fishing and canoeing

[andy_youngs]

A year or two back we had a plant from the BCU rattling the cages of AN. Indeed we had a very thorough discussion on this very topic back then.

 

In the case of Andy Youngs, he has 120 miles of Norfolk & Suffolk Broads right on his doorstep, all navigable. He has the River Blyth, a delightful, and navigable river. Indeed he has the open sea right on his doorstep, he is not short of recreational waters where he can canoe his socks off.

 

Perhaps he should try his hand at Lenwade, on the Wensum. There he will meet Mr Bernard Matthews, not an angler, but a man who values/demands his privacy thus he does not welcome canoeists. Instead of critiscising anglers who wish to protect their sport perhaps Andy should take on Mr Matthews. Point being that this is not an angler versus canoeist issue, but one of canoeist versus landowner. In this particular case Mr Matthews is not short of a bob or two.

 

By and large anglers pay for their access to such as the Upper Wensum, canoeists want that access for free.

 

Peter, the only person who can definitively say whether we were entitled to canoe that stretch of the Wensum is the landowner. As I pointed out earlier, I've written to him to ask for his views. I have no idea what his position will be on this but I don't think the NACA have done their cause any favours by using strong arm tactics.

 

Your point about Mr Matthews not wishing to allow canoists to pass through his land is noted, but the reality is that there's not much he can do to prevent it. Theoretically he might be able to sue for tresspass but unless he could prove willful damage to his property there'd be no point. The police certainly wouldn't be interested in getting involved in something like that.

 

In any event, the situation downstream at Costessey is slightly different. This is not necessarily a dispute with the landowner, it's a dispute with the NACA. We're still waiting to see which way the landowner jumps.

 

Yes I could canoe the Waveney. In fact I already have. Every landowner signed up to an open access agreement several years ago. But getting that agreement in place was time consuming and expensive involving endless negotiations. Given that it only takes one unwilling landowner to scupper the whole thing it's amazing that this agreement has succeeded at all.

 

Yes, I could canoe the Blyth, but there's nothing to say that exactly the same problems over access won't arise.

 

I just think the law is in desparate need of clarification. What's wrong with allowing canooing on the Wensum during the closed fishing season? At least then people would see anglers actively trying to accommodate others.

 

I'm not criticising anglers who wish to protect their sport. In fact, I'm one of them. I am criticising anglers who are intollerant towards others and who take the law into their own hands with bully boy tactics.

 

By making a point of canoeing the Wensum during the closed season I was trying to accommodate anglers. And what do I get in return? Nothing

 

Finally Peter, I do not want access to the wensum for free. I don't mind paying for the privilege, all I want is access to one of my local rivers.

Edited June 3, 2009 by andy_youngs

[andy_youngs]

There are many places where I can fish legally, and many other places I am not allowed to fish.

 

Same with you and your canoe.

 

In each case, the beliefs and opinions of the landowners who control the fishing rights/canoe access are their own and irrelevant.

 

Ask the same thing on a canoeing forum and you'll probably get different answers!

 

In this case Anderoo my dispute is not with the landowner. It's with the NACA. The reality is that 99% of landowners don't mind people fishing or canoing on their land as long as they are respectful. But they tend to get lobbied by anglers to deny access to canoists and vice versa, and then if one side or the other succeeds in getting their own way it causes hard feeling and resentment.

[andy_youngs]

Andy,

 

I'm also a keen fisherman and have done a bit of canoeing and I take the view that you should really only canoe the river out of season - which makes NACA stance wrong, there is no way a canoe moving slowly over the water will upset any spawning and you are not affecting anyone’s swim as it is out of season.

 

I canoed the mole over the weekend from Betchworth to Cobham, really does show you a different side to the river and also some very special fishing spots if only they were accessible!

 

Thanks for the support surrey. In fact, I've just learned that when the NACA put spawning riffles in this stretch of the Wensum (with public money) the Environment Agency recieved consultations over the provision of a deep channel for canoes to pass through. Whether it was acted upon, I'm afraid I am unable to confirm or deny from first hand knowledge (yet). But I would still question whether NACA actually have the right to manhandle canoists off the river during the closed season.

Edited June 3, 2009 by andy_youngs

[andy_youngs]

Thanks for the links Andy.

 

Whats your main niggle though,acsess for canoeists or the fanatical barbel anglers attitude?

Well, both really.

[Peter M]

To be honest i have always found it difficult to understand that anglers should refrain from fishing rivers during close season so as to not interfere with the spawning, while unrestricted boating right into spawning areas (which are often quite shallow) is allowed along with dog walkers thowing sticks into spawning areas and fly fishers casting repeatedly over fish etc. if fish need to be left alone to spawn then they need to be left alone by everyone.

 

I have had the odd run in with boaters while fishing but i am appalled that you feel you were threatend with violence which is uncalled for.

[GlennB]

Conceivably - just conceivably - if your canoeing involved paddling over shallows and disturbing fish eggs in the gravel then there might be a technical point. In reality - even with the paddles and canoe grounding somewhat - the barbel population would not be inconvenienced one iota. Each fish probably lays 000's of eggs. Even "disturbed" eggs don't automatically die. And a huge proportion of eggs and fry get gobbled up anyway, one way or another.

 

These people have it in for canoeists and are using any excuse available to hammer them. They have a personal agenda.

 

p.s. I am no canoeist and never have been. Most of my angling vs. canoe experiences have been somewhat negative, so I have no vested interest in defending canoeists per se. But b/s is b/s .

 

p.p.s. Consider the odds of a canoeist (or many) altering the balance of the barbel population vs. an angler (or many) doing the same by accidentally or carelessly causing the death of a prime female barbel due to spawn? Hmmmm..... right, let's ban angling. Could harm the fish populations! Poop.

[Peter Waller]

What I am doing is criticising anglers who are intolerant towards others and who take the law into their own hands with bully boy tactics.

 

Rather like certain canoeists.

 

By the way, the River Blyth is tidal, you have a perfect right to navigate it.

[andy_youngs]

Rather like certain canoeists.

 

By the way, the River Blyth is tidal, you have a perfect right to navigate it.

 

Only as far as Blyford Bridge. Also, the Waveney is not navigable up to Bungay. Electric motors and paddles only above Geldeston please.

 

Peter, can I please suggest you take a bit of time out to look on a map.

 

I don't wish to sound abusive my friend, but I'm stuggling with the notion that you can't grasp what's recently happened to me on the river Wensum. Just as I was beginning to get over the trauma of it, you're causing my blood pressure to rise again.

Edited June 3, 2009 by andy_youngs

[Peter Waller]

Only as far as Blyford Bridge. Also, the Waveney is not navigable up to Bungay. Electric motors and paddles only above Geldeston please.

 

Peter, can I please suggest you take a bit of time out to look on a map.

 

I don't wish to sound abusive my friend, but I'm stuggling with the notion that you can't grasp what's recently happened to me on the river Wensum. Just as I was beginning to get over the trauma of it, you're causing my blood pressure to rise again.

 

Andy, I am well aware of the issues involved. Just for your information I was also involved in the original consultation re access to the upper Waveney. Perhaps you should have a chat with Dave Gladwell at Bungay Cherry Tree.

 

Re the Blyth, as the Waveney to Bungay, both were created as navigations by Act of Parliament, both have public staiths, in neither case have the Acts been rescinded.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Peter Waller

[andy_youngs]

Andy, I am well aware of the issues involved. Just for your information I was also involved in the original consultation re access to the upper Waveney. Perhaps you should have a chat with Dave Gladwell at Bungay Cherry Tree.

 

Re the Blyth, as the Waveney to Bungay, both were created as navigations by Act of Parliament, both have public staiths, in neither case have the Acts been rescinded.

 

Right, so the basis of your argument relies on a law which was enacted when you could navigate the Waveney all the way to Bungay and the Blyth all the way to Halesworth. That was over 200 years ago. At that time you could navigate the Wensum all the way to Fakenham. Who knows, in those days there might even have been an indiginous barbel population in the Wensum which might somehow have been able to survive the trauma of having barges passing up the river?

 

And you still reckon the NACA were justified in manhandling me off the Wensum by force during the closed fishing season?

 

The only reason that I haven't yet taken this matter up with the Eastern Daily Press, my MP, and the MP in Norwich North is that I haven't yet heard back from the landowner involved.

 

But whatever he says, I can assure you that this matter is not going fade away anytime soon. Even if it takes another 200 years I will get a proper explanation as to why NACA are behaving like a bunch of facsist thugs at the taxpayers expense.