Pro Canoe Access Guardian leader

[andyw]

paulboote said:

Some activities are not compatible with each other and cannot use the same facilities at the same time. Birdwatching while others are jetskiing, downhill mountain biking where others are rambling, swimming lengths where others are playing water polo.

Yet all these sports / activities mentioned manage to co-exist just fine....

....except canoeing and angling...

Andy

[Paul Boote]

andyw said:

paulboote said:

Some activities are not compatible with each other and cannot use the same facilities at the same time. Birdwatching while others are jetskiing, downhill mountain biking where others are rambling, swimming lengths where others are playing water polo.

Yet all these sports / activities mentioned manage to co-exist just fine....

....except canoeing and angling...

Andy

Eh?

Sorry to break it you, andy, but I didn't write the above - I was merely quoting someone else on another ANGLING forum who did.

[grumpyboater]

'Even total-**** geniuses sometimes have summat relevant to say'
(Quote attributed to Paul Boote)

Cool. So when are you going to say something relevant? (Sorry couldn't resist that one..)

[charlieH]

grumpyboater said:

That tributary sounds a bit like the Pang from your discription. As a case in point, having walked by it several times, I would say it is no danger of ever being paddled.

But other Thames tributaries, no larger than the Pang, seem to be fair game for the canoeists. The Wandle seems to be quite a popular destination, even featuring on the 'UK rivers guidebook' site:

www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/wandle.htm

To my surprise, they seem to be quite happy to suggest paddling in areas where the river is very small and shallow - the site mentioned above talks of 'tempting stretches higher up the Wandle, downstream from Hackbridge', although 'the National Trust do not like us in their bit' (and if you saw how shallow the river is at Morden Hall, the National Trust property, you wouldn't be surprised).

Moreover, there is apparently no effort to restrict access to spate conditions. www.civilservicecanoeclub.org.uk/reports/index.htm talks of 'A pleasant afternoon's trip despite the graunchy levels' on a 'rather dry river Wandle'. Note that that this trip took place in January, when the redds of the trout population that some of us are trying to help re-establish in the river are distinctly vulnerable. I could also, if you want, show you pictures of a group of canoeists on the river in low water conditions in June, taken last year.

I'm afraid that this rather freewheeling approach undermines the apparently reasonable attitude of David McC to the notion of restricted access depending on conditions. It also reinforces my concern about how any code regulating access will be enforced - a point which nobody from the canoeing fraternity has so far addressed.

The evidence reveals that some canoeists don't wait for high water conditions, even on small, vulnerable rivers. This surely calls into question any claim to environmental responsibility on their part.

[Paul Boote]

Yes, Charles. And I can cite one other,small-river, low-water canoe incident last summer, whilst I was barbelling one evening; and two pals of mine, who fish three other small southern rivers, can cite another five between them. On two occasions of their five encounters, canoeists actually got out of their canoes to rip out ranunculus "weed"-beds that were hindering their progress.

Great, huh?

[Sewinman]

I recently attended a clean-up on the Wandle in March. The water was very low and a group of canoeists came down the river. They regularly got stuck and had to hop up and down to make any progress, using their paddles to scrape along. This seemed an organised trip with some adults and a group of youngsters. We had to halt our activities until they managed to get past. They are perfectly in their rights to canoe the stretch but I had to wonder what enjoyment, if any, they could have from such low water.

[joey1]

One day hopefully all watersports will work under the same
ethos as this group in New Zealand called 'Living Rivers'.

"Late last year Fish & Game instigated a coalition with fellow outdoor recreation and conservation groups – Federated Mountain Clubs, the Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society and the NZ Recreational Canoeing Association – to raise public awareness about the threats to New Zealand’s rivers. This very large and unique coalition representing four quite distinct organisations with the common bond of preserving New Zealand’s rivers as ecologically healthy, formally protected, accessible, clean and safe to both swim in and drink from, will become hugely important to New Zealanders’ lifestyle and identity".

Starts with open intelligent dialoge, with a common cause, where all gain for the long term in the investment of our natural heritage. Progressive anglers are at he for-front of this, with the responsibility of not doing away with certain traditions and history that make the foundations of world famous Brittish angling venues. A hard balancing act...


J.

[kreid]

"Incoherent?

No.

It's just that I know British Angling all ways round (on the riverbank and from time spent in its better clubs and drawing-rooms)......"

..........Well maybe you do have experience, you just don't seem to be able to express yourself very clearly.
How about a reply to the other 2 points I raised ?

[Paul Boote]

I talk FISHING, Kreid (just spent some time, indeed, on another FISHING forum, offering suggestions to a fellow ANGLER about how to float-fish for barbel). Your points? Well, they were beneath any REAL ANGLER'S contempt, probably (though I have to admit that I probably didn't read them).

Nil desperandum, eh, Horsey?

Come back and talk FISHING (fly-fishing, on this forum, by the way), sometime; you'll find me (and a number of the rest) pretty knowledgable.

[kreid]

beneath contempt , yet you haven't even read them yet ? Nothing like a contemplative reply eh ?

I don't want to sound too much like Jeremy Paxman, but.....do you or do you not agree with Richard's assertion that kayaking should be banned due to it not being an indiginous pastime ?

Would you like to have an angling spokesperson putting forward such ideas on TV or radio ?

[Paul Boote]

kreid said:

beneath contempt , yet you haven't even read them yet ? Nothing like a contemplative reply eh ?

I don't want to sound too much like Jeremy Paxman, but.....do you or do you not agree with Richard's assertion that kayaking should be banned due to it not being an indiginous pastime ?

Would you like to have an angling spokesperson putting forward such ideas on TV or radio ?

Oh, Kreid. Now, I don't normally reply to the linguistically challenged (("indigEnous"), but in your case I am prepared to make an exception (I'm such a soft touch...).

Spokesman for Angling, huh?

I reckon I'd make a very good one (if I could be arsed, which I can't; nor would the half-wits who think they still run it have me), for not only Angling would be permanently safe from the likes of Antis, the Unwashed British Public, the Countryside Alliance, Canoeists etc, but also would at last be seen to really rock.

[kreid]

Linguistically challenged ? At least I can read and understand a simple question.I didn't ask you if you thought YOU would be a good spokesperson....heaven forbid.

Do try to answer the questions posed.....some spokesperson you'd make ! So, I will ask the questions for a third (3rd) time. If you don't understand, get someone to explain it to you , real slow ..... ready....

1) do you or do you not agree with Richard's assertion that kayaking should be banned due to it not being an indiginous pastime ?

2) Would you like to have an angling spokesperson putting forward such ideas on TV or radio ?

Now think this time before you try to be a smartarse and answer the questions ! A yes or no answer will suffice for the linguistically challenged!