fishing and canoeing

[gozzer]

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.

 

Andy, from the above, I assume it's more the actions of the "facist thugs" that's got you worked up, than the 'right to roam' issue.

 

How would you have reacted if a different, more diplomatic method had be used?

 

 

John.

[andy_youngs]

Andy, from the above, I assume it's more the actions of the "facist thugs" that's got you worked up, than the 'right to roam' issue.

 

How would you have reacted if a different, more diplomatic method had be used?

 

 

John.

Your quite right of course John, although I can't really see how there could possibly be a diplomatic way of kicking someone off a river without a good reason.

 

At the end of the day if the public are paying for a river to be rejuvinated then the public have a right to go there. End of story.

 

What annoys me about the attitude of people like Peter is that they seem to assume that everyone's got to fall into a neat little catagory of either "fisherman" or "canoist". Everyone's got to take sides.

 

But I don't look at it like that. I spend 2 days of the year canoing and about 40 or so days of the year fishing. I enjoy both in equal measure, and I like to think that have a balanced and tolerant approach to both activities.

 

Is it really too much to ask that publicly funded bodies do the same?

Edited June 3, 2009 by andy_youngs

[Steve Walker]

At the end of the day if the public are paying for a river to be rejuvinated then the public have a right to go there. End of story.

 

I'm not entirely convinced of the unspoken addendum "and do what the hell they like to it". My taxes pay for the local bowling green, I have a right to go there, I don't have a right to go off-roading on it. If by paddling it you will cause damage (as they allege) then it seems perverse to insist that because it's publicly funded you are entitled to ruin it. It seems to me that you would be better focusing on whether their allegation that you will cause damage has any substance.

 

Anyway, is the money not Environment Agency money? How much is the canoeing licence?

[andy_youngs]

I'm not entirely convinced of the unspoken addendum "and do what the hell they like to it". My taxes pay for the local bowling green, I have a right to go there, I don't have a right to go off-roading on it. If by paddling it you will cause damage (as they allege) then it seems perverse to insist that because it's publicly funded you are entitled to ruin it. It seems to me that you would be better focusing on whether their allegation that you will cause damage has any substance.

 

Anyway, is the money not Environment Agency money? How much is the canoeing licence?

 

At present Steve you only need a license to canoe on navigable stretches of river. I'm not sure how much the fee is. Because I only go canoeing once a year I always hire a canoe so the fee is taken care of by the hire company. I do know that it costs me £35 a day to hire a 3 man canadian style canoe, and somewhere in that fee is a contribution to Govt coffers. It's another area of the law which might be looked at though. I've long felt it very unfair that fishermen have to fork out for a rod license on non navigable stretches of river but canoeists don't.

 

I don't see how anyone can possibly allege that canoeing down the Wensum can damage the ecology of the place. But you're right, that is what NACA are alleging. Unbelievable. The fact that they spend 9 months of the year pulling barbel out the river on hook and line just makes it all the more gauling.

Edited June 3, 2009 by andy_youngs

[mike666]

hi andy

could you please contact me about the wensum incident. i am involved in this matter and could do with your input before i post any information on here.

many thanks

mhammond57@hotmail.com

[mike666]

hi andy

i would like to speak to you about this before posting but i cant PM you. please contact me

thanks

mike

[gozzer]

Your quite right of course John, although I can't really see how there could possibly be a diplomatic way of kicking someone off a river without a good reason.

 

At the end of the day if the public are paying for a river to be rejuvinated then the public have a right to go there. End of story.

 

What annoys me about the attitude of people like Peter is that they seem to assume that everyone's got to fall into a neat little catagory of either "fisherman" or "canoist". Everyone's got to take sides.

 

But I don't look at it like that. I spend 2 days of the year canoeing and about 40 or so days of the year fishing. I enjoy both in equal measure, and I like to think that have a balanced and tolerant approach to both activities.

 

Is it really too much to ask that publicly funded bodies do the same?

 

As far as I know, Peter is both an angler and a boater, so to say that he takes one side over another would seem to me, to be strange assumption.

 

I haven't been canoeing for a great many years, but I find that now, (as I did then) that many canoeists I know, seem to want a 'right to roam' that is denied to any other group of people.

I cannot walk wherever I want, I can't cycle wherever I want, but some think that they should be able to take a boat onto any water they want.

 

As to the disturbing the spawning sites, most of the clubs I have been a member of, do not allow wading during spawning time. Indeed some have even banned fishing these areas during that time. So it's not exclusive to any water user in particular.

I don't know the area in question so I can't comment on the specifics involved, but would have thought that provision could have been made to allow you to pass the section on land, and relaunch below. Maybe the guys you spoke to would be able to help and thus protect the site, and in doing so create a better relationship between the two groups.

 

John.

Edited June 3, 2009 by gozzer

[Worms]

Bear, if you're going to canoe a river then the reality is that it is simply not practical to get prior consent from every single landowner along the way. There are too many of them and I'm afraid it's not really feasable. What you have to do is canoe the river, without disturbing the flora or fauna, and then sort out the **** afterwards ... that's what we're trying to do here.

 

As for your point that canoing through an SSSI is disturbing the fishes habitat, well yes, I agree with you. But the whole Wensum Valley is an SSSI from Raynam all the way down to Norwich. There are various reasons for this but none of them have anything to do with the spawning of barbel. In fact, barbel are an invasive species which were introduced in the 60's.

 

In any event, canoeing down the Wensum is not disturbing the barbel as much as actually fishing for them with a hook and line. I think we're in danger of losing sight of the whole point as to why NACA are trying to re-instate the river in the first place.

 

The Environment Agency seem to think that if they can preserve a precious little barbel sanctuary on the Wensum then everyone will be happy.

 

But they're wrong. That's not why the public is paying to have the Wensum rejuvinated from the abuse and neglect of years gone by.

 

The reason the taxpayer is footing this particular bill is to create a recreational resource for all the citizens of this country ... and I'm afraid that includes canoists ...

Sorry to cast a downer on your Barbel theory but they are one of the reasons for the river's SSSI notification. this was lifted from the 1993 notification specifications.......

 

"Description and Reasons for Notification:

Key features

The Wensum has been selected as one of a national series of rivers of special interest as an

example of an enriched, calcareous lowland river. With a total of over 100 species of

plants, a rich invertebrate fauna and a relatively natural corridor, it is probably the best

whole river of its type in nature conservation terms, although short stretches of other

similar rivers may show a slightly greater diversity of species.

The upper reaches are fed by springs that rise from the chalk and by run-off from

calcareous soils rich in plant nutrients. This gives rise to dense beds of submerged and

emergent vegetation characteristic of a chalk stream. Lower down, the chalk is overlain

with boulder clay and river gravels, resulting in aquatic plant communities more typical of a

slow-flowing river on mixed substrate. Diversity of plant species is further enhanced by

mills and weirs; upstream the river slows to produce characteristic deep water plant

communities, whilst below the barriers they are replaced by species tolerant of swirling and

turbulent water.

Unusually for a lowland river in England, much of the adjacent land is still traditionally

managed for hay crops and by grazing, giving a wide spectrum of grassland habitats some

of which are seasonally inundated. The mosaic of meadow and marsh habitats, including

one of the most extensive reedbeds in the country outside the Broads, provide niches for a

wide variety of specialised plants and animals.

The River itself supports an abundant and diverse invertebrate fauna including the native

freshwater crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes as well as a good mixed fishery. Brown

trout Salmo trutta fario form the major component of the fish community of the upper

Wensum, whilst the middle and lower reaches are dominated by chub Leuciscus cephalus,

pike Esox lucius, eel Anguilla anguilla and barbel Barbus barbus. Kingfisher Alcedo attthis

and little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis breed along the River, whilst the adjacent wetlands

have good populations of reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus, sedge warblers

Acrocephalus schoenobaenus and barn owls Tyto alba."

 

As such, any of the notifiable species (not necessarily protected under other legislation) is covered under the Natural England SSSI enforcement policy statement:

 

"Any person

• Intentionally or recklessly damaging, destroying or disturbing any of the

habitats or features of an SSSI.

• Intentionally or recklessly damaging, destroying, obscuring or taking down a

site notice put up on land within an SSSI.

• Preventing one of our officers lawfully accessing an SSSI.

 

Enforcement action

Each enforcement case that we deal with is unique in either the way it has arisen or

the effect that it has had on the individual habitat and features of the SSSI. So, it is

not easy to set any guidelines about the enforcement action to take for every

possible incident affecting an SSSI given the wide variety of the wildlife and geology

that might be affected, or the scale and severity of damage and disturbance that

could be caused. However, we will carry out an ecological assessment of the

damage and disturbance caused based on the scale, vulnerability and rarity of the

habitat and features of the site in a local, national and international context."

 

It is then up to a Natural England Official, Environment Agency warden or Police Constable or other authorised person to decide whether you were comitting an offence. A landowner can also ask you to leave.

 

If the people who removed you from the river they could arguably be charged with assault or civil order offences. They can ask you to leave, as can any individual but they cannot legally forcibly remove you or bully (subjective) you into leaving.

 

A comparison case would be fishing in an area where a protected fish was spawning e.g. a shad, and you were legitimatelt fishing for trout. If you suddenly realised you were into a spawning shoal of shad then as long as you leave the area immediately then no law is broken.

 

My view is that as a lone canoeist, you are automatically leaving a spawning ground as you enter it (unless of course you are practicing slalom manouevres or something similar). No harm is caused intentionally or, in my eyes through a reckless action.

 

I sympathise, I don't canoe (have been about a dozen times but over 20 years ago) but I regularly encounter them where I fish. In recent years, without exception all canoeists have paddled through my swim quietly and to the far bank (not always the best place but I appreciate the logic!). Most of the times with a hallo.

 

Unfortunately I think that the mention of the very word Barbel drives some people into an irrational mood. I have met too many Barbel anglers who see these fish as the be all and end all but care little for the welfare of other fish and wildlife! The minority of course but it makes you wonder!

Edited June 3, 2009 by Worms

[Dick Dastardly]

Johns last post more or less sums it up for me Andy.Peter spends some time most days afloat so to even hint that he is anti boater is a bit daft. I aked before but as I guessed the way these people went about things is the real issue here.I to wouldnt have stood for anyone trying to force their veiws on me in this way either( providing that I felt that I was acting legaly and morally). But again that said Ive witnessed canoeists,bank side cyclists etc try to do the same.Indicative of the people who now populate the world we live in Im afraid.

 

Im not siding with any faction here as its not how it initially apears.It shouldnt be an angler v canoeist/boater/cyclist etc etc issue but the normal/balanced/rational person v the fanatical/selfish/idiot!

 

Why is it (not directed at you Andy as youve made your veiw clear) that so many canoeing,cycling,walkers(?) fall into this extreme want their own way (as if its a right) for free catagory?

[Dick Dastardly]

Unfortunately I think that the mention of the very word Barbel drives some people into an irrational mood. I have met too many Barbel anglers who see these fish as the be all and end all but care little for the welfare of other fish and wildlife! The minority of course but it makes you wonder!

 

 

Yes along with carp anglers most modern barbel anglers seem to have totally lost the plot with regards to their quarries actual relevance in life! Imagine how bizzare (and seemingly conflicting) a picture non anglers must get from witnessing such fanatacism?

 

Strange how other specialist anglers dont seem so driven this way? I wonder why? Maybe based on the eliteism they seem to (and certainly display) feel?