|
Post by Paul Boote on May 3, 2006 3:00:01 GMT -5
Reader comments invited. Maybe some anglers could tell the paper a thing or two about the environmental damage that free-paddling canoeists can inflict on rivers and their wildlife... www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1766021,00.html PS - here is a Tiny url for the above that will click through: tinyurl.com/m8faj
|
|
|
Post by Silver Stoat on May 3, 2006 3:32:33 GMT -5
As I suggested recently, it would appear that the canoe lobby is putting more effort than we anglers are into getting this matter publicised in an attempt to get some form of legislation passed by parliament. If you disagree with having free and totally unhindered access, for all other watersports, to our waterways - reservoirs/ lakes and rivers - please let your MP know your views. This is from one of my earlier posts : ' I think it is very important that those anglers who feel that the question of access to rivers for other water sports should resolved by negotiation and who have not yet contacted their MP should do so ASAP. The website : www.writetothem.com/ makes it a very simple matter to e-mail your MP and checks back later to see if he/she has replied. Although there are links (below) to a 'standard letter' the advice given is that this is not the best approach as MP's assistants are often instructed to bin these 'circular' type letters. It's far better to write a brief note, in your own words, explaining how you feel about the issues involved and requesting that your MP signs the amendment to EDM 957 - EDM957A2 as tabled by Martin Salter. You can then append a copy of the 'circular' letter by way of detailed explanation if you wish. To me it seems obvious that if totally free and non-negotiated access is given to canoeists in this and other areas of the UK then the result would have a devastating effect upon both the ecology of the rivers and, in turn, the tourist industry in those areas that rely on tourist trade. I'm sure you can imagine the effect it would have on fishing particularly fishing on the smaller spate rivers (those favoured by canoeists) I have copied a press release from FACT (Fisheries and Angling Conservation Trust) below Dave. River Access [COPY BEGINS] The Fisheries and Angling Conservation Trust (FACT) is calling upon MPs to support the principle of Voluntary Access Agreements to address the recent demand by canoeists for free access to English and Welsh waterways for all water users. FACT is working closely with Martin Salter MP (Parliamentary Spokesman for Angling) who has tabled an amendment to the original Early Day Motion (EDM 957), which urges Government to extend legislation on access to the countryside to allow canoeists and users of other non-powered craft the same access rights as those provided for walkers. Whilst anglers are perfectly willing to seek voluntary joint access agreements with other water users, sustainable protection of the aquatic environment must be paramount, together with the proper regulation of all craft, whether or not they are powered, on inland waters. FACT’s amendment, tabled by Martin Salter, reads, “urges the Government not to alter riparian rights; recommends that any increase in access to canoeists and non-powered craft be by voluntary access agreements only, which have been proven to work in both England and Wales; believes that the users of all canoes and non-powered craft on inland waterways should be subject to the same restrictions as anglers, and penalties for infringements; further believes that the Environment Agency should have the power to close any waterway to any craft in the interests of protecting sensitive aquatic environments; and considers that, notwithstanding the forthcoming Olympic Games, it should be remembered that angling is a sport which has 4 million participants in England and Wales with an annual economy of £3.5 billion and which has had great success in recent World Championships.” Jim Glasspool, Chairman of FACT commented: “Angling is heavily regulated, and provides £17m net income to the Environment Agency’s Fisheries Department. Anglers also provide many times that figure each year through fishing fees for habitat management and environmental protection, which gives the sport genuine stakeholder status in the aquatic environment. Other water users should be made to take a similar responsibility for their environment.” Individuals and organisations with an interest in angling / fisheries are encouraged to write to their local MP (contact details are available by entering a post code on web site www.locata.co.uk/commons) seeking their support to the amended EDM. A draft letter is also available for download from the following web sites www.nafac.co.uk , www.salmon-trout.org , www.nfadirect.com , www.saauk.orgENDS '
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 3, 2006 3:35:20 GMT -5
Totally agree with SS. I did as he suggested and my MP changed his mind and signed the more pro-angling ammendment. It only takes a few minutes and does work!
|
|
|
Post by The Otter Startler on May 3, 2006 5:08:33 GMT -5
I did this ages ago and my MP headed for the better ammendment.
|
|
|
Post by Dom on May 3, 2006 5:52:07 GMT -5
Have just done this. Takes five minutes. Just waiting to see if I get any response.
|
|
stevet
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by stevet on May 3, 2006 6:57:48 GMT -5
I did it and got absolutely no response. Clearly i have an ignorant arse for an mp!!
What is needed is refutation of the scottish example! If this isnt proved to NOT work then i am fairly sure they will apply the ruling here!
I love the over-simplification that attends all of these types of debate.
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 3, 2006 7:11:41 GMT -5
You should not accept a lack of response from your MP. Write an angry letter to him/her.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 3, 2006 8:55:21 GMT -5
This discussion has been linked from one of the paddling communities and I thought as a paddler I'd add my tuppence. If you would like to shout me down that's fine, but I'm genuinely interested in this whole debate.
First, it seems to me that things would be much more productive if we stopped attacking straw men - for example, "if you disagree with having free and totally unhindered access, for all other watersports".
Fair access to our natural heritage does not imply an anarchic free-for-all on all waterways, at all water levels, for all types of activity. This is not what canoeists are campaigning for and being simplistic does not help make a convincing rebuttal.
Another common straw man (perhaps just ignorance?) is that canoeists refuse to contribute to the environmental costs of their sport. This is not the case; in fact, canoeists only object to paying for the "right" to float on the water (as ramblers would object to paying for the "right" to walk on moorland). The heart of the problem is that canoeists do not generally cause, or require, maintenance to be performed on rivers. This is a stark contrast to angling which, to be sustainable, requires a large input of money into fisheries and surrounding infrastructure (as you are no doubt too aware! )
It would be nice if voluntary agreements worked, but (for example) decades of negotiation have resulted in highly restrictive access to just eight of more than 300 navigable rivers in Wales. I read somewhere that the EA sells a million rod licenses a year (as far as I know, you need a rod license to fish on most contested rivers?) - this is certainly a lot of people, but it is rediculous to set aside 99% of our natural river heritage for such a small proportion of the overall population.
I have nothing against anglers and, in fact, go out of my way to be co-operative when I encounter them. As well as my local paddling area (central Scotland and the Highlands), canoeists and anglers coexist all over Europe, Scandinavia, North America and further afield.
If the situation in England and Wales is truly unique, and all these precedents are not applicable, then I would need to see hard evidence and not vague grumbling about population density, which seems to me to have little to do with paddling on spate rivers in the closed season, for instance.
The government's own research has added to the body of evidence by concluding that canoeists cause no significant damage to the environment or disruption to fish.
thanks,
David McCraw
|
|
|
Post by Sewinbasher on May 3, 2006 9:16:25 GMT -5
The Government also seemed to conclude that it was OK to release foreign criminals back into society! I have very little confidence in anything that this Government concludes.
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 3, 2006 9:34:43 GMT -5
A spy in our midsts!? Would you mind putting up a link to your forum.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 3, 2006 9:35:58 GMT -5
I hadn't heard that expert research was the driving factor behind those prisoners being released - otherwise, I'm sure you'll agree that isn't a terribly useful analogy. Edit: the forum is on the UK Rivers Guidebook, you can link to the corresponding discussion here.
|
|
|
Post by Dom on May 3, 2006 9:42:11 GMT -5
Are there any fishers on here that are paddlers as well? It would be good to hear their take on things.
On the river/stream that I fish I have had a couple of canooists go down it on a number of occasions. Never had a problem with them, however I think that the point that FACT makes is a very valid one "users of all canoes and non-powered craft on inland waterways should be subject to the same restrictions as anglers" Sounds fair to me.
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 3, 2006 9:51:38 GMT -5
I have found fame!? I wonder how Quicky found me here.
|
|
|
Post by Dom on May 3, 2006 9:57:41 GMT -5
Do a google for Sewinman. Follow the first entry. Look at recent posts, and voila.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 3, 2006 9:57:44 GMT -5
Dom, I'm curious as to what specific restrictions you think should apply to canoeists, and why?
Given that all the evidence points to no significant environmental impact or disturbance of fish, I don't really see how a closed season would be useful (which I understand is to allow the fish to recover from... well, being fished?)
Certainly, there should be rules or guidelines which apply to canoeists but as our sports are completely different, I remain to be convinced that blindly applying principles from one to another is sensible.
Examples of what I think would be sensible, are things like defined minimum levels for navigating rivers (nobody actually wants to scrape their canoe down a river bed anyway), and paying for the cost of bank work where needed at access points (as I said, nobody should mind paying for the direct costs of their sport).
(edited for spelling)
|
|