For Information - Waterway Wanderers Scheme - Canal Fishing

[AshbyCut]

Interesting stuff, I wonder how the Water ways wandering scheme will be advertised as it would seem people will now be required to purchase a permit to fish sections that are not run by clubs. I had not seen or heard of this scheme before and haven't seen it listed on any clubs local to me.
I assume they will have appointed bailiffs, as clubs do, to collect any ticket money from the towpath.

As stated in the original post, any Canal and River Trust staff member is entitled to see the permit ... and does not have to be a specifically designated 'bailiff.' This may well extend to the "Voluntary Bailiff Service" being set up by The Angling Trust, who work in conjunction with EA officers.

I believe that although the CRT was set up in 2012, the full 'hand-over' of responsibility for the inland waterways from the Environment Agency to the CRT will be in 2015. although I have been paying boat licence and mooring fees to the CRT for some time.

[Stathamender]

Interesting. I've done a bit more digging and found that about the only publicity that this has received in the past was in this item in the Angling Times back in 2010 http://tinyurl.com/35ty3el but this was British Waterways who did this (though the organisation was at the time in its death throes). Following the demise of BW the scheme then seems to have lain dormant until last year.

There's some nonsense in the article (though whether it's BW nonsense or Angling Times nonsense is hard to say - they were both prone to it) about how this would mean 'anglers can target over 300 miles of previously unfished, virgin canals' when of course what it actually meant in realspeak was that people were going to be charged for something they previously could do for free. I wonder what the CRT Patron (I won't name him but he has big ears, lots of opinions and a mother who is quite important) thinks of that. I'm also, having been brought up close to the Leeds and Liverpool and having done a lot of canal boating in my past, experiencing some difficulty with the concept of a virgin canal. The Angling Trust appears to have been involved in this as well which doesn't surprise me. Interestingly, by contrast most canal fishing in Scotland, other than on club controlled stretches, remains free.

I've emailed Ms Wilder with a few questions of my own and I'll let you know about any replies.

[Stathamender]

I believe that although the CRT was set up in 2012, the full 'hand-over' of responsibility for the inland waterways from the Environment Agency to the CRT will be in 2015. although I have been paying boat licence and mooring fees to the CRT for some time.

There's an interesting contrast between how the boat licence scheme is run (online directly by CRT just like EA licences), while the WWS appears to be run by a private individual from a private address. If every person currently fishing the canals suddenly applies for a permit how is he going to cope?

I wonder why this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_tresp ... nder_Scout keeps coming to mind? There's a tradition of this kind of thing round where I live you know.

[Trainset]

The fact that the contact is a personal email add for an individual seems very odd to me. If the hand over is not until next year the advertising push really should be well under way by now to inform anglers of the change and if it effects any stretches of canals they fish. Also they should get their act together and push it via the official web site.
It does explain why I was told by the EA that I could fish for free on certain stretches, at the time they were the authority running 'empty' stretches. Seems to me the EA have handed over 'free' stretches of the canal to this organisation who will now charge a fee for fishing. That's fine as long as they do something for the angler other than take the fee!
Will be interesting to get some more details on this, I don't see how this can encourage young folk to take up the sport if they have to worry about additional permits and costs.

[Stathamender]

@Trainset - I agree very strongly with you, there are a number of issues here:

• 1. That they are now trying to charge people for something they have enjoyed free de facto at least for some time now;
  2. That the change seems to have been introduced without public consultation;
  3. That the existence of the permit scheme is both under publicised and badly publicised, the web page does not even make clear that the permit is now seen as a legal necessity;
  4. That operation of the scheme has apparently been devolved to a private individual operating from a private address rather than being operated by the CRT itself;
  5. The arrangements made for obtaining the permit have a low level of accessability and it is unclear what resources are being made available to operate them - which, given that, apparently again, all those using non-club canal waters for angling (an unknown number which might be quite large) are now expected to obtain a permit before fishing, presents a major barrier to compliance with their demand. This is not only against government guidelines but also threatens the legal legitimacy of the scheme.

There are other problems but those will do for a startoff. As it happens I was talking with a former colleague this afternoon and this came up in the conversation (he's not an angler and the only time he goes near a canal is when he strolls down to Camden High Street now and then and passes over the bridge by the Lock). He thought that given these factors the CRT might well find legal enforcement of this scheme rather difficult. Just his opinion I suppose although when we worked together he was Dean of a University Law School.

I suspect this is something that CRT just inherited from BW and they have not thought through the implications and consequences properly.

[AshbyCut]

I have been aware of this scheme,(and held a permit) ever since I returned to angling when, living as close as I do to so many different canals, I thought that the right thing to do was to find out what rules, regulations, and laws related these days. Because we don't know something exists doesn't mean it doesn't.

It is now so easy to find out things thanks to "t'internet," and when I google 'canal fishing' the Canal and River Trust comprises the first three items ... which is how I found the scheme years ago (albeit British Waterways then).

One or two things in posts over the past few months made me feel that, perhaps, there was a lack of knowledge about the situation ... and that was my reason for starting this post.

It was my hope that I could inform ... and perhaps assist TFF members.

As I understand it there is a basic premise that 'ignorance of the law is no defence,' hence my desire to inform ... and, hopefully, ensure members don't find themselves in a situation they didn't expect.

For instance, I discovered that even if I owned a house which has land on the bankside of a canal (I wish) ... the riparian rights stay with what was British Waterways, and what is now the CRT ... so that I could fish from my garden without paying for a permit. That is not new ... that has always been the case.

As to a couple of points made by others in their posts ... The Canal and River Trust is a Charitable Trust established by the current government to take over from British Waterways as part of their cost cutting measures. Many of the roles in this organisation are being undertaken by volunteers ... such as the ones currently being advertised ... like "Explorers Education Volunteers" in Staffordshire, Devises, and Gloucester Waterways Museum ... and "Towpath Task Force" volunteers in Selby.

These voluntary roles will become much more prolific as the Trust establishes itself ... as the CRT website says "Whether you want to volunteer as a lock keeper, help wildlife, learn more about canal heritage or take on more of an office-based role, there’s bound to be a volunteer opportunity at the Canal & River Trust to suit you."

Even under British Waterways I once saw a 'post' advertised for someone to work in a canal centre, dealing with the public, the job being 35 hours a week. It wasn't until I came to the end of the lengthy job description that I found the sentence "This is a voluntary position."

I make these points with no reference to whether I think they are right or wrong. A wise man once said 'never discuss politics, religion, or ethics with friends, if you want to stay friends.'

Perhaps this thread could be left as simply 'information' of the regulations as they stand ... as it was intended ... and if others want to discuss it they could start their own.

[Stathamender]

@ AshbyCut I take your point and I appreciate your starting this discussion off. I will be pursuing this matter elsewhere. But I do think that if an organisation is going to demand from people that they have to make payment for something that was formerly free, under threat of prosecution under the Theft Act 1968 (the usual means of pursuing poachers), then charity or not, they have a duty to make it well known that they will do that and make it possible for people to comply without undue effort. 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' is often quoted but actually the judges tend to take a different view if people are suddenly barred from doing what they could before, are not told about the change and are not able to comply with the new conditions easily.

I'm off to watch Pointless now. Have a good night.

[Trainset]

I appreciate all the information given AshbyCut, you're doing a better job that the CRT promoting this subject!
I also agree that this is best kept for information purposes, then people can debate in another side topic.
Thanks for the heads up regarding this.

[AshbyCut]

I appreciate all the information given AshbyCut, you're doing a better job that the CRT promoting this subject!

Thanks, Sir. Maybe I should volunteer as Information Officer ???