Fishermen reserving the bank?

[gazza]

I feel it is all a question of respecting other road/ canal users. However:

 

When I were a lad I rode with the Prestwich Wheelers. we were taught to ride in a straight line, elbows and knees in tp offer a minimum frontal area. we were allowed to be abreast only when clear of other road users, and we rode out of the road. this was 1965.

 

Now the cyclists round Middlewich ride two abreast, occupying half the road, weaving all over the carriageway. They don't allow any other road users any right of way.They ride through red lights, prevent overtaking near roundabouts and block off T junctions.

 

On Portland Street Manchester last January I was a pedestrian at a cross road, the lights were in my favour and as I stepped off the kerb I was struck by a cyclist. He knocked me to the ground. He then accused me of damaging his machine!!!

 

They have to be brought to order.

 

M..

I find cyclists are getting more and more aggressive as time goes by.

The one that really gets my goat are the idiots that won't use a cycle path.

 

Coming home from Cricklade on Sunday every time we came across a group of cyclists riding two or three abreast there was a perfectly serviceable cycle path!

[MHS]

 

Can I guess?

1. Why should we pay taxes for other people's kids to get an education?

 

So that they can become doctors, nurses etc to look after you in your old age?

[Murflynn]

 

Just today I was waiting to cross at a pedestrian crossing the lights turned red stopping traffic. I stepped into the road to cross and had to step back smartly when a car, whose driver obviously thought that he was excused red lights came steaming through,

 

 

you should avoid using pedestrian crossings where car drivers misbehave.

 

 

 

Now that CRT know who dun it, they can charge the guilty ones for repairs, eh?

 

 

 

why should CRT charge Tim and Pru for damage to the Swedish canals?

I find cyclists are getting more and more aggressive as time goes by.

 

try driving in Bristol where the cycling concept is actively encouraged by this 'green' city!

[gazza]

you should avoid using pedestrian crossings where car drivers misbehave.

 

why should CRT charge Tim and Pru for damage to the Swedish canals?

 

try driving in Bristol where the cycling concept is actively encouraged by this 'green' city!

We live in a rural area where the local cycling club think all the back roads are exclusively for them to use for time trials, or practice for time trials.

 

I've had a couple of rrows outside the mother in law's house with a few of them, it's always the MAMIL's that are the problem, head down, arse up go for you life types.

[bigray]

Yes the rights to catch are the important bit.

 

That's where the legal element often comes in. There is an offence (and I understand there have been several prosecutions) of theft of fishing rights.

 

Not on the canals

Generally but not always. There are some sections of Canal which are classed as a SSSI therefore the closed season still applies.

[ditchcrawler]

 

That's where the legal element often comes in. There is an offence (and I understand there have been several prosecutions) of theft of fishing rights.

 

Generally but not always. There are some sections of Canal which are classed as a SSSI therefore the closed season still applies.

OK a majority of the canals

[Catrin]

Fish don't belong to anyone - just as other wildlife doesn't. Domesticated animals may belong to someone; and fish in a fishery or lake. But not in canals or rivers.

I haven't read through the whole thread to check what others have said but this is not correct.

 

I checked this with the Fisheries manager (name escapes me at the moment - John Ellis?) at the SEWP in December. CRT owns the fish in the canal, they do not necessarily own the fishing rights.

[Jerra]

I haven't read through the whole thread to check what others have said but this is not correct.

 

I checked this with the Fisheries manager (name escapes me at the moment - John Ellis?) at the SEWP in December. CRT owns the fish in the canal, they do not necessarily own the fishing rights.

Having looked at the regs I am not sure the Fisheries manager is correct.

[furnessvale]

Having looked at the regs I am not sure the Fisheries manager is correct.

I am sure he is wrong.

 

IMO fish loose in a canal are wild animals. As such they are not "property" for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968 and cannot be stolen.

 

He may think he owns the fish but if a person taking them cannot be charged with theft it is a strange ownership.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[tree monkey]

I am sure he is wrong.

 

IMO fish loose in a canal are wild animals. As such they are not "property" for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968 and cannot be stolen.

 

He may think he owns the fish but if a person taking them cannot be charged with theft it is a strange ownership.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

I tend to agree, the rights to fish are there which may include none removal but imagine a river with multiple landowners and associated fishing rights, how can they claim ownership when the fish can swim up and down the river crossing landowner boundaries

[Jerra]

I am sure he is wrong.

 

IMO fish loose in a canal are wild animals. As such they are not "property" for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968 and cannot be stolen.

 

He may think he owns the fish but if a person taking them cannot be charged with theft it is a strange ownership.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

It would appear there are even more twists in the situation. A document I found published by The Angling Trust of Leominster and carrying the EA logo as well says:

 

Fish living in fully enclosed stillwaters under single ownership are considered in law to be ‘property’ and can therefore be stolen.

 

I doubt however a canal is classed as an" enclosed stillwater".

[Paul C]

All canals have a source and a sink. I haven't heard of a canal that doesn't - therefore it is not a stillwater.

[Ssscrudddy]

Not relevant, they are classified as still water the same as lakes, different to rivers. Try sitting in your car drunk, with the keys in the ignition in order to listen to your radio, absolutely not driving. You still get done for drink driving.

[Delta9]

Not relevant, they are classified as still water the same as lakes, different to rivers. Try sitting in your car drunk, with the keys in the ignition in order to listen to your radio, absolutely not driving. You still get done for drink driving.

No, you get done for being in charge of a vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs. A different offence to drink driving.

[Paul C]

Not relevant, they are classified as still water the same as lakes, different to rivers. Try sitting in your car drunk, with the keys in the ignition in order to listen to your radio, absolutely not driving. You still get done for drink driving.

 

Who classifies them?

[GreyLady]

No, you get done for being in charge of a vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs. A different offence to drink driving.

It could also come under driving or operating machinery while under the influence of alcohol and or prescription medication or illicit use of drugs.

Who classifies them?

The law

[Paul C]

 

The law

 

Which law....??

[Jerra]

 

Which law....??

Possible but I haven't delved into it Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975

[pearley]

Everyday we receive several emails from the Trust informing us of all manner of restrictions from lock closures to fun runs, sponsored swims, dragon boat races, et al.

 

But I don't recall ever receiving one telling us of a fishing match, not even for National competitions. They are as much a restriction as all the others. If I knew that just after untying in the morning that as was going to run into a 2 mile match round the corner I think I would stay put.

[gazza]

It could also come under driving or operating machinery while under the influence of alcohol and or prescription medication or illicit use of drugs.

 

The law

 

 

I fought the law but the law won?

[GreyLady]

Which law....??

Sods Law

 

I fought the law but the law won?

I tried that once too, I ended up getting piled on.

 

Not a good idea.

Edited March 23, 2016 by GreyLady

[Delta9]

It could also come under driving or operating machinery while under the influence of alcohol and or prescription medication or illicit use of drugs.

 

The law

No, that is highly unlikely.

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

I doubt however a canal is classed as an" enclosed stillwater".

Could be as they don't have a closed season

[furnessvale]

Not relevant, they are classified as still water the same as lakes, different to rivers. Try sitting in your car drunk, with the keys in the ignition in order to listen to your radio, absolutely not driving. You still get done for drink driving.

For wild fish to become property for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968, they must have been "rendered into captivity". If they are not "property" they cannot be stolen, therefore anyone taking them is not a thief. He may be a poacher under different legislation but that is a different matter.

 

I have my doubts about the info in message68 but in any case, on a canal, water enters one end and leaves the other. CRT may own one bank but the other bank is often in other ownership, so the canal fails on at least 2 points, before even considering whether the fish have been rendered into captivity.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[AMModels]

Im lost, does a fish on a bike pay road tax or not? Does he/she stop at red lights and do they have to ask fishermen to give them space on the bank when they are cycling past?

 

WE DEMAND ANSWERS!!!