Canoeists & Anglers

[Steve Walker]

I think that's because the issue raised is a bill which would not be a compromise but a capitulation. I don't think you can reach a compromise when one side holds all the cards, which is what the bill proposes. So while I can see the point of view of the canoeists, and sympathise, I don't think that a right to row (by statute) which overrides any right to fish (by contract) is a fair compromise.

 

FACT's point of view seems to be that the canoeists should negotiate (and pay for) access in the same way that anglers do. I'm assuming that they've tried that and failed, presumably because they need continuous access along a river corridor while we can make do with intermittent stretches. Maybe primary legislation is needed to ensure that they get more access, but it needs to be sensitive to the needs of other users of rivers.

[Guest rabbit]

We anglers have to abide by a close season on rivers, solely to protect the spawning rights of fish. Will the same restriction be applied to the canoists?

 

.. or is it that the close season applies only to a group (Anglers) who willingly engage in conservation and not selfish activity.

 

Surely a pastime such as canoing on the the areas of rivers that are spawning grounds for fish, will prove disastarous for breeding. As the sport increases in popularity, as it will like most 'fads,' will anglers be left counting the cost in the near future with further reduced fish stock, and dissilusioned land owners who will surely close thier waters to all leisure activity.

 

Of course there needs to be some control as to where small craft can or cannot 'roam', our chalk streams are a very delicate bio-structure we cannot allow these areas to be ruined for many for the sake of a few .

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Mike,

 

Thanks again for the reply and fully understand FACT's position. FACT "might" have the support of the present government but it’s my hope that the government sees "all" implications. Aside from FACT involvement concerning the BCU campaign, I'm pretty sure there's going to be a very wide conservationist ground swell against their demands.

 

Dear Rabbit,

 

" Surely a pastime such as canoeing on the areas of rivers that are spawning grounds for fish, will prove disastrous for breeding. As the sport increases in popularity, as it will like most 'fads,' will anglers be left counting the cost in the near future with further reduced fish stock, and disillusioned land owners who will surely close their waters to all leisure activity."

 

 

The most alarming aspect to what the BCU wants is unlimited access via eventual legislation. That would mean the land owners "wouldn't" probably be able to close waters running through their land for canoeists and other boaters even if they wanted to!! An eventual situation could see the general public with a right to roam, the BCU and all none powered craft with a right to paddle, but anglers with the same rights they already have. Those being we pay for our fishing, pay for legal right to use rod, line and baited hook, and remain with virtually no rights to fish freely other than in places where we pay for our sport but still at the gracious behest of riparian land owners. In short, the walking public walk where they like (aside from certain watery environments under the CROW act which I believe will come under threat if BCU get its way), the canoeists and other none powered craft paddle where they like, but angling remains in its same position with no rights to fish covered by legislation that protects us in the same manner.

 

And ultimately, thousands of flora and fauna species within already delicate river system habitats come under totally unnecessary threat. Clearly, if the BCU wants unlimited access within areas already restricted to it, it "should" surely be reasonably expected to come up with biodiversity studies which prove its members pose no threat to any habitats where further navigation access is being sought?

 

Now if that becomes an unreasonable request, bear in mind that hundreds, possibly thousands of conservation groups right across the nation will be preparing just that. Biodiversity studies which seek to prove almost conclusively that increased navigation rights for canoeists pose serious threats for species of flora and fauna within habitats under their care. In my opinion, FACT should have been getting similar studies commissioned for threats posed to our nation’s inland waterways fish spawning grounds from paddling activity within them. Lack of funds however probably prevents that but even so I'd like to know what the game angling fraternity within FACT say about all this. The game fraternity spends millions of pounds each year on improving river habitats for the purposes of game fishing. Are they forthright to say “no access, never” within their game angling bastions, or are they prepared to share their game beats with canoeists in the same vein as coarse anglers will no doubt be asked to do?

 

This issue is far bigger than the coexistence between angling and canoeists, or the sharing of what some perceive as simple "recourses" for either recreational or monetary purposes. It’s about whole environments and the creatures that wildly live within them that we as anglers have a duty of care to protect. The same duty of care that our nation has, and successive elected governments and its agencies.

 

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Edited November 20, 2005 by trent.barbeler

[Peter Waller]

I have to say that there have been some excellent posts on this thread. I hope Mike and the merry men at FACT, and the bods of the BCU, have read it, re-read it, and inwardly diggested the many good points posted.

[waterman1013]

Lee

 

"I'd like to know what the game angling fraternity within FACT say about all this. The game fraternity spends millions of pounds each year on improving river habitats for the purposes of game fishing. Are they forthright to say “no access, never” within their game angling bastions, or are they prepared to share their game beats with canoeists in the same vein as coarse anglers will no doubt be asked to do?"

 

In answer to that Lee, all the members of FACT support the same position. If paddlers want access they must negotiate with the landowner and pay for it, just like anglers. Landowners have the right to deny access to anglers and/or paddlers. No doubt many of them will continue to exercise that right.

 

Mike