Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 61 to 83 of 83

Thread: Charging to pass fishery on the Wye

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Berrow, Worcestershire
    Posts
    667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisPage View Post
    There is a difference between a tree being down as it fell.... My point was that as paddlers we should be expecting rivers to be manicured for navigation.... If there's an inkling that a move to recognise existing or legislate for new PRN would lead to a huge burden on landowners.
    This feels like deja vu all over again. Nobody is suggesting he manicures the river, just that he refrains from using it as a dumping ground for barbed wire and concrete blocks.

    As for any additional burdens, regardless of whether there is a PRN, the riparian owner already has numerous responsibilities by way of maintaining the river, including, since you mention it, the removal of fallen trees. He also has the responsibility to maintain the natural watercourse, not cause any obstructions that might lead to flood.... etc etc ad infinitum.
    I'm at that difficult age... somewhere between birth and death.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    I received this answer from Geoff:

    Hello Doug

    Sorry for the late response, I only just saw this.

    Thanks for the advice. I am actually only targeting those companies and organisations who are making large sums of money from directing their customers and clients through my property, not the solo paddlers who are of minor concern in comparison.

    People need my permission to paddle through my stretch. This is not my opinion, it is the law. Just because many canoeists feel that the law is ‘wrong’, that doesn’t alter the fact that the law exists - and it’s the same law that should protect you from people abusing your property.

    I hope that my charges will persuade the armadas of hire canoes to launch where they can do so for free (downstream of Hay bridge) and so reverse the situation we now have, where a ‘we can do whatever we like’ attitude has reduced my fishery from that of a beautiful location to a theme park full of screaming day-trippers. This will benefit all those who use and appreciate the river - rather than just those who are profiting from it at all our expense - but especially mine.

    Geoff

    I now asked for clarification on the "law" that everyone in your position and Angling Trust fails to show or declare. I have never come across a law that says it is illegal to canoe on a river in England or Wales.

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


  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Pershore, worcs.
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Hi guys, a few of us paddled Glasbury to Whitney last weekend and saw nobody and saw no obstructions just had a great paddle. There where a few hire canoes on the water too and as far as I'm aware they had no issue either. Hopefully you all have the same experience. I did here that this guys wife is the mayor of Hay on Wye so whether he believes this will give him some clout but I doubt it. Also that his heavies aren't all that heavy! Obviously I can't confirm these comments but they did make me smile just a little. Happy paddling guys Atb, Daz.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Mid-Wales
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Thanks for the update. I'm hoping to head along from Glasbury this weekend.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Badger73 View Post
    Hi guys, a few of us paddled Glasbury to Whitney last weekend and saw nobody and saw no obstructions just had a great paddle. There where a few hire canoes on the water too and as far as I'm aware they had no issue either. Hopefully you all have the same experience. I did here that this guys wife is the mayor of Hay on Wye so whether he believes this will give him some clout but I doubt it. Also that his heavies aren't all that heavy! Obviously I can't confirm these comments but they did make me smile just a little. Happy paddling guys Atb, Daz.
    Hopefully reality has kicked in and he has taken some sound advice, as the actions he was proposing could have serious implications for him. As for his wife being Mayor of Hay-on-Wye this would work against him as she must stick to the law and be neutral in her actions.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    cambs
    Posts
    1,498

    Default

    I paddled that stretch with a group on Sunday. There a few hire parties on the river. No idea where his fishery is, but only saw one fisherman who we passed behind. He just got on with casting and ignored us.
    Sam

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    90

    Default

    It's currently the fishing close season (April 14 to June 14 (ish)). So any fisherman that you see is probably breaking the law anyway.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,829

    Default

    Open for salmon and trout

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudman View Post
    Hopefully reality has kicked in and he has taken some sound advice, as the actions he was proposing could have serious implications for him. As for his wife being Mayor of Hay-on-Wye this would work against him as she must stick to the law and be neutral in her actions.
    Perhaps he's looked at the evidence and has changed his opinion on what the law is. A summary of the evidence is on River Access for All and a more detailed version can be downloaded at http://www.riveraccessforall.co.uk/d...efordshire.pdf

    There is very clear evidence that neither Parliament, the officers of the county of Radnor, landowners or the users/carriers on the river considered that the navigation was confined to Herefordshire and downstream.
    Keith

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Mid-Wales
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Did Glasbury to Hay yesterday and saw no obvious signs of a concrete block (river is quite low at the moment) although there were signs of some pieces of fence wire-thickness wire-like stuff covered in bits of weed river right somewhere around the danger point shown on Paddlepoints. They were sticking 3 feet or so above the water level. Also one of my colleagues in Hay today (non-paddler) said that there was a known obstruction in the river between Glasbury and Hay but she was unclear whereabouts.

    No hassle from the fishery owner, nor any others, at any time during the trip.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chesham in Bucks.
    Posts
    1,320

    Default

    Well, I think I'll be passing through this stretch over the Summer.

    From what has been said it seems unlikely there'll be any attempt to extract a passage fee but if so the course of action seems clear.

    Remain polite.
    Keep a camera running of the proceedings.
    Make a complaint to the local police reporting pubic nuisance (hindering a public right of way) and fraud. If there are threats involved that's another one for the police report.
    Make absolutely sure the complaint is recorded in writing and obtain the case number for follow up.

    What action the police actually take is up to them. But it's a start ...
    Happy paddling ,
    Rob.


  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Berrow, Worcestershire
    Posts
    667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwing View Post
    ...Make a complaint to the local police ...
    I think the police have got enough on their plates. After the initial publicity it sounds to me like he'll probably ignore any respectful canoeists (us) and that all he wants to do is discourage the hire companies. And I must admit, having witnessed the hire companies and their clientele on the Wye, I don't blame him.

    In any case, if anyone gets abuse, just bid him good day, feign ignorance or deafness and stick to the middle of the river - what can he do?
    I'm at that difficult age... somewhere between birth and death.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chesham in Bucks.
    Posts
    1,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Feet View Post
    I think the police have got enough on their plates.
    This is true. But however inconvenient it is their job to uphold the law not ours. That is what they are paid for.
    Happy paddling ,
    Rob.


  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Berrow, Worcestershire
    Posts
    667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwing View Post
    This is true. But however inconvenient it is their job to uphold the law not ours. That is what they are paid for.
    True, but if all we're talking about is a bit of 'mud-slinging', I really don't think the police need to get involved. Just suggesting we exercise a bit of perspective... I'd rather the police were out catching drug dealers and the like.
    I'm at that difficult age... somewhere between birth and death.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,829

    Default

    Whose job is it to decide which crimes should be investigated by the police? The obvious corollary is which crimes do we think should be ignored, not pursued, maybe even taken off the statute books if no-one is going to enforce them? My guess is that the answer to this question is the legislature and I understood they had already made their mind up about this.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chesham in Bucks.
    Posts
    1,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Feet View Post
    True, but if all we're talking about is a bit of 'mud-slinging', I really don't think the police need to get involved. Just suggesting we exercise a bit of perspective... I'd rather the police were out catching drug dealers and the like.
    Well, yes I would rather 'the police were out catching drug dealers and the like' as well, although I suspect there are also other things they do with their time that I wouldn't mind them prioritising differently

    If I may answer Adrian's post here as well, its is the police's own job to decide which crimes they should investigate (although they are held accountable for those choices) which does seem to argue that the exercising of a sense of perspective is properly also the responsibility of the police.

    More seriously erosion of our public and civil rights is a problem, in our case that of being able to paddle down a river. When confronted with someone trying to take away that right we all have choices to make, for some it may be best to just comply and not suffer confrontation, others may prefer to smile or laugh and just continue to pass down the river, others may try to push back, hopefully in a lawful manner. We all make our own choices.
    Happy paddling ,
    Rob.


  17. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post
    Whose job is it to decide which crimes should be investigated by the police? The obvious corollary is which crimes do we think should be ignored, not pursued, maybe even taken off the statute books if no-one is going to enforce them?......
    As a keen cyclist I have strong opinions about Policing and Enforcement. Lack of enforcement can cause many problems that are later very difficult to overcome. Good example is mobile phone use whilst driving where the lack of any enforcement has convinced far too many drivers that whilst illegal, they will never get caught as Police are not interested - so they freely use their phones whilst driving with predictable results. The the Police have to start specific campaigns to try and reverse the trend that lack of enforcement created. And those "campaigns" cost more and are not particularly effective e.g. as most of the time most drivers will not get "done" for mobile use and they know that.

    Allow a behaviour to become entrenched and it is a real challenge to subsequently change whilst "nip it in the bud" and you never really have any problem to solve.

    Ian

  18. #78
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Berrow, Worcestershire
    Posts
    667

    Default

    Okay chaps. On the assumption that he hasn't yet broken the law - either by extracting a fee for using 'his' waters, or using force to prevent anyone from so doing - what action would you like the police to take against him?
    I'm at that difficult age... somewhere between birth and death.

  19. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Feet View Post
    Okay chaps. On the assumption that he hasn't yet broken the law - either by extracting a fee for using 'his' waters, or using force to prevent anyone from so doing - what action would you like the police to take against him?
    "Conspiracy to ..." i.e. he has announced his intended action (allegedly breaking the law).

    I've no idea if that is actually a sensible answer as I'm no legal expert but just a thought.

    I'd have hoped the ideal situation would be some body (legislative or whatever) to have taken some action to clarify (officially) the legal situation (beyond paying some lawyers to give them the answer they are paying for). What do Ramblers do what some landowner starts threatening to close an alleged public footpath?

    Ian

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psamathe View Post
    "Conspiracy to ..."
    Oh puhlease! That's right up there with "I'm offended and someone else should do something about it!"
    -------------------------
    You! Off my planet!

  21. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwing View Post
    Make a complaint to the local police reporting pubic nuisance (hindering a public right of way) and fraud. If there are threats involved that's another one for the police report.
    Whilst I might agree, the "right of way" (or right of navigation) is still disputed.

  22. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ounce View Post
    Oh puhlease! That's right up there with "I'm offended and someone else should do something about it!"
    You could have quoted the next sentence in my reply
    Quote Originally Posted by Psamathe View Post
    ....
    I've no idea if that is actually a sensible answer as I'm no legal expert but just a thought.
    ....
    Lets not bother with putting anything in context (in the spirit it was said) - just extract the bit that allows you to "Oh puhlease!"

    And in reality there are many many situations where "I'm offended and someone else should do something about it!" is a perfectly reasonable response (when doing something about a wrong is beyond the power of an individual and within the power of others). I confess to not liking the spirit of your post - makes the forum an unfriendly place for people to contribute so I'll probably be leaving now (driven away by an Administrator).

    Ian

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Lochwinnoch, Scotland
    Posts
    16,908
    Journal Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psamathe View Post
    You could have quoted the next sentence in my reply

    Lets not bother with putting anything in context (in the spirit it was said) - just extract the bit that allows you to "Oh puhlease!"

    And in reality there are many many situations where "I'm offended and someone else should do something about it!" is a perfectly reasonable response (when doing something about a wrong is beyond the power of an individual and within the power of others). I confess to not liking the spirit of your post - makes the forum an unfriendly place for people to contribute so I'll probably be leaving now (driven away by an Administrator).

    Ian
    Ian it is hard to balance having a friendly forum and allowing discussion on pretty much anything. Where the line is between these two things is something everyone will never agree on.

    None of the Mods or Admins are posting with any special emphasis or power when using the forum as normal. When they are having to ban someone or the like it is clearly in a different context. They help out for free and that generosity should not mean they cannot use the forum just like anyone else. But it also means there posts are just posts like any other member and should not carry any more weight to “drive you away”. I certainly can’t see one reply with no further clarification being a good reason to leave the forum but of course you are free to use or not use the forum if you want.

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
  •