Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Canoe access poll on BBC


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#21 Newt

Newt

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edgemoor, South Carolina, USA
  • Interests:fishing, duplicate bridge, fishing, RV (caravan) travel to where there is fishing

Posted 08 May 2006 - 11:51 PM

"The government's own studies concluded that the presence of canoes causes no environmental damage or long-term disruption to fish"

Aside from the fun you gents are having, I'd love some information. Regardless of the government findings or lack thereof, can someone share with me what sort of environmental damage or long-term disruption to fish is caused by canoe/kayak traffic.

I have certainly missed obvious points in the past from lack of familiarity with small waters and may have again. But while the things can certainly be annoying, I can't fathom the long-term harm.

Ill timed transit over spawning grounds for fish that create and guard beds could lower the numbers of fry that hatched but all species I'm aware of produce way more than can survive anyway.

Ramming a boat into delicate and rare vegetation could certainly do damage but for it to be significant the boater would need to be a vandal I should think.

This is a serious question and absolutely not a wind-up of any sort but thinking back on all the angler vs boater threads, I don't remember those being discussed.
" My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!" - Harry Truman, 33rd US President

#22 ayjay

ayjay

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,914 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Interests:Knife licking: birdwatching : :playing with mud and fire: beer.

Posted 09 May 2006 - 05:51 AM

Actually anglers DO have the right to access practically any river....it is the fishing you pay for in reality. You can walk down the bank , but without a rod.


Not sure of your point there in this context, if anglers have the right to access any river but only as pedestrians, then so do canoeists.

#23 Peter Waller

Peter Waller

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,286 posts
  • Location:East Anglia/Norfolk Broads
  • Interests:Angling/Photography/sailing/broadland/remembering letchery.

Posted 09 May 2006 - 07:10 AM

Newt, the problems with canoes are simply that they disturb anglers whilst they are angling. It may well be that their access points will affect the environment, the inevitable cars and trailers etc., and maybe they will disturb wildlife possibly more than anglers. But at the end of the day the two sports are different, one is active and often boisterous, the other being quiet and contemplative.

Bit like letting a five aside football match take place on the local bowling green, the two sports are incompatible. Plain and simple.

#24 David McCraw

David McCraw

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 09 May 2006 - 07:37 AM

[quote name='phil hackett' post='624298' date='May 9 2006, 12:23 AM']"According to the last review, over 1.5m people try paddlesports each year - this is in the same ball park as the number of rod licences sold - yet canoeists are barred from 99% of rivers... I'm sure you can all agree that this situation is unfair.

How much multiple counting was done when compiling these figures one wonders?

How much was rowing boats? And not as Mr McCraw is attempting to mislead readers into believing Canoes and Kayaks.[/quote]

I don't know, I didn't do the review. I don't think rowing would have been included (it's not a paddlesport) although I guess it might make a stronger case if we joined forces with the rowing community?

"The government's own studies concluded that the presence of canoes causes no environmental damage or long-term disruption to fish (as those of us who have been paddling on Scotland's finest angling rivers for decades can readily tell you)."

The report (Brighton Report for DEFRA) say nothing of the sort, as you know very well MR McCraw!
Yet again your attempting to mislead the readers![/quote]

Don't make assumptions. I quote: "The evidence regarding the impacts of canoeing and fishing on the environment has been much disputed since the Environment Agency (2000) report on this issue suggested canoeing had minimal impact..."

The worst Brighton comes up with is that one study in Germany suggested non-powered craft may disturb rare and sensitive fish which occupy a tight niche. Presumably this is not referring to trout and salmon (and canoeists could certainly live with not being allowed access to areas of rare sensitive fish... by definition they must be rare after all). You might like to note that despite this, in Germany land owners are obliged to make rivers available for recreational use.

[quote name='phil hackett' post='624303' date='May 9 2006, 12:35 AM']You persist in saying it work well in Scotland on the game rivers. There are far less anglers (game) than there are in E & W. of both disciplines coarse and game. The ratio is about 5 to 1 in favour of E & W.

There is as Iíve told you before when you appeared on Fishingmagic a world of difference between coarse fishing E & W and Scottish game fishing.[/quote]

The point I was making is that we canoe extensively on game rivers in Scotland but the environment has not been damaged, and the fish not disturbed. I don't deny that there are more anglers in England and Wales but that's not a valid argument as to why you should have exclusive access (only an argument for more careful sharing).

#25 David McCraw

David McCraw

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 09 May 2006 - 07:43 AM

I'd love some information. Regardless of the government findings or lack thereof, can someone share with me what sort of environmental damage or long-term disruption to fish is caused by canoe/kayak traffic.


I'm biased... but I haven't noticed any damage at all from the intensive canoeing that we get on Scotland's classic runs (which are often popular fishing rivers too).

Newt, the problems with canoes are simply that they disturb anglers whilst they are angling... at the end of the day the two sports are different, one is active and often boisterous, the other being quiet and contemplative.

Bit like letting a five aside football match take place on the local bowling green, the two sports are incompatible. Plain and simple.


This is the real argument - the disturbance factor is, I think, one of the few good points against access by other river users.

Unfortunately, for your analogy to work, we'd have to say that 99% of pitches in the country are used by bowlers, leaving an equal number of football players to try and crowd onto the remaining 1% of turf. Not a convincing argument for the status quo.

#26 Peter Waller

Peter Waller

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,286 posts
  • Location:East Anglia/Norfolk Broads
  • Interests:Angling/Photography/sailing/broadland/remembering letchery.

Posted 09 May 2006 - 07:56 AM

David, I live and boat on the Broads. I happily canoe the upper reaches, great if I have the water to myself. But if I'm on a lower reach and a group of wakeboarders comes roaring along, my canoing is spoilt. Somethings are just not compatible, such as wakeboarding and canoeing, and angling and canoeing.

P.S. there are probably far more football pitches than bowling greens! And I doubt that bowlers would be welcome at my beloved Carrow Road!

Edited by Peter Waller, 09 May 2006 - 07:59 AM.


#27 kleinboet

kleinboet

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
  • Interests:Angling

Posted 09 May 2006 - 08:17 AM

I don't have a problem with canoists IF the river water is a reasonable size, after all, we have boats going past. If the canoists are prepared to move over to the other side of the river when he/she encounters an angler, no problem.
BUT if they come with excuses as to why they can't do this, then they must be banned from THAT water. Simple.

And now on the other hand - If these canoist ARE going to use OUR waters, do we have access to waters that are currently BOAT ONLY?


fishing is nature's medical prescription

#28 ben88

ben88

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 803 posts
  • Interests:fishing, music and my pc

Posted 09 May 2006 - 09:13 AM

you seem to be all talking about rivers.

i was fishing the local canal just below a lock when a group of about 5 canoists walked down past the loack obviously having just hauled out of the water to bypass the lock.

they could easly have walked the couple of metres past me so as not disturd my fishing, insted the put in about 2 metres infront of me and paddled straight through my swim. b**tards :angry:

Edited by ben88, 09 May 2006 - 09:13 AM.

hmmmm really

#29 ColinW

ColinW

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,417 posts

Posted 09 May 2006 - 09:19 AM

I remember many years ago when a group of women at a social club I was a member of decided it was unfair that they weren't allowed on the snooker table. A nasty, long running battle ensued, the final result of which was that they got what they wanted. They played a couple of games, realised how boring it was to them and never went on the table again. I think this is a similar situation. I kayaked a little when younger and, even at my very low level of skill, found most of the waters I'd have fished in an absolute bore to paddle on. The water which is fun to paddle is all but unfishable. As long as they drift quietly through to their next unfishable rapids, where they can play in peace, and don't start practising rolls in my swim, then they don't bother me. I've fished waters where kayaks are quite common and haven't found them to cause any problem, they've even retrieved floats from far bank bushes for me. Now jet skiers, they should be shot!

#30 GlennB

GlennB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,168 posts
  • Location:Arcadia
  • Interests:fishing

Posted 09 May 2006 - 09:20 AM

Regardless of the government findings or lack thereof, can someone share with me what sort of environmental damage or long-term disruption to fish is caused by canoe/kayak traffic.


In all truth it's hard to see that there can be any, apart from the occasional access point getting churned up.

But I'm with pretty much with PW on this. The 2 recreations don't go well together. They can live together, but a lot of canoeists seem intent on racing and don't take kindly (to say the least) to shouts of "whoa - there's a line out there". And if it's a substantial line (like 50lb braid ;) ) then the canoeists themselves are certainly in danger of injury. Canoes are also remarkably quiet till they're almost on top of you, so things can and do get out of hand very quickly. And some anglers no doubt return this thoughtlessness in their own ways.

Naturally I'm biased, but where I see most anglers happy enough to share the waters with other recreations, a lot of canoeists act like they have a special right to behave how the hell they like - i.e. everybody else had better get out of the way.

Sorry Newt, I'm ranting somewhat away from your point ;)
Bleeding heart liberal pinko, with bacon on top.