# Dealing with Water Bailiffs and Landowners?



## UnderAnOpenSky (Apr 30, 2012)

Had a glorious day kayaking today, with the mild irritation that some water baliffs/game keepers working on behalf on the landowner had tracked us down the river, parked there 4x4s and shouted at us to get of the river. Fortunately it was where were planning on getting out there anyway, so it was no great issue, although it fucks me of that in England we have access to 2% to 4% of the rivers and in the Peak District were I've moved to the total stretch of undisputed rivers is about 350m.

All a bit fitting as the Mass Trespass on Kinder Scout happened 80 years ago this week.

The British Canoe Union have also fucked me off, they've been trying to negotiate access agreements for the last 30 years and have achieved almost the square root of fuck all except maintaining the status quo of vested interests and rather then following the lead of the Welsh who are refusing to try and negiate any more agreements as they blatantly work against us.

I'm for all for just paddeling these rivers and saying fuck them. The whole concept that water is owened is dubious, although we may have commited a little bit of trespass to walk round the logs they'd placed across the river and fucking wires in place at head hight.

What sort of action can they take against us?


----------



## toggle (Apr 30, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> Had a glorious day kayaking today, with the mild irritation that some water baliffs/game keepers working on behalf on the landowner had tracked us down the river, parked there 4x4s and shouted at us to get of the river. Fortunately it was where were planning on getting out there anyway, so it was no great issue, although it fucks me of that in England we have access to 2% to 4% of the rivers and in the Peak District were I've moved to the total stretch of undisputed rivers is about 350m.
> 
> All a bit fitting as the Mass Trespass on Kinder Scout happened 80 years ago this week.
> 
> ...


 
wires at head hight is a clear attempt to cause injury and is illegal. IMO, if they try to take action against you, they are risking you reporting them for something far more serious


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 30, 2012)

Trespass is usually a civil offence. 
http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dtl/index.cfm?event=base:article&node=A76076D34460


----------



## peterkro (Apr 30, 2012)

Fuck all,see the queens chain in NZ,or the right to roam in Scotland or Sweden,a big fight I believe,you can pitch a tent north of Hadrians wall and nobody can do anything about it,south of you could get banged up.You can walk on the roof of Swedens parliament and they can't do anything. a big fight and I hope people support the "right to roam" movement.When I first came to the U.K. I was gobsmacked about the "we own the rights to this river",that kind of shit would get you shot in NZ.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 30, 2012)

Its not like kayakers do damage or are very annoying


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 30, 2012)

toggle said:


> wires at head hight is a clear attempt to cause injury and is illegal.


This. Sod the trespassing, you need to report this.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Apr 30, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Fuck all,see the queens chain in NZ,or the right to roam in Scotland or Sweden,a big fight I believe,you can pitch a tent north of Hadrians wall and nobody can do anything about it,south of you could get banged up.You can walk on the roof of Swedens parliament and they can't do anything. a big fight and I hope people support the "right to roam" movement.When I first came to the U.K. I was gobsmacked about the "we own the rights to this river",that kind of shit would get you shot in NZ.


 
Well exactly. We've got the CROW act now and generally the public have pretty good access to the hills, but the rivers are another story.

It's really really not helped by the fishing loby who are way more powerful then us and often pay for their access. Apparently we upset the fish. Like sticking a fucking hook in their mouth doesn't.



Mrs Magpie said:


> Trespass is usually a civil offence.
> http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dtl/index.cfm?event=base:article&node=A76076D34460


 
Yes, but what can they actually do about it if we don't give our names? They've got our number plates for what it's worth, although nothing will be happening this time.



toggle said:


> wires at head hight is a clear attempt to cause injury and is illegal. IMO, if they try to take action against you, they are risking you reporting them for something far more serious


 
They'd just claim it's for agricultural use or something and if you've got Lord in your name, this tends to be more belivied them some smelly paddlers. Anyway if you know about them it's not an issue, walk round or take some wire cutters, its when the rivers are fast and they catch the unwary.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Apr 30, 2012)

This is the cunt whose land it is for what it's worth

Lord Edward Manners 







And much of the River Lathkill belongs to him apparently.






It was a nice drop though


----------



## toggle (Apr 30, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> They'd just claim it's for agricultural use or something and if you've got Lord in your name, this tends to be more belivied them some smelly paddlers. Anyway if you know about them it's not an issue, walk round or take some wire cutters, its when the rivers are fast and they catch the unwary.


 
then take the wirecutters.

but i don't think it matters what they claim it is for. it is the danger it causes that is the issue.


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> Had a glorious day kayaking today, with the mild irritation that some water baliffs/game keepers working on behalf on the landowner had tracked us down the river, parked there 4x4s and shouted at us to get of the river. Fortunately it was where were planning on getting out there anyway, so it was no great issue, although it fucks me of that in England we have access to 2% to 4% of the rivers and in the Peak District were I've moved to the total stretch of undisputed rivers is about 350m.
> 
> All a bit fitting as the Mass Trespass on Kinder Scout happened 80 years ago this week.
> 
> ...


 
Wires at head height in the river or on the bank?  Did they have any legitimate use that you could see?


----------



## Badgers (Apr 30, 2012)

agricola said:
			
		

> Wires at head height in the river or on the bank?  Did they have any legitimate use that you could see?



Hurt animals? 
Hang sandwiches? 
Kill people passing in small boats? 

Bunting? It is the jubilee soon.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Apr 30, 2012)

agricola said:


> Wires at head height in the river or on the bank? Did they have any legitimate use that you could see?


 
I'm guessing they could be used to deter wondering sheep. Remember a kayaker is very close to the water, so not standing head height.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 30, 2012)

I used to live in sheep country and never remember sheep wandering down a stream, let alone a river (or even wondering about it). A wire across a stream is not a measure to protect sheep.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 30, 2012)

We are talking wire _*across*_ the stream, or have I completely misunderstood?


----------



## Glitter (Apr 30, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Hurt animals?
> *Hang sandwiches?*
> Kill people passing in small boats?
> 
> Bunting? It is the jubilee soon.


 
I'm going with this.


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> I'm guessing they could be used to deter wondering sheep. Remember a kayaker is very close to the water, so not standing head height.


 
Ah - if theres a legitimate use (or rather legitimate reason) that the landowner can reasonably point to then it would be difficult to prove any offence against them, though were someone to get injured then they would be civilly (and probably criminally because of the recklessness involved) liable.  As to what they could do to you, beyond the civil offence trespass there isnt really anything.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Apr 30, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> We are talking wire _*across*_ the stream, or have I completely misunderstood?


 
Yeah a couple of them. I'd rather not overally focus on this tbh, I dealt with other hazards on the river today, like weirs and bridges you can't pass under the right way up (my roll still works though. )

More about talk about the wider point of access and the legal recourse they can take against me. I suppose what we really need is people willing to go to court to test about river access, but I dont have the funds for a civil case against me.

Other ideas about how we can sort access also greatfully received.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Apr 30, 2012)

agricola said:


> Ah - if theres a legitimate use (or rather legitimate reason) that the landowner can reasonably point to then it would be difficult to prove any offence against them, though were someone to get injured then they would be civilly (and probably criminally because of the recklessness involved) liable. As to what they could do to you, beyond the civil offence trespass there isnt really anything.


 
I'm sure they'd think of something.

So they find me by the road side loading up the van and take the plates. What can they do the next if they've recorded us a few times and want to make an example?


----------



## Glitter (Apr 30, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> I'm guessing they could be used to deter wondering sheep. Remember a kayaker is very close to the water, so not standing head height.


 
How tall are these sheep?

Just read the entire post I quoted 

Sorry


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> I'm sure they'd think of something.
> 
> So they find me by the road side loading up the van and take the plates. What can they do the next if they've recorded us a few times and want to make an example?


 
If you arent on their property then nothing. If you were (or they thought you were going to) they could concievably go down the civil side of the law and try to get an injunction, but you would imagine (and I am not an expert on it) they would have to demonstrate some pretty more substantial grounds than just to stop named people going down "their" river.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Apr 30, 2012)

I got some shit about their being spawning beds for the trout, despite the river being in spate (way over the level to worry them). I politely asked when would be a good time to come back and was told never. This where access agreements fail. We're willing to compromise. They aren't.

They told us to get of the river and then talked to us on the side of the road, so we were sort of on their land. I don't know if anyone saw us get in, but if they didn't then they invited us on to the land get off and I don't think anyone has every been done for trespassing on water (proper legal grey area that's not been sorted out). 

Assuming it's another river and they do find me on their land accessing, could they get my details from the plates and if they could what would an injunction mean in real terms?


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2012)

In the circumstances described they wouldnt be able to get details from your plates unless they had already got a solicitor on it. As for an injunction, they can have powers of arrest attached which may lead to prison if the terms are breached, though as I said above its hard to see how they could get one just to prevent a named person from floating down a river every now and then (though again I am not that familiar with civil legislation, an actual solicitor should be asked for their advice).


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Apr 30, 2012)

agricola said:


> In the circumstances described they wouldnt be able to get details from your plates unless they had already got a solicitor on it. As for an injunction, they can have powers of arrest attached which may lead to prison if the terms are breached, though as I said above its hard to see how they could get one just to prevent a named person from floating down a river every now and then (though again I am not that familiar with civil legislation, an actual solicitor should be asked for their advice).


 
Good good. I'll tell them to go fuck themselves next time.


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> Good good. I'll tell them to go fuck themselves next time.


 
Get some proper advice first, people who own rivers are usually both loaded and ligitious.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Apr 30, 2012)

Yeah, we are going to try and do something about this, I sort of deferred to the folks I was paddling with seemed a little to humble for my tastes, but I'll roll with it for now, I'm new to these parts, but it's not like we've got any agreements to jepodise lol. 

Someone really does need to go to go and get a clear ruling about if you can trespass on water though mind.


----------



## Kingsway91 (Apr 30, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> Someone really does need to go to go and get a clear ruling about if you can trespass on water though mind.


 
There is clear ruling, but it isn't one that paddlers like.




> The current position of the law is settled in that no general public right to navigate in non tidal
> rivers exists in England and Wales. While the public has the right of navigation in tidal waters (e.g. Gann v Free Fishers of Whitstable (1865) 11 H.L.Cas; Blundell v Caterall (1821) 5B & Ald. 268), this depends on the presumption of the Crown's ownership of the land beneath the water. This presumption is rebuttable and there are some instances where the tidal riverbed is under private ownership.
> 
> The presumption of rights of navigation on tidal rivers contrasts with the very limited right on non-tidal rivers. The default position is that there is no such general right of navigation. Above the flow of tide the land beneath a river or stream is privately owned so that while the public can acquire navigational rights over such waters they cannot have them as of right. It has been held that rights of navigation on inland waterways are not analogous to rights of way on land (Wills' Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School (1976) SLT 162 and AG
> ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust and Malton Town Council v Brotherton [1992] 1 All ER 230).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 30, 2012)

Do famers get to sue these landowners when 'their' rivers burst their banks and flood adjacent farmland? 

I think I know the answer to that question somehow.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 30, 2012)

I never heard of a 'water bailiff' before reading this thread. Does this mean there are really people whose entire purpose in life is to stop folk from going for a swim in a lake or paddling a canoe down a river? Do they evict fish when there are no humans around to pick on?


----------



## past caring (Apr 30, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> Had a glorious day kayaking today, with the mild irritation that some water baliffs/game keepers working on behalf on the landowner had tracked us down the river, parked there 4x4s and shouted at us to get of the river. Fortunately it was where were planning on getting out there anyway, so it was no great issue, although it fucks me of that in England we have access to 2% to 4% of the rivers and in the Peak District were I've moved to the total stretch of undisputed rivers is about 350m.
> 
> All a bit fitting as the Mass Trespass on Kinder Scout happened 80 years ago this week.
> 
> ...


 
Depends, try to paddle through the bit of river that I'm fishing without so much as a by-your-leave and I'm liable to see if I can stick my fly in your head.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 30, 2012)

How the fuck can anyone own a river? Which bit do they own, the flowing water or the bed? The entire idea of owning land is, at best, flawed, but owning a river? Jesus.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (May 1, 2012)

past caring said:


> Depends, try to paddle through the bit of river that I'm fishing without so much as a by-your-leave and I'm liable to see if I can stick my fly in your head.


 
If see fisherman on a river I'll always try and portage or go round them. There has been far more animosity from fisherman to paddlers then the other way round...we've spent many many years trying to things properly and negotiate access and got no where, so it's not surprising that many of us thinking fuck this and doing our own thing.

The thing is we've no problem with other water users, it's others who selfishly want to keep it for themselves at the exclusion of others.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (May 1, 2012)

Kingsway91 said:


> There is clear ruling, but it isn't one that paddlers like.


 
Except that ruling was in Scotland, where paddlers now the right to paddle where they like. It's England and Wales that are behind the rest of Europe here.


----------



## weepiper (May 1, 2012)

Bloody ridiculous frankly, what happens if you're canoeing down a river starting off in Scotland and you paddle over the border? The water in the river has flowed from Scotland where you have a right to access, but because it's now flowing over some English toff's land you're trespassing? Insane.


----------



## likesfish (May 1, 2012)

fishermen are always bad tempered so fuck em frankly.
  had some amazing rows with the cunts at the lake in crawley where canoeing is perfectly legit.
 stupid tit had set up on the slipway  by the canone shed.

   apprantly kayakers damage the lake and leave litter? 
 because all kayakers carry half a mile of fishing line to leave at the side of lake


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (May 1, 2012)

likesfish said:


> fishermen are always bad tempered so fuck em frankly.
> had some amazing rows with the cunts at the lake in crawley where canoeing is perfectly legit.
> stupid tit had set up on the slipway  by the canone shed.
> 
> ...


 
Apparently we upset the fish as well


----------



## likesfish (May 1, 2012)

did cs gas a lot of fishermen once though .

picture the screen early one morning excitable soldier in full nbc kit attempting to shout at assorted anglers as the early morning mist rolls across fishing ponds (except its not mist its cloud of cs gas caused by a pryomanic sgt )
 anglers refuse to take notice and are soon choking on gas fumes opps.


----------



## pogofish (May 1, 2012)

likesfish said:


> Its not like kayakers do damage or are very annoying


 
IME, the only people who get really annoyed about kyakers are the twats who have paid stupid money to play the wee Lairdie with "Exclusive" use of a stretch of water/beat and the estates/riparian owners who profit from them.

Also, IMO the excuse that they disturb fishing is highly dubious - Some of the best spots I've ever known for game fish have been in busy harbour mouths/stretches of river with bloody great ships thundering to and fro, whilst the times of day you are most likely to find kyakers on a river are not usually the times when fish run - That is usually best around dusk/dawn and at night. More mundane trout however recover from any disturbance pretty quickly.

There has been an admittedly uneasy but reasonably well respected truce between the public Angling Associations, estates and riparian owners on the lower stretches of the main river here - about 20 miles, for the last fifteen years or so and in that period the flutcuations in catches have largely been attributed to wider environmental problems, not the activities of any particualr group of river users.


----------



## past caring (May 1, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> If see fisherman on a river I'll always try and portage or go round them. There has been far more animosity from fisherman to paddlers then the other way round...we've spent many many years trying to things properly and negotiate access and got no where, so it's not surprising that many of us thinking fuck this and doing our own thing.
> 
> The thing is we've no problem with other water users, it's others who selfishly want to keep it for themselves at the exclusion of others.


 
Well, generally, I don't have a problem with canoeists - it was the "Fuck it/them, I'm going to do it anyway" attitude that seemed to come across in the opening post that got my back up.

For myself, I'm all for a live and let live attitude - and I tend to agree that there's probably more animosity from anglers to canoeists than the other way round. So far as I can work out, objections appear to have two main thrusts;

1. We have to pay to fish - both for the rod licence (south of the border, at least) and for the permit to whoever owns the fishing rights to that particular bit of water - so why do canoeists gets to use the river for free? Bollocks, in my view and an attitude that I despise - things are shit for me so I want them to be shit for everyone else, basically.

2. I disturbs the fish. No it doesn't - at least not in moderation. I've fished on the Wye when canoeists were coming through the beat and although it did put the fish down, they were happily rising again  5 minutes later, so no big deal really. But there can be a problem where the river isn't wide enough for canoeists to give anglers a wide birth (I'm talking about fly fishers really, here, who are inevitably going to be wading in the river) and where at the same time there's a more or less constant stream of canoe traffic. And that can happen on some stretches of the Wye at weekends.*

I hold no brief for landlowners/riprarian owners - a lot of them are intent at denying access to anglers as they are to canoeists, or if they do allow access then charge extortionately.

I am not sure where precisely in Wales you are talking about having a problem negotiating access? But both the Wye and the Usk do have agreements that allow canoe access - see here - and if this was stuck to, there shouldn't be a problem. But there is often a problem with some canoeists/rafters not sticking to the agreement.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (May 1, 2012)

The fuck it attitude comes from when being reasonable and trying to negtiate access has not worked.

1. Why shouldn't canoeist use the river for free, same as hill walkers don't pay to access the hills - we take nothing out of it, although I'm happy to pay for parking and facilities if they are provided. If there is a fund for paths/access points, I'll happily donate. If you pay/don't pay is no issue of mine.

2. I've no issue with you "distrubing the fish". It's the arguement that used against us, just seems a little hypocritical.

I'm not that up on access in Wales, but there are plenty of rivers with no access, though it's a lot better then here in the Peak we have 350m of undisputed access to white water. In England only 2 to 4% of rivers have access agreements.


----------



## pogofish (May 1, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Bloody ridiculous frankly, what happens if you're canoeing down a river starting off in Scotland and you paddle over the border? The water in the river has flowed from Scotland where you have a right to access, but because it's now flowing over some English toff's land you're trespassing? Insane.


 
It is the case though that in Scotland anyway, Water Bailiffs do have significant powers of stop, search, detention and seizure and have been known to use them to try and make kyakers lives difficult where they can, despite their right to actually use the waters - and Waters in the Borders/south have been amongst the worst for these shonky tactics. They use them on plenty of other people too - Walkers, birdwatchers etc - more or less anyone their employers can't fleece large sums of money out of, so they aint welcome. 

ETA - Details on powers here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/26800/0014458.pdf


----------



## past caring (May 1, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> The fuck it attitude comes from when being reasonable and trying to negtiate access has not worked.
> 
> 1. Why shouldn't canoeist use the river for free, same as hill walkers don't pay to access the hills - we take nothing out of it, although I'm happy to pay for parking and facilities if they are provided. If there is a fund for paths/access points, I'll happily donate. If you pay/don't pay is no issue of mine.


 
Read my post again - you seem to have missed the fact I made exactly the same point.



> 2. I've no issue with you "distrubing the fish". It's the arguement that used against us, just seems a little hypocritical.


 
As above.

But negotiated access requires some limits. For instance, most places where it's possible to obtain fishing access on a day-ticket basis will issue only a limited number of tickets. On something the size of the Wye (probably 70 yards across where I mainly fish) they'd only allow 3, maybe 4 max over a mile long stretch - bear in mind that despite the width of the river, much of it will not be fishable because it will be too deep to wade. On something smaller (width wise) but of the same length, you'd probably only be allowed 2 - this is because otherwise you're constantly bumping up against one another or fishing through pools that another angler has fished only a short while before and you're not going to catch anything that way.

As I say, there's not a huge problem with canoeists/paddlers disturbing the fish, so long as it's not a constant stream - the Wye and Usk agreement is that canoeists have unrestricted access between Autumn and early Springbut and at other times when the rivers are in high flow (anglers couldn't fish then anyway). How would you suggest from a canoeist's oint of view that the following is dealt with;

a) limiting numbers - not constantly a problem, but it does happen regularly enough to be an issue.

b) policing those who canoe outside the agreed access times, when the river is low? (canoeing in low flows is much more of a problem from an angler's point of view - there's less room to be able to go around an angler and the fact that the water is clear will cause much more disturbance to the fish). again, not a constant problem, but it does happen with some regularity.



> I'm not that up on access in Wales, but there are plenty of rivers with no access, though it's a lot better then here in the Peak we have 350m of undisputed access to white water. In England only 2 to 4% of rivers have access agreements.


 
Your o/p specifically talked about problems with access in Wales - or did I misread that?


----------



## ymu (May 1, 2012)

Think the legals would depend very heavily on the local situation. It all gets a bit complicated with riparian law. I know someone who regularly poaches one stretch of trout fishing by boat - he reckons they only own the riverbed up to 6' from the bank so he just ignores them and helps himself.

The right of way argument might be complicated by the fact that you have to pay a licence fee to canoe (or use any other kind of boat) on most inland waterways that are not privately owned. No idea if private riparian landowners are allowed to impose a fee on boats the same way as they do fishermen. I know that some waterways restoration projects have been made very expensive by private landowners demanding various favours in return for allowing right of way, but this often just seems to be rich people making life difficult because they can, and getting away with it because it would be more expensive and time-consuming to fight the court case.

I think it would probably be quite expensive for them to get a legal solution, and not too risky for you if they tried. Stick two fingers up at them, I guess. Just don't leave your valuables parked on their land next time.


----------



## likesfish (May 1, 2012)

thing is with the wye you have companies hiring out canones so you can have a  party of a dozen canoes taking up to half an hour to get pass.
  which isgoing to piss someone off whos paid 70 quid for the day. especailly if it happens a couple of times a day.


----------



## past caring (May 1, 2012)

ymu said:


> Think the legals would depend very heavily on the local situation. It all gets a bit complicated with riparian law. I know someone who regularly poaches one stretch of trout fishing by boat - he reckons they only own the riverbed up to 6' from the bank so he just ignores them and helps himself.


 
He's wrong. Generally speaking, someone with riprarian rights (i.e. whose land adjoins the watercourse) will own the land up to the centre of the watercourse, unless the land is actually owned by someone else, or unless they also own the land adjoining the other bank. This means that the other riprarian owner on the other bank will own the other bit of land up to the centre of the watercourse - there's a straight split down the middle and certainly no "dead man's land" in the middle.


----------



## past caring (May 1, 2012)

likesfish said:


> thing is with the wye you have companies hiring out canones so you can have a party of a dozen canoes taking up to half an hour to get pass.
> which isgoing to piss someone off whos paid 70 quid for the day. especailly if it happens a couple of times a day.


 
£70 a day? Must be a salmon fisher - not my favourite breed of angler, it must be said. 

Those companies really do need policing - the fact is that many of them will allow people to hire canoes with little or no training and this means not only that they are likely to be inconsiderate of anglers (generally out of ignorance, rather than malice) they are also a danger to themselves. There's been more than one death as a result of irresponsible hire in recent years and any number of near misses.


----------



## likesfish (May 1, 2012)

remember that case wye in flood no place for me or any other  inexperianced canoeist.
  woud think the river was not much good for the casual boater at the moment.


----------



## pogofish (May 1, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I never heard of a 'water bailiff' before reading this thread.


 
WBs are a historic and longstanding way of policing rivers.  A very brief outline here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_bailiff

However, despite their police-like powers, there is little control of these guys or how they act and an appointment is often made from staff of the landowner/riparian owner, so they are very often rather determined in acting for those interests.

Recently things seem to be changing South of the Border, with WBs being directly engaged by the Environment Agency in England and In Scotland, by the various associations that administer river "Protection Orders" (which are very often not, but that's another thread), which again are often little more than a monopoly of vested interests lording it over everyone else. 

Larger estates/riparian owners can still employ their own WBs and the vaugeries of the current legislation means that once appointed, they can operate on *any* waters in the entire catchment area regardless of them being wanted there or not.  There has been a longstanding feud between WBs for the estate near me and the public waters downstream, which has led to stand-up fights and a farcical court hearing, on the riverbank where the WBs were eventually found well and truly guilty of harrassment but still got wrist-slap fines and kept their jobs/WB appointments!


----------



## pogofish (May 1, 2012)

past caring said:


> £70 a day? Must be a salmon fisher - not my favourite breed of angler, it must be said.


 
That is bloody cheap for salmon/sea trout - round here, several hundred pounds a day is not uncommon and the top beats go into four figures!  Even the few public beats are not far short of that for a single day.

This is the real legacy of the "Protection Order" system - All it really serves is to protect the income of landed interests.  Nothing really to do with conservation - although the 2003 revision to the laws did try to adress that somewhat, rather this was a sweetner to the landowners after the ending of Feu Duty (Medieval system of payments to the local Laird, that persisted even on land sold-off longsince) in the mid 1970s.


----------



## ymu (May 1, 2012)

past caring said:


> He's wrong. Generally speaking, someone with riprarian rights (i.e. whose land adjoins the watercourse) will own the land up to the centre of the watercourse, unless the land is actually owned by someone else, or unless they also own the land adjoining the other bank. This means that the other riprarian owner on the other bank will own the other bit of land up to the centre of the watercourse - there's a straight split down the middle and certainly no "dead man's land" in the middle.


Yeah, he is  supremely good bullshitter. I think his argument rests largely on "how you gonna stop me?".


----------



## past caring (May 1, 2012)

pogofish said:


> That is bloody cheap for salmon/sea trout - round here, several hundred pounds a day is not uncommon and the top beats go into four figures! Even the few public beats are not far short of that for a single day.


 
Yeah well, if people are mug enough to pay that...to be honest, I've never seen the attraction of salmon fishing - it's basically just glorified down and across to my mind. There's some skill in spey casting, obviously, but beyond that there's fuck all to it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 1, 2012)

ymu said:


> Yeah, he is supremely good bullshitter. I think his argument rests largely on "how you gonna stop me?".


 
Whichever landowner turns up to shout at you, you can just paddle over to the other bloke's side of the river. 

Who owns the fish I wonder? It must be a murderous job trying to convince your fish to stay on your side of the river.


----------



## pogofish (May 1, 2012)

past caring said:


> Yeah well, if people are mug enough to pay that...to be honest,


 
A lot of it here is corporate entertainment/perks these days - With the riparian owners acting through London-based agents or solicitors. And the clients seem to spend most of their time lounging around the luxury bothies that have sprung-up on nearly every beat waiting for the best time for runs, whilst locals don't stand a chance of getting near a river on any sort of affordable basis other than on grossly oversubscribed public beats or occasionally by buying a River Warden (WB equivalent of a PSCO) a few pints and getting a free day when one of the high-paying groups packed-up early and went home.

Still, it beings some interesting characters in - Finding Robin Williams tackling-up early one morning in my road a few years back was a surprise!


----------



## pogofish (May 1, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Who owns the fish I wonder? It must be a murderous job trying to convince your fish to stay on your side of the river.


 
That is fairly clear in law - The fish belong to whoever's side of the river they are over at the time and at the time you hook them. Same on land with Grouse and other game species, although there is the occasional stushie with one landowner claiming their neighbour is pinching their pheasants by laying out food to lure them on to their land but the courts mostly say "tough shit!"

Also, where a protection order is involved, and rivers are stocked from hatcheries, the farmed fish are "owned" on an area-wide basis by the association whose remit extends to the entire catchment, even if the individual riparian owner wants nothing to do with them


----------



## past caring (May 1, 2012)

Depends what you're after I suppose.....

Certainly the problem you describe is pronounced in south east England - a day ticket on the Test or Itchen will set you back at least a couple of hundred notes, but then who wants to be rubbing shoulders with idiot city boys whilst trying to catch stocked fish anyway? And those few rivers that aren't so expensive have huge waiting lists - dead men's shoes turnout.

Most of my fishing is done in Wales or Devon with the occasional foray to Scotland. But that's where you are, isn't it? I know there can be a similar problem with access/silly prices on some salmon rivers, but there's also fucking loads of affordable/free fishing available isn't there? (Certainly my mates on the WFF don't seem to have a problem finding affordable fishing).


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 1, 2012)

pogofish said:


> Also, where a protection order is involved, and rivers are stocked from hatcheries, the farmed fish are "owned" on an area-wide basis by the association whose remit extends to the entire catchment, even if the individual riparian owner wants nothing to do with them


 
Presumably the fish pay rent in this situation though?


----------



## pogofish (May 1, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Presumably the fish pay rent in this situation though?


 
Once a Protection Order is established, all riparian owners in the catchment have to pay towards the Association, regardless of their wanting to be in it or not - The greatly increased fees this has caused probably offset costs nicely for them - In many cases, the smaller owners have simply given-up in dealing with the Associations and their vested interests and leased their waters to outside management companies, larger owners and the like. Others on smaller tributaries have been forced to shut down fishing altogether on sometimes very dubious "conservation" grounds.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (May 1, 2012)

past caring said:


> Read my post again - you seem to have missed the fact I made exactly the same point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Rivers where there are access agreements are slightly different and not really what I started the thread about

The kind of boating I do I'm not intrested in rivers that are low, because they're dull and you end up scrapping along the bottom. Touring rivers that are low I honestly don't know about...I don't know folk who paddle them. I'd like to say education, but your always going to get idiots. 

I'm more of a climber then a paddler, but in the climbing world, you won't get much respect from your peers if you climbing during a bird ban, although there is generally a lot more choice of venues as climbers don't face the same sort of restrictions that paddlers do.

In regards to Wales I was saying that the Welsh Canoe Union aren't negotiating any more access agreements, which seems the sensible option here. 

It does sound that we're singing of the same songsheet, we need dialogue and better relationships between different water users, but their needs to be compromise and on the majority of rivers, there is none.


----------



## pogofish (May 1, 2012)

past caring said:


> but there's also fucking loads of affordable/free fishing available isn't there? (Certainly my mates on the WFF don't seem to have a problem finding affordable fishing).


 
Its getting less by the year TBH - Some areas are still OK, mainly in places where POs have not been established and the hill lochs/lesser tributaries can be more accessable/affordable, esp in remote areas and if you are prepared to hike a bit but I'm disabled FTM (awaiting surgery to hopefully restore my movement), so can't go anything like as far as I used to but it is galling to live within a few yards of good waters but have to drive at least twenty miles each way to find anything remotely affordable!

Its no surprise to me that the growth area in fishing in Scotland recently for ordinary people has been in commercial stillwaters/stewponds etc - They at least are reasonably priced and welcoming to customers without all the shit you have to go through in dealing with the Estates/Assocs etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Trespass is usually a civil offence.
> http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dtl/index.cfm?event=base:article&node=A76076D34460


 
River users should do what ramblers did to van Hoogstraaten - cut the wires, clear the obstacles, and give the "bailiffs" the finger.
I say "bailiffs", because I don't recall that water bailiffs, i.e. agents of the Department of the Environment, have the power to place obstacles in water courses. I suspect that rather than water bailiffs, these people were just toadies of the land-owner, and as such, could be enjoined to go and copulate with some livestock.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> I'm guessing they could be used to deter wondering sheep. Remember a kayaker is very close to the water, so not standing head height.


 
No.
Rope, maybe, but you wouldn't use wire, because river current + sheep has the same potential for harm as it does for a human. rope is at least thicker and *slightly* less likely to cause a severe injury. Also, if the excuse used is for fording, rope would again be the most proper material - easier to grip because it is thicker, better to lock onto if you're wearing a harness.


----------



## krink (May 1, 2012)

Just do it mate, fuck em, just go enjoy yourself. Only time to be concerned is if Landy Toffwank starts shooting at you.


----------



## Kingsway91 (May 1, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> In regards to Wales I was saying that the Welsh Canoe Union aren't negotiating any more access agreements, which seems the sensible option here.


 
You're behind the times fellah, Canoe Wales have been forced back into negotiation by the Welsh Government.




> At the last Water Recreation Ministerial Advisory Group (WRMAG) meeting in Aberystwyth, a number of parties raised that the perceived position of Canoe Wales on access agreements was an impediment to progress. Ashley Charlwood agreed to clarify that position, and it was also agreed that Welsh Government officials would discuss this further with Canoe Wales.
> The statement released by Canoe Wales here now addresses the concern about negotiating local agreements and arrangements, and provides clarity to local canoe clubs on their important role in negotiating new access agreements. The announcement has been welcomed by the Minister: http://www.twitter.com/envirominwales "Pleased Canoe Wales statement clarifies canoe clubs can negotiate local access. Should result in more recreation opportunities for Wales."


----------



## Kingsway91 (May 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> River users should do what ramblers did to van Hoogstraaten - cut the wires, clear the obstacles, and give the "bailiffs" the finger.
> I say "bailiffs", because I don't recall that water bailiffs, i.e. agents of the Department of the Environment, have the power to place obstacles in water courses. I suspect that rather than water bailiffs, these people were just toadies of the land-owner, and as such, could be enjoined to go and copulate with some livestock.





pogofish said:


> WBs are a historic and longstanding way of policing rivers. A very brief outline here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_bailiff
> 
> ...


 
Almost all the above is total nonsense, the only people with 'police-like powers' are the Environment Agency employed Enforcement Officers (sometimes wrongly called water bailiffs) these guys have exactly the same powers of arrest as a police constable.

Riparian owners and angling associations can appoint water bailiffs if they so wish to protect their fish and fishing rights from poachers and trespassers and they might receive training from EA Enforcement Officers in fishery protection, but they have no more powers in law than any other member of the public.


----------



## likesfish (May 3, 2012)

its going to end badly for the fish torturers 30 years of negociations only 2% of water navigable meanwhile in scotland it was working.


----------

