Canoe access poll on BBC

[Peter Waller]

Whilst we have the attention of a few keen canoeists perhaps one, or maybe two of them can answer me a question. Why do canoeists insist on shouting at each other?

 

It really is a canoe thing. Rowers don't seem to do it, sailors might during a race but otherwise are pretty quiet, bankside walkers don't do it, bird watchers don't do it but canoeists do, even when they are in a two seater just feet apart!

 

I live near a river and I really don't want to hear what Gavin did to Tracy last night, or what Phil did to Sharon, that's their business.

 

Part of the attraction of boating and angling is getting away from the noise of towns and cities, but not for your average canoeist. Don't these people realize that sound travels over water?

 

On an up to then quiet Sunday morning I can hear them yelling at each other as they launch their canoes at the local public slipway, about half a mile away. And the dreaded 'F' word, seemingly a favourite term amongst canoeists, seems to travel even further! I don't hear anglers set off like I do canoeists! Why do they do it?

[Mike Connor]

Mike,

 

 

MIKE> My comments are denoted thus. 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".

 

MIKE> Neither do I as it happens. But it unfortunately rarely results in change. MIKE

 

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.

 

MIKE> The main problem there is indeed the vast amount of water de-facto in private hands. I don´t disagree with that either.MIKE

 

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?

 

MIKE> I think you will find that few will disagree with reasonable demands for access to a very great deal more water being met. Given reasonable checks and controls. That is however not the present demand, which is "General free access".MIKE

 

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).

 

MIKE> I have long and harrowing personal experience of paddlers ruining my and others fishing, and causing very considerable damage and other problems on relatively small streams. To the point where it was quite impossible to fish them. Eventually, we were paying a great deal of money, and spending a great deal of our time and effort, only to see our work ruined, and our fishing destroyed. Although you say this would not be the case, I know it to be so, and am thus more than disinclined to accept such iterations. MIKE

 

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...

 

MIKE> With all due respect, that is not merely a possibility, it is an absolute certainty. Not all anglers are saints either. MIKE

 

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.

 

MIKE> Not true, as I know to my personal cost.MIKE

 

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.

 

MIKE> While I respect your attempts to put your point of view in as advantageous a light as possible, and I have no doubt you are personally serious and trying to be forthright and honest in this regard. That is not my experience.

 

On small streams, massive disruption is the norm. The more paddlers there are, the greater the disruption, general ignorance of the rules, and conflict with other water users. I have personally witnessed and counted flotillas of canoes going down a very small stream in high summer, grating on every rock and gravel bank in the river. Milling around in small weir pools, flinging enpty bottles, beer cans, and sandwich packets every which way.

 

I believe my personal record, ( which I can look up, and also provide a witness to, indeed several, including a signed deposition, if you so desire) was 434 canoes in a space of six hours, on an otherwise exceedingly pleasant summer Sunday. This on a river less than ten feet wide in many places, and seldom more than fifteen anywhere. I know this so exactly as I was at the time the environmental officer for the club which leases this water. MIKE

 

 

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.

 

MIKE> Pardon me if I am bound to disagree. I have no personal experience or even knowledge of the rivers mentioned, or the behaviour of the canoeists making use of them. However, logic dictates that the enthusiasts who make use of such limited access are unlikely to misuse it for fear of losing it. Also, there would doubtless be an element of self-policing as a result.MIKE

 

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.

 

MIKE> This is the main problem. There would indeed be many more paddlers on the rivers, in many places, and doing things they should not be doing. This is a foregone conclusion. I have seen it happen here, and there is no reason to suppose it would be different anywhere else.

 

The hard core of paddlers would doubtless go about their normal business without doing anybody else any tangible harm. But how are you going to stop the hordes of "One day paddle trippers", "drunken loonies who have a canoe, and fancy a boozy boat ride", Entrepreneurs who are renting out several hundred canoes and shuttling them back and forth to provide anybody who wants it with a "nice trip down the river", etc etc etc. The answer is, you can not do so. This too is a proven fact.MIKE

 

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.

 

MIKE> Fishing, like many other things, has become so expensive, even fishing for artificial trout in artificial lakes, much to the continuing detriment of the environment in general, and the rape of protein from the high seas in particular, that ruining a few more rivers is unlikely to make much difference to most anglers anyway. Free or otherwise. MIKE

 

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?

 

MIKE> Apparently straight to incorrect conclusions. You forget, I know what happens, as I have already experienced it.MIKE

 

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'.

 

MIKE> Merely a debating tactic, not of any severe consequence, as you could not ignore them anyway, not without sweeping changes in the status quo. MIKE

 

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.

 

MIKE> Believe me, money holds water, and has held it for a very long time.MIKE

 

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

 

 

MIKE> I don´t think it´s "going nowhere", but I think you ought to be a little more realistic, and less idealistic.MIKE

 

My normal signature is "TL", meaning "Tight Lines", perhaps here "BP" would be more appropriate? ( "Blazing Paddles") in a positive sense of course!

 

MC

 

(EDIT Typos corrected)

Edited May 10, 2006 by Mike Connor

[Mike Connor]

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.

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

 

Pity we won't let that happen here.

 

Obviously you have not yet been trying to change the system for very long. I am somewhat longer in the tooth, and a passionate subscriber to the doctrine of "Not kicking against the pricks, unless I am wearing hobnailed boots".

 

I agree that it is indeed a pity that chances for peaceful co-existence of water users are so difficult to implement. This is mainly due to your unreasonable demands, and demonstrable unwillingness to accept control and compromise, or even valid concerns and criticism, which is easily confirmed.

 

Were you to moderate these demands, and agree to certain controls, you would doubtless have a much greater chance of being listened to.

 

The "all or nothing" attitude will not get you very far, except maybe a few nights in jail, or almost universal disagreement.

 

One other point which you also apparently fail to grasp, is that river anglers in general are at least as badly off as you are. At best they have access to one or two rivers, some only a couple of miles or a few hundred yards of river bank, which they have fought tooth and nail for, or worked very hard indeed to acquire, and they are not about to let what little they are able to enjoy be ruined, or even more impacted than it already is, if they can help it.

 

It always pays to see the other person´s viewpoint. Indeed it is often of far greater importance than declaiming your own.

 

At least one avenue to pursue, assuming you really did want to change things, and not merely get your own way, would be to join an angling club, tell them up front you want to paddle on their water, and under which conditions. Take a few mates along as well. Many anglers could do with the support, not to mention the club subscriptions. You might be surprised at the response. I am not sure how much "sovereignty" UK angling clubs have over their stretches, but it would be worth enquiring at least.

 

Allies are always rather more to be favoured than adversaries, and so much easier to persuade.

 

TL

MC

Edited May 10, 2006 by Mike Connor

[Mike Connor]

"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.

 

 

That may be so under the specific circumstances you mention. It is not generally so in Europe. Daytripping paddlers are the biggest littermongers in existence.

 

TL

MC

[phil hackett]

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.

 

I've no doubt you do find it wearisome when multiple counting questions are asked of you, knowing full well the figures given are for sessions in a Canoe/Kayak by such centres, coaches, etc, when the same people, group, organisations are turning up and being counted many times over.

 

If angling did the same method of counting for people trying fishing per year, it’d run into billions not millions.

 

And the BTU membership number is what?

[Mike Connor]

I've no doubt you do find it wearisome when multiple counting questions are asked of you, knowing full well the figures given are for sessions in a Canoe/Kayak by such centres, coaches, etc, when the same people, group, organisations are turning up and being counted many times over.

 

If angling did the same method of counting for people trying fishing per year, it’d run into billions not millions.

 

And the BTU membership number is what?

 

 

May be of some interest here. The German Canoe Association is the largest canoe association worldwide, with 1300 clubs, and a total of 114,000 members.

 

This does not include all the casual and day-tripping paddlers, whose numbers have been estimated, ( no knowing how reliably) at some 1.5 million per year, and increasing.

 

The number of canoe hire concerns in the vicinity of rivers has also increased very greatly over that period of time.

 

These massive increases have taken place mainly over the last twenty years.

 

Original info may be found here;

 

http://www.kanu.de/nuke/index.php?CNVtheme...ection=portrait

 

TL

MC

[phil hackett]

Don't make assumptions. I quote: "The evidence regarding the impacts of canoeing and fishing on the environment has been much disputed since the Environment Agency (2000) report on this issue suggested canoeing had minimal impact..."

 

The worst Brighton comes up with is that one study in Germany suggested non-powered craft may disturb rare and sensitive fish which occupy a tight niche. Presumably this is not referring to trout and salmon (and canoeists could certainly live with not being allowed access to areas of rare sensitive fish... by definition they must be rare after all). You might like to note that despite this, in Germany land owners are obliged to make rivers available for recreational use.

The point I was making is that we canoe extensively on game rivers in Scotland but the environment has not been damaged, and the fish not disturbed. I don't deny that there are more anglers in England and Wales but that's not a valid argument as to why you should have exclusive access (only an argument for more careful sharing).

 

I made no assumptions you stated as absolute fact last time!

 

You now acknowledge it is disputed, and very much so.

 

As for assumptions, aren’t you doing just that saying, “The point I was making is that we canoe extensively on game rivers in Scotland but the environment has not been damaged, and the fish not disturbed.”

 

You have no scientific evidence to back up this claim only opinion…….your opinion!

 

The valid argument is that most of the rivers, bar the ones you already have access to, are too narrow and shallow for paddling and angling to take place on, which I pointed out to on FM. And don’t tell me paddlers have no interest in them, because I like many others see them all the time.

 

You put much store in you only run them in the winter when the waters high and close season. The Coarse fishing season in E & W runs from 16/6 to 15/3 inclusive. In other words it runs the winter months!

River anglers whilst fishing the rivers all season, including the winter, find some of the best fishing during the winter months coincides with high water, particularly if its rain water from the southwest, as the river temperature rises and bring the fish on the feed.

[kleinboet]

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!

Edited May 10, 2006 by kleinboet

[David McCraw]

I agree that it is indeed a pity that chances for peaceful co-existence of water users are so difficult to implement. This is mainly due to your unreasonable demands, and demonstrable unwillingness to accept control and compromise, or even valid concerns and criticism, which is easily confirmed.

 

And yet one of my first posts in this discussion was a suggestion that canoeists be licensed (in the same manner as anglers are) and have legal limits imposed such as minimum water levels - in exchange for access without threats or assault when the levels are high.

 

The end result of this, while you would have to put up with paddlers on high water days, is that when a hundred day-trippers come scraping along in the height of summer they would be committing a specific offence (maybe even spot fines, I'm not sure what baliffs' powers are).

 

The reality is that the angling lobby reject suggestions such as these (when you have it all, what incentive is there to change?) - and they will never seriously be tabled until legislated access is offered in return. Some progress has been made in terms of defacto access, in that unreasonable access agreements (one weekend a year) are generally ignored - in the same spirit of responsible civil disobedience as Kinder-Scout.

 

 

The "all or nothing" attitude will not get you very far, except maybe a few nights in jail, or almost universal disagreement.

 

Yet support for fairer access is rising (in my experience). We didn't hitherto get a high profile EDM (which nobody expects to pass, but is doing a sterling job on the awareness front). Neither did the issue get favourable coverage in the media, as it is increasingly doing.

 

The emancipation of the countryside is a social movement - I don't think it will be reversed by jailing canoeists under the same archaic land laws which have recently been lifted on the banks. (Although who can tell?)

 

One other point which you also apparently fail to grasp, is that river anglers in general are at least as badly off as you are. At best they have access to one or two rivers, some only a couple of miles or a few hundred yards of river bank, which they have fought tooth and nail for, or worked very hard indeed to acquire, and they are not about to let what little they are able to enjoy be ruined, or even more impacted than it already is, if they can help it.

 

I do feel sorry for you, that this bizarre situation has come about. Just because you suffer, however, does not imply that we should give up our sport (or practice it on one or two isolated runs) - especially as it is not as if the numbers involved are vastly different.

 

At least one avenue to pursue, assuming you really did want to change things, and not merely get your own way, would be to join an angling club, tell them up front you want to paddle on their water, and under which conditions. Take a few mates along as well. Many anglers could do with the support, not to mention the club subscriptions. You might be surprised at the response. I am not sure how much "sovereignty" UK angling clubs have over their stretches, but it would be worth enquiring at least.

 

I appreciate you trying to be constructive. However, this will not happen because it sets too much of a precedent. In order to paddle my favourite runs (assuming for a moment this applied to Scotland) I would need to join several different clubs - at no small cost - and still not have agreed access, only a better chance of some crumbs from the table. All other angling clubs would then expect the same, so to have even a basic complement of ten or twenty runs would cost a small fortune.

 

This is why anglers *are* a privaledged minority - you can afford to buy your sport, we can't.

 

Before anybody suggests that one river is enough, I would ask you to apply this statement to ramblers, or hill climbers, or any other similar sport. It isn't.

 

The valid argument is that most of the rivers, bar the ones you already have access to, are too narrow and shallow for paddling and angling to take place on, which I pointed out to on FM. And don’t tell me paddlers have no interest in them, because I like many others see them all the time.

 

Yes, you have put your finger on it. Anglers refuse to coexist with canoeists, which means rather than a regulated and organised system of sharing, canoeists effectively have to be engaging in Kinder-Scout style civil disobedience just to practice their sport (which is accepted virtually everywhere else in the world).

 

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

 

Actually, it would help a lot if the access argument was framed in those terms - who makes land owners most money. Public support would soar.

 

Alas, not even Mr. Boote would be so kind.

[Paul Boote]

Alas, not even Mr. Boote would be so kind.

 

 

http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/pub/au/2001/feelit.au

 

http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/pub/au/2001/mission.au

 

http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/pub/au/2001/stresspill.au

Edited May 10, 2006 by Paul Boote