Newark Dyke - Who knows what??

[Jon Whelan]

lol - like it. Good luck with the practice & the hopeful lurching rod bend

 

[David Gauntlett]

Dave, hopefully this following example illustrates the point a little further (?):

Whilst fishing the Trent for example I am fishing from a bank side that I have bought a licence to fish (eg Nottingham Anglers Association) but cast across the whole river to fish the opposite margin whose fishing rights is owned by a different club (say Nottingham Federation of Anglers).

On principle, I have only obtained permission to fish half way across the river (dry weather flow) by virtue that the Riparian Owners have sold/leased the fishing rights to NAA & casting any point further across than mid stream I would have seek permission of those with the fishing rights of the opposite bank(?!?). Hope that makes sense.

Hi Jon,

According to Wikipedia, the Riparian rights normally pass to whoever owns the river bank, giving them ownership of the river bed up to the centre of the river, and thus the fishing rights. It qualifies this by saying 'Unless it is known that you, or another, own the whole' It does not explain how 'you or another' possibly could 'own the whole', without owning both banks, but in any case it would seem that situation would be unusual.

I think I recall reading somewhere that the 'casting across to the far bank' scenario you mention is a case of 'OK unless challenged'. I am not at all certain of that, but that seems to be how my memory has it. It would make sense, where clubs own/lease only one bank...but then, where the law is concerned, there isn't much in the way of sense

I did also read at some stage something along the lines that if 'usage goes unchallenged for a minimum period of 20 years', then that becomes a right...which I suppose could come into things, providing you were bloody minded enough to pursue it for that length of time...and could prove it

Cheers, Dave.

 

[David Gauntlett]

You're right Dave, riparian rights only entitles an angler to fish from one bank to mid-way, this stands for the smallest brook to the biggest river. Though I like most others feel no sense of guilt when casting tight to the far bank, if it takes my fancy...

Am I to take it that when you fish your local river Colne, unless you have consent, you DO NOT cast beyond mid-way???

Absolutely not Colin...rules is rules. It's just that in my case I consider 'the middle' to be an inch or so beyond wherever I cast to

Seriously though, I believe that while this type of law may exist, there is usually leeway for common sense. If you are fishing a swim where there are no anglers fishing opposite, then it is reasonable to cast beyond the centre. Should an angler turn up to fish the swim opposite, or the owner of the far bank challenges you, then it is just as reasonable that you stop doing so...at that time...

My guess is that should the owner of the far bank continue to press his right, and gives you fair warning...then you would be unwise to continue.

Cheers, Dave.

 

[Jon Whelan]

Dave,

Thanks for taking the time to expand on this. I have learnt a few things today one of which is this! Gives a definitive extra perspective or two!

Cheers, Jon

 

[Adrian Williams]

[/COLOR]

Absolutely not Colin...rules is rules. It's just that in my case I consider 'the middle' to be an inch or so beyond wherever I cast to

Seriously though, I believe that while this type of law may exist, there is usually leeway for common sense. If you are fishing a swim where there are no anglers fishing opposite, then it is reasonable to cast beyond the centre. Should an angler turn up to fish the swim opposite, or the owner of the far bank challenges you, then it is just as reasonable that you stop doing so...at that time...

My guess is that should the owner of the far bank continue to press his right, and gives you fair warning...then you would be unwise to continue.

Cheers, Dave.

What if both banks are controlled by different clubs and you are a member of both clubs, is it OK to stand on one bank and fish under the opposite bank? Technically you are fishing water you are entitled to fish and as your bait is only in one place you are only fishing one swim.:confused:

 

[David Gauntlett]

What if both banks are controlled by different clubs and you are a member of both clubs, is it OK to stand on one bank and fish under the opposite bank? Technically you are fishing water you are entitled to fish and as your bait is only in one place you are only fishing one swim.:confused:

If you are standing in one swim, with your bait in another...then you are occupying/rendering unusable by others...two swims. You obviously have the right to fish either bank, but it would be arguable whether that right entitles you to, effectively, fish both at the same time. My guess is that in law, yes. Whether you would feel morally right if another angler tuned up opposite would again be down to you.

In many instances it would probably depend on the size of the guy on the other bank.

Cheers, Dave.

 

[Chris Turnbull]

Good point Dave. I am not really a specialist on the rights or wrongs of riparian ownership. How about those fishing from an anchored boat in the mid river or downstream of a weir. On some spots on the middle & tidal trent people boat fishing weirs seemingly remain unchallenged?!?

Hopefully someone more in the know could answer this one - if I was in the fortunate position of my house backing up to a prime bit of water I would like to know exactly as to what rights I could reserve or give.

Any pointers appreciated.

Jon

Boat fishing non-tidal weir-pools would generally require putting an anchor down on the river bed, thus technically this would be trespassing. As for bank fishing tidal waters, where there is a right of access to the banks there is generally also a right to fish. Boat fishing navigable tidal water is also perfectly legal unless special legal restraints have been put in place.

 

[Jon Whelan]

Cris - thank you for the further clarification. I take it then if one did not anchor the boat to neither the river bed nor bank side then one could fish unchallenged by the owner i.e. the riparian owner neither owns the water nor the fish.

Cheers, Jon

 

[Steven Palmer]

This is an interesting turn so from what Jon & Chris have said it seems as though:

Tidal river = you can fish from a boat whether it's anchored or free floating even if the bank fishing is controlled by a club (unless legal restraints in place).

Non-Tidal river = you can fish from a boat providing it's not anchored or tethered even if the bank fishing is controlled by a club.

The inference seems to be that the clubs only have the rights to fish from the bank which includes the river bed (hence no anchoring) they don't have the ownership or rights to the water itself and the fish in it only the rights of "access" and to "fish" from terra firma?

So does this mean if someone decides to fish from a boat in a club controlled non-tidal river so long as they have their own "moral" boundaries in terms of disrupting other peoples fishing that there are no "physical" boundaries so long as there is no anchoring or tethering? I can't see your average bank angler seeing it that way

Cheers,

Steven.

 

[Richard Walker]

Fishing from boats has been an issue for a local club. Technically you would be in breach of the theft act :

Taking or destroying fish E+W

2(1)Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a person who unlawfully takes or destroys, or attempts to take or destroy, any fish in water which is private property or in which there is any private right of fishery shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, for an offence committed after a previous conviction of an offence under this sub-paragraph, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both .

(2)Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply to taking or destroying fish by angling in the daytime (that is to say, in the period beginning one hour before sunrise and ending one hour after sunset); but a person who by angling in the daytime unlawfully takes or destroys, or attempts to take or destroy, any fish in water which is private property or in which there is any private right of fishery shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding [F52level 1 on the standard scale.]

(3)The court by which a person is convicted of an offence under this paragraph may order the forfeiture of anything which, at the time of the offence, he had with him for use for taking or destroying fish.



regards
Richard

 

[Steven Palmer]

Thnks for the info. Richard, the plot thickens!

Where does this come from and can you explain it in laymans terms

Cheers,

Steven

 

[Jon Whelan]

Rich - Thanks for the time taken to make this addition. If you can outline as to what Act you have quoted from & what paragraph. Hopefully there will be a definition of what constitutes taking / destroying. It is seemingly obvious on the surface of things but these terms are always defined. There might be case law whereby the above has been used to illustrate the use of this law further.

However, does angling i.e. catching fish & returning them immediately after capture constitute 'taking'? Taking I would have thought would be to remove for some other purpose which could include for the table (food) or stocking another water(?). 'Destroying' - I would consider being discarded as waste i.e. so called nuisance pike culled and thrown onto the bankside.

Thanks again,

Jon

 

[Chris Turnbull]

Cris - thank you for the further clarification. I take it then if one did not anchor the boat to neither the river bed nor bank side then one could fish unchallenged by the owner i.e. the riparian owner neither owns the water nor the fish.

Cheers, Jon

I'm not altogether sure about this?.... but where there is no navigation right there is no right to put a boat on the water without the riparian owners consent, therefore taking (catching) fish would technically be theft. Following on from this I suspect that it would probably still count as theft when fishing from a boat in non-tidal water, even without the anchor down?!!! The onus during the daylight hours would be on the owner/club to prosecute.

 

[Chris Turnbull]

Ooops and now I've just seen Richards post.

Yes Jon. In the eyes of the law catching fish equals taking fish.

 

[Richard Walker]

It is taken from the Theft Act.
Actually if you look here the wording has changed to remove the daylight hours bit- which was just daft anyway

I think by fishing you are "attempting to take" regardless of if you catch or not

regards
Richard

 

[Jon Whelan]

Thanks Cris & Rich. So one takes the fish from water by whatever means or brevity of time. It makes sense, one cannot borrow (without prior consent) something without having committed theft first, no matter how brief one might have borrowed it for! Hope that makes sense!

Cheers, Jon

 

[Jon Whelan]

Its interesting that a club owning fishing rights on a section of river could claim theft of a fish. For instance, a stretch of river or even canal could have numerous clubs controlling its length & essentially the fish therein, without no obstructions such as weirs/locks, are free to swim along its length. Obviously there will be a legal caveat somewhere but which club could plausibly prove theft when it is not owned solely by one club.

Sorry to split hairs here.

Cheers, Jon

PS Rich - has the club concerned tried to instigate proceedings against those fishing from a boat?

 

[Tony Rocca]

Rich Walker is right.

There is a distinction between tidal and non tidal waters though.

On tidal waters anyone can fish from a boat anywhere. The clubs just own the rights to access, not the right to fish.

On non tidal waters its different, the clubs actually own the rights to fish so the theft act comes in.


Jon, its not the theft of a fish its the theft of the cost to fish.

 

[Jon Whelan]

Jon, its not the theft of a fish its the theft of the cost to fish.

Thanks Tony - Very interesting qualification

 

[Jon Whelan]

So the burden of proof to establish fishery theft is seemingly straight forward enough - photographs of non consented individuals undertaking the activity of fishing (regardless of catching any fish species) taken within the frame of the location, with some evidence of the culprits identification (immediate or on investigation).

PS I'd imagine that additional submissions to the court proving that there was adequate signs stating "Private Fishing" (in additional eastern European languages as appropriate) so informing general population to keep off/out/etc...