• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Fishing rights and wrongs

Graham Elliott

Graham Elliott

Senior Member & Supporter
A bit of a local river, that has been free fishing for many years (over 40 ) has now been taken over by a fishing Club.

The land/water is owned by the Local council.


Now, a well known angler has told me that if one has fished the water when it was free for 12 years or more, then that right will continue?

Seems a bit strange to me but he insists it is correct by law.

Any Views.

Graham
 
I don't think he is correct, the 12 years is a reference to adverse possesion of land by people who have occupied the land for that period. I doubt that fishing would qualify. I'm no solicitor though and might have got this wrong.
 
sounds cod to me however I'm no barrister,
any barristers on here or are they all to busy on the salmon forums...lol
 
Hi men,

Graham, I won't name the stretch, but is it where I was going to take the dog with us next season ?:( , where the footpath runs alongside it ?.

Hatter
 
Last edited:
Graham Elliott said:
Now, a well known angler has told me that if one has fished the water when it was free for 12 years or more, then that right will continue?

Seems a bit strange to me but he insists it is correct by law.

Any Views.

Graham
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking.

Just because anglers have fished for free doesn't affect the fact that the "Fishing Rights" have been held by the Council (not the anglers), whether they're the riparian owners or not. If they then decide to sell on or otherwise dispose of those rights, they're perfectly at liberty to do so.

Whether they should have held a public consultation is another matter.
 
Simon King said:
Wishful thinking.

Just because anglers have fished for free doesn't affect the fact that the "Fishing Rights" have been held by the Council (not the anglers), whether they're the riparian owners or not. If they then decide to sell on or otherwise dispose of those rights, they're perfectly at liberty to do so.

Whether they should have held a public consultation is another matter.
Click to expand...

Sounds logical Simon....but then again, there are oddities that occur...such as the way a short cut through someone elses property can become a right of way, if the owners of the property allow it to continue unchallenged for a certain number of years (seven I think?), and this doesn't sound that dissimilar.

There is also the rather bisarre situation in law regarding 'squatters rights'....so there are precedents. Are you certain about this, or just making an assumption based on logic?

Cheers, Dave.
 
Personally, I think that there are so many people in our sport who care nothing for the environment, the fish, the litter or drug/booze parafinalia they leave strewn all over the banks, I would rather see all waters owned and policed by a responsible fishing club, group, etc.........

This particualr stretch has been a tip for years, with beer cans all over the banks and pot smoking drop outs dotted along the banks at night............good ridance to them.

Yourself excepted Graham............of course :)
 
David Gauntlett said:
Sounds logical Simon....but then again, there are oddities that occur...such as the way a short cut through someone elses property can become a right of way, if the owners of the property allow it to continue unchallenged for a certain number of years (seven I think?), and this doesn't sound that dissimilar.

There is also the rather bisarre situation in law regarding 'squatters rights'....so there are precedents. Are you certain about this, or just making an assumption based on logic?

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...

The latter, Dave. Squatters rights is continuous possesion (which occasional angling clearly isn't) and rights of way are seperate from actual "rights to fish" except where a right of way is established with the landowner in order to exercise a "right to fish".

I can only see the example pf an alleged "12 year" rule being possible where no-one owned the fishing rights?
 
Regarding the fishing rights. Don't the Council operate for the benefit of the people within the district. And hold/manage the assests paid for and on behalf of the stakeholders?


Crooky. It used to be pristine. It's all the newby incomers.........:rolleyes::D
 
Ian Crook said:
Personally, I think that there are so many people in our sport who care nothing for the environment, the fish, the litter or drug/booze parafinalia they leave strewn all over the banks, I would rather see all waters owned and policed by a responsible fishing club, group, etc.........

This particualr stretch has been a tip for years, with beer cans all over the banks and pot smoking drop outs dotted along the banks at night............good ridance to them.

Yourself excepted Graham............of course :)
Click to expand...

So you're one 'pot smoking drop out' that's welcome to stay then Graham...or have I misinterpreted Crooky's statement1 :D
 
Graham,

I used to take my son down there about 5 or 6 years ago when he was remotely interested in fishing and every time we went it was strewn with litter, mostly beer cans, fast food wrappers and fag packets and almost every time there were a number of weedos "fishing". I would have felt really sorry for the fish if they caught anything decent..........
 
Nathan

I don't think Ian meant that:rolleyes::eek: My view was of the last 40 years usage.

BUT maybe it could have been bought into the Council run Dinton Pastures fold.

However, personally I'm more interested in the legal question posed.

Graham
 
Graham I think I am right in saying that 35 years ago British Airways Leased the stretch from Wokingham counci for a time, and when they gave it up a Bailiff from the council came round each day and collected the day ticket money, in the last 15 years the Bailiff stopped coming round, and it was known as a free strech. Crooky I have always found it very pleasent fishing there and have night fished it many times without any problems, the biggest problem i have found down there is Dog poo, and dogs jumping in the water in your swim. It will be a shame to lose this free fishing Graham, what do you think about having a mass fishing protest day down there to show the council the locals still want free fishing and get the press involved.

Regards Ray Thorpe
 
If it is correct, I personally have fished the stretch on a weekly basis (save the close season) for the last 15 years.
Yours in anticipation,
'Spartacus':D
 
Graham Elliott said:
Regarding the fishing rights. Don't the Council operate for the benefit of the people within the district. And hold/manage the assests paid for and on behalf of the stakeholders?


Crooky. It used to be pristine. It's all the newby incomers.........:rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

I wish they did Graham, my local council seem hell bent on developing a 25k ton open compost site 250 metres from my house. When you talk to the council they treat it like their own fiefdom with little or no consideration for local opinion, I don't any of them unserstand the concept of being a public servant.

http://eforms.hartlepool.gov.uk:7777/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=91513

Click on the attachments on the bottom left and see how much my local council care for the local people.
 
Ray. Not sure about the stretch in question, the bit upstream from the George Bridge.

Certainly the other free bit above TDFC's short bit at Whistley was once RDAA and then for a couple of seasons British Airways. (this is the opposite bank to what was Barnets)

I know this because when RDAA gave it up I got the water for BA. They only kept it a couple of seasons, because the owner then, the farmer who lived opposite the Elephant, would not move his fences back from the rivers edge. You had to fish under or over it!

For a short time afterwards you could go to the house and buy a ticket.


The short bit alongside, up to the opposite bank stile, that TDFC now run, was in fact the locals "swimming pool" area.



I think the Free bit initially mentioned in my first post is probably lost, despite WDC's admittance of basically an unfair "cock up" That is unless the 12 year rule applies.

What we do need to do is keep our ears open so that the other free bits are not sold off/leased as well. Then we will need lots of Spartacus's.

Graham
 
Graham,

i think the legal position your friend is talking about is the right of prescription. i may be wrong but this is different to adverse possession. Its a way of claimng an easement ( a right/use over the property of another) by continual and regular use and can be without the permission of the property owner. However the use has to be regular and continual so i suppose it may depend on how often he used the river. He also would be required to have been ddoing this for a fair few years. If it has been 10-12 years then that is plenty long enough. This is what i was taught on my degree but may not be correct.

all the best, bw
 
Thanks Graham, sorry i thought you were talking about Whistley. Did hear about the stretch by The George some big Carp in there.


Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top