Be warned!

[random]

sorry guys... but throughout this argument one misnomer has been bugging me....

the land owner does not own the water.... he owns the LAND... this means the owns the bank...

from my perspective as an open minded canoeist... when i go to a river the permission i would seek would be that of the LAND owner whose LAND i cross to get on and off the river...

the water is not owned by him.. you guys pay for the right to sit there on his land to fish not the water in which you fish...

before everyone gets up tight on this one... i am all for access to rivers in this country, i have no intention of paddling on fishing lakes and on the rivers i do paddle should i encounter a fisherman i always ask where best to pass...

unfortunately in any sport you do get a narrow minded group who believe in no comprise, but its not just us, canoeist cars whilst parked up on rivers with negoiated and paid for access are still vandalised by fisherman but we accept that this is just a narrow minded selection of anglers not the view off all...

i hope every one keeps an open mind on this discussion and i'll be interested to see how it all pans out...

cheers

Dominic

[ian-paddler]

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.

I just wanted to point out that the waterways in hte UK can not be privately owned. a person can own the river bank and therefore access / egress points but they can not own the river therefore as far as i see it there is no difference from the walker, hiker, rock climber, surfer, horse rider and cyclist; becuase the waterways are public.

[ian-paddler]

sorry hadn`t read the previous post.

[Lid]

I know that the water is not owned by the landowner, although the sporting rights are.

However I did not know that the water in our rivers was deemed a public right of way!

 

Is it therefore legal for any person to get onto to any UK river (from a public access point) and canoe up and down it as long as they do not touch the banks when on private land. And what happens if they have to stop and touch the bank due to an obstacle, sickness or injury?

 

[ 15. January 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Lid ]

[kayak_dave]

First can I say how refreshing it is to find a discussion like this, where the two opposing sides aren't just ranting at each other...

 

Here's my contribution to the discussion (from a Scottish perspective) - please forgive the length:

 

It seems like there may be some confusion amongst fishermen about the type of water for which english/welsh canoeists are pressing for greater access.

 

The vast majority of recreational canoeists have no interest whatsoever in paddling on lakes, (artificial or not) or placid water. I have been boating regularly (most weekends) for eight years, in which time I can honestly say that I could count on my fingers the number of times I have paddled on true flatwater. (In contrast I have made hundreds of whitewater descents)

 

It holds as much interest for the average paddler as fishing in a swimming pool would have for you. What paddlers are looking for is increased access to whitewater rivers, where the aim is to descend quickly and with a minimum of fuss from the top of the run to the bottom.

 

I appreciate (with the benefit of some of the very enlightening responses from fishermen here) that a canoe passing may well spoil your day. I do not dispute that our sports are fundamentally opposed.

 

I would have thought, from a completely logical perspective, that the reason anglers pay is that they inherently require the use of the landowner's property (the bank and the fish). All canoeists require are two access points - our sport is entirely orientated towards the river which is emphatically not owned by the landowner. Someone pointed out that we might pass by forty landowners' properties on the course of a run - why should they expect to be paid?

 

We take nothing with us and leave nothing behind. No erosion, no significant disruption to the environment at all. (I'm aware that the meaning of significant is open to debate). As far as I am aware, uncounted thousands of paddler-descents on rivers everywhere have had no measurable effect on fish stocks or their breeding habits?

 

So you can see that, from our point of view, paying the same price for access as an angler feels unreasonable. Personally, I can see no problem with paying for the use of facilities where they exist (car parks, changing/showers, etc).

 

I suggest that the problem is more that anglers are made to pay, rather than canoeists are not. Why should you have to pay to enjoy nature? I refer not to the maintenance of fish stocks, but the simple act of access.

 

To finish, I'd like to point out that, no matter how many million miles of rivers there are in the UK, only a very few make good whitewater runs. Of all the rivers in Scotland I would be pushed to think of twenty really good runs for a paddler of my ability (where the average length might be 10k) - this is a very small proportion.

 

It simply isn't meaningful to refer to the total length of river to which paddlers have access.

 

It's hard for me to get worked up about the english paddling access since the situation north of the border is so good, but I'd suggest the BCU and groups of paddlers simply club together and buy little strips of land for access at either end of the best runs. It shouldn't be too hard to force good access through this way?

[Peter Waller]

ian-paddler:

ian-paddler:

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.

I just wanted to point out that the waterways in hte UK can not be privately owned. a person can own the river bank and therefore access / egress points but they can not own the river therefore as far as i see it there is no difference from the walker, hiker, rock climber, surfer, horse rider and cyclist; becuase the waterways are public.

Apparently there are three rights here, one of custom, one of access and one of navigation. Provided that you can access a tidal water from the sea you can freely navigate that river, and fish it! In the event of injury or foul weather you have a right to moor to the bank, but not to cross it except in emergencey. When a river is not directly connected to the sea you then need access, the right to cross someones land and launch a boat, or canoe. A right can be granted, it can also be by custom. If neither exist then you are unable to use that water. Most footpaths and bridal ways have been created by custom. Without going into extreme depth that is basically it in simple terms.

[Peter Waller]

Kayak Dave. Yours is an interesting post, thank you.

 

The two routes in the Eastern Counties that are under consideration, I nearly said 'threat', are both touring routes. I really don't think there is any 'white water' involved whatsoever. At no point on these rivers is there a clear run, portage and access over private land is a must.

 

What I understand to be white water is what I would consider unfishable, so you would be welcome to it! I have to say that other anglers might disagree. But like us having to pay for our access I feel it fair that you should pay for yours! If no one else wants it then you might get it for free!!

 

At the end of the day the presence of canoes must, in this money grabbing world, have some effect on the value of a river as an amenity. That point I have covered earlier.

 

There are other important points. I attended one of the consultative meetings where all interested parties could attend. A local canoe club was totally opposed! Their reasoning being that there were enough canoes on their local water as it was. Holiday interests also objected, claiming it would spoil the charecter of the water, the charecter being what their clients wanted, and paid for. Landowners also objected, one major worry being the constant threat of 'compo' claims. An example being that canoes would have to portage through one gravel run. This particular run being near a bridge there is always broken glass from the stone throwing fraternity. If a canoeist is injured then who is responsible? Angling clubs take out hefty insurence. Not all these proposed water ways carry much depth so portage is a probability, thus a landowners consent is a must. The point that I am making is a simple one, it isn't just anglers who are opposing these proposals.

 

Back to White Water, it is a commercial world out there. If you want to use it then make an offer to the landowner, it's what we have to do. I can't see that canoists should consider themselves above paying for what they want.

 

I sometimes fish at Bathampton, near Bath! Lovely white water weir there. A canoe or two probably wouldn't cause a major problem. But if there were quite a few, and if those having just finished their run were to go down river only a few yards, perhaps to clear the way for the next canoe to come through, then the fishing would be destroyed, and good fishing it is too.

 

There is no easy answer to this one, sorry!

 

As an after-thought I would add that it seems that canoists want 'something for nothing'. And that that 'something' will spoil the pleasure of those of us who pay for what we have. Okay, sometimes we pay nothing, relying on the generosity of landowners, but at the end of the day we don't wish to see what we have being spoilt. You might regard that as selfish, and maybe it is. But think of yourself and your girlfriend as sunbathing on 'your' piece of beach. All peace and quite, bliss. Then, out of the blue a group of lads walks between you, (between angler and fish,) and starts a game. Would you be best pleased? I doubt it!

 

[ 15. January 2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[ian-paddler]

hello,

 

i wasn`t too clear before, access to navigations is licensed by british waterways, which is covered by joing the BCU. so as peter rightly pointed out so long as there is a public right of way (foot path or bridal way or road, what ever) then access is possible. i admit i`m not too sure about where the boundry lies, i beleive that britsih waterways do in fact own part of the bank (pleasure craft have right to moor up) so as far as portaging goes i`m not sure whether a specific arrangement should be made for portaging a rapid or weir or whether it is covered as being the river bank and therefore part of the waterway.

 

The point of canoeists considering themselves 'above paying for what they want.' is totally not true, i know of several locations, such as River Tees (high force hotel and whorlton brdige) and Slenningford Mill on the Ure where canoeists pay money for access and ammenities but what most canoeists, myself included object to is land owners of the land the river passes through claiming that they should have a right to demand money.

 

ian

[kayak_dave]

Well,

 

To be honest I'd feel a bit stupid if I cut myself on glass on the bank, and certainly wouldn't consider legal action against anyone... canoeing is a high-risk sport (requires better insurance than off-piste skiing or rock climbing when we go abroad). If I was stupid or inattentive enough to get hurt on the bank it'd be my own lookout... (although I see your point, and it is a valid one)

 

With respect to the two proposed routes you mention, I must confess to having little knowledge of touring practices. When I consider it, I suppose rivers could get shallow, causing inevitable contact between canoes and the bottom. (Whitewater paddlers rarely bother getting on if the river is shallow... what would be the point? Our sport is about pure water, not lubricated river beds...)

 

There do seem to be many more issues pertaining to 'touring' runs, and I can't say I have neat solutions to any of them.

 

Perhaps if expanding access was directed towards 'proper' whitewater (of the kind that, yes, I wouldn't have thought has much potential for fishing!) anglers would feel less under threat?

 

As a qualifier, I'd say any river which permits upstream navigation for an appreciable distance, or would permit the passage of any larger craft (rowing boat, boats with motors, etc) doesn't count...

[Peter Waller]

The threat, if that is the right word, is to established fisheries. I can't speak for other anglers but I would have thought that the white water issue is one that could have been sorted out amicably. Unfortunately civil servants have entered the debate, pointless job creation. In doing so they have targetted touring routes, and threatened anglers.

 

I would have thought that if canoists were to say 'No, we don't want full access over prime fishing rivers, we just want limited access to areas where anglers generally don't fish, then we could work together.

 

At the moment it appears that the BCU is demanding access over 20 miles and more of touring route on various angling rivers. They also wish to create long distance routes by linking routes. The link between the Ouse and the Waveney requires a fair amount of portage. If this is not what canoists want then they should say so.