Dr Repper

Ah, just to allay another concern, in Britain it would be quite illegal to simply rent out canoes and kayaks to unqualified numpties so that thay could paddle off over the horizon unsupervised. Following the well publicised Lyme Bay disaster restrictions are very tight, and all groups must be supervised under coaching ratios laid out by the BCU.

Ah Mr Boote! You are quite right, Mike does express himself very well. Given the contrasting quality of your previous posts, I hope you aren't (heaven forefend) attempting to "piggyback, strategically and politically", on his "freely given efforts"? Mike, I assure you that I have not come here spoiling for a row, only to discuss an important issue. I hope the fact that we do not agree is being construed as some kind of personal grudge on my part. If it is, the I apologise. I am thankful that you have not been offended, and that we can discuss this matter openly in the spirit of healthy debate. To answer a few of your points: I do not believe that there is anything wrong with giving "voice on how unfair "the system" is". I have also been at pains to point out that I agree that "there is no "war" between anglers and paddlers", but a problem for most potential water users presented by archaic riparian ownership laws that (whether through their doing or not) allow one group access to rivers while others are barred. I have no interest in slinging mud. The fact that paddlers have approached two angling fora to discuss the issue is simply because they tend to represent 'the otherside' of the 'arguement'. There would be prescious little point preaching to the converted on paddling forums, why not engage in dialogue with those who tend to disagree? I do not agree that free access (remember that no-one is arguing that access should be entirely without restriction in the case of all waters) would cause your chosen pastime to be "entirely ruined". Many among your number have already stated that other, considerate water users on large rivers (the only type that paddlers would be interested in accessing during the fishing season, with the exception of dam release rivers such as the tryweryn) would be of no hinderance (even a grudging Mr Boote said the he didn't have "THAT MUCH of a problem" with the idea). That the possibility that an irresponsible minority may occasionally missbehave (just as some anglers do on waterways with paddling access) is no grounds at all to bar the rest. He who is without sin... On small rivers, paddlers are only interested in access during the winter months when there is sufficient rainfall to render them paddleable, i.e. outside the fishing season. These points considered, I think you'll find that disruptive contact with other water users would be more minimal than you imagine, especially considering that access would be spread nationwide. I can assure you that paddlers on the Dart and Tryweryn are under no greater pressure to "be on their best behaviour" than anywhere else. In nearly a decade and a half of frequent visits to both locations (hey, I have no more choice than any other paddler) I have never encountered a warden on or near the water. Paddlers behave themselves quite naturally. My point is not that there aren't enough resources to go around, more that there are plenty, they are just being monopolised. There would not be "more paddlers on the rivers", there would be the same number spread over more rivers. Your point about "free fishing" has also been dealt with already. I was not suggesting that fishing would be free, simply that additional expenses associated with it (i.e. not associated with other pursuits) would no longer be payable to riparian owners but to the EA, who would take on the responsibility of maintenance of fish stocks, river clearance etc. I believe it to be the responsibility of the BCU and other groups representing other water users to form and promote regional voluntary working groups to contribute to these efforts, just as local angling groups already do. You also make the point that "commercial enterprises renting canoes and offering trips would mushroom" and later remind me that I "live in a democracy which is mainly governed by free enterprise". See where I'm going with this? You are quite correct in pointing out that it was remiss of me to suggest that riparian owners could be ignored. I should have said 'outvoted'. The assumption that riparian owners would win simply because they have lots of money doesn't necessarily hold water. The recent efforts of the Countryside Alliance have made this plain. Money can be made in lots of ways by lots of different people, contributing to the economy in many ways. Now, if it is everyone's considered opinion that this discussion is going nowhere, then I'll agree to disagree and drop it there. I'll leave the chest beating and expounding of rhetoric to Mr Boote and the clumsier among my kin . All the best, Richard 'Panglossian Good-Cop' Repper

I quite agree, this is not a paddlers versus anglers issue, as you will notice in my careful use of the generic term 'water users' in all of my posts. I can only assume that you are a riparian owner, as you have taken umbridge at my suggestion that all water users (including anglers) should be under no obligation to pay to use the riparian zone of our country's rivers, other than to a centralised body performing beneficial maintenance. I fail to see how anglers have a vested interest in paying exhorbitant fees for fishing rights. Your point about 'inebvitable destruction' is purely conjecture, as no such inevitability has ever been proven. Interesting, then, that you call my participation in a public discussion on an open forum a 'smokescreen'. The fact remains that being occasionally inconvenienced through a conflict of interest with one's fellow citizens is an unfortunate side effect of living in a country along with lots of other people in it. The idea, however, that all the nations angling will be ruined by ravening hordes of whooping paddlers that will suddenly appear from under every rock is ridiculous, and still more so that they will leave nothing but destruction in their wake (the good state of the tryweryn and the dart, two rivers that are forced to bare the bulk of british whitewater paddling due to outmoded access laws, being crowning examples). The fact remains that, as current riparian ownership laws stand, a large proportion of potential water users is denied the use of a tremendous natural resource because a very few are making a lot of money. This situation will not last. Ignore the issue if you will. You'll only help in the end.

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?

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).

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

It seems strange to attack paddlers for not contributing to the EA when only 1 and a bit million of a supposed 4 million anglers possess rod liscences. The passage about damaging spawning grounds was removed following the publishing of the DEFRA report. Also, the football pitch analogy does not hold water. A football pitch is not natural, it must be constructed with time, effort and money (trust me, I was a head groundsman) from a sole contributor, just like a house. That contributor then owns what he/she has built. Paddlers are not suggest a right for everyone to come and sit in your living room, drinking tea made in your kitchen after having a good old paddle in your garden pond. We are proposing access for all to our natural heritage. If anglers pay any more than us, it should be to help replenish fih stocks (which you already do). Any other maintenance of the river environment should be an obligation of the EA (or some other, new body), paid for by river liscences and taxes, complemented by voluntary working parties composed of all river users.

A liscencing system such as you suggest exists on the Thames already and is enforced by the EA. I would suggest that the enforcement of a paddling liscence need be no more difficult than the enforcement of a rod liscence. As has been stated, there is no reason why water users cannot pay for the infrastructure surrounding the ligislation. It may even create a few new jobs : )

Ah, it would seem that the ever amusing Mr Boote has chosen to have a pop at this 'panglossian good cop' on the fly fishing forum. In response: [quote The above was read in its original by a man - myself - whom in recent years the British "Angling Establishment" first chose to pointedly ignore, then felt that it had to deride and generally excoriate at any and every opportunity (in the hope that he'd take the hint, sink without trace / go away / preferably die etc), then generally Crucified All Ways Round (Standard, Sideways, Upside Down, Rear Entry, plus a few more of its known only to the cognoscenti, Top Public School variations, sometimes all at the same time), but found him still standing, still terrifyingly coherent, still not gone away, still - no, increasingly - relevant (unlike its largely still-Victorian-minded self), and still a better ANGLER (it's not just about hooking out fish, you know) than probably all of its oh-so-discreet, no-name, well-heeled, rural backwoods members put together. Oh, Kreid (or should that be "Horsey, horsey"?), you just don't know how it hated and relentlessly came at me! And yet now, though, it appears more than just a tad relieved that it didn't destroy me back then, that it still has me around fighting the case of every proper British angler (hoping to piggyback, strategically and politically, on my freely given efforts, you see)... Incoherent? No. It's just that I know British Angling all ways round (on the riverbank and from time spent in its better clubs and drawing-rooms). This is perhaps the funniest passage I have ever read. Full marks. I hope the bulk of the angling community do not share Mr Boote's view that any and all polite, reasoned arguement from the paddling community must be the 'friendly face' of an incidious, maniacal scheme to take over the world, or that the above orgy of self congratulation somehow constitutes a good point well made. Mr Boote, to quote a literary great, your boasts are "all sound and fury, signifying nothing". Please leave the debate to adults. Rich R

Apologies for the double post folks, new to the forum.

This is precisely the view of Anglers held by most paddlers. I could regail you with many tales of being lambasted/threatened/pelted with groundbait even though I, just like (guess what) the overwhelming majority of paddlers have always taken the utmost care not disturb a peaceful and genteel activity. On one occasion, a group of young charmers attemted to foul-hook children in a group of open canoes that I was instructing on the thames. Unfortunately, human beings in general are more apt to remember instances of conflict than the overwhelming majority of encounters which are entirely uneventful. I have also been attacked by a group of Pakistani youths near my home. Should I assume that the majority would behave in the same manner? There will always be times when river users get on eachother's nerves (indeed, there should be regulations in place to combat deliberate missbehaviour FROM ANY RIVER USERS and the means put in place to enforce them). There will also be times when other drivers pull out infront of you at juctions, or fail to indicate at roundabouts. You may even get shunted once in a while. That doesn't mean that all other drivers should have their liscences taken away, just in case.

This assumption that all the arguments of paddlers for greater river access is based around ficticious statistics is wearisome. The figures were arrived at by a BCU survey of affiliated clubs, coaching providers and outdoor pursuits centres in order to ascertain the correlation between the numbers of people trying paddlesports each year and those taking up BCU membership. This survey was conducted in order to ascertain whether adaptations should be made to the BCU coaching scheme in order to promote retention of new participants. Figures for rowing were not included as rowing is regulated entirely seperately and would as such be irrelevant.

This is essentially the view that a large proportion of the paddling community holds of 'a lot' of anglers. It stems from a lack of communication between the two interested parties, and the fact that people on both sides of the discussion are more apt to remember instances of conflict than the majority of encounters which are entirely uneventful. I can recount many, many tales of being lambasted/threatened/pelted with groundbait by obnoxious anglers, even though I have always in thirteen years of paddling taken the utmost care not to disturb a peaceful and genteel activity along with (guess what) the overwhelming majority of paddlers that I know (many of whom also fish). I have also been attacked by pakistani youths on the street near my home, but I'm not given to assume that the majority would behave in such a manner. There will always be isolated occasions on which paddlers and anglers inconvenience and annoy one another. Indeed, regulations should be put in place to ensure that deliberate misbehaviour on the water by anyone, paddler, angler, pleasure boater or otherwise can be reported and dealt with appropriately. There will also always be times when other drivers pull out infront of you at T junctions, or fail to indicate at roundabouts. This doesn't mean that all other drivers should have their liscences taken away, just in case.