Canoe access poll on BBC

[Leon Roskilly]

David,

 

As an angler, my licence doesn't allow me to fish anywhere.

 

I have to have the express permission of a landowner to fish any particular stretch of river.

 

Because the fishing rights are a valuable asset that usually means that a club or syndicate buys the rights to a particular stretch and excludes all others from fishing there.

 

So as well as paying a licence, I also have to take out club or syndicate membership costing from £60 to maybe several hundred pounds, to have the 'right' to fish a not particularly long stretch of river (and usually restricted to fishing just the one bank - in theory at least anglers can only cast as far as the mid point of the river when the opposite bank is owned or controlled by someone else).

 

Many anglers have to join a number of clubs to obtain access to a variety of fishing opportunities - and the cost of those memberships soon run into many hundreds of pounds each year.

 

(And I'm not a rich angler, making do on a small private pension, and I know very few wealthy anglers)

 

So, this 'freedom' that you talk about is not as all encompassing as you seem to think, and usually comes at a much greater cost than simply paying a licence.

 

Having paid so much to enjoy access to a small stretch of river, you can imagine that I'd not be pleased if some other freeloaders come through, spoiling the enjoyment of that which I've paid more than I can afford to enjoy, and usually had to attend a number of work parties to improve (many angling clubs are now demanding members take part in work parties to secure their membership renewal in the new year, and woe betide anyone caught fishing a swim with litter around them, there's or anyone elses!)

 

Now if canoeists were to be given the right to paddle along any stretch of the river that they would like to, wouldn't it be equally fair for anglers to demand the right to fish any stretch of river they like, extinguishing the rights of the riparian owners to own and control and gain income from what happens along the river and it's banks?

 

And would the riparian owners stand for that?

 

I'd love to be able to wander the length of a river, fishing wherever I please, rather than now being constrained to sometimes just a few hundred metres that a club that I belong to has leased, sometimes seeing a fish rise a few yards down in another stretch that I am forbidden to cast to

 

 

As an example of the kind of commitment that anglers put into putting something back into the river, please have a look at:

 

http://www.cacg.co.uk/

Edited May 10, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Mike Connor]

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.

 

MIKE> If such were possible, there is nothing much to be said against it. MIKE

 

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).

 

MIKE>I don´t want a hundred day-trippers coming along in the height of summer, under any circumstances whatsoever. There is nothing one can do about even ten boats full of them, or even one boat with ten passengers.MIKE

 

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.

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.

 

MIKE> As I pointed out, anglers do not have "free"access anywhere, and the access that individual anglers have is severely limited and expensive. As is the case with anglers, sensible canoeing is a more or less individual sport, and you will suffer the same problems as many anglers in trying to establish it. Civil disobedience may or may not help you, I have no idea. You constantly reiterate that "anglers have this", "anglers do or don´t do that", when in actual fact you have little knowledge of the matter.MIKE

 

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?)

 

MIKE> Indeed, that does not necessarily make it good. MIKE

 

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.

 

MIKE> The numbers increase rapidly in a very short time when free access is given, ( which is the case in Germany and other places). MIKE

 

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.

 

MIKE> Many clubs are syndicated. Assuming one could reach general agreement, then if you had a syndicate pass, you could canoe all the syndicate waters, so that argument is invalid. This would in fact be a very great deal better than allowing uncontrolled access. MIKE

 

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

 

MIKE> "Some" anglers can afford to buy their sport. Very many can not, and are obliged to make do as best they can. MIKE

 

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.

 

MIKE> Nobody suggested that. MIKE

 

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).

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.

 

MIKE> That is just silly. Anglers co-exist with canoeists in a great many places, they are simply forced to. That this should be so detrimental to many, because poorly regulated, is the problem. Anglers are very strictly regulated. Canoeists barely at all ( In Germany). There is no reason why such a catastrophic state of affairs should be allowed to arise in the UK. MIKE

 

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

 

>MIKE My final point on this issue.

 

Personally, I have nothing at all against canoeists, ( and I make a very considerable distinction between canoeists, and casual paddlers!), using rivers under reasonable conditions. I don´t know many others who have anything against this either.

 

Where I do protest, and that as strongly as possible, is at the massive inundation of casual paddlers, rafters, etc etc. and the commercial exploitation of rivers by canoe hire enterprises, who do absolutely nothing for the rivers. Quite the reverse.

 

If you already know all the answers, then there is little point in discussion. If as you say, anglers refuse to co-exist with you, and you hold this particular preconceived precept for inviolable, then you are wasting your time even talking to us.

 

TL

MC

[charlieH]

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.

 

Regrettably, this is untrue - see replies nos 168-170 on the FFF thread, from yesterday afternoon, for evidence to the contrary.

 

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).

 

Again, I would ask you to address the practical issue of how regulations are to be enforced, how the enforcers are to be funded and what sanctions should be available to restrict persistent offenders. I've raised this point twice on FFF, but you seem somehow unwilling to address it.

 

Contrary to some claims (not least from you, David), canoeists are evidently quite happy to canoe rivers at low levels and not only during the winter months. The current attitude of many canoeists to the laws governing access does not inspire confidence that any code allowing access on a restricted basis will be complied with without enforcement.

[jimpy0]

having just waded through all these posts i have a few points to raise having canoed and fishied at varying times in my life

 

is the canoe v angler all year round or just seasonal[holidays] and regional as i am not aware of any probs on the rivers near me

possibly a stoopid question but could you fish from a canoe on a club or syndicate water without having to pay dues as you are not using the banking

also nice to see some new names if only imported to service this thread

with regards canals what is the difference between canoists and barges with regards disturbing swims and forcing anglers to bring in their lines

 

the rivers etc have been a resource for all for hundreds of years and hopfully hundreds more and arguing about who controls or has rights to them will eventually result in a ban for all as with all things in life those who shout loudest usually get their own way wether right or wrong as currently with animal liberationists and the many groups now emerging to fight back against them and the tactics they employ

 

the words"use them or loose them come to mind" [[iN PEACE]]

[David McCraw]

Again, I would ask you to address the practical issue of how regulations are to be enforced, how the enforcers are to be funded and what sanctions should be available to restrict persistent offenders. I've raised this point twice on FFF, but you seem somehow unwilling to address it.

 

There is already an infrastructure in place to police the rod licence. It must be bloody good as apparently the evasion rate is only 5% (I think I got that from a link someone posted to FishingMagic?). Presumably as a boat licence would be paid to the EA, existing enforcement could be beefed up to cope with paddling as well (we could have a physical licence visible to make it nice and easy) and the sanctions would be the same as rod licence evasion (whatever they are).

 

I'm not claiming this could be set up in an afternoon, but I don't think the difficulties would be insurmountable, presuming that the licence and so on were introduced as part of an access bill which gave baliffs etc. the enforcing powers.

 

Contrary to some claims (not least from you, David), canoeists are evidently quite happy to canoe rivers at low levels and not only during the winter months. The current attitude of many canoeists to the laws governing access does not inspire confidence that any code allowing access on a restricted basis will be complied with without enforcement.

 

The only paddling I do in the warmer months is on dam-released rivers when there is enough water to navigate. Obviously I can't speak for all, but both of the clubs I currently paddle with only run trips abroad during the summer months, or dam releases - there are no trips which go and scrape down the river bed, I'd sooner go climbing or biking myself.

 

Running rivers at a low level is as pointless as fishing where there are no fish - I can't imagine any paddlers being concerned at legislation which mandates minimum water levels (with whatever sanctions). This would address most of your concerns about summer day-trippers, too?

 

Increasing access without legislation probably would result in more day-trippers - this is why most canoeists would prefer legislated access, with sanctions as well as rights.

[Dr Repper]

Ah, just to allay another concern, in Britain it would be quite illegal to simply rent out canoes and kayaks to unqualified numpties so that thay could paddle off over the horizon unsupervised. Following the well publicised Lyme Bay disaster restrictions are very tight, and all groups must be supervised under coaching ratios laid out by the BCU.

[gozzer]

Ah, just to allay another concern, in Britain it would be quite illegal to simply rent out canoes and kayaks to unqualified numpties so that thay could paddle off over the horizon unsupervised. Following the well publicised Lyme Bay disaster restrictions are very tight, and all groups must be supervised under coaching ratios laid out by the BCU.

 

 

But what's to stop an "unqualified numpty" (or several) from getting in a boat, and paddling off? Do you propose some kind of instruction, with a certificate of competence, before a person could obtain a license, for a boat?

 

Edit; Sorry, by boat I meant canoe or kayak........just to avoid any confusion.

Edited May 10, 2006 by gozzer

[Peter Waller]

And I still don't know why canoeists shout at each other!

 

I have read everything on this thread. Clearly both sides feel passionately and stalemate is the obvious outcome. There is nothing of any substance in the canoeist's arguement that will induce me to alter my opposition.

 

The fact is simple, the two sports are incompatible. There are hundreds of miles of navigable tidal waters in the UK that we do share, as we should. And from that experience I am convinced excluding canoes is the only reasonable option for anglers. As for the non tidal waters, unfortunately us anglers got there first, and it is not in our best interests to relinquish our hold.

 

Regarding canoe hire. Its allowed on the Broads at the moment. Be intersting to see how proposed changes in the Broads Act will cope. Hire craft are to be licenced and it would seem strange if a tippy canoe is exempt from various safety requirements whilst a stable motor boat is not.

[jimpy0]

i suppose i aint gonna get my points answered

[gozzer]

i suppose i aint gonna get my points answered

 

 

I wouldn't take it personally jimpy

 

 

If you've read through the thread, then you'll have noticed that answers come to selected questions only.