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.
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.
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/ (http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/membership/waterways-licences/)
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.
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.
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 (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.
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.
of course if everyone thought like this, then we'd have a much more powerful voice! :8)
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.
Quote from: Fishtales on April 17, 2014, 06:00:44 PM
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.....
No you pick it up walk down and put it in the water. No equipment or motorised element involved. Exactly the same rules as going for a walk with a tent in your backpack.
Quote from: sinbad on April 17, 2014, 06:11:35 PM
No you pick it up walk down and put it in the water. No equipment or motorised element involved. Exactly the same rules as going for a walk with a tent in your backpack.
Exactly.
Which makes rod, canoe, boots and tent all in the same ball-park. Licenses do not require that you have obtained permission to fish, paddle, walk or camp. That the last three do not require permission under the Land Reform Act does not matter much to the argument- make those that enjoy such resources contribute to their maintenance/protection. This also appeals to those whose property/rights have been abused. Win-win for SG.
http://www.breadalbane.com/activity/boating.htm (http://www.breadalbane.com/activity/boating.htm)
'Launching is not permitted from private land including the Forestry Commision picnic area, the Hotel Pool and the beach.'
Charging to launch isn't denying access.
Putting a canoe in the water does not mean the same as launching a boat. If you use facilities fine you pay but otherwise its like putting up a no walking/hiking sign. The access code is very much on your side.
Quote from: Inchlaggan on April 17, 2014, 06:27:52 PM
Which makes rod, canoe, boots and tent all in the same ball-park.
The more I think about this the more sure I am this is where we are ultimately heading. It makes absolute sense. It would enable the SG to keep tabs on us, know who does what, enable a level of control that is not currently possible and best of all it could be justified by raising "user pays" revenue for "improvements".
Quote from: sinbad on April 17, 2014, 06:45:41 PM
Putting a canoe in the water does not mean the same as launching a boat. If you use facilities fine you pay but otherwise its like putting up a no walking/hiking sign. The access code is very much on your side.
It floats, it's a boat, it has to be launched. There are lightweight boats that can be carried and don't need facilities to launch. Charging for the right to launch would be the same as charging for the right to fish. Anglers don't pay for the right of access nor for the use of the water only for their activity whilst there so paying for permission to launch would be no different.
So soon i will be needing separate rod, canoe, boot and camping license for a day out. Is this any Scottish government or only when i vote yes ? I'm far from convinced any of them are likely and will not be buying any of them. Sb.
Sandy a boat light enough to be carried whether you call it a boat a canoe or a log is covered by the access agreement. It would be the same as charging to walk or swim.
http://www.docs.hss.ed.ac.uk/education/outdoored/spey_economic_impact_study.pdf (http://www.docs.hss.ed.ac.uk/education/outdoored/spey_economic_impact_study.pdf)
i found this study which highlights some of the conflicting interests and puts some financial meat on the bones. there's even reference to the promotion of fishing in mountain lochs :shock:
if i can download this report you can bet the would-be revenue collectors have.
Quote from: Fishtales on April 17, 2014, 07:37:11 PM
It floats, it's a boat, it has to be launched. There are lightweight boats that can be carried and don't need facilities to launch. Charging for the right to launch would be the same as charging for the right to fish. Anglers don't pay for the right of access nor for the use of the water only for their activity whilst there so paying for permission to launch would be no different.
currently the access legislation is firmly on the side of non-motorised transport. therefore if you're able to carry in a rowing boat then right now you can't be prevented from accessing the water. it's not just for canoes!
Quote from: sinbad on April 17, 2014, 07:41:59 PM
So soon i will be needing separate rod, canoe, boot and camping license for a day out. Sb.
sadly, i think you may be correct. that's if you're allowed out at all! we need new towns and renewable energy above all, remember :roll:
Quote from: guest on April 17, 2014, 07:46:59 PM
You don't pay to use a boat for leisure in the UK waters - why tax canoes?
actually Andy you require a licence to use boats on statutory navigations in england. that applies to canoes too. membership of the british canoe union covers you for most of the statutory waterways, but not all of them. river chelmer in essex, for example. crap, isn't it? :(
Quote from: Fishtales on April 17, 2014, 07:37:11 PM
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.
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
Quote from: guest on April 17, 2014, 08:17:10 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: sinbad on April 17, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Fishtales on April 17, 2014, 09:56:58 PM
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.
Quote from: sinbad on April 17, 2014, 10:21:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Barfly on April 17, 2014, 10:15:54 PM
Never had an issue on the Tay with any canoeists and I've fished it a fair bit in my life.
generally speaking Jim, that's bang on. the canoeists aren't the problem.
one of the commercial rafting companies down there is taking the p*%# though, and that's threatening the whole thing. unfortunately most anglers lump them all (kayakers,canoeists, rafters, private individuals, commercial companies)literally, in the same boat!
it's sort of understandable i guess, as most hill-walkers seeing one of us with a fishing rod wouldn't necessarily make any distinction between our approach and the lager swilling neds they see parked in lay-bys with bait fishing rigs.
unless we can all make strides towards breaking down the barriers and speaking with a common voice as fellow outdoors enthusiasts, i suspect that Fred's vision of the future may not be as far-fetched as we'd like to believe
i rather liked this road sign from spain:
Quote from: borderbob on April 17, 2014, 10:48:07 PM
This is a great post and affects most of the big river fishers. On Tweed I come across canoeists and they have always acknowledged my presence and sometimes stopped for a wee blether.We all have to live and allow others to enjoy their pastimes.
Bob, I often met canoeists on The Don. Without exception they were polite and considerate. I guess there will be ned canoeists just as there are ned anglers.
Quote from: borderbob on April 17, 2014, 11:21:06 PM
That would do for me Dave,but the original post still hasn't been answered :?
I asked it Bob and don't want to answer it myself, but in my opinion it's inevitable especially if a rod license comes into force.
It sounds like the old case of the idiot minority ruining it for the majority, my present bug bear is litter, took a drive past Loch Lomond a few weeks ago and what i saw was disgusting and i presume fishermen were responsible for most of it but that is for a different post.
I was fishing the Spey last year in the pool pictured below so ie very wide, i was a few yards from the bank in about one foot of water fishing away when all of a sudden i ended up flying face down in to the water, a canoeist rammed in to me from behind. I can only think it was deliberate because as you can see the river is plenty wide enough, the canoeist who i never saw because they were 100m away by the time i came up for air and managed to retrive my rod etc could not have known if i was male/female, my age or very elderly etc... imagine if that was an elderly person, it could have ended up very badly!
Anyway, the next day i was in the same pool when 2 canoes came through the pool as i was playing a fish :D and shouted out "well done you" or something similar and asked if i needed a hand netting it, i said no ta but the guy shouted back "dont worry i am a fisherman, i wont fu@k it up" anyway they pulled in and watched and we chatted etc and one of them took loads of pics for me and the other one netted it so thank you to those 2 guys whose names i never got.
[attachimg=1][attachimg=2]
But re a canoe license and for that matter a rod license, i would be in favour of it if it could stop instances like the above [including the littering mentioned], i am not saying i think it would totally stop such wa@kers acting like this but could it not help? Maybe there would be some kind of method of redress/punishment/enforecement or maybe the mere fact that you had to buy a license would weed out the idiot minority?
That's a terrible way for anyone to act. The ramming if deliberate would be a criminal offense whether they had a license or not and having one would not make them more easily identified. The petrol from their house to river and back for the day would most likely cost more than an annual license so cant see it weeding out many :(
more likely out of control, to be honest. i've seen a lot of people who haven't really got a clue how to handle a canoe and of course the "one-off" users don't have any incentive to learn, either. that's fast water and once you're comitted to a line it doesn't really matter how wide it is. even so, completely wrong on many levels; no whistle or shouted warning, no attempt to check you were okay. licence nos. for boats? numbers on vests for anglers? tricky one.
Quote from: corsican dave on April 18, 2014, 07:24:23 AM
more likely out of control, to be honest.
That's what it sounds like to me, but on the wider point of licenses controlling idiots that is certainly the road we appear to be on in Scotland. Cast the net wide. Quite worrying really.
I agree that the canoeist was most likely out of control. I have seen a few that were a danger to themselves, never mind others.
In general, if a rod license is introduced, it seems fair to me that all other users of the wide open spaces should pay for one too.
eg...walkers should pay for the upkeep of paths.
climbers should pay to get rescued when they go climbing in dangerous weather.
I think that's where we are heading Gordon.
Been following this with great interest without dipping a toe into the water (will we need a licence for that too?).
I think Fred is right to say that a climate is building which would make such a licensing system more likely in the future. As to whether this is right or wrong? Well, as someone who has scoured the wilds here for many years - like a good few on the forum - I am, at heart, opposed to charging people for access to the hills on any basis. I think if licensing is introduced for likes of canoeing and kayaking, as well as the aforementioned rod licensing, it would seem inevitable that people who are subject to such a system will cry foul if some kind of "boot tax" "hill licence", call it what you will, is not imposed also. It's a slippery slope I think.
One concern I have about this (and I accept that there are irresponsible "users" of our rural areas and associated resources which could be a precipitating factor in "justifying" such moves) is that ultimately it will, by it's nature, preclude many people on lower incomes from experiencing these activities. Now, I don't suppose the much lionised antics of the Creag Dhu would have been overly affected by such a system. By their nature, the members of said would have thumbed their noses at it, but there's no doubt in my mind that what started to become a great "working-class escape" amid the array of middle-class doctors, architects, lawyers and so-forth, could easily become restricted to the better-off who have more disposable income and can afford to buy the array of hypothetical licences being discussed. This can only be a bad thing. If the above justification of weeding out irresponsible users, is employed as a significant strand of the argument then inevitably there will be an assumption that it is the low-waged or unemployed who are the irresponsible ones. That view already exists. But this is a bogus, ill-informed position. In my own personal experience, and I am sure, the experience of other members here, inconsiderate, irresponsible actions are not limited to such a demographic. I have seen middle-class groups trash bothies and damage paths, leave litter, carry on like lunatics on rivers and lochs and generally indulge in the whole gamut of anti-social/irresponsible and selfish behaviour which gives all of us a bad name in the eyes of some.
Just some thoughts to drop into the mix since it hasn't been brought up :)
However, it's Easter Weekend so i'm going to temporarily lighten the mood with a slightly related and bloody funny classic - and then i'm going to the river to start some random fires, pee in the water and verbally-abuse passers-by. I might do some fishing too :lol: :
Fish Licence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmyHup4TpkU#)
Quote from: Midgie Hater on April 18, 2014, 01:14:24 PM
Been following this with great interest without dipping a toe into the water (will we need a licence for that too?).
One concern I have about this (and I accept that there are irresponsible "users" of our rural areas and associated resources which could be a precipitating factor in "justifying" such moves) is that ultimately it will, by it's nature, preclude many people on lower incomes from experiencing these activities. Now, I don't suppose the much lionised antics of the Creag Dhu would have been overly affected by such a system. By their nature, the members of said would have thumbed their noses at it, but there's no doubt in my mind that what started to become a great "working-class escape" amid the array of middle-class doctors, architects, lawyers and so-forth, could easily become restricted to the better-off who have more disposable income and can afford to buy the array of hypothetical licences being discussed. This can only be a bad thing. If the above justification of weeding out irresponsible users, is employed as a significant strand of the argument then inevitably there will be an assumption that it is the low-waged or unemployed who are the irresponsible ones. That view already exists. But this is a bogus, ill-informed position. In my own personal experience, and I am sure, the experience of other members here, inconsiderate, irresponsible actions are not limited to such a demographic. I have seen middle-class groups trash bothies and damage paths, leave litter, carry on like lunatics on rivers and lochs and generally indulge in the whole gamut of anti-social/irresponsible and selfish behaviour which gives all of us a bad name in the eyes of some.
Just some thoughts to drop into the mix since it hasn't been brought up :)
and then i'm going to the river to start some random fires, pee in the water and verbally-abuse passers-by. I might do some fishing too :lol: :
Fish Licence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmyHup4TpkU#)
Last line made me chuckle :D
But re the serious points you raise, you mentioned "weeding" out, the same phrase i used so thought i would chip in again.... absolutely, the idiot minority are not confined to a certain income bracket or any other bracket that i can think of, they are just selfish idiots and i certainly wasn't making any "assumptions".
I firmly believe that everyone should not only have the right but also that everyone would be a whole lot happier if they got to enjoy the beautiful outdoors whether that be fishing, walking, canoeing etc i know i am, but there has got to be some kind of redress or deterrence or something surely to try and stop the idiot few? Or am i being naive, will idiots always be idiots?
My thinking in the previous post which i didn't type, but i was thinking it... was that the mere fact someone has to buy a lisence, even if it is just a few £ or even for free, they would perhaps act a wee bit more responsibly if they didn't feel so anonymous.
I know i am comparing chalk and cheese but a bit like a firearms certificate, if a firearms holder does act like a prat then there is a record of the person who can be traced and they can be punished or their lisence removed.
I will never know if that canoeist that rammed in to me did it deliberately or not, but he never stopped to say sorry or see if i was ok. And whilst i was raging at the time there was nothing i could do where as if he had had to get a ticket from the local post office or whatever and his name, address and type of canoe had been recorded then i could have followed it up.
Now whilst typing this i am thinking to myself yea but why make the 99% of the canoeists out there have all this agro due to just the very very small minority but like i said in the previous post it is the litter thing that is really driving my way of thinking.
And just to counter my own argument, i hate the big brother state idea of having to fill out a form to walk up a hill or go for a cast, god i would move countries if that happened but there must be some way of detering the idiots...?
Some politicians want to know who you are and what you are up to
"A Scottish rod licence, it was argued, would not only raise revenue for further fisheries development, but also give Scotland a handle on how many anglers actually participate in recreational fishing, and who they are."
Devil Water, just downstream from Hexham, before Corebidge, last week...