Access Awareness April 2012

[kendall chew]

Right then,

With any luck, this link will take the reader to "Petitioning Parliament". Towards the bottom of the large blue boxed column (above Emily Pankhurst) is another link to organising an e - petition. If this is to be a co-ordinated act, we need one hynm sheet from which we all sing, so; Who is organising the protest and, why (specifically). Who is going to write the title document to be signed by at least 100,000 people ( we need 100k people for the petition to be read in the House of Commons). Who will be the spokesman when the petition is acknowledged?

http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/h ... titioning/

Now for the communications bit: Get the e-mail addresses of ALL your contacts in the paddling world. Mail your intentions to them, get them to do the same. Then, when the e petition is ready, fire it out to everyone as a cascade event. Get mums, dads and grandparents to sign it. Note that under sixteens are unlikely to be taken seriously ( but that's another issue) by parliament - If you cannot vote or die for your country, they don't want to know (Summertime Blues, for those old enough to understand!).

Let's get this one going, but fast!

[kendall chew]

Ok,

So my last post was, in part, a waste of time. The petition exists:

Make all UK rivers fully open to public use

Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs


Remove barriers to access of rivers in the UK for the general public to use, on a system similar to Scotland for responsible use. The current archaic riparian landowners belief they control who goes on the water is misguided and legislation needs putting in place to ensure everyone can use these national resources without intimidation or harassment

You have to go to the e petition section and search " Make all UK rivers fully open to public use". there are 14 signatures, the closing date is the start of August. I am going to place the link on my face bookpage. and suggest we start making everyone aware of the existence of the petition.

[boatmum]

looking at practical issues i have stated elsewhereI have great sympathy with regard to the access problem but dont feel Olympic Selection at LV is an appropriate event to stage a protest.

1 will your supporters be prepared to pay to go to the event? Admission is by fee

2 I understand there is a 6m from bank edge exclusion rule so you wont be able to line the side of the course.

3 At the risk of sprint racers hating me forever - wouldn't a longer more accessible course provide better publicity ( such as a sprint course) ?

I am a bit bothered by some the aggressiveness of some of the responses (both sides) in this thread which experience leads me to suspect the protest at the end of the day would not turn out peaceful

[kendall chew]

Boatmum,

Please check out the online petition -you can access this on my facebook page ( it's a Parliamentary petition, started by someone else but, only has 33 signatures, to date)

[boatmum]

Erm I live in Scotland and we dont have the same issue so I dont need to petition my MP BUT I would encourage others in England to do so - Scotland has had its problems over the Land Reform Act but on the whole it works well

Good luck with your petition

[blib]

Thanks for the responses so far. I'll try and address a couple of points.

A poll was mentioned, often polls do not capture the varying opinions and can be swayed by the wording of questions. The range of answers being given in the open format, from the different locations is giving a lot of useful feedback.

3 At the risk of sprint racers hating me forever - wouldn't a longer more accessible course provide better publicity ( such as a sprint course) ?

I am a bit bothered by some the aggressiveness of some of the responses (both sides) in this thread which experience leads me to suspect the protest at the end of the day would not turn out peaceful

The issue does not affect sprint and marathon paddlers in the same way as it does Slalom, WWR, Freestyle and recreational paddlers, due to the location of 'flat water racing' being predominantly covered in the 2% of non contested water, and or regulated water. The issue directly affects slalom paddlers, for instance in Wales the slalom paddlers supported and assisted in opposing the view held by fisheries. Slalom suffered short term on the River Dee, when all agreements were rejected by Canoe Wales in favour of addressing the issue as a National campaign. Slalom competitions have been restored (All recreational paddlers have welcomed the return of the competitions, recognising the significance of the Dee in the Slalom calendar of events) and have agreement that only covers the competition without including any restriction for others outside of the agreement, leaving paddlers to make their own decision about paddling or not. Recreational paddlers are still suffering abuse and threats on the Dee. Canoe operators on the river are currently on the receiving end of threats from fisheries via the EA! The situation below Llangollen is far from ideal for touring paddlers, swimmers and walkers, with threats and abuse aimed at paddlers. You may think it is okay to sit back and think Scotland is fine, yet recently fisheries have taken council to court to force restrictions on rafters, which will put guides out of full time work, and will no doubt be taken by the fisheries as precedent to apply to canoeists.


The only successful protests are peaceful. Silent, peaceful, no parading, hold banners, make statement, no impact on the selection event, nothing else would be acceptable to anyone who has versed opinion either way on this issue, canoeists have shown after years of restriction/abuse and harassment that they are only in favour of civilised and peaceful response, there is no indication to think otherwise.

As stated the largest media attention will be paid to the athletes themselves, if they would be willing to state the issues it would carry weight.




If possible I would welcome more responses, from as many paddlers, parents, supporters etc. as possible, and will at the end of this week collate the responses. The overall key points will be shown in all the locations the info was initially placed, and follow up info and ways that people can assist with the on going issue will be given. I'll try to answer all the private messages and emails by the end of the week as well. Thanks

[Mummsie]

Just a point of information - there will be little media coverage of this event, there MAY be a possibility of local TV but there is no national TV coverage and the only press there will be sports specific who will only be interested in reporting on Olympic selection and no wider issues!

[blib]

http://vimeo.com/38624686
Please feel free to link and share this short video about UK river Access.

[boatmum]

You may think it is okay to sit back and think Scotland is fine, yet recently fisheries have taken council to court to force restrictions on rafters, which will put guides out of full time work, and will no doubt be taken by the fisheries as precedent to apply to canoeists.

I didn't say it was 100% fine I said we don't have the same issues any more - I would just like to make sure that the exchange here is factual.

The situation on the River Tay - which is what I believe you are alluding to - was an action taken by a local Fishing Club to have a restriction put on commercial rafting companies (The measure had previously been recommended by Perth and Kinross Local Access Forum) on 3 weekdays on a specific section of the River Tay during the salmon season and my understanding is that after due process this restriction has been lifted until the case is reheard in April when the commercial rafting companies can state their case.

During the original moves it was cited in the media by the parties seeking the restriction that they had no quarrel with canoeists or kayakers as they did not affect fishing in the same way and were respectful of other river users' needs. So I dont believe there is any fear of this affecting paddlers in the long term.

More info http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sc ... -1-2077131

for anyone wanting to read what happened ☺

I dont know how this was reported South ...

[blib]

Sorry poor wording on my part, I was trying to demonstrate generally to all that there are issues in all the home nations, and that Scotland is not fine, as many South of the Border are lead to believe. The legal action demonstrates a refusal of the fisheries to adhere to the access forum decision, that had already seen a reduction in rafting to a level that was sustainable showing compromise on both sides.


Edit: Some discussion and perspective from the rafters is included in this thread which has been following the Tay situation: http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/foru ... it=rafting

[James Hastings]

Hi Ho, here we go again. I'm afraid that I must take issue with the wording of Kendal's epetition as it re-inforces an incorrect view of the law around access. The statement Scotland (and most other countries) allow non-powered craft to
navigate any of its waterways. However, this is deemed to be trespass in England and Wales since the riverbeds belong to riparian landowners is factually incorrect. The ownership of land and/or riparian rights provide no basis for the obstruction of passage on navigable rivers. Thus as long as you access and egress a stretch of river from public points, trespass should not be an issue.

What you have done in the peitition is taken landowners'/riparian owners' OPINION as the de facto position and it isn't. It does not surprise me that some kayakers have problems with this issue, given that our alleged NGB, the BCU, have problems getting it right - I recently had to successfully correct an access statement on the Yorcie web site. I find it very frustrating that we have enough problem countering those that would try to keep us off the rivers without the added problem of misinformation from our own side.

In terms of your petition Kendal, I will not be signing it as I believe that any change in the law, given the nature of the current government, would be likely to go against us.

As I have stated above, the law as it currently stands should allow passage down most waterways. Thus go out and paddle when you want, taking into account environmental considerations, and robustly defend your right to paddle if challenged. The last two challenges to me have, rather predictably, been on North Wales rivers. My response to both was if you think I'm doing something illegal then please feel free to call the police. Needless to say on neither occasion did the person who confronted me take up this offer.

Rant over.

James

[BaldockBabe]

Hi Ho, here we go again. I'm afraid that I must take issue with the wording of Kendal's epetition as it re-inforces an incorrect view of the law around access. The statement Scotland (and most other countries) allow non-powered craft to
navigate any of its waterways. However, this is deemed to be trespass in England and Wales since the riverbeds belong to riparian landowners is factually incorrect. The ownership of land and/or riparian rights provide no basis for the obstruction of passage on navigable rivers. Thus as long as you access and egress a stretch of river from public points, trespass should not be an issue.

What you have done in the peitition is taken landowners'/riparian owners' OPINION as the de facto position and it isn't.

I concur and have emailed Kendal stating the above when he emailed the protest around. It's also made it onto Facebook and I have given up pointing out that it is poorly drafted and incorrect and does not help the cause at all. Anyone in favour of the fishermen/ landowners etc are going to jump on the "deemed tresspass" and hold it against us.

[Seedy Paddler]

Taking away the emotive argument about disrupting the competitors and impacting their preparations and objectives. The proposal is wrong on several basic levels:
1/ The selection event is liable to be low key with limited specialist press reporters, so turning up and protesting is unlikely to introduce a wider awareness.
2/ There is a general view from the riparian view that just as they pay to use our resources so should paddlers. For example if a paddler bought the riparian rights to a section of river they would be at liberty to stop angling and promote paddling. Now I know that I face sufficient questions when I buy a new piece of paddling kit, I hate to think on the level of hot tongue and cold shoulder suppers I would face if I bought the riparian rights to a local section of water to stop getting hassle from fisher-folk. It also brings into the spotlight that the very resource where the campaign is being undertaken is subject to a rental fee to use.
3/ English Law is ill defined, there is no legal precedent that categorically states you are undertaking an illegal act by paddling across someone elses land (it is clear they do not own the water only the solum).

So we have a protest at a fee paying resource (where competitors and spectators have paid to utilise) to promote a campaign that states we are of a different opinion to others on the legal situation in England and Wales and we want free access to paddling resources. There will be minimal coverage but it will demonstrate a huge own goal for the Riparian interests, if you pay at Lee Valley why not at Yeo Valley?

I would support a campaign but the target should be the DW Race, on a natural river and ending up at Westminister. Huge number of competitors not all highly serious but also challenge paddlers, charity campaigners etc. Finish the race and hand a petition to the House on the way off the river.

As for some of the debate - a couple of points:
1/ The petition is to the UK Parliament that includes Scots MPs, therefore all Scottish based paddlers should be supportive and target their MPs as well. If we are to break off to a mini English Assembly then they need to establish and elect such with similar remit etc to the parliamentary assemblies in Scotland; Wales and Ulster. UK Parliament is not for English business!
2/ Scots Law does not include the recognition of precedence, all cases must be adjudicated on their own situation. Precendent may be cited to support but does not create a definitive for future case law.
3/ English Law is ill defined and there are interpretatiopns that provide you with the right to paddle. As the Scots did back in the 60's, 70's and 80's get out and paddle assert and declare your right at every opportunity. As in Scotland you may not find that much appetite to legally challenge your assertion.

CD

[Neil H]

3/ English Law is ill defined, there is no legal precedent that categorically states you are undertaking an illegal act by paddling across someone elses land (it is clear they do not own the water only the solum).

I would support a campaign but the target should be the DW Race, on a natural river and ending up at Westminister. Huge number of competitors not all highly serious but also challenge paddlers, charity campaigners etc. Finish the race and hand a petition to the House on the way off the river.

3/ English Law is ill defined and there are interpretatiopns that provide you with the right to paddle. As the Scots did back in the 60's, 70's and 80's get out and paddle assert and declare your right at every opportunity. As in Scotland you may not find that much appetite to legally challenge your assertion.

CD

I've been reading with interest the debate running here, sometimes contentious, always passionate. It seems clear, picking through it, that there is a common goal.
The closest correlation to me would be the Right to Roam, I think that's stating the obvious but worth saying as I don't think it's been mentioned here - apologies if it has.

So given that English law is ill defined why not literally test the water?

I think from distant memory the Ramblers had something going on some years back - effectively an annual mass 'trespass' which helped to get them where they are today (I don't remember the facts though - without research, so there is room for error in my statements.) Assuming it's accepted they reached their goal.

I remember their campaign had some simple catchy name or other - can anyone recall?

So the obvious question is why not follow a successful model. What did they do right - what were the setbacks (I'm sure there were some.)
Would a mass annual protest with the highest profile (DW or otherwise) be the best option. Well certainly the Ramblers employed that approach and to me several hundred brightly coloured boats, of all shapes and sizes, on the water has to be as equally noticeable as several hundred ramblers across a moor.
I'm talking about a peaceful paddle and by that I mean no seal launching or antics that could be construed as affecting the environment etc or it would be a shot in the foot.
If there is anyone out there who had/has involvement with the Right to Roam it would be interesting to hear from them

[boatmum]

Hi Neil

As you rightly say the ramblers put forward a successful right to roam bill I think back n the late 1990s

Thing is as James has stated earlier -

The ownership of land and/or riparian rights provide no basis for the obstruction of passage on navigable rivers. Thus as long as you access and egress a stretch of river from public points, trespass should not be an issue.

I think Seedys suggestion for a protest would be by far the most effective to publicise a call for better access rights.