Be warned!

[Leon Roskilly]

Peter Waller:

Opening up the countryside like this is not always in the countryside's best interests.

Protesting at the building of a road through a lovely piece of country, the planners responded by saying that because of modern materials and sensitive landscaping, the noise and sight of the road would be 'acceptably minimised'.

 

Instead of the roar of the sound of the traffic, drowning out the sounds of the lark, there would be just a gentle background hum!

 

They couldn't seem to appreciate that it was not just a question of degree.

 

That you either destroy the peace and quiet, or keep it.

 

One campaigner had it when he said that 'a few scratches across the face of the Mona Lisa, would leave the greater part of the material and paint undisturbed, but the effect would be a total disaster for the piece'

 

Tight Lines - leon

[canoeist_steve]

Thank to those of you who have read my previous post.

 

In response:

 

kleinboet:

No where in my post have I talked about my “rights” as a canoeist. I do believe all members of the public have the right to enjoy their countryside and heritage. However I do also believe that in a densely populated country, that no one can have free and open access to all natural resources.

 

What does interest me is your talk of “my waters”. I assume therefore that you are the land owner in your chosen fishing location.

 

Leon Roskilly:

Thank you very much for this information. In many, many years of paddling and speaking with anglers, you are the first person to tell me this. I was not aware that this was the case and I sympathise with your situation. Can I ask out of interest how long (just a ball park figure) it takes to set up an ambush as you describe or encourage fish towards you? And please forgive my ignorance as to this, is it 30 minutes, an hour, 3 hours, all day?

 

If access were to be opened up to a greater extent for canoeists, the population of paddlers would be spread few and far between. At present with so many restrictions in place, those of you who have canoeists passing are no more likely to have any more. It is not going to mean more people are out canoeing on any given Saturday, but the ones that are out and about will be able to enjoy different rivers.

 

Your similes of the golf course and runners makes sense, however a golf course is a location designed to be used for one such activity. It requires constant maintenance, daily care and security and the golfers pay a premium for this. A river is a naturally occurring resource that would still flow, still breed life and survive perfectly well without any human influence.

Both of our sports can operate on man made sites, but the vast majority of us enjoy the sport we do because of the involvement and interaction with the environment. A river is a natural resource which I believe the public should be able to enjoy in a suitable manner and when suitable to do so.

 

 

Peter Waller:

Your example of the Norfolk broads is valid and I appreciate your concerns here. However this does not really relate to the issue myself and to the vast majority of canoeists looking for developments in access.

 

I agree that canoes used in such manner can do a great deal of damage in this situation, however I would suggest that the majority of these particular canoeists are recreational canoeists, enjoying a float around on a sunny day. This is far removed from the population of canoeists who spend money, time and effort on training to be able to push themselves forward in their sport. I am not distancing myself from this section of the paddling community, however consider this:

I have witnessed on numerous occasions people who are not “anglers” as such but who head out to go fishing. I have seen them trample endlessly through undergrowth, break branches and smaller trees out of their way, drop littler and trample through still ponds and shingle beds. These people can and do damage the environment.

 

You may have access to hundreds of miles of navigable water on the broads and may not wish for any more. However flat water canoeing is a small proportion of canoeing in general, many more like to be on fast moving water, this is where we are looking for more access.

 

I am lucky enough to live only a few miles from one of three artificial white water centres in England and Wales. The 500m long course fed from the river Trent just downstream of Nottingham was purpose built for canoeists, yet anglers frequently fish the lower stretch. They can cause major problems particularly to less experienced canoeists who have at times been injured when getting tangled in their lines. (quad bikes and tennis courts again) In the same manner I would never consider taking a canoe onto one of the many fishing lakes I spot from the road. However, rivers were not put on this earth for anyone’s exclusive use.

 

When it comes to communication on the water between canoeists, this can be in many forms. On moving water, a canoeist needs to wear a helmet and often get water stuck in the ears (please no water in the ears puns, this really does happen). This coupled with the sound of the water can make communication extremely difficult. On slow moving or flat water, this is less of a problem, however many people still do wear helmets or hats and do get their head wet. As with all groups you do have those who do not always take other peoples interests into account. I have been given some colourful language from anglers on a number of occasions. I would suggest that in future if you encounter someone who you think is behaving in an unsuitable manner, you tell them you thoughts and concerns. They will not be out to ruin anyone’s day and next time will think again.

 

I do not suggest that the two sports could or should mix, however an acceptance of each others thoughts, concerns and enjoyment is possible to allow the activities to co-exist. There are a number of rivers that I have paddled regularly, where I have chatted pleasantly with anglers. I have vacated a river or not launched having chatted to anglers and anglers too have extended similar courtesy to me.

 

Jeepster:

I am aware of Matlock Bath on the Derwent. The section that is regularly paddled is a 750m of river, 750m out of how much? As far as I am aware, Matlock Bath is the only natural river in all of the Derbyshire Dales and Peak District where canoeing is permitted. This is typical of access we currently have.

 

Would anglers be happy if they were only able to fish on this short stretch of a whole river or nearly a whole county? As I have stated many times, we are looking to gain reasonable access to rivers where conditions suit.

 

Finally, (sorry for rambling on, if there’s anyone still with me, thanks for reading this)

 

We don’t want car parks, toilet blocks or extra roads, we don’t need them, the only resource we do need is the ones that have been there thousands of years. We went to enjoy the “special” areas in this country in the same way you do and this can be done without damage to the environment. We are not looking to destroy anything.

 

Again thank you for your time in reading this post (if you have and haven’t just jumped to the end) and please do give me your opinions and thoughts on what I have said.

 

Steve

[kendo]

I don't know any canoeists,or see any canoeists on the waters I fish as I generally fish still waters,saying that though I have fished a very long time ago a water that had a lot of wind surfers on it in fact one guy fell into my swim then proceeded to walk through my swim until he was able to mount his board again he did at least have the courtesy to apologize, and in fact shortly after he had gone my bite rate vastly improved probably because he had stirred up the bottom which had no doubt attracted the fish into my swim, having read your post I think you made some very valuable points we should all be aware of other users and respect their right to share what resources we have and exercise a little more Patience

[nursejudy]

When fishing in Denmark,one gets used to the canoes,you are happily fishing away miles from anywhere and suddenly you here voices or the thud of the paddles.they can cause a diversion,topless canoeists ,one pair drifting making love.The river Gudena is the longest in denmark and flws throught the lakes in Silkeborg, schools and clubs all make the trip from start to finish.

they are usually in groups,this year I foolishly was sat wher ethe canoes moored,silly me!,no one bothers about the fisherman/women,they just tie up or run the canoe at the side of you,but for every arrogant canoist there are many who are very friendly and interested,so add a nice diversion.and well yes i am not very good with a catapult especially when one particular canoist who lost me a nice big bream set off again..

judith

 

 

ps it must be a wonderful trip to make and i always envy them,untill it rains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ 08. January 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: nursejudy ]

[jeepster]

if you're sure that its only 750M of the derwent at matlock bath then I'll take your word for it, i thought it was the stretch from matlock to cromford which would be a few miles, still not a lot out of the total length of the river i agree. my point was just that my club have about 2 miles of river, again not much out of the whole stretch, so why having paid my fees should i have my fishing interrupted when canoeists can go elsewhere locally. not that that would happen at the stretch i now fish, big signs proclaim that canoeists are banned, thats why i joined

i think we should all work to live in some kind of harmony (some conflict is inevitable and some might say necessary (so says heigle)) but these things can be worked around, i now fish where i know i wont get disturbed, you can equally go and canoe where you wont get garroted by lb maxima

 

[ 08. January 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: jeepster ]

[malevans]

Canoeists are at times a problem on the river i have rods on in the highlands. Not the regular Scottish Canoe Association members, but the 200 or so that arrive bank holidays from all over, inc europe, and who do not abide with the agreements made with the SCA. River is just about unfishable at these times. What really annoys me about the claims for assess to resources is that the canoeists pay nothing. Likewise in England. At least anglers pay for their rod licenses in England. However as said earlier the SCA locals are very polite and considerate lot. Its the others including a bunch who steamed through and lost me the salmon I had on the end that are the problem. I was chuffed NOT, given the price of my membership and the 485 mile drive each way I can tell you, particularly as fishing had not been good for a couple of years and this was my first hook up for the same period.

[canoeist and angler]

The site that I use for the vast majority of my canoeing training is a weir site that I do pay the EA to use through both my club membership and unpowered river boat licence. It seems odd that on a small piece of this vast and fairly easy to fish river I frequently find discarded hooks, swimfeeders and line littering the banks of the canoeing site.

 

Now of course when I do find these bits and pieces around, usually snagged in the slalom lines, I pick them up (it actually saves me quite a bit on tackle over the year), but it seems that there is a little lack of common sense shown by many anglers in the area. If I go canoeing when there are angelrs about then I would avoid crossing the River on the far side (where most of the sensible anglers go)and messing up a fishing session that someone was engaged in. If I was fishing and somebody paddled over my swim I would find it annoying. However I find it more serious that someone can fish in an area with so many snags and other potetial problems where it would be obvious to anybody who thought it through would know leaving a hook has the potential to cause injury to another person.

 

What are people's thought on this?

[Leon Roskilly]

canoeist_steve:

Can I ask out of interest how long (just a ball park figure) it takes to set up an ambush as you describe or encourage fish towards you? And please forgive my ignorance as to this, is it 30 minutes, an hour, 3 hours, all day?

Part of the magic of fishing is that it is very unpredictable, and river angling more so than any other kind, needing real watercraft to interpret and manage the session.

 

There are days when the fish are ready to take bait from the word go, with little real skill needed for the angler to 'bag up'.

 

Other days, you'd swear that the river was devoid of all fishlife!

 

Sometimes an angler will have been visiting a spot for days, feeding 'his' swim, concentrating fish into that area and getting them used to feeding confidently on a particular bait (fish will sometimes become pre-occupied, feeding on a particular abundant food source, and ignoring all other temptations).

 

On other occasions, an angler will 'feed' a tiny area, requiring great skill to concentrate feed into a small target area.

 

On most rivers, the 'public' have access to just one bank along a particular stretch. The far bank is undisturbed and the fish will congregate there, not only because it's quiter, but because the overhanging vegetation drips slugs, catepillars etc into the water.

 

If it's any distance across, an angler will use a swimfeeder. That's a small weighted tube, attached near the hook, and filled with loose feed.

 

The loose feed slowly spreads out, around the immediate area of the hook bait, and attracting fish to that one place.

 

Repeated casts to the same spot (requiring great skill), keeps the loose feed and the feeding fish in a tight area.

 

A miscast can spell disaster, spreading feed just where the angler doesn't want it, and breaking up the shoal.

 

Just as disasterous is the need for the angler to retrieve his feeder, before it is emptied. That deposits a trail of feed along the river bottom away from the feeding area.

 

And it's when a canoeists passes by, particularly in attempted politeness, hugging the far bank, that the angler may have to quickly wind in an unemptied feeder, as the paddle swirls what feed he has already concentrated over a wide area

 

Then again, the angler may be feeding a shelf, just out from his own bank (often, when a river has been made navigable by putting in sluices etc, the old river bank still exists and is an excellent spot to find the shoals), and again the anglers 'swim' will be disturbed if the canoeist goes straight down the middle.

 

I could give many other examples of different scenarious where canoists can really cause a good deal of frustration to an anglers fishing.

 

And there are occasions when having a canoe come past can bring a dead swim to life! (I particularly find that predators can be active in the swirl behind any passing vessel).

 

But without a lot of angling knowledge, any canoist cannot predict how best to pass through a particular swim, or which is the best line to take for the angler.

 

With regard to access, anglers firstly have to pay an EA licence of £21 per annum.

 

They also usually have to pay a day ticket say £3-£15 pounds, or probably belong to a club that owns the fishing rights for a stretch £50 - £100 per year.

 

Most clubs also like members to turn up for work parties, maintaining the banks, clearing litter etc So they feel that they have a greater right to be there fishing, than any other casual user.

 

And a right for their enjoyment to be protected from the activities of others.

 

If it's any comfort Steve, I'm a cyclist driven from the country lanes by mad drivers racing to their fishing venues, and abused by anglers who block towpaths with rods and tackle!!

 

And if you think that anglers resent canoists, ask their opinions of towpath cyclists!

 

Tight Lines - leon

[malevans]

Hey guys lets get the angling factions lined up on this one, when the river I fish in Scotland gets invaded it is when it is in spate, which happens weekly from the hydro scheme, and its the prime fishing day of the week.

I admit when the GT ouse is in flood near where I live then yeah not such an issue, I can fish a lake instead. Canoeists will not pay to use waters. Paying will be in direct contravention of the right to roam they seek. If they offered enough money to owners today many of would be kicked of our carp/coarse lakes already, but do they offer the cash, of course not. Whilst not getting my support one consequence is for those that agree they can insist on the right to roam with their infernal baitboats. Light blue touch paper LOL. Please don't advocate compromises that just happen to fit with your particular angling flavour. We must be united. Interestingly I visited a web site about the river i fish in scotland which is a canoeists site, there advocating that they stress their economic input to the village, loads of students kipping in transit vans....yeah most lucrative for the village in question.

[Peter Waller]

Recreational or sport canoists? If a canoist is just a sport canoist then all that is required is water, so why demand more? As far as I'm aware this push for access appears to be aimed more at touring routes rather than prime sport canoe sites.

 

If one is a recreational canoist, like me, then we like to go from A to B. Touring canoes are even more keen on going from A to B! But that some are just recreational canoists implies an assertion that us recreational types are a lesser breed! No, that wasn't intended I'm sure!

 

But the reality is that, like in angling, there are probably more who canoe for recreation than simply just for sport. The River Waveney has been suggested as a long distance touring route, and very nice it could be too, please note touring rather than a 'sport' water. Touring needs camp sites and car parks. At the moment it is great for walkers and anglers. Introducing a third element can only lessen the enjoyment of the others.

 

Yes, I accept that it would be possible to have canoe only days or angling only days. But that is the only practical way that I can see we can share non navigable rivers. As has been said there are problems with canoists tangling with anglers lines. With the immensly strong braid lines that are now used, and the ultra sharp hooks, injury and liability could provide a major headache. Up on the Broads many anglers fish early and late, mainly to avoid boat traffic.

 

By what has been said I think it clear that both parties accept that the sports are incompatible. The only solution then is in organised sharing. To do that it means anglers giving up something they have enjoyed for centuries, our freedom to legally fish as and when we wish. Not a freedom to be given up lightly.

 

Re litter etc., that is one point that we can agree on. But it is not restricted to anglers. However, it is shameful that anglers are not all aware of the damage that their litter does.

 

If all the canoe lobby wants is access to waters that are largely unfishable, e.g. slalom courses and white water sites, then why the push to open rivers up for widespread access and touring?

 

[ 08. January 2004, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]