|
Post by Silver Stoat on May 4, 2006 16:00:06 GMT -5
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?) quote] Your three points make a useful response to some of the concerns that anglers have. However, there is one point that John Grey made that that seems to have been missed by others and which you also have not addressed : "...It the the angler who must stop fishing while the canoeist passes. ..." On a wide river, having the occasional kayak paddling through is less likely to be a problem but on the small spate streams, often less than twenty yards wide, the consequence of having totally unhindered free access is likely to result in domination of the water resource by canoeists. In rural Wales and similar areas, tourism is the major source of income for many and much of that tourist trade is as a result of visiting anglers. If it became impracticable for anglers to fish in such locations due to canoe traffic then at lot of small communities would suffer. I am not against allowing access to other water sport enthusiasts, I just feel that it would be sensible, for both anglers and canoeists, to negotiate the terms and conditions for access - maximum numbers, fees etc. - at any specific location rather than having wholly unrestricted access. As has been noted, anglers are restricted as to where, and often when, they may fish and are subject to a range of permissions and fees. Would you agree that to allow canoeists free and unhindered access would not result in a fair solution to the problem. Dave.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 16:20:04 GMT -5
Your three points make a useful response to some of the concerns that anglers have. However, there is one point that John Grey made that that seems to have been missed by others and which you also have not addressed : "...It the the angler who must stop fishing while the canoeist passes. ..." On a wide river, having the occasional kayak paddling through is less likely to be a problem but on the small spate streams, often less than twenty yards wide, the likely consequence of having totally unhindered free access is likely to result in domination of the water resource by canoeists. I'm glad you think those three conditions make a useful starting point. I agree absolutely that "totally unhindered free access" is not what anybody is aiming for. Even in Scotland, access is not unhindered but subject to a variety of rules and guidelines - greater pressure on resources would require something more robust in England and Wales. There are a variety of possible approaches to this, but it basically comes down to time sharing (the French system has paddlers restricted to certain hours of the day, on top of all other rules). As many people have observed, the presence of anglers is neither here nor there to most canoeists who can wait for instructions, then move swiftly and quietly by. Therefore, anglers need see no reduction in their time on the water, merely a willingness to share it *on certain times / days* with canoeists. In rural Wales and similar areas, tourism is the major source of income for many and much of that tourist trade is as a result of visiting anglers. If it became impracticable for anglers to fish in such locations due to canoe traffic then at lot of small communities would suffer. I suspect that any loss of income would be offset by paddle tourism, since (even assuming unrestricted access) only the most popular spots might put anglers off. Apparently traders in Langollen really notice the difference depending on the present state of wrangling between our respective bodies. As has been noted, anglers are restricted as to where, and often when, they may fish and are subject to a range of permissions and fees. Would you agree that to allow canoeists free and unhindered access would not result in a fair solution to the problem. Yep, I agree with that without reservation. I think most canoeists would be pretty content with fair, not unrestricted access! Dave.
|
|
|
Post by The Otter Startler on May 4, 2006 17:02:49 GMT -5
In the end of the day some reasoned comprimise must be reached, with restrictions and regulations ( this is the UK don't forget ), but unless we have a dialouge we will create nothing but antipathy and decisions dumped on us from above ( Westminster ) which we may or may not like.
I favour some forms of voluntary agreement personally.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Stoat on May 4, 2006 17:09:55 GMT -5
Dave,
Given that, as you stated ; "... I think most canoeists would be pretty content with fair, not unrestricted access! ..." do you not think it may have been better if the original EDM had requested that canoeists be allowed equivilancy with anglers regarding access rather than ...." That this House urges the 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 ..."
If the intention was to instigate discussions such as this one in order to try to establish some common ground, might it not have been more 'politic' to use a less confrontational approach ?
Dave.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 4, 2006 17:39:19 GMT -5
I'm inclined to agree - but then, as a Scottish paddler I'm not really part of the access campaign (after all, we've done ours).
The general feeling seems to be that, with any campaign, you end up being beaten down to something less than your original demands. Ramblers didn't start off by saying "we'd like access except here, and here, and we're prepared to concede the following, etc. etc." so the canoeing EDM will eventually be beaten down to a fair compromise (rather than starting as a fair compromise and going downhill from there).
Also, at the end of the day, no matter how many reasonable discussions like this take place, we aren't really going to see FACT's entrenched position change, are we? Maybe it needs to be confrontational to get to that compromise in the first place.
|
|
kreid
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by kreid on May 4, 2006 18:09:37 GMT -5
A refreshing change to see a decent topic.I am an ardent angler, but i have paddled at times and have fished from a canoe(I'd recommend it). I live and fish in Scotland. Have lived and fished in England. Some views here to think about, especially Dave.
1) You are dealing primarily here with game anglers. They have traditionally had a lot of "rights" denied to others , but also costs.The £65 mentioned is for a salmon license, a coarse one is about £20 odd. Its not only canoeists who are unwanted....try to get coarse fishing access in certain places. Salmon anglers in particular want "exclusivity"...ie , no coarse anglers/canoeists etc...a beat to themselves or their party. Not all are like this but many still are though times are at last changing !
2) I have no problem with canoe access on any waters i fish. Up here we have so many idiots fishing/ drinking/messing up the banks (game and coarse) that we can't accuse anyone of causing environmental damage....until we get our own house in order.I have seen this in England too. I have to say most of the canoeists I see are tidy/caring folk out in the country which they enjoy for its own sake and take care of it. ( Anglers may enjoy this too but at the end of the day people will fish in anywhere, no matter how manky, if the fishing is good.Not all ,but many. We are primarily out to catch fish after all.....if we weren't , we would be merely ramblers ! )
Paul Boote ...you are getting to look a bit silly with your post about where you'd fished in the world....came over a bit pompous and condescending, sure you aren't like that in real life.
I think we as anglers are getting alarmed about not a lot. This isn't really an issue up here at all. Dave....Scotland may be still famed for its fishing but it is based on past glory....it has gone downhill badly. Many of us too go abroad to fish , for both game and coarse species....
Go enjoy both sports, maybe combine the 2! I am sure we can all get along together.
|
|
|
Post by The Famous Grouse on May 4, 2006 20:38:49 GMT -5
I appreciate David's willingness to discuss the issue with us. Even though, being from the US, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I thought I might add some firsthand experience of what happens to angling when canoeists have unlimited free access.
The problem is that canoeists always speak of "sharing" the water with anglers. This, in my experience, is almost never the case.
Instead, the canoeists treat the water as their personal theme park ride and the anglers are just left to get out of the way. That's it. Sharing the water involves a lot of giving on the part of anglers and nothing on the part of canoeists. Hardly a definition of sharing.
David, in my years of fly fishing here in America, I have had literally thousands of canoeists paddle past. In all that time, I can count on one hand the number of times canoeists have offered to share the water with me by picking up their boat and portaging around the area I was fishing.
To worsen the matter, it is roughly 1 canoeist per season that will even make the effort to put their paddle in the water to canoe behind me so as not to directly cross the area I'm fishing. Again, where's the sharing? There is none on the part of the canoeists, that's for sure.
In the true spirit of sharing the water, would UK canoeists agree to legally binding code of conduct that requires portaging around anglers if they cannot pass between the angler's back and the bank? With mandatory fines and loss of license being the penalty for violations?
Grouse
|
|
|
Post by jamesf on May 5, 2006 1:49:11 GMT -5
Canoeist here (just so you know up front)
DoctorFly - Please put some effort into your insults. The 'grow up' one was funny for a while but has worn thin.
Person whose name escapes me who said that aggression will get us nowhere - Aggression of the non violent kind is the only thing that will get us anywhere. Since we stopped girl thingy footing around the results have been astonishing. I can now paddle the Dee in Llangollen whenever I want and your spokespeople Martin Salter and the blimpesque Llyn Hughes give me a belly laugh every time I hear them on the radio trying to clutch hold of the status quo. The fact that you are all starting to think about the isssue as a threat (as evidenced by this discussion) fills me with good cheer and further vaildates 'aggression' as a strategy.
For someone barely out of nappies, David makes some good points about the nature of negotiations. We used to just ask for the crust but think we actually deserve a few slices.
The Famous Grouse - I always get a little nervous when passing fishermen of any hue as I am never entirely sure which way they would like me to go. As a starter, amongst ourselves, we always point in the direction that we want each other to go. If you pointed behind you, or even made little walking motions with your fingers and pointed at the bank then on to a point downstream that wouldn't interfere with you, then certainly UK paddlers would understand what you needed.
|
|
|
Post by Dom on May 5, 2006 2:59:38 GMT -5
Have you seen his avatar Ban him moderator, and get his feeelthy views away from my eyes. David. Well done for putting your side of view across without resorting to patronising comments and jibes. A few on here would do well to take note. I think the reason that so many on here suport FACT's amendment is that it opposes the "unrestricted free access" which would leave so many anglers in danger of potentially losing any rights on a river. It would appear that you are not pressing for "unrestricted free access" either. Fair enough. The Early Day Motion however is calling for that. The present situation whereby you guys only have access to 1% of waterways does seem unfair, and it would seem that if the present situation is kept, than it would appear unlikely that you wil get anymore. I think that reading the responses on here, many anglers would not object to sharing the waterways with cannooists, providing that canooists did not just "take" but "put something back" as well, (be it a boat licence, working parties etc.), and some sort of code was in place, that governed how both parties should act around each other. As John Grey said earlier, it is the angler who would have to stop fishing when the canooist passes. A couple of canooists "drifting" past you when you are blind casting would make no difference. Half a dozen canooists furiously paddling past when you have been stalking a fish for 45 minutes, would however. Paul. I have no experience with paddlers causing damage. You by the sounds of it have. Care to share? I will continue to oppose canooists having the right to "unrestricted free access", however will listen a lot more favourably (and possibly even support) their efforts in getting a fairer system in place for access to more waterways. (i might even be tempted to give them a smile next time they "glide" past me..... well alright not a smile but I promise not to throw any more rocks, OK ) Cheers Dom EDIT: PS. You keep likening canoeing to rambling. I did the Inn Way a coule of years back.Seven days, 90 miles and 44 pubs!! Fantastic. Anyway after stopping and talking to a National Trust bod, he explained to me how much work they have to do to maintain the footpaths and we were getting it all for free. Took out a NT memberhip there and then and have renewed it every year. There is no such thing as a free lunch and we should all be prepared to pay to do something we love.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Boote on May 5, 2006 3:11:38 GMT -5
I posted the stuff pasted below on the Barbel Fishing World Forum late last night. For the eyes of a very large angling grouping that tends to keep its eyes down, like the fish it fishes for, and not worry too much about what goes on outside their watery, fishy and tackle obsessions.
The silly Beeb vote today is nothing,
I reckon that Angling really is going to have to take the canoeists on, and NOW. There is an anarchic, Eff-you (almost Animal Rights) element (and a significant one) in the paddling community that is spoiling for a fight and wanting to be able to canoe just where and when the eff they want. We Anglers and especially our smaller more intimate rivers are destined to lose out BIG TIME if they prevail. Forget the dreaming about baits and rigs and reels and sexy new rods for a moment, fellas, and think about just in WHAT conditions you might have to fish them in the future...
|
|
|
Post by jamesf on May 5, 2006 3:42:18 GMT -5
"There is an anarchic, Eff-you (almost Animal Rights) element (and a significant one) in the paddling community"
You've brought this on yourselves by being utterly uncompromising for the last 50 years. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Boote on May 5, 2006 4:07:09 GMT -5
Paul. I have no experience with paddlers causing damage. You by the sounds of it have. Care to share? Just one, very bad one, some years ago now, on water that I once lived by and managed in Wales. On the farm on which I was living there was a shortish stretch of top-name salmon river plus a much longer one of a small but significant spawning tributary. It was well into winter when the incident occurred, not longer after I had told a pack of otter hounds over from the Wye to go back to their otter-less Wye and leave our few wild otters alone, two canoeists coming down the tiny tributary in low water, running over recently cut sea-trout redds and pushing off the dozen or so salmon that were waiting to commence their own operations. So I tackled the two canoeists, young men, like myself then, out of the Midlands, who had clearly accessed the stream from either a road bridge a little upstream or (as they told me, proudly) from near the source on the moors way way up. After explaining that they were in mere inches of water and running hard across fish-spawning gravels, I very politely asked them to get their canoes out, indicating that they could carry their craft up to my farmhouse then get a lift from me to where they had left their vehicle. Immediately I received literally an explosion of foul-mouthed abuse and threats of physical violence. It went no further, however, as my dog, Alice, a sharp Dobermann pregnant dog, then decided that she didn't like our visitors, and began to froth and snarl. This shut them up. Our visitors paddled full-tilt downstream then, down the last hundred yards of the tributary to the main river, then, after a parting volley of V-signs and eff-you's, disappeared from view. I telephoned my local river bailiff from the farmhouse soon afterwards. "Gone, lad. Get the police next time." There was no next time for me fortunately, but there was for a couple of other fisheries that I knew. Coloured my opinion of canoeists ever since, I am very much afraid. Then there were the packs of extremely rude (I had said nothing; I was merely trying to fish), "gonzo" "Extreme" paddlers on a couple of Thames weirpools just a very few years ago... But I won't talk about THEM!
|
|
|
Post by jamesf on May 5, 2006 4:13:42 GMT -5
Not a good experience for you and proves that there are indeed a small number of idiots in every walk of life.
The rudeness in context: We are nervous of coming across aggressive and sometimes violent treatment from you lot, so are in fighting mode from the off.
Runnning upland streams and rivers in low water is becoming increasingly frowned upon in canoeing. You could help us out with some education and gauge placement so everyone can agree when the river is "too low" to paddle.
|
|
|
Post by Cranefly on May 5, 2006 4:55:22 GMT -5
I have canoed, at one time much more than I fished. I have acted for the BCU as their agent negotiating and agreeing the purchase of a stretch of rapids and access rights on a notable salmon river in England, which the BCU raised funds for and got grants to buy.
I am an agent for an owner of a beat on the upper Wye where an access agreement with the BCU and riparian owners works reasonably well, with the odd exception, on both sides I expect.
I fish the Wye for salmon and trout which is a big river but I can tell you that anybody who has fished this river below Glasbury, where navigation is allowed, on weekends or summer days and evenings that fishing is next to impossible because of continuous flotillas of canoes and rafts frequently paddled by noisy and unthoughtful people, sometimes by people who threaten you with violence because you are wading in "their river" on the line that they want to take.
The value of fishing on the middle and lower river Wye is reduced because of the open access to canoes and rafters.
Many of my clients have bought their fishing rights and invested tens or hundreds of thousands on them to improve their beats and the rivers in general, either directly or through support of projects to improve the rivers. The value that they place on their fishing would be catastrophically affected and particularly so on small streams and rivers.
It has been said in posts above that it is not as if anybody wants to canoe through your garden. For owners of fisheries it would be seen as being as bad if not worst.
Much has been said about how well it works in Scotland. I do not know the ins and outs of it there but I do know that there are many miles of rivers and a much smaller population and fewer holiday makers so it would seem likely that there would be much less canoing pressure.
In the rivers of England that pressure will much much greater. I think of rivers like the Derbyshire Wye, in the Peak District National Park and can not imagine how many canoes would be on that river but I can see clearly the damaging effect it would have on the value of the fishing and its ability to sustain the jobs of the river keepers and the consequent loss of the amazing quality of the habitat and the fish and wild life populations that their work supports. Not by the direct effects of canoes paddling down the river but simply because not enough people would want to fish that river. I would not. David McCraw admits this; "I suspect that any loss of income would be offset by paddle tourism, since (even assuming unrestricted access) only the most popular spots might put anglers off".
Similar if not quite such dramatic and quick results will happen on other rivers as the spell of fishing and fishery ownership is broken by the presence of or the expectation of canoes on the river or stream. For I, and I suspect most other anglers, fish to get away from it all, to be absorbed into their hobby and the country side around them, not to be signaling to canoeists which way they might want them to pass "quickly and quietly" (even if that was possible on a 10' wide stream) or worst having to dodge boats and paddles.
The direct effects on the riparian habitat of paddling rafts, canoes and other craft on brooks, streams and rivers may not have been quantified but it is easy to see what damage could be done to spawning beds and general disturbance to the rivers unintentionally.
David McCraw makes much of his supposedly conciliatory tones of "it not being a war" but it does slip when he tells us; "Also, at the end of the day, no matter how many reasonable discussions like this take place, we aren't really going to see FACT's entrenched position change, are we? Maybe it needs to be confrontational to get to that compromise in the first place".
We also get a glimpse of the canoing camp from jamesf; "The fact that you are all starting to think about the issue as a threat (as evidenced by this discussion) fills me with good cheer and further validates 'aggression' as a strategy".
Open access, restricted or not, will mean just that. There will be no turning back, no rethinking, no adjustments just access to every brook, stream and river in England and Wales. A few canoes now many in the future and a quick, in some places but slow in others, erosion of the enjoyment and the value of the river to fisherman and fishery owner and with it the loss of that understanding of the riparian habitat and how to improve and maintain it.
An EDM is a small shot in what will be a long process. All sides should think carefully about what they think they want and fishermen and river owners should think even more carefully about what they will lose if access to rivers is granted.
|
|
|
Post by davidmccraw on May 5, 2006 4:55:42 GMT -5
I reckon that Angling really is going to have to take the canoeists on, and NOW. There is an anarchic, Eff-you (almost Animal Rights) element (and a significant one) in the paddling community that is spoiling for a fight and wanting to be able to canoe just where and when the eff they want. We Anglers and especially our smaller more intimate rivers are destined to lose out BIG TIME if they prevail. Forget the dreaming about baits and rigs and reels and sexy new rods for a moment, fellas, and think about just in WHAT conditions you might have to fish them in the future... Good effort, Paul, you've managed to stir people up without contributing anything to solving the problem. If you are only able to negotiate from a position of "we anglers and our rivers" then you really are going to be disappointed. The fundamental issue here is that of exclusive access to part of our natural river heritage by a very narrow interest group. Let's face it, the recent track record of countryside interest groups against the public hasn't been good. I feel strongly that everyone has an equal right to enjoy our shared river heritage - anglers, canoeists, whoever. In recognition of the fact that isolation is a big part of many anglers' enjoyment I am only too happy to support time sharing and other proposals (I'd even support their introduction on Scotland's fishing rivers). Legislating access would enshrine these things and actually be a step forward for anglers, as well as canoeists (less "bandit runs" and ill-informed conflict). However, I refuse to negotiate on the basis that our natural heritage belongs to you, and we ought to be grateful for whatever breadcrumbs you throw the dirty masses... I am, on the whole, suprised and encouraged by this whole dialogue, which goes a long way towards dispelling some of my preconceptions about the angling community. Long may it continue.
|
|