Dealing with Water Bailiffs and Landowners?

[UnderOpenSky]

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.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

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]

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]

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

 

[UnderOpenSky]

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

Apparently we upset the fish as well

 

[likesfish]

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]

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]

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.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

£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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

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



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.



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

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]

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]

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]

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.