River Access Debate

[Polina]

After much cogitation I have decided to lock the original thread on this subject which had just degenerated into a slanging match.

So - if we can keep off the abuse and general toddler behaviour - please feel free to discuss the matter here. I refer all members to the rules and disciplinary process.

[pooter]

So, I am interested to know why Mr Jones thinks it's worthy to suggest confrontation between canoists and anglers, anyone care to enlighten me?
Re. an earlier suggestion, I would like to ask Mr Jones if my friends and I can camp in his back garden, after all, it's common land in my opinion.

[pooter]

Oh, and by the way, you also dumped any reasonable posts issued by both side Polina, nice work.

[telemarks]

As a active Canoeist I would like to welcome Griff raising the scandle of the lack of access to British waterways. Thirty years of trying to negotiate has resulting in pitiful few agreements, and access to a tiny part of the natural river heritage.

HOWEVER .. I, and I think most other "normal canoeists", would like to distance myself from Griff's (probably joking) comments to "disturb as many anglers as possible". This was not a helpful statement from Griff, and I hope he withdraws it and apologises to both communities for the offense caused.

As a Canoeist I always go out of my way to minimise any disturbance on the river, always polite, always checking with anglers which side they would like me to pass, and paddling past quietly and quickly. Some fishermen in the past have thanked me, as they say a boat passing can stir up the fish and cause them to bite. I've also rescued a great many lost fishing floats for grateful fishermen.

I would never do any harm to the natural environment, such as the claimed damage by Canoeists to gravel Redd and spawning grounds. I think most canoeists would wholeheartedly agree with me on this. It is nonsense of the fishing lobby to suggest every canoeist is out to cause willful damage to the places we both love.

However as a Canoeist I've also endure streams of abuse, threats of violence and damage, had my boat peppered with lead shot, had a hook cast into my head, and worst as a young solo teenager had maggots catapulted at me, been pushed into a canal, and prevented from exiting the canal (at our canoe club base) by fishermen. These are just some of the many incidents with outraged Fisherman that I've had to endure over the years, while paddling legally, in a respectful way (always), using the license I have paid for.

On the subject of damage to the environment, over the years I've rescued many ducks caught in fishing line, seen dead fish float by with the hooks still in their mouths, called out the RSPCA to put down the pair of Swans who were so tangled with line you could see their bones underneath (don't know what happened to their small signets). And on one horrible occasion have to help the lady control her canal boat. She was lucky not to lose her sight as the hook left hanging from a tree just missed the eye.

I'm sure the vast majority of Anglers, and the vast majority of Canoeists are reasonable people who love our waterways. However I've come across rouge Fishermen, and I'm sure Fishermen have come across rouge paddlers. Whats important now, is for the reasonable majority to reach a consensus to form a national legal framework to provide fair access to our waterways for all.

So I can not support Griffs comments about disturbance (however given above I can see where he is coming from).

[Polina]

All the reasonable posts are still in place, pooter, on the link below. The only posts removed were those containing unacceptable language, but unfortunately there were a lot of those.

griffthing.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=griff&action=display&thread=202&page=1

The thread is still in place on the board - it's only locked to further contributions.


(Edited to clarify that original thread was still readable)

[djc]

Woo-oow! Does anyone else regret having an early night?

[telemarks]

Jul 24, 2009 9:37:28 GMT -1 telemarks said:

So I can not support Griffs comments about disturbance

I might have to retract that. Griff may have been partially quoted. This was just posted on another forum.

You have to consider what he had said just before that comment, to paraphrase "Anglers say we disturb them by just paddling passed... if so then I say we disturb as many as possible"

So he's not saying lets go out and disturb fishermen dilerbately, he's saying the fisherman are feeling we're disturbing them by just normal paddling and sharing the river, so we should go out and paddle and enjoy the river and that will just happen to 'disturb the fishermen'.

Can anyone confirm the full text of what Griff actually said?

[Polina]

Not as much as I regret having to stay up!

Telemark, I'm trying to get permission to reproduce the full article and interview here. I don't have transcripts of the radio interviews given at the same time as they have gone from iPlayer, but I can confirm that your quote was the essence of what was said on at least the one that I heard (Steve Wright from memory; I'll try to confirm that later)

If I have remembered that completely wrong, please do tell me!

[pooter]

I would never do any harm to the natural environment, such as the claimed damage by Canoeists to gravel Redd and spawning grounds. I think most canoeists would wholeheartedly agree with me on this. It is nonsense of the fishing lobby to suggest every canoeist is out to cause willful damage to the places we both love.

I don't think anyone has stated all canoists do this, but it does happen, trespass is still illegal, there is an awful lot of water avilable to canoists, the 'right to roam' act has a lot to answer for.
I fish on the semi-tidal Thames, only one bank is available to fish from, it's free fishing/access for all. Canoists must be aware of this by now so why, when they have 100 odd yards width of river do they persist in going bthrough my line? If it gets cut off on their boat, it will endanger wildlife, something to think about.
I am only using a small part of a large (ish) river, can the canoists not allow me that and paddle the other abnk wher there is little or no pedestrian acess?
Also, someone earlier mentioned buying a licence, I was unaware that canoists had to buy a licene, unlike anglers who will be prosecuted for not having a fishing licence.
Perhaps the rivers are not so 'publicly owned' as the quoters of the Magna carta would have us believe.Please illuminate me on the canoists licence situation.

[Vixen]

I really do have to go and get dressed and ready for work, but I just wanted to ask something.

I'm not very clued up on all the waterways of Britain and such, so could somebody please explain to me (either on here or in PM, either is fine by me, but I won't be around now until 8pm) why everyone can't just fish, canoe, sail, kayak etc, where they like?

[Polina]

Until I get the Countryfile issue sorted out, I hope this may be of some help and/or interest.

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/uk_national_news/4509975.Comic_sticks_oar_in_against_anglers/?ref=rss

[nickmawer]

I am really looking forward to watching Griff’s first programme on Sunday. Our rivers are a fantastic resource, and it is a great shame that, in England and Wales, a powerful vested interest has decided that it does not want to share that resource with other people.

Voluntary access agreements have been touted as a way forward by the Government. However, it is clear that voluntary agreements do not work, and never have done. Indeed it is less a policy to promote voluntary agreements, than a deliberate “cop-out” from making the correct but potentially unpopular decision to introduce in England and Wales, the same “Right to Roam” legislation that exists in Scotland.

I hope that Griff’s remarks about disrupting anglers were one of his tongue in cheek asides rather than a deliberate provocation. As we have seen earlier in a previous thread, it does not take much to goad the fringe of the angling movement. Canoeists (by which I mean kayakers as well) have been verbally abused and maggots catapulted at them, which is unpleasant. Canoeists have also had their cars vandalized, had rocks thrown at them, suffered physical assaults, and also suspect in a few cases, that barbed wire has been strung across rivers at head height in a deliberate attempt to cause injury. This can not be considered acceptable in any civilized society.

Anglers claim that they pay for the right to fish, and that paying should give them the right to determine who they don’t share the rivers with. There are some within the canoeing movement who take the view that ramblers are not charged for access to Moorland, and the same logic should apply to canoeists and rivers. Personally, I have most sympathy for this view. Others are quite happy to pay for a British Waterways board license for access to a limited number of public navigations, and there is some merit in the approach that all canoeists should pay for an annual license for access to all rivers.

Anglers claim that they pay for the upkeep of the rivers. This is a highly debatable point. Another view is that anglers pay for improvements to the river that benefits them, making it safer to fish and easier to catch fish. Canoeists, on the whole, prefer their rivers as unspoilt as possible, but might remove a dead branch from a river to allow safer passage. Anglers, on the other hand, are quite happy to promote the installation of artificial “fish ladders” to allow fish to get into parts of the river system that they were unable to reach before. Some irresponsible anglers also leave fishing tackle on the side of the river to ensnare unwary wildlife. I have seen swans and moorhens to name but two species needing treatment from vets after an encounter with discarded tackle. Canoeists also clear polluting debris and rubbish from rivers. Canoeists should pass down a river taking nothing but photographs and leaving no sign of their passing.

Canoeists are happy to share the rivers with native wildlife such as otters, and have no problem with the introduction of beavers. Heaven help the otter, merganser, heron or other native creature that might dare to compete for fish with the angler.

Anglers claim that canoeists disturb fish, but there is no scientific proof for this, indeed there are many anecdotal reports that contradict this view. Anglers are prepared to try and use legislation that was designed to stop gravel extraction against canoeists. The claim is that canoeists damage salmon or trout spawning grounds known as “redds”. I know of no canoeist that would willfully damage a redd, nor do I know how passing over the top of a redd could justify a prosecution. A canoeist floating over a redd does no more damage than a bit of vegetation floating downstream.

So come on anglers, you don’t have the moral high ground, and have lost the logical argument. It is time to share.

[pooter]

Anglers claim that they pay for the upkeep of the rivers. This is a highly debatable point. Another view is that anglers pay for improvements to the river that benefits them, making it safer to fish and easier to catch fish. Canoeists, on the whole, prefer their rivers as unspoilt as possible, but might remove a dead branch from a river to allow safer passage. Anglers, on the other hand, are quite happy to promote the installation of artificial “fish ladders” to allow fish to get into parts of the river system that they were unable to reach before. Some irresponsible anglers also leave fishing tackle on the side of the river to ensnare unwary wildlife. I have seen swans and moorhens to name but two species needing treatment from vets after an encounter with discarded tackle. Canoeists also clear polluting debris and rubbish from rivers. Canoeists should pass down a river taking nothing but photographs and leaving no sign of their passing.

Pay for the upkeep of rivers?
At a guess there are 2-3 million anglers in the UK, let's say 1 million buy a rod licence @ £25 per year, the EA gets a direct injection of 25 million quid, every year, from angleres. What do canoists pay for?

Anglers prefer natural rivers, those that like neat, tidy venues tend to stay away from rivers and stick to the day ticket commercial fisheries. the branches stay, abstraction and river straightening for flood defence are anathema to an angler, though I'm sure a canoist would move a branch that prevented access to the stretch they paddle on.
Fish ladders are installed to enable salmon to reach their spawning grounds when a weir has been installed, not to make it easier for anglers to catch them-not anecdotal, please look it up.

There is also the voluntary scheme called The Anglers Trust which took over from the now defunct Anglers Conservation Association , formerly the Anglers Co-operative Association. This body succesfully prosecuted more polluters than tha EA ever did, all with voluntary donations. Does anyone prefer to canoe on a river of filth,effluent and detergent run-off? what has the canoing lobby done to protect the waterways?Spawning redds are on shallow,fast flowing gravel stretches, this enables the eggs a mixtuire of fast flowing,clean and well oxygenatec water, otherwise the eggs don't hatch-simple, again, look it up. So, on that basis a canoists paddles could disrupt the gravel and subsequently eggs. I said could, anecdotal but a distinct possibility. No-one claimed all canoists do it but I would wager the majority aren't as well versed in these aspects of nature some would have us believe.
Broken lines happen, some anglers just shrug their shoulders granted, if , however the line is impossible toretrieve what would you have me do?

[telemarks]

Jul 24, 2009 10:47:30 GMT -1 nickmawer said:

Anglers claim that canoeists disturb fish, but there is no scientific proof for this, indeed there are many anecdotal reports that contradict this view.

Good points Nick. The Governments study on this was carried out by the Environment Agency ...

Effects of Canoeing on Fish Stocks and Angling - Ref TR W266

publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/STRW266-e-p.pdf


The reports conclusion says:

The general conclusion from this study is that canoeing is not harmful to fish populations. Therefore, the main area of conflict between anglers and canoeist centres around the actual or perceived disturbance of angling ... Disturbance is in turn allied to the concept of exclusivity with its attendant financial implications for riparian interests and anglers.

For those who asked details of licenses. All BCU members pay for a British Waterways license via their membership fees. However this only can currently cover the BW managed waters. Hence there are already "paying licensed canoeists", and a easy mechanism to extent this licensing and payment further .. IF the access to rivers are available.

[pooter]

Oh, I forgot to ask , to nickmawer,; can we come and camp in your garden too?