Sustainability Committee
Inquiry into access to inland water in Wales
Dear Dr HawkinsSustainability Committee’s Inquiry into Access to Inland Water in Wales
I give below a written submission to do with this inquiry on behalf of the Welsh Rivers Preservation Society. I follow the lines indicated by your draft questions as publicised.
What is my interest in the issue?
I am both a riparian owner in north Wales and an angler and someone who, as a founder member of the WRPS, wishes to “preserve the unique ecology and tranquillity of Welsh rivers”.
Of which organisations am I a member relevant to this?
(1) I am the Secretary of the Plas Madoc Fishing Association which owns land and fishing rights on the River Conwy
(2) I am the Treasurer of the Conwy Valley Fisheries & Conservation Association which is an association of riparian owners, angling clubs and hotels on that river.
(3) I keep the catch return records on the River Clwyd for the Junction Pool Anglers who fish around this rivers confluence with the River Elwy, part of the Bodrhyddan Estate.
(4) I am a season rod holder to fish for sewin (sea trout) at night on the Gwydyr Hotel water of the River Conwy.
(5) I buy day tickets to be able to fish the Midland Flyfishers water on the River Dee.
(6) I have in the past bought weekly tickets from the New Dovey Fishery Association (1929) Ltd to be able to fish the River Dovey.
(7) I am a Trustee of the Clwyd & Conwy Rivers Trust.
(8) I am a founder member of the Welsh Rivers Preservation Society.
Which stretches of water do I own/use/manage?
(1) Along with fourteen other members of the Plas Madoc Fishing Association I own the bed and banks of the River Conwy along an approximate 3km stretch around the top of the tide.
(2) The Conwy Valley Fisheries & Conservation Association supports and promotes habitat improvement schemes along the whole river and tributaries. It is particularly active in managing a salmon smolt release scheme based on the release of juvenile fish along suitable headwater streams. This project is run in association with the Environment Agency Wales, but paid for in its entirety by the CVF&CA.
(3) The Bodrhyddan Estate Junction Pool Fishery, of which I am a member, extends for about 2km mostly downstream of the confluence of the rivers Clwyd and Elwy.
(4) I fish at night on two beats of the Gwydyr Hotel water on the River Conwy, both several kilometres in extent, north and south of Betws y Coed.
(5) The Midland Flyfisher’s water on the River Dee is about five kilometres of river upstream of Llangollen.
(6) Tickets from the New Dovey Fishery Association (1929) Ltd give access to virtually the whole of the river approximately downstream of Cemmaes.
(7) The Clwyd & Conwy Rivers Trust promotes projects to improve the habitat for all fauna and flora along the lengths of these rivers, as well as in smaller rivers and stillwaters in the region.
(8) The Welsh Rivers Preservation Society attempts to have a voice in aspects of the well being of all Welsh rivers especially where a deterioration in the quality of the environment is seen or suspected to be taking place, or may be likely to happen. Letters and emails are written objecting especially to any existing or increasing pollution or abstraction. The Society’s members represent most of the main rivers in Wales and have an extensive knowledge of these waters.
Legal Rights
Am I happy that my legal rights are clear and well defined?
Yes.
Can I briefly outline my understanding of these legal rights?
(a) Stretches of river where I (along with others) own the bed and banks of the river (ie, we are the riparian owners) gives us the right to use these stretches for whatever (legal) purpose we choose – such as boating, shooting, fishing, swimming and so on (subject to any restrictions which may be agreed amongst the owners).
(b) Stretches of river where I (along with others) come to an agreement to rent the rights to use the river (either as an individual or as a member of a club), for fishing or shooting or whatever, from either the riparian owners(s) or an intermediate party who already have an agreement to rent such rights, are subject to the terms of these agreements – as well of course to any laws / byelaws covering this activity.
(c) Instances where I have an interest in rivers, being a member of a trust or society, give me no extra or particular rights, above and beyond those already laid down in law.
Would I like to see any changes to my legal rights?
No.
Am I aware of legislation in other countries that could be used in Wales?
Clearly, all countries have legislation covering these (and all other) matters depending on their history, culture, physical geography, demographics, climate, fauna & flora, and probably a host of other factors. It seems to me that laws have evolved in different countries taking account of such factors, which is why these laws tend to be different country to country.
So, legislation from any other country could be used in Wales, but, because of these many differences, such laws are unlikely to be suitable and are unlikely to be an improvement over what is in place in Wales at the present.
Voluntary Agreements
Do I have any experience of these ?
Yes.
Please give an outline of these and describe how they operate
I describe these with reference to the River Conwy in north Wales; I give examples of other voluntary agreements on other rivers under heading (9) in the section Key Issues. The River Conwy is about 55km long, but adding in major tributaries there is in total around 90km of ‘fishable’ or ‘canoeable’ river (taken to be more than 3m wide). There are two agreements in place on the upper reaches of the river and tributaries: above Conwy Falls on the main river (about 12km of water) and above the Swallow Falls on the Llugwy (about 14km of water). These agreements allow for canoeing to take place upstream of the areas of main angling interest, though not necessarily above where salmon and sewin (sea trout) spawn. They are publicised with maps etc on the Welsh Canoeing Association/Canoe Wales’ website.
Although the riparian owners or tenants have given canoeing organisations the right to paddle along these stretches, there have been serious problems where canoeists trespassed on farmers’ land to access the river where they have no agreement to do so. Additionally, there are serious concerns during the winter months that the migratory fish are being disturbed by continual canoeing and kayaking above Conwy Falls as the fish are trying to access their spawning areas or when they are actually spawning or that their redds are being subsequently disturbed – all of which are contrary to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act (1975).
At the lower end of the river there is a very long tidal reach of at least 23km, along which navigation is guaranteed and canoeing also takes place. These upper and lower ‘canoeable’ areas therefore amount to approximately 49km of river – well over half the whole river and tributaries in total. Between these upper and lower parts, the river has for many years been closely preserved as one of the best salmon and sewin fisheries in Wales. However, this middle stretch has recently begun to see more and more canoeists coming down from the agreed upstream areas through the middle part (which is a trespass) to the tidal stretch.
In order to try to legitimise this activity and to try to regulate it so that anglers and canoeists can both use the river without discord, at the November 2008 AGM of the Conwy Valley Fisheries & Conservation Association, it was agreed to make contact with the WCA/CW with a view to negotiating an access agreement so that canoeists could paddle this middle stretch at certain times of the year – which would in effect allow canoeists to legally paddle virtually the whole of the river.
A letter was sent to Mr Harvey, the WCA/CW Chief Executive officer on the 20th April 2009 asking him to confirm that WCA/CW is willing to enter into negotiations and hoping that “such an agreement will mark a new start whereby your members will have the water they need to paddle without transgressing on the rights of others” [copy – enclosure (1)]. However, management of the CVF&CA were very disappointed to receive a reply from Mr Charlwood, Head of Strategic Projects for WCA/CW in which he bluntly stated: “we no longer enter into access agreements” [copy – enclosure (2)].
Once it became clear that it was impossible to negotiate with WCA/CW, management of CVF&CA have tried to seek out local canoeing clubs with whom to come to an agreement. This process has been helped by EAW Bangor Office (Mr Alan Winstone in particular), but, so far, it has been impossible to find a canoe club who are prepared to discuss coming to an agreement. The feeling is that the WCA/CW are pressurising local canoeing clubs not to enter into any negotiations in the present situation – evidence for this being found on the many canoeists’ website ‘notice boards’ and ‘threads’.
Would I like to see any changes to such voluntary agreements ?
Yes. I would like to see the WCA/CW stop withdrawing from these agreements as a tactic to try to put pressure on government and either be prepared to enter into negotiations themselves to put them in place in rivers across Wales, as was once the case, or encourage local canoeing clubs to do the same. This would give canoeists the water they need to paddle as well as ending, or at least greatly reducing, illegal access, so largely eliminating friction between canoeists and riparian owners/fishery interests.
Am I aware of voluntary agreements in other countries ?
Yes. There are/have been many voluntary agreements for access by canoeists to rivers in England. Unfortunately, here the British Canoe Union is co-ordinating its activity with the WCA/CW and withdrawing from these agreements to try to put pressure on the UK government at Westminster. I give a few examples – enclosure (3).
Key Issues
The key issues in this matter, as we see them, are as follows:
(1) The Law
A clear understanding of the current law would seem to be a prerequisite for making an informed judgement. The law covering access on Welsh rivers above the tide is quite clear: it is a trespass to go on or use these rivers without the prior permission of the riparian owner. Virtually the only exception to this is where navigation rights have been put in place by Act of Parliament along a non-tidal stretch of river. In Wales the only example of this are parts of the Rivers Wye – where it is mostly in England anyhow. Also, very occasionally, a public right of navigation has been established in weir pools in rivers (largely because these were man made) but only one example is known in Wales – on the River Usk.
I have seen it suggested that the law of access to and on rivers is in someway unclear in Wales. This is simply a ruse by those who wish to force through a change in the law to try to persuade politicians that legislation is required to clarify matters. The fact that riparian owners do not own the actual water is irrelevant; the law takes trespass to be the case as if the water were not there. We have members of the WRPS who are solicitors, both active and retired, who specialise in riparian law. They are quite adamant: the law is crystal clear – for instance Mr Simon Jackson of Simon Jackson & Co., Oswestry, included in an email to me the statement: “The law on unauthorized navigation is straightforward. Provided that the water is not tidal, is not covered by an Act of Parliament and the owner has not granted a right, then passing over land belonging to another without consent is a trespass”.
In fact, canoeists paddling in a river above the tide, without the owner’s consent are committing exactly the same trespass as if a group of people entered your back garden and had a picnic there every weekend. It is a civil trespass, unless the trespassers become abusive when asked to leave, or by their presence stop others carrying out a lawful activity (say angling in the case of a river or mowing the lawn in the case of your back garden) in which case it may become aggravated trespass.
Not only are these laws perfectly clear, we strongly believe that the current laws are the ones best placed to protect the unique ecology and tranquillity of Welsh rivers.
(2) Pledge of Support in favour of respect for and maintenance of the current law
To try to demonstrate the depth of support which the present laws of access have amongst normal Welsh country people, we drew up a Pledge of Support form with a text as follows:
“We, the undersigned, pledge our support to the laws covering the private ownership of Welsh rivers above the tide and consider that these laws should be maintained and respected. We think that canoeists and others who want to use these waters should enter into access agreements with riparian owners and be prepared to pay for their enjoyment of the use of such assets, in the same way that anglers do.”
This form was available for signing by the public at the Royal Welsh Show and at various county shows thereafter. Without too much effort we have now collected close to eight thousand signatures so far, with more forms being signed all the time. I trust that myself, or one of my colleagues, will be able to show members of the Sustainability Committee just how big this pile of signed forms is.
We think that members of this committee should take this strength of feeling amongst normal Welsh citizens into account when considering this matter.
(3) Unrestricted access – an ecological disaster
Because most Welsh rivers are quite narrow and shallow and because canoeists and rafters tend to go down the river in groups, the ecological affect of unrestricted access would be likely to be severe.
Why don’t anglers cause similar problems ? The answer is in the nature of their sport: they are quiet, retiring, drably dressed, they move softly and keep beneath the skyline. Contrast this to the photograph attached as enclosure (4) – rafters on the River Teifi. It’s impossible to see how the wildlife of the river cannot be affected by this sort of overuse of the environment – and the Teifi is one of Wales’ bigger rivers. If the law were changed to allow for unrestricted access, this sort of over-exploitation – on at least some parts of some rivers – would be continuous. The result would in our opinion be a catastrophe for many rare species – from water shrews to sea lampreys; from freshwater pearl mussels to endangered ferns.
It is the case that canoeing/rafting/gorge walking etc along the upper reaches of rivers during the months November to March is liable to be unlawful with respect to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. Clauses in this act are meant to protect gravid and spawning fish and their eggs in redds, from disturbance. Dr Richard Shelton, who is an internationally respected fishery scientist working for the Atlantic Salmon Trust has written: “ … in the opinion of the Atlantic Salmon Trust uncontrolled and thoughtless canoe and raft traffic causes significant and undue disturbance to the fish” - his views given more fully in enclosure (5).
(4) Rod Licence fees and club subscriptions – anglers don’t pay to ‘take’fish
The extent to which anglers pay (above and beyond that deducted in normal taxation) to help maintain the rivers and improve riparian habitats is often not appreciated. Every salmon and sea trout angler in Wales pays £70 per annum to EAW for the right to fish for these species with a rod and line. He or she then almost always has to pay again to actually fish any particular stretch of river – either to a club who pays part of this as rent to the riparian owner, or directly to the owner. Typically this payment can be anything between £50 and £500 a year.
The rod licence income is largely used by the EAW to improve the habitat of Welsh rivers and I hope that representatives of this body give evidence to show the total amount of this income and to make clear that it is not used to stock the rivers with fish for anglers to ‘take’. The EAW will only stock a river with juvenile (not adult) fish in exceptional mitigating circumstances – such as after a bad pollution accident. If the rivers are stocked at all, it is by associations of local angling clubs paying for fish to be introduced to keep up sustainable population levels.
Despite the above, the argument keeps being repeated that anglers ‘take’ (ie. kill and eat) fish and therefore should pay in one way or the other, but canoeists take nothing so should pay nothing. This argument can be proved to be completely bogus as follows:
salmon anglers pay to be able to fish at times of the season when all salmon have to be returned (eg before 16th June);
salmon anglers release more than 50% of rod caught salmon in total (and sewin anglers also put back unharmed considerably more than half the fish landed);
coarse anglers put back 100% of the fish they catch, yet they still pay for a Rod Licence and still pay to be a member of a club ! NB. There are quite a few coarse fishing clubs on Welsh rivers where members catch dace, chub, grayling, barbel and so on. A few examples: Mongomeryshire Angling Association on the River Vyrnwy; Connah’s Quay Angling Club on the River Dee; the BAA club on the River Severn.
Anglers don’t pay to be able to ‘take’ fish; they pay for the enjoyment of using someone else’s assets – the use of the river. [Here is an exact parallel: a model aeroplane club fly their planes from a farmer’s field close to where I live. Members of this club ‘don’t take anything away’ indeed, the farmer still keeps his sheep on this field, yet the club pays for the use of the farmer’s land. I know some of the members of this club and they would be amazed if the farmer offered it to them for free !]
(5) Rivers are businesses and provide rural employment
It is not widely understood that rivers are run as businesses in a similar way to golf courses. The riparian owner has an asset which he or she often rents out to clubs, usually angling clubs. These clubs – sometimes made up of several hundred local people – use some of their income from membership fees and day tickets to pay for the right to use the river and some to improve the stretch of river they are renting. At the same time, the riparian owner almost inevitably uses some of the rental income to improve or maintain the river. It is similar to a landlord renting out a flat: some improvements and maintenance is carried out by the landlord and some by the tenant. Because these clubs almost always offer day or weekly tickets to visiting anglers there is an input of funds into the local economy from these visitiors.
However, this whole structure would collapse if other groups were simply allowed on the river without any restrictions or conditions. If the law were changed to allow canoeists and kayakers and rafters and gorge walkers free and unfettered access, then, first of all it would be a derogation of all the leases signed by angling clubs. The practical consequences would be that fewer anglers would fish on Welsh rivers, the membership revenue of clubs would fall, so the clubs would not be able to afford rental amounts and so revenue to riparian owners would decline. In this situation, less vital work on the maintenance of the river and improvement of habitat would be done and angling tourism revenues into the local economy would fall.
Angling clubs and syndicates often employ river keepers to do habitat improvement work and to keep an eye on the beat looking out for signs of pollution and so on. If revenues went down, these jobs – sometimes part time, sometimes full time – would be likely to be lost.
There are hotels across Wales which provide fishing for their guests on waters which they rent or own. In the case of some, angling revenue provides a significant total of their overall income. Well known examples of these are: the Porth Hotel at Llandysul on the River Teifi; the Gwydyr Hotel at Betys y Coed on the River Conwy; Gliffaes Hotel near Crickhowell on the River Usk; the Brigards Inn at Mallwyd on the upper river Dovey; the Three salmons Hotel on the River Towy; the Tyn y Cornel Hotel at Tal y Llyn on the Dysynni - and there are others. These hotels employ river keepers to maintain their beats, but if there were to be unrestricted access to these waters by canoeists, the numbers of anglers staying at these hotels would fall, the river keepers would probably be made redundant and in some cases the viability of the hotel would be at risk.
It is well documented that anglers who come to Wales to fish, tend to stay for at least a weekend - and very often a week or more – at hotels, pubs with rooms, caravan camps and B&Bs near the river of their choice. During this time there is an income flow into the local economy. I have seen estimates that angling generates about £150m revenue in Wales each year.
(6) Riparian owners & clubs would require compensation if their assets are devalued
If canoeists and similar were granted unfettered access to rivers then fewer anglers would fish in Welsh rivers and both the angling club’s tenancy and the riparian owner’s assets would be devalued. Both these parties would, in this situation, rightly expect full compensation for this reduction in these values from the Welsh Assembly. The value of such claims is impossible to calculate, but it is certain they would be very large and very numerous. It was for just this reason that golf courses were specifically excluded from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
I have been in correspondence with one land agent who represents a riparian owner, who is emphatic that if fair compensation was not offered to his client by the Assembly, he would have no hesitation in pursuing this through the courts – going to Europe if necessary – to gain satisfaction.
(7) Wales & Scotland: the fundamental differences and the importance of sewin
Despite the obvious differences between these two countries, some people want the Scottish Land Reform Act (2003) or similar legislation to be imposed upon Wales. In our opinion, however, a revue of the scale of the differences between the two countries shows that Scottish law is, in this respect, simply not relevant to Wales:
(a) Geographical – the size of the rivers
Very obviously, most Scottish rivers are much bigger than Welsh ones. They tend to be longer, wider, deeper and have a greater volume of water. I would hazard a guess that there are at least twenty rivers in Scotland bigger than the largest river entirely within Wales (the Towy). This means that a corresponding number of kayaks or rafts would have a proportionately greater affect on Welsh rivers than Scottish ones. Quite obviously, ten rafts full of people will have a proportionately greater affect on a river 3m wide as opposed to one 10m wide.
To say that the upper reaches of large Scottish rivers are similar in size to Welsh rivers, whilst true in itself, is disingenuous as regards this argument because of course paddlers, given the opportunity, tend to spread out along the whole river.
(b) Demographic – the centres of population
Many canoeists on Welsh rivers come from the main urban areas in northern England and the midlands – especially the Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham conurbations. The rivers favoured for canoeing in north Wales are only about one and a half hours away and rivers in mid Wales perhaps two hours. In Scotland the situation is quite different; the centres of population are not so large and they are much further away from most Scottish rivers.
If the law were changed to allow for unrestricted access in Wales, we would therefore have more paddlers than in Scotland but on smaller rivers.
(c) Historical and cultural
Others will be able to inform the Committee about this in detail if required. It is however clear that there were historical and cultural forces at work when the Scottish Land Reform Act was passed, which are simply not present in Wales. Large stretches of many rivers were in the ownership of absentee landlords or very large estates in Scotland, whereas, as we have seen, in Wales, angling clubs by renting much of the water on rivers have enabled Welsh people to access this water by being members of a club or purchasing day tickets.
We have also seen that there is no reason why canoeing clubs should not also do the same.
(d) Biological – the importance of sewin (sea trout) to Wales
In Scotland, on the rivers there, the salmon is the most sought after fish by anglers. In Wales however, whilst there are some salmon in most rivers, it is often not appreciated that sewin are a more important fish – certainly from an economic point of view. As Dr Graeme Harris has said, there are probably more salmon sized sewin caught in Wales than salmon.
There is no doubt that more local Welsh people fish for sewin than salmon and/or spend more time fishing for sewin rather than salmon and also that more anglers come from abroad come to fish for sewin rather than salmon. As I think Moc Morgan has said: “sewin are the national fish of Wales !”
There is a long cultural tradition on Welsh rivers of fishing for sewin, not just with a fly (the most delicate method), but with a fly at night. Why fish at night ? This gives an indication of what sewin are like and the difference between them and salmon. Sewin are probably the most wary fish in UK freshwater; when they migrate into rivers in the spring and summer, during the day they hide deep underwater in tree roots or rocks at the bottom of the river and, by and large, are uncatchable. It is only in the evening when they feel safe enough to come out of these refuges to the main stream and move up higher in the water. It is then and through the night that they become possible to catch.
If a group of canoeists or rafters paddle over a salmon in the day, it will undoubtedly have an affect on that fish (as Dr Shelton has stated) but, as the salmon is a lot less wary than the sewin, it may be catchable after an hour or so. If the same group of paddlers goes over a shoal of sewin in the late afternoon or evening, then an angler waiting patiently on the bank to fish that stretch during the night may as well pack up and go home.
The bigger the sewin, the more true this is. Anglers come from all over Europe to fish famous sewin rivers like the Towy, the Teifi, the Mawddach, the Dovey and the Conwy. If in doubt of this, a scroll through the guest lists of those hotels already mentioned will convince.
But these visiting anglers don’t travel long distances to fish for small sewin of a pound or so – they come specifically to be in with a chance of catching a really big sewin of ten pounds or more which these rivers are famous for. If that chance is taken away from them by the fish being constantly scared, these anglers will not come to Wales and the local economies of those towns on these rivers will suffer.
(8) Navigation rights on all tidal sections of rivers
It is sometimes not realised that, since the Crown owns the bed and banks of all stretches of rivers which are subject to tidal influence, this guarantees a right of navigation along these parts of rivers in the same way as there is this right around all the coastline. This means that canoeists are already free to paddle from the sea (ie. coastal areas adjacent to the mouth of a river) up rivers to the high tide mark as shown on Ordnance Survey maps.
It might be thought that stretches of river which are tidal are not likely to be very long. This may be true in some countries, but in Wales we have the second largest tidal reach in the world. Because of this and depending as well on their actual configuration, many Welsh rivers have very long tidal reaches, which make up a significant proportion of the whole river.
We have already seen that the River Conwy has at least 23km of navigable tidal water out of a main river length of about 55km or a total river plus all main tributaries length of about 90km. – ie. 25% of the whole river is tidal with a right of navigation. This proportion of pre-existing canoeable water will be higher on some rivers and lower on others, but in no Welsh river is it likely to be insignificant. This in itself makes a mockery of some of the statistics quoted for the amount of water accessible to canoeists as a percentage of all Welsh rivers.
(9) Examples of previous voluntary agreements from rivers across Wales
It is estimated (by Canoe Wales) that a few years ago there were about twenty voluntary access agreements in operation on different rivers across Wales. As these tended to be in place on the larger rivers, the water made available for paddling was a very substantial amount. I give details of some typical examples, from around the country, as below:
(a) South Wales – the River Tawe and tributary
In 2005 an access agreement was signed between the Tawe and Tributaries Angling Association (Mr Laurence Jones, the Secretary) and the Welsh Canoeing Association (Mr Richard Harvey, the Chief Executive Officer) – encl. (6). This provided for access for canoeing on the rivers Tawe and Twrch every year between the dates of 18th October and 28th February for members not only of the WCA, but of the corresponding canoeing organisations in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It included payment of £2,500 per annum by the WCA to the angling club (which, in this instance was also the riparian owner) and was due for revue in 2010.
However, in October 2007 Mr Harvey wrote to Mr Laurence Jones stating that the WCA “have issued a mandate not to enter into such arrangements and are undertaking an audit of existing arrangements in place” – enclosure (7).
Mr Laurence Jones replied: “I thought that this agreement was the way forward to enable the fishermen and canoeists to jointly share the use of the river but that has now gone by the wayside”. – enclosure (8).
We believe that a careful reading of this agreement and then the exchange of letters which brought it to an end, clearly shows that the WCA decided to adopt a position of intransigence making such agreements impossible, whilst encouraging or at least accepting what became continual trespass in order to try to force their views into law.
(b) North Wales – the River Dee
For over forty years riparian owners on this river have agreed to various canoeing events taking place at or within certain dates outside the fishing season, some of which, known as Dee Tours, covered much of the river. In particular, Langollen Angling Association have for many years agreed for the WCA to stage salmon and wild water rafting along their stretch of the river around this town. Cordial relations existed up to 2003, as evidenced by the letter sent by Mr Huw Evans, Secretary of this angling association to Mr Richard Lee, the then CEO of the WCA: “Thank you for your letter of 4 December 2003 and for your donation towards the Association’s Re-Stocking Programme. The (fishing) Association have had another successful year and look forward to co-operating with your (canoeing) Association, as we have done over the past 30+ years”. Enclosure (9).
In this letter, Huw Evans confirmed to Mr Lee that ten weekends had been agreed with the WCA, between October 2004 and January 2005 when canoeing could take place on this stretch of the river. Unfortunately, after some convoluted arguments, Mr Richard Harvey, the new CEO of the WCA, then rejected this agreement, the dates of which the WCA had earlier requested, (his letter 29.4.04) – enclosure (10).
Huw Evans then wrote to a local paper to try to make the position clear: “The motive behind the rejection appears to be a campaign being launched by the British Canoe Union for free access to all rivers in England and Wales. The River Dee in Llangollen does not have navigation rights. The ownership of the fishing has been acquired by LAA since 1940. LAA have tried to resolve the issue of canoe access without success. The WCA have rejected the dates in favour of pursuing their own political campaign.”
Later on, in January 2005, the Daily Post gave publicity to another rejection of an offered agreement on this river and gave the views of both sides of the argument – enclosure (11). It is clear from this that the WCA adopted the stance that they would not be a party to any agreement which did not give their members access to the river for 365 days a year.
(c) South east Wales – the River Usk
An access agreement on the River Usk had been in operation for over twenty years and throughout that time had been resigned each year by both parties: the WCA and the United Usk Fishermen’s Association – enclosure (12).
In January 2007 however, it was abruptly rejected by the WCA. In a letter to Mr Nick Brabner, Chairman of the UUFA, Ms Pam Bell, Regional Access Officer for the WCA, quoting an earlier reply to Mr David Jones Powell, stated: “ we no longer enter into agreements which restrict canoeing purely on the basis of dates” – enclosure (13).
This and other agreements which have been in place illustrate another point. It is sometimes claimed that as there are so many riparian owners and angling clubs on any particular river, canoeing organisations would find it too difficult to come to agreements with all of them in order to be able to canoe on the whole river or a substantial stretch of it. These agreements show that actually there is almost always a whole river association of such bodies which means that canoeing organisations in fact only need to make contact with one person on each river.
(10) Trespass and abuse should not be rewarded
The whole angling and riparian fraternity were shocked when the Petitions Committee report was released to see that, far from condemning the constant trespass which angling clubs and riparian owners have to endure, it simply wasn’t mentioned at all!
There is no doubt that this trespass creates ill will on both sides which can erupt into shouting and verbal abuse from both parties. There are however many instances of abuse, damage to property (especially walls and gates) and threatening behaviour aimed at riparian owners and anglers by groups of canoeists, for which there is documentary evidence. I give just a couple of examples below:
(a) River Clwyd, Daily Post report, 3.9.09
Just recently, the wife of a riparian owner was threatened with physical assault when she confronted a paddler on the River Elwy in north Wales. She said that the canoeist “became hysterical with rage, threatening to break her neck and she had to phone a neighbour to help”. The Daily Post report quotes Mr Charlwood on behalf of the WCA as well as the riparian owner - enclosure (14).
(b) River Conwy, 2008
A group of canoeists were unlawfully crossing a farmer’s field without his permission to try to access the river. They were pushing canoes over a gate when the farmer tried to push one back. The canoeists were quick to claim that this was an ‘assault’ and a court case resulted. The farmer was found not guilty of any offence.
These facts can be checked and further details obtained if members of the Committee contacts the farmer involved: Mr Elfed Williams.
Many country people are outraged that a Welsh Assembly committee is even considering changing the law in order to benefit those who have conducted a campaign based on trespass, duplicity and intransigence. At the same time such a change in the law would greatly disadvantage those who have conducted themselves lawfully. Is it not part of the role of government to uphold the law and to criticise those who wilfully break it ?
(11). The way forward – the solution to the problem
We feel that a reasonable and fair solution to this problem is actually quite obvious. On most Welsh rivers the vast majority of the angling is for sewin and salmon. The legal fishing season for these fish varies from river to river but in the main is something like 21st March to 31st October. However, because the migratory runs of these fish have got later and later over the years, virtually no angling is carried out for these fish before, roughly, the start of May.
This means that anglers tend to be on the river during the six months of the year May to October inclusive. During the other six months (although this varies river to river) hardly any angling takes place, so, from the anglers point of view there would be little objection to canoeists using the river during the other six months – ie. November to April inclusive. In this situation, if the angling clubs said to the riparian owners that they had no objection to sharing the river with canoeists in this ‘half-yearly’ way, then there would be no derogation of angling leases and riparian owners would be very likely to want to come to agreements with canoeing organisations on this basis in order to try to stop conflict on the river.
Of course, there would need to be conditions to the use of the river by canoeists during ‘their’ half of the year to protect the ecology of the river. Very likely the maximum number of canoes or rafts on any one day would need to be agreed upon and the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act would have to be included in such agreements. But these sort of provisions could be included in one way or another on a river by river basis – provided good will and a willingness to negotiate was shown by both parties.
Our experience as a society with members with knowledge of rivers across Wales indicates to us that associations of riparian owners and angling clubs would be more than willing to negotiate and sign up to such agreements. What is needed is for the governing body of paddlesport in Wales to accept that it is unreasonable to refuse to sign any agreement which does not give their members year round access to someone else’s property. If the WCA/CW adopted a less intransigent and more pragmatic attitude then these agreements could be put in place in rivers across Wales, their members (or members of local canoeing clubs) would have ample water to paddle and the current degree of conflict would sharply decline. This would be a fair solution for those on both sides of this problem.
Yours sincerely
Max Coventry
