Canoe access poll on BBC

[Mike Connor]

I

 

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.

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).

 

In Germany, canoeing is now prohibited in a large number of places, as a direct result of environmental damage and other disturbance caused by canoeists. It is further heavily restricted in most other places, also as a direct result of constant misuse by canoeists. In many places redds were seriously damaged, nature reserves disturbed, and riparian owners, ( who incidentally have no direct say in the running of the waters they own, only through the fishery boards on whose committees they may sit), insulted and abused. The volume of canoe traffic and the resulting litter and other problems increased massively.

 

Your comment "You might like to note that despite this, in Germany land owners are obliged to make rivers available for recreational use.".

 

Is misleading in the extreme. Landowners in Germany are obliged to lease the fishing rights under the jurisdiction of the Federal State fishery boards, who ensure that this is done in the public interest and for a lease period of twelve years. During this time, the lessee, invariably a fishing club, which is obliged to offer membership to anybody suitably qualified, is solely responsible for upkeep, stocking, clearing, litter, etc etc etc. ALL! clubs must prove and maintain their ability to manage the water in question from an environmental standpoint, and to the maximum public good.

 

There is no mention anywhere of canoes or other boats. Indeed, they are often expressly forbidden.

 

Where canoeing is allowed, there are of course canoeists who stick to the rules, but there are far more who do not.

 

I resigned from two ( German)clubs, as did quite a few others, as it was no longer possible to fish on the streams involved, due to canoeists. Even at night. Protesting that they should not be there is no defence. Once they have access in any shape or form, there are a large number who proceed to misuse it.

 

Canoeing is now completely prohibited on one of these rivers, and very heavily restricted on the other. With fairly heavy penalties for wrongdoers. There is no general public right of access to private land. Unless you have a hunting or fishing license for that specific area, you have no right to be there.

 

Canoeists also caused a massive amount of litter, and other problems, like lighting wild fires, damaging banks, and vegetation. Some even threatened anglers. Only the exceedingly foolish ones threatened hunters, but there are several cases recorded.

 

Nobody in his right mind continues to spend untold hours of his time on renaturing, repairing, restocking, river clearance, litter gathering etc, quite apart from the money one has to pay in order to lease the river fishing in the first place, to put up with a horde of canoeists who do nothing but damage, are responsibe for most of the litter and other problems, are often extremely ignorant and abusive and pay nothing either.

 

There is an easy way to solve the problem though. Anglers simply refuse to pay the leases etc. Remarkable how quickly landowners and others change their minds when they see their revenues going down the drain, and have to bear the cost of canoe based vandalism themselves.

 

Nobody with any sense would grant general access to such potential destruction. Even in the event of restricted access, many anglers would simply cease to fish, or go elsewhere. Thus severely reducing revenues to landowners, which tends to solve the main problem in time anyway. Landowners will simply not sit still for this.

 

Any government which ignores such simple facts does so at their own peril.

 

TL

MC

[Dr Repper]

If rivers are 'natural' then they would not require maintenance - as you acknowledge they do.

 

Canoeists have set a precedent of buying the 'right' to canoe through the above purchase. Why can this not be extended...or is it that they just won't put their money where their mouth is?

 

Canoeists or the BCU?

 

I do not suggest compulsory BCU membership, nor do I agree that the decision to purchase the rapid at Symmonds Yat had anything to do with the majority of paddlers. As such, no precedent has been set.

 

Whether or not a river requires maintenance depends very much on the individual case. That angling necessitates costly restocking of fish is not so debateable, hence angling clubs foot the bill. What I am suggesting is that any and all universally advantageous maintenance of river environments should be paid for either by all of us through taxation and/or liscencing.

 

I'm not suggesting that anglers should pay to provide paddlers with purpose built slalom courses, nor do I believe that everyone else should pay for the fish that anglers catch.

 

The party that stands to lose a bit of money is the riparian owners, who will also lose the obligation to maintain the banks and rivers that water users will no longer have to pay them for access to. They won't like it, but neither did Charles 1

[Dr Repper]

Nobody with any sense would grant general access to such potential destruction. Even in the event of restricted access, many anglers would simply cease to fish, or go elsewhere. Thus severely reducing revenues to landowners, which tends to solve the main problem in time anyway. Landowners will simply not sit still for this.

 

Any government which ignores such simple facts does so at their own peril.

 

TL

MC

 

Hunting bill? Land owners are easily ignored. The general public simply don't side with them any more, and parliament is no longer the Eton old boys club (even if it secretly wants to be).

[David McCraw]

Canoeists have set a precedent of buying the 'right' to canoe through the above purchase. Why can this not be extended...or is it that they just won't put their money where their mouth is?

 

Not really a good example. Symonds Yat is a major coaching centre which remains navigable year round and has been heavily utilised for many years - there's a big difference between the EA giving a huge grant to secure a key location for grassroots sport, and canoeists having to buy all the land surrounding all the rivers we float down.

 

Some of my local runs are only negotiable for a few months of the year (Oct/Nov - Mar), and even then, only when there is a lot of water about (typically just a few descents each season).

 

In some respects, canoeing is like hill-walking. "You've bought a patch of one hill for training- so if you want to climb others, buy them!" wouldn't be given serious consideration and the whole "you want to float down this river - buy it" won't be either.

 

It would cost the EA a vast fortune in grants, for starters!

[Sewinman]

I thought it was the BCU who were running the access campaign? Looking at the website it seems so. I would have thought the BCU was the representative body of canoeists. Rather contradictory that they have set a precedent of buying access (with large government hand-out) yet are now fighting for free access. Perhaps have not got the money to buy more (not enough subs?) and have made a political decision to go for a free for all instead of continuing the precedent set.

[David McCraw]

In Germany, canoeing is now prohibited in a large number of places, as a direct result of environmental damage and other disturbance caused by canoeists. It is further heavily restricted in most other places, also as a direct result of constant misuse by canoeists. In many places redds were seriously damaged, nature reserves disturbed, and riparian owners, ( who incidentally have no direct say in the running of the waters they own, only through the fishery boards on whose committees they may sit), insulted and abused. The volume of canoe traffic and the resulting litter and other problems increased massively.

 

Strange that neither Brighton nor previous reports have picked up on this, or indeed that I have never heard of such an apocalyptic scenario myself. Although I have not paddled in Germany I have paddled extensively just over the Swiss and Austrian borders and did not hear of, or experience, anything like you are describing!

 

Your comment "You might like to note that despite this, in Germany land owners are obliged to make rivers available for recreational use." Is misleading in the extreme.

 

I apologise - I picked this up from old access coverage when Germany came up in this topic, and had no reason to believe it wasn't true.

 

The bigger question, then, is why there is this massive problem in Germany but not in France, Italy, Austria or Switzerland (which I know of personally). Neither is there an issue of litter, fire lighting, midnight paddling (!!) or any of the other antisocial behaviour you list either here in Scotland or in any of the world's major paddling destinations.

 

I wonder if we could get German canoeists' input on this?

[Dr Repper]

I thought it was the BCU who were running the access campaign? Looking at the website it seems so. I would have thought the BCU was the representative body of canoeists. Rather contradictory that they have set a precedent of buying access (with large government hand-out) yet are now fighting for free access. Perhaps have not got the money to buy more (not enough subs?) and have made a political decision to go for a free for all instead of continuing the precedent set.

 

The BCU represents it's members, nobody else. They have certainly been instrumental in helping the broader cause of river access, but to assume that they speak and act on behalf of everyone is overly simplistic. They are simply one voice among many.

 

Is there any one organisation that speaks for you?

[Mike Connor]

Hunting bill? Land owners are easily ignored. The general public simply don't side with them any more, and parliament is no longer the Eton old boys club (even if it secretly wants to be).

 

 

Odd how these things often seem to turn into some sort of class warfare in the UK.

 

Common sense dictates that there is nothing whatever to be gained by allowing general river access to canoeists. It has little to do with anglers actually, although as conservationists and generally conscientious river users they are mostly primarily against it as a matter of principle, owing to the destruction and other problems which inevitably ensue, and secondarily as a result of the disturbance they would then be obliged to endure while in pursuit of their own pleasure.

 

Any reasonable study of existing problems in many places will demonstrate this quite admirably.

 

It is not an "anglers versus canoeists" problem, as much as you and others would seemingly like it to be.

 

It is purely a canoeist problem. Most of you want something for nothing, and an appreciable number are also apparently prepared to ignore any and all rules and regulations in order to get it.

 

Nobody with any sense, angler or otherwise, will support such. I rather fail to see what you and your compatriots hope to gain by spreading a smoke screen like this on most of the angling boards. Doubtless the best policy would be to ignore you, just as you advocate ignoring the landowners, anglers´s rightful concerns, and doubtless others who would oppose you.

 

It is not sensible to expect people to curtail their pleasures, which they pay dearly for, in order to allow others to indulge in theirs for nothing, and at general public and environmental expense.

 

There is nothing to stop you lobbying for what you want, but achieving it is unlikely, and a good thing to.

 

TL

MC

[David McCraw]

I couldn't figure out a way to edit my post, apologies!

 

Confused at how I managed to get so muddled up on the German access situation, I did a quick google and, lo and behold, from the EDM: "This house ... acknowledges that the most successful Olympic canoeing nation, Germany, requires land owners to tolerate the use of non-powered craft on their waterways;"

 

This is where I think I got the idea that the German river access situation was good... still find it odd that it's such a widespread disaster though

[Mike Connor]

Strange that neither Brighton nor previous reports have picked up on this, or indeed that I have never heard of such an apocalyptic scenario myself. Although I have not paddled in Germany I have paddled extensively just over the Swiss and Austrian borders and did not hear of, or experience, anything like you are describing!

I apologise - I picked this up from old access coverage when Germany came up in this topic, and had no reason to believe it wasn't true.

 

The bigger question, then, is why there is this massive problem in Germany but not in France, Italy, Austria or Switzerland (which I know of personally). Neither is there an issue of litter, fire lighting, midnight paddling (!!) or any of the other antisocial behaviour you list either here in Scotland or in any of the world's major paddling destinations.

 

I wonder if we could get German canoeists' input on this?

 

 

There are a large number of designated canoe routes maintained by the various Federal states. As long as canoeists stick to these routes, and the codes of behaviour laid out by the various associations, there are no major problems.

 

Unfortunately, a large number do not do so.

 

Commercial ventures which hire canoes to tourists have exacerbated these problems very considerably in a number of places. Many of these have sprung up and multiplied in recent years. As has the number of individual paddlers.

 

Here is an example of some routes in Lower Saxony;

http://www.wasserreich-niedersachsen.de/wasserwandern/kanu/

 

Many rivers on which canoeing was allowed are now prohibition zones, as a result of the problems mentioned. It is likely that more prohibitions and restrictions will follow.

 

If you want to talk to German canoeists, in Lower Saxony for instance, then you can do so here;

http://www.lkv-nds.de/

 

I doubt that such conversation would be welcomed on any of the fishing boards.

 

You can find the rules and regulations here;

http://www.kanu.de/nuke/index.php?CNVtheme...on=g_regelungen

 

TL

MC

Edited May 9, 2006 by Mike Connor