David McCraw

Sorry for not replying earlier, my weekends are for canoeing (currently celebrating the rain ) which doesn't go hand-in-hand with the interweb. As I have said in earlier posts, I don't really think fair access to our natural heritage should be a numbers game. If that was the case, the simple fact that a small minority (anglers) retain defacto control over 99% of rivers would be enough to clinch the access debate. Purely in the interests of annoying Phil "crash and burn" Hackett, I'll reply to the thorny issue with a quote from the EA themselves: Although I have never seen angling spectators on my many river voyages, I am willing to accept that they may occur down south. Even so, this can hardly account for the vast gap between the number of licence holders and the alleged number of anglers (and what counts as spectating? Cyclists who stop to watch you land a fish??) I'm sure you will all agree that we shouldn't concern ourselves too much with 'anglers' (infrequent ones at that) who do not care enough to pay the Environment Agency a small licence fee (judging by these discussions, most of you hold such freeloaders in deepest contempt). Rubbish, that's like saying a hill walker can't enjoy their surroundings or see nature because they might trip over... I would say B & C are probably the most important reasons why anyone goes canoeing! Even when I am paddling difficult grade V whitewater (the scale of I to V) it's perfectly possible to enjoy the scenery - the deer in and around Glen Coe being a personal favourite. Although artificial courses have their place (particularly in the UK where access to real rivers is pretty much prohibited), they are as good for canoeists as a 'fake hill' in your local park would be for hill walkers. I appreciate the constructive suggestion but land owners didn't even try that against the Right to Roam. The BCU has already won its campaign in Scotland (where it is also the NGB) yet no such effect has been observed. Although it's true that the population density is lower in Scotland, it seems strange to me that we have not seen any of your apocalyptic scenario developing around Glasgow, for example. Neither has fair, responsible access led to such an effect in other countries (apart from Germany, apparently). It's interesting that this argument has completely swung away from access by canoeists being bad, to "canoeists aren't so bad, it's the hoardes of day trippers in hire boats we're worried about". D.

Nice try, but allowing ramblers to access the moors will not lead to motorcyclists, then 4x4s, etc. - and fairer access for canoes in the rest of the world has not led to the situation you describe either. Access for all does not mean a free-for-all (last time I'm going to bother addressing this). The Magna Carta implies a right of navigation to all inland water (not just tidal stretches) - the present system of land-owners controlling access is much more recent. As nothing in the "constitution" prevented the right to roam, I don't see how 'aquatic rambling' is any different. At the end you come back to the point that fairer access would be "unfair on those who already have use of these non tidal waters" - i.e. anglers. Well, I don't know what sort of education you got I wasn't taught there is anything unfair about sharing.

Phil, you are parroting the same straw man I just addressed, only with less aptitude. The words "access for all" imply that everyone should have the right to enjoy our river heritage - of course, with the appropriate responsibilities (and sanctions) enforced by law. Don't waste your time attacking a position we are not defending; with respect, it only makes you look silly. Not quite as foolish, however, as your list of other watersports. We are campaigning for fairer access to rivers - how many windsurfers do you see on spate burns? Get many bog snorkelers on the rivers down your way? It smacks of hysteria to suggest that legislated fair access means jet skiiers ripping up your local beat. Neither is there any point trying to add sea anglers or illegal anglers to a debate about inland water. The water being contended requires a rod licence which means you have just over a million bodies to argue with (although I didn't think about kids under 12 - that will increase your numbers). The figure of four million is utterly spurious. Fuel and accommodation (/entertainment) are probably the big ones. Remember that canoeists travel widely depending on which rivers are in condition, and the season is essentially a winter one. We have to stay somewhere (B& and do something when it gets dark (local pub?). Also because it's pretty difficult (virtually impossible) to eat from a kayak, at least the groups I paddle with tend to buy food locally rather than bringing a packed lunch or whatever (ironically, fish and chips are popular). This is a welcome contribution to the winter economy of many small towns. Gear doesn't last as long as you might think, either. I'd spend between one and two grand a year replacing / updating 'durable' items. Having said all that, I'm not convinced the amount anyone spends gives them any more right to our shared natural heritage.

On the contrary, I understand you very well. You build a straw man by implying that canoeists seek an utterly unprincipled, unregulated free-for-all, conveniently side-stepping proposals (supported by many canoeists) such as regulated minimum water levels backed up by fines - proposals which directly address your horror stories of day-trippers scraping down small, shallow rivers. If you want to make accusations of "extreme bias or exaggerated interpretation", you would do well to start by looking closer to home. You argue that fairer access will necessarily result in legions of day trippers ravaging the environment. It is clear that you have had bad personal experiences, and as I know nothing about the German situation, I give you the benefit of the doubt. Even so, your predictions raise difficult questions. Why is it that paddlesport is so popular in Scotland, where we have fair and responsible access, yet we do not see this environmental carnage? How can we explain your certain assurance that extending that approach south of Hadrian's Wall will be so damaging? Is there something in the water in Glasgow, which is not present in England and Wales? It would be stupid to try and argue that more people will not result in more litter - I am happy to admit that fairer access will increase the burden on those who maintain the river banks. I am also happy to admit that this role is currently performed by anglers, as is perhaps appropriate given your de-facto monopoly of the rivers themselves. However, you seem not to realise that a fairer system of access is likely to enable canoe clubs and individual canoeists to join in with work parties where they would currently feel very unwelcome - or run their own. Even a little imagination is enough to see that this could be included as a condition of fairer access. Many other countries (with the apparent exception of Germany!) have come to some arrangement. Access legislation, by enshrining both rights and responsibilities, protecting rivers when levels are low and making infractions punishable by fines, is a step in the right direction and will require a more convincing rebuttal (or more creative insults) than you have thus far achieved. There are only a million rod licence holders in the UK; far fewer than the rapidly growing numbers involved in recreational watersport. It is obvious that your sharing of our finite natural heritage with others will require compromise - the reason fairer access is opposed by most anglers, and why voluntary access agreements are such a dismal failure. It has been a pleasure.

Mike, I don't know enough about the German access situation to refute your claims. I can say that recreational access is permitted in most European countries - yet in all the years I have been going out there, I have never experienced anything like the mass environmental damage you describe. Many of those rivers are carrying thousands, even tens of thousands of descents a year yet litter was vanishingly rare, and anglers plentiful (and no, there weren't enough anglers to be cleaning up tons of litter every night ). Although I am willing to accept that the German environment has been destroyed by a "massive horde of vandals and litter louts, who have no respect whatever for the countryside", I can't understand why, for example, the Austrian rivers I have paddled were far from being open sewers (if anything, they were cleaner than the ones I paddle here). The upper stretches of the Inn, for instance, were absolutely sublime. The same applies for the many rivers in Italy, France and Spain I have paddled. I have put out feelers for German canoeists who will no doubt struggle to explain themselves. Would you care to name this river which is now an environmental wasteland? I will, certainly, be chagrined if I discover they have destroyed it. You describe a very clear cut situation where canoeing is directly linked to environmental destruction - yet canoeing is permitted all across Scotland. Of course, I'm not trying to deny that littering does happen - it's a sad fact of life. I just can't reconcile your near proclamations of doom with my own extensive experience of a country where the public has a right of access to enjoy the rivers. Many of my favourites are massively paddled by the English over holidays and long weekends (probably the only people who come to Scotland in winter!) and yet there is no problem. If I am on the river for around a hundred days of the year, you'd think I'd see at least *some* of this destruction you guarantee. Yet apparently, if those same canoeists were given permission to paddle in England and Wales, they would instantly go on a rampage of environmental damage? Forgive me if I find that too hard to believe. I agree that this discussion has run its course.

So can I have a link saying "this is what the self-proclaimed champions of the river environment are really like?" I haven't dredged up isolated incidents and tried to apply them to your whole group. Who knows- when I lose my strength, I may well take up angling to stay around the river (I'm told there is some fairly good fishing to be had up here). It doesn't appeal to me at the moment, but I don't have anything at all against the sport. The photos of a 'monopolised pool' certainly look bad, but it's impossible to judge without a context. In France, anglers have exclusive access in the morning and evening, and canoeists (non-exclusive) access during the day. Lots of boats on the water shouldn't be a problem. After all, I could have a photo of a singler angler with the caption "anglers monopolise entire river". Mike, you do yourself little credit. I am sure that some people who get in canoes throw litter away, but to imply that getting into a canoe transforms people into litter louts is hard to believe. Does that apply to cyclists? Ramblers? Golfers? Strange phenomenon, to say the least! Anglers are not perfect either, but as I said, I wouldn't use that to suggest that you should be banned on swan protection grounds... You also seem surprised that canoeists, whilst effectively banned from most rivers, aren't seen alongside anglers cleaning up those same stretches. It doesn't come as much of a surprise to me (although I have pointed out many times that joint organisation of river clean-ups would certainly be on the table in access negotiations).

It's all relative, of course. Your canoe is certainly unstable compared with an aircraft carrier! Compared to your canoe (whatever model it is), either of my kayaks are extremely unstable - however, I don't think of them as 'unstable' (with ominous negative undertones) any more than I would call my unicycle 'unstable'. Not that worrying about the stability of unicycles isn't worthy cause, it's just that, well.. they are have inherent stability constraints, just like canoes. If it was easy, everybody could do it Certainly the wearing of basic safety gear ought to be a condition of hire, that would be a big positive step and (surely) laudable by all. We are digressing a little though (no doubt the BCU will provide expert testimony anyway).

I didn't bother answering because the answers can already be found in the discussion, or are common sense! Just to keep you happy: 1. Canoeists paddle when it is wet - usually Oct/Nov - Mar (for me), possibly other times in big spates. Day trippers probably only in summer, but then they'd be covered by minimum level regulations or whatever... 2. Are people allowed to shoot grouse because they are on the moor 'as ramblers'? No, and similarly people who jump in canoes won't be allowed to fish. 3. I'm a whitewater paddler and have never been on a canal. Since canoeists already buy licences from the waterway authorities for canal use, I don't see where this comes into the discussion?

As far as I'm aware, there aren't any regulations on canoe hire actually... to answer your question, there is nothing stopping someone hiring a canoe and vandalising the environment - you'd think getting a hefty fine from a baliff might do the trick though! I get about a hundred days paddling in a year, all over Scotland (and abroad) and can't say I've noticed any predeliction for shouting, myself (except when necessary to make oneself heard, which is rarely going to be an environment you'd see anglers in). Quite. I haven't met any canoeists who are trying to argue that anglers having to share is something you are going to welcome with open arms. Inevitably, sharing results in less for yourself - this one of the few honest arguments I've seen against fairer access, and one that I cannot rebut. I still intend to campaign for wider access to our river heritage than the 1m rod licence holders though. Safety requirements like what? Canoeing is an assumed risk sport - this is a bit like shouting for iron regulation of hire bikes because people might fall off (true enough). Things like wearing a helmet and buoyancy aid, and suitable clothing are already mandated by the BCU and every club I've heard of; nobody is going to cry if hire companies start mandating common sense too.

There is already an infrastructure in place to police the rod licence. It must be bloody good as apparently the evasion rate is only 5% (I think I got that from a link someone posted to FishingMagic?). Presumably as a boat licence would be paid to the EA, existing enforcement could be beefed up to cope with paddling as well (we could have a physical licence visible to make it nice and easy) and the sanctions would be the same as rod licence evasion (whatever they are). I'm not claiming this could be set up in an afternoon, but I don't think the difficulties would be insurmountable, presuming that the licence and so on were introduced as part of an access bill which gave baliffs etc. the enforcing powers. The only paddling I do in the warmer months is on dam-released rivers when there is enough water to navigate. Obviously I can't speak for all, but both of the clubs I currently paddle with only run trips abroad during the summer months, or dam releases - there are no trips which go and scrape down the river bed, I'd sooner go climbing or biking myself. Running rivers at a low level is as pointless as fishing where there are no fish - I can't imagine any paddlers being concerned at legislation which mandates minimum water levels (with whatever sanctions). This would address most of your concerns about summer day-trippers, too? Increasing access without legislation probably would result in more day-trippers - this is why most canoeists would prefer legislated access, with sanctions as well as rights.

And yet one of my first posts in this discussion was a suggestion that canoeists be licensed (in the same manner as anglers are) and have legal limits imposed such as minimum water levels - in exchange for access without threats or assault when the levels are high. The end result of this, while you would have to put up with paddlers on high water days, is that when a hundred day-trippers come scraping along in the height of summer they would be committing a specific offence (maybe even spot fines, I'm not sure what baliffs' powers are). The reality is that the angling lobby reject suggestions such as these (when you have it all, what incentive is there to change?) - and they will never seriously be tabled until legislated access is offered in return. Some progress has been made in terms of defacto access, in that unreasonable access agreements (one weekend a year) are generally ignored - in the same spirit of responsible civil disobedience as Kinder-Scout. Yet support for fairer access is rising (in my experience). We didn't hitherto get a high profile EDM (which nobody expects to pass, but is doing a sterling job on the awareness front). Neither did the issue get favourable coverage in the media, as it is increasingly doing. The emancipation of the countryside is a social movement - I don't think it will be reversed by jailing canoeists under the same archaic land laws which have recently been lifted on the banks. (Although who can tell?) I do feel sorry for you, that this bizarre situation has come about. Just because you suffer, however, does not imply that we should give up our sport (or practice it on one or two isolated runs) - especially as it is not as if the numbers involved are vastly different. I appreciate you trying to be constructive. However, this will not happen because it sets too much of a precedent. In order to paddle my favourite runs (assuming for a moment this applied to Scotland) I would need to join several different clubs - at no small cost - and still not have agreed access, only a better chance of some crumbs from the table. All other angling clubs would then expect the same, so to have even a basic complement of ten or twenty runs would cost a small fortune. This is why anglers *are* a privaledged minority - you can afford to buy your sport, we can't. Before anybody suggests that one river is enough, I would ask you to apply this statement to ramblers, or hill climbers, or any other similar sport. It isn't. Yes, you have put your finger on it. Anglers refuse to coexist with canoeists, which means rather than a regulated and organised system of sharing, canoeists effectively have to be engaging in Kinder-Scout style civil disobedience just to practice their sport (which is accepted virtually everywhere else in the world). Actually, it would help a lot if the access argument was framed in those terms - who makes land owners most money. Public support would soar. Alas, not even Mr. Boote would be so kind.

Out of interest, then, how do you account for either CROW or the Land Reform Act? Both of these are certainly victories for the "ordinary" (i.e. poor!) man rather than the wealthy few. Your argument could have been presented to those at the Kinder-Scout trespass, with a minimum of adjustment. The ban on hunting also represents the success of the "ordinary" man against (what is percieved to be) a privileged minority. I don't think the 'system' is as difficult to change as you imply; after all, this government praised Kinder-Scout as model of effective civil disobedience which secured "far-reaching changes to unjust and oppressive law". Things have already started moving this way, and while personally I wouldn't like to be jailed on the principle of fair access, I fear that is where we will end up in the near future. The problem is then things get dirty (and contrary to what Mr. Boote will insist, canoeists are very supportive of anglers enjoying the outdoors, apart from the access issue!). The media would be in a right lather if our multiple medal-winning Olympic team was to boycott the London games in protest that wealthy land owners won't allow fair access (or better/worse, to protest over aquatic ramblers being fined or jailed). It wouldn't harm the animal rights movement (whose tactics I abhor) either. As you admit, there are ways in which canoeing and angling can co-exist without problems. Pity we won't let that happen here.

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

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?

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!

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). 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.

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! 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. 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).

Canoeists and anglers manage to co-exist everywhere else (with varying degrees of success). In France, anglers have the river exclusively in the morning and evening. Because canoeists have more rivers to access, there is not the same pressure you can witness on the 1% we cram into in England and Wales. I have to say, I honestly don't remember this. Feel free to provide a link, Paul. I don't agree that contributing to an existing topic about canoe access is gatecrashing; I've done the same here (although if people would rather not hear me out, I will certainly leave). In fact, several members of the Fly Fishing Forums thanked me for dropping in to put my side of the story across - I'm sorry you don't agree with them. As for cutting deals - I'm not a representative of canoeists, just a keen sportsman. You seem to doubt me because I'm not completely inarticulate. As a Scot, I confess I prefer the Bard (although perhaps when you return your signature to Eliot's great work, you could consider "what branches grow, out of this stony rubbish" ).

I just wanted to butt in with a kayaker's perspective here (those of you who followed the links in Paul's post may have noticed my contributions to the discussion on the Fly Fishing Forums). The problem facing canoeists is that we can only pursue our sport on a tiny fraction of rivers in England and Wales. Discounting the canals and tidal navigations (which are of little interest to most canoeists), the figure is much less than 1%. Of that 1%, agreements tend to be very restrictive (although there are exceptions) - possibly as little as one or two weekends a year, irrespective of the water level. 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. 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). It is a simplification to suggest that canoeists want free, unrestricted access to all inland water, all year round. In fact, this is a straw man built by a vocal minority of anglers, to make it easy for them to attack the whole access argument. In fact, all canoeists are asking for is a fair and responsible access system which allows all water users to co-exist (as is the case in much of Europe, Scandinavia, North America, and NZ). Most canoeists would be quite willing to pay a boat licence (with the same enforcement / penalties as the rod licence). We'd be quite happy to have a legal minimum level before paddling is permitted, to remove any doubt about spawning beds. We are really quite keen to have environmental work-groups just like you do (who wants to canoe, as people so vividly put it, in an open sewer?) -- I could even see a partnership in terms of the angling organisations which find and prosecute polluters. We certainly don't want to have the rivers all to ourselves, as we are quite happy to share. In recognition of the solitary nature of angling, however, there is little opposition to the suggestion that canoeing only be allowed between specific hours (say, not early or late in the day, when I believe fishing is particularly good?) or even to have whole days when paddling is not permitted. The wording of the EDM is, I feel, unfortunate - I can see how it can be interpreted as a totally unrestricted access campaign. Unfortunately, canoeists have as little control over these things as I suspect ordinary anglers do over FACT / Salter's proclaimations. With BCU membership growing at 6% year-on-year, it must be obvious that the current access situation cannot continue forever, with the recent trend of CROW and the Land Reform Act.