Canoe access poll on BBC

[Mike Connor]

You should read what I wrote, there is little point in giving your extremely biased or exaggerated interpretation of it. The main problem is not with canoeists as such, but with "casual" paddlers.

 

Given free access, there is no way to prevent them doing whatever they please.

 

Doubtless the majority of canoeists, and even the majority of paddlers behave themselves as best they can. There are however a large pecentage, of predominantly casual paddlers, who certainly do not. Due to the sheer numbers involved, this is a great many.

 

If the estimates of casual paddlers I have seen are correct, at 1.5 million and increasing yearly, ( and I have no reason to doubt them), and only five per cent of these misbehave themselves, cause damage or litter etc, then that is 75,000 of them who are up to no good at any one time.

 

It only requires a couple of paddlers to cause extensive damage on any particular stream. Small streams and rivers are especially vulnerable. Quite apart from the damage involved, flotillas of canoes coming down a small river, render fishing impossible, much less enjoyable.

 

Your constant reassurances that the existing paddlers would merely spread out to the various rivers is naive in the extreme.

 

As you wrote "Many of those rivers are carrying thousands, even tens of thousands of descents a year" yet you would have us believe that all these people are veritable paragons, and have no effect whatever on the environment. Sorry, I don´t think anybody will buy that.

 

MC

Edited May 11, 2006 by Mike Connor

[kreid]

This argument will run on and on. The only way you are going to get settlement is to "divvy up" the waters for a while and allow angling on one half and kayaking on the other.

As most of the waters are relied upon by owners for a small income - see who is the most popular amongst them!

Also, are the canoeists going to cut back the bankside growth to facilitate access, a thing that anglers have been doing (with the owners permission!) for decades. Paddlers will have to realise that it is not just "jump into the canoe in the water" but a whole lot more than that!

 

 

only 1 real flaw in that argument...canoeists tend only to need 1 entry and 1 exit point....we as anglers need many, hence the need to "create " swims.

Moreover, many a once good swim has been ruined by over zealous work parties.

[David McCraw]

You should read what I wrote, there is little point in giving your extremely biased or exaggerated interpretation of it.

 

On the contrary, I understand you very well.

 

You build a straw man by implying that canoeists seek an utterly unprincipled, unregulated free-for-all, conveniently side-stepping proposals (supported by many canoeists) such as regulated minimum water levels backed up by fines - proposals which directly address your horror stories of day-trippers scraping down small, shallow rivers.

 

If you want to make accusations of "extreme bias or exaggerated interpretation", you would do well to start by looking closer to home.

 

You argue that fairer access will necessarily result in legions of day trippers ravaging the environment. It is clear that you have had bad personal experiences, and as I know nothing about the German situation, I give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Even so, your predictions raise difficult questions. Why is it that paddlesport is so popular in Scotland, where we have fair and responsible access, yet we do not see this environmental carnage? How can we explain your certain assurance that extending that approach south of Hadrian's Wall will be so damaging?

 

Is there something in the water in Glasgow, which is not present in England and Wales?

 

It would be stupid to try and argue that more people will not result in more litter - I am happy to admit that fairer access will increase the burden on those who maintain the river banks. I am also happy to admit that this role is currently performed by anglers, as is perhaps appropriate given your de-facto monopoly of the rivers themselves.

 

However, you seem not to realise that a fairer system of access is likely to enable canoe clubs and individual canoeists to join in with work parties where they would currently feel very unwelcome - or run their own. Even a little imagination is enough to see that this could be included as a condition of fairer access. Many other countries (with the apparent exception of Germany!) have come to some arrangement.

 

Access legislation, by enshrining both rights and responsibilities, protecting rivers when levels are low and making infractions punishable by fines, is a step in the right direction and will require a more convincing rebuttal (or more creative insults) than you have thus far achieved.

 

flotillas of canoes coming down a small river, render fishing impossible, much less enjoyable.

 

There are only a million rod licence holders in the UK; far fewer than the rapidly growing numbers involved in recreational watersport. It is obvious that your sharing of our finite natural heritage with others will require compromise - the reason fairer access is opposed by most anglers, and why voluntary access agreements are such a dismal failure.

 

It has been a pleasure.

[Mike Connor]

I have not built any straw men, I have not exaggerated, I have not implied anything like you suggest, and neither have I insulted you or anybody else. Merely stated the facts of the matter as they pertain here. That these facts may not be particularly palatable to you, or indeed of much use in furthering your cause, does not change them.

 

I can´t say it was a pleasure, but it was interesting.

 

Have a nice day!

 

MC

[Peter Waller]

More than a million folk involved in recreational watersport, yes, quite true. Thankfully most of 'em don't demand, selfishly I think, that they can push in on other folk. I wonder what the reactions would be if the four by four clubs demanded access to golf clubs?

[phil hackett]

There are only a million rod licence holders in the UK; far fewer than the rapidly growing numbers involved in recreational watersport. It is obvious that your sharing of our finite natural heritage with others will require compromise - the reason fairer access is opposed by most anglers, and why voluntary access agreements are such a dismal failure.

 

It has been a pleasure.

 

Kids under 12 don’t need a license to fish, nor do sea anglers. Then there’s those who fish without a license (not condoned by me or any other self-respecting angler) but a fact of life, which can only be guesstimated. Those figure based on EA prosecutions run at between 10 & 20 % of anglers.

 

Totalling in all an estimated 4 million. Gross revenue 7 billion pounds per year to the British economy.

 

To attempt to now lump all watersports into your argument and say they all want access to the rivers is laughable. Or showing your real aim, which is as the BTU campaign says, ACCESS FOR ALL. Ergo a total free for all!

 

So lets list all those watersports you have just co-opted onto you side

 

Windsurfers

Rowers

Rafters (inflatable)

Rafter homemade

Dingy sailors

Pleasure boaters

Outboarders

Jetskiers

Swimmers

Rock divers and pool plungers

Divers (scuba)

Bog snorkelers

River jumpers yes there are such enthusiasts (Wannabe JC’s.)

 

Then there’s you

Canoers

Kayakers

 

And the overall governing umbrella body of these is who?

 

Errrr there isn’t one is there!

 

With 7 of them we do already share many of the waters with, where they are permitted.

[phil hackett]

Kids under 12 don’t need a license to fish, nor do sea anglers. Then there’s those who fish without a license (not condoned by me or any other self-respecting angler) but a fact of life, which can only be guesstimated. Those figure based on EA prosecutions run at between 10 & 20 % of anglers.

 

Totalling in all an estimated 4 million. Gross revenue 7 billion pounds per year to the British economy.

 

To attempt to now lump all watersports into your argument and say they all want access to the rivers is laughable. Or showing your real aim, which is as the BTU campaign says, ACCESS FOR ALL. Ergo a total free for all!

 

So lets list all those watersports you have just co-opted onto you side

 

Windsurfers

Rowers

Rafters (inflatable)

Rafter homemade

Dingy sailors

Pleasure boaters

Outboarders

Jetskiers

Swimmers

Rock divers and pool plungers

Divers (scuba)

Bog snorkelers

River jumpers yes there are such enthusiasts (Wannabe JC’s.)

 

Then there’s you

Canoers

Kayakers

 

And the overall governing umbrella body of these is who?

 

Errrr there isn’t one is there!

 

With 7 of them we do already share many of the waters with, where they are permitted.

 

PS add water sking to the list making it 8.

[Newt]

Good info Phil.

 

I also found myself wondering when I saw the ££ figures. If you use a canoe or kayak to spend time on the water, after you purchase the craft, paddles, life vest, and maybe some specialized clothing, I can't understand where the continuing revenue stream comes from.

 

Coarse & game Anglers have their license fees and most have club or day ticket fees. The also buy bait, line, terminal tackle (disposable items) and most opt to replace or upgrade their rods, reels, and other durable bits on a regular basis.

 

Canoe and kayak users who have bought their stuff then need to spend on ?????

[David McCraw]

To attempt to now lump all watersports into your argument and say they all want access to the rivers is laughable. Or showing your real aim, which is as the BTU campaign says, ACCESS FOR ALL. Ergo a total free for all!

 

Phil, you are parroting the same straw man I just addressed, only with less aptitude. The words "access for all" imply that everyone should have the right to enjoy our river heritage - of course, with the appropriate responsibilities (and sanctions) enforced by law. Don't waste your time attacking a position we are not defending; with respect, it only makes you look silly.

 

Not quite as foolish, however, as your list of other watersports. We are campaigning for fairer access to rivers - how many windsurfers do you see on spate burns? Get many bog snorkelers on the rivers down your way? It smacks of hysteria to suggest that legislated fair access means jet skiiers ripping up your local beat.

 

Neither is there any point trying to add sea anglers or illegal anglers to a debate about inland water. The water being contended requires a rod licence which means you have just over a million bodies to argue with (although I didn't think about kids under 12 - that will increase your numbers). The figure of four million is utterly spurious.

 

 

Coarse & game Anglers have their license fees and most have club or day ticket fees. The also buy bait, line, terminal tackle (disposable items) and most opt to replace or upgrade their rods, reels, and other durable bits on a regular basis.

 

Canoe and kayak users who have bought their stuff then need to spend on ?????

 

Fuel and accommodation (/entertainment) are probably the big ones. Remember that canoeists travel widely depending on which rivers are in condition, and the season is essentially a winter one. We have to stay somewhere (B& and do something when it gets dark (local pub?). Also because it's pretty difficult (virtually impossible) to eat from a kayak, at least the groups I paddle with tend to buy food locally rather than bringing a packed lunch or whatever (ironically, fish and chips are popular). This is a welcome contribution to the winter economy of many small towns.

 

Gear doesn't last as long as you might think, either. I'd spend between one and two grand a year replacing / updating 'durable' items.

 

Having said all that, I'm not convinced the amount anyone spends gives them any more right to our shared natural heritage.

[Peter Waller]

Phil, you forgot those of us who sail cabin cruisers, keel boats and drive motor cruisers or the national body called the Royal Yacthing Association that represents tens of thousands of us boat users in general. Then there is the Inland Waterways Association, representing thousands of us who boat on inland waterways.

 

Other than that your point is well made. Trouble is that access for all can create problems that even canoeists would not wish to have, namely lots of boats! Access for all is not selective but I reckon that our canoeist friends know that, relying on the fact that the nature of a water does that for them.

 

Both the RYA and the IWA will fight to maintain navigations, or to re-open closed navigations. What neither will do is try to open navigations where none exist or have never, ever existed.

 

If access is granted to canoes then what comes next, rowing boats? Rowing boats with outboard engines is the next logical step which then leads to small outboard powered cruisers. It can not be right that access should be granted to canoes but not to other craft. And what constitutes a canoe? We have dragon boat racing on some waters, these canoes are 40 plus feet long, paddle powered by 20 plus people!

 

The rights to navigate are sacrosanct, dating back to Magna Carta. I do not believe that it is right to selectively extend navigation rights onto non tidal waters, it is against our constitution for one thing. And unfair on those who already have use of these non tidal waters. The BCU, a body I refuse to join, even though I canoe, are adopting bully-boy tactics to over-ride Magna Carta, to gain their selfish way. Not good.

 

Being involved with the Broads Authority means that I am aware of certain policies. If a navigation is extended then the maintenance fund also has to be extended. The Broads Authority is now pushing to include contiguous waters in its remit. Fine, it can then collect tolls from boats on these waters. But what was forgotten was that they then become resposible for the maintenance of these waters, waters that are often bady neglected. So no, I can't see public bodies funding many of these extended waterways. Will the BCU? Interestingly the BA is not wishing to extend its remit to cover the upper River Waveney, a river under pressure from the BCU activists, obviously it doesn't want to get lumbered. The income, on the Broads, from canoes does not justify it.

Edited May 12, 2006 by Peter Waller