Jump to content

right of access


Recommended Posts

Snakey,

 

Great stuff.! However, just as it is with angling evidence - so it is with canoe evidence. Definition of "empirical" - "depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory"

 

IMO room for everyone.

 

Phone

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the 14-15 yr old report a case of money spent on 'stating the obvious'.

Adding a 'result' of a 'survey', then saying it depends on the water, and the number of canoes, as to whether it's true!

Not very conclusive. There are waters where the presence of canoes will make little, (if any), difference to either the angler or the fauna, in or around a river. There are other sections where they will be detrimental to both. The recent video by Mr Youngs, shows several canoes having to be pulled along by the group, scraping the river bed, because the water was not much more than ankle deep, for instance. IMO, not a water fit for canoeing.

In other threads on the subject, I've told of times when boats have had no effect on my days fishing, and others when they have ruined a complete day for several anglers, it depends on the water concerned, and the number of boats. Anecdotal evidence to you maybe, but experience to me.

 

I will agree with part of the survey that mentions some kind of registration for boats. Some kind of well displayed number, that can be traced to the owner, so that any misdemeanors can be laid at the door of those responsible.

Just as there are irresponsible, and unruly anglers, there are also canoeists who act the same. The difference is that a canoe can be away down the river, a lot faster than a land based angler could move, so much harder to catch.

 

I think most anglers would be in favour of greater access to suitable waters, but the canoeists I've spoken to, and read comments from, want a complete right of access, anywhere, any time. This I think, is the major stumbling block to any solution and/or agreement.

 

John.

Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluedun

I've seen this report. It's a pretty flimsy piece of work - a literature review and questionnaire. Not really going to learn much new from that. In any case, how would one measure the damage caused by canoes without putting it to the test and causing damage? No one is going to be allowed to do such a study.

 

Deep rivers are not going to affected much by canoes, especially when they are navigated by powered boats too. It's the shallow trout and salmon rivers that would be worst affected; canoe bottoms and paddles scraping the gravel would certainly have some impact on the habitat; and fishing such waters with canoes would be impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not post some proof of your own claims Barry?

 

Proper solid scientific proof....

I can back up my posted words re the trust, I can challenge the trusts cormorant position by asking for solid evidence that the problem eastern European cormorant flocks (as mentioned by Mr Salter during a radio interview) have decimated the middle reaches of the avon, by asking for video of photographic evidence of these flocks at work, the only bit of video I have seen from the trust is a nesting colony of cormorants while claiming decimation. I would love to see these birds at work, to date I have not.There's a brilliant roach fishery in the south along side a rspb reserve while also alongside one of the largest mullet stocks in the uk.. I might just shut up if they can produce the goods. Interesting study of what the cormorant actually eats and from where river or still water, that was carried out recently. 90% still water food. That's on the trusts face book page btw. Any mandate from the rsa re the eel take ban that the trust was involved with? At the time they claimed it was discussed within their sea committee, then changed to a letter being sent. Any mandate from the rsa re the tope take ban reaffirmation? What about the link with the rsa in with the failed cfp, the trust are cock a hoop about that one, any mandate. Bit off topic so I will be quiet and wait for bluedan to come up with the 'etc' goods re canoe damage, recon he can? Notice bluedan mentioned the state of the bass fishery in the uk, wondering if he actually does any, any foto's? B)

  • Like 1

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

link to EA report on the effects of canoeing on fish stocks for anyone who wants evidence either way http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/media/pdf/Pages%20from%20w266%20small%20part%201.pdf

Thanks very much snakey, is this the report bluedan is distancing himself from? It would be good to see anything of substance to challenge this report, I don't hold out much hope though. :thumbs: I note that the anglers within the report, where claiming damage to the beds, yet nothing of substance to back it up.

 

this bit is most interesting, the salmon use riffles during late autumn, winter, so that lets the canoeists off the hook on that one, followed by most course fish use plant to lay their eggs, while just the dace was used as evidence of using gravel to spawn. So this one report has enough as far as I can see to challenge bluedan to put up.

 

I also remember reading on the trusts web site their concern for disturbance of fish spawn by the canoeists over the gravel beds, This one report, certainly challenges their claim somewhat.

Edited by barry luxton
  • Like 1

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluedun

Here barry goes round the mulberry bush again.

 

Barry: Where's the evidence?

Others: Here in this survey, this report, these observations.

Barry: Thought so. No evidence at all. I'm right because I always am.

 

In the world of blustering barry, there is no proof. How's your old mucker Bob The Conspiracy Theorist doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen this report. It's a pretty flimsy piece of work - a literature review and questionnaire. Not really going to learn much new from that. In any case, how would one measure the damage caused by canoes without putting it to the test and causing damage? No one is going to be allowed to do such a study.

 

Deep rivers are not going to affected much by canoes, especially when they are navigated by powered boats too. It's the shallow trout and salmon rivers that would be worst affected; canoe bottoms and paddles scraping the gravel would certainly have some impact on the habitat; and fishing such waters with canoes would be impossible.

A flimsy piece of work you may say but as you haven't posted anything to the contrary (flimsy or otherwise) it seems to be the only evidence forth coming on this thread.

I would assume that paddles scraping the gravel could have an effect on the habitat of shallow salmon and trout streams in the same way that wading anglers could.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluedun

I found the 14-15 yr old report a case of money spent on 'stating the obvious'.

Adding a 'result' of a 'survey', then saying it depends on the water, and the number of canoes, as to whether it's true!

Not very conclusive. There are waters where the presence of canoes will make little, (if any), difference to either the angler or the fauna, in or around a river. There are other sections where they will be detrimental to both.

 

This is what the British Canoe Union tell their members (see their website):

 

"Gravel banks may contain fish spawn – avoid paddling over them in low water conditions",

 

so they acknowledge there is a potential problem. As I said above, definitive proof is unlikely to be obtained without wrecking a fishery. And this report is no more than a survey of what's already known - as you say, stating the obvious - prepared by a commercial company - ie not an academic study. Even if the odd canoe had little impact on a shallow stream, a regular run of them would almost certainly disrupt weed (important for invertebrates, fish cover) as well as gravels. And one could hardly cast to rising fish with canoes bearing down. Common sense really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluedun

A flimsy piece of work you may say but as you haven't posted anything to the contrary (flimsy or otherwise) it seems to be the only evidence forth coming on this thread.

I would assume that paddles scraping the gravel could have an effect on the habitat of shallow salmon and trout streams in the same way that wading anglers could.

 

Well, snakey, as I pointed out above, definitive evidence is almost impossible to obtain. That doesn't mean we should shrug and let the canoes have free rein. I don't know whether you fly fish, but if you do you will be clear that canoes don't mix with fly fishing. Wading can in principle be disruptive - depends how and when it's done - but since fish spawn outside the fishing season, wading won't impact there. Canoes, however, operate are all year round. It is the clear potential to do damage rather than the certainty. Since canoists have access to plenty of water, it's not unreasonable to keep them away from good fly water.

 

Perhaps there is a parallel here with cormorants. Anglers demand they are shot, whereas the RSPB want definitive evidence, which of course is hard or impossible to obtain. But in some circumstances at least, it is self-evident that a large flock of resident cormorants are going to consume a large amount of fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.