Mike Connor

Mr.McCraw, you appear to be completely disingenuous. My description of conditions in Germany was confined to those conditions, because I have intimate knowledge of them. There is no reason to suppose that it is any better elsewhere. Neither have you tendered any evidence to the contrary. The "argument" if one may term it such, has never been against "canoeists", but against general access for various boats etc, regardless of the specific terminology. Lastly, anglers per se do not "control" anything at all, either individually or collectively. They are merely obliged to pay those who do control the waters for access . So, even in the extremely unlikely event of you convincing anglers here or elsewhere that you should have access, it would do you no good at all, as you are barking up the wrong tree. MC

I have not built any straw men, I have not exaggerated, I have not implied anything like you suggest, and neither have I insulted you or anybody else. Merely stated the facts of the matter as they pertain here. That these facts may not be particularly palatable to you, or indeed of much use in furthering your cause, does not change them. I can´t say it was a pleasure, but it was interesting. Have a nice day! MC

You should read what I wrote, there is little point in giving your extremely biased or exaggerated interpretation of it. The main problem is not with canoeists as such, but with "casual" paddlers. Given free access, there is no way to prevent them doing whatever they please. Doubtless the majority of canoeists, and even the majority of paddlers behave themselves as best they can. There are however a large pecentage, of predominantly casual paddlers, who certainly do not. Due to the sheer numbers involved, this is a great many. If the estimates of casual paddlers I have seen are correct, at 1.5 million and increasing yearly, ( and I have no reason to doubt them), and only five per cent of these misbehave themselves, cause damage or litter etc, then that is 75,000 of them who are up to no good at any one time. It only requires a couple of paddlers to cause extensive damage on any particular stream. Small streams and rivers are especially vulnerable. Quite apart from the damage involved, flotillas of canoes coming down a small river, render fishing impossible, much less enjoyable. Your constant reassurances that the existing paddlers would merely spread out to the various rivers is naive in the extreme. As you wrote "Many of those rivers are carrying thousands, even tens of thousands of descents a year" yet you would have us believe that all these people are veritable paragons, and have no effect whatever on the environment. Sorry, I don´t think anybody will buy that. MC

MIKE> They are not banned here, they enjoy more or less free access. They are not seen at all helping to clean up. They merely wish to use the environment, they appear to have little interest in protecting it. You have not brought a single sensible argument to support your case. You have attacked anglers, declared that you will use civil disobedience as a tool to blackmail people into giving you what you want for free, make unreasonable demands, and also insist that you know all the answers, which you quite patently do not. Indeed, you do not even know most of the basic facts. Based on that performance, I don´t think there is much to fear. At least anybody who reads these threads is forewarned. Whether they act on the information provided is their own affair. End of discussion for me. MC

This is what it looks like when canoeists monopolise a pool; http://www.gsm-kanu.de/show_photo.php?getd...et=12&length=12 This is what tripper paddlers look like, and they arrive in hordes usually. http://www.firmen-ausfluege.de/Firmen/Bild...s/preview14.jpg In two separate work parties on Saturday and Sunday in winter on the Seeve, 20 volunteers from the angling club gathered four tons of sundry litter from the banks, and recovered a large number of bottles and various other materials from the river proper. These actions are carried out every year. I have yet to see a paddler engaged in such operations. I have seen quite a few flinging their rubbish around though. The story is the same in quite a few places. TL MC

>MIKE My final point on this issue. Personally, I have nothing at all against canoeists, ( and I make a very considerable distinction between canoeists, and casual paddlers!), using rivers under reasonable conditions. I don´t know many others who have anything against this either. Where I do protest, and that as strongly as possible, is at the massive inundation of casual paddlers, rafters, etc etc. and the commercial exploitation of rivers by canoe hire enterprises, who do absolutely nothing for the rivers. Quite the reverse. If you already know all the answers, then there is little point in discussion. If as you say, anglers refuse to co-exist with you, and you hold this particular preconceived precept for inviolable, then you are wasting your time even talking to us. TL MC

May be of some interest here. The German Canoe Association is the largest canoe association worldwide, with 1300 clubs, and a total of 114,000 members. This does not include all the casual and day-tripping paddlers, whose numbers have been estimated, ( no knowing how reliably) at some 1.5 million per year, and increasing. The number of canoe hire concerns in the vicinity of rivers has also increased very greatly over that period of time. These massive increases have taken place mainly over the last twenty years. Original info may be found here; http://www.kanu.de/nuke/index.php?CNVtheme...ection=portrait TL MC

That may be so under the specific circumstances you mention. It is not generally so in Europe. Daytripping paddlers are the biggest littermongers in existence. TL MC

Obviously you have not yet been trying to change the system for very long. I am somewhat longer in the tooth, and a passionate subscriber to the doctrine of "Not kicking against the pricks, unless I am wearing hobnailed boots". I agree that it is indeed a pity that chances for peaceful co-existence of water users are so difficult to implement. This is mainly due to your unreasonable demands, and demonstrable unwillingness to accept control and compromise, or even valid concerns and criticism, which is easily confirmed. Were you to moderate these demands, and agree to certain controls, you would doubtless have a much greater chance of being listened to. The "all or nothing" attitude will not get you very far, except maybe a few nights in jail, or almost universal disagreement. One other point which you also apparently fail to grasp, is that river anglers in general are at least as badly off as you are. At best they have access to one or two rivers, some only a couple of miles or a few hundred yards of river bank, which they have fought tooth and nail for, or worked very hard indeed to acquire, and they are not about to let what little they are able to enjoy be ruined, or even more impacted than it already is, if they can help it. It always pays to see the other person´s viewpoint. Indeed it is often of far greater importance than declaiming your own. At least one avenue to pursue, assuming you really did want to change things, and not merely get your own way, would be to join an angling club, tell them up front you want to paddle on their water, and under which conditions. Take a few mates along as well. Many anglers could do with the support, not to mention the club subscriptions. You might be surprised at the response. I am not sure how much "sovereignty" UK angling clubs have over their stretches, but it would be worth enquiring at least. Allies are always rather more to be favoured than adversaries, and so much easier to persuade. TL MC

MIKE> I don´t think it´s "going nowhere", but I think you ought to be a little more realistic, and less idealistic.MIKE My normal signature is "TL", meaning "Tight Lines", perhaps here "BP" would be more appropriate? ( "Blazing Paddles") in a positive sense of course! MC (EDIT Typos corrected)

Very kind of you to say so Paul. I think you will find that one or two know me from times past. But I only came in to comment on the canoe access discussion. TL MC

Ignore the issue if you will. You'll only help in the end. Your first assumption is incorrect. I am not, nor have I ever been a riparian owner. It is also extremely unlikely that I ever will be, ( although hope springs eternal!). I did not take umbrage at anything you wrote. I merely commented on it. Doubtless we would all like to fish for free as well, but it is not practicable. The inevitable destruction is not conjecture, it is a statement of simple and obvious fact. Which incidentally is easily proven. Are you looking for support? An argument? What is the purpose of this discussion? Merely to give voice on how unfair "the system" is? There is no "war" between anglers and paddlers, and such argument is as a result, merely a smokescreen. There is a considerable difference between being "occasionally inconvenienced" and having your chosen pastime completely ruined. Your point is well taken, there are too many people, all trying to exploit too few resources. If general access were granted, there would be more paddlers on the rivers. Alone the commercial enterprises renting canoes and offering trips would mushroom, as they have done elsewhere, to the detriment of all except the enterprises concerned. Two rivers with controlled access, where everyone is more or less obliged to be on their best behaviour, is not a good example of what happens when general access is allowed. The resources under discussion are already subject to considerable pressure by the current users. If the vast pool of potential users were also allowed free access, then the situation would simply become even more acute. If you want to form a paddling syndicate, and rent a stretch of river, go ahead. There are doubtless few who would prevent you from doing so, even assuming they could. If you want to use public waterways then you must be prepared to abide by the current rules and regulations, and also pay your way just like anglers and other waterway users. Just in case it has escaped your notice you live in a democracy which is mainly governed by free enterprise. In other words, money rules. If you have no money, you have no clout. Theoretically at least, you could gather up enough like minded people, form a political party or a lobby group, fuel it with a lot of money, and eventually gain your stated ends. I wish you every success in this endeavour. I am not ignoring the issue. I seem to remember you being the one who was advocating ignoring landowners? TL MC

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

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

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