River signage

[robtherake]

It's not difficult to see why the subject would spark up such a spirited debate, Andy; I read the last one with great interest, although I think it pre-dated my time on this forum.

What concerns me is that, considering that the last one ground to such an impasse, whether there is any wisdom to pursuing what is essentially the same debate, with (for the greater part) the same people. Surely the end result can only be the same when the participants (combatants?) hold such strong and diametrically opposed views.

[barry luxton]

No Barry; I've read Andy's letters to the Angling Trust (the link's on another thread See post #539 ) where Andy states that he only canoes once a year, but strongly objects to the efforts of angling clubs (who rent those stretches for their members) to prevent canoe access.

 

Andy has every right to voice those opinions - this is democracy in action - but it was suggested (by the moderator) when his thread on canoe access was closed that an angling forum, run by and for anglers, was perhaps not the best place to continue his crusade, all things considered.

 

I don't canoe, yet i do support access to a common resourse for all. Because an angling club rent a stretch of water they expect exclusive rights to it? Yet the likes of the trust will be banging the drum as and when anglers are denied access to a particular strech of water for what ever reason.

 

On popular forums the only reason threads get closed is when it gets personal, long may that continue.

[Sportsman]

So what you are saying then Andy is that it is perfectly OK for water skiers and jetskiers to have free access to these waters.

[Steve Walker]

Unrestricted access simply means that whoever has the most disruptive activity wins.

[gozzer]

Unrestricted access simply means that whoever has the most disruptive activity wins.

 

Very true Steve, but that could be solved by the canoeists putting their own restrictions on who can use the water, ie, no power craft, size limits, etc.

Basically anything that could spoil it for them.

 

Nobody has unlimited access to anywhere, (as far as I know), no matter how common the resourse. There are even limits on using the air above us.

As I've said to Andy many times, I would be in favour of more access for canoeists, but not a complete right to roam.

 

John.

[Phone]

All,

 

I remember thinking. The "best" was to help Andy was simply not to engage him with discussing a "different" view. He was probably not going to change his mind because of the internet.

 

Sure enough, he has'nt changed his mind.

 

Logic would dictate - if he has equal rights to my property then I can bust up his property. That ain't right!

 

Phone

[andy_youngs]

So what you are saying then Andy is that it is perfectly OK for water skiers and jetskiers to have free access to these waters.

No, that would be dangerous. What I am saying is that if you were fortunate enough to own Breydon Water or Lake Windermere, then you would be entitled (and requested) to restrict jet ski access for the safety of the general public. But you would not be entitled to prohibit it completely.

 

Paddling a canoe down a river is not quite so invasive. But I still object to my taxpayers money (and my rod license money) being spent on lining the pockets of a few wealthy landowners, who then promptly turn around and say "sorry, you can no longer canoe through here"

Edited November 8, 2012 by andy_youngs

[andy_youngs]

Very true Steve, but that could be solved by the canoeists putting their own restrictions on who can use the water, ie, no power craft, size limits, etc.

Basically anything that could spoil it for them.

 

Nobody has unlimited access to anywhere, (as far as I know), no matter how common the resourse. There are even limits on using the air above us.

As I've said to Andy many times, I would be in favour of more access for canoeists, but not a complete right to roam.

 

John.

Erm, my understanding is that virtually the whole world outside of England, Wales and Northern Ireland has a recognised right to paddle their waterways.

[andy_youngs]

All,

 

I remember thinking. The "best" was to help Andy was simply not to engage him with discussing a "different" view. He was probably not going to change his mind because of the internet.

 

Sure enough, he has'nt changed his mind.

 

Logic would dictate - if he has equal rights to my property then I can bust up his property. That ain't right!

 

Phone

Too true, I understand this approach works well in Texas.

[Sportsman]

No, that would be dangerous. What I am saying is that if you were fortunate enough to own Breydon Water or Lake Windermere, then you would be entitled (and requested) to restrict jet ski access for the safety of the general public. But you would not be entitled to prohibit it completely.

 

Paddling a canoe down a river is not quite so invasive. But I still object to my taxpayers money (and my rod license money) being spent on lining the pockets of a few wealthy landowners, who then promptly turn around and say "sorry, you can no longer canoe through here"

 

 

I have been salmon fishing on the river N. Esk and been invaded by 20 canoeists who spent 40 minutes paddling about in the best pool on the beat, taking it in turns to shoot a small waterfall, setting up safety ropes across the river, all this whilst shouting, screaming and swearing at the top of their voices and verbally abusing and threatening me when I dared to complain.

They also blocked all of the access points to the river for several miles with their vehicles.

This was by no means an isolated incident on this particular river, a favourite with canoeists.

I paid quite a lot of money for my day on the river, they, as usual, paid nothing.

Not invasive?? Hah

Now you say that it should be OK for your special interest group to have free access wherever and whenever you want but not any other special interest group you don't happen to have a specific interest in.

Doesn't strike you as a touch hypocritical?

To tell the truth, you're just like me. You want it all to yourself, the difference is you just don't want to pay for it.

Then you come on here whining about the rights that you would happily ignore when it suits you.

Sorry, if you're looking for sympathy you'll find it in the dictionary, somewhere between sh1t and syphilis.