|
Ken Sington
Original Poster
3,582 posts
107 months
|
So, if I own a piece of land which is bordered by a river, I understand I have riperian rights. But how is it possible that I don't have the fishing rights, and that these are vested in a third party who has no connection to the land and hence can't access it? If I decide to fish from this land, a) how will the owner of the rights know what I am doing as they have no access to the land to see me doing it, b) what action can they take to stop me and c) what would the punishment be?
|
|
|
catman
839 posts
44 months
|
You only own your land, not the river that it borders on. I don't know what the punishment would be, but the fact that you were fishing from your back garden probably wouldn't make any difference.
Tim
|
|
|
Mr GrimNasty
2,470 posts
39 months
|
|
|
Another Fluffer
3,594 posts
34 months
|
|
|
blueg33
10,730 posts
93 months
|
catman said: You only own your land, not the river that it borders on. I don't know what the punishment would be, but the fact that you were fishing from your back garden probably wouldn't make any difference.
Tim Where a watercourse provides an ownership boundary, it is presumed under riparian rights that the mid-point of the watercourse is the boundary point unless expressly stated to the contrary on a title deed. Plus EA said: You usually have the right to fish in
your watercourse. However, you must use
a legal method. You must also have a valid
Environment Agency rod licence – unless
you’re less than 12 years old. Sometimes
your rights will have been sold or leased.
Check your facts.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
welshjohn
705 posts
50 months
|
You would own the land and the riverbed.But not the river itself.So fines would be from whoever manages the water and fisheries.
|
|
|
Mr GrimNasty
2,470 posts
39 months
|
I refer you to my previous post for correction(s).
|
|
|
mikeveal
1,075 posts
119 months
|
Mr GrimNasty said: Actually the Angling Trust present a very one sided view of riparian rights. Going a little off topic the legal situation of navigation is not clear and the AT fact sheets present their interpretation of the law as the only interpretation. Strangely their interpretation is the one which denys all other river users access to rivers. Recent practise and case law (Rawson vs. Peters) supports the view of the Angling Trust. However Rawson versus Peters is widely recognised as being a very poor example of case law and is full of holes. The work of Revd. Dr. Doug Caffryn phd. indicates that a public right of navigation was granted in the Magna Carta on all navigable rivers. The only way this right can be removed is by an act of Parliament. A recent investigation by a North Wales police force shows that Riparian rights do not give ownership of the water and do not allow control of navigation. There are clearly opposing views on what the law has to say about riparian rights and rights of navigation. There isn't clear case law to establish which view is correct. Yet you will find no mention of this in any AT literature. If I were you, I'd be very careful about relying on information provided by the AT.
|
|
|
otolith
19,372 posts
73 months
|
The advice of the AT may be thought partisan by paddlers, but this is irrelevant to a question of fishing rights.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
What exactly defines a 'navigable' river though? The River Nidd around Knaresborough has a good number of weirs which on the face of it makes navigation difficult. But on that river are hire rowing boats, and the river can be easily 'navigated' by kayak. So could a landowner object to my passing his property in a kayak because the river is not navigable by other craft?
And if I decided to fish from that kayak am I breaching any fishing rights conveyed by lease or otherwise by a landowner on that river?
|
|
|
mikeveal
1,075 posts
119 months
|
otolith said: The advice of the AT may be thought partisan by paddlers, but this is irrelevant to a question of fishing rights. And when the advice / opinion of the AT is presented as unquestionable fact about fishing rights? daz3210 said: What exactly defines a 'navigable' river though? The River Nidd around Knaresborough has a good number of weirs which on the face of it makes navigation difficult. But on that river are hire rowing boats, and the river can be easily 'navigated' by kayak. So could a landowner object to my passing his property in a kayak because the river is not navigable by other craft?
And if I decided to fish from that kayak am I breaching any fishing rights conveyed by lease or otherwise by a landowner on that river? Caffyns work can be freely read here : http://www.caffynonrivers.co.uk/We're going way off topic. My response was just to make the OP aware that the AT legal advice is heavily biased, where there is an opposing opinion the AT neglect to mention this. But to answer your question, if the river is physically navigable, Caffyn believes that a right of navigation exists. Since the Magna Carta granted a right of navigation in 1215, then any weir built after this date may, according to Caffyn be legally portaged. The AT strongly disagree and do not recognise Caffyn's work. Bascially, according to Caffyn, the riparian can object to you passing his land but that's all he can do. According to the AT, the land owner can sue you for trespass. As for fishing from a kayak, yes, you'd be in trouble. Fishing rights are clearly defined and usually rest exclusively with the riparian.
|
|
|
otolith
19,372 posts
73 months
|
The law concerning who has the right to fish is not controversial. The law concerning the rights of other water users to use the river in a manner which spoils the fishing is another matter entirely, and unrelated to the OP's question.
|
|
|
mikeveal
1,075 posts
119 months
|
otolith said: The law concerning who has the right to fish is not controversial. The law concerning the rights of other water users to use the river in a manner which spoils the fishing is another matter entirely, and unrelated to the OP's question. I agree, The law concerning who has the right to fish is clear. As the AT was quoted as being a definitive source of information, I provided a case where they are clearly biased in order to give the OP a sense of perspective.
|
|
|
NinjaPower
2,318 posts
49 months
|
This is interesting as a friend has just bought a house, and the back garden continues rearwards about 30 meters where it then borders a large and popular salmon fishing river, with some steps down to the water.
My friend says the deeds to the house clearly show his boundary encompassing the part of the river that passes by at the end of the garden.
With this in mind he intends to buy a fishing rod and sit with a few beers on the riverbank at the bottom of his garden and do a bit of fishing.
I have suggested it might not be that straightforward.
|
|
|
drfrank
568 posts
71 months
|
If the river in question is a well known salmon river or tributary then there will undoubtedly be significant legal issues.
Salmon (&brown trout) rivers in the UK are fiercely protected by land owners, angling clubs etc.
The wild trout trust are a fairly friendly bunch and may be able to advise.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
mikeveal said: Caffyns work can be freely read here : http://www.caffynonrivers.co.uk/We're going way off topic. My response was just to make the OP aware that the AT legal advice is heavily biased, where there is an opposing opinion the AT neglect to mention this. But to answer your question, if the river is physically navigable, Caffyn believes that a right of navigation exists. Since the Magna Carta granted a right of navigation in 1215, then any weir built after this date may, according to Caffyn be legally portaged. The AT strongly disagree and do not recognise Caffyn's work. Bascially, according to Caffyn, the riparian can object to you passing his land but that's all he can do. According to the AT, the land owner can sue you for trespass. As for fishing from a kayak, yes, you'd be in trouble. Fishing rights are clearly defined and usually rest exclusively with the riparian. That's interesting, since when I was (much) younger I used to kayak from downstream of Knaresborough right up to Mother Shipton's on a regular basis. Anglers were not particularly happy, but I tried to be reasonable and pass the other side of the river with as little disturbance as possible, and on one occasion I did get remonstrations from one gent in his garden. But if they sue for trespass, what would the likely outcome be? By passing you are not causing damages, unless you create a good deal of wash. From the fishing perspective though, I have seen inflatable type boats specifically made with fishing in mind (doesn't sound safe to me when hooks are involved). That's why I asked about fishing from a kayak or similar. There was a fella that I saw on my trips up the Nidd that used one of these and travelled up and down the river fishing as he went.
|
|
|
mph1977
4,798 posts
37 months
|
otolith said: The law concerning who has the right to fish is not controversial. The law concerning the rights of other water users to use the river in a manner which spoils the fishing is another matter entirely, and unrelated to the OP's question. and has caused serious problems on waters other than rivers including sailing clubs being thrown off their water when the owner of the fishing rights has more leverage with the landowner.
|
|
|
otolith
19,372 posts
73 months
|
By "more leverage", do you mean "pays more for access"?
Anyway, off topic, the OP wants to fish, not to boat.
|
|
|
mikeveal
1,075 posts
119 months
|
daz3210 said: That's interesting, since when I was (much) younger I used to kayak from downstream of Knaresborough right up to Mother Shipton's on a regular basis. Anglers were not particularly happy, but I tried to be reasonable and pass the other side of the river with as little disturbance as possible, and on one occasion I did get remonstrations from one gent in his garden. But if they sue for trespass, what would the likely outcome be? By passing you are not causing damages, unless you create a good deal of wash.
From the fishing perspective though, I have seen inflatable type boats specifically made with fishing in mind (doesn't sound safe to me when hooks are involved). That's why I asked about fishing from a kayak or similar. There was a fella that I saw on my trips up the Nidd that used one of these and travelled up and down the river fishing as he went. We're off topic... With the advice from the AT on navigation being fed to fishermen, it is highly likely that if you paddle without a voluntary access agreement, or outside of the terms of an agreement that you will meet resistance from people fishing. It happens. If the chappie fishing from his kayak was doing so with the permission of the riparian, then fine. Otherwise he's on dodgy water. You asked : "But if they sue for trespass, what would the likely outcome be? By passing you are not causing damages, unless you create a good deal of wash." In order to sue, you need to be able to show damages. In Rawson versus Peters, I believe damages were 50p. The case was in 1972 (?) though. Damages are difficult to quantify. There's a Environment Agency report that states kayaking is not detremental to fishing, so that question is a toughie. ETA, Its likely that the defendant would challenge the riparians right to control navigation... Who knows which way that would go. IANAL.
|
|
|
mph1977
4,798 posts
37 months
|
otolith said: By "more leverage", do you mean "pays more for access"?
Anyway, off topic, the OP wants to fish, not to boat. or says they will pay what was earned before by multiple users for their sole access, despite the water being large enough for multiple users equally i've seen the converse happen where a sailing club offered to manage the entire area of a water and it;s immediate surroundings and the fishing people got a better deal out of it such as access to the sailing club club house for toilets etc and access to the bar etc when it was open ...
|
|
