Canoe License?

[Wildfisher]

With Scotland looking likely to go down the same road as England and adopt a rod license I wonder how long it will be before we also need canoe  licenses?

It would certainly be a  popular move  with many river  fishing proprietors who have little love for them and the disturbance they cause to paying anglers. If these same paying anglers are further burdened by a rod tax there are bound to be calls from the wider angling community for a bit of even handedness and a contribution from all water users.

With increasing numbers of canoes being seen on our rivers and lochs this surely cannot be a revue stream the SG can afford to ignore.  A  rod license would create a precedent  and may be the thin end of the wedge.

[Inchlaggan]

Or a "Boot License" for walkers? A "Tent License" for wild campers?
The same logic applies, a revenue stream, users "putting something back" and so on.

[Wildfisher]

Well Ken, I have to agree that seems to be the stalkers path were are on.  Only weeks ago if anyone had suggested a rod tax was on the cards they would have been told not to be so daft. I'm not sure a boot or tent tax is a good comparison though.   A rod and canoe tax are at least connected by waterway use. Doesn't England have a canoe licence?

http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/membership/waterways-licences/

[corsican dave]

i'm sure you're right, Fred. i constantly hear fishermen (mostly salmon types it has to be said) moaning that they've paid lots of money to fish, whilst the canoeists (and others) get to use the river for free. of course the issue is that the licence is for the right to fish, not to have access to the river or the bank. this latter is enshrined in the access legislation.

quite aside from the biggest problem; idiots on both sides "exercising" their rights to the detriment of others (even though this is actually at odds with the code of the access legislation), any opportunity to extract revenue and exercise control would appear to be very attractive to many.

as you say, thin end of the wedge. the urbano-centrics have already started to show an unhealthy interest in hill-walking/mountaineering accidents. the obvious way to reduce these would be to limit access to the hills!

it would be nice to think that the other water users would support a campaign against rod licences in the hope of ensuring that no-one's access to the countryside is limited, although i suspect that many canoeists are unaware of the current situation or the risks it might pose to their access in the future. user-groups such as the spey user group have been very successful in bringing about good relationships between fishermen and other users, and maybe this is the way forward? i will certainly be making my contacts aware of the potential risks and opportunities for co-operation.

one of the big problems i see is that commercial providers of rafting and such-like are carrying on a business which is effectively exploiting the access legislation. some, such as one i work with from time-to time, adhere rigorously to the code and are fully aware of the potential issues. they tend to use times and locations so as not to interfere with fishermen too much and willingly assist with volunteer projects such as clearing obstructions, bank maintenance etc. others, unfortunately do not. it's difficult to know whether introduction of a licence would make the situation any better. i can think of a number of companies out there who would regard the imposition of a licence as a vindication of their right to operate on a given body of water regardless of other interests. this would make the conflict far worse, and yet i suspect that any legislator pushing this through would be more interested in revenue and regulation than the niceties of fostering good working relations between the various users.

[Wildfisher]

I agree with all of that Dave. Many canoeists and other water users won't be aware of the rod  tax issue. Why would they be? Many anglers won't be.

[Inchlaggan]

Shit, I am going to have to agree with Fred and Dave!
The Williamson v Highland Activities Ltd case (see http://www.scotways.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280:scotways-court-cases-update-june-2009&catid=37:court-cases&Itemid=70 )
produced an interdict against the company named, but only that company. Pursuing all the others would cost Paul a fortune.
Judging by the number of canoe carrying vehicles (mostly commercial minibuses and trailers) heading to the Lower Garry this morning for the weekly release of water from Invergarry dam (10.30am Thursdays) he has given up.

[corsican dave]

yep, the highland activities case was a perfect example of what the less scrupulous companies get up to. they effectively rode rough-shod over the land owner and everyone else's rights. the access legislation was succesfully invoked against them, but there is, as yet, no indication that there will be any controls imposed on other commercial users. there's an ongoing battle down in perth-shire where another shower are doing no-one any favours by exercising their "rights" to run a rafting operation with blatant disregard for other users. i could see this leading to an outright ban, which would of course affect the people who are currently abiding by the code.

interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any problem with sea-kayakers paying launching fees from harbour slips where required. in fact it's actively encouraged within the sea-kayaking community as a part of maintaining good relations and acknowledging the cost of harbour provision and maintenance. i'm not suggesting this is a way forward for the inland waters, but it's certainly a different perspective.

[corsican dave]

of course if everyone thought like this, then we'd have a much more powerful voice!  :

[Fishtales]

Can't the proprietor charge for launching from his land?  He isn't charging for access or the use of the water only for the right to launch. Much the same as a fishing permit is the right to fish not for access.

[Inchlaggan]

Can't the proprietor charge for launching from his land?  He isn't charging for access or the use of the water only for the right to launch. Much the same as a fishing permit is the right to fish not for access.

I ain't no expert on the case but the rumours go along the lines of-
Land Reform Act, if it is not a powered vessel and you carry it from road to river under rights of access- off you go.
From the other point of view it is claimed that Williamson had a deal with another company that were paying him.

One thing I know for certain was the mess at the parking site (Forestry Enterprise land I think). Anything up to 48 persons arriving in minibuses and taking a leak/dump in the undergrowth.....