|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 10:27:45 GMT -5
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? Canoeists and other outdoor enthusiasts (including anglers) across the world are not made to pay thousands of pounds to enjoy their shared natural heritage. You're asking a different question, which is, "why do anglers in the UK have to pay thousands of pounds for the 'right' to fish?" I'm afraid that I can't answer that one for you. As for the law and pollution. I am afraid not. Hence organisations such as this - www.a-c-a.org/Do canoeists have similar organisations? Surely it would be putting the cart before the horse for canoeists to set up organisations fighting pollution, when angling interests have restricted access to less than 1% of navigable rivers? Again, umbrella bodies for this kind of thing would surely form as a natural result of mutual interest, under any reform of the present system. "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." Decades of negotiating for voluntary access agreements has yielded restricted access to less than 1% of our river heritage. At that rate, it will take over a thousand years to open up access to the public in the way that almost all other countries already have. This may, I suppose, be regarded as successful (depends on your point of view?) The clause about the same restrictions and penalties depends on our sports being directly comperable which nobody can seriously argue. The bit about closing waterways (presumably to anglers too) doesn't strike me as particularly contentious, within the context of fairer access legislation.
|
|
|
Post by DoctorFly on May 4, 2006 11:16:34 GMT -5
[ "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." Decades of negotiating for voluntary access agreements has yielded restricted access to less than 1% of our river heritage. At that rate, it will take over a thousand years to open up access to the public in the way that almost all other countries already have. This may, I suppose, be regarded as successful (depends on your point of view?) The clause about the same restrictions and penalties depends on our sports being directly comperable which nobody can seriously argue. The bit about closing waterways (presumably to anglers too) doesn't strike me as particularly contentious, within the context of fairer access legislation. I'm sure that even a recent University education in Computer Science does not encourage its students to think that an amendment can be taken without the original motion. The full EDM 957, with both amendments would read: "That this House notes the campaign 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 but 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; 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."Attention to detail, young David. Access should be encouraged, not forced. Regards, Doc
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 12:53:07 GMT -5
It could be argued that we all have a moral duty to protect, and guarantee all can enjoy, our natural heritage? Just 'encouraging' it seems a bit weak.
The only material difference is the final clause referring to angling, which is of dubious relevance.
Only a little over a million rod licences are sold each year and the rivers we are talking about require a rod licence to fish. I'm not sure how the figure of 4m is derived but it seems similar to canoeists generalising to include sea kayaking / surfing / other aquatic disciplines (which we don't).
It seems to me there are compelling arguments against pretty much all of the changes proposed by the amendments - meanwhile, growing numbers of people are braving a grey area of the law to go paddling regardless.
|
|
|
Post by DoctorFly on May 4, 2006 12:58:24 GMT -5
meanwhile, growing numbers of people are braving a grey area of the law to go paddling regardless. Breaking the law, and causing disturbance with legitimate river users and owners is not going to help your case. Grow up! Regards, Doc
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 13:18:34 GMT -5
Which law is it breaking, specifically?
Canoeists are held not to disturb "legitimate users" in Scotland, mainland Europe, Scandinavia, North America, or NZ. I'd be interested to hear a convincing argument that paddling on English and Welsh rivers, on the other hand, is such an evil act.
I honestly believe that the more publicity this gets (a legal test case being the best), the more public opinion will swing behind fairer access *in some form*.
|
|
|
Post by DoctorFly on May 4, 2006 13:44:06 GMT -5
Which law is it breaking, specifically? Canoeists are held not to disturb "legitimate users" in Scotland, mainland Europe, Scandinavia, North America, or NZ. I'd be interested to hear a convincing argument that paddling on English and Welsh rivers, on the other hand, is such an evil act. I honestly believe that the more publicity this gets (a legal test case being the best), the more public opinion will swing behind fairer access *in some form*. I must admit that I have never understood property law in Scotland, and have always "made an excuse and left" in the opposite direction whenever the situation arose. But I would never presume to judge that Scottish Law is not right for Scotland, and you should not presume that English Law is not right for England. Scottish rivers are not English rivers, and nor are German, Scandinavian, North American or antipodean. In fact there seem many rivers in the world that you could paddle on. Open access is a lovely concept. When I was your age, I would have wanted open access to actresses, breweries, models, Bentleys, Aston Martins, record shops and dope plantations. Now I am glad I didn't get it. Please be patient, and make your case calmly, and it will be taken seriously. Don't agravate. Regards, Doc
|
|
|
Post by IanH on May 4, 2006 13:57:01 GMT -5
Whilst looking up a couple of rivers on google for fishing info - I found this: www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/Entry for the Derbyshire Wye: ACCESS SITUATION: NONE! Whilst paddling it in December 2004 I was approached by a young man claiming to be the Water Bailiff, he said the land and river was owned by the Duke of Devonshire and there was a bylaw prohibiting canoeing/ kayaking. But as we were already on the water and it was not fishing season he let us carry on. MAJOR HAZARDS/ FALLS: Fallen trees and some narrow fast sections with no eddies. "Water Bailiff". Got off more lightly than if he'd caught them using Klinkhammers. They seem to list some quite small rivers. Be an absolute pain if they started paddling down small streams. Ian
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 14:07:37 GMT -5
I would never presume to judge that Scottish Law is not right for Scotland, and you should not presume that English Law is not right for England. Scottish rivers are not English rivers, and nor are German, Scandinavian, North American or antipodean. Except, significantly, that I paddle the Esk from Langholm (in Scotland) down across the English border. On the one hand, I am engaging in a healthy outdoor sport, causing no environmental damage and certainly not disturbing fish by all accounts. We contribute a significant amount of money into local businesses and are made very welcome. Towards the end of the trip we cross an invisible line beyond which we are (allegedly) breaking the law and interfering with "legitimate river users". The fish suddenly get terrified of us, while we mysteriously begin destroying the environment. I have never actually experienced a problem on this trip (which is a very popular one) but it is certainly not the case that the "English river" is unique and not comperable...
|
|
|
Post by JCT on May 4, 2006 14:28:37 GMT -5
Hi David
I appreciate the measured way you have put your view across and I applaud your attempt to bridge the divide between the two opposing sides.
However, for all your talk of ramblers, open access, lack of canoeist-caused damage and so on, it seems to me you are ignoring the main fundamental point.
That is that canoeists are effectivley freeloading off the hard work and money that anglers put into rivers. It is the anglers who volunteer for working parties during the winter to clear rivers and streams of fallen trees and other obstacles. It is anglers who put their own time in for free to manage bankside vegetation and undergrowth. It is anglers who make efforts to maintain the bio-diversity of streams and rivers - ranging from programmes to reintroduce fly-life decimated by pollution, to building otter holts to encourage the regeneration of the otter population.
This is not just to improve angling access but is part of a wider effort to maintain the rivers in their best state. The beautiful state that makes canoeists want to canoe down them. It is enlightened self-interest. Not narrow self-interest. There seems to be a belief amongst some canoeists that these rivers remain navigable, beautiful, unchoked with undergrowth and so on automatically. They don't. It is largely as a result of voluntary work by anglers.
If a working party of anglers was to meet a similar working party of canoeists one winters morning, who were also out to maintain the river on their own time, I suspect there would be less antipathy to free access to canoeists. I am not aware of this ever happening.
On top of this voluntary work, anglers (as has already been discussed) pay a fishing "tax" in the form of a rod license and then pay extra for their fishing. A canoeist can then serenely float down the river, taking advantage of all the hard work of others, condescending about "fair acccess" and paying not a jot - either in time or money.
If I am wrong about working parties of canoeists "putting something back" then I'm happy to be put straight, but I am not aware of them.
Anglers are usually (sadly not always) the guardians of a rivers health, as well as users of their resources. Can the same be said for the canoeists?
|
|
|
Post by DoctorFly on May 4, 2006 14:53:43 GMT -5
Towards the end of the trip we cross an invisible line beyond which we are (allegedly) breaking the law and interfering with "legitimate river users". The fish suddenly get terrified of us, while we mysteriously begin destroying the environment. I have never actually experienced a problem on this trip (which is a very popular one) but it is certainly not the case that the "English river" is unique and not comperable... The Esk is not a typical English river. Have you ever seen the chalk streams of Hampshire, and Wiltshire, the moorland rivers of Devon, the Derbyshire streams and the lovely rivers of Warwickshire, such as the Upper Avon which is even now under threat from motorised craft, with the installation of locks, the slowing of the flow and the resultant silting of the gravel beds? Maybe you'd like that, because there would be easy concrete access to the new locks, and the deeper water would stop you from scraping your bottom? Local agreements on the most suitable paddling water has got to be the sensible answer. Regards, Doc
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 14:59:00 GMT -5
JCT, although all that you say is very reasonable, you don't address the point that almost every other country in the world allows public access to rivers. It is telling that paddlers automatically spend their holidays paddling abroad...
I myself would dearly love to paddle the classic Welsh spate runs this winter but it is literally less hassle to fly out to darkest Africa and paddle on the source of the Nile (which is what I'm actually doing). Others go out to India, even Kyrgyzstan and Iran are seeing recent high profile trips.
My week often features more days in a kayak than not (and I work full time!), co-existing quite happily with anglers across Scotland - I'm sure you understand my confusion and frustration that doing exactly the same in an identical valley in Wales would have me branded a criminal, vandal, whatever.
As regards contributing time and money to the river environment, there is widespread support for both a boat licence and the participation of canoeing groups in voluntary river work - this is a dialogue that most canoeists are desperate to enter but which is being denied by, frankly, a stubborn refusal to engage seriously by top-level angling bodies.
Suppose I table the following three proposals:
1. All canoeists to hold a valid rod licence (the more expensive one) when paddling - to be administered & enforced through an extension of the existing system (with the same sanctions).
2. Canoeists to engage with angling groups from top to local level for voluntary working parties etc (would probably work miracles if we mixed the groups together?)
3. Minimum water levels to be established for all sections of river which address anglers' concerns about the river bed. (Violation to be treated the same way as paddling without a rod licence?)
I genuinely believe that all three of these would meet with approval from canoeists.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 15:15:02 GMT -5
The Esk is not a typical English river. Really? That must be fortunate for those who would otherwise have a hard time justifying their arguments against access... Have you ever seen the chalk streams of Hampshire, and Wiltshire, the moorland rivers of Devon, the Derbyshire streams and the lovely rivers of Warwickshire, such as the Upper Avon I think that ten years of paddling here and abroad has given me the experience to appreciate and judge English rivers wherever they are. My honest assessment is that they could easily accomodate a system of fairer access. the Upper Avon which is even now under threat from motorised craft, with the installation of locks, the slowing of the flow and the resultant silting of the gravel beds? Maybe you'd like that, because there would be easy concrete access to the new locks, and the deeper water would stop you from scraping your bottom? Canoeists prefer above all rivers which are in their natural state - surely that goes without saying. The sole exception are the ever-popular Thames weirs, a direct result of the ability of canoeists to buy a licence and paddle there without hassle. Personally, this is the kind of paddling I am particularly fond of (the paddler is yours truly).
|
|
|
Post by DoctorFly on May 4, 2006 15:38:47 GMT -5
I think that ten years of paddling here and abroad has given me the experience to appreciate and judge English rivers wherever they are. Ten years paddling? Wow As I said before David, grow up. Doc
|
|
|
Post by Paul Boote on May 4, 2006 15:57:19 GMT -5
Yup. Sure wipes out my 49 years of British fishing, both upland and lowland rivers. Plus years spent fishing the Indus tributaries in India, Kashmir and northern Pakistan; the upper Ganges and its tribs; most of the larger (and worthwhile smaller) upland rivers of Central and Southern India; a bit of the Amazon; a lot the Parana and its tribs (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay); most of the rivers of Argentine and Chilean Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego; the Congo and tribs in the Congo Republic; the odd one or five or ten in Iceland; etc etc.
Not for the odd week, you understand, but for month after month, year in year out.
Clearly counts for nowt, now.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 15:58:27 GMT -5
I was trying to counter the strategy of listing different types of river, as though that would somehow make my argument less valid. If you'd like to list specific reasons why you feel certain types of "English river" are not suitable for canoeing then I will give you specific counter-examples. As I said before David, grow up. I feel fortunate that I don't measure success in terms of how well I can patronise others - you are by far my superior :-) If you feel able to manage a useful response to my last couple of posts, please don't pull any punches on account of my childish inexperience. Yup. Sure wipes out my 49 years of British fishing, [blah blah blah] Not for the odd week, you understand, but for month after month, year in year in out. On the contrary, I'm surprised all that experience hasn't enabled you to take a more liberal approach to river access. I would have thought, having enjoyed rivers for almost half a century, you would be more keen than most to ensure that everybody is able to share and enjoy Britain's natural river heritage, as people around the world are able to. No? Perhaps experience does "count for nowt" then
|
|