Keep canoes off our rivers, e.petition.

[YorkieT]

I don't have a problem with the canoeists or any other boat owners / users as long as they are considerate to others on the river and most are in my experience, even the waterskiers on the Trent are considerate in the main.

 

Surely we can all get on together

 

Alan.

[DavyR]

This I feel is the difference, and don't see why anyone should have 'carte blanche' to roam anywhere they want, regardless of the effects on other water users.

 

The canoeists may feel that they have precedent on their side because of the equivalent "right to roam" that ramblers now have. Because the fight for that particular right was very much a class battle dating back to the 1930s, with working class urban ramblers pitted against grouse shooters, gamekeepers and water board employees, the whole free-versus-restricted access issue has become a "liberty of the common man" thing.

 

There have been numerous official rumblings over the past few years on the issue of payment for access to the countryside, but it all seems to have gone a bit quiet of late. I just hope that we don't end up with a situation where sole access becomes a prize for the group that can afford to bid the most. That would certainly be a retrograde step.

[Steve Walker]

i firmly believe they should pay as all other anglers in england do but the petition states

 

"to Deny canoeists and users of un-powered craft the right to roam on English and Welsh rivers"

 

The "right to roam" means the right to use any river without payment or permission. It doesn't mean that canoeists shouldn't be allowed access to any rivers, it means they shouldn't have an automatic right to access.

 

think of this: "to Deny anglers the right to fish on English and Welsh rivers"

 

That's the point. We don't have any automatic right to fish. If I try to fish a river against the wishes of the landowner, I break the law. Quite rightly too.

[Steve Walker]

Surely we can all get on together

 

On here, yes:

 

 

on here, no:

 

[Mark Crame]

As a canoe angler (the two are not exclusive of each other, and both are fuelled by a love of the outdoors and nature) I find the petition to be nothing more than a spiteful piece of nonsense.

 

As a canoe angler, that's a rod licence and a licence for the canoe, so the notion of unlimited access free of charge is a misnomer.

 

I'll post a link on the kayak fishing forum, maybe get some more viewpoints on here.

[Elton]

There have been numerous official rumblings over the past few years on the issue of payment for access to the countryside, but it all seems to have gone a bit quiet of late. I just hope that we don't end up with a situation where sole access becomes a prize for the group that can afford to bid the most. That would certainly be a retrograde step.

 

And one that would probably be 'won' by bird watchers, not anglers or canoeists.

 

I suppose I don't fish often enough these days to experience much in the way of boat/canoe traffic, but it's never bothered me. An ignorant boater would annoy me just as much as an ignorant angler, and there are plenty of the latter. There are 60 million of us sharing this country. I'd much rather we all tried to respect each other's enjoyment of the outdoors.

[wearyone]

So you are prepared to pay for every mile of water you paddle down and pay for access then Peter

 

Sorry, got my disciples mixed up, I meant Mark. Apologies Peter

Edited March 20, 2007 by wearyone

[Peter Waller]

I certainly don't see it as spiteful nonsense as claimed by Mark. What I do not want to see is unrestricted access, it could lead to untold damage to the environment, it could and can damage fisheries. However, canoeists can always ask the owner.

 

If canoeists wish to negotiate with owners, just as anglers do, then so be it. There can be no doubt that a canoe's ability to go off the beaten track is a great attraction, it is also a potential problem. Rather as four wheel drive vehicle owners see footpaths and bridal ways as fair game so canoe owners see every nook and cranny in the bankside as their right.

 

Bankside angling and canoing are not good bed fellows, fact of life.

 

An unfettered right to roam by canoes is not on, nor is an unfettered right to go fishing just as we wish. It must be up to the land owner to decide what is best for their waterway.

 

All that said I would not wish to see access rights reduced, as is threatened on the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads. But a carte blanch to go just anywhere over private waterways is a step to far.

 

Be interesting to know what the trout and salmon boys think of this one. The water in some of their trout streams cost more than neat gin!

 

The BCU has a right to negotiate, they should be content with that.

 

Just consider, should we allow mountain bikes free access to roam? Not an unreasonable comparison I wouldn't have thought.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Peter Waller

[Peter Waller]

I see that it is also being discussed here:

http://www.fishingmagic.com/forum/forummes...N/26116/V/9/SP/

and here:

http://forum.anglingtimes.co.uk/forumlive/...p?TOPIC_ID=5804

Edited March 20, 2007 by Peter Waller

[Steve Walker]

I suppose I don't fish often enough these days to experience much in the way of boat/canoe traffic, but it's never bothered me.

 

They used to be a pain on the Severn. I only had access to fish one swim, which was downstream of an island and upstream of a dedicated canoeing section. Instructors used to bring large groups of people down and have them gather in the slack of the island. 20 people paddling and practising rolls in your swim for twenty minutes kills it stone dead.

 

Much of my river fishing these days is stalking barbel and chub on small, clear rivers. Put a couple of canoes down the river every half an hour or so and I may as well go fish the carp puddles instead. I wouldn't have a problem with sharing on an exclusive use basis, with the canoeists having alternate weekends and refunding half of my season ticket price, but that's not what they're demanding.