texxa
Full Member
Posts: 109
|
Post by texxa on May 4, 2006 5:01:32 GMT -5
By the Power of Google... must be an alright lad if he went to Edin Uni !
Maybe David could correct me, but canoeists have full river navigation rights in Scotland. I often fish rivers with a high usage by paddlers and have to say my view of them is pretty neutral. The vast majority are courteous and pass on single file on the far bank, or on other rivers, confine themselves to the faster sections that are not always fishable anyway.
I am yet to experienced negative affects of kayaking and wonder whether anglers are over-reacting, like the shooting/stalking lobbies in England that saw 'right to roam' as another nail in their coffin? In Scotland hill walkers and stalkers coexist with this traditional right. Although I enjoy both, I have objected when mountain access has been over zealously restricted and have similarly been very tempted to slot moronic rambling types that wander through the middle of a stalk!
That said cooperation agreements can work in the majority of cases. There will always be the few that ignore the rules however a wahoo is a wahoo and certainly fishing has enough idiots who disregard rules and damage the environment...hopefully it doesn't put us all in the same bag?
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 5:24:36 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. My gut response to this is that if there's a problem with access law for anglers this is a separate campaign. Although in principle I don't have a problem with anglers being allowed to fish anywhere in the country, there are practical issues. Who would pay for stocking the river and all the other things anglers require? The rod license is already being massively subsidised by the taxpayer - all a bit too complicated for me I'm afraid! Maybe David could correct me, but canoeists have full river navigation rights in Scotland. I often fish rivers with a high usage by paddlers and have to say my view of them is pretty neutral. The vast majority are courteous and pass on single file on the far bank, or on other rivers, confine themselves to the faster sections that are not always fishable anyway. Assuming the area is not environmentally sensitive, members of the public (not just canoeists) effectively have a right of access to all Scottish rivers. This is the way it has always been (although recently confirmed by the Land Reform Act). Nobody wants to upset anyone else and in the ten years I have been paddling (including prime fishing rivers like the Tweed, Spey, Tay and tributaries), I have experienced only a handful of incidents. There is a good understanding between Scottish canoeists and anglers and we will pause, and wait for directions from any angler we encounter. If this doesn't happen in England and Wales it is probably a direct result of canoeists being forced to pursue their sport in a clandestine manner. That said cooperation agreements can work in the majority of cases. As far as I am aware, there are virtually no reasonable access agreements - most either restrict paddlers to one or two weekends a year, or place an arbitrary limit on numbers. The more open examples are always swamped by large numbers of paddlers with nowhere else to go. The danger I see in FACT's approach is that the status quo is already coming to an end - many canoeists have given up and now paddle as they please, following the Scottish precedent. This isn't ideal for either party but rather than take meaningful steps forward, a 'head in the sand' approach seems to be preferred.
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 4, 2006 6:03:15 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. My gut response to this is that if there's a problem with access law for anglers this is a separate campaign. Although in principle I don't have a problem with anglers being allowed to fish anywhere in the country, there are practical issues. Who would pay for stocking the river and all the other things anglers require? The rod license is already being massively subsidised by the taxpayer - all a bit too complicated for me I'm afraid! The scenario I described was that it might be a bi-product of the new law...if canoesists can have access to all water then why not an angler in a float tube or an angler wading down from an access point. If that was the case I could not see the legislation getting very far. As for the rod license - the license paid to the EA is seperate from any permit paid to an owner of a river. So anglers still have to pay a licence even if they fish some of the few 'free' stretches that exist today. The EA are pretty much against stocking ( don't think they actually do any!) - it tends to be paid for by angling clubs. I think you are wrong to suggest that the 'rod license' (you mean the EA fisheries budget?) is subsidised by the tax-payer. For that to be true one would have to believe that the EA would cease to spend money on river management and preservation if anglers were to not exist. Obviously they would not, it is EA's job to protect, preserve and enhance the environment whether it benefits anglers or not. In fact, IMHO, anglers are subsidising the EA by paying an extra-tax on top of the general taxation they already pay...and not that getting much out of it. Anglers subsidise the EA not the other way around. As far as I can tell 'paddlers' are unwilling to do so....they do not wish to contribute to the health of the river they enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by John Gray on May 4, 2006 6:25:05 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? You appear to misunderstand, among other things, the way in which fishing is financed in England and Wales. Anglers in England and Wales are legally required to purchase a rod licence. This is, in effect, an additional tax on anglers. The revenue from the rod licence goes into the coffers of the Environment Agency, to be spent, one would presume, on river maintenance for the benefit of all rivers and their users. The rod licence confers on the angler no right to fish. It is simply a national tax on a group who use the rivers and lakes of England and Wales for their recreation, in much the same way as swimmers and canoeists use the rivers and lakes. Having purchased a rod licence, at a cost of £65, the angler must then buy a fishing permit from the owner of the fishery. The cost of this permit will vary according to the quality of the fishing and the facilities offered but, for salmon fishing, would typically cost in the region of £50 to £100 per day, a portion of which would be spent on the maintenance of the fishery. It is my view that no land and water should be privately owned but that's another matter. I think you make an unnecessary distinction between anglers, canoeists, swimmers and other river users. You happily accept the fact that anglers should be required to pay considerable sums of money for the priviledge of access to our rivers and lakes and that their behaviour should be strictly regulated. You also appear to believe that angling has a high environmental cost. As anglers, we, of course, know that nothing could be further from the truth and that, without the care, dedication and sheer hard work of anglers up and down the country, many of our waterways would be little more than open sewers. There is much that is wrong in our system of land ownership. We in Scotland have taken a small step in the right direction in formalising, in the Land Reform Act, the rights of walkers and others, although it should be noted that the Act, regrettably, gives no legal right of access to anglers. Despite the inequalities inherent in the current situation regarding access to our waterways, I would think that all anglers are happy to make a reasonable financial contribution, whether through the purchase of a national licence or local permits, to the management, maintenance and improvement of our rivers and lakes. In addition, aware of the potential impact of our activities on the environment and on other users of our waterways, we anglers recognise the need for regulation of our sport. In conclusion, while I could not reasonably deny access for canoeists to our rivers, I would think it eminently sensible that they, like anglers, should be required to make a financial contribution to the upkeep of our rivers, perhaps through a national canoe licence, and that they, again like anglers, should be subject to strict regulation of their activities, on the permitted times of access, exclusion zones, numbers of canoeists in any one group and particularly how their activity affects others. It is worth remembering that canoists can ignore anglers more easily than anglers can ignore canoeists. It the the angler who must stop fishing while the canoeist passes. Of particular concern, at the moment, is the possibilty of the deadly salmon parasite Gyrodactulus Salaris being introduced into our rivers. There is geat concern that the parasite may be brought in from the continent on the equipment of careless anglers or canoeists. Most anglers are now aware of the danger. Can the same be said of canoeists?
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 6:41:38 GMT -5
The scenario I described was that it might be a bi-product of the new law...if canoeists can have access to all water then why not an angler in a float tube or an angler wading down from an access point. If that was the case I could not see the legislation getting very far. Well, in the sense that an angler could jump in a canoe and become a canoeist, yes, you'd be able to float down rivers which are affected by fairer access legislation. However, the Scottish precedent combines open, responsible access for the general public and avoids the kind of fishing issues you describe - one can only assume that access legislation in the rest of the UK would follow that example? The EA are pretty much against stocking ( don't think they actually do any!) - it tends to be paid for by angling clubs. I think you are wrong to suggest that the 'rod license' (you mean the EA fisheries budget?) is subsidised by the tax-payer. For that to be true one would have to believe that the EA would cease to spend money on river management and preservation if anglers were to not exist. Someone with more technical knowledge than I would have to assess the make-up of the EA's fisheries budget. Does anyone here know how that part of the budget breaks down? In fact, IMHO, anglers are subsidising the EA by paying an extra-tax on top of the general taxation they already pay...and not that getting much out of it. Anglers subsidise the EA not the other way around. If the EA would spend all of that money regardless of angling then yes, you are effectively paying twice (would need to break down the figures though). This raises a separate issue, as the general rule is that the countryside is not supported explicitly by those who enjoy it most but through general taxation. To return to the previous analogy, we don't make ramblers pay to walk across the moors (although they certainly need managed) - is this not turning into an argument against the rod license? As far as I can tell 'paddlers' are unwilling to do so....they do not wish to contribute to the health of the river they enjoy. Quite the contrary. The EA has a duty to care for the environment for everyone's benefit; everybody therefore contributes to this via general taxation. If a specific narrow interest group incurs large costs then it's not unreasonable to ask them to contribute more (which is what I have always assumed the rod license was for, to cover the EA's extra fisheries budget). As I have said several times, canoeists are not against a boat licence in principal which covers their own, extra, burden on the environment. However, obviously a boat licence would only ever be accepted as part of fairer access legislation - which requires an admission that the present system is wrong, and a willingness to negotiate and support legislation. This is why Salter's amendment, and FACT's approach as a whole, is fatally flawed.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 7:24:47 GMT -5
John, it's interesting that you are a Scottish angler and your views diverge. Much of your argument is compelling, and I can't see anything to complain about in having a boat license, or regulated paddling - canoeists are willing to negotiate on all these things. For example, anglers have an understandable concern about possible damage to spawning beds - canoeists would be perfectly happy to be restricted from paddling over said beds at lower flows. The present situation is in nobody's favour so I ask again - what's the point in supporting the Salter amendment, which takes nobody forwards? It's not as if the proposed EDM is binding legislation - just a starting point for this whole dialogue. Of particular concern, at the moment, is the possibilty of the deadly salmon parasite Gyrodactulus Salaris being introduced into our rivers. There is geat concern that the parasite may be brought in from the continent on the equipment of careless anglers or canoeists. Most anglers are now aware of the danger. Can the same be said of canoeists? Gyro is pretty well known amongst canoeists. It's a particular concern in Norway I believe, although apparently other popular destinations have it too. This is just another issue like travel immunisation, really, which most people happily take on board.
|
|
|
Post by joey1 on May 4, 2006 7:49:34 GMT -5
I would think it eminently sensible that they, like anglers, should be required to make a financial contribution to the upkeep of our rivers, perhaps through a national canoe licence, and that they, again like anglers, should be subject to strict regulation of their activities, on the permitted times of access, exclusion zones, numbers of canoeists in any one group and particularly how their activity affects others. It is worth remembering that canoists can ignore anglers more easily than anglers can ignore canoeists. It the the angler who must stop fishing while the canoeist passes. Great post John, I think if there could be a uniformpaccess payment/contribution made by all water sports involved, to the enviromental agency with some very common sense guide lines canoeists, kayakers and fly fishermen could live in relative harmony, considering most post seem to indicate a sense of good will and good conduct between these sports on the river bank. You'll always get people abusing the regulations in both camps. I think at this point it is very important to have an open dialog between angling and canoeing, it is a start in the right direction, to a more united front to take care of our natural habitats. Are there any fishers on here that are paddlers as well? It would be good to hear their take on things. I've used open kayaks occasionally in New Zealand to access good angling water, through gorges where you cannot get to the river on foot. They are great for access, and to fly fish from a kayak is no different to using a pontoon as a casting platform. With the state of private land ownership in the UK, river accessability and traditional angling attitudes towards the younger river sports I would feel discouraged to use this method in the UK. As I have never seen anyone fishing from a pontoon on the bigger rivers in Ireland, you'd be had up for trespassing or probably get a heavy spinner or shrimp fly around the back of the head. God forbid some forward thinking tourist operator suggested fly fishing from a white water rafting craft on the Foyle, Moy or the Blackwater. I would love to see this facility, and with angling tourism in Ireland down by 40% I think a little 'adventure tourism' could be a profitable option with a younger generation of fly fishermen.... Will never happen though. 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! This is the grey area river pontoonand kayak fly fishing wouldcome under on rivers. Fly fishing from kayaks an pontoons is not new and well accepted on lakes and in saltwater but is something I've never heard talked about on larger UK or Ireland Rivers. Any angler wishing to use a kayak to fly fish from would in turn have to pay a finanacial contribution for both using a water craft and also a rod liscense... if it was ever to happen. I'd love to kayak down the River Mourne and Fly fish but I value my life! ;D One other question: If the presence of water craft like canoes, kayaks and white water rafts is some how detrimental to salmon, disturbing spawning and their lies. Then why on large rivers in Canada and New Zealand where these methods of fishing are well accepted, are wild trout and salmon poulations still very healthy and world famous? LOL, J.
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 4, 2006 8:24:04 GMT -5
Well, in the sense that an angler could jump in a canoe and become a canoeist, yes, you'd be able to float down rivers which are affected by fairer access legislation. However, the Scottish precedent combines open, responsible access for the general public and avoids the kind of fishing issues you describe - one can only assume that access legislation in the rest of the UK would follow that example? Presumably the law would not be specific to canoes, you would have to stand in the river before entering your canoe - wade in it. An angler could do the same and wade wherever he liked. I wonder if anyone had actually tried the following in Scotland or if the law is open access apart from anglers. If a specific narrow interest group incurs large costs then it's not unreasonable to ask them to contribute more (which is what I have always assumed the rod license was for, to cover the EA's extra fisheries budget). But Anglers do not incur 'large costs'. They generally incur large benefits for rivers, for instance often supporting charities that fight pollution. If it was not for anglers you would be paddling in dead and polluted water.
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 4, 2006 8:25:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 8:54:02 GMT -5
Presumably the law would not be specific to canoes, you would have to stand in the river before entering your canoe - wade in it. An angler could do the same and wade wherever he liked. I wonder if anyone had actually tried the following in Scotland or if the law is open access apart from anglers. At the risk of repeating myself, yes you could (and you can in Scotland, if you like). Since anglers have to pay to fish a particular part of the river as well as for the 'right' to fish, though, you'd need to have permission to fish both bits of the river you moved through? But Anglers do not incur 'large costs'. They generally incur large benefits for rivers, for instance often supporting charities that fight pollution. If it was not for anglers you would be paddling in dead and polluted water. Amongst those large benefits being the matter of (intentionally or not) denying access to other water users? I'm sure anglers (and all river users) are against pollution, but you'd think the law (and therefore law enforcement) ought to be responsible for safeguarding us from illegal pollution? One other question: If the presence of water craft like canoes, kayaks and white water rafts is some how detrimental to salmon, disturbing spawning and their lies. Then why on large rivers in Canada and New Zealand where these methods of fishing are well accepted, are wild trout and salmon poulations still very healthy and world famous? You can get closer to home than that. Last time I checked, Scotland was still famous for good fishing, despite the fact that canoeists are permitted their share of access (often to the very same rivers). Despite this, I am asked to believe that canoeists would destroy otherwise identical rivers in North Wales, wreaking catastrophic environmental damage and scaring off all the fish. Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by DoctorFly on May 4, 2006 9:10:57 GMT -5
See this vote! www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/I ntoice that the fair and honourable paddlers are instructing each other on how to multiple vote on the above poll Never mind about stooping to multiple votes, a few votes against the motion as it stands from forum members might bring the opposition up from a mere 9%! Our angling associations, such as the Salmon & Trout Association have done their jobs behind the scenes with many MPs, but we as anglers need to ensure that Martin Salter MP's amendments are incorporated into the EDM. It probably isn't respectable canooeists like our new correspondent that we need to fear, but those on rubber rafts that might follow him! The PR war is on, and we need to vote and contribute to all discussions as well as write to our MPs. www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/www.salmon-trout.org/FACT%20Access%20Dec%2005.htmregards, Doc
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 9:32:19 GMT -5
Sad that you view it as a war... To be frank, I think it's impossible that the present situation (of near exclusive access for anglers) will continue. In the absense of primary legislation, canoeists are increasingly adopting the precedent of responsible access set in Scotland. We are clearly heading for a test-case in the courts, which shouldn't be the way that anybody wants to go. I can't really see the government embracing the storm that would come from prosecuting 'aquatic ramblers' (which is ultimately how it will be portrayed), given the recent and popular moves in terms of countryside access. Surely far better for both sides to negotiate meaningfully? Someone else on the paddling community reminded me of a document he prepared (I think he both paddles and fishes) - I'd be interested in your views.
|
|
|
Post by moustique on May 4, 2006 9:42:12 GMT -5
A simple question!
Why should canoeists be given free access to stretches of river that clubs that I am a member of pay thousands of pounds to use each year without removing or taking any fish?
The yearly fee they pay to the BCU doesn't count!
|
|
|
Post by DoctorFly on May 4, 2006 9:50:19 GMT -5
Sad that you view it as a war... . If it's not a PR war, what are you doing on here? The amendment proposed by Martin Salter MP is quite reasonable and 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 the same 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."It is not being anti-canoe to respect the rule of law, on which our constitution and civilisation is based, but to encourage negotiated settlements that will increase access provided that the environment does not suffer. Regards, Doc
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 4, 2006 9:51:39 GMT -5
At the risk of repeating myself, yes you could (and you can in Scotland, if you like). Since anglers have to pay to fish a particular part of the river as well as for the 'right' to fish, though, you'd need to have permission to fish both bits of the river you moved through?
|
|