Jump to content

Canoe access poll on BBC


Recommended Posts

In all truth it's hard to see that there can be any, apart from the occasional access point getting churned up.

 

But I'm with pretty much with PW on this. The 2 recreations don't go well together. They can live together, but a lot of canoeists seem intent on racing and don't take kindly (to say the least) to shouts of "whoa - there's a line out there". And if it's a substantial line (like 50lb braid ;) ) then the canoeists themselves are certainly in danger of injury. Canoes are also remarkably quiet till they're almost on top of you, so things can and do get out of hand very quickly. And some anglers no doubt return this thoughtlessness in their own ways.

 

Naturally I'm biased, but where I see most anglers happy enough to share the waters with other recreations, a lot of canoeists act like they have a special right to behave how the hell they like - i.e. everybody else had better get out of the way.

 

Sorry Newt, I'm ranting somewhat away from your point ;)

 

This is essentially the view that a large proportion of the paddling community holds of 'a lot' of anglers. It stems from a lack of communication between the two interested parties, and the fact that people on both sides of the discussion are more apt to remember instances of conflict than the majority of encounters which are entirely uneventful.

 

I can recount many, many tales of being lambasted/threatened/pelted with groundbait by obnoxious anglers, even though I have always in thirteen years of paddling taken the utmost care not to disturb a peaceful and genteel activity along with (guess what) the overwhelming majority of paddlers that I know (many of whom also fish). I have also been attacked by pakistani youths on the street near my home, but I'm not given to assume that the majority would behave in such a manner.

 

There will always be isolated occasions on which paddlers and anglers inconvenience and annoy one another. Indeed, regulations should be put in place to ensure that deliberate misbehaviour on the water by anyone, paddler, angler, pleasure boater or otherwise can be reported and dealt with appropriately.

 

There will also always be times when other drivers pull out infront of you at T junctions, or fail to indicate at roundabouts. This doesn't mean that all other drivers should have their liscences taken away, just in case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"According to the last review, over 1.5m people try paddlesports each year - this is in the same ball park as the number of rod licences sold - yet canoeists are barred from 99% of rivers... I'm sure you can all agree that this situation is unfair.

 

How much multiple counting was done when compiling these figures one wonders?

 

How much was rowing boats? And not as Mr McCraw is attempting to mislead readers into believing Canoes and Kayaks.

 

This assumption that all the arguments of paddlers for greater river access is based around ficticious statistics is wearisome.

 

The figures were arrived at by a BCU survey of affiliated clubs, coaching providers and outdoor pursuits centres in order to ascertain the correlation between the numbers of people trying paddlesports each year and those taking up BCU membership. This survey was conducted in order to ascertain whether adaptations should be made to the BCU coaching scheme in order to promote retention of new participants.

 

Figures for rowing were not included as rowing is regulated entirely seperately and would as such be irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all truth it's hard to see that there can be any, apart from the occasional access point getting churned up.

 

But I'm with pretty much with PW on this. The 2 recreations don't go well together. They can live together, but a lot of canoeists seem intent on racing and don't take kindly (to say the least) to shouts of "whoa - there's a line out there". And if it's a substantial line (like 50lb braid ;) ) then the canoeists themselves are certainly in danger of injury. Canoes are also remarkably quiet till they're almost on top of you, so things can and do get out of hand very quickly. And some anglers no doubt return this thoughtlessness in their own ways.

 

Naturally I'm biased, but where I see most anglers happy enough to share the waters with other recreations, a lot of canoeists act like they have a special right to behave how the hell they like - i.e. everybody else had better get out of the way.

 

Sorry Newt, I'm ranting somewhat away from your point ;)

 

This is precisely the view of Anglers held by most paddlers. I could regail you with many tales of being lambasted/threatened/pelted with groundbait even though I, just like (guess what) the overwhelming majority of paddlers have always taken the utmost care not disturb a peaceful and genteel activity. On one occasion, a group of young charmers attemted to foul-hook children in a group of open canoes that I was instructing on the thames. Unfortunately, human beings in general are more apt to remember instances of conflict than the overwhelming majority of encounters which are entirely uneventful. I have also been attacked by a group of Pakistani youths near my home. Should I assume that the majority would behave in the same manner?

 

There will always be times when river users get on eachother's nerves (indeed, there should be regulations in place to combat deliberate missbehaviour FROM ANY RIVER USERS and the means put in place to enforce them). There will also be times when other drivers pull out infront of you at juctions, or fail to indicate at roundabouts. You may even get shunted once in a while. That doesn't mean that all other drivers should have their liscences taken away, just in case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr R, you propose regulations to prevent "any water users" misbehaving. How do you think this should work?

Anglers have a license, and a club year book or day ticket for the water they're fishing, and can easily be traced. Yachts ( my particular beef), motor launches have a name or reg number, which can be traced.

What do paddlers have? What do we say if we need to report an incident? "It was a yellow one, bombing down stream, and will be about 3 miles away now". Who do we say it to? If access was granted in the way it has been described, would there be a body that would make sure that each boat had it's own unique number, that could be traced? Would the occasional paddler not be allowed on the water unless he was licensed? Who would legislate these rules? who would pay for them? And more importantly, would the system work?

Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the bowling analogy...would it not be more like bowlers demanding access to every paid for and owned football pitch in the country. The argument that anglers have 'an exclusive right' to 99% of rovers is totally false. Anglers have no right to fish any river that they have not paid for. Canoeists could do exactly the same and buy up some rights. They have done so already apparently in Symmonds Yat with a generous grant from the EA! The organisation that anglers subsidise and canoeists are generally not willing to contribute to. Why can they not do this elsewhere!!!???

 

Here is the Symonds Yat story that has strangley been deleted from the BCU website...but can still be seen through using google 'cached'. They have also deleted (their own) advice to canoeists to avoid spawning ground due to the damage it can cause...interesting given their campaign don't you think.

 

Canoeists secure rapids at Symonds Yat

On Friday March 14th the British Canoe Union helped by a generous grant from the Environment Agency have exercised their option to purchase this nationally significant River Wye canoeing site.

 

 

For around 60 years paddlers have been using the 304 meters of rapids at Symonds Yat for competition, training and recreation.

 

 

4 years ago an option to purchase was negotiated by the BCU and fund raising began. This week the Environment Agency made a grant of £50,000 towards the purchase and the canoeing related “Maurice Rothwell Trust” donated a further £25,000 to enable the option to be exercised.

 

 

Further information is available from:- www.yatrapids.co.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, it would seem that the ever amusing Mr Boote has chosen to have a pop at this 'panglossian good cop' on the fly fishing forum.

 

In response:

 

[quote The above was read in its original by a man - myself - whom in recent years the British "Angling Establishment" first chose to pointedly ignore, then felt that it had to deride and generally excoriate at any and every opportunity (in the hope that he'd take the hint, sink without trace / go away / preferably die etc), then generally Crucified All Ways Round (Standard, Sideways, Upside Down, Rear Entry, plus a few more of its known only to the cognoscenti, Top Public School variations, sometimes all at the same time), but found him still standing, still terrifyingly coherent, still not gone away, still - no, increasingly - relevant (unlike its largely still-Victorian-minded self), and still a better ANGLER (it's not just about hooking out fish, you know) than probably all of its oh-so-discreet, no-name, well-heeled, rural backwoods members put together. Oh, Kreid (or should that be "Horsey, horsey"?), you just don't know how it hated and relentlessly came at me!

 

And yet now, though, it appears more than just a tad relieved that it didn't destroy me back then, that it still has me around fighting the case of every proper British angler (hoping to piggyback, strategically and politically, on my freely given efforts, you see)...

 

Incoherent?

 

No.

 

It's just that I know British Angling all ways round (on the riverbank and from time spent in its better clubs and drawing-rooms).

 

This is perhaps the funniest passage I have ever read. Full marks.

 

I hope the bulk of the angling community do not share Mr Boote's view that any and all polite, reasoned arguement from the paddling community must be the 'friendly face' of an incidious, maniacal scheme to take over the world, or that the above orgy of self congratulation somehow constitutes a good point well made.

 

Mr Boote, to quote a literary great, your boasts are "all sound and fury, signifying nothing". Please leave the debate to adults.

 

Rich R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr R, you propose regulations to prevent "any water users" misbehaving. How do you think this should work?

Anglers have a license, and a club year book or day ticket for the water they're fishing, and can easily be traced. Yachts ( my particular beef), motor launches have a name or reg number, which can be traced.

What do paddlers have? What do we say if we need to report an incident? "It was a yellow one, bombing down stream, and will be about 3 miles away now". Who do we say it to? If access was granted in the way it has been described, would there be a body that would make sure that each boat had it's own unique number, that could be traced? Would the occasional paddler not be allowed on the water unless he was licensed? Who would legislate these rules? who would pay for them? And more importantly, would the system work?

 

A liscencing system such as you suggest exists on the Thames already and is enforced by the EA. I would suggest that the enforcement of a paddling liscence need be no more difficult than the enforcement of a rod liscence. As has been stated, there is no reason why water users cannot pay for the infrastructure surrounding the ligislation. It may even create a few new jobs : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the Symonds Yat story that has strangley been deleted from the BCU website...but can still be seen through using google 'cached'. They have also deleted (their own) advice to canoeists to avoid spawning ground due to the damage it can cause...interesting given their campaign don't you think.

 

Canoeists secure rapids at Symonds Yat

On Friday March 14th the British Canoe Union helped by a generous grant from the Environment Agency have exercised their option to purchase this nationally significant River Wye canoeing site.

For around 60 years paddlers have been using the 304 meters of rapids at Symonds Yat for competition, training and recreation.

 

4 years ago an option to purchase was negotiated by the BCU and fund raising began. This week the Environment Agency made a grant of £50,000 towards the purchase and the canoeing related “Maurice Rothwell Trust” donated a further £25,000 to enable the option to be exercised.

Further information is available from:- www.yatrapids.co.uk

 

It seems strange to attack paddlers for not contributing to the EA when only 1 and a bit million of a supposed 4 million anglers possess rod liscences.

 

The passage about damaging spawning grounds was removed following the publishing of the DEFRA report.

 

Also, the football pitch analogy does not hold water. A football pitch is not natural, it must be constructed with time, effort and money (trust me, I was a head groundsman) from a sole contributor, just like a house. That contributor then owns what he/she has built.

 

Paddlers are not suggest a right for everyone to come and sit in your living room, drinking tea made in your kitchen after having a good old paddle in your garden pond. We are proposing access for all to our natural heritage. If anglers pay any more than us, it should be to help replenish fih stocks (which you already do). Any other maintenance of the river environment should be an obligation of the EA (or some other, new body), paid for by river liscences and taxes, complemented by voluntary working parties composed of all river users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems strange to attack paddlers for not contributing to the EA when only 1 and a bit million of a supposed 4 million anglers possess rod liscences.

 

The passage about damaging spawning grounds was removed following the publishing of the DEFRA report.

 

Also, the football pitch analogy does not hold water. A football pitch is not natural, it must be constructed with time, effort and money (trust me, I was a head groundsman) from a sole contributor, just like a house. That contributor then owns what he/she has built.

 

Paddlers are not suggest a right for everyone to come and sit in your living room, drinking tea made in your kitchen after having a good old paddle in your garden pond. We are proposing access for all to our natural heritage. If anglers pay any more than us, it should be to help replenish fih stocks (which you already do). Any other maintenance of the river environment should be an obligation of the EA (or some other, new body), paid for by river liscences and taxes, complemented by voluntary working parties composed of all river users.

 

If rivers are 'natural' then they would not require maintenance - as you acknowledge they do.

 

Canoeists have set a precedent of buying the 'right' to canoe through the above purchase. Why can this not be extended...or is it that they just won't put their money where their mouth is?

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.