Jump to content

Canoeists & Anglers


Elton

Recommended Posts

A question (perhaps stoopid) Has any one on here actually arranged to speak to the canoeists at club level - Maybe a simple presentation to their members explaining your concerns, and listening to theirs, may solve issues that seem insurmountable at the moment.

 

That's fine if the only canoeists using the river are from a club; an arrangement can be agreed and both sides can self-regulate and take up any grievances with the other. Agreed negotiated access is what FACT are supporting over a free-for-all. If absolutely anyone is allowed to turn up with a canoe and jump in the river, I just don't see how that can work. I'd draw a parallel between the amount of litter anglers leave on free and club-controlled waters respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dear Mike, and All,

 

As you may recall Mike, I once muted that angling should work more closely with the boating fraternity in order for angling to keep abreast of BW, and to some extent, the EA views that boating is the “growth” industry where rivers are concerned. I have always thought that “angling” should be “in the boats” itself if we are to have an equal say in what happens to our rivers.

 

Firstly Mike, you rightly say that NAA managed to keep water out of CROW. So given that negotiation involved restricting “public” access to land adjoining fisheries, I’m slightly surprised that FACT now seeks to negotiate a deal whereby increased access will be granted actually “IN” our river fisheries? Common sense surely dictates there’s a gulf of difference between the walking public walking either around, or along fisheries to being actually on top of them splashing around?

 

Now I fully appreciate why FACT might be taking this route but I fear its full implications and the impact on river anglers, not to mention the impact on river environments, might not be fully understood or taken on board?

 

My fear is if equitable access is granted in either controlled or none controlled form, either paying or none paying for canoeists, then whole flood banks will become breached placing angling in a desperate situation.

 

Now say the canoeists get their increased access, and this is in an agreed FACT manner like the one you already list, does FACT believe for one second that the BCU won’t campaign for more until they get unrestricted access? Then what about the Ramblers Association? If the BCU only get the FACT version of what they want does FACT expect a renewed campaign from the walking fraternity to fully include water within CROW? Opening the lock gates for canoeists will certainly bring renewed cries for more water access for rambling don’t you think Mike? So we could end up being invaded by canoeists and numbers of walking public that actually dwarf the numbers that BCU have in membership. Mike, we could be talking about one quarter of our nation’s population tramping and splashing through environments tenuous enough already. Equitable use of our waterways by an increased number of users might well be a phrase that sits well on papers inside a politician’s briefcase, but it has no bearing at all to the environments out there and the overall long term effect it will have upon them.

 

Mike, we fought long and hard as you will recall to keep the rivers close season. A major part of our argument was that angling abstaining from fishing during certain months of the year made major contributions to long term river conservation. Can you imagine the damage to come from increased navigation rights for canoeists and other none powered boats, and the sheer walking numbers that will demand more access for themselves should navigation access be broadened for canoeists?

 

Might I ask Mike if any studies have been undertaken to determine the long term effects that increased access will have on the rivers habitat? Because without them, surely the politicians are going up against what conservation (BAP for example?) is all about. They simply shouldn’t be making decisions for increased human activity within wild environments that might not be able to withstand them.

And the above is not taking into account what angling wants Mike. I would bet a gold clock that the majority of river anglers out there don’t want increased access for canoeists and none powered boats. If that is accurate, FACT in an ideal world “should” be protecting angler’s interests.

 

With respect Mike, I believe this is not in the best interests of angling, or the environments we seek to protect.

 

For the record, I own a canoe and fish from it. I do so perfectly happy in the knowledge that the rivers I have access to are more than enough already. In fact, it would take a hundred life times to paddle and fish along them all.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Brumagem Phil

Well I know my view wont be popular, but I think most people on here are arguing from a purely selfish standpoint.

 

We don't OWN the rivers, they belong to ALL, and ALL should have access to use them......if people think an area is too sensitive to have canoeists paddling through it, then its too sensitive to have fishermen fishing it too IMO.

 

Yeah ok, fishing lines and boats aint the greatest of mixes but that doesnt give us the right to stick two fingers up to the boaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an angler perhaps I am being selfish, think I have already admitted that, but aren't the canoeists also being selfish in wanting to muscle in?

 

The analogy of karaoke in a library is an apt one.

Edited by Peter Waller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least 15 years ago, I was fishing in the Armchair swim on the Dane. The Trent amd Mersey canal is less tha 50 yards away at this point. All of a sudden a pack of canoeists charged through the undergrowth and barged right through my swim. This went on for over 30 minutes. It turned out that it was a race using the canal and the river as the course. It was the first time I heard the phrase "tough **** mate" so I guess nowadays there would be even less sympathy from the canoeists.

 

Would the EA make sure that canoeists have licences? Whats the position on this. Boats have to be registered so what about canoes and such?

 

Er, I see that my post above was moderated and the word "****" was scrubbed out of a perfectly valid statement which I thought was relevent to the situation I was describing. It wasn't gratuitous swearing but a direct quote which was helping to make my point. Flipping heck what in the name of blazes is happening to our language?! :):(:angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Lee

 

“I’m slightly surprised that FACT now seeks to negotiate a deal”.

 

FACT is not seeking to negotiate any deal. FACT is simply stating that if paddlers want access they should negotiate along the lines that anglers have negotiated for many years, with the landowners. They should negotiate and pay for that access and the money paid can go either to the landlord or be used by them to improve their river further.

 

“Now say the canoeists get their increased access, and this is in an agreed FACT manner like the one you already list, does FACT believe for one second that the BCU won’t campaign for more until they get unrestricted access? Then what about the Ramblers Association? If the BCU only get the FACT version of what they want does FACT expect a renewed campaign from the walking fraternity to fully include water within CROW? Opening the lock gates for canoeists will certainly bring renewed cries for more water access for rambling don’t you think Mike? So we could end up being invaded by canoeists and numbers of walking public that actually dwarf the numbers that BCU have in membership. Mike, we could be talking about one quarter of our nation’s population tramping and splashing through environments tenuous enough already. Equitable use of our waterways by an increased number of users might well be a phrase that sits well on papers inside a politician’s briefcase, but it has no bearing at all to the environments out there and the overall long term effect it will have upon them.”

 

If that access is negotiated and paid for why should the CROW act come into the equation. Paddlers will have the access they agree to and pay for, walkers pay nothing under CROW and there would be no reason for the government to change its attitude to unfettered access to waters.

By negotiating access BCU will have accepted the principle, and be bound by it. That is why they are trying for unfettered access, because they know their options will be limited once they agree to negotiate.

 

“If that is accurate, FACT in an ideal world “should” be protecting angler’s interests.”

 

FACT believes it is protecting anglers’ interests by taking a pro-active stance rather than a negative stance. If we were to say ”No access, never”, then politicians would quite rightly be saying, “Hold on, what makes you so special as a group of users?” and would probably change their stance to one of unfettered access, which is what we are seeking to prevent. Access negotiated with landowners, who understand their rivers and when they might be prone to damage or degradation, will be controlled, just as angling is. A free for all, at the whim of politicians, is the worst possible case. Lee, I am sure you are not suggesting we keep our heads in the sand over this. We have to operate in the real world and regardless of what we might want as individuals we have to look at the political realities of blank refusals to talk. Here FACT is agreeing with politicians, something that does not often happen, and supporting the stance they are taking over negotiation.

 

In a world of increasing population, and increasing demand for availability of water for recreation, anglers must learn to live with others, as they must learn to live with anglers. All users should be seeking to exploit the resource in such a way as not to damage that resource. Angling sets a fine example by observing the rivers close season. Hopefully, if the BCU ever manage to negotiate with anyone on anything, they will also observe the periods when damage inflicted on fisheries and fish stocks could be at its greatest.

 

There will always be sections of non-navigations which are unsuitable for paddling access, just as there are sections where access would not normally be a problem. FACT recognises this and hopes that the BCU will do so one day.

 

In my opinion paddlers can do far less damage globally than most powered craft do on navigations, although it is certain they can damage reds and other spawning sites in sensitive areas. Hence the need for negotiation.

 

Good to talk Lee

 

Mike

Join the SAA today for only £10.00 and help defend angling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In my opinion paddlers can do far less damage globally than most powered craft do on navigations, although it is certain they can damage reds and other spawning sites in sensitive areas."

 

 

Mine also. Roll on the day that oil runs so low that modestly powered electric motors replace all the outboards and big inboards. Think of the huge reduction in pollution, bank erosion and destruction of fish and wildlife habitat on many of our inland waterways. Which, I suppose, gets me started about testosterone-fulled powerboaters and little tin admirals in floating gin-palaces...

Edited by Paul Boote

"What did you expect to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...?"

 

Basil Fawlty to the old bat, guest from hell, Mrs Richards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As both a canoeist and angler I think the BCU have got a right cheek, they want unfettered access yet won’t pay?

So we can go and fish for free in their waters can we?

And all this talk of only 'paddling ' is twaddle, it would have to mean all unpowered craft and then the 'differently-abled' would challenge that as they need a motor to get along.....and then swimmers etc, bad enough the 'hikers' and their unrestrained hounds.

There is good reason most of our rivers are not navigations – they’re all too blinkin small.

Why don’t the BCU, rowing clubs, swimmers etc just rent some water of their own?

Jealousy: totally irrational anger directed at people who happen to be richer, prettier, thinner, cleverer and more successful than you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Brumagem Phil

Peter, your analogy with karaoke in a library isnt a good one at all, in fact its a complete red herring! A library is a building DESIGNED to have people quietly reading books, not performing "on stage".

 

A river however is anatural resource that nobody owns and should be enjoyed by all.

 

My only proviso on this is that the canoeists should have to buy a licence to use the waterways just as we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A library is a building DESIGNED to have people quietly reading books

 

How long since you've been in a library, Phil? It's all DVDs and computers these days, story readings for the kids and "Community Information Points". You'd have to be positively rioting before any of the staff "shush" you!

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.