Canoeists need support in an on-line petition to the Prime Minister. As participants in a kindred sport ( whitewater rivers are just caves with no roof ! ) please add your name to the petition.

The legal right of access to rivers in England and Wales is controlled by the owners of the banks. Arranging access with all the owners for a 5 mile trip is practically impossible, and thus most paddling is done in a potential conflict situation. The only way out of this is legislation, and recent changes to Scottish law provide a good model.

Roger Revell has set up a petition calling for the Government to pass legislation to give canoeists and all other users of un-powered craft the free right to navigate all rivers and canals in England and Wales (similar to the right already enjoyed by cyclists to use bridleways, cycle tracks and roads).

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Canoeists/

The Scottish Land Reform Act gives rights but also sets out responsibilities in a code of practice. This has been successfully implemented in Scotland, so why not elsewhere?

Thanks for your support

I've signed it.

I have the River Wye on my doorstep. Access is getting worse on this river, which is one of the most heavily canoed (spelling?) stretches of water in England. Part of the problem would appear to be its own popularity-the more people who come, the more some people try to stop them. There are similar problems in caving, so we should stand together.

Out of interest, how many of you cavers out there would also call themselves a paddler? Of the regular diggers at our dig on a Wednesday, at least three of us are also paddlers. Is this peculiar to the Forest, or more general?

I won't be signing the petition.

Rivers are firstly a shared resource, with many competing interests to be considered. Wildlife, conservation, fishing and in some cases the simple privacy of riverbank owners to be balanced.

A blanket "right" given to one particular group will be at the expense of other groups who maybe haven't lobbied.

The "right to roam" for example, is at the expense of birds and animals that live in some moorland areas (eg. curlew and mountain hare)

Rivers are generally owned by people. Like it or not that is the law. Someone (a fishing club for example) may have invested heaily to buy the rigths to a section of river. To simply destroy this investment because of the LEISURE interests of another group is unfair.

AndyF said:

at the expense of birds and animals

Click to expand...

Yeah, but they're rich beyond the wildest dreams of Croesus; look at all the land they have!

Thanks for your reply Andy - I'm not expecting you to change your mind but I'd like to respond for the information of others.

AndyF said:

A blanket "right" given to one particular group will be at the expense of other groups who maybe haven't lobbied

Click to expand...

Indeed it would be, but that isn't what's being asked for. A shared resource, as in Scotland, would be fine by paddlers. The Scottish model requires everyone to act with due respect for all other users. It doesn't destroy anyone's investment; the fishermen I've met while paddling in Scotland have had no problem with paddlers passing by in a responsible way.

At present there is a very unbalanced position, where one recreational use dominates others, because they believe they have feudal rights (which were never intended for recreation).

Yes, rivers are owned by people (which is fairly unique to the UK), but so are footpaths; that doesn't prevent footpaths having a right of way along them. There are also legal arguments for a right of way along rivers, but it all goes back to the Magna Carta and it seems unlikely that it will be resolved without new legislation; until that happens, we have conflict.

I don't believe the right to enjoy our natural heritage should be "owned" by anyone; it should be for all to use, responsibly, and with due consideration for plants, birds, animal, other people, etc. Ownership of that right has implications for caving as well.

ChrisB said:

Thanks for your reply Andy - I'm not expecting you to change your mind but I'd like to respond for the information of others.

AndyF said:

A blanket "right" given to one particular group will be at the expense of other groups who maybe haven't lobbied

Click to expand...

Indeed it would be, but that isn't what's being asked for.

Click to expand...

Well wthe first post says:

legislation to give canoeists and all other users of un-powered craft the free right to navigate all rivers and canals in England and Wales

SOunds like a blanket right to me! Having "codes of practice" is a load of old tosh. Who, exactly, would enforce them? The police can't even keep our city streets under control, there would be zero enforcement by them. And if you say landowners or the public at large, are they really going to start legal action because an unknown coneoist disturbed some nesting birds and then paddled off?

Its just one more bit of unenforcable law on the already overcrowded statue books

A shared resource, as in Scotland, would be fine by paddlers. The Scottish model requires everyone to act with due respect for all other users. It doesn't destroy anyone's investment; the fishermen I've met while paddling in Scotland have had no problem with paddlers passing by in a responsible way.

At present there is a very unbalanced position, where one recreational use dominates others, because they believe they have feudal rights (which were never intended for recreation).

Click to expand...

Well they DO have that right. And that's what a "right" is, something that can't be taken away, by definition. A relatively newly invented hobby that would like to overturn rights that have existed for centuries just because they fancy the idea of doing something should not get legal backing to do so IMO.

Yes, rivers are owned by people (which is fairly unique to the UK), but so are footpaths; that doesn't prevent footpaths having a right of way along them. There are also legal arguments for a right of way along rivers, but it all goes back to the Magna Carta and it seems unlikely that it will be resolved without new legislation; until that happens, we have conflict.

Click to expand...

New legislation would be a satisfactory resolution for one group but unsatisfactory for others. That is not resolution, that is imposition. Any conflict is created by one group attempting to usurp and establish rights over other groups where non existed before, without paying for them.

I don't believe the right to enjoy our natural heritage should be "owned" by anyone; it should be for all to use, responsibly, and with due consideration for plants, birds, animal, other people, etc. Ownership of that right has implications for caving as well.

Click to expand...

Well that is quite an appealing ideal, but can only be acheived in a property owning democracy by buying the relevent land (or having it left in wills etc.) or by buying right to do something on someone elses property.

Most natural heritage sites have passed to English nature, or the NT or various wildlife trusts by that process, not by legal  imposition of "rights" by a law crazed government.

Why don't conoeists buy the rights to use a river in the same way that fishermen do, instead of trying to help themselves to a freebie using legislation as a stick?

By the same token, should fishermen be able to fish for free? ...and if not, why not?

Should I be able to walk through someones garden that backs onto a river just because I like the idea of doing so?

Sorry, just can't see this as a way forward for access.  I think a better model is to give the NRA the duty to try to negotiate access arrangements. This has worked with many consessioanry paths and long distance routes etc. can't see why it wouldn't work in this situation. We don't need a blunt instrument law for this.

AndyF said:

are they really going to start legal action because an unknown coneoist disturbed some nesting birds and then paddled off?

Its just one more bit of unenforcable law on the already overcrowded statue

Click to expand...

A friend and colleague of mine was fined £2000 for "damaging a spawning bed" at Brecon. All he did was paddle his canoe over it.

As has been pointed out already, the problem with the rivers in England and Wales is that one leisure group (anglers) have massively more "rights" than the other leisure groups. This surely is not fair; unless you're an angler.

AndyF is quite right when he says that nobody will be prosecuted for disturbing a nesting bird, but get out there and try disturbing a spawning salmon!

Ship-badger said:

AndyF said:

are they really going to start legal action because an unknown coneoist disturbed some nesting birds and then paddled off?

Its just one more bit of unenforcable law on the already overcrowded statue

Click to expand...

A friend and colleague of mine was fined £2000 for "damaging a spawning bed" at Brecon. All he did was paddle his canoe over it.

Click to expand...

I guess he was prosecuted under EXISTING legislation, not for breaking a "code of practice". A code of practice by definition has no teeth. If it does then it is a law.

Nobody gets prosecuted for breaking a code of practice, its just that if you are following a code of practice may be used  as a defence. The difference is subtle but important

As has been pointed out already, the problem with the rivers in England and Wales is that one leisure group (anglers) have massively more "rights" than the other leisure groups. This surely is not fair; unless you're an angler.

Click to expand...

They have BOUGHT AND PAID for these rights. You don't get to be a fisherman by being given the right to fish by a law!

To be "fair" canoeists simply buy the rights to use the river, like the fishermen have.......  or...  fisherman must be given the right to fish for free anywhere on any river or canal. That would clearly be absurd.

Many UK rivers would not be navigable except for the dams and weirs created by fishing interests. (It's amazing just how many of these there are). If canoeists want to benefit from this cost, they should reasonably expect to pay for the building and maintainance.

This is just an attempt to freeload on somebdy elses investment for free......

There are prerfectly legal and existing ways to gain access without more laws, they should be used. And if someone says "no" well that is their right.

Having a hobby does not give a right to someone elses investment.

AndyF said:

Having a hobby does not give a right to someone elses investment.

Click to expand...

Doesn't it? Some of our brethren seems to think that their hobby gives them the right to come and go as they please on other people's land.  :idea:

AndyF said:

Ship-badger said:

AndyF said:

are they really going to start legal action because an unknown coneoist disturbed some nesting birds and then paddled off?

Its just one more bit of unenforcable law on the already overcrowded statue

Click to expand...

A friend and colleague of mine was fined £2000 for "damaging a spawning bed" at Brecon. All he did was paddle his canoe over it.

Click to expand...

I guess he was prosecuted under EXISTING legislation, not for breaking a "code of practice". A code of practice by definition has no teeth. If it does then it is a law.

Nobody gets prosecuted for breaking a code of practice, its just that if you are following a code of practice may be used  as a defence. The difference is subtle but important

As has been pointed out already, the problem with the rivers in England and Wales is that one leisure group (anglers) have massively more "rights" than the other leisure groups. This surely is not fair; unless you're an angler.

Click to expand...

They have BOUGHT AND PAID for these rights. You don't get to be a fisherman by being given the right to fish by a law!

To be "fair" canoeists simply buy the rights to use the river, like the fishermen have.......  or...  fisherman must be given the right to fish for free anywhere on any river or canal. That would clearly be absurd.

Many UK rivers would not be navigable except for the dams and weirs created by fishing interests. (It's amazing just how many of these there are). If canoeists want to benefit from this cost, they should reasonably expect to pay for the building and maintainance.

This is just an attempt to freeload on somebdy elses investment for free......

There are prerfectly legal and existing ways to gain access without more laws, they should be used. And if someone says "no" well that is their right.

Having a hobby does not give a right to someone elses investment.

Click to expand...

Of course there is the arguement that fishing is just another blood sport that really should be eliminated.

Nothing wrong with bloodsports!!!!


Runs away like a fox with apack of hounds after him

Sorry - that was well off thread.