|
Post by Cranefly on May 5, 2006 5:08:12 GMT -5
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 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. That's not a dialogue it sounds more like a threat. Along the lines of 'you're going to be raped so you might as well not struggle'!
|
|
|
Post by moustique on May 5, 2006 5:19:02 GMT -5
I don't have anything personal against canoeists, in fact I used to canoe when I was younger, on lakes and canals. What I don't like is the attitude that they believe they have a god given right to go where they want, when they want! I probably pay £400 a year just for club membership to fish a number of rivers. I don't take anything from the river, put still pay for the privilage of being on the river. If canoeists are each prepared to do the same, pay £400 or £500 a year for the privilage of being on the river, and contribute the same amount of money - then perhaps there is some room to negotiate. However, even if there is some negotiation, it would never be enough untill they had access to all rivers! On the Dee, many already paddle through areas where they are not allowed! If they are already prepared to break the law and trespass, then it indicates an arrogant and deliberate disregard for the law. Opening more waters would only add fuel to this attitude!
|
|
|
Post by jamesf on May 5, 2006 5:22:27 GMT -5
"The value of fishing on the middle and lower river Wye is reduced because of the open access to canoes and rafters."
That the two activities will inevitably grate up against each other now and then is no reason to decide that one of them (canoeing) must not happen (by refusing access). It is just that sort of attitude that has bought us all to this point.
We now know there is no point trying to negotiate access with 'you lot'. We also now know that there is nothing you can legally do to stop us accessing rivers - only a nutcase with extremely deep pockets brings a civil case for trespass.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Boote on May 5, 2006 5:24:45 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. Yes, I will continue to stir, David, until men like you (to use a Hunting term, a "sport" that I heartily detest) whip in a fair few of your number. I have met and very much liked some of the best white-water canoeists in the world in my time, having met them during the 1990s on the ferocious (you will doubtless have heard of it) Futaleufu River in southern-central Chile. Great guys and gals - Americans, French, Italians, Spanish, no Brits - terrific company (my girl and I had some wonderful, under the stars, post-river evenings with them on the wine and pisco sours) and an asset to your sport. Then I look at The British Canoeist, and see the set, suspicious face; the body language often only just a tad short of spoiling for a fight; the political posturing; the eff-you, it's ours, Remember the Kinder Trespass (I strongly supported the Right to Roam campaign, by the way) attitude... And I think: "Hmm... If these guys are trying to trample all over me as a highly conservation-minded, responsible angler (I fish public and widely accessible club waters, by the way, not mega-bucks private ones), and b' up many of Britain's smaller rivers in the process, then I am up for a fight - at least until canoeists en masse forget the Big Point that they seem to be trying to make (or about the thing they appear to very much wish to stick on people they don't like, for whatever reason), and realise that the sharing they want has to be real sharing, a sharing with vital restrictions and limits."
|
|
|
Post by jamesf on May 5, 2006 5:30:44 GMT -5
Go on then - do some sharing. So far you haven't done, what amounts to, any.
|
|
|
Post by spy1 on May 5, 2006 5:32:40 GMT -5
Reality prevails and the sooner it is understood the better.
There is nothing to discuss!
Fact:
Large tracts of rivers in England and Wales .....'Private Fishing Rights'..... access...... 'Private'
There is no lawful ..... 'Navigational rights'....per se on any waters outside 'Tidal area's on rivers'.
There is a stated case from the Court of Appeal that 'Canoeing' was a 'civil trespass' when action was taken by a fishing club on the river 'Wharfe' some years ago.
The 'EA ' in their booklet in 1999 state that:
Salmon and Sea trout are migratory travelling the length of the river to nursery areas at the headwaters of the main river and tributaries to spawn and regenerate. In the “Agreeing Access to water for Canoeing” Environment Agency booklet dated 1999 it clearly states at page 11, I quote
“Obstructions to fish”. There is little direct evidence that canoes cause any problems at locations near obstructions such as weirs, though their presence in relatively confined channels through which fish must pass, may act as a deterrent to their passage.
I would suggest that most of the drop offs between pools and in the main ‘runs’ of shallow fast water on our rivers are ‘confined channels’ some no more than four meters wide, some less, the whole area is festooned with such locations. If any section were to be used for ‘canoeing’ then the angling prospects in that beat or beats from that source upstream could be seriously interfered with due to the possibility in the hindrance of the free passage of fish, thus affecting the value of Angling and subsequent tourism trade.
Speak to your MP.
Spy1
|
|
|
Post by Cranefly on May 5, 2006 5:35:51 GMT -5
"The value of fishing on the middle and lower river Wye is reduced because of the open access to canoes and rafters." That the two activities will inevitably grate up against each other now and then is no reason to decide that one of them (canoeing) must not happen (by refusing access). It is just that sort of attitude that has bought us all to this point. We now know there is no point trying to negotiate access with 'you lot'. We also now know that there is nothing you can legally do to stop us accessing rivers - only a nutcase with extremely deep pockets brings a civil case for trespass. I pointed out at the start of my earlier post that the voluntary access agreement on the upper Wye, above Glasbury, works reasonably well. Clearly there is a point to trying to negotiate with 'us lot'! You would appear to be the one with attitude.
|
|
|
Post by jamesf on May 5, 2006 5:36:23 GMT -5
You're deluding yourself with that guff. The reality is that we know that we know can get on and do it with more or less impunity. At some point it is going to annoy 'you lot' so much that you will start giving ground.
|
|
|
Post by Cranefly on May 5, 2006 5:41:16 GMT -5
You're deluding yourself with that guff. The reality is that we know that we know can get on and do it with more or less impunity. At some point it is going to annoy 'you lot' so much that you will start giving ground. The voice of reason? !!!!
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 5, 2006 5:42:02 GMT -5
Why don't canoeists just buy up some water for themselves? They could even lease the fishing rights out! Anglers join together to form associations and pay fees into a pot, they then buy up fishing rights over the years. Surely paddlers could do likewise.
|
|
|
Post by Cranefly on May 5, 2006 5:42:33 GMT -5
Go on then - do some sharing. So far you haven't done, what amounts to, any. See my earlier posts.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Boote on May 5, 2006 5:43:19 GMT -5
You, JamesF, and others like you, clearly are Canoeing's Big Problem. Did you see what I wrote in reply to David? It was a civilized "warning" - pick a fight with me in particular and with anglers in general, and, I assure you, you will lose it. Now, get back to your paddling boards, and get off our Angling forum.
|
|
|
Post by Sewinman on May 5, 2006 5:43:32 GMT -5
You're deluding yourself with that guff. The reality is that we know that we know can get on and do it with more or less impunity. At some point it is going to annoy 'you lot' so much that you will start giving ground. I don't think you are doing your cause any favours here...or is it the old good cop/bad cop routine?
|
|
|
Post by Cranefly on May 5, 2006 5:43:58 GMT -5
Why don't canoeists just buy up some water for themselves? They could even lease the fishing rights out! Anglers join together to form associations and pay fees into a pot, they then buy up fishing rights over the years. Surely paddlers could do likewise. They already have done and it worked well, at Symonds Yat.
|
|
|
Post by boaterrich on May 5, 2006 5:45:29 GMT -5
If negotiations had worked canoeists would have free access to the majority of rivers for a reasonable period of the year. We don't, therefore we require a primary law change to confirm access for all and not a minority.
The defacto situation currently is that I take no notice of "no canoeing" signs, if a river is in condition then I will paddle it. I am not commiting a criminal offence as long as I don't damage spawning beds - which at the levels rivers are paddleable will not happen. See the EA study you are all so fond of brandishing.
People who act in a threatening manner, string lines, wire etc in trees or brandish shotguns are, however, commiting a whole string of criminal offences.
|
|