Canoe access poll on BBC

[David McCraw]

Nice try, but allowing ramblers to access the moors will not lead to motorcyclists, then 4x4s, etc. - and fairer access for canoes in the rest of the world has not led to the situation you describe either. Access for all does not mean a free-for-all (last time I'm going to bother addressing this).

 

The Magna Carta implies a right of navigation to all inland water (not just tidal stretches) - the present system of land-owners controlling access is much more recent. As nothing in the "constitution" prevented the right to roam, I don't see how 'aquatic rambling' is any different.

 

At the end you come back to the point that fairer access would be "unfair on those who already have use of these non tidal waters" - i.e. anglers. Well, I don't know what sort of education you got I wasn't taught there is anything unfair about sharing.

[Peter Waller]

I would like to think that my parents brought me up to be fair and considerate. It would not be fair of me to push my way across a bowling green in my right to roam, it would spoil it for those who are already there. Sharing is fine, but it might not be considerate, and being considerate to those already there is something that I hold in far higher esteem. Oh, David, can I share your bed? An extreme analogy, I know! But it would be rather unfair on you and your bedmate, but that is sharing. Not very considerate, hence my values regarding consideration. Barging in on other folk, as the BCU is attempting, is hardy good manners.

 

I would suggest that you re-read Magna Carta and note the word 'tidal'. Granted that the Enclosures Act was grossly unfair but like lots of things it is on our statute books.

 

Re 4X4s, those that insist on pushing their luck by using footpaths, ummmmmmm, point made?

 

I note, David, that you are not going to bother addressing this topic, fine. But don't question my upbringing, thank you.

Edited May 12, 2006 by Peter Waller

[ColinW]

Initially I was sort of pro-canoes but, if this is what they are all like, now I think they deserve to be kept off just because they are so goddam boring, jeez it just goes on and on and on and on

If they hog the rivers the way they are hogging this board we won't get a look in, talk about inconsiderate!

[jimpy0]

request to mods please shut down this thread as its going nowhere

 

if only 2 or 3 people are gonna debate this and from immovable positions they should exchange email addys and do it that way or go back to the forum they came from

 

its getting boring

im bored

nuff said

 

 

 

{edit note from Newt - sorry jimpy but unless it turns nasty, it will run until it dies a natural death.}

[phil hackett]

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.

 

You did write this, didn’t you?

 

“There are only a million rod licence holders in the UK; far fewer than the rapidly growing numbers involved in recreational watersport “

 

The BTU campaign states only ACCESS FOR ALL the rest is your add on.

 

If it is as you say, then the BTU is being disingenuous in the extreme to those it’s attempting to mislead into supporting its campaign.

 

My tong-in-check reference to bog snorkelers and river jumpers is no more silly than your attempt to lump in all recreational watersports to you cause.

 

And yes we do have bog snorkelers in my region?

 

As for sea anglers, the days of attacking and isolating a particular section of angling has gone, and injury to one section is an injury to all.

 

And your evidence for stating 4 Mil is spurious is what?

 

Oh I forgot license sales! Which doesn’t include sea anglers, kids and despised illegal anglers who chance their arm.

BTW the figure 4 M relates to all UK anglers, and in NI, or where you live, they don’t as yet need a rod license to fish.

[phil hackett]

Nice try, but allowing ramblers to access the moors will not lead to motorcyclists, then 4x4s, etc. - and fairer access for canoes in the rest of the world has not led to the situation you describe either. Access for all does not mean a free-for-all (last time I'm going to bother addressing this).

 

Must be very law abiding where you live, but down here on the Pennines we now have major problems with both, much to the disgust of ramblers, hikers and hill walkers.

Interestingly, they use the same argument that you’re advancing.

 

Likewise, there are problems on the upper Severn with jet skiers tearing up the river.

[Peter Waller]

Just a thought, re a conversation on another watery forum, if the BCU want to roam freely, e.g. at no cost, then anglers should enjoy exactly the same freedom. Perhaps, David, we can count on your support?

 

Two other points that have been raised. One is that canoes do not generate worthwhile income, and that comes from a tourist boss. Secondly, that canoes and big boats don't mix. Is that one of the reasons that canoes want to get off the beaten track? The are hundreds of miles of soak dykes on the Broads. Perhaps the BCU should get off their arses and clear some of them, then us anglers can elbow in on them!!!!

 

Come on David, you know that you are dying to come back on this one!

Edited May 12, 2006 by Peter Waller

[kleinboet]

Anglers go fishing to:

A: Catch Fish

B: Enjoy their surroundings

C: To see nature.

 

Canoists cannot do B or C as they are too busy selecting their "path" through the water, if they stopped and enjoyed the scenery they could possibly hit a (submerged?) obstacle.

 

I have seen (overseas) "purpose built" Kayaking trails with still, fast flowing, rapids etc. Everything, in fact, to make nearly all canoists, kayakers etc happy.

 

The money that the canoists/kayakers are seemingly prepared to spend to get onto the waters, may possibly be better spent building these trails throughout the country, instead of having this massive boat/angler confrontation.

Edited May 12, 2006 by kleinboet

[Newt]

Anglers go fishing to:

A: Catch Fish

B: Enjoy their surroundings

C: To see nature.

 

Canoists cannot do B or C as they are too busy selecting their "path" through the water, if they stopped and enjoyed the scenery they could possibly hit a (submerged?) obstacle.

 

That might apply to white water kleinboet but with a slow moving stream, it is lots of fun to put in and fish or just look around while floating/drifting downstream. Even a river that has some stretches of rapids are fine if the fast parts aren't too horrible.

 

Just a matter of having someone who can drop you off and then meet you later at some downstream location. 2-4 days is great if there are places along your route where you can stop and set up camp for the evening.

[Leon Roskilly]

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.

 

From an official Environment Agency Report

 

Our figures show that more than

4 million people, over 12 years old,

in England and Wales went angling

last year. This has led to 20,000

jobs in support industries and

a total spending of up to £2.75

billion each year on the sport.........

 

..........

 

Participation

 

• 2.6 million (6%) of the 43

million people aged over 12 in

England and Wales went fishing

in freshwaters in the last year.

 

1.5 million people fished just

in the sea.

 

With over 4 million

people fishing last year, it is

probably the nation’s favourite

outdoor participation sport.

 

Even more people fish less

frequently, with 20% (8.3

million) having been freshwater

fishing in the last 10 years.

 

• About as many people

again would like to try or

return to angling if it were

easier for them.

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subje.../subjects/fish/

 

 

What I think is sad, and hasn't been really thought through, is that if the BCU gets it's way and all rivers become free access to all water users, is that there will inevitably be a 'CB Radio' effect (once CB became legalised in the UK, the airwaves were flooded by kids and idiots and the real enthusiasts faded away, their culture destroyed).

 

Rather than the relatively few number of enthusiasts using the rivers as now, once anyone can buy/make a cheap craft and launch it anywhere, there is bound to be a huge increase in the number of people doing that.

 

Genuine sports canoists will be driven off their once popular places by hordes of untrained and dangerous louts who simply have no regards for either rules, conventions or consideration for others.

 

In the minds of the proposers I suspect that they envisage the number of people wanting to go where they will as much as there are now, and they haven't really considered the scale of demand that will be released by free access to all.

 

Or perhaps simply hope that the amount of water opened will easily accomodate the explosive growth that can be expected.

 

What they have probably not realised is that they will be dealing with a very different type of user than the ones that they are currently familiar with if the proposals go ahead, and are unprepared for what that will mean for their sport and the minorityisation (!) of the kind of people now engaged in their sport.

 

I suspect that pretty soon the BCU will be fighting genuinely free access tooth and nail, ironically demanding that only BCU members be given access, at least to certain river systems etc, whilst anglers have to put up with the rest of the great unwashed paddling community wherever they are now free to paddle.

 

Once that stable door of 'free access to all' has been opened, it will be impossible to close, and those who forced it open are likely to be horrified at what follows them though

Edited May 13, 2006 by Leon Roskilly