|
Post by Dom on May 3, 2006 10:14:30 GMT -5
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! ) David, The river I fish is not stocked. Any fish I catch, I return. I pay an annual rod licence for this pleasure, as well as paying a local angling club for the right to fish there. One of the conditions of the club, is that we need to attend annual work parties, on the river. These workparties are not strictly to improve the angling, but rather to improve the health of the river. One of the better side effects of this is that angling is improved. I am not against sharing the river with other users, but I also feel that other users should not take it for granted, or be allowed unrestricted free for all access without putting anything back. I also did not mean by my poorly worded response that anglers and paddlers shoud have the same by laws applied to them. I don't think that a canooist could give a flying monkey about what size hook they should use, and whether it should be barbed or not I would also like to hear more about the potential damage caused by canoeists, as I don't claim to have any expertise oin the area. cheers Dom
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 3, 2006 10:15:45 GMT -5
Do a google for Sewinman. Follow the first entry. Look at recent posts, and voila. PMSL. Then look at the second result. And I quote: "Sewinman is bald, black and gay"
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 3, 2006 10:17:39 GMT -5
Yes saw that. You I think!
|
|
|
Post by dryflyaddict on May 3, 2006 10:30:40 GMT -5
Call me silly but I didnt think the closed season was for fish to recover from being fished, it was to allow them unhindered breeding/spawing time? Surely a canoe in the closed season in shallow waters could actually do more damage than at any other time of the year? Especially to fish who rely on gravel rich beds, which are easily disturbed, to spawn in...
I'd have to admit to sitting somewhere in the middle of the two arguments here and I think that a real distinction in size of waterway needs to brought to bear. It's a massive difference seeing canoeists on a large river to seeing people canoeing down a chalkstream (I've seen them do it...).
Riparian owners of waterways are just that, OWNERS. To fish most of the waters in the UK you need permission from the owners (whether that be free or paid for) and also in some instances permission to cross the land to get to the river. Why should canoeists or anybody else for that matter, decide that they have the right to access privately owned land without permission? Perhaps as a community canoesists could have tried to be more persuasive and less confrontational when trying to get voluntary agreements off the ground?
|
|
|
Post by joey1 on May 3, 2006 11:24:10 GMT -5
This conflict of sustainable waterway access for ALL Brittish citizens that enjoy the great outdoors and care for the enviroment, can only be resolved when ONE Govenment Enviromental Angency, monitors and sets ligisalation, first and formost to protect and enhance natural waterways in Wales and England. This cannot be done with any objectivity with current waterway access and privitisation laws. As well as ensuring, Anglers, Canoeists, Kayakers and Swimmers have access to sustainable recources and stretches of river where all sports can live in relative harmony, maybe over lapping in areas where angling/kayaking pressure is at it's lightest. At the moment this balance is not in proportion.
Angling access versus angling revenue, going back into waterway enhancement and tourism is one part of a larger equation. If other water adventure sports also had a proportion of suitable waterways and also had to pay for yearly/annual 'Waterway access and enhancement liscence' that ALL water recreational sports had to adhear to, then you would probably see an arguement that these other water sports would contribute a hell of alot more to waterway enhancement than they are currently.
If all water sports can co-exist in proportion, in other countries where tourism, tourism revenue and natural water way conservation flurrish, is it not time for England/Wales to come out of the dark ages. More public access means, more public awareness of the environment, more revenue to be put back into conservation of waterways and with one governing enviromental body, monitoring this recourse a stronger front can be focused on protecting our waterways against larger problems of agricultural pollution, irrigation and dams which are always going to threaten wild places with the constant presence of urban spread.
A "Waters of National Importance for the outdoors" act could be set, where water access is graded or scaled on traditonal rights, proportional representation of outdoorwater sports within a waterway area, suitability of water for different water sports and of course first and formost a sustainable level of boating disturbance and angling pressure on populations of sports fish within a waterway system.
I think it is about time disputes between rod and paddle were set aside, an 'intelligent' governing body set in place working in close perameters with departments of tourism, and economic development. A coalition of all water sports is the way forward contributing and acting as one voice to combact and act upon a list of threats that could in the near future, damage the national health and heritage of our 'living waterways'. Not just the pride of an individual outdoor pursuit!
Trout, Salmon and the natural living water recource come first and formost in this equation, and the maintanence of habitat has to be the key fucus of all water pursuits. Water creatures and plants need 'living space' and with modern day pollution and reduced water flows this should be every sportsmans key objective. I think to contribute to the safety of this habitat a uniform payment system for all water way sports is essential.
Welcome to modern day enviromental management Britan.
J.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 3, 2006 11:27:27 GMT -5
I am not against sharing the river with other users, but I also feel that other users should not take it for granted, or be allowed unrestricted free for all access without putting anything back. Dom, you make an excellent point - personally, I collect and dispose of litter etc. where I find it on my river travels, although I obviously can't claim that all canoeists do the same. To be fair, many canoe clubs already run clean-up days on their local rivers (although they are stepping into a grey area of the law to do so). This is certainly be something I'd expect to see expanded as part of a fairer system of access. I would also like to hear more about the potential damage caused by canoeists, as I don't claim to have any expertise in the area. I'm tempted to say the reason there is so little evidence of damage is because it doesn't happen! I'm sure there are instances, although paddling (scraping!) over spawning beds in extremely low water is the only possibility I can think of. the closed season ... was to allow them unhindered breeding/spawing time? Surely a canoe in the closed season in shallow waters could actually do more damage than at any other time of the year? Especially to fish who rely on gravel rich beds, which are easily disturbed, to spawn in... You wouldn't think so, although there is no empirical evidence that the passage of canoes effects spawning fish. One condition of fairer access which I can't see anyone objecting to would be a limit on the water level for navigation during spawning time - nobody wants to scrape down the river bed anyway, it's about as much fun as having holes drilled in your head. Riparian owners of waterways are just that, OWNERS. To fish most of the waters in the UK you need permission from the owners (whether that be free or paid for) and also in some instances permission to cross the land to get to the river. Why should canoeists or anybody else for that matter, decide that they have the right to access privately owned land without permission? This is the same argument that we saw being used against ramblers. Who are ramblers to think they can stroll across land in the UK without a license and advance permission from all relevant land owners? Fortunately, minority private interests have been forced to accommodate the right of the British citizen to responsibly enjoy his natural heritage. Canoeists see their access campaign as nothing more than an extension of this, which would allow us to responsibly enjoy our natural river heritage in peaceful coexistance with anglers and all other groups. I think the analogy between canoeing and rambling is a really good one. Nobody can deny there are massive implications of letting ramblers enjoy the countryside, not least litter and erosion. They also require compromises on behalf of hunting/shooting/etc (the equivalent of fishing?) However, we do not force ramblers to pay a "rambling licence", then buy "rambling rights" from the owners of each different patch of land; what's more, I have never even heard a plausible argument for doing so. Perhaps as a community canoesists could have tried to be more persuasive and less confrontational when trying to get voluntary agreements off the ground? I think thirty years is a fair trial period for the voluntary system and most approaches will have been tried during this time. Blaming the farsical access situation on canoests themselves is, with respect, a little silly.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 3, 2006 11:32:24 GMT -5
Trout, Salmon and the natural living water recource come first and formost in this equation, and the maintanence of habitat has to be the key fucus of all water pursuits. Water creatures and plants need 'living space' and with modern day pollution and reduced water flows this should be every sportsmans key objective. I think to contribute to the safety of this habitat a uniform payment system for all water way sports is essential. You make some excellent points, but I think we disagree here. The difference between angling and almost all other watersports is that while we exist alongside fish, and have no effect on them, angling puts direct pressure on fish and requires sums of money to be spent on fisheries etc. which (it could be argued) would otherwise not be needed. For example, you propose equal contributions but does that mean swimmers should pay for the stocking of rivers? What justification is there for this?
|
|
|
Post by joey1 on May 3, 2006 11:51:34 GMT -5
Trout, Salmon and the natural living water recource come first and formost in this equation, and the maintanence of habitat has to be the key fucus of all water pursuits. Water creatures and plants need 'living space' and with modern day pollution and reduced water flows this should be every sportsmans key objective. I think to contribute to the safety of this habitat a uniform payment system for all water way sports is essential. You make some excellent points, but I think we disagree here. The difference between angling and almost all other watersports is that while we exist alongside fish, and have no effect on them, angling puts direct pressure on fish and requires sums of money to be spent on fisheries etc. which (it could be argued) would otherwise not be needed. For example, you propose equal contributions but does that mean swimmers should pay for the stocking of rivers? What justification is there for this? I think a 'uniform anual eviromental access fee' could stand across the board, keeping in focus the financial contribution been put back into that natural aquatic recourse as you would do, if you pay a cover charge accessing any wild park to pursue different outdoor activities. I think subsidies for different water activities in relation on their enviromental impact is definitly an issue. I don't proffess to have all the answers, but if you had a united group made of the top people in the differing water pursuits working with the enviromental department as a united agency, you could come up with an intelligent payment system in proportion to how much every pursuit contributes to the presevation of water habitats and the enviromental impact each sport has. I think in the case of anglers, preservation of fish stocks versus enviromental impact and maintanence is something that might have to be adressed on top of a uniform access fee. J.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 3, 2006 12:11:17 GMT -5
Okay, this is coming back to the idea of a "boat licence" which many canoeists find perfectly acceptable (particularly if agreed upon bilaterally as you suggest).
I suspect the next stumbling block is that anglers would still have to pay huge fees (for fishing rights) while other water users would not. Although essentially the same as those shooting on moors having to pay while those who ramble pass for free, it might prove a little hard to swallow?
|
|
|
Post by dryflyaddict on May 3, 2006 12:15:26 GMT -5
well, lets take the rambler analogy a bit further then. In my area and on the rivers I fish people do not have a right to roam over fields and gardens as they see fit, why then should a canoeist have a right to roam through the same areas?
Perhaps your reference to ramblers holds water (no pun intended) on rivers that flow through land affected by the right to roam but I take offense at canoeists in this area who try to use the same arguments about relatively small watercourses (read River Avon, Wiltshire/Hants here) that flow through areas that there is currently no or very little public access to.
I think that your use of rambling is being a tad selective, using a gentle activity, why not compare it to the battle for use of RUPP's and other byways by motorcyclists and 4x4's instead? (I for many years fell into the latter camp) It doesn't hold quite the same open access for all connotations does it?
|
|
|
Post by RobMason on May 3, 2006 12:38:03 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! On this point I would agree. My MP changed tack after I contacted him.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 3, 2006 12:59:44 GMT -5
lets take the rambler analogy a bit further then. In my area and on the rivers I fish people do not have a right to roam over fields and gardens as they see fit, why then should a canoeist have a right to roam through the same areas? Good point. Just as nobody suggests ramblers should be allowed to trample through back gardens, I'm not suggesting that people should be allowed to paddle in your garden pond. Perhaps your reference to ramblers holds water (no pun intended) on rivers that flow through land affected by the right to roam but I take offense at canoeists in this area who try to use the same arguments about relatively small watercourses (read River Avon, Wiltshire/Hants here) that flow through areas that there is currently no or very little public access to. I am, indeed, coming from the perspective of a right to roam existing around the rivers in question. If the land around a river is not available to the public then it stands to reason that the river won't be either (again, something that would presumably be covered by fairer access legislation). I think that your use of rambling is being a tad selective, using a gentle activity, why not compare it to the battle for use of RUPP's and other byways by motorcyclists and 4x4's instead? (I for many years fell into the latter camp) It doesn't hold quite the same open access for all connotations does it? Actually, rambling is an excellent analogy with many parallels to canoeing. Paddling down a river is silent, carbon free, however you measure it leaving literally no trace. It is cheap and open to the masses, just like rambling. Drawing comparisons with ripping apart bridleways with huge noisy 4x4s is being more than a little selective! The issue of large or powered craft is completely separate from the canoeing debate - personally, I'm as enthusiastic about access for powered craft as I am about opening up the national parks to motorcross riders... not very!
|
|
|
Post by Cothi on May 3, 2006 13:08:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 3, 2006 13:13:59 GMT -5
Google strikes again?
I try not to let youth stand in my way ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 4, 2006 3:42:56 GMT -5
Presumably if the law was changed the river itself would not be private property...say up to the high water mark. Would that mean that anglers could fish anywhere (for free) as long as they could find an access point and stayed in the river or below the high water mark. This was the case in Montana/Idaho when I fished there.
So if you could find a bit of public land you could enter the river and wade down or 'float tube' down to any stretch regardless of who owned it? Stroll down to the Houghton club water on the Test perhaps and rip a few lures?
If that was the case then the chances of any legislation are pretty much nil!
|
|