Keep canoes off our rivers, e.petition.

[Neil G]

Me, upset? I'll soon tell you when I am. For the record most yakkers that I meet are a pleasure to meet, but the yakkers that I meet don't tend to come from the same mould as yer average canoe person. I can only guess that those of you who don't have a problem with the canoe fraternity don't fish rivers much, or at least have never met up with canoe clubs.

 

And if Patty is a butch Geordie then why should I be upset? Something of a good laugh if it is so!

 

I often fish right opposite a canoe club!!!!

[Peter Waller]

It must be when it is closed. Or it's like no other canoe club in the UK!!

[Steve Walker]

Steve, I asked how a shared scheme like the one you suggested could be policed? the truth is is cannot can it? Anglers do not own the rivers or the fish that inhabit them, if they did there would be no need for a poxy petition would there?

 

Very easily. Canoeists need to negotiate access with landowners and anglers and reach a compromise. The landowners do have control over their rivers, that's why the canoeists are trying to change the law. The petition is against the proposed change in the law which would take away the need to negotiate access. If the paddlers have an automatic right to use a river, there can be no negotiation.

 

I'm not saying they should be banned. I'm saying that we should keep the law as it is now. I'm saying that if paddlers want access to club waters where their presence will ruin the fishing, they should pay to hire the stretch for exclusive access.

[Steve Walker]

Anglers whinge and moan when others try to ban or curtail our activities don't they?

 

Well, we cannot have it both ways.

 

It isn't remotely the same thing. This is not about banning canoeing. This is about challenging an attempt to get canoeist's rights to override angler's rights in all situations. You would be screaming blue murder if they were going to do this to your beloved commercials. The rivers are private property just as much as the commercials are.

[gozzer]

I often fish right opposite a canoe club!!!!

 

So do I Neil, but the fact that it's a wide river, makes it no problem at all. But that's different to what some are proposing, and that's the right to go anywhere.

It would make difference to your fishing if the middle of the river was just a rods length out!!!

 

 

John.

Edited March 22, 2007 by gozzer

[BoozleBear]

A couple of points Simon.

 

I don't claim to be an expert on canoes/kayaks, but going upstream in even a moderate flow, requires you to paddle. It's worse if there are a line of anglers on the banks.

On the same point, the canoeist that entered the debate last year, made it clear that they had very little interest in, slow or wider stretches of water. They preferred the faster, shallower reaches, more excitement and skill involved.

 

Who would 'police' such a scheme? With the millions that are raised through fishing license sales, we still hear that there are not enough bailiffs.

Would there be an enforced registration scheme, where every canoe had to display a visible number, so that anyone breaking the law could be traced?

 

It would be brilliant if everyone could use all the waterways together, but I'm afraid, on some stretches, these two are totally incompatible.

 

John.

 

Cheers John,

 

My replies:

 

There is no upstream on a canal, any current is not so strong a canoeist cannot lift their paddles for a bit and drift.

 

That one person may not have been keen on simpler waters, but the canal where I fish done get canoe traffic. Perhaps it is like the difference between people who like to run obstacle courses compared to those who like marathons.

 

I would hope the EA would police such a scheme. And with the extra revenue generated through canoe licenses they could perhaps afford more inspectors, who could check both fishing and canoeing licenses.

 

I would not suggest you could report somebody for splooshing a swim, it would be one person's word against another, and besides, a license should be for a person not a boat (just like an angler, not a rod). My suggestion is that perhaps some canoeists just don't know how much it would be appreciated if they tried to limit the disturbance of an angler's swim, and a little education may help.

 

On waters where it's too incompatable perhaps it should be open to only one party or the other - can of worms anybody?

 

Cheers,

 

Simon

 

Whoa! I've obviously hit a bit of a raw nerve with the clique. Sense of humour anyone?

 

It's an easy nerve to hit - I wouldn't lose any sleep!!!

 

No offence meant Rabbit.

Edited March 22, 2007 by BoozleBear

[gozzer]

Hi Simon,

 

I did realise you were talking about your experience on canals. I wanted to put the point of people who fish different waters.

I would beg to differ on the no flow is too strong bit though.

 

In the earlier thread it was not one who wanted it, it was the main point of most of the canoeists on there.

 

I fail to see how it is possible to check a canoeist in the same way as an angler. One is fairly static, the other is moving along the river, and can only be checked if they agree to be, or when they land.

 

I would not try to report anyone for just splashing in my swim, but how about throwing beer cans, shouting abusive language, trying to snag my line, all of which have happened to me.

I am in no way suggesting the majority of canoeist behave like this, any more than I would suggest that most anglers leave litter, and mishandle fish.

 

A visible registration number on a boat, would be easier to see than a license in a guys pocket.

Then that would mean a national registry, and more money to find from somewhere.

 

The last bit I agree with, but that doesn't match the 'right to roam' that a lot seem to want.

 

John.

[ColinW]

I used to be a member of a social club where women weren't allowed to play on the snooker table. There was a major row about this that went on for months. Eventually after an extraordinary general meeting that almost ended in fisticuffs they got the club rules changed. I think they played one game!

I suspect this is a similar situation. Years ago I used to have a kayak and go for an occasional paddle. I wasn't very good but even at my low level I didn't bother kayaking in any water I would coarse fish in, it's far too boring. I've fished rivers where kayakers sometimes come through a pool I'm fishing to get to the next set of rapids and the fish have been back on the feed before the last kayak reaches the tail of the pool.

Of course there are idiots in all walks of life. I've had a pillock chuck sticks into my swim for his labrador to fetch but the behaviour of one prat doesn't mean I want all dogwalkers banned from the riverbanks.

[BoozleBear]

Hi Simon,

 

I did realise you were talking about your experience on canals. I wanted to put the point of people who fish different waters.

I would beg to differ on the no flow is too strong bit though.

 

In the earlier thread it was not one who wanted it, it was the main point of most of the canoeists on there.

 

I fail to see how it is possible to check a canoeist in the same way as an angler. One is fairly static, the other is moving along the river, and can only be checked if they agree to be, or when they land.

 

I would not try to report anyone for just splashing in my swim, but how about throwing beer cans, shouting abusive language, trying to snag my line, all of which have happened to me.

I am in no way suggesting the majority of canoeist behave like this, any more than I would suggest that most anglers leave litter, and mishandle fish.

 

A visible registration number on a boat, would be easier to see than a license in a guys pocket.

Then that would mean a national registry, and more money to find from somewhere.

 

The last bit I agree with, but that doesn't match the 'right to roam' that a lot seem to want.

 

John.

 

Hi John,

 

Sorry, in places I think we are bogging down with details whilst overall being on the same side.

 

Current or no current, fast water or not, I totally agree that with some canoeists anti-social behavious is part of the package, but with others I think the problem is more of ignorance.

 

And therefore the next problem is how to deal with the anti-socials and the ignoramouses (sp!).

 

Perhaps a registration on the boat is a better idea. They can be given a list of rules and also some suggestions on common courtesy (informing them of the fact that if they can drift across a swim then they should, as an example), and people can take their number down if they cause any problems.

 

The worry is what would happen then, is it would be 1 persons word against theirs. Perhaps a license would be revoked if the person received a certain number of complaints.

 

Whatever - it would never happen anyway. Their nice people on boats and we participate in what might as be bloodsports - that's probably what has been communicated to the govt from various parties over the years.

 

Cheers,

 

Simon

 

 

 

I used to be a member of a social club where women weren't allowed to play on the snooker table. There was a major row about this that went on for months. Eventually after an extraordinary general meeting that almost ended in fisticuffs they got the club rules changed. I think they played one game!

I suspect this is a similar situation. Years ago I used to have a kayak and go for an occasional paddle. I wasn't very good but even at my low level I didn't bother kayaking in any water I would coarse fish in, it's far too boring. I've fished rivers where kayakers sometimes come through a pool I'm fishing to get to the next set of rapids and the fish have been back on the feed before the last kayak reaches the tail of the pool.

Of course there are idiots in all walks of life. I've had a pillock chuck sticks into my swim for his labrador to fetch but the behaviour of one prat doesn't mean I want all dogwalkers banned from the riverbanks.

 

I think there's some confusion here Colin. We aren't saying ban canoeists, but we are saying they should not have carte blanche to go wherever they want.

 

On Hampstead Heath, where I sometimes fish, there is a whole pond where people's dogs can go and sploosh around. There are others where people can fish.

 

I think what we would like is similar, but also with the canoeists being more considerate.

 

Cheers,

 

Simon

Edited March 22, 2007 by BoozleBear

[Steve Walker]

On Hampstead Heath, where I sometimes fish, there is a whole pond where people's dogs can go and sploosh around. There are others where people can fish.

 

Exactly. A fair solution to two incompatible activities competing for the same resource. Likewise, many beaches have separate segregated areas for swimming and jetskis or windsurfing.