andy_youngs

Benyon? I have a correspendence exchange with him which I'm sure would be of great interest to the forum. It seems that the crunch decision time is fast approaching ....

Do you still think I'm losing?

That's a good idea, why don't we ban canoeing during the closed fishing season. That way, we'll avoid any possibility of the canoeists annoying the fish Well ok, so there is 'no legal right of access'. Is that a legal fact? I re-iterate my assertion that this is like trying to put a fire out with petrol (or in phones case, gasoline). Bob, I thanked Barry for supporting my posts, and I thank you for showing an interest. Believe me, I don't take either of those things for granted.

Thanks for the kind words of support Barry. One point I would just make is that you state "angling only came on the scene in later years". Not strictly true. Our rivers have been fished for as long as they've been navigated. That's why Magna Carta in 1215 stated that fish traps must only be only be laid on the bed of a river so as not to obstruct passing boat traffic. One of the few clauses in Magna Carta which has never been repealed by statute.

I would certainly agree that people should exercise courtesy and common sense. Would you, for instance, start patrolling a riverbank during the closed fishing season hurling abuse at canoeists? Or worse still, threaten to string razor wire across the river? Because I can assure you that is precisely what's happenning at the moment Really? I notice you're still here

OK. Present Angling Trust policy is that the default legal position is that the riparian owners consent must be sought by canoeists before they attempt to paddle down a river. I object to this policy on legal, moral and practical grounds. Firstly, the legal arguments. The Angling Trust advise their members that this interpretation is an uncontested legal fact. It isn't. It is an untested legal opinion and a great deal of research has been published which challenges this view, see http://www.caffynonrivers.co.uk/. None of this research has been challenged by Fish Legal, and no efforts have been made to instigate a test case, presumably for fear that the Angling Trust would lose. Secondly, the moral arguments. The Angling Trust recently wrote to Canoe England requesting that they condemn a proposed paddle down the Hampshire Avon as illegal trespass (which they declined to do). Notwithstanding the uncertain legal position, and the fact that this request came from anglers rather than landowners, suggesting that prior consent of every riparian owner must be obtained is in fact a euphomism for saying 'you're not allowed to canoe the river'. Neither the Environment Agency nor Canoe England have the resources to negotiate access agreements on a river by river basis. The Angling Trusts policy is therefore unrealistic, ensures that 98% of rivers remain off-limits to canoeists, and simply serves to perpetuate conflict between anglers and other user groups. As it stands, I can't take kids paddling on a river, because I can never be sure that some militant angler isn't going to jump out from behind a bush shouting abuse with, apparently, the full blessing of the Angling Trust. Thirdly, the practical arguments. The reality is that this policy is totally unenforceable in a court of law. Even if a court was to rule that paddling down a river without having first obtained the permission of every riparian owner constitutes trespass (which is highly doubtful), then there's still nothing anyone could do to stop people paddling down a river other than standing on the riverbank shouting hot air at canoeists. What do I want to happen? I would like the Angling Trust to acknowledge that access is not contested to the vast majority of our inland waterways (99% of landowners couldn't give two hoots whether people paddle the river), to identify and publish the relatively small number of locations where tensions exist, and to actively engage with canoeists at these locations to diffuse the situation through mutual negotiation. At present, they're simply saying 'there is no right of access', which is like trying to put a fire out with petrol (Phone - read 'gasoline'). Appointing Salter to the Angling Trust exacerbates the situation because he had the perfect opportunity to put a sensible, sustainable legislative framework in place when he was an MP, but he chose not to do it. Instead, he chose to pander to a small (if vocal) element within the angling community

Sorry Phone, I don't really agree that I'm losing the argument. This thread gives visibility to just a tiny fraction of the issues. "What do I want to happen?" Well, how about being able to canoe my local river without being verbally abused by anglers. You're lucky, you don't have that problem in the States. Over there public navigation rights are recognised.

If that's what you think then fine. But the fact remains that I'm not the one that's running away from a public debate.

How? Salter challenged me to a debate 'in front of several hundred anglers'. I accepted, on condition that the debate was conducted fairly and properly. I'm not saying that several hundred anglers can't be present at the debate, but if it is to happen, then it must be properly chaired, and fairly argued. It's called democracy. That's fine, but I'm afraid it would also include the involvement of several hundred canoeists and other assorted members of the public in the audience. I appreciate that that might be inconvenient for Salter, but I'm not the one who laid down the challenge. Salter didn't ok it with me in private before he tried to sucker me into a public appearance at the AT AGM, and he'll get nothing from me in return. Fine, we can argue it out in public, but if he presumes to lure members of the public into the lions den like that then he deserves to have it thrown back in his face. I'm not sure how to reply to that vitreolic outpouring. You may know something about public debating, which would go some way to explaining why you are so eager to avoid one. The 'sanatised version of reality' arises once people start getting banned from forums for posting their honest opinions. I accept that I've given Salter and Mark Lloyd a bit of stick, but that's because they're public figures, and I think they deserve it. They're both purporting to represent me. They didn't ask my permission to do that, they just did it, and as far as I'm concerned they did it badly. If they're not here to defend themselves then that's up to them. You should stop trying to defend them ... it's not your job and I think your time would be better spent urging Salter to do what he says he's going do.

Good. I am a threat to him, and the sooner he realises it the better. I don't want to declare war on the Angling Trust, or to destroy them. But if we are to have a governing body of angling, then it needs to be more responsible and sensitive to broader issues. They need to recognise that it is sometimes necessary to explain to freshwater anglers that they can't always have it their own way, and that they need to accommodate other river users such as canoeists. Similarly, I can see no reason or need for recreational sea anglers to be licensed, or for catch limits to be imposed. The environmental impact of recreational sea angling is negligable Above all, if they issue a public challenge to someone to engage in a public debate, then they need deliver. At present, they are failing on all counts.

"Martin has IMPO a mind set on what he believes is good for sea angling, much of which I’m at odds with. Is he likely to change his views? I very much doubt it so I question the point of a debate." Don't follow the logic there Bob. You clearly disagree with Salter, you acknowledge that he is unlikely to change his mind, and therefore you don't see the point in a debate? I'm afraid I reach the opposite conclusion. That is a very good reason for a debate.

Ah, excellent, what is his status?

Bob, I go recreational sea angling about twice as often as I go caneoing; ie, I go canoeing once a year, and I go offshore recreational fishing for bass / cod out of Southwold roughly twice a year. I also have the odd day over the winter months fishing from the beach. I go freshwater fishing all the time, and I resent having to pay for a rod license when I know for a fact that the money is used to stuff a neighbouring river with non native fish, whilst promoting my local river as a canoeing honeypot. I don't expect you to attend any debate on behalf of the RSA personally (although representation from someone would be nice), but how about adding your voice to the call for a fair and reasonable public debate?

Any chance of getting back on topic? The fact is that Salter, ex MP and director of the Angling Trust, challenged me to a public debate, and now appears to be trying to wriggle out of it. Any comments on that?

I don't know Bob, I think it was a daft thing to do. If you want to know why he did it then I suggest you ask him, not me. However having laid down the challenge, then I think it is only reasonable to expect the procedings to be conducted fairly and properly. Barry is absolutely spot in suggesting that conducting the debate at the Angling Trust AGM would be pointless and tasteless exercise designed purely to humiliate the main protagonist (me) Bob, navigation to inland waterways is one of the most contentious issues facing the Angling Trust at the moment. Why should canoeists be forced to pay for a license which gives them access to less than 2% of our inland waterways? And what makes you think that because freshwater anglers pay for a rod a license, that should then give them right to exclude other user groups from our rivers? Sure, you can ignore the issue, or pretend that the dissent doesn't exist by trying to silence opposing points of view, but neither of those courses of action will make it go away.

Hmm, Brian, I have no desire to get myself banned. But I don't understand why you're so sensitive to public debate. It's as if posting a public opinion about canoeing rights is tantamount to heracy if doesn't fit neatly into Angling Trust policy.

Why do you find 99 ice creams threatening? what surprises me is that the posters on here haven't yet told you to shut up.

Are you serious Brian? Are you going to allow me to argue my case or not? I didn't challenge Salter to a debate, he challenged me. That man is an ex-MP and director of the Angling Trust. What do you expect me to do? I'm independent in so far as I am not a member of either the Angling Trust or Canoe England. Are You? Why do you feel so threatened by me? Would you rather I stopped posting so that AN members could receive a convenient, sanatised version of reality?

I've got no reason to disagree with that, but I doubt if we'll get Salter on here. I reckon he got his fingers burnt on the FM forum, and once bittten twice shy ... No he can't. There needs to be a debating panel comprising 4 representatives, Canoe England (??), Angling Trust (Salter), Recreational Sea Anglers (??) and Independent (me). Plus a chairman of course. My dreamteam choice would be Jeremey Paxman. Sure, he's an angler (and therefore potentially biased), but I would trust him to discharge this function properly. I doubt if it's gonna happen ... he's a very busy man. In any event, I still haven't heard back from Salter (no surprises there then). I think the questions need to be disclosed in advance to each of the participants, and should be drawn from a fair cross section of the audience. Happy New Year everyone.

Yeah sure Brian, I'm not going anywhere with this. I just picked up an old erroneous thread for no other reason than I was bored and I wasn't really looking at the dates.

What's that about? I always return undersize bass that have been caught on rod and line. What are they trying to do now?

If only ... For the record, this is the extent of the exchange to date : AY : "You challenged me to a public debate in front of several hundred anglers. You still interested?" MS : "Absolutely. I sent you a personal message but got no reply. How about at the Angling Trust AGM in June? Cheers, Martin AY : "Thanks for the message Martin. Unfortunately got banned from the FM forum, so was unable to pick your message up. My suggestion would be discussion in front of a public audience. Perhaps 35% Canoe England, 35% Angling Trust, 10% Recreational Sea Anglers, 20% public. How does that sound? Rather not have TV camera's present, I find it un-nerving. But if you insist we could talk about it. And no, I don't think the Angling Trust AGM is a very sensible venue for that type of discussion." RESPONSE AWAITED I'll keep you posted

I would expect the leadership of both organisations to reach a reasonable accommodation, ie, if there are specific locations where canoe access is contested, then both sides should negotiate, and reach a negotiated solution. That doesn't necessarily mean that the canoeists automatically get 12 month a year access. If there are sound environmental reasons why certain stretches of river should be left alone at certain times of year then ok. As long as it's fair. But I have to say Steve, that there is something particularly offensive about a group of fanatical barbel fishermen using public money to stuff a small, environmentally sensitive river with non native fish, and then trying to prevent the public from canoeing down it during the closed fishing season on grounds that it might interfere with the barbels breeding habits. Like it or not, that is the reality of what's going on, and the fact is that they are using the Angling Trust's policy towards navigation rights on inland waterways to justify what they are doing. Sorry mate, but not in my name. If the AT were to move away from the view that the default legal position is that there is no right to navigate inland waterways without landowners consent, then it would diffuse a bitter dispute. People would stop hurling abuse at each other on the river bank and in forums, and I and great many others would happily sign up to the AT. You may well be right there Steve. There may well be stretches where it may well be desirable to try and negotiate restricted canoe access on socio economic grounds between say June 16 and September 30 because of the impact it would have on angling. But there is a very big difference between that, and gangs of anglers patrolling the riverbanks shouting abuse at canoeists for paddling over riffles during he closed season, which is where we are at the moment. There are many anglers out there who profoundly believe that they have the undisputed right to use the river and canoeists don't. And the AT are encouraging them.

I gotta reply out of Salter. In fact, I think I might have got a promise of a public debate out of him (I'll keep you posted). Jeepster, you really do need to change that face pic, it's quite off-putting.

Sure Bob. Don't worry, I won't get down-hearted over this. Martin Salter's email address : http://www.martinsalter.com/ I've sent him an email confirming that I have accepted his challenge for a public debate. I suppose my question is, would the RSA like a voice on the panel? My proposal is that the audience should be made up 35% Angling Trust, 35% Canoe England, 10% RSA, and 20% public. 4 members on the panel. Salter has replied to my email, and I'm hopeful it will be game on (assuming he's got the balls to go through with it ...) The difficulty is finding a good Chairman. I wonder if Jeremey Paxman is free?