Be warned!

[argyll]

....and of course anglers.

[Nugg]

argyll:

Come on Peter thats a load of tosh. Put the bottle down and go to bed you'll feel better in the morning.

[Ian Bass]

Simple answer, take along your beachcaster and a few 4 or 5 oz weights and have a bit of target practice!!!!

 

They'll soon get the message. Our local yacht club did when they came to near the pier. A few ripped sails, never saw them again, or if we did it was at a VERY long distance

 

Anglers 1 Sailors 0

 

[ 12. November 2003, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: Ian Bass ]

[waterman1013]

Peter

 

Apathy will not allow this to happen, neither will the NAA and its constituent members, who have been involved in all the discussions with Government of this topic. For information there are some references posted below for one of the most recent consultation meetings.

 

WATER BASED SPORT AND RECREATION

 

Improving Access for Canoeing on Inland Waterways – A Study of the Feasibility of Access Agreements

 

Progress Report – April 2003

 

 

Introduction

The Countryside Agency has been invited by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to undertake a feasibility study into the potential for extending access to inland waterways for canoeists by voluntary agreement. The purpose of this note is to inform you about the project and to advise you how to get further updates and information.

 

Background

Research undertaken for DEFRA and others in 1999 (Water based sport and recreation - the facts) concluded that although there was no overall shortage of water resources in England and Wales, the volume and type of water resources and their availability for recreation vary between regions (the full report can be found at http://defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/r...tersports.pdf). The research recognised that while latent demand is currently low, more promotion and improved facility development could stimulate participation in some activities, including canoeing. Canoe clubs and stakeholders were reported to desire more whitewater stretches and longer stretches for touring. In response to this, the Minister for Rural Affairs wrote to the Countryside Agency in July 2002 to ask it to take the lead in setting up some pilot projects in England to examine the feasibility of extending access for canoeing by voluntary agreement.

 

Action

A project brief was developed by the Countryside Agency and sent to eight firms of consultants with an invitation to submit a costed proposal by 24 February 2003. The brief required consultants to:

x review existing access agreements;

x gather further background;

x propose case study sites;

x identify landowners and managers, other proprietary interests, potential users and others with an interest in more canoe access;

x explore factors and issues with local stakeholders;

x establish costs involved for compensation, improving access infrastructure and facilities, and for present and future management;

x identify sources of funding;

x negotiate outline agreements (using the Angling and Canoeing Liaison groups guide ‘Agreeing access to water for canoeing’;

x report on the feasibility of improving access for canoeists by access agreements.

 

If the feasibility is encouraging, the Countryside Agency will move to an implementation phase in years 2 and 3.

 

The University of Brighton, in association with Roy Hickey, was appointed to run the feasibility project for the Countryside Agency on 10th March 2003. They are currently gathering information and refining their database to help to draw up a long list of potential sites for further exploration.

 

Site selection

The aim is to select, by the end of May 2003, between 3 and 6 sites for detailed study. The locations will be selected by the Countryside Agency and project steering group, from a long list of sites recommended by the consultants. The aim will be to select sites which can demonstrate demand for canoe access, potential for access along stretches of water suitable for around 2 days touring (24 km) or more, and a range of water types. The sites will also aim to match the geographic gaps in provision identified by the earlier research. Areas that have potential to deliver economic benefits to landowners and rural communities, and where under-represented groups of countryside users could be encouraged to participate in canoeing, will also be considered.

 

The long list from which case study sites are selected must include information on:

x proximity to users;

x evidence of demand;

x type of water (grade 1 calm to grade 5 challenging);

x water quality (eg whether there are serious water quality problems);

x water quantity (is there potential for all year round use);

x sites with wildlife designations;

x other users (eg water skiing, cruises, pleasure craft, fishing).

x physical barriers (eg dangerous weirs, impassable sections);

x access to water (frequency of egress and access points);

x potential to link into canals and rivers with navigation rights;

x availability of facilities (eg car parks, changing rooms);

x agricultural sensitivity associated with the spread of disease (eg potato blight, swine fever);

x land use type;

x land ownership (eg corporate, public, private);

 

Project management and steering group

The project will be managed by the Countryside Agency (see contact details below). The project steering group, made up of representatives from the Countryside Agency, DEFRA, the Environment Agency, British Waterways and Sport England, met for the first time on 2nd April 2003. It heard a report from the consultants on the process for generating the long list of potential cases study sites, using an algorithm of positive and negative factors applied to the Geographic Information System generated in the original DEFRA study. Using different weightings for factors such as existing fishing rights, evidence of ‘non-official’ canoeing, proximity to environmental designations and urban areas, and relationship to existing navigations and negotiated rights, the team reduced an initial long list of approx. 100 waterways to 25 potential case study sites. These exhibited good geographical spread, covering the NE, NW, Midlands and SW of England. The steering group has now asked the consultants to provide a full matrix of information for each of the 25 waterways, so that decisions can be made about how to identify the final case study locations.

 

Project reporting

The consultants have been asked to provide periodic reports to the Countryside Agency and these will be used to keep others informed of progress. We will be very happy to make these reports widely available to anyone interested to see them. We currently expect to report to the following committees and groups:

x Environment Agency’s Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation Advisory Committee (via the Chairmen’s group);

x Countryside Recreation Network;

x DEFRA’s recreation inter-departmental group

x Angling and Canoeing Liaison Group

x Central Council for Physical Recreation

 

If you would like to be added to the list for progress reports please write to or email Jane Beech, Countryside Officer, Countryside Agency, 18 Market Place, Bingham, Nottinghamshire, NG13 8AP, email jane.beech@countryside.gov.uk

 

April 2003

 

Improving Access for Canoeing on Inland Waterways

Briefing for Consultation Meetings with the Expert Groups

 

Angling Group

to be held at 2.00pm on Wednesday 7th May, 2003

 

Canoeists and Paddlers Group

to be held at 11.30am on Thursday 8th May, 2003

 

 

Venue: Both meetings will be at the Countryside Agency, Dacre House, 19 Dacre Street, London, SW1H 0DA (tel. 020 7340 2900). The office is 100 yards from St James’s Park tube station.

 

 

Role of the Expert Groups

 

The two Expert Groups have been formed comprising Anglers and Canoeists and Paddlers in order to provide expert advice and guidance to the research team.

 

The members of each group have been drawn together on the basis of their extensive knowledge and experience. However, they are not regarded as representing any particular group or sectional interests, nor will the views that are expressed be taken as anything more than the personal opinions of each member. Similarly, the discussions will be regarded as private and confidential to that group. While a note will be made of each meeting, care will be taken to ensure any subsequent references to the discussions are made only in general terms and that any individual comments are non-attributable.

 

The main role of each group will be to help the research team establish at the outset of the work the underlying criteria and framework of the approach that they should adopt to the access negotiations. This is the purpose of the two meetings, on 7th and 8th May. It is possible that individual group members may also be approached for advice on issues that arise throughout the course of the study. Similarly, although no decision has been taken, it is possible that a further meeting of the two groups might be arranged towards the end of the study (in Autumn 2003) to help us review and evaluate the study outcomes.

 

 

Issues for discussion

 

The key issues we have identified for discussion at this stage are set out in the attached table (see separate file). However this not intended to be an exhaustive list and we will be interested to hear about any other factors which, in the views of group members, are also likely to be significant and which must be address in the course of the study.

 

Improving Access for Canoeing on Inland Waterways: Study of the Feasibility of Access Agreements

 

Expert Group Meetings - Issues for Discussion

 

Anglers Group Canoeists and Paddlers Group

2.00pm on Wednesday 7th May, 2003 at Dacre House 11.30am on Thursday 8th May, 2003 at Dacre House

1. Scope for agreeing shared access to water

1.1 What scope is there for providing shared access for canoeists at times when the water is of no interest or is unavailable to anglers (eg when a river is in spate or during the closed season).1.2 How could these times be defined, and by whom.1.3 What are the factors that might be used to trigger any shared access arrangement:- how should these be assessed- who should make the assessment- how could the arrangements be publicised- what management or other issues are likely to arise in practice.1.4 How much scope is there for agreeing zoned use at other times, for example in allowing canoeists to have access on a number of set days per year, if this were to result in a significant reduction in the fees payable by clubs members.1.5 What other benefits might anglers derive from such arrangements.1.6 Are there cases in which you consider access for canoeists to be inappropriate at all times? 1.1 Would the provision of access to water at times when it is of no interest to anglers (eg when a river is in spate or during the closed season be useful to canoeists? Are there safety or other considerations that would also need to be taken into account.1.2 How could these times be defined, and by whom.1.3 What are the factors that might be used to trigger any shared access arrangement:- how should these be assessed, and by whom- how could the arrangements be publicised- what management or other issues are likely to arise in practice.1.4 Apart from such arrangements, what other access do canoeists look for in terms of access to water in ‘normal conditions’. What is the minimum number of days per year and minimum length of water that would be needed to make an access agreement worth-while – and for how many canoes at a time?.

 

 

2. Legal and practical issues relating to access negotiations

2.1 What, from the anglers’ perspective, are the underlying legal issues that need to be addressed in securing any access to water by canoeists.2.2 How, in practice, should any such new arrangements for canoeists relate to the existing agreements covering the angling clubs’ fishing rights and/or access to the bank.2.3 Is there scope (or will it be necessary) as part of this process to also re-negotiate those existing fishing agreements. If so, what improvements would the angling clubs like to achieve.2.4 To secure access for canoeists to a reasonable length of water, it will often be necessary to secure agreements with a number of adjacent landowners and/or different angling clubs. From the anglers’ point of view, what issues does this raise and how should they be addressed.2.5 Are there any lessons that can be drawn from the previous negotiation of fishing rights. If so, what are they. 2.1 What are the underlying legal issues involved in securing formal access to canoeists over water.2.2 To secure access for canoeists to a reasonable length of water it will often be necessary to secure agreements with a number of adjacent landowners and/or different angling clubs. What issues does this raise and how should any such negotiations be managed in practice.2.3 Who should be responsible for entering into an agreement on behalf of the canoeists. Is this a role for the BCU, individual local clubs, the local authority or a government agency. 2.4 What are the issues involved in managing the use of such rights in practice. Once an agreement is in place, what steps would be needed to ensure that all canoeists are both aware of and comply with it.

3. Levels of payment and return

3.1 What sort of return would angling clubs expect for agreeing to allow access to their water by canoeists.3.2 If the main return is to be a reduction in the payments made by the fishing club to the landowner, what are the factors involved and how should such payments be calculated.3.3 On what basis should any new, additional income that is derived from the sale of canoeing rights be shared between the landowner and the club. 3.1 How much would canoeists and paddlers be willing to pay to have shared access to the water. What licensing or other arrangements are needed to enable payments to be collected. How might such a system be enforced.3.2 How should the level of payments made to the landowner (and/or fishing club) be calculated.3.3 Should payments be related to the expected level of use. If so, should such use be ‘capped’ and how, realistically, can it be monitored and controlled.3.4 Is the fact that access may be partially dependent on factors (such as the rate of flow) which cannot be determined in advance an issue.3.5 Should any agreement provide a minimum number of “guaranteed access” days for canoeists to make it worth-while. If so, how many days are needed and how should they be distributed.

4. Access to the river bank and related facilities

4.1 What are the issues involved in allowing canoeists and paddlers to have access to the river bank either (a) for routine access or ( for emergency use only.4.2 If there is shared access to the water, should the canoeists also be expected to share the cost of maintaining the water (eg vegetation clearance) and providing or maintaining access facilities (stiles, fishing pitches, etc). If so, how might these costs be calculated. 4.1 To what extent – and for what reasons - is it necessary for canoeists and paddlers to also have access to the river bank either (a) for routine access or ( for emergency use only.4.2 Beyond access to the water, what additional facilities do canoeists and paddlers regard as either essential or desirable. How much scope is there to be able to share these facilities with anglers. How far do these requirements depend upon the type of water and its expected use?

 

So you see apathy is not reigning. The National Angling Alliance has been dealing with this issue for many months now. The BCU certainly want more water and at the moment appear unwilling to pay for access. However they cannot gain access without some payment to riparian owners and/or angling clubs with fishing rights, nor without the consent of the landowner.

 

The CROW Act specifically excludes access to water after pressure from NAA.

 

Mike Heylin

SAA

[Jim Roper]

Peter Waller:

Will apathy allow this to happen?

Probably!

 

People don't bother about ramblers deliberately interfering with country sports, do they?

 

Apathy seems to rule. Well, maybe!

[Peter Waller]

I'm afraid Gerry, that it is not all tosh, I wish that it were.

 

You have raised a point that I raised, that of once canoes have access then it is a short step to rowing boats then to outboards and then who knows what.

 

The Right To Roam legislation is designed to allow access to the countryside, I have no problem with that. I have a designated long distance foot-path right outside my front door. Which, apart from dog crap, is not a problem.

 

But it is a FACT that the B.C.U. have asked for similar access for canoists. The Government has asked Brighton University to conduct a feasibility study into the issue. Initially a limited number of flowing, but non tidal rivers are under consideration. Part of the feasibility study has been a public consultation, one of which I attended last night.

 

If access is granted it is quite possible that large canoe clubs could outbid angling clubs for leases on rivers.

 

Canoes on such as the navigable Broads and Thames are of lttle concern to most anglers. But on small upstream rivers common sense dictates that the activities of canoists and anglers are pretty incompatible.

 

No Gerry, I wasn't on the bottle. Having heard the proposal from the University spokes-people, and the opinions of fellow anglers at the meeting, I was alerting you to a very real problem that could possibly creep up onto Angling with very unfortunate consequences.

[Peter Waller]

Thanks Mike, appreciated.

 

Common sense dictates that it is unlikely that we shall see canoes on Redmire!

 

I believe the Upper Waveney to be a gem, both pictorially and as an angling asset. It is under threat. It may be that anglers will have to buy a small area of land to ensure that 100% consent by landowners is impossible thus protecting the river.

[kleinboet]

Wow! This looks like it could run and run. But think about this, WE (the anglers) pay a still water to fish it, whether by day ticket or syndicate, and if we DEMAND a 60 or 70% reduction in "rent" due to the canoeists, and the landowners start complaining to the goverment, demanding compensation, I think the government would cave in. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Peter Waller]

Klienboet, theoretically canoe interests could outbid anglers .

[kleinboet]

I don't know about that. Check to see the percentage of the population who fish as against those who like to mess about in canoes. :cool: :cool: :cool: