Jump to content

Fishing (Grand Union Canal)


Featured Posts

An angler calling the police to say that someone is "behaving suspiciously" would usually get a prompt response.

And possibly get the caller in trouble for wasting police time once they realise that the "suspicious behaviour" was fishing...

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gives a club member the right to approach a member of the public unknown to them and demand anything?

 

 

"Asking to see" and "demanding to see" are two different things, but it appears the difference is lost on you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And possibly get the caller in trouble for wasting police time once they realise that the "suspicious behaviour" was fishing...

Suspicious behaviour would be refusing to show the requisite license and failing to comply with the 1971 act. All avoidable by getting a license, or if you are ignorant of riparian ownership or tenancy, stopping fishing on request. Refusing to do so would suggest poaching, transfer of fish or other illegal activities which carry statutory penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gives a club member the right to approach a member of the public unknown to them and demand anything?

Since the only people with the right to fish there are club members, and every club member has effectively consented to produce their membership book or licence on demand by agreeing the club t&cs, it is reasonable ask. Anyone unable or unwilling to do so is involved in poaching and hence not an innocent member of the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suspicious behaviour would be refusing to show the requisite license and failing to comply with the 1971 act.

That might be classed as slightly suspicious if you were asked by an official of some sort. Refusing to provide information or licences to a random joe that asks is not suspicious at all.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be classed as slightly suspicious if you were asked by an official of some sort. Refusing to provide information or licences to a random joe that asks is not suspicious at all.

 

 

It is if the random Joe is not random at all, but a fee paying member of the club which owns the angling rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It is if the random Joe is not random at all, but a fee paying member of the club which owns the angling rights.

Indeed. I don't think the point is lost on Delta9, his contrarian blinkers are set to the evade position. Someone who pays a fee to fish a water among others who have similarly paid, has every right to ask to see evidence of it if he sees someone fishing. By the same token, why should a boat be forced to display a license - in theory it's no one else's business but a paid CRT servant, who should apply for a court order to see it. And so the modern world goes to hell in a handcart of barrack room lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"Asking to see" and "demanding to see" are two different things, but it appears the difference is lost on you...

As far as I can see anyone who asks and then follows a refusal by a call to the police has actually demanded, but the difference seems to be lost on you.

Anyone unable or unwilling to do so is involved in poaching and hence not an innocent member of the public.

Being unwilling does not make you a poacher it merely means you have not conformed to the club's T & Cs.

 

They have the right to fish there by virtue of being a club member so no poaching merely a transgression of unreasonable T & Cs

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For god sake, folk bicker on such rubbish,

 

If you are a member why would you not show your permit to a member, if you are new and not known it will happen. Unless your hiding some thing or just plain awkward and ignorant to rues then why make life hard. It is no big deal, i was asked when i joined a club, and infact i was glad to be asked to show it, this shows the members care about there lodge and keep a look out for the idiots who go as they please when not paid and even worse steal fish.

 

Go by the rules or dont join, now that is easy isnt it.......well to most normal folk.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being unwilling does not make you a poacher it merely means you have not conformed to the club's T & Cs.

 

They have the right to fish there by virtue of being a club member so no poaching merely a transgression of unreasonable T & Cs

Well, yes, having the appropriate in date membership book and just being unwilling to show it wouldn't make one a poacher. It would make one appear to be poaching though, wouldn't it?

 

The time to take issue with T&Cs perceived unreasonable is not after agreeing to them, but what could possibly be so unreasonable about agreeing to present a membership book when asked by a fellow member?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have the right to fish there by virtue of being a club member so no poaching merely a transgression of unreasonable T & Cs

Why are the club rules unreasonable? A large carp can cost hundreds of pounds, the club has to apply for a section 30 to transport fish and members have agreed on a set of rules which can include prohibited and acceptable baits, time of day to fish, appropriate tackle, and penalties for littering, each of which benefit the sustainability of their sport. Into this agreement comes a chap nobody has ever seen who refuses to show his membership? What are the most reasonable assumptions to make about his motives? Suppose the bloke wants to fish a private Scottish salmon beat in the middle of the night?

 

Whatever one thinks about the history of angling in this small island, it has maintained an extensive head of indigenous wild fish through industrialisation. Compare Britain to France where the privations of two world wars means most fish are artificially stocked. If it weren't for organisations like the ACA polluters would have destroyed British waterways for financial gain and boaters would be navigating through a mix of open sewer, petro-chemical solution and industrial bi-products. You'd probably have passed out at the tiller from the fumes and certainly wouldn't be getting out of the water in rude health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can see anyone who asks and then follows a refusal by a call to the police has actually demanded, but the difference seems to be lost on you.

 

If you see someone in your back garden and you ask them what they're doing, and they refuse to answer, is a phone call to the police an unreasonable consequence of that exchange?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yes, having the appropriate in date membership book and just being unwilling to show it wouldn't make one a poacher. It would make one appear to be poaching though, wouldn't it?

 

The time to take issue with T&Cs perceived unreasonable is not after agreeing to them, but what could possibly be so unreasonable about agreeing to present a membership book when asked by a fellow member?

I am to a certain extent playing devil's advocate as I find it interesting that T & Cs like this are seen by a number of boaters as perfectly acceptable and yet virtually anything CRT try to put in their T & Cs is contested.

If you see someone in your back garden and you ask them what they're doing, and they refuse to answer, is a phone call to the police an unreasonable consequence of that exchange?

A canal side is a public place not a garden and it certainly isn't owned by the angling club or indeed the member. Not a good comparison I think. However my reply to Sea Dog may cast a little light on my position for you.

Why are the club rules unreasonable?

See my reply to Sea Dog but isn't it interesting that there are howls of dismay at the suggestion that CRT should/may be/is using volunteer enforcement people and yet her are boaters suggesting its is perfectly OK for angling clubs to do exactly that.

 

Do the club rules insist the person doing the asking first proves they are a member and have the authority to ask?

 

Incidentally what is your opinion about volunteer enforcement on the canals? Do you accept the idea and if not why not when you obviously accept non professional enforcement in angling clubs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am to a certain extent playing devil's advocate as I find it interesting that T & Cs like this are seen by a number of boaters as perfectly acceptable and yet virtually anything CRT try to put in their T & Cs is contested.

A canal side is a public place not a garden and it certainly isn't owned by the angling club or indeed the member. Not a good comparison I think. However my reply to Sea Dog may cast a little light on my position for you.

See my reply to Sea Dog but isn't it interesting that there are howls of dismay at the suggestion that CRT should/may be/is using volunteer enforcement people and yet her are boaters suggesting its is perfectly OK for angling clubs to do exactly that.

 

Do the club rules insist the person doing the asking first proves they are a member and have the authority to ask?

 

Incidentally what is your opinion about volunteer enforcement on the canals? Do you accept the idea and if not why not when you obviously accept non professional enforcement in angling clubs?

A canal bank is linear leisure facility, in modern parlance. It has to accommodate the competing claims of dog walkers, cyclists, joggers, anglers, moored boaters and anyone else who wishes to legally use it. Some of those users have to pay a fee for their particular rights of access, but that does not give them priority over other users, including non-fee paying ones.

 

Ideally all public facing representatives would be salaried staff, but we don't live in an ideal world, and if we want the facility to exist - and I accept there's a substantial minority who couldn't care a jot whether all canals were filled in and turned into roller skating venues - then the public purse might not stretch to professional 24 hr patrols. Given that reality, and the fact the police have better things to do than sort out waterside spats over access, the simplest solution is that people play the game, even while acknowledging it is a game, rather than place political and philosophical reservations in the way.

 

I was recently confronted by a CRT volunteer while walking the dog, who strongly suggested I buy things from her or make a donation. I politely explained that I already made a contribution through a national fishing license and the local club fees, and she said, "so you're not interested in maintaining public access to the footpath then?", which was a different question based on another set of assumptions. I also come across CRT sub-contractors who repair locks and drain pounds in which I fish (for a fee), who have no interest in relating what they do with the fish while repairing the lock, or once it's been repaired, so I don't carry a torch for the current governance of the inland waterway network. That doesn't mean I won't cooperate with the letter and spirit of the rules of those currently in charge.

 

There is no national necessity for a canal network today, and given the history of other long-established "social" benefits, it would be unsurprising if canals became accessible only to those willing to pay heavily for the privilege. There would be no shortage of those prepared to pay whatever it took to prioritise their own access, even if it meant denying others. I think that would be a mistake, and it's in the interests of the majority to cooperate. I get on well with most boaters when angling and recognise their right to do their thing and hope they reciprocate - ditto for walkers, cyclists, et al. There will be always be selfish, arrogant, dysfunctional and plain barking mad people in any publicly accessible amenity, but denying such access on a fee paying basis - and paid CRT employees would necessitate such costs - would not be for the benefit of the majority of current users, no matter what they think their licenses are buying them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am to a certain extent playing devil's advocate as I find it interesting that T & Cs like this are seen by a number of boaters as perfectly acceptable and yet virtually anything CRT try to put in their T & Cs is contested.

Ah, then that would be a little different -depending on the extent of the certain extent! It's easy for a devil's advocate to come across looking a little more contrary than intended in discussions like these. ;)

 

I think I'd agree that the reason the CRT is having to focus so much on T&Cs in the first place is surely to outflank those trying to work a flanker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.