It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


British River Access Green Transport For All

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:13 AM
Since this land became an island people have arrived in boats and ships. It's important to make some distinction between larger and smaller vessels, because this is where some of the legal confusion has arisen.

This is where a misunderstanding arose. The word navigable comes from the Latin navis a large vessel, in this booklet called a barge. This was correct. In general before the work was carried out a barge could not use the river and after the work was carried out they could. Of the 75 rivers which were made navigable under statutory powers at least 72 were used by boats before the modification were carried out.42 The effect of the modifications was to make the rivers navigable in the sense that barges could use the rivers.


cognate with Ancient Greek ναῦς (naûs, “ship”)

Navigable now means accessible by boat, however small that boat is. We have used small craft on our rivers as far as they can go for as long as we've been here. No statute has ever been passed forbidding this.

Not everyone agrees with the view that a general public right of navigation continues to exist on all rivers physically capable of navigation subject only to the physical constraints of the river and the craft using them.

. . .

So if you know of such a statute or exercise of statutory authority, please tell us here.

We will publish below all serious views on how this is claimed to have happened. If there is nothing there it's because no one has any sensible suggestion for Statutes or exercise of statutory authority that has removed the general Public Right of Navigation.

Nothing has yet been suggested.

Are boaters expected to stay off rivers to which they have a legal right of passage because land owners are not willing to give permission which is not required?

There is a storm brewing on Britain's waterways, with anglers and canoeists clashing over access rights.

A recent advert for the post of "access officer", posted by British Canoeing, has prompted a backlash from fishermen.

The Angling Trust says canoeists are being encouraged to trespass on parts of the 40,400-mile network of waterways.

Both groups claim historic rights to use the rivers and lakes, but in terms of the legality of those claims, these are muddy waters.

It appears that these actions are part of a campaign for universal, unlimited river access funded by the BCU through its national arms at CE and CW, which is actually leading to less access for canoeists and more conflict on the riverbank. Conflict on the riverbank? Are the Angling Trust suggesting canoeists are attacking anglers? The only stories I've heard suggest the opposite, including stones thrown by anglers at children in canoes.

Angling contributes £3.5 billion to the UK economy . . . I don't think throwing stones at children is a legitimate way to protect a £3.5 billion industry. They can afford to do it legally. Pass a statute forbidding what we have done for 10,000 years. What objection could there possibly be? How would it be if we banned sport fishing due to cruelty? The Angling Trust should be careful of their public image. There will be more small craft on the waterways just as there are more cars on the road. It's a population thing. No use tilting at windmills. There will be more canoes on rivers.

British river access. Green transport for all.

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 01:38 AM
a reply to: Kester

Here's an example of 'conflict on the riverbank'.

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 10:55 AM
I think you'll find regulations for rivers changed a couple of years ago. Before, if you were a landowner you owned the land butting up to the river (hence being able to charge fishing rights as you fished from the land) and the rivers were owned and more importantly maintained by the river authority. Ie. if the water course had running water, even a small stream, it was the water, river authorities domain.
Now with the change of regs. if you own the land butting up to a water course you own half the watercourse and the opposing landowner owns the other half. This changing of the regs the river authorities negate their responsibility to maintain the water course. Sounds nice that does.
But, now it's up to the landowner to keep the river free of obstructions, keep it dredged etc. etc. Now if it floods the onus (insurance claims for flooding other peoples land etc.)is placed on the land owner. And if you can't see the dangers in that well there's no hope for you.
This change of regs.makes the landowners owners of the water way. So yes they now control who fishes there but ultimately they control who used the said waterway, ie boats.

new topics

log in