Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 60 of 83

Thread: Charging to pass fishery on the Wye

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    776

    Default Charging to pass fishery on the Wye

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/1643...0449269222992/


    Mr Maynard would seem to be bringing a new dimension to the access debate, proposing to charge people to pass through his fishery.
    "I'd far rather be happy than right any day"..........Slartibartfast

    http://apachecanoes.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    It won't end well for him. Maybe people will need some of these


  3. #3

    Default

    He is probably trying to achieve 2 things, first to make newcomers to paddling take up another hobby. If on your first paddling trip on a river where there is a right of navigation you are accosted by a man demanding money with menaces, you may decide you would rather do a different hobby especially if you have young kids in your family with you. Second he probably plans to make money out of this. If anyone pays up then he will be able to claim that this shows that paddlers accept that he controls navigation on the Wye & more of this sort of action will be taken against paddlers.
    Ken

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    776

    Default

    This was posted on CanoeWales website on 1st February:

    This message has been posted on Facebook by the owner of Llanthomas Fishery (downstream of the Hollybush Inn):
    "All Canoe Operators and paddlers: Please be very aware if paddling Glasbury to Hay - the recent floods have exposed fresh very large concrete rubble with steel reinforcing rods sticking out - these are akin to tank-traps for canoes and kayaks. They are potentially very dangerous with the water at its current height and are in the middle of the river, by the sandmartin cliffs at Llanthomas. Keep clear! Please forward to any other canoe users in the area."




    So has this owner now removed his concrete "tank/canoe" traps to allow safe passage?
    "I'd far rather be happy than right any day"..........Slartibartfast

    http://apachecanoes.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    1,966

    Default

    Out of his mind!!!!

    Unless he offers: Car parking (with security from marauding anglers), toilets (kept clean), showers (heated of course), fresh potable water. Maybe a shuttle service. Oh and camping with provision for open fires and some wood.

    Otherwise we just pass through.

    He's an idiot!

    Doug
    Last edited by dougoutcanoe; 27th-February-2018 at 02:49 PM.
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nr Hampton Court, West London
    Posts
    2,879

    Default

    How ever.......We all pass quietly through, seeking to avoid disturbing fishermen when we can,............but I am not sure that the hire canoes stag parties and lads days out show the same amount of concern, just remembering a trip on the Severn behind a very large group.

    Impcanoe

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Derby England
    Posts
    249

    Default

    The replies to his post on Hay and Wye community facebook page make good reading.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/1643...0449269222992/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    SW France
    Posts
    2,729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Impcanoe View Post
    How ever.......We all pass quietly through, seeking to avoid disturbing fishermen when we can,............but I am not sure that the hire canoes stag parties and lads days out show the same amount of concern, just remembering a trip on the Severn behind a very large group.

    Impcanoe

    I know now this isn't directly related to the specific river but I have a couple of observations ...

    firstly, this is just a sad state of affairs to me speaking as an outsider in a fishing/hunting mad country where everyone starts by recognizing that they need to share.

    Secondly, and specific to the post from Impcanoe, I just got the first people I refused to hire to with my Canoe Massif Central set up. I always actually speak to the people who enquire to get a feel for a number of things including paddle experience etc and it normally ends up with nothing more than a suggestion that maybe the upper Allier isn't a good start point or something like that.

    ive recently been asked for 5 boats somewhere. No clue about where or what the rivers were, comments that it was to extend a party of 30 people with inflatables and questions like "will they really try to make us wear BAs" and then "well how will they stop us anyway, most of the inflatable guys don't have them anyway"

    i say this for a reason .... Their stated paddle experience was river Wye trips in the uk. I refused the hire, obviously.

    Im not defending anything about the Fishery guy here because he is massively wrong, especially if concrete blocks are considered, but I really get what Impcanoe said here given what I've started to see

    my 2p
    MarkL
    www.canoemassifcentral.com
    Open Canoe hire/outfitting in the Massif Central
    ”We will make your trip work”



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    North Devon
    Posts
    2,084

    Default

    Is it just a coincidence that this all starts on April 1st?
    Just goin with the flow

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougoutcanoe View Post
    Out of his mind!!!! He's and idiot! Doug
    A picture speaks a thousand words!!!!!



    https://www.facebook.com/geoff.mayna...location=group
    Last edited by cloudman; 27th-February-2018 at 02:44 PM.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,629

    Default

    Mr Maynard is in my opinion committing an act of "Fraud" by taking money from people without the legal right to do so.

    If it was legal to charge people to navigate a river then anyone with land adjoining a river would be able to set up a Toll Booth and collect a fee. If this was legally possible then it would be widespread, as we know it isn't and never has been. Below is the wording of the "Fraud Act 2006, it covers his actions perfectly. If he demands payment from anyone he should be reported to the Police.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/1

    Fraud by false representation

    (1)
    A person is in breach of this section if he—
    (a)
    dishonestly makes a false representation, and
    (b)
    intends, by making the representation—
    (i)
    to make a gain for himself or another, or
    (ii)
    to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
    (2)
    A representation is false if—
    (a)
    it is untrue or misleading, and
    (b)
    the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
    (3)
    Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
    (a)
    the person making the representation, or
    (b)
    any other person.
    (4)
    A representation may be express or implied.
    (5)
    For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Deepest darkest Wales
    Posts
    3,896

    Default

    You might refer him to the reply given in the matter of Arkell Vs Pressdram
    This post may vanish at any moment.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DougR View Post
    You might refer him to the reply given in the matter of Arkell Vs Pressdram
    Had to look it up.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kettering Northamptonshire
    Posts
    1,131

    Default

    From the Canoe Wales website.....

    Canoeing Access from Glasbury to Hay-on-Wye - Landowner proposes Navigation Charge!
    At a meeting convened by Powys County Council on 22 Feb to review the arrangements for launching canoes at Glas-y-Bont common and paddling to Hay-on-Wye, Geoff Maynard (the owner of Llanthomas fishery at Llowes) announced his intention to charge all paddlers passing through his fishery with effect from 2 April 2018 – based on his belief that there is no legal right to navigate this stretch of the river. Mr Maynard left the meeting immediately following his announcement, but Powys County Council staff intend to discuss his proposals with him as soon as possible.
    Canoe Wales believes that there is a Public Right of Navigation on this stretch of the Wye and that Mr Maynard therefore has no right to impose such a charge. However, this has not been confirmed in law, which can only be done through legislation or a court case. The Welsh Government’s proposals to extend CRoW access land to include rivers would not resolve this particular question, since it largely concerns the use of the river for commercial purposes, which are excluded from the CRoW legislation.
    We hope that Powys County Council will be able to facilitate a sensible resolution to this matter before the end of March and we will keep our Members informed of progress.
    If the situation is not resolved, organisations, groups and individuals using the river will need to make their own judgement after Easter whether to pay Mr Maynard’s charge, to avoid his stretch of the river, or to risk being pursued by ‘security staff’ and/or sued for trespass. We will endeavour to provide advice as soon as possible to assist paddlers in making this decision.
    A ship should not ride on a single anchor, nor life on a single hope - Epictetus

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oldbury, West Midlands
    Posts
    108

    Default

    looking to paddle this stretch of the wye on the 7th and 8th of April..
    i don't know this part of the very well so i need to become more acquainted with it.
    i wondered if anybody is interested in a up and down trip or a down and up trip?
    and anybody with knowledge of a public access point?

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patterdale Paddler View Post
    From the Canoe Wales website.....

    .... or to risk being pursued by ‘security staff’ and/or sued for trespass.....
    (I have no legal knowledge, no expertise) I understood from others that if you commit "trespass" the land owner can only take reasonable steps to get you off their land. Without knowing the river I would have expected that the fastest way of the disputed waters would be to continue downstream. I thought that "security staff" would be very limited in terms of action they could take. As for being "pursued", I would expect that if you are already making your way off the private land via the fastest route any intimidation by private security staff would be well "out-of-order".

    Maybe relevant but I always understood that if you overstay your parking limits at a supermarket the company could "fine you" - though the "fine" is actually an invoice for "services" (parking). I also understood that it is the individual parking there who becomes liable NOT the vehicle owner and the vehicle owner has no obligation to tell the property owner who was driving at the time. So on the river I'd assume it is the paddler not the boat who would be liable for any payment and that they could serve the paddler with an invoice but I can't see that the paddler would be obliged to provide any proof of ID (no law in the UK requiring you to carry proof of ID and no requirement to give it to private security staff). I can't see that the private security staff could hold you prisoner ... But again, my thoughts based on what I've read/hear-say.

    (But I have no relevant legal knowledge and no experience - so my comment is just hear-say).

    Ian

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    south doncaster
    Posts
    2,189

    Default

    not paddled the wye but feel a trip coming on
    if I pee in 'his river' does that mean I have added to his property value and am I a shareholder with voting rights?
    or should I charge him for my addition?
    lol
    nature is m X-box

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudman View Post
    A picture speaks a thousand words!!!!!



    https://www.facebook.com/geoff.mayna...location=group
    That seems to be a new low in standards of debate on this forum

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oldbury, West Midlands
    Posts
    108

    Default

    this is part of the crux with the right of navigation is it not?. The land owner my 'own' the river bed. Nobody can own the the water that flows through it,by virtue of that fact.
    maybe he is wants to charge aircraft for using the air above his land also.
    Anybody have a microlight

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BennyGesserit View Post
    That seems to be a new low in standards of debate on this forum
    He posted this picture on his Facebook site, it is important that people know who the person is who is trying to rip them off.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    looking to paddle this stretch of the wye on the 7th and 8th of April..
    i don't know this part of the very well so i need to become more acquainted with it.
    i wondered if anybody is interested in a up and down trip or a down and up trip?
    and anybody with knowledge of a public access point?
    I can tell you are unfamiliar with this stretch from your suggestion to paddle up it. To do so you would definitely need to walk on the bank, in the same way as traders of old would have done returning from market in Hay.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    1,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post
    I can tell you are unfamiliar with this stretch from your suggestion to paddle up it. To do so you would definitely need to walk on the bank, in the same way as traders of old would have done returning from market in Hay.
    A few years ago, whilst awaiting the return of a friend(parking his car at Monmouth), I undertook the journey from Hollybush, upstream to Glasbury. It was an interesting trip, I did tread the river bed, very rarely but mostly poled and paddled. I returned to Hollybush and paddled the downstream route easily.

    39658297315_f9c8bddd52.jpg

    And escaped the lurking monster!
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    North Devon
    Posts
    2,084

    Default

    Hope you've all bought your permits, ready for tomorrow.
    Just goin with the flow

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Brackley, Northants
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    this is part of the crux with the right of navigation is it not?. The land owner my 'own' the river bed. Nobody can own the the water that flows through it,by virtue of that fact.
    maybe he is wants to charge aircraft for using the air above his land also.
    Anybody have a microlight
    In my “canoe the Wye” book from the EA, it states there is no legal right of navigation below Hay bridge, however, there is an “agreement” in place.

    I can see his point of view, if there are additional canoe hire companies opening in Hay, plus I see there is one listed at Glasbury now too by the bridge, this constant flow of traffic each weekend would effect the fishery, and while he was OK with a few private individuals like us launching boats occasionally at glasbury and passing through his fishery, and most hire companies launching at hay or further down at Symonds Yat, that situation will most probably change if there are hire companies springing up on your doorstep.
    as someone mentioned above, the vast majority of us will afford every courtesy to anglers on the bank so as to not distribute their swim, but the customers of the hire companies such as large groups, stag/hen Parties etc are probably not going to give two sh*ts,
    reading his Facebook page I kinda see his point of view.
    However, the charge is negligible, so it will more than likely increase traffic as canoeists feel happpy to pay the charge and avoid any issues and paddle in peace, so surely this will further affect his fishery...if he didn’t want canoes in his fishery, I’d have expected a £50 permit charge.....

    I am doing a trip down the Wye in 2 weeks and we were starting at Glasbury, now we are deciding whether to pay his £3 permit charge or just start from Hay like last time.....there is no update on Canoe Wales it Powys Council web pages so it appears the decision remains with the individual To pay the charge or not.....

    I wonder if we can start from Whitney instead and avoid his fishery that way???

    if anyone is starting from Galsbury prior to 16th April, please post about your experience...

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stroud
    Posts
    833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget2466 View Post
    In my “canoe the Wye” book from the EA, it states there is no legal right of navigation below Hay bridge, however, there is an “agreement” in place.
    I suggest you read the Wye Navigation Order 2002 - in particular para 33
    [QUOTE]33. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as implying that there is, or that there is not,a public right of navigation over the upper rivers and the tributaries, or any part of those riversand tributaries.[\QUOTE]

    The "upper rivers" are defined as being above Hay on Wye bridge.

    The EA can not set aside a Statutory Instrument in their booklet "Canoe the Wye". IIRC the get on above Glasbury Bridge is on land given to the community and one of the uses is the launching of canoes - providing it is after 10 am!
    You don't stop playing because you get old - you get old because you stop playing.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget2466 View Post
    In my “canoe the Wye” book from the EA, it states there is no legal right of navigation below Hay bridge, however, there is an “agreement” in place.
    The right of navigation above Hay Bridge is disputed, that does not mean it does not exist. EA have acknowledged this, however they were criticised by angling representatives for including the Glasbury to Hay section of the river in the 'Canoe the Wye' publication.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget2466 View Post
    ... if there are additional canoe hire companies opening in Hay, plus I see there is one listed at Glasbury now too by the bridge,
    I don't know if there are new companies opening in Hay, though a couple of the long-standing ones have changed hands. The canoe hire company by the Bridge at Glasbury has been there a long time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget2466 View Post
    .....there is no update on Canoe Wales it Powys Council web pages so it appears the decision remains with the individual To pay the charge or not.....
    British Canoeing posted this statement on their website on 5 March:

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    south doncaster
    Posts
    2,189

    Default

    by agreeing to pay is charge you are setting a precedent for him to say it has been agreed by canoeists that it is his water and he can charge.
    DO NOT PAY!
    to do so puts canoeists a giant step back that will not be recovered.
    nature is m X-box

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    south doncaster
    Posts
    2,189

    Default

    he does not have 'fisheries' on/in the river
    he cannot prove that any fish in the river are his
    he charges for fishing from his river bank only( access to the river) and cannot charge for use of the water as it passes over his property
    nature is m X-box

  29. #29

    Default

    I agree with Andy M, If paddlers start paying because it is a small charge to avoid a lot of hassle it will mean that we have accepted that control of navigation goes with fishing rights, this is the thin end of the wedge. I am sure this is the plan otherwise he would be charging enough to either stop paddlers completely or make enough money that the fishing income becomes less significant.
    Ken

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    635

    Default

    I wonder if we can start from Whitney instead and avoid his fishery that way???
    We're going next week and planning to start from Whitney Bridge. The launch point also has a campsite, with breakfast brought to your tent if required, and cars can be left for £2 day. This was our plan irrespective of fishery, based on the length of days that suit our group. If you start at Glasbury, I would echo the advice to insist on the historic public right of navigation and not pay, making it clear that you're not paying because you believe there's a public right and don't want to prejudice it. In some respects, avoiding the fishery to avoid any conflict means they succeed in their objective of stopping paddling, but until we know how it's going to pan out it's better than paying.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Tiverton
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Remember... Rule 13) No alcohol nor glass bottles to be carried on any craft. https://paddlepermit.co.uk/rules/

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Sussex.
    Posts
    3,240

    Default

    I will never pay to paddle the river.

    I will pay for parking and other services but not for for simply using the water.

    I paddle all over the world and am generally welcomed bringing visitors to the area.

    This is year I will be paddling in Finland, Latvia, Romania and France with a possible trip in Japan. None of these locations have conflict with fisherman or charges for being on the water.

    Main risk being force fed cake and beer.

    Bushcraft Survival and First Aid Training.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    635

    Default

    From rule 3 - "Solo paddlers in their own not-for-hire craft do not need to buy a permit."

    Not that I think the rules have any legitimacy, but approx 50% of the content is just good practice.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Berrow, Worcestershire
    Posts
    667

    Default

    Canoe Wales believes that there is a Public Right of Navigation on this stretch of the Wye and that Mr Maynard therefore has no right to impose such a charge. However, this has not been confirmed in law, which can only be done through legislation or a court case.

    Strikes me that this sentence, issued by Powys Council, is somewhat vague. Confirmation in law does not necessarily lie with the courts, but if no such confirmation exists in favour of Mr Maynard, his only recourse to establish the rights he claims is through the courts, who would probably throw it out.

    Until he can prove that he has the rights he claims to have nobody has to pay and if money is obtained by him by force or deception it is likely that it is he who is breaking the law.

    Having said all that, I sympathise to the degree that my only bad experience in a canoe was on a hot summer Sunday on the Wye, when sharing the river with a bunch of drunks and sharing the river bank with a bunch of pig ignorant canoe hire staff. But I guess if we start to
    discriminate we're on the slippery slope to being no better than Mr M.

    As with all of these things, dialogue and cooperation offer the best solutions - whereas Mr M seems to favour the sledgehammer and nut approach.
    .
    .
    I'm at that difficult age... somewhere between birth and death.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Feet View Post

    Having said all that, I sympathise to the degree that my only bad experience in a canoe was on a hot summer Sunday on the Wye, when sharing the river with a bunch of drunks and sharing the river bank with a bunch of pig ignorant canoe hire staff. But I guess if we start to
    discriminate we're on the slippery slope to being no better than Mr M..
    I think he is making a big mistake in continuing this nonsense, he is taking on the whole of the canoeing activity when in reality it is the drunken parties who are his real problem. His problem with the drunken fools is shared by all genuine paddlers and certainly most on this forum, if he concentrated on resolving that problem he may even find he has the support of us all. I see no difference in drunken louts causing trouble in the street and those who do the same on the rivers.

    He would find it more productive to gather evidence on those misbehaving and try and obtain an "Anti-Social Behaviour Order" against the companies causing the trouble.

    Any attempt to force people into giving him money without a proven right to do so would of course be an "Act of Fraud", do not pay him and report him to the Police.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Brackley, Northants
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pam Bell View Post
    The right of navigation above Hay Bridge is disputed, that does not mean it does not exist. EA have acknowledged this, however they were criticised by angling representatives for including the Glasbury to Hay section of the river in the 'Canoe the Wye' publication.



    I don't know if there are new companies opening in Hay, though a couple of the long-standing ones have changed hands. The canoe hire company by the Bridge at Glasbury has been there a long time.




    British Canoeing posted this statement on their website on 5 March:
    Thank you Pam for posting these links, but like I say, I do not see any update on the information. What I have read are statements like Powys Council are trying to negotiate with the lander owner.....

    British canoeing have written a post on their website how they disagree with it all. ( oh well thats Ok then, I'm sure he'll read that and back down straight away!!!), but there is no real information on when they are meeting him, what the outcome was if they have spoken with him again. He made the proposal at a meeting in February, it is now April and no further information. Some legal back up from the Police would be nice on what our rights may be, is he committing fraud in their eye, can we rely in them to come to our aid if he is breaking the law...or a letter from the Chef constable would be something to advise that if he demands money with menaces, then he will be arrested...

    Both sides are still making the opposite claims over the Navigation rights....Just because British Canoe "Say" there is substantial evidence...why hasn't it already been sorted out if it is that clear.

    I am sorry Two pigs, I used the wrong terminology, I should have said ABOVE Hay, not Below Hay, I am referring to Glasbury when I quoted the EA Guide book and it states there is no legal right of navigation in place. They are a higher authority on the river system than I am, so I have to take their advice which they have in print.

    I am not a lawyer, and if the lawyers and courts of the land still haven't managed to sort this access and navigation out over the passed goodness knows how many years, I don't think any of us on here will be able to either.
    There will be and equal number of people on the angling forums giving their "extensive knowledge" on the situation and how they are in the right. So the access legalities aside, I can only go with actual fact as it stands today. (or on 16th April 2018).

    This gentleman is not a nice piece of work from what I understand, if indeed it was him placing the barbed wire across the river, placing dangerous obstacles in the river with the sole intention of damaging canoes and kayaks. So with greatest respect to everyone here, stating that "I wouldn't pay...." , or " I believe I have a legal right..." is fine when we are in our homes and nice a safe...and I totally agree with you. But you aren't on the river facing this guy and his thugs when all you want is a nice peaceful 5 days paddle down the river.
    In my mind There are simply three choices;
    1. Pay and have a hassle free time and a good start to the week
    2. Do not. pay and stand your ground and risk all sorts of obscenities, threats, extortion, damage to the canoe by his "mines" or by his thug security staff,
    3. Avoid it and start lower down at Whitney or Hay.

    Option 1 and 3 mean he essentially win this battle, or option 2 runs the risk of spoiling the week, when the reason we are doing it is to get some stress relief...not add to it.

    For the record, I cannot see how he can "own" the water running above his riverbed. He cannot own the sky above it, so how can he own moving water or moving fish either. I really don't want see a permit levy being brought in. and from my computer keyboard in my house, I can write how vehemently I believe he is breaking the law....but if he is, why haven't the Police been involved?
    I don't see British Canoeing, Canoe Wales ,or Powys Council doing an awful lot over the 6 weeks to protect people who will be canoeing form April 2nd.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    1,966

    Default

    I certainly agree with, DO NOT PAY HIM.

    As for rule 3 - "Solo paddlers in their own not-for-hire craft do not need to buy a permit." What about tandem paddlers in private boats?

    I've asked him.

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


  38. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Brackley, Northants
    Posts
    25

    Default

    I wonder who this QC is representing the canoe interests.....she seems to be right on our side...not!

    I am not a lawyer and have no legal training. My charge is legitimate based upon the findings and Advice given by Q.C. David Hart (for Fish Legal) and agreed with by Q.C. Lisa Busch (for canoe interests); both agree the current and prevailing laws are clear.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Brackley, Northants
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougoutcanoe View Post
    I certainly agree with, DO NOT PAY HIM.

    As for rule 3 - "Solo paddlers in their own not-for-hire craft do not need to buy a permit." What about tandem paddlers in private boats?

    I've asked him.

    Doug
    LOl, So have I.....

    Please do me favour Doug. Would you mind going on the trip down from Glasbury prior to the 16th April and let me know what happens when you stand for ground and don't pay him. It will be an important reference point for our trip.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Mr Maynard say on his website:

    My charge is legitimate based upon the findings and Advice given by Q.C. David Hart (for Fish Legal) and agreed with by Q.C. Lisa Busch

    You might like to read what Lisa Busch actually advised

    http://www.caffynonrivers.co.uk/_res...dvice-2016.pdf

    I notice also that Mr Maynard is trying to frighten people by referring to Aggravated Trespass. This only applies to people who intend to cause disruption - so anyone paddling that section, make it clear that you are not trying to cause disruption, just exercising your right of navigation.

  41. #41
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Berrow, Worcestershire
    Posts
    667

    Default

    If there is - as Lisa Busch QC suggests- a PRN along this stretch of river (or indeed any natural tidal and non-tidal river), presumably the riparian land owner has an obligation to maintain that right of way and clear the river of any debris that might hinder safe passage.

    I don't know that stretch of river, but a confrontation with Mr Maynard isn't something that would bother me in the slightest. What concerns me more, is his apparent vandalism in placing man-made obstructions in the river. Whether or not it can be proven that he has placed those obstructions in the river, he is still responsible for removing them...

    A quick Google finds that riparian landowners are responsible for:

    • Ensuring water is allowed to flow without obstructions
    • Keeping bed and banks clear from obstructions
    • Managing vegetation within the channel
    • Keeping any structures, such as trash screens and culverts, clear from debris, silt and rubbish

    Maybe a group paddle should be organised to identify and map the obstructions, with findings sent to the Environment Agency. I would have thought that this would be of interest also to the Council, possibly the police, but certainly the media... and I don't think Mr Maynard will come out of it smelling of roses.
    .
    .
    Last edited by Duck Feet; 4th-April-2018 at 09:28 AM.
    I'm at that difficult age... somewhere between birth and death.

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    554

    Default

    Interestingly the EA or NRA, as it was, commissioned a report from their own regional solicitor in 1992. This report looked at both the statutes supporting a public navigation, of which there are four but only three are relevant, and the common law position. As far as the statutes are concerned the crux point is that on face value they seem to relate to the navigation of the Wye and Lugg within the County of Hereford, which is why the point of contention arises with regard to navigation above Hey towards Glasbury in Wales. The first act of 1665 relates to the County of Hereford in its title and the following Acts repeated the same title. The view expressed by the regional solicitor in his report of 1992 is that the only sensible interpretation of the Act is that it has to apply to the WHOLE of the Wye. He makes that very clear but adds the all important caveat that such an opinion can only be confirmed by a court.

    "It is my opinion on the basis of the evidence studied and which is presented above that when the Act of 1665 was drafted it was not the draftsman's intention to limit the public right of navigation, which it expressly creates, to the county of Hereford but that the right should extend along the whole length of the non-tidal Wye.

    He then adds the caveat;

    "However, I must stress that the position is far from certain and I suggest that the only way that a definite answer could be given was by way of a court ruling."

    He then looks at the common law position and relies considerably on the Cairngorms judgement, (Wills Trustees v Cairngorm Canoe and Training School 1976 which gave us the undisputed right to use the Spey long before the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003). His view is that if the river can be physically navigated and that there is a demonstrable history of use, he asserts 60 to 70 years and that the tradition of recreational paddling would support this.

    His closing statement in the report is;"Having considered both the statutory and common law positions there appears to be an arguable case to support the view that a public right of navigation extends along the length of the River Wye"

    So, we are all, paddlers and fisherfolk, victims of a lack of certainty. What seems clear to me though is that whilst paddlers have the weight of probability both of the statutory position and common law position on their side, the gentleman who wants to apply a toll has no such support either from statute or common law and is ploughing a particularly lonely and risky furrow.
    Mike

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,629

    Default NRA (EA) Survey and legal opinion on Navigation on the Wye 1992

    I found this survey undertaken by the NRA in 1992 on Navigation on the River Wye, on the first print they included their Regional Solicitors opinion on Navigation Rights. This is a long report and his opinion is at the end under Appendix 29, I have copied his final Conclusion below. The legal opinion has been removed from later versions of the report so it is worth saving this version on your computers.

    The full report can be found here: http://www.environmentdata.org/archi...J/19000311.pdf

    CONCLUSION

    (Please refer to the attached diagram headed "An Outline of the Legal Status of Navigation on the River Wye".)
    There is no doubt that a public right of navigation existsover the tidal Wye to the point of Bigsweir which marks the tidal limit of theWye.
    Furthermore, there is no doubt that the Statute of 1695 (7& 8 William III) expressly grants a public right of navigation over thenon-tidal Wye, which lies within the County of Hereford, as shown on thediagram. There is however, a considerable amount of conflicting opinion as towhether this right of navigation extends along the length of the River Wye.
    It is my opinion, based on the evidence available, that itwas the intention of the draftsman when they expressly granted a public rightof navigation by the 1695 Act that this right was to extend to the whole lengthof the river and not be limited to that part of the-Wye-which lies within theCounty of Hereford. However, I can give no enforceable ruling on the matter, asthis would require a court ruling. However, in the absence of such a Courtruling the common law position has been considered as regards the Upper Wye.The conclusion reached is that at common law a public right of navigation willbe established if evidence can be deduced to prove:


    1. That the River is physically capable of navigation.



    1. That there has been a continuous user as of right by the public since living memory ie. over the last 60-70 years.


    The increasing use of the Wye in recent years forrecreational pursuits such as canoeing may be of some assistance in thisregard.

    Having considered both the Statutory and Common Lawpositions there appears to be an arguable case to support the view that apublic right of navigation extends along the length of the River Wye.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,751

    Default

    .... The conclusion reached is that at common law a public right of navigation will be established if evidence can be deduced to prove:



    1. That the River is physically capable of navigation.
    2. That there has been a continuous user as of right by the public since living memory ie. over the last 60-70 years.

    That of course is correct but continuous user as of right for the last 60-70 years is not the only way to demonstrate a PRN under common law. Evidence that establishes there was ever a PRN (which has not been formally rescinded by Parliamentary authority) will establish a PRN. That's the evidence considered by Lisa Busch which, in her opinion established a PRN on all rivers that were navigable in the Middle Ages and is still physically navigable now. Alternatively a court could consider the specific evidence of public navigation on this specific section of the Wye.

    So paddlers would have three bites of the cherry. To win a case for trespass the fishery would have to show no public right to navigate

    a) by statute (contrary to the legal advice to NRA)
    b) under Common law relating to all rivers in England and Wales (contrary to the legal advice from Lisa Busch)
    c) under common law relating specifically to the section of the Wye at the fishery.

    If he failed on any one of these situations he would have no way of proceeding.

    I know many people have a very low opinion of Mr Maynard but in essence the ball is in his court. If he really believes the evidence supports his case he will seek to bring a case against a paddler. If not, he will just continue to bluster and intimidate until he realises it's not having any effect.
    Last edited by KeithD; 4th-April-2018 at 12:50 PM.
    Keith

  45. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    south doncaster
    Posts
    2,189

    Default

    happy to attend a large SOTP/OCA informal meet on the wye at any time
    nature is m X-box

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Sussex.
    Posts
    3,240

    Default

    I’d certainly be interested in a paddle that helps promote our cause.

    We have a right to paddle. It’s a part of our heritage as much as walking on mountain and moor.

    Our NGB is more interested sports funding that improved clarity. It should be focussed on promoting our existing rights to paddle. Instead it exists to exist creating more badge schemes etc rather than what matters.

    Bushcraft Survival and First Aid Training.

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wayne View Post
    Our NGB is more interested sports funding that improved clarity. It should be focussed on promoting our existing rights to paddle. Instead it exists to exist creating more badge schemes etc rather than what matters.
    Last year I would have agreed with you, and I answered in a similar vein in the survey of members. However, without being an apologist for BC, I believe there is a change of emphasis, or at least a new focus on access matters and recreational paddling in general.
    "I'd far rather be happy than right any day"..........Slartibartfast

    http://apachecanoes.com

  48. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    this is part of the crux with the right of navigation is it not?. The land owner my 'own' the river bed. Nobody can own the the water that flows through it,by virtue of that fact.
    maybe he is wants to charge aircraft for using the air above his land also.
    Anybody have a microlight
    We need to move on from this one. A land owner does have <qualified> rights to the soil below and air above their land. You can be charged with trespassing (at least!) if you burrow under, and you very much could be charged with trespass if you were in a microlight above their property.

    The issue is whether there is a public right of navigation, which is a public right and therefore stands above any private right.

  49. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Feet View Post
    Canoe Wales believes that there is a Public Right of Navigation on this stretch of the Wye and that Mr Maynard therefore has no right to impose such a charge. However, this has not been confirmed in law, which can only be done through legislation or a court case.

    Strikes me that this sentence, issued by Powys Council, is somewhat vague. Confirmation in law does not necessarily lie with the courts, but if no such confirmation exists in favour of Mr Maynard, his only recourse to establish the rights he claims is through the courts, who would probably throw it out.

    Until he can prove that he has the rights he claims to have nobody has to pay and if money is obtained by him by force or deception it is likely that it is he who is breaking the law.

    Having said all that, I sympathise to the degree that my only bad experience in a canoe was on a hot summer Sunday on the Wye, when sharing the river with a bunch of drunks and sharing the river bank with a bunch of pig ignorant canoe hire staff. But I guess if we start to
    discriminate we're on the slippery slope to being no better than Mr M.

    As with all of these things, dialogue and cooperation offer the best solutions - whereas Mr M seems to favour the sledgehammer and nut approach.
    .
    .
    This isn't the case. It's for the canoeists to prove they have the right to pass and repass through on a Public Right of Navigation. Otherwise the landowner is only doing something which landowners do similarly across the country charging for access to or through their land where no public right to do so is shown.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a public right - the court does not create one, it'd only confirm one. However - unlike footpaths where you just submit a form to the council to claim (and the wait, often years!), to confirm rights on a river does require a court to judge. This is one of the difficulties we face - because there isn't even a clear mechanism for anyone to take such a judgement to court. In effect the only route if for a canoeist to defend themselves against a trespass claim.

  50. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Feet View Post
    If there is - as Lisa Busch QC suggests- a PRN along this stretch of river (or indeed any natural tidal and non-tidal river), presumably the riparian land owner has an obligation to maintain that right of way and clear the river of any debris that might hinder safe passage.
    No - it would simply be a right to navigate when the conditions of the river allow. And if we push for anything other than that we'll set ourselves back considerably and win additional opponents in conservation and other areas.

  51. #51

    Default

    If there is a PRN then presumably anyone who blocks it (with concrete blocks or barbed wire in this case) would have to remove a deliberate blockage?
    Ken

  52. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisPage View Post
    No - it would simply be a right to navigate when the conditions of the river allow. And if we push for anything other than that we'll set ourselves back considerably and win additional opponents in conservation and other areas.
    I think your response is a bit black and white Chris. For sure a riparian owner may not deliberately block a stream against navigation and the EA have often advised that they should clear blockages certainly in certain circumstances.

  53. #53
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Berrow, Worcestershire
    Posts
    667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisPage View Post
    This isn't the case. It's for the canoeists to prove they have the right to pass and repass through on a Public Right of Navigation...
    It's only for the canoeist to prove that a PRN exists IF Maynard brings about a case for trespass. Because it's such a grey area - and he knows it, which is why he's being so heavy-handed - I doubt if Maynard would risk the expense of bringing about such a case.

    He's also shot himself in the foot by 'granting' solo paddlers access - that rather undermines his case that a PRN doesn't exist, or that the passage of canoes represents a threat to his 'fishery'.

    I wish the guy would just be honest and say he doesn't want canoe hire companies passing through. And let the rest of us live in happy coexistence.
    .
    .
    Last edited by Duck Feet; 10th-April-2018 at 09:38 AM.
    I'm at that difficult age... somewhere between birth and death.

  54. #54
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Berrow, Worcestershire
    Posts
    667

    Default

    Edit: I think we're repeating ourselves... or at least I am.
    Last edited by Duck Feet; 10th-April-2018 at 09:37 AM.
    I'm at that difficult age... somewhere between birth and death.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisPage View Post
    We need to move on from this one. A land owner does have <qualified> rights to the soil below and air above their land. You can be charged with trespassing (at least!) if you burrow under, and you very much could be charged with trespass if you were in a microlight above their property.
    .....
    Does that mean I can do something about the light aircraft flying over my garden taking off/landing and my local (recreational) airfield? There is nothing in my deeds granting anybody such rights.

    Ian

  56. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    From a briefing paper last year:

    The Rules of the Air changed considerably between 2007 (the last version) and 2015 due to the latter having to take account of EU Regulation (EU) 923/2012 on the standardised European rules of the air (SERA).
    As a result the low flying prohibitions that used to be in Rule 5 of Schedule 1 to the 2007 Regulations

    5 have been replaced by a new Rule 5 in the 2015 Regulations which provides that:
    (1) An aircraft must not take off or land within a congested area of any city, town or settlement except—
    (a) at an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA; or
    (b) at a landing site which is not an aerodrome in accordance with the permission of the CAA.
    (2) An aircraft must not land or take-off within 1,000 metres of an open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons except—
    (a) at an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA; or
    (b) at a landing site which is not an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA and with the written permission of the organiser of the assembly.
    However, there are a number of exemptions to this Rule, as set out by the CAA. Generally, an aircraft may fly at a height of less than 150 metres (500 feet) above the ground or water; or less than 150 metres above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 metres from the aircraft. However, it must not be flown closer than 150 metres to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure except with the permission of the CAA.
    6 Specifically on helicopters, it states that a helicopter may fly below 150 metres (500 feet) above the ground or water or closer than 150 metres to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure if it is conducting manoeuvres, in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of an aerodrome, a permitted site, if the operator or pilot-in-command of the aircraft has the written permission of the CAA. However, when flying in accordance with this permission the helicopter must not be operated closer than 60 metres to any persons, vessels, vehicles or structures located outside the aerodrome or site.

  57. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psamathe View Post
    Does that mean I can do something about the light aircraft flying over my garden taking off/landing and my local (recreational) airfield? There is nothing in my deeds granting anybody such rights.

    Ian
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...ance-noise-etc

  58. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,857

  59. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post
    I think your response is a bit black and white Chris. For sure a riparian owner may not deliberately block a stream against navigation and the EA have often advised that they should clear blockages certainly in certain circumstances.
    For sure nothing in this world is black and white! There is a difference between a tree being down as it fell. In the long run that will often (usually?) need removing. There's smaller, more partial blockages. Then there's stringing barbed wire across a river!

    My point was that as paddlers we should be expecting rivers to be manicured for navigation. A certain amount of woody debris in rivers is natural, especially upstream.

    If there's an inkling that a move to recognise existing or legislate for new PRN would lead to a huge burden on landowners to immediately remove every tree from every river it would be a big hinderence to getting progress.

  60. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisPage View Post
    My point was that as paddlers we should be expecting rivers to be manicured for navigation.
    Is there a 'nt missing from should Chris?
    -------------------------
    You! Off my planet!

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •