Originally Posted by ianm

Moreover, it is morally wrong, in a country with a high population density

Originally Posted by ianm

In most cases the Landowners are charging for wild fishing only and the sum total of their input into the environment is a stile!

This issue is unlikely to be determined on a technicality either. The issue is a moral one and, in any event, the documentation (deeds?), which the Landowners purport gives them such exclusivity, will be written in medieval Scottish and will be highly ambiguous (will not stand up in Court).

Originally Posted by ianm

Hi had to laugh when I read, in this months Trout & Salmon, that rafting has finally thwarted the greedy estate owner's efforts to jealously guard access to the mighty river Tay.

Up yours, I say!

For too long, the the greedy owners of fishing rights in Scotland (and, indeed, elswhere) have jealously guarded their stretches of river, happily taking the highest bidder's rents and giving, effectively, nothing back. Such selfish denial of access to the land (particularly land such as rivers, which ought to have been long regarded as common land) is, in my humble opinion, wrong.

Up the rafters. HURRAH!!!!!


Moreover, it is morally wrong, in a country with a high population density, for such landowners to auction off access to the countryside to the highest bidder. The fact that there are fish in that river is no excuse where the fish are wild.

Originally Posted by ianm

No, but I am anti aristocracy and, in particular, I think many estate owners are onto a racket charging us rent simply to walk over their land to access the river corridor and the wild fish that just so happen to live there.

I support the caneoning lobby (particularly the caneoning lobby in England). Any increase in access to our rivers can only benefit us as anglers (better access to the river corridors, less pollution and, potentially, free fishing for wild fish).

The other side of the coin is that some of the rafting/ caneoning brigade are a clumsy/ noisey rabble, but, on the whole, I have found them to be entirely reasonable.

Originally Posted by ianm

No, but I am anti aristocracy and, in particular, I think many estate owners are onto a racket charging us rent simply to walk over their land to access the river corridor and the wild fish that just so happen to live there.

I support the caneoning lobby (particularly the caneoning lobby in England). Any increase in access to our rivers can only benefit us as anglers (better access to the river corridors, less pollution and, potentially, free fishing for wild fish).
The other side of the coin is that some of the rafting/ caneoning brigade are a clumsy/ noisey rabble, but, on the whole, I have found them to be entirely reasonable.