Canoe access poll on BBC

[Dr Repper]

Odd how these things often seem to turn into some sort of class warfare in the UK.

 

Common sense dictates that there is nothing whatever to be gained by allowing general river access to canoeists. It has little to do with anglers actually, although as conservationists and generally conscientious river users they are mostly primarily against it as a matter of principle, owing to the destruction and other problems which inevitably ensue, and secondarily as a result of the disturbance they would then be obliged to endure while in pursuit of their own pleasure.

 

Any reasonable study of existing problems in many places will demonstrate this quite admirably.

 

It is not an "anglers versus canoeists" problem, as much as you and others would seemingly like it to be.

 

It is purely a canoeist problem. Most of you want something for nothing, and an appreciable number are also apparently prepared to ignore any and all rules and regulations in order to get it.

 

Nobody with any sense, angler or otherwise, will support such. I rather fail to see what you and your compatriots hope to gain by spreading a smoke screen like this on most of the angling boards. Doubtless the best policy would be to ignore you, just as you advocate ignoring the landowners, anglers´s rightful concerns, and doubtless others who would oppose you.

 

It is not sensible to expect people to curtail their pleasures, which they pay dearly for, in order to allow others to indulge in theirs for nothing, and at general public and environmental expense.

 

There is nothing to stop you lobbying for what you want, but achieving it is unlikely, and a good thing to.

 

TL

MC

 

I quite agree, this is not a paddlers versus anglers issue, as you will notice in my careful use of the generic term 'water users' in all of my posts.

 

I can only assume that you are a riparian owner, as you have taken umbridge at my suggestion that all water users (including anglers) should be under no obligation to pay to use the riparian zone of our country's rivers, other than to a centralised body performing beneficial maintenance. I fail to see how anglers have a vested interest in paying exhorbitant fees for fishing rights.

 

Your point about 'inebvitable destruction' is purely conjecture, as no such inevitability has ever been proven.

 

Interesting, then, that you call my participation in a public discussion on an open forum a 'smokescreen'.

 

The fact remains that being occasionally inconvenienced through a conflict of interest with one's fellow citizens is an unfortunate side effect of living in a country along with lots of other people in it.

 

The idea, however, that all the nations angling will be ruined by ravening hordes of whooping paddlers that will suddenly appear from under every rock is ridiculous, and still more so that they will leave nothing but destruction in their wake (the good state of the tryweryn and the dart, two rivers that are forced to bare the bulk of british whitewater paddling due to outmoded access laws, being crowning examples).

 

The fact remains that, as current riparian ownership laws stand, a large proportion of potential water users is denied the use of a tremendous natural resource because a very few are making a lot of money. This situation will not last.

 

Ignore the issue if you will. You'll only help in the end.

[Mike Connor]

Ignore the issue if you will. You'll only help in the end.

 

 

Your first assumption is incorrect. I am not, nor have I ever been a riparian owner. It is also extremely unlikely that I ever will be, ( although hope springs eternal!).

 

I did not take umbrage at anything you wrote. I merely commented on it.

 

Doubtless we would all like to fish for free as well, but it is not practicable.

 

The inevitable destruction is not conjecture, it is a statement of simple and obvious fact. Which incidentally is easily proven.

 

Are you looking for support? An argument? What is the purpose of this discussion? Merely to give voice on how unfair "the system" is?

 

There is no "war" between anglers and paddlers, and such argument is as a result, merely a smokescreen.

 

There is a considerable difference between being "occasionally inconvenienced" and having your chosen pastime completely ruined.

 

Your point is well taken, there are too many people, all trying to exploit too few resources.

 

If general access were granted, there would be more paddlers on the rivers. Alone the commercial enterprises renting canoes and offering trips would mushroom, as they have done elsewhere, to the detriment of all except the enterprises concerned.

 

Two rivers with controlled access, where everyone is more or less obliged to be on their best behaviour, is not a good example of what happens when general access is allowed.

 

The resources under discussion are already subject to considerable pressure by the current users. If the vast pool of potential users were also allowed free access, then the situation would simply become even more acute.

 

If you want to form a paddling syndicate, and rent a stretch of river, go ahead. There are doubtless few who would prevent you from doing so, even assuming they could.

 

If you want to use public waterways then you must be prepared to abide by the current rules and regulations, and also pay your way just like anglers and other waterway users.

 

Just in case it has escaped your notice you live in a democracy which is mainly governed by free enterprise. In other words, money rules. If you have no money, you have no clout. Theoretically at least, you could gather up enough like minded people, form a political party or a lobby group, fuel it with a lot of money, and eventually gain your stated ends.

 

I wish you every success in this endeavour.

 

I am not ignoring the issue. I seem to remember you being the one who was advocating ignoring landowners?

 

TL

MC

Edited May 9, 2006 by Mike Connor

[Paul Boote]

Ignore the issue if you will. You'll only help in the end.

Your first assumption is incorrect. I am not, nor have I ever been a riparian owner. It is also extremely unlikely that I ever will be, ( although hope springs eternal!).

 

I did not take umbrage at anything you wrote. I merely commented on it.

 

Doubtless we would all like to fish for free as well, but it is not practicable.

 

The inevitable destruction is not conjecture, it is a statement of simple and obvious fact. Which incidentally is easily proven.

 

Are you looking for support? An argument? What is the purpose of this discussion? Merely to give voice on how unfair "the system" is?

 

There is no "war" between anglers and paddlers, and such argument is as a result, merely a smokescreen.

 

There is a considerable difference between being "occasionally inconvenienced" and having your chosen pastime completely ruined.

 

Your point is well taken, there are too many people, all trying to exploit too few resources.

 

If general access were granted, there would be more paddlers on the rivers. Alone the commercial enterprises renting canoes and offering trips would mushroom, as they have done elsewhere, to the detriment of all except the enterprises concerned.

 

Two rivers with controlled access, where everyone is more or less obliged to be on their best behaviour, is not a good example of what happens when general access is allowed.

 

The resources under discussion are already subject to considerable pressure by the current users. If the vast pool of potential users were also allowed free access, then the situation would simply become even more acute.

 

If you want to form a paddling syndicate, and rent a stretch of river, go ahead. There are doubtless few who would prevent you from doing so, even assuming they could.

 

If you want to use public waterways then you must be prepared to abide by the current rules and regulations, and also pay your way just like anglers and other waterway users.

 

Just in case it has escaped your notice you live in a democracy which is mainly governed by free enterprise. In other words, money rules. If you have no money, you have no clout. Theoretically at least, you could gather up enough like minded people, form a political party or a lobby group, fuel it with a lot of money, and eventually gain your stated ends.

 

I wish you every success in this endeavour.

 

I am not ignoring the issue. I seem to remember you being the one who was advocating ignoring landowners?

 

TL

MC

 

 

Expressing yourself as well ever, I see, Mike. Nice to see you here.

 

AngNet-ers: Mike has a super-abundance of fly-fishing and fly-tying knowledge. Please treat him well.

[Mike Connor]

Expressing yourself as well ever, I see, Mike. Nice to see you here.

 

AngNet-ers: Mike has a super-abundance of fly-fishing and fly-tying knowledge. Please treat him well.

 

Very kind of you to say so Paul. I think you will find that one or two know me from times past. But I only came in to comment on the canoe access discussion.

 

TL

MC

Edited May 9, 2006 by Mike Connor

[Leon Roskilly]

Is there any one organisation that speaks for you?

 

 

http://anglingsites.com/saa/politicsinfo/structures.htm

[Newt]

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

I think in this case, it was me dragging the topic slightly off the direction is was headed.

 

So in the end, we are back to the annoyance factor and the short-term disruption of the fishing because the paddling folk are clueless, preoccupied, rude, or something.

 

Fair enough. I know I have wished bad cess on boaters who did similar things to me. It's almost insignificant if you are flinging lures or some other tactic that does not involve placing ground bait in a precise location and then taking time to position a rig in that location and get it settled on the rod holder - annoying but minor.

 

When you do have serious setup time & effort, it certainly becomes much more serious.

 

I fish several 'lakes' that are old river channels that were flooded by dams so that you have the old main channel where it is deep and clear along with some areas that were shore prior to the damming. These areas were logged prior to the flooding but stumps remain and depending on water levels, may be anywhere from 1" to a few feet below the surface. The area is hilly and that adds to the problem.

 

The worst areas are marked by standard red & green buoys but some of the folks who run large, fast boats and pull other folks on skies or float tubes seem to think the markers are decorative or something and will rip through the danger areas at 30-50 mph. At one time I would try to warn them but these days, unless they are pulling youngsters (pre-teens or barely-teens) I just sit back and watch the fun. It doesn't happen every trip but enough of them have a fight with an old stump that has been under water for 50-60 years (and is about as soft as steel) that it keeps me entertained.

[Dr Repper]

Ignore the issue if you will. You'll only help in the end.

Your first assumption is incorrect. I am not, nor have I ever been a riparian owner. It is also extremely unlikely that I ever will be, ( although hope springs eternal!).

 

I did not take umbrage at anything you wrote. I merely commented on it.

 

Doubtless we would all like to fish for free as well, but it is not practicable.

 

The inevitable destruction is not conjecture, it is a statement of simple and obvious fact. Which incidentally is easily proven.

 

Are you looking for support? An argument? What is the purpose of this discussion? Merely to give voice on how unfair "the system" is?

 

There is no "war" between anglers and paddlers, and such argument is as a result, merely a smokescreen.

 

There is a considerable difference between being "occasionally inconvenienced" and having your chosen pastime completely ruined.

 

Your point is well taken, there are too many people, all trying to exploit too few resources.

 

If general access were granted, there would be more paddlers on the rivers. Alone the commercial enterprises renting canoes and offering trips would mushroom, as they have done elsewhere, to the detriment of all except the enterprises concerned.

 

Two rivers with controlled access, where everyone is more or less obliged to be on their best behaviour, is not a good example of what happens when general access is allowed.

 

The resources under discussion are already subject to considerable pressure by the current users. If the vast pool of potential users were also allowed free access, then the situation would simply become even more acute.

 

If you want to form a paddling syndicate, and rent a stretch of river, go ahead. There are doubtless few who would prevent you from doing so, even assuming they could.

 

If you want to use public waterways then you must be prepared to abide by the current rules and regulations, and also pay your way just like anglers and other waterway users.

 

Just in case it has escaped your notice you live in a democracy which is mainly governed by free enterprise. In other words, money rules. If you have no money, you have no clout. Theoretically at least, you could gather up enough like minded people, form a political party or a lobby group, fuel it with a lot of money, and eventually gain your stated ends.

 

I wish you every success in this endeavour.

 

I am not ignoring the issue. I seem to remember you being the one who was advocating ignoring landowners?

 

TL

MC

 

Ah Mr Boote! You are quite right, Mike does express himself very well. Given the contrasting quality of your previous posts, I hope you aren't (heaven forefend) attempting to "piggyback, strategically and politically", on his "freely given efforts"?

 

Mike,

 

I assure you that I have not come here spoiling for a row, only to discuss an important issue. I hope the fact that we do not agree is being construed as some kind of personal grudge on my part. If it is, the I apologise. I am thankful that you have not been offended, and that we can discuss this matter openly in the spirit of healthy debate.

 

To answer a few of your points:

 

I do not believe that there is anything wrong with giving "voice on how unfair "the system" is".

 

I have also been at pains to point out that I agree that "there is no "war" between anglers and paddlers", but a problem for most potential water users presented by archaic riparian ownership laws that (whether through their doing or not) allow one group access to rivers while others are barred. I have no interest in slinging mud.

 

The fact that paddlers have approached two angling fora to discuss the issue is simply because they tend to represent 'the otherside' of the 'arguement'. There would be prescious little point preaching to the converted on paddling forums, why not engage in dialogue with those who tend to disagree?

 

I do not agree that free access (remember that no-one is arguing that access should be entirely without restriction in the case of all waters) would cause your chosen pastime to be "entirely ruined". Many among your number have already stated that other, considerate water users on large rivers (the only type that paddlers would be interested in accessing during the fishing season, with the exception of dam release rivers such as the tryweryn) would be of no hinderance (even a grudging Mr Boote said the he didn't have "THAT MUCH of a problem" with the idea).

 

That the possibility that an irresponsible minority may occasionally missbehave (just as some anglers do on waterways with paddling access) is no grounds at all to bar the rest. He who is without sin...

 

On small rivers, paddlers are only interested in access during the winter months when there is sufficient rainfall to render them paddleable, i.e. outside the fishing season.

 

These points considered, I think you'll find that disruptive contact with other water users would be more minimal than you imagine, especially considering that access would be spread nationwide.

 

I can assure you that paddlers on the Dart and Tryweryn are under no greater pressure to "be on their best behaviour" than anywhere else. In nearly a decade and a half of frequent visits to both locations (hey, I have no more choice than any other paddler) I have never encountered a warden on or near the water. Paddlers behave themselves quite naturally.

 

My point is not that there aren't enough resources to go around, more that there are plenty, they are just being monopolised. There would not be "more paddlers on the rivers", there would be the same number spread over more rivers.

 

Your point about "free fishing" has also been dealt with already. I was not suggesting that fishing would be free, simply that additional expenses associated with it (i.e. not associated with other pursuits) would no longer be payable to riparian owners but to the EA, who would take on the responsibility of maintenance of fish stocks, river clearance etc. I believe it to be the responsibility of the BCU and other groups representing other water users to form and promote regional voluntary working groups to contribute to these efforts, just as local angling groups already do.

 

You also make the point that "commercial enterprises renting canoes and offering trips would mushroom" and later remind me that I "live in a democracy which is mainly governed by free enterprise". See where I'm going with this?

 

You are quite correct in pointing out that it was remiss of me to suggest that riparian owners could be ignored. I should have said 'outvoted'.

 

The assumption that riparian owners would win simply because they have lots of money doesn't necessarily hold water. The recent efforts of the Countryside Alliance have made this plain. Money can be made in lots of ways by lots of different people, contributing to the economy in many ways.

 

Now, if it is everyone's considered opinion that this discussion is going nowhere, then I'll agree to disagree and drop it there. I'll leave the chest beating and expounding of rhetoric to Mr Boote and the clumsier among my kin .

 

All the best,

 

Richard 'Panglossian Good-Cop' Repper

[David McCraw]

Just in case it has escaped your notice you live in a democracy which is mainly governed by free enterprise. In other words, money rules. If you have no money, you have no clout. Theoretically at least, you could gather up enough like minded people, form a political party or a lobby group, fuel it with a lot of money, and eventually gain your stated ends.

 

Out of interest, then, how do you account for either CROW or the Land Reform Act? Both of these are certainly victories for the "ordinary" (i.e. poor!) man rather than the wealthy few. Your argument could have been presented to those at the Kinder-Scout trespass, with a minimum of adjustment. The ban on hunting also represents the success of the "ordinary" man against (what is percieved to be) a privileged minority.

 

I don't think the 'system' is as difficult to change as you imply; after all, this government praised Kinder-Scout as model of effective civil disobedience which secured "far-reaching changes to unjust and oppressive law".

 

Things have already started moving this way, and while personally I wouldn't like to be jailed on the principle of fair access, I fear that is where we will end up in the near future.

 

The problem is then things get dirty (and contrary to what Mr. Boote will insist, canoeists are very supportive of anglers enjoying the outdoors, apart from the access issue!). The media would be in a right lather if our multiple medal-winning Olympic team was to boycott the London games in protest that wealthy land owners won't allow fair access (or better/worse, to protest over aquatic ramblers being fined or jailed). It wouldn't harm the animal rights movement (whose tactics I abhor) either.

 

There are a large number of designated canoe routes maintained by the various Federal states. As long as canoeists stick to these routes, and the codes of behaviour laid out by the various associations, there are no major problems.

 

As you admit, there are ways in which canoeing and angling can co-exist without problems.

 

Pity we won't let that happen here.

[kreid]

You persist in saying it work well in Scotland on the game rivers. There are far less anglers (game) than there are in E & W. of both disciplines coarse and game. The ratio is about 5 to 1 in favour of E & W.

 

There is as I’ve told you before when you appeared on Fishingmagic a world of difference between coarse fishing E & W and Scottish game fishing.

 

 

yes but E+W must have a lot more rivers to choose from.

[kreid]

"an issue of litter, fire lighting, midnight etc.... of the other antisocial behaviour "

 

Sounds just like many SCOTTISH LOCHS like L.Earn/Rannoch/Trossachs lochs which are heavily fished by the less environment friendly anglers........I am willing to bet that there is far more litter left by anglers than by kayakers.....we ought not to go sdown this path.