglers Trust ever got specific in their legal case against us...
    Doug Dew
    "The best is yet to come" My Father


  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdew99 View Post
    Call me a Polly Anna if you like, but Robbo makes a positive contribution to this thread because he provides some knowledge of this issue presented from the 'other side' and thereby tests the position which canoeists want to believe. Nothing much would be served if we all simply agreed with each other... he also gives us some advanced warning of what we might hear if Anglers Trust ever got specific in their legal case against us...
    You give me, and yourselves, far too much credit. This will get ugly when it becomes a land law issue. When you canoe through someone’s garden, after he recently came to the property and was promised no one had used the stream for time out of mind you are going to need more than an interpretation of medieval statues and dicta from a disgraced judge referring to the Royal River, or you will lose in court. An Englishmans home is his castle and you will be fighting every fee simple in the country.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    You give me, and yourselves, far too much credit. This will get ugly when it becomes a land law issue. When you canoe through someone’s garden, after he recently came to the property and was promised no one had used the stream for time out of mind you are going to need more than an interpretation of medieval statues and dicta from a disgraced judge referring to the Royal River, or you will lose in court. An Englishmans home is his castle and you will be fighting every fee simple in the country.
    This recent garden buyer of yours. I'd be thinking he should be having a word with whomever promised him no-one had used the stream. You'd think more research had been done before people make promises these days. Shocking.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    You give me, and yourselves, far too much credit. This will get ugly when it becomes a land law issue. When you canoe through someone’s garden, after he recently came to the property and was promised no one had used the stream for time out of mind you are going to need more than an interpretation of medieval statues and dicta from a disgraced judge referring to the Royal River, or you will lose in court. An Englishmans home is his castle and you will be fighting every fee simple in the country.
    All these issues have already been decided [Rowland v EA]. It was upheld on repeal so it is established law.

    We are still waiting for some actual words from some of these cases that you claim support your position. When will you deliver the goods?

    Has your property buyer never heard the motto caveat emptor?

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twicezero View Post
    This recent garden buyer of yours. I'd be thinking he should be having a word with whomever promised him no-one had used the stream. You'd think more research had been done before people make promises these days. Shocking.

    You miss the point entirely. The radical views of a handful of canoeists, and advocates for canoe access who dont canoe, claim a right through 'the garden' whether proper searches had been carried out or not.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    You miss the point entirely.
    If I missed a point, it was due to you not making it in your post. I believe I covered what you typed. Please have another go at explaining.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    The radical views of a handful of canoeists, and advocates for canoe access who dont canoe, claim a right through 'the garden' whether proper searches had been carried out or not.
    Regarding this point. I think we do claim a right, yes. I'm glad we agree on that. I can't speak for your purchaser and his searches sounds like a private arrangement to me.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angut View Post
    All these issues have already been decided [Rowland v EA]. It was upheld on repeal so it is established law.

    We are still waiting for some actual words from some of these cases that you claim support your position. When will you deliver the goods?

    Has your property buyer never heard the motto caveat emptor?
    Dont overestimate the scope of Rowland. It disallowed private navigation rights quite rightly in my opinion, on a back-water of the Thames that had been prescribed those rights in a recent Act. To claim all rivers in the country can also disallow private navigation rights due to a medievel Act that narrowed its scope to four rivers, is a step too far for any judge to recognise. Did you also know there were four Great Roads back in those days too.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    Dont overestimate the scope of Rowland. It disallowed private navigation rights quite rightly in my opinion, on a back-water of the Thames that had been prescribed those rights in a recent Act. To claim all rivers in the country can also disallow private navigation rights due to a medievel Act that narrowed its scope to four rivers, is a step too far for any judge to recognise. Did you also know there were four Great Roads back in those days too.
    What are you talking about?
    Give us some exact words.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Staffs
    Posts
    115

    Default

    This thread seems to be riddled with riddles.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angut View Post
    What are you talking about?
    Give us some exact words.
    Linking Rowland to 1472 was a punt for Caffyn, to open up debate. Your strategy has been to take that loose connection between the two, claim it is the law and impose it on landowners, fishing clubs and even governments. When it isnt challenged to your satisfaction you encourage others to act on it, although obviously qualifying your ability. I was asked to provide a list of cases in civil courts [that] have established property rights over who may travel on a flowing river passing through the land. I did just that. Now play nicely or I will be kicked off!

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angut View Post
    What are you talking about?
    See my reply in post 67.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    To claim all rivers in the country can also disallow private navigation rights due to a medievel Act that narrowed its scope to four rivers, is a step too far for any judge to recognise.
    Which words in which medieval Act restricted it to which four rivers? No one has suggested disallowing private (presumably riparian) navigation rights. We are suggesting that riparian navigation rights do not disallow public navigation rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    Did you also know there were four Great Roads back in those days too.
    Are you suggesting that this view of the world restricted/restricts public rights of way to these four "great roads"? What about all other highways, byways, bridal paths and footpaths?
    Keith

  13. #73

    Default

    I do wonder if, with time, most within hte fishing scene are accepting canoeing and it is just the few diehards are jerking in the death throws of the debate?

    Years ago I would received grief quite often, now it is rarely so and we are just being accepted by most. Certain sections of Dee, Wye and parts of the Angling Trust being the acception.

    Time heals many things, hopefully we can both enjoy our passtimes with respect for the others.

    A case in point:

    Paddled a prime fishing river yesterday and came to a section where it was slalom around the fly fishermen.

    We gave respect, they gave respect and plesantries were exchanged without problem.

    Similarly when we met the people who were what i would refer to as normal casting. (dont know the exact term)

    And at the get out, i fisherman came up to me to ask where i had got out so he could fish just below. We exchanged pleasantries, spoke about whether we had seen any fish today and had a laught together about his season so far.

    How it should be!

    A very pleasant paddle for us and a good days fishing for those we met.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    . I was asked to provide a list of cases in civil courts [that] have established property rights over who may travel on a flowing river passing through the land. I did just that.
    That was on a different thread.

    However a number of those cases had nothing to do with water in rivers,

    For example "John Trenberth v National Westminster Bank [1979] 39 P & CR 104" access to repair buildings, "Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd. [1978] 1 QB 479" airspace over a property, and "Star Energy Weald Basin Limited v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35" oil and strata beneath property.

    Maybe we could have a list that only addresses cases involving flowing water in rivers.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
    That was on a different thread.

    However a number of those cases had nothing to do with water in rivers,

    For example "John Trenberth v National Westminster Bank [1979] 39 P & CR 104" access to repair buildings, "Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd. [1978] 1 QB 479" airspace over a property, and "Star Energy Weald Basin Limited v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35" oil and strata beneath property.

    Maybe we could have a list that only addresses cases involving flowing water in rivers.
    Didn't you know that a profit a prendre for fishing rights gives exclusive rights over everything from the centre of the Earth up to the sky and out to the furthest galaxy. To the patriarchs in Robbo's pub these cases are all relevant.

    As I have said before, most fishermen are not fools. They know bovine excrement when they see it. Robbo is only preaching to the chior.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Don't forget the maxim of the law "Merda taurorum animas conturbit"!
    Keith

  17. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike A View Post
    I do wonder if, with time, most within hte fishing scene are accepting canoeing and it is just the few diehards are jerking in the death throws of the debate?

    Years ago I would received grief quite often, now it is rarely so and we are just being accepted by most. Certain sections of Dee, Wye and parts of the Angling Trust being the acception.

    Time heals many things, hopefully we can both enjoy our passtimes with respect for the others.

    A case in point:

    Paddled a prime fishing river yesterday and came to a section where it was slalom around the fly fishermen.

    We gave respect, they gave respect and plesantries were exchanged without problem.

    Similarly when we met the people who were what i would refer to as normal casting. (dont know the exact term)

    And at the get out, i fisherman came up to me to ask where i had got out so he could fish just below. We exchanged pleasantries, spoke about whether we had seen any fish today and had a laught together about his season so far.

    How it should be!

    A very pleasant paddle for us and a good days fishing for those we met.
    Exactly as it should be. The fishermen didn't have any irrational dislike for you and presumably you weren't ramming your access rights down their throats and claiming Magna Carta said you could be there?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,519

    Default

    bovem de stercore perturbat cerebrum

  19. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
    That was on a different thread.

    However a number of those cases had nothing to do with water in rivers,

    For example "John Trenberth v National Westminster Bank [1979] 39 P & CR 104" access to repair buildings, "Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd. [1978] 1 QB 479" airspace over a property, and "Star Energy Weald Basin Limited v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35" oil and strata beneath property.

    Maybe we could have a list that only addresses cases involving flowing water in rivers.
    Er, Skyviews and Natwest relate to trespass to land above the surface of the earth to a reasonable height and Bocardo relates to trespass to land below the surface, to beneath mineral deposits. In a incised channel you will be engaging trespass under both common law heads. This is a land law issue as I have previously mentioned. Get used to that.

  20. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithD View Post
    Don't forget the maxim of the law "Merda taurorum animas conturbit"!
    Keith. I will simply be ignoring you from now on.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    In a incised channel you will be engaging trespass under both common law heads. This is a land law issue as I have previously mentioned. Get used to that.
    All the above quoted cases involve specific cases where trespass has been claimed to ascertain the extent/limits of the term and hence the law.

    Could you direct us to a case that concerns someone floating on water flowing through a piece of land?

  22. #82

    Default

    A court would certainly be asked to consider the legal principles contained in two of these cases for sure. Skyviews for instance held that the airspace above land can be owned, to such height as was necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and the structures upon it. Penny dropped yet?

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    Penny dropped yet?
    So the answer is no then?

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,519

    Default

    Of course, these arguments can be developed in a variety of ways to suit the position of those seeking to persuade. Yes, this is something to do with land law and yes, land law is distinct from water law as evidenced by a number of common law issues for example the difference between tidal and non-tidal waterways. Riparian owners are the owners of the ‘bank’, that’s what it means, if it meant owner of the river, we would probably use the term ‘riverine’ or some-such. The Land Registry has, of recent years, been making a point of not registering ownership to the centre of a river (as has previously been assumed) unless the party can demonstrate actual ownership of the river bed. So, are we really talking about land law or are we talking about the rights of the public, irrespective of ‘over what’?

    Almost without exception, laws are designed to stop you from doing something rather than to permit or require you to do something. I’m sure there are a few such as requiring disclosure of criminal activity but even then, this is about essentially accomplices. If there was a law which specifically precluded travelling on natural waterways, I think someone would be able to point us to it.

  25. #85

    Default

    "If there was a law which specifically precluded travelling on natural waterways, I think someone would be able to point us to it."

    And riparian land owners would be suing canoeists using such a law...
    Doug Dew
    "The best is yet to come" My Father


  26. #86

    Default

    The bed of the river is the soil covered by water in any other time than extreme flood [ Menzies v Breadalbane [1828) 32 R.R. 103]. There is a presumption that the bed of the river to its centre is owned by the riparian owner of the land abutting the water, who has certain rights and responsibilities [Environment Agency- Living on the Edge]. A general rule of conveyancing is that when land, which is bound by a non-tidal watercourse, is conveyed the bed of the stream up to the middle of the river goes with the land [Tilbury v. Silva [1889] 45 Ch Div 98]


  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    A court would certainly be asked to consider the legal principles contained in two of these cases for sure. Skyviews for instance held that the airspace above land can be owned, to such height as was necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and the structures upon it. Penny dropped yet?
    Maybe the penny would drop if you gave us the exact words the judges said. Your own personal commentry has proved unreliable in the past so no one will trust it.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,519

    Default

    I don't have a good source for this but I can probably find it if necessary:

    A letter from the Land Registry Head Office.

    RE. Registration of land covered by water.

    Thank you for your letter dated 17 March. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

    As part of a review of the Land Registry ’s approach to the application of general boundaries in 2009, the methodology for mapping land abutting a non-tidal river was examined.

    Previously, the convention adopted was that where a parcel of land abutted a non-tidal river, but the title deeds were silent as to the inclusion or exclusion of the river and there was nothing to cast doubt on the ad medium filum presumption (that adjoining landowners own to the mid-point of the river), the title plan would be mapped to include half of the non-tidal river’s width within the red edging. If the title deeds specifically included or excluded the river, then it was included within, or shown outside, the red edging (as appropriate).

    Our view now is that, generally, titles founded on the ad medium filum presumption are unsatisfactory, the presumption (like any presumption) being rebuttable. We are likely therefore to exclude rivers from the red edging on the title plan unless a satisfactory title has been deduced. Nevertheless, as with highways, this is only a convention and we will depart from it if there is thought to be good reason in a particular case for doing so.

    It needs to be remembered that the inclusion in, or exclusion from, the red edging of the whole or part of the river is not conclusive as to ownership. All registered title plans show only the general position of boundaries, unless they are shown as having been determined as exact boundaries pursuant to section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    A court would certainly be asked to consider the legal principles contained in two of these cases for sure. Skyviews for instance held that the airspace above land can be owned, to such height as was necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and the structures upon it. Penny dropped yet?
    I don't think they would Robbo. Why would anyone want to waste their time on that? The key point that would resolve all other issues is that you can't trespass where you have a right to be. (Sorry I don't know the Latin for that but I'm sure you do.) So the only points needing consideration are

    1. Has there ever been a public right of navigation?
    2. Has it ever been lawfully extinguished?
    Keith

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,538

    Default

    In the long run we will be sharing the rivers with the anglers and others, even if the AT were to gain a small victory in court the fight would then become political. Look at history for a clue as to what may be the outcome, the CROW act gave us access to the moors and mountains even though the grouse shooters had powerful friends in government. They said it would destroy their sport, did it? NO, they just needed to adapt to the situation. They said it was not possible to put a path around the coast, but it is well underway with a completion target of 2020. The ramblers are now campaigning for more access to our forests and I would put money on them succeeding. The paddlers will not stop using the rivers no matter what happens, once the genie is out of the bottle there is no going back, any political settlement will include access to the rivers as well and the Ramblers may be asking for footpaths alongside the rivers at the same time. The rest of the world agrees with our view of what is right and I believe parliament would also.

    The political climate has changed in favour of people being free to enjoy the pleasures of the countryside and has moved away from blood sports, who would have thought that fox hunting would go, angling in its present form only survives because of the exemption from the Animal Welfare Act 2006 that would be an issue in any political debate. The worst outcome for the anglers in the long term would be to win a court case.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  31. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post
    I don't have a good source for this but I can probably find it if necessary:
    Sounds like a land grab by the state. Riparian rights can be onerous, but there cannot be many instances of bed soil being anything but an easy gain. And what can 'satisfactory' mean? Sounds subjective. The common law triumphs over land register dictates anyway. Medium filum rules.

  32. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    The common law triumphs over land register dictates anyway.
    Indeed, and the note recognises that registration does not over-ride actual ownership. At our club we recently had a run-in with the Land Registry where they refused to register in accordance with our deeds, they divided our plot into four separate chunks and attributed different levels of ownership to each, some on the basis of us not 'occupying' the plot of land; a bit like you not occupying your front garden.

  33. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudman View Post
    In the long run we will be sharing the rivers with the anglers and others.

    In the long run, no one will care.
    http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.uk/

  34. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    In the long run, no one will care.
    http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.uk/
    If you read that stuff I am not surprised you won't care.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  35. #95

    Default

    Ok so i got bored of reading through the tit for tat and general trolling so apologies if i am recovering old ground.

    Where the Welsh Dee through Llangollen is concerned, there are several hundreds of years of clear evidence of uncontested navigation. Even a non believer in general PRoN would struggle to argue against it existing here...

    On subject of Welsh Dee Partnership and its funding, here is a link to my reply to Tim Jones of Natural Resource Wales following my meeting with him last week. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...ew?usp=sharing
    Promoting sustainable access on the welsh Dee from gradientfood.com - an outdoor sports themed sandwich bar in Llangollen

  36. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    North Devon
    Posts
    2,037

    Default

    Sterling work Mr T. The reply should be interesting.
    Paul
    Just goin with the flow

  37. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    cambs
    Posts
    1,363

    Default

    Excellent: thanks for acting on behalf of us all
    Sam

  38. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Well done Phil. A very well reasoned and reasonable letter.
    ​Change is inevitable; progress is optional.

  39. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nr Hampton Court, West London
    Posts
    2,534

    Default

    Not only a brave but necessary stance that you took up, but a masterful open letter, firm, honest, to the point, but not confrontational. Well done. I too would like to thanks you for putting your head above the parapet in Llangollen .

    Impcanoe

  40. #100
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlipT View Post
    Ok so i got bored of reading through the tit for tat and general trolling so apologies if i am recovering old ground.

    Where the Welsh Dee through Llangollen is concerned, there are several hundreds of years of clear evidence of uncontested navigation. Even a non believer in general PRoN would struggle to argue against it existing here...

    On subject of Welsh Dee Partnership and its funding, here is a link to my reply to Tim Jones of Natural Resource Wales following my meeting with him last week. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...ew?usp=sharing
    Well done, I thought the letter covered the subject very well without being to aggressive.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  41. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    18,886

    Default

    An excellent, well-reasoned and fair bit of work. Thank you Phil.
    Covering as many malmiles as possible before being distracted by the pub!

    Paddle Points - where to paddle

  42. #102

    Default

    Hi Philip,
    That is an excellent & well reasoned letter, I hope it will result in things changing, thank you for putting so much time & effort into this work. One question, I notice at the bottom of page 3 that you refer to anglers as being 1% of river users, is this nationally or on the river Dee? As a subsequent question (sorry 2 questions not 1) where does this statistic come from?
    Thanks Ken

  43. #103

    Default

    Hi Ken, the statistic is directly relevant to the section of welsh dee covered by 'welsh dee fishing/partnership'
    Its a very loose statistic gained from several personal trips on the dee where boats and anglers are counted at different times on different days over the last few weeks. I explained this to Tim in our meeting and asked NRW to conduct their own research on user statistics. My use of this in the letter is to prompt them to do so. Third party statistics would be far more accurate than my crude method though I honestly think that when commercial rafting is taken into account anglers would actually represent an even smaller percentage over the whole year.
    Promoting sustainable access on the welsh Dee from gradientfood.com - an outdoor sports themed sandwich bar in Llangollen

  44. #104

    Default

    Oh and forgot to say that nationally speaking (and off the top of my head as not at a computer) I believe there were 1.2m licenced anglers last year and an estimated 1.1m people got in a canoe/kayak last year according to the bcu/maritime survey. Paddle sports figures to any degree of accuracy basically don't exist it seems.
    Promoting sustainable access on the welsh Dee from gradientfood.com - an outdoor sports themed sandwich bar in Llangollen

  45. #105

    Default

    Hi Philip,
    Thanks, Ken

  46. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Well done Phil.

    My own approach to the Ombudsman has got a reference number so far which means they need to assess if it is a matter they can consider. Watch this space but don't hold your breath.

  47. #107

    Default

    There’s an interesting email doing the rounds of various angling bodies and organisations at the moment concerning Splash funding, the Welsh Dee Partnership and WUF involvement. Is the recipient going to post it on here?

  48. #108

  49. #109

    Default

    Yeah sorry, forgot to post it here - thats the reply i got. I posted it up publicly and linked it to all that signed the petition but evidently the fishing bodies have gone about re-uploading it between themselves.
    It will be a while before i respond whilst collect my thoughts - nothing in there that wasnt expected, though it is the first time Wye Usk Foundation have been named as initiators of the scheme. NRW were never going to accept they obviously acted without full consideration of stakeholders, the legal interpretations nor their own study that they reference in their reply.

    No point in me re-linking the letter as its already above, but i would like to add the following paragraph from a letter sent by the welsh government on 10th November which indicates movement in the direction of public interest and contradicts slightly with the nrw letter to me;

    "Colleagues from Natural Resources Wales (NRW), who administer the Splash fund, have indicated that some of the language used by the Welsh Dee Partnership did not embrace the idea of cooperation and shared use which the Welsh Government expects. This is something that NRW are seeking to resolve."

    moral of the story - more paddlers should do more to protect the public interest and our rights. It does make a difference. 'just going paddling' does not.
    Promoting sustainable access on the welsh Dee from gradientfood.com - an outdoor sports themed sandwich bar in Llangollen

  50. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Romsey, Paddle estuaries within an hour, also club member and coach, and scout canoeing helper
    Posts
    656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    . Denning actually injuncted a canoeist and said he could injure fishing rights even when he wasn't there
    Just to clarify - The canoeist (Peters) was on the river - Denning said he could injure the right of fishing even though no one was there fishing at the time.

    This judgement was based on previous case(s) including where pollution from a mine was held to have injured fishing by clouding the water.
    It is worth knowing that Peters had not claimed any right of Navigation (and I believe that he did not attend court), the evidence about effects of the disturbance came from an angling club official, and Denning himself was a keen angler. The case was afterwards criticised by the House of Lords as a bad way to make law, so it may not be an reliable precedent for any future case.
    Brevan,
    1664 - a great year for river access
    Romsey, Hampshire
    Twitter: BrevanM
    Follow my blog at http://riveraccessrights.blogspot.com/

  51. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlipT View Post
    Yeah sorry, forgot to post it here - thats the reply i got. I posted it up publicly and linked it to all that signed the petition but evidently the fishing bodies have gone about re-uploading it between themselves.
    It will be a while before i respond whilst collect my thoughts - nothing in there that wasnt expected, though it is the first time Wye Usk Foundation have been named as initiators of the scheme. NRW were never going to accept they obviously acted without full consideration of stakeholders, the legal interpretations nor their own study that they reference in their reply.

    No point in me re-linking the letter as its already above, but i would like to add the following paragraph from a letter sent by the welsh government on 10th November which indicates movement in the direction of public interest and contradicts slightly with the nrw letter to me;

    "Colleagues from Natural Resources Wales (NRW), who administer the Splash fund, have indicated that some of the language used by the Welsh Dee Partnership did not embrace the idea of cooperation and shared use which the Welsh Government expects. This is something that NRW are seeking to resolve."

    moral of the story - more paddlers should do more to protect the public interest and our rights. It does make a difference. 'just going paddling' does not.
    His reply reminds me of the saying "No one every got sacked for buying IBM" he is just repeating the standard line and playing safe to protect his back, who can blame him for not wanting to risk his job. As he says it is for the courts to decide not him!!
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  52. #112
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Kidderminster, North Worcestershire
    Posts
    427

    Default

    I planned to paddle the Dee last sunday, the level was about 1m, so according to the Welsh Dee Partnership. It would be good to go. Arriving at Mile End Mill, I was able to have a look at the river. It was flowing over the island.

    So I conclude that the Welsh Dee Partnership's intention is to kill and injure as many canoeists and kayakers as poss. Looking at the levels, with my experience and knowledge, I recommend that the levels that the Welsh Dee Partnership have given are ignored. Personally any thing over 0.6 is good to go. Certainly the Fire Service was out on Sunday rescuing people from the town falls.

  53. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave B View Post
    I planned to paddle the Dee last sunday, the level was about 1m, so according to the Welsh Dee Partnership. It would be good to go. Arriving at Mile End Mill, I was able to have a look at the river. It was flowing over the island.

    So I conclude that the Welsh Dee Partnership's intention is to kill and injure as many canoeists and kayakers as poss. Looking at the levels, with my experience and knowledge, I recommend that the levels that the Welsh Dee Partnership have given are ignored. Personally any thing over 0.6 is good to go. Certainly the Fire Service was out on Sunday rescuing people from the town falls.
    The same comments were made about the upper Dee levels, as the same people are involved with both of these farce "arrangements" it is not surprising. Both should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  54. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Claxton
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this question, but are paddlers following the rules and regulations set out on the Dee, or are people just paddling it as they feel like it?

    I'm thinking about going for a weekend, but I'm not sure it is worth the hassle?

    I would be in a group of 2 tandem open canoes, trying to increase our white water experience before a trip down the Spey.
    The early bird may catch the worm... but the second mouse gets the cheese!

  55. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,519

    Default

    There are no rules and regulations, only stuff made up by people who don't want you on the river. Just ignore them

  56. #116
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Claxton
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Thanks for the quick reply!
    The early bird may catch the worm... but the second mouse gets the cheese!

  57. #117
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    546

    Default

    The Dee is a fabulous river, we're lucky to have such a wonderful resource and its a pity that a small group of people are so determined to prevent the river being used freely. Ignore their assertions which hold no authority whatsoever and enjoy one of the best rivers around flowing through some wonderful countryside.

  58. #118
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by broadsman View Post
    Thanks for the quick reply!
    Hi Robin,

    Never had much hassle on the Dee. One or two grumpy fishermen, but you get that everywhere.

    The stretch from Lllangollen Town to Erbistock (or to Bangor, if you want to extend it and do some real distance) is a brilliant, scenic paddle and very 'Spey'-ish in terms of difficulty - there's an easy grade 3/hard grade 2, then lots of shallow rapids, grade 2s, a couple of weirs etc.

    If you were making a weekend of it, you could combine it with a run from Corwen to Horseshoe Weir, just above Lllangollen.

    I'm 40 mins from the Dee - if you're thinking of coming up this way, give me a shout!

  59. #119
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Stone , Staffs
    Posts
    1,779

    Default

    Use the gauge at Mile end mill to give yourself and idea of the going the river gets quite pushy around 0.7 and above on the gauge or check in on Rainchasers ...

    Mile end mill is a great spot for park and play to work on technique

    http://rainchasers.com/river/dee/hor...lls-llangollen


    Never had any problems on the Dee and paddle it a lot ... As above the Dee is stunning
    Last edited by pipster3; 25th-March-2015 at 03:47 PM.

  60. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Claxton
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Cheers Per, Pipster and Mike.

    We were thinking of sometime over the Easter weekend. I'm hoping its not a special fishing holiday, or something similar!

    The routes Per mentioned sound like the business.

    Thanks again,

    Robin
    The early bird may catch the worm... but the second mouse gets the cheese!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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