Goings-on at JJ's - Paddler arrested

Steve T · Goings-on at JJ's - Paddler arrested

NOTE- this is a personal post, with no attempt to represent club policy or to represent anybody else's views. Form your own opinion.

Those who read UKRGB will be well aware of some of the issues surrounding JJ's charging for facilities. Basically, they are getting uptight about people paddling on what they claim is "their" river - the traditional stance of the angling fraternity but difficult to understand when coming from a BCU slalom coach.

To briefly summarise the WCA stance, which is one that I personally have sympathy with, rivers are free to paddle, the rivers can be shared and access over public land shouldn't be disputed (The BCU / Canoe England stance is less well defined - they are the NGB for world-class sports and I think that politics limits how far they can go). Other users such as fishermen are able to share this natural resource, although some of them may pay to be on a particular stretch of private land at the side of the river. There are legal issues regrading riparian ownership but no-one from the angling world has ever managed to state exactly what crime paddlers are committing by passing down a river, hence the WCA's slogan "kayaking is not a crime". However, access to waterways was specifically excluded from the CROW leguislation due to pressure from the highly-connected angling lobby.

However, it now appears that this problem has been solved by one of our own. An employee of Paddleworks (the shop on the same site as JJ's) has been arrested for fraud for not paying £3.00 to paddle the river. See this thread: http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38104

Those who have been to JJ's will know the condition of the car park and changing facilities, for which the usual £5.00 charge (I think £3.00 is for evenings) is laughable, but if that's the price then that's the contract we enter into, however we may regard the money-grabbing exercise. However, this guy is a Paddleworks employee so entitled to use the car park without paying, and (presumably) didn't use the changing rooms.

Hence JJ's stance is clearly that they own the river and they will sue those not paying to use it. This is a step further than even anglers have taken before, and could in fact set a legal precedent which may either enshrine access rights legally or equally could result in a position where we are not entitled to paddle anywhere without permission.

All of you should make your own decision, but I will not be paying to use these facilities again, unless the situation improves. Which is a bloody shame as it is a great site to use for intermediate training, and the convenience of paying a nominal fee for parking and some type of changing facility is a great advantage. It's not somewhere I go often, but enough paddlers boycotting the site will soon mount up.

I wonder if the Jayes have ever heard the phrase "biting the hand that feeds you" ?

Sorry about the rant, but this sort of money-grabbing and selfish attitude does greatly annoy me.

(By the way, compare £5.00/paddler/session for JJ's dodgy facilities with £80.00/year at Burrs for the whole club.)

Steve

CarlS

Disgusting! I will keep a keen eye on this thread as it will be interesting to see how this case develops. With regard to paying £5, what are we actually paying for? I have always assumed that you pay for the changing rooms and carpark and not the river. If you simply paddle through do you still need to pay?
Carl

Steve T

The principle is that you pay for facilities, not access. At JJ's this means smelly changing rooms, a pot-holed car park, and the ability to portage up and down the site, with only small amounts of barbed wire to tear your dry trousers. However, it's better than nothing, provides somewhere convenient and I don't object to paying £5.00 for that, even though £7.00 up the road at CT gets you excellent changing rooms, better parking / portage trails and the money goes to the WCA. (Also better paddling conditions - but we're not paying for that).

JJ's seem to genuinely think that they should be paid money for use of the water, even for those who paddle through the site, without even using their access. This picture was recently posted on UKRGB, which is clearly the lead-up to the recent arrest to make an example of people:

This clearly implies that if you get in at the Chain Bridge, paddle straight through and get out after the Town Falls then you owe the guy a fiver. Bizarre. The anglers must be falling about laughing watching this.

Steve

CarlS

It is worth looking at the various discussions about JJs on the community pages of UK Rivers Guide.

I accept that we pay to launch at a number of park and play locations but how can they possibly charge for people simply passing through?

As far as I understand the land on river left is owned by a farmer and therefore if we stick to the left do we get charged or do we pay the farmer as well? The sign can't be read from the river so people passing through wouldn't know about the charge anyway. Perhaps JJ should install some sort of barrier like on the M5 Toll or congestion charge type cameras; we could have electronic boxes attached to our boats so that an automatic charge can be made.

Having this paddler arrested by the police seems extremely heavy handed and a waste of resources, surely this is a civil matter. Anyway, I thought North Wales Police would have been too busy issuing speeding tickets!

I hope that the matter is resolved soon, I really enjoy paddling at JJs but like Steve would not want to at the moment. If the matter does go all the way, I hope that the judge rules in the favour of river access. Who knows JJs may be doing us all a great benefit.

Carl

PS in all innocence I thought that the CCTV was fitted for safety purposes!

DaveS

this is diabolical...............I have always happily paid the fee assuming that it was for the car park and facilities. I am curious now, if the fee is for the river then can anyone just walk in and use the showers? Is the left bank a public right of way? Are you charged if you carry your boat on that footpath?

I agree that we can't use JJ's until this reaches a satisfactory conclusion!
I am very curious as to why the qouted legislation on the sign is the Fraud Act I think that this is a very difrerent approach to anything else I have read about which could set some very nasty precedents as Steve suggested.

They seem to claim ownership of the banks but state that use of the river is a "chargeable service" what the heck does that mean!

hopefully the word about this will spread quickly and no one will paddle there.

Steve T

Now on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7473199.stm

Steve

CarlS

This discussion is now over nine pages on UK riversguide

http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38104

there are obviously strong feelings about the situation.

A few weeks ago we did suggest going to JJs as a club paddle and there was a fair bit of support for this. However as I have already mentioned I feel that I don't want to paddle there at this moment in time.

For newer members who may not be fully aware of the situation with regard to river access, there are basically two types of river. Those with an access agreement and those without. Some access agreements allow paddling at certain times of the year (such as Halton Rapids) whillst others place some restrictions such as numbers. Rivers without access agreements vary in ease of access.

Rivers without access agreements are often paddled without problems being encountered. There have been cases of paddlers being accused of trespassing but this in itself is a civil matter not criminal and as far as I am aware if we are indeed trepassing all we have to do is leave the land by the quickest method (paddling further downstream?), of course if property is damaged or we become aggressive then this is aggrivated trespass which is then a criminal matter.

When I organise club trips I do alot of research into the access situation as well as the type of rapids, drops etc This information is freely available on UK Riversguide and in various books.

What do other members think about the situation at JJs? This is possibly going to be the most important legal case in the history of access campaigning.

Carl
River trips coordinator

Steve T

The Welsh Canoeing Association's Access campaign:
http://www.canoeingisnotacrime.org.uk/

And the BCU's:
http://www.riversaccess.org/

The Welsh approach is quite grown-up, and effectively is saying paddle if the water conditions are such that no environmental damage is done; get on & off the river legally (ie through rights of way, public land or with the landowner's permission) and if you are challenged then be polite. The BCU campaign is a bit non-committal and ineffective (IMHO), but is seeking to raise awareness within parliament.

Many access agreements are restrictive (ie we can paddle when it suits the anglers), and in themselves can be an own goal because by arranging an agreement we (the paddling community) are accepting that the fishermen/riparian owners have the right to dictate when and where we paddle. Hence many have fallen into disuse, the one on the Dee from the Tail to Town is an example, and now, from what I gather, people seem to paddle it as and when they wish, with some but very little hassle. (Apart from JJ's itself)

Good agreements based on river levels as an environmental measure are rare, an example is the Greta near Keswick which can be paddled when it is above a mark on a bridge at the get-in.

Restrictive agreements are more common, the one at Halton rapids Carl mentions is effectively: "you can paddle when it's too cold for us to fish", (ie 1 November - 31 January). No matter if the water is too high for them to fish at other times. The Eden requires you to book in advance, so if the water is too low people end up paddling anyway, scraping down the river - is that a good environmental solution?

To be honest, it's a mess. Fishermen have been known to be agressive and violent, and when all you want is a nice day in the country then we all naturally avoid the hassle and the bullies win.

The situation elsewhere in the world is much better, with no such animosity, and this includes Scotland where access is legally enshrined in their equivalent of the CROW legislation.

Steve