Canoe License?

[Wildfisher]

Charging for the right to launch would be the same as charging for the right to fish.

Right now neither activity  requires a license and  anglers make a contract with the owner of the fishing, yet an additional  state license may be imposed. This means anglers will pay twice while canoeists pay nothing to use the same water. Both have the right to go there, only one has the right to pursue their sport without permission and / or payment.  There is already a lot of friction and not all anglers are as liberal as we are. A canoe license (or a license for all unpowered craft) might also be a way to control abuses like the one Ken linked to. For example a canoe license for non commercial use only, all other use must be negotiated with the owner in the same way fishing is right now. Don't think because access is free right now that it will always be. The 2003 fisheries act rejected rod licenses, this new review and any following legislation could change that. Access rights could just as easily be amended.

[sinbad]

A bus load of bird watchers, ramblers, cyclists , dog walkers , runners or indeed anything can crap in the bushes. Licenses will make no difference. It would be a lot more lucrative and simple to pick one anyone , say cycling and tax peddle bikes. Millions of bikes mostly in town... good luck finding me miles from a path never mind a road and making me pay  :makefun

[Wildfisher]

if you've the cash for a big f*** off Yacth you can jump in that with no training or license and sail it round the British isles!

That could change too of course, nothing is set in stone. I don't think privilege is relevant. Salmon anglers who pay £3K / week to fish the Helmsdale will presumably also pay for a rod license if it comes into force. Everyone will. I have not really had problems with canoes myself, but on some rivers it is an issue. It must be annoying to have paid a lot of money for your fishing and have a constant stream of boats and rafts bobbing past all day. Apparently some beats on The Tay have real problems and fishing is barely possible at times. I can't believe this will be allowed to continue  indefinitely and a non commercial canoe / raft / small underpowered craft license might be a way to control it and raise government revenue at the same time. The SG already has the legislative powers.

[Fishtales]

I've read through the access code and there is nothing in it that I can find that restricts an owner of land next to water charging for the right to launch a water craft. He wouldn't be charging for access, nor restricting access, only for the right to launch to cover the cost of repairing the bank where the launching is taking place.

[sinbad]

Sandy what would be the point of an access code allowing me in law to have unhindered access to the water with my non powered craft but cant put it down ? What is the damage caused by me laying my canoe in the water ? You generally put the canoe in the water so its floating when you want to paddle away. The law is accepted on all sides.
charging without adding some service is restricting access.

[Bobfly]

The code requires users of any form of access to do so in a responsible manner and having regard to the rights of others and landowners and land managers. There is no open right to simply do as you please at whatever rate of usage you fancy.
Problems at Aberfeldy to Grantully on the Tay with many white water rafter trips every day arose because of the intensity of rafting and canoeists interfering with the the use by others. Canoe access agreements have failed on the popular white waters in Wales because the BCU instructed its staff to refuse to negotiate any agreements. The agreements now in place on the Tay came about because of threats of court action against the commercial rafters and a local users code is now in place.

[Fishtales]

Sandy what would be the point of an access code allowing me in law to have unhindered access to the water with my non powered craft but cant put it down ? What is the damage caused by me laying my canoe in the water ? You generally put the canoe in the water so its floating when you want to paddle away. The law is accepted on all sides.
charging without adding some service is restricting access.

You would still have unhindered access. The landowner isn't stopping you he would only be looking for compensation for any damage caused. If the put in point is a favoured one then all the extra footfall on the bank at that point would eventually erode it beyond normal use. I'm not talking about the odd canoeist crossing land and launching, I'm talking about groups and commercial companies using the same points of access on a regular basis. Anyone doing this has to come to some agreement with the land manager so that their activities don't infringe on his rights. It is there in the access code. So I don't see why he can't charge them a launching charge.

[sinbad]

The same reason that stops him charging walkers for heading to a favoured view point. If you say you must pay or you cant do it that is restricting access and not allowed under the code. Dont get me wrong i never travel in a group (maybe one other canoe) I very rarely use salmon rivers so i would not be greatly effected but the code is clear. Its like saying you must pay to climb that hill or you cant go up because the footfall causes damage.
This is not my opinion its accepted as fact by the experts.

[Wildfisher]

You would still have unhindered access. The landowner isn't stopping you he would only be looking for compensation for any damage caused. If the put in point is a favoured one then all the extra footfall on the bank at that point would eventually erode it beyond normal use. I'm not talking about the odd canoeist crossing land and launching, I'm talking about groups and commercial companies using the same points of access on a regular basis. Anyone doing this has to come to some agreement with the land manager so that their activities don't infringe on his rights. It is there in the access code. So I don't see why he can't charge them a launching charge.

Taking a broad view of events over recent years and bringing them together it's not implausible that changes in thinking may be afoot and we might have to adjust our expectations and beliefs about things we have considered to be basic rights, official or unofficial,  here in Scotland.

[Fishtales]

The same reason that stops him charging walkers for heading to a favoured view point. If you say you must pay or you cant do it that is restricting access and not allowed under the code. Dont get me wrong i never travel in a group (maybe one other canoe) I very rarely use salmon rivers so i would not be greatly effected but the code is clear. Its like saying you must pay to climb that hill or you cant go up because the footfall causes damage.
This is not my opinion its accepted as fact by the experts.

It is up to the land managers to make sure that all access paths aren't obstructed, removed or closed so charging for repairing them would be outside of the act. Asking for payment to reinstate a river or loch bank that is badly eroded where there isn't a path isn't covered. Again it isn't the casual canoeist that would cause the damage and wouldn't be required to pay it would be the organised groups using it on a regular basis, some for profit, so paying for the right doesn't sound unreasonable and also isn't covered in the code.