Navigation Rights continued

[snakey1]

The purpose of the Angling close season on rivers is to give spawning fish, nesting birds and other river-life the chance to raise their young with minimum disturbance.

 

Not to allow canoeists the opportunity to disturb the riverine environment without disturbing anglers.

 

I wonder how many young were abandoned as a result of your reckless jolly?

 

As far as encouraging others to do the same, there is a call from some anglers to abandon the close season using the argument that folk with boats and dogs do not share the same respect for wild-life, and increasing use by other river-users makes the close season pointless.

 

Do you really want to add weight to that argument and see anglers using the rivers all year round?

 

From the other side it is likely that there will be increasing calls for growing boating activity to be subject to closure during the breeding season to protect the wildlife of the river environment when it's particularly vulnerable to disturbance.

Come now Leon a bit over dramatic aren't we, if you wish to discuss environmental damage perhaps we could mention cormorant culls, goossander culls, calls to "manage" (read cull) otters (an endangered species) calls to shoot a seal because it had dared to stray into fresh water (I guess it didn't believe anglers had the rights to control navigation either), stocking rivers that are SSSI sites with non native fish thus imbalancing the delicate ecosystem. Thats without mentioning the damage disgarded line and hooks cause to native wildlife (which I would suggest causes greater losses of young birds & mammels than disturbances by passing canoes).

Edited August 12, 2013 by snakey1

[Leon Roskilly]

Come now Leon a bit over dramatic aren't we, if you wish to discuss environmental damage perhaps we could mention cormorant culls, goossander culls, calls to "manage" (read cull) otters (an endangered species) calls to shoot a seal because it had dared to stray into fresh water (I guess it didn't believe anglers had the rights to control navigation either), stocking rivers that are SSSI sites with non native fish thus imbalancing the delicate ecosystem. Thats without mentioning the damage disgarded line and hooks cause to native wildlife (which I would suggest causes greater losses of young birds & mammels than disturbances by passing canoes).

 

 

Hmmm!

 

The old (and totally bankrupt) 'A is OK because B' is worse argument (attempt at a swerve).

 

(eg The gun lobby points out more folk are killed by cigarettes).

 

 

Doesn't make it right though.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Leon Roskilly

[snakey1]

So you admit angling is more environmentally damaging then Leon ?

[Leon Roskilly]

So you admit angling is more environmentally damaging then Leon ?

 

 

I would suggest causes greater losses of young birds & mammels than disturbances by passing canoes

 

More to the point, you agree that canoeists cause the death of young birds and mammals as they disturb the river environment during the breeding season.

[snakey1]

More to the point, you agree that canoeists cause the death of young birds and mammals as they disturb the river environment during the breeding season.

Alas I have no proof that they do and the EA report on the effects of canoeing on fisheries indicates that that "the balance of scientific opinion considers that fish populations are not detrimentally affected by canoeing" and that "Many of the objections to allowing shared access on the basis that canoeing causes damage to fish stocks are untenable".

Perhaps if you have evidence that canoeing does cause the sort of damage your talking about you could post it Leon, I can always post some photos of birds caught up in fishing line and hooks if you wish to go down this particular road

[gozzer]

Alas I have no proof that they do and the EA report on the effects of canoeing on fisheries indicates that that "the balance of scientific opinion considers that fish populations are not detrimentally affected by canoeing" and that "Many of the objections to allowing shared access on the basis that canoeing causes damage to fish stocks are untenable".

Perhaps if you have evidence that canoeing does cause the sort of damage your talking about you could post it Leon, I can always post some photos of birds caught up in fishing line and hooks if you wish to go down this particular road

 

Err Snakey, you missed out the bit where it says, that the above is dependent on the water concerned, and the number of canoes using it.

 

John.

Edited August 12, 2013 by gozzer

[snakey1]

Sorry Gozzer, The full conclusion can be found on page 19 of this report http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/media/pdf/Pages%20from%20w266%20small%20part%201.pdf if anyone wants to read it.

.

Edited August 12, 2013 by snakey1

[Leon Roskilly]

Perhaps if you have evidence that canoeing does cause the sort of damage your talking about you could post it Leon, I can always post some photos of birds caught up in fishing line and hooks if you wish to go down this particular road

 

Sorry, How would that justify the damage done by canoeists disturbance during the breeding season?

[Jim Roper]

Andy_y

 

Are the riparian owners liable for your safety?

 

Phone

If you know that you have trespassers on your land, you have a duty of care toward them. Putting up a sign that says "Private propery, KEEP OUT" is the only way that you can assume you will not have trespassers. Perhps the signs should also be in the 27 EU languages!!!! With all the lefty lawyers willing to soak the legal aid system, nobody wants people raoming about on their land looking for an excuse to sue, due to injury caused by their own stupidity.

[snakey1]

Sorry, How would that justify the damage done by canoeists disturbance during the breeding season?

What damage Leon ? as I said I have no evidence nor have seen any to show that canoeing causes the damage that you claim it does perhaps if your were to post some evidence to back you claims...

As to justifying anything it simply points out that he who lives in a glass house shouldn't really throw stones and if you want to use environmental damage / injury to wildlife as a reason to restrict access to rivers then your on a very slippery slope downhill.

Edited August 12, 2013 by snakey1