Angling Trust Forum

[Steve Coppolo]

I wonder who pulled the plug? Exactly who....

 

 

Don't know as they didn't sign off.

 

http://anglingtrust.forumotion.net/forum.htm

 

Guess, anyone?

[andy_youngs]

I sent the following email to Mark Lloyd on 15 July 2010:

 

I do not agree with the Angling Trust's decision to allow only Trust members to post on it's internet forum. I think it stifles open debate and undermines the whole point of an internet forum. At the end of day, if someone posts inflammatory remarks on an internet forum then you are perfectly at liberty to ban them; whether they're members of the Angling Trust should not enter into it.

 

The following reply was received 2 hours later :

 

I am very busy and have to prioritise communication with members. I am therefore not able to continue this discussion with you

 

Ho hum

[barry luxton]

I sent the following email to Mark Lloyd on 15 July 2010:

 

I do not agree with the Angling Trust's decision to allow only Trust members to post on it's internet forum. I think it stifles open debate and undermines the whole point of an internet forum. At the end of day, if someone posts inflammatory remarks on an internet forum then you are perfectly at liberty to ban them; whether they're members of the Angling Trust should not enter into it.

 

The following reply was received 2 hours later :

 

I am very busy and have to prioritise communication with members. I am therefore not able to continue this discussion with you

 

Ho hum

 

Thats your governing body telling you to get Stu@@ed, no doubt you will be in a great hurry to join so he can have a discussion with you.

Edited September 30, 2010 by barry luxton

[andy_youngs]

no doubt you will be in a great hurry to join so he can have a discussion with you.

Erm, no, I think shall pass on participating in that organisation full stop. If they're not interested in my opinions, then I'm not interested in swelling their coffers. Shame really, what a wasted opportunity.

[captain cojones]

Thats your governing body telling you to get Stu@@ed, no doubt you will be in a great hurry to join so he can have a discussion with you.

[Worms]

I sent the following email to Mark Lloyd on 15 July 2010:

 

I do not agree with the Angling Trust's decision to allow only Trust members to post on it's internet forum. I think it stifles open debate and undermines the whole point of an internet forum. At the end of day, if someone posts inflammatory remarks on an internet forum then you are perfectly at liberty to ban them; whether they're members of the Angling Trust should not enter into it.

 

The following reply was received 2 hours later :

 

I am very busy and have to prioritise communication with members. I am therefore not able to continue this discussion with you

 

Ho hum

Bloody hell! You're priviledged! A reply from Mark Lloyd and you're not even a member of the **** trust?

Edited October 1, 2010 by Worms

[andy_youngs]

Bloody hell! You're priviledged! A reply from Mark Lloyd and you're not even a member of the **** trust?

Well spotted Worms, getting a response from the man himself is not straightforward. For any doubters out there I attach a full text of the exchange (I've edited out any personal contact details in the interests of keeping the mods happy)

Angling_Trust_Exchange.doc

[barry luxton]

Well spotted Worms, getting a response from the man himself is not straightforward. For any doubters out there I attach a full text of the exchange (I've edited out any personal contact details in the interests of keeping the mods happy)

 

Don't doubt what the responce was, just that for some reason i can't open your link, how about sending the text by email, or putting it all up without the contact detail. thanks in advance.

[andy_youngs]

Don't doubt what the responce was, just that for some reason i can't open your link, how about sending the text by email, or putting it all up without the contact detail. thanks in advance.

 

I tried to pm it to you Barry, but it is doesn't seem to show up in my outbox. Maybe it's too long? Anyway, you're probably right. Needless to say, some will find it a bit controversial, but this is the politics section of the forum, and why should it only be visible to people who have access to microsoft word?

 

On the basis that it's still just about a free country, here goes. I suggest you scroll to the bottom and work you way up to the top :-

 

From: [Andrew Youngs]

To: [Mark Lloyd]

Cc: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee]

Sent: 15 July 2010 22:49

Subject: Re: River Wensum

 

That's fine Mark, no problem, please prioritise communications between your members. In the process, I hope you spare a thought for non-members.

 

All best wishes,

 

Andrew

 

 

----- Original Message -----

 

From: [Mark Lloyd]

To: [Andrew Youngs]

Cc: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee]

Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:55 PM

Subject: RE: River Wensum

 

Andrew,

 

Our policy is based on expert legal advice. We are aware of the research by Douglas Caffyn.

 

I’m sorry you’re not going to join to support our work.

 

I’m afraid I am very busy and have to prioritise communication with members. I am therefore not able to continue this discussion with you.

 

All best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

From: [Andrew Youngs]

To: [Mark Lloyd]

Cc: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee]

Sent: 15 July 2010 19:44

Subject: Re: River Wensum

 

Dear Mark,

 

Thanks for below email.

 

I don't necessarily agree that someones got to join the Trust for their views to be taken account of. I suggest that if someone's got a valid point of view then it is incumbent on the Trust to listen, irrespective of whether they are members or not. For that same reason I do not agree with the Angling Trust's decision to allow only Trust members to post on it's internet forum. I think it stifles open debate and undermines the whole point of an internet forum. At the end of day, if someone posts inflammatory remarks on an internet forum then you are perfectly at liberty to ban them; whether they're members of the Angling Trust should not enter into it.

 

I'm aware of the Trust's policy on inland navigation. This is a significantly more moderate stance than previous statements, which is obviously welcome. However I still find aspects the present policy objectionable, most notably the follow remarks :

 

The Trust does not advocate navigation or canoeing agreements on rivers:

 

i) Where there is potential for environmental damage to the river;

ii) On those small rivers where there is likely to be a significant risk of conflict between paddlers and anglers;

iii) On those where riparian owners, whose permission needs to be sought in law for access agreements, would suffer unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of their property

 

In setting up access agreements, it is important to draw attention to the difference between permission to gain access across land to a river (for launching etc) and permission to navigate. Clearly both are needed to allow access agreements to work well in practice.

 

The Angling Trust is very concerned that governing bodies of canoeing are frequently misstating the law on navigation on rivers in England and Wales and thereby encouraging conflict. This makes the commissioning of voluntary access agreements less likely or even impossible. However, this will not stop the Angling Trust continuing to promote access agreements as the way of increasing access for canoeists in line with Government and Environment Agency policy.

 

Basically, I believe that these statements are encouraging the more militant members of the angling community to actively enforce landowners riparian rights. I do not believe that is something that anglers should be doing. If a landowner wishes to close down public access to a river then it's up to him to try and enforce it, not angling clubs. As evidence of the type of behaviour which these policies are encouraging I enclose for your attention a letter which I wrote to the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association last June (to which I never received a reply), together with an email exchange between Canoe Englands local access officer on the Wensum and the chairman of the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association. You will note that the anglers are citing Angling Trust and Fish Legal national policy to defend their position. I think it's fairly self evident from this correspondence which side of the dispute is being unreasonable. I also see no evidence, on a local level at least, of any reluctance on the part of canoeists to enter into access negotiations.

 

The Trusts policy infers that riparian landowner rights are clearly established and enforceable in law. I do not believe this is a sensible or desirable line to take for two reason. Firstly, a great deal of research has been done which suggests that common law navigation rights may well exist on virtually all of our waterways, and if you ever ended up in court then there is a significant risk that you would lose (refer attached research by Douglas Caffyn). Secondly it infers that the Angling Trust would consider becoming involved in taking legal action against 'illegal' canoeing, when I do not really believe that there is any political will to do so.

 

Take my dispute on the Wensum for instance. I have been told by the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association that any canoeing on "their" stretches of river is illegal. As a result, I've gone out my way to do precisely that, and made a video of myself doing it which has since been posted on Youtube, see :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3NH8NFgRNU

 

I've actually stated in the video that I intend to do it again, and that I will incite others to do likewise. I've done this precisely to try and provoke a court injunction from the angling club / respective landowners so that we can argue it out in front of magistrate. But when their bluff is called in this way, the angling club / landowners lack the political will and legal certainty to enforce their own policies. As a result the present situation persists, whereby gangs of thugs patrol the riverbanks threatening and intimidating people.

 

At a national level, the British Canoe Union is not misstating the law on navigation, they are stating their interpretation of the law which is based on extensive and detailed research by their legal experts. Clearly, their interpretation of the law differs from yours, however I don't see it as particularly helpful for one side to publicly accuse the other of deliberately misleading people and encouraging conflict.

 

When angling clubs decide to become involved in closing down public access to a river, then ultimately it ends up dragging the reputation of all anglers through the mud. That is not something that I wish to be associated with. I'm not a regular canoeist. I go paddling once a year, usually during the closed fishing season. However I object in the strongest possible terms to a group of obsessively fanatical anglers telling me that I can't, and so I'm afraid that until such time as a satisfactory resolution to this dispute can be found, then I shall not be joining the ranks of the Angling Trust.

 

I appreciate that you have a very difficult job to do, and more often than not find yourself stuck between a rock and a hard place. However I trust you also understand my reasons for not wishing to sign up whilst this dispute remains unresolved.

 

Best regards,

 

Andrew

 

 

----- Original Message -----

 

From: [Mark Lloyd]

To: [Andrew Youngs]

Cc: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee]

Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:34 AM

Subject: RE: River Wensum

 

Dear Andrew,

 

Please find attached our policy on inland navigation.

 

I am always happy to respond to our members and we are setting up regional forums for members to make their wide-ranging views known.

 

Please join up and then we will be able to consider your views along with our other members’.

 

Many thanks,

 

Mark

 

 

From: [Andrew Youngs]

To: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee]

Cc: [Mark Lloyd]

Sent: 15 July 2010 01:01

Subject: Re: River Wensum

 

Thanks [Mr Chairman],

 

If I've got any further issues with the Angling Trust then I'll take them up directly with Mark Lloyd (at least I've now got his email address).

 

I've got a surgery booked with my local MP on Saturday to discuss this. In the meantime I'm quite hopeful that the EA have been given a sufficient jolt to enable the situation on the Wensum to be solved locally. I've just had a long telephone conversation with the EA's new eastern area manager and he has agreed to facilitate a series of meetings between Canoe England's local access officer and the respective landowners on the contentious stretches of the Wensum.

 

It's a positive step forward. I can't help feeling it shouldn't have to be like this though ...

 

Andrew

 

 

----- Original Message -----

 

From: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee]

To: [Andrew Youngs]

Cc: [Mark Lloyd]

Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:39 PM

Subject: Re: River Wensum

 

Dear Andrew,

 

Thank you for copying me this correspondence and I will forward it to Mark Lloyd. I know he is aware of the issue.

 

You probably already know that the Trust's policy statement on canoe access is available on its websitre.

 

Regards

 

[Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee]

 

 

----- Original Message -----

 

From: [Andrew Youngs]

To: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee]

Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 8:16 PM

Subject: Fw: River Wensum

 

Dear [Mr Chairman],

 

Please see below recent correspondence exchange between myself and the regional director of the Environment Agency.

 

I am forwarding this information to you principally to enable you to properly discharge your duties as a director of the Angling Trust, rather than in your capacity as chairman of REFRAC. However for your information, I would just bring to your attention that [canoeing interests which sit on your advisory committee] have been informed of recent developments.

 

The Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association have consistently maintained that they will be represented and supported by the Angling Trust and Fish Legal in any attempts to resolve this dispute. Personally I find this a highly improbable claim. Nevertheless, the assertion has been made, and I would just like to make sure that the Angling Trust is being kept appraised of what is said and done in their name. Perhaps therefore you would kind enough to make sure that the true nature of this dispute is brought to Mark Lloyd's attention.

 

For your information, this issue is the only reason that I have not yet joined the Angling Trust myself. As you know, I am a lifelong angler, and I hope you agree that it would be preferable from the Angling Trust's point of view to have me on the inside spitting out, rather than the outside spitting in.

 

In any event, these are important issues, and hope you will use your influence to ensure that the Angling Trust's national policy towards canoe access is moderated in such a way as to deny the intolerant and bigoted attitudes of a small minority of anglers the oxygen of national support.

 

Best regards,

 

Andrew

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

 

From: [Andrew Youngs]

To: [Regional Director of the Environment Agency]

Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 8:06 PM

Subject: River Wensum

 

Dear [Regional Director of the Environment Agency],

 

Thank you for your letter of 9 July 2010.

 

I acknowledge that right from outset of our correspondence exchange the Environment Agency have taken my complaint seriously and endeavoured to respond to the issues raised in a timely manner, albeit within the terms of their existing remit. As you know, I consider the remit as it stands at the moment to be totally unsatisfactory.

 

I feel that the issues have now been given sufficient transparency to allow the points on which we fundamentally disagree to be identified and that this is now a matter for the Ombudsman to address.

 

As such, I am not expecting you to respond to this message (unless of course you particularly want to). I merely wish to take this opportunity to clearly lay out the main points of contention.

 

You will no doubt be aware that this whole argument was recently inflamed when the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association participated in a live debate on Radio Norfolk, during which they confirmed that they considered any canoeing through "their" stretches of river as being illegal. They referred to canoeists as "environmental vandals" and described the allegation that they had engaged in threatening and intimidating behaviour as "complete rubbish". In short, I believe that they committed libel. It appears that these are not just the views of a few hotheads, but that such sentiments go right to the top of their organisation. All the way in fact to their Chairman. They are the stated views and policies of an unelected, unaccountable vested interest organisation with whom both you and Natural England are involved in ongoing partnering arrangements.

 

Everybody agrees that the present situation is unacceptable, but nobody seems willing or able to do anything about it.

 

The basic truth is that both Natural England and the Environment Agency have contrived to create this situation, and you are now trying to disassociate yourselves from the whole affair. I don't blame you for that. I wouldn't want to get involved in it either if I was in your position. However I fear that it's not quite as simple as that.

 

As you are aware, the key recommendation of the Wensum Restoration Strategy is the removal of artificial obstructions and mill structures to allow the river to naturally re-profile and provide an unobstructed corridor through which native wildlife species, many of which are endangered, can migrate.

 

Of a total fall in the river of 34m, some 60% of this fall occurs immediately downstream from mill structures. It is no coincidence that these are precisely the locations which have traditionally been the holding points for the Wensum's barbel population: ie, downstream from Lyng Mill, Taverham Mill, Costessey weir pool and Hellesdon Mill. There is therefore a fundamental conflict between barbel fishing on the Wensum and sound environmental management.

 

I have previously asked [the regional manager for the Environment Agency] to explain why these obstructions have not yet been removed and received the rather unconvincing explanation that feasibility studies have yet to be carried out.

 

I do not believe this explanation. I suggest that the real reason is because to do so would irreversibly damage the riffles which have already been created at Costessey and Lyng, and most likely destroy the extremely limited barbel habitat which currently exists on the Wensum.

 

I believe the truth is that the Environment Agency and Natural England have never had any intention of removing these mill structures, preferring instead to pander to the narrow self interests of a few obsessive people in the Barbel Society and the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association.

 

I believe the Environment Agency has always had a private agenda which comprises disregarding the requirement for the removal of mill structures in defiance of the Wensum Restoration Strategy, and then putting in place a protocol which would allow the ongoing introduction of a non native species of fish into a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation whenever the population density falls below a certain level.

 

By all means prove me wrong. I wish you would. I would welcome confirmation by return that the mill structures at Costessey and Hellesdon (which you own) will be removed immediately, and that you will initiate negotiations with the respective landowners for the removal of Taverham Mill and Lyng Mill. In fact such an undertaking would go a considerable way to reassuring me that the Wensum Restoration Strategy is being properly and fairly implemented. But somehow, I can't see that happening.

 

So, for as long as the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association are resisting canoe access on the river, then I shall be lobbying for these mill structures to be removed and for the draft barbel stocking protocol which you are trying to have sanctioned disallowed. To this end, I shall be seeking a surgery with my MP, with a view to requesting the involvement of Parliamentary Ombudsman. Similar requests have already gone out to the MP's for Norwich North and Norwich South, whose constituencies boarder the river at Costessey, and sympathetic members of my canoeing party who live in these constituencies are currently lobbying those MP's to become involved.

 

Finally, I would just like to comment on your offer to broker a meeting between the British Canoe Union and the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association. I accept that this offer was made in good faith, and that the British Canoe Union declined this invitation. I also appreciate that this was something which I initially asked for. However in so doing I think we have all misunderstood the respective roles of these organisations.

 

On reflection, I can fully understand why the British Canoe Union at a national level would not wish to attend such a meeting. The Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association are not even the landowners, let alone a nationally representative angling body. I can see that a meeting between national representatives from the Angling Trust and the British Canoe Union might be useful, however any such discussions would inevitably encompass a whole range of issues. I do not think that arranging such a meeting purely to discuss this one dispute would be a particularly wise use of anybodies time.

 

However at a local level, Canoe England's local access officer has repeatedly stated that he would welcome greater involvement and consultation in these issues. I suggest that any such discussions should therefore be between [bCU local representatives] and the respective landowners, possibly chaired and facilitated by you.

 

If such a meeting, or series of meetings, could be brokered then it's quite feasible that [the BCU local access officer] might ask me to provide some input in my capacity as a private individual with an interest in these issues. I would be happy to do that. Since I'm not a member of the Canoe England I really don't have a view either way. However the reality is that if it were possible to broker an agreement between Canoe England's local access officer and the respective landowners then the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association would have to come into line and the dispute would be largely resolved.

 

I hope you consider this to be a sensible suggestion, and thank you for your ongoing efforts in securing a satisfactory resolution to this dispute.

 

Best regards,

 

Andrew Youngs

Edited October 4, 2010 by andy_youngs

[barry luxton]

All received thanks, found the problem, i have works loaded, not word.

 

You are between a rock and a hard place, i'm supprised that the trust don't wish to communicate more with you both as an angler and also the problem regarding angling and other river uses. That is just one issue that rests heavily within their mantra of what they are doing for angling and the rivers , as such there must be a heck of a lot of anglers interested in this one subject, yet it appears that the trust are filing it in 13 and will only deal with the issue if you are a paid up member and or tell them about it. Sad really as the reply you received from the trust comfirms that it wants your money, when only then they may consider your veiws. As the all emcompassing governing body........................................

 

Regarding the trust. Personally i've bitten the bullet, on another forum i have decided to offer the trust five years membeship fees up front. The only caveat from my point of veiw is sight of their sea committee meeting minutes where they discussed the eel take ban, fair swop that one. Anyone got a copy.