It seems that there are "one off" voluntary agreements that allow slaloms to take place once a year, these agreements seem to give landowners the right to "request" that other leisure paddlers do not use "their" water for the rest of the year...
After Years and Years of paddling, this sort of agreement is the very first time I've ever been stopped from getting on the water...
Is this the way forward bearing in mind the current situation regarding Govt. policies...?
Cheers
Red.
Voluntary Agreements - Good or Bad..?
I could never understand how a "Land owner" can own the water as well?
Surely water is owned by us all as we pay water rates and a proportion of the Environment Agencies costs to keep them running.
Does not the water come from the sky? so who owns it on the way down?
It is time that the same rights that Scotland have are replicated throughout the UK otherwise it is discrimination?
Surely water is owned by us all as we pay water rates and a proportion of the Environment Agencies costs to keep them running.
Does not the water come from the sky? so who owns it on the way down?
It is time that the same rights that Scotland have are replicated throughout the UK otherwise it is discrimination?
Paddle fast,,,Paddle safe Yorkshire Canoe Coaching
A good point Geebs,
And I look forward to the Scottish Land Reform Bill being adopted in Wales in the near future, closely followed by England...
But my question was really aimed towards, should the rest of the canoeing/kayaking fraternity suffer through "one off" agreements" for the greater good of Slalom competition...
Cheers
Red.
And I look forward to the Scottish Land Reform Bill being adopted in Wales in the near future, closely followed by England...
But my question was really aimed towards, should the rest of the canoeing/kayaking fraternity suffer through "one off" agreements" for the greater good of Slalom competition...
Cheers
Red.
-
Seedy Paddler
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm
Irrespective of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, Scottish Slalom organisers still require to seek permission from the land owner prior to organising a slalom.
This is not permission for passage on the water but is required to gain access across the land to erect the infrastructure that is required for an event - e.g. hanging gates; judging positions; telecoms wiring; control; campsite etc.
The argument that wider recreational paddling utilising passage on water is impacted by requirements for an organised event to seek permission is generally spread by the miopic who lack understanding of the different requirements and the basic common courtesy to discuss logically. Similarly whether a land or riparian owner provides permission for an event that need not be related to the wider passage on the river.
Indeed it is normally the reverse - the lack of clear and legislated rights of passage means that organised events (e.g. slalom; rodeo etc) suffer as they are prevented access through disputes on wider access issues.
This is not permission for passage on the water but is required to gain access across the land to erect the infrastructure that is required for an event - e.g. hanging gates; judging positions; telecoms wiring; control; campsite etc.
The argument that wider recreational paddling utilising passage on water is impacted by requirements for an organised event to seek permission is generally spread by the miopic who lack understanding of the different requirements and the basic common courtesy to discuss logically. Similarly whether a land or riparian owner provides permission for an event that need not be related to the wider passage on the river.
Indeed it is normally the reverse - the lack of clear and legislated rights of passage means that organised events (e.g. slalom; rodeo etc) suffer as they are prevented access through disputes on wider access issues.
RedFrame - you seem to be suggesting that it is the fault of slalom that you were asked not to paddle a section of river - is this the case? If so, you are seriously mistaken; as Seedy has eloquently explained, slalom organisers will negotiate with landowners for access to a section of the river and its banks over a weekend, but that is all. Some time ago there was pressure from the riparian (and other) interests on the Dee that in order that access be granted for competitions, that the canoeists signed an agreement to restrict access to the river at all other times. The agreement was never signed, for two reasons, firstly because it was patently unfair, and secondly, no-one (not even the BCU) can claim to represent all canoeists. In the end agreement was reached with the relevent landowners excluding the riparian interests on the rest of the river. It's now a long time since I have been told to get off the Dee.
I have been "requested" in varying terms not to paddle many times on different rivers, and with many different reasons, but at the end of the day it all comes down to landowners and fishermen not wanting us to have us there. I take no notice of them, and I suggest you do the same.
It is equally in the interest of slalom that rivers are opened up. There are many sites where slalom cannot get agreement from the landowner simply because they are concerned that allowing a competition to take place on "their" water will open the floodgates to paddlers wanting to use it all year round.
I have been "requested" in varying terms not to paddle many times on different rivers, and with many different reasons, but at the end of the day it all comes down to landowners and fishermen not wanting us to have us there. I take no notice of them, and I suggest you do the same.
It is equally in the interest of slalom that rivers are opened up. There are many sites where slalom cannot get agreement from the landowner simply because they are concerned that allowing a competition to take place on "their" water will open the floodgates to paddlers wanting to use it all year round.