Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd fail to deliver again

[andy_youngs]

From the outside looking in on the debate, you're losing

Do you still think I'm losing?

Edited January 3, 2012 by andy_youngs

[andy_youngs]

I also note that benyon has poked his nose in and states that more should be done to allow more access for canoes, well my interpretation of your link again states that they already have navigation rights. So what's needed to be done is the likes of benyon to either scrap access, if he dares or reinforce it in parliament with unequivical legislation to suit current needs.

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 ....

[Bob Shotter]

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 ....

 

Hum changing laws, or scrapping laws, amount to much the same process and can become costly, remember we are talking the removal of owners’ rights and these owners are already duty bound on other counts.

 

My gut feeling is and it could be wrong, but the move I would look into is to seek some clarification of how good these ubtried laws are and that I believe is best done by way of a judicial review. It’s time for your cannoning union to show some mussel Andy.

[gozzer]

Andy, I'm no fan of the ATr, Mark Lloyd or Martin Salter, as anyone on here will know. I also know of waters where canoeing and angling can coexist, and those where it would be nigh on impossible. I have read the thread on FM and I don't think you have helped your case by your approach. Knowing that you were in 'enemy territory', I don't think it was a good idea to come out 'all guns blazing', calling people "fascists" and "complete ******". It also went qbout 50 posts, (a half dozen or so from you), before you acknowledged Martin Salters offer of a debate. To onlookers it looked like you were dithering, and about to back down. Then you seemed incensed when he didn't acknowledge you! While I don't agree with the 'ban' by the FM, I'm not surprised, and I struggle to think what you thought would be the outcome. Surely you expected it?

 

While we are on the subject of acknowledging posts, I notice you have failed to comment on Leons post, laying out the facts of anglers access to waters. To make a comparison would require canoeists to first pay a fee to use a canoe, and then negotiate access rights with the controlling body/bodies. Do you think that the BCU would be in agreement with that?

 

John.

[Phone]

Andy,

 

To add to Gozzer's post. Well, maybe not his post but he makes sense. "Constructively" don't bring America into this. We have nowhere near the situation you describe in the UK and the radicals solve what few problems there are with big hand guns. We have lots and lots of water with unlimited access.

 

Equally, by comparison we have as many law enforcement officers on the water (in boats) as we have in cars on the roadway. It costs, (in taxes) as much to "run a boat, any kind as it does a car. Freshwater boat guys don't get a free lunch.

 

Phone

[andy_youngs]

Andy, I'm no fan of the ATr, Mark Lloyd or Martin Salter, as anyone on here will know. I also know of waters where canoeing and angling can coexist, and those where it would be nigh on impossible.

I'm afraid I just don't see that Gozzer. I went trout fishing on the Test for the mayfly hatch last year. I didn't see a canoeist all day, and if I had done, he would no doubt have been lynched. But that doesn't make it right. In the event I managed to pull out a couple of sorry looking stock fish around the 5lb mark, who's fins were virtually worn away to nothing. They were easy to catch, and it was not dissimilar to pulling a damp sack out of the river.

 

In hindsight, I wish I had seen a canoeist. I've got a hunch that they would have been getting considerably more out of the river experience than I did, so good luck to them.

 

Conversely, I went salmon fishing on the Ness in Scotland several years ago, and had the best days fishing of my life. Me and a mate caught 8 salmon in a day between us. Best fish was 14lb, all caught on the fly, and over the course of the day, several canoeists passed by. I gave them a friendly wave, they gave me friendly wave back, and the conviviality and mutual respect actually added to the enjoyment of my day.

 

Canoeists co-exising with these 'angling interests' might seem improbable, but just because it costs a lot of money to pursue certain fish in certain rivers, does not mean that anglers have the right to close down a public resource to other river users.

 

I have read the thread on FM and I don't think you have helped your case by your approach. Knowing that you were in 'enemy territory', I don't think it was a good idea to come out 'all guns blazing', calling people "fascists" and "complete ******".

Yeah, ok. But also, the only people I criticised are in the public eye, and I expect higher moderating standards. Knowing they had an 'enemy' in their midst should have made them ultra cautious. It has since been pointed out to me that I may have a case for pursueing the matter further on grounds of discrimination. I'm not really interested in doing that - even if I did get the ban over-turned, I wouldn't really be interested in posting on that forum again. But I do think they should be careful not to open themselves up to that type of action.

 

For the record, I'm not prepared to retract the accusation of fascism, because I think it's true. The ******* charge I would possibly retract, but given that nobody knows what the word was in the first place, I don't see the point.

 

It also went qbout 50 posts, (a half dozen or so from you), before you acknowledged Martin Salters offer of a debate. To onlookers it looked like you were dithering, and about to back down. Then you seemed incensed when he didn't acknowledge you! While I don't agree with the 'ban' by the FM, I'm not surprised, and I struggle to think what you thought would be the outcome. Surely you expected it?

I appreciate what you say Gozzer. The impression of 'dithering' I think was given because it was a highly controvercial and topical discussion in which many people were posting simultaneously and then editing their posts retrospectively. That's fine, it's no different to what I do, but it did make it difficult to for me to be clear about exactly what was being said - the posts were coming faster than I could assimilate them. When debating such controvercial issues, I think there is a lot to be said for posting a comment and then standing back for 2 - 3 days to let people post their views and make sure that their views presented in a format which they feel comfortable with. Of course then you open yourself up to accussations of dithering, so you really can't win.

 

While we are on the subject of acknowledging posts, I notice you have failed to comment on Leons post, laying out the facts of anglers access to waters. To make a comparison would require canoeists to first pay a fee to use a canoe, and then negotiate access rights with the controlling body/bodies. Do you think that the BCU would be in agreement with that?

What do you want me to say about it? I understand perfectly well where he's coming from, I just think he's wrong. Sure, I could provide a detailed point-by-point reply, and if I feel I'm being pushed into a corner then I will. But it would just be repetition of things I've already said.

Edited January 5, 2012 by andy_youngs

[Phone]

Andy,

 

You're doing better.

 

Phone

[andy_youngs]

Andy,

 

To add to Gozzer's post. Well, maybe not his post but he makes sense. "Constructively" don't bring America into this. We have nowhere near the situation you describe in the UK and the radicals solve what few problems there are with big hand guns. We have lots and lots of water with unlimited access.

Don't see why America shouldn't be brought into this. England and Wales are virtually the only countries in the world where navigation rights are not acknowledged. Out there in the new world, you've got big rivers, and big guns. Back in little old england, we've also got big rivers. Maybe what we need is a few John Wayne characters to level the playing field.

 

Equally, by comparison we have as many law enforcement officers on the water (in boats) as we have in cars on the roadway. It costs, (in taxes) as much to "run a boat, any kind as it does a car. Freshwater boat guys don't get a free lunch.

 

Phone

Interesting Phone, but we're talking about access rights for unpowered craft. Paddling a canoe without the aid of an electric or combustion engine. I don't understand how anyone could argue that this is anything other than a benign activity.

[andy_youngs]

Andy,

 

You're doing better.

 

Phone

Thanks

[gozzer]

I too can cite instances of my meetings with canoeists while fishing Andy. On the Yorkshire Ouse, the Ure, parts of the Wharfe, Trent, Witham etc, no problem. But on the rivers Whiske, Rye, Dove, Yorkshire Severn, (all of which are between 15 and 20 ft wide, and 2 to 4ft deep, much of the time), it has been a disaster. If you are fishing, and suddenly you see a bow wave heading downstream, and hundreds of fish scatter downstream passed you, driven by a couple of canoeists, that's your day ruined. They can carry on enjoying their day, but ruin it for every angler they pass. Hardly an equal sharing of the river is it?

 

What do you think was wrong about Leons post? We pay a license fee to legally use a fishing rod (2 actually), that's a fact. It doesn't entitle you to fish anywhere you please, also a fact. There has to be some negotiation, (and usually a payment on top of the license fee), with those who own the land and/ or fishing rights, that's also a fact. Without an agreement and/or payment we leave ourselves open to prosecution, for trespass and/or poaching.

I did ask you if you thought the BCU, (and I'll add canoeists in general), would agree to the same restrictions and payments. You didn't say what you thought.

 

John.