Be warned!

[canoeist_steve]

Hello again

 

Here’s a post to answer some of the queries that have cropped up in the posts since my last submission.

 

Firstly, Bruno, I am aware that the slalom course at Holme Pierrepont is also a fish ladder. What my comment regarding the course was regarding is the use of the course by anglers. This equates me launching my canoe on a private fishing lake that exists solely for the use of fishermen.

 

Canoeists too are involved in cleaning up rivers as anglers do. We have “clean up days” where we cover large distances of rivers collecting all manner of junk. Canoes are especially good at getting to parts of the river that others can’t. I have been asked by fishing groups and other parties to help them in these situations and have always obliged. I commonly see discarded lines, floats and other angling equipment as well as other discarded items on many rivers and when it is safe for me to do so, I clear them up.

 

With regard to the payment for access, there are a number of ideas put forward by canoeists. The key thought among the majority is that we should not have to pay for access. Please stick with me and hear this out.

How does a canoeist on a river differ from a walker or hiker on a path, a rock climber on a crag, a horse rider on a bridle way, a surfer on a wave, cyclist on a cycle route? As far as I can see the only difference is the ground that we all take part in our sports on; mud, rock or water. It is plain to see that hikers cause massive damage to the environment, partially due to the numbers involved of course, but how many paths do they pay for access to? As a canoeist I get on a river, I paddle, or more often float downstream, and then get off without any damage being caused at all.

Correct me if I am wrong and again forgive my ignorance if any of this is untrue or misinterpreted but, an angler pays for his or her use of a rod in general (with the rod license) and a fee to fish in their chosen location. Apart from the proportion of money swallowed by the inevitable administration, what is the rest of the money going towards? I believe I have read (and I am not sure where, and please do correct me if I’m wrong) that a vast amount of money is spent on stocking rivers, lakes etc with fish or other management of the resources directly related to angling. As an angler you are removing fish from the river, that then need to be replaced. In some cases rivers are stocked to allow fishing to start up for the first time through previous overfishing, pollution, hydro or barrage schemes etc.

 

I am a member of the British Canoe Union. My membership includes a British Waterways License, entitling me to access to many miles of navigations. Under this license, there is recognition of different craft, both powered and unpowered and restrictions of what waters different craft are able to use.

 

As a canoeist I would be quite happy to pay for access to a river if it meant that I directly received some benefit other than the ability to float along. A path leading down to the waters edge, to park in a field, to change in a derelict barn etc. If this were the case I would happily pay a reasonable rate for a river. This does exist in a small number of locations where it works very well. (eg Slenningford Water Mill near Ripon if anyone knows it, they have parking, toilets, changing areas etc for canoeists, a excellent spot for angling I am informed and one where I commonly see anglers whilst paddling, who do not have any issues with me being there).

 

Take an example, a landowner has a river flowing through their land. If I get on the river upstream of his land, and get out downstream of his land, what have I actually done that he or anyone should receive payment for? Unless seen by anyone, it would be impossible for him/her to even tell I have passed through.

 

Many of the rivers I canoe on, I may paddle for upwards of 20km in a day. How many landowners will this mean encountering? It could be one, it could just as easily be forty! Should I be expected to pay each landowner a fee when I leave no trace of passing. All this would serve to do is line the pockets of the landowners.

 

I also believe that anglers should be allowed access to all rivers where it is practical to do so, just like canoeists. If there is a river you’d like to fish on, but are not allowed, then you too should be asking why and if there is no real reason, start pushing for it. Anglers should be pushing for free access to rivers, paying only the costs directly related to angling itself.

 

Do any of you know if anglers abroad pay similar fees to undertake your sport? I have paddled extensively throughout France, Switzerland, Austria, Norway and Canada and none of these countries charge canoeists to access water, but none of them have any issues with access. I am not aware of any country in the whole world that has a similar situation to us in England and Wales.

 

It would be foolish to think that with any developments in access that a canoe would remain undifferentiated from a powered craft. If this is a concern for the future of the river environments then this can be changed. Remember, the people who make the rules in this country are put there by us. If this problem is an obstacle to progress, then I’m sure it can be dealt with.

 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts regarding payment. It is never nice to have to pay for something that others can (or like canoeists, want to) use for free, however, its seems sensible to look at why you are paying, who you are paying and what for. Making canoeists pay, just because anglers do, does not make sense. It’s like asking pedestrians or cyclists to pay road tax. I would welcome any comments on any of the above and I continue to thank you for your feedback. I have learnt more about angling and the angling community’s opinions from this thread then anywhere else and on a less argumentative note, I hope that this friendly communication can continue.

 

All the best

 

Steve

[Peter Waller]

Many boaters do pay to navigate, the charge being towards maintaining the river. No different to anglers paying their whack to maintain a fishery.

 

Apart from our licence to fish, many anglers pay a fee to fish a particular stretch of water. But probably nothing goes directly to the fishing as such in that case. It is quite simply an income to the landowner. We pay for access. Some clubs add to the cost of their permits to improve the fishing.

 

If canoes have access over such rivers then the value of the fishery would be reduced, perhaps even wiped out. Why should the landowner loose out? In fairness the landowner should have, atleast, his income brought up to par by the canoists.

 

Landowners who hire out their property do so, as is their right, to create an income. They might hire a field out to the off-road brigade, so why not hire their river out to canoists, just as they do to anglers?

 

If canoists gain free access then access should be free to anglers. Please note that we are talking access, not the actual fishing. See the fishing as free, the access as the cost.

 

Whether a landowner makes a charge is up to them. But to charge anglers and not canoists would be patently unfair.

 

I pay to use a canoe on the Broads. I pay to fish. That seems quite reasonable. Free access to other waters seems hardly fair!!

[Leon Roskilly]

Steve,

 

Your arguments for 'free access' may seem reasonable, but they are disingenuous.

 

The crux of the matter is that what you are asking for here is the right to 'disturb anglers' enjoyment of their sport'.

 

A very different kettle of fish ('scuse pun)

 

You cannot be surprised if anglers move to protect their enjoyment, anymore than you would if an established activity that you were passionate about was similarly affected by some new activity.

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

(ps posters on this forum would be horrified at the thought of removing fish from rivers. All coarse angling is catch and release, and most coarse anglers are passionate about fish welfare, having special mats to lay their catch on, carrying antibacterial solution to treat sores etc, before returning fish to the water. And they are well versed in the correct handling of fish to avoid undue stress and the liklihood of disease due to handling)

 

[ 13. January 2004, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[kleinboet]

Listening to the to and fro of the arguments is extremely enlightening for both sides as there is a lot of 'opening up'. whilst as an angler I can see the point of having the water (which we have prebaited to get the fish feeding) all to ourselves. On the other hand, it would appear that the canoists would like the opportunity to use the river with as little disturbance to anglers as possible.

Of course you are going to get the odd 'nutter' on BOTH sides, but I think this is a chance for BOTH sides to work together. As posted previously canoists can 'clean up' areas that anglers cannot. can you imagine canoists HELPING anglers remove lines from snags etc. And as a combined force, anyone polluting rivers or causing damage to waterways better watch out!!!

[Lid]

quote:

---

Originally quoted by canoeist_steve

 

How does a canoeist on a river differ from a walker or hiker on a path, a rock climber on a crag, a horse rider on a bridle way, a surfer on a wave, cyclist on a cycle route?

---

The difference is that the walker, hiker, rock climber, surfer, horse rider and cyclist are all on public rights of way or in public places, whereas the waters being discussed here are on private land.

 

[ 13. January 2004, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Lid ]

[canoeist and angler]

quote:

---

How does a canoeist on a river differ from a walker or hiker on a path, a rock climber on a crag, a horse rider on a bridle way, a surfer on a wave, cyclist on a cycle route?

---

If you keep an eye on the News you will see that all these sports do have access issues relating to them.

 

Perhaps it is time to all work together under a unified banner of outdoor sports rather than bickering over particular areas of problems. Should we be suggesting that groups such as the BCU (canoe), CTC (cycling), BMC (hill sports) etc should form strong alliances to encourage more open access for us all?

 

Should angling not have a governing or advisory body that could work with these parties?

[Leon Roskilly]

Some gain access, some lose access.

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2003/031209a.htm

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Peter Waller]

Angling does have a well intended governing body .

 

There is some merit in working together. The problem is, as Leon has pointed out, that angling and canoing are not really compatible. So getting our NAA to work with you and other interested parties is not going to be easy. But it doesn't end there, as you might expect!

 

For better or worse angling has got itself linked up with the dreaded Countryside Allience . I'm not so sure that CA members will be keen on allowing yet more public access than has already been forced upon their members. Half our numbers apparently support the CA, the other half are totally opposed to any connections with them. Poor old angling will have to play piggy in the middle on that one !

 

A nice idea, probably doomed to failure!

[canoeist and angler]

I agree that there will always be areas that individual groups within any such coalition would disagree there are so many merits that surely it makes sense to work together.

 

How many political parties have never had any internal differences of opinion? but when presenting a united front are occasionally quite effective.

 

(ps please no debate on politcal parties etc please....)

[Nugg]

IS IT JUST A QUESTION OF REVENUE?

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/...c=&area=&month=

 

Based on 3.8mil anglers, allowing for junior and concessionaires, paying £22 for a licence is about £66mil

 

[ 14. January 2004, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Nugg ]