Canoeists & Anglers

[Peter Waller]

One of the biggest problems with canoes is that by their very nature they 'invade' nooks and crannies and backwaters, something that few power craft attempt, let alone achieve.

 

Re something being enjoyed by all, fine in theory, but if access is enjoyed by all then the end result could so easily be one of not really being enjoyed by anyone.

 

A nature reserve is a prime example, should it be 'enjoyed' by the four wheel drive fraternity? No, because in doing so it would be destroyed.

 

I stand by the analogy of karaoke in a library.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Peter Waller

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

Now you are just being ridiculous peter.....nature reserves are enjoyed by anyone whose activities dont damage the area, clearly razzin yer range rover around for an afternoon doesnt fit that criteria! Same goes for sensitive habitats on rivers too.....if its a no no for canoes then its a no no for fishermen too!

 

Dont get me wrong, I'm not overly keen on the prospect of canoes paddling through my swim BUT provided they paddle through and then **** off then who am I to say they cant? Of course they would have no right to come and take over my swim on the basis that I was using the water first........same would apply the other way around.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Brumagem Phil

[Severn Wolf]

Oh dear, storm in a tea cup time

 

There is a company that operates on the middle Severn offering numpties the chance to canoe a stretch of the river for `x` pounds. There are single seater to four seater boats and the untrained and totally dim occupants happily bash and bang their way down the river annoying the hell out of every single angler they pass. The solution to this? LIVE WITH IT.

 

We have no divine right to the waterways and as much as canoes etc bug me I just accept the fact that its a sport and now a business on the Severn that is on a major increase. Five years from now there will be armadas of the damn things every weekend.

 

If you REALLY want to see river canoes then please jump in your car and take a trip down to the Sarlat la Caneda area of the Dordogne. I got the holiday wrong and went just when the Frenchies were on their summer jollies. The river was unfishable until 7pm due to thousands, yes, thousands of canoes on the place.

 

I do have photos of the place but they`re not digital unfortunately. I`ve never seen so many boats in my life.

 

Maybe a bit of regulation wouldn`t go amiss but no-one regulates how many of use use the rivers on a daily basis so I can`t see much changing.

[Steve Walker]

Oh dear, storm in a tea cup time

 

There is a company that operates on the middle Severn offering numpties the chance to canoe a stretch of the river for `x` pounds. There are single seater to four seater boats and the untrained and totally dim occupants happily bash and bang their way down the river annoying the hell out of every single angler they pass. The solution to this? LIVE WITH IT.

 

Not too bad on the Severn, it's a big river. I do know rivers, however, where the solution to that kind of attention would be "GO HOME, STICK TO STILLWATERS OR TAKE UP GOLF", because you sure as hell aren't going to catch anything.

 

Maybe it is selfish of us to hope to retain some stretches of such waters for angling. Perhaps the canoeists should have them all. Perhaps those who like to catch shy fish on small rivers should pack it in, and instead stick to catching pasty-sized carp from muddy puddles.

 

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

 

Even when one group's activity ruins it for another?

[sam-cox]

I have lost very big carp in Holland due to canoeist.

I have no problem with sesible use of the rivers by any one, but often its the same as the ruddy yachaties on the sea.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Mike,

 

I appreciate your reply to my post, many thanks Mike because I know you are one busy guy.

 

I fully understand FACT's position here and no, I wouldn't want FACT to either bury their heads in the sand or demand "No access never". I'm sure we already agree on a personal note that angling needs to be in "many boats" in order to be fully pro-active when working for anglers rights. Or the rights of the watery habitats which anglers depend upon.

 

You will have noticed Mike that my "personal" concerns here don't revolve around being worried about canoeist's paddling through my swim. I already experience plenty of canoeists on the Trent and they pose me no problems what so ever. Seeing as I fish mostly during the hours of darkness, restrictions placed upon the boating fraternity pose few problems for me and my own nocturnal habits.

 

My concerns are based around the “full” conservation implications arising from canoeists and other none powered craft being granted either full or further negotiated navigation rights. I’m also concerned that increases in navigation rights “might” open flood gates that will perhaps prove detrimental to the rivers habitat as a whole.

 

“All users should be seeking to exploit the resource in such a way as not to damage that resource.”

 

I couldn’t agree more Mike. But herein lays the problem that has dogged mankind ever since he sought to exploit natural resources. Getting none powered craft to “pay their way” like angling does will not go towards answering conservation problems some way down the road if opening up further navigation rights prove wholly detrimental to these rivers habitats in the long term. Do you see my concerns here Mike? For instance, and this is only one instance amongst many, I can’t see the BCU even attempting to restrict its members activity within spawning grounds on our rivers even if they wanted to. Different river fish species spawn at different water temperatures and given that our nation’s rivers reach certain water temperatures at different times in the year, it would prove impossible to keep paddling activity out of such areas at all times. Long term, I foresee tremendous paddling damage being done too many fish spawning grounds.

 

Now let’s look at Otters Mike. This government fully backs and supports EU protocols on the reintroduction of endangered species. One such reintroduction is that of the Otter. (One amongst a list of hundreds of river species as you know Mike) Correct me if I’m wrong here Mike, but within the legislation concerning Otters and other BAP species isn’t it an offence for anyone to knowingly disturb wild Otters (and other BAP species) within their known breeding grounds and habitats? I can’t imagine canoeists and other none powered craft not falling into this category if they are allowed into such areas? Now we both know Mike that Otter populations should reach their pre-1960 populations in a few years, given that, there’s strong expert opinion that Otters will be present in a great many areas that the BCU want access too?

 

Then there’s the remaining list of local and regional BAP’s that have vested interests in other species of flora and fauna right through our nations rivers and waterways. Are they going to be happy about increased navigation rights being granted? I seriously doubt it and the BAP’s groups have the present legislation on their side to back up any reservations they might have. Then we come to English Nature and the long list of SSSI sites there are along our rivers and waterways. Presently angling is welcomed within a lot of such sites and I can confirm being involved in SSSI management strategies that English Nature encourages angling co-operation as a positive way forward to nature conservation within many areas under its control. What is English Natures stance on the possible increase of navigation rights?

 

The UK signed up to the 1992 Rio protocol concerning endangered species and biological diversity together with the EU directives that came after. Is it a case that if this or any other UK government knowingly allows activity likely to cause harm to species within areas of endangered species listed in the EU directive, it becomes guilty of breaking the accord and legally liable itself?

 

Then there are the hundreds of conservation groups out there. Will they be circling like hawks either waiting to oppose the navigational increases or howling like hungry wolves for blood if it becomes proven that increased navigation rights have done damage to endangered species on the directives lists? These conservation organisations are extremely powerful because they have present legislation on their side AND the support of a general public that adore wild life in wild places. Canoeists and anglers don’t come remotely close to the affection our general public reserves for wild life.

 

FACT is right to be getting involved in this issue provided the full picture and wide ranging implications are laid upon the negotiating table. Rivers and watery places are not the sole bastions for neither angling to command or own, nor are they playgrounds for canoeists and other floating craft to do with as they please. They are national treasures that the WHOLE nation has a stake in, and habitats which our natural world depends upon for its very survival. Our rivers wild species simply must come first over and above any human resource exploitation or financial benefit such exploitation supposedly brings.

 

I feel Mike that this present government is making a big mistake here and could well find itself alienated if it is found to be playing with a nation’s love of nature. And if so, I would cringe if our nation’s public viewed angling as being the ones that helped launch the canoeist’s boats into un-chartered waters.

 

Yes it’s good to talk Mike. And if angling had a million like you all paying a tenner a year we’d have no problems whatsoever. (Thought I’d slip that in)

 

Tread carefully amongst those canoes Mike.

 

Long post, big issue.

 

Kindest Regards,

 

Lee.

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

Perhaps the canoeists should have them all. Perhaps those who like to catch shy fish on small rivers should pack it in, and instead stick to catching pasty-sized carp from muddy puddles.

Even when one group's activity ruins it for another?

 

Oh dear, lets get all emotive and extremist!

 

Next thing you'll be telling me that all rivers will look like the M1 when viewed from every bridge.

 

I live pretty close to the river Arrow.....the stretch which runs from redditch to studley (an area of high population and near the south of birmingham). I wonder if this law were passed, just how many times I'd get harrased fishing for the barbel or chub in here by passing canoeists? Once or maybe twice in a whole season if at all is the answer.

 

I think people are just being very selfish and highly protectionist IMO.

[waterman1013]

Lee

 

I think FACT understands the side issues. If access is granted to paddlers then the navigation laws will need changing. That may be why HMG is against granting free access. The spread to other boaters would be just too much for many of our waters and the conflicts with conservation groups would be many, as you suggest.

 

We shall be keeping a careful eye on this whole issue, amongst many others. But at least at the moment HMG is on side.

 

Must go, trying to get ready for tomorrows committee in Leicester.

 

Catcha biggun

 

Mike

[Steve Walker]

Oh dear, lets get all emotive and extremist!

 

Next thing you'll be telling me that all rivers will look like the M1 when viewed from every bridge.

 

I live pretty close to the river Arrow.....the stretch which runs from redditch to studley (an area of high population and near the south of birmingham). I wonder if this law were passed, just how many times I'd get harrased fishing for the barbel or chub in here by passing canoeists? Once or maybe twice in a whole season if at all is the answer.

 

I think people are just being very selfish and highly protectionist IMO.

 

Not really, just looking for a solution which provides reasonable facilities for everybody and doesn't make the extreme situation I suggest possible.

 

There are stretches of rivers where it isn't possible to co-exist with canoeists. At any given time either they use it or we use it. No co-use possible. Do you think the canoeists should have exclusive access, or would it be better to have compromise?

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

I'm all for compromise steve, but i've not seen much of it (if any) on this thread!