 This thread is on another forum but it needs to be on every angling forum around.
If you are not already aware, canoeists are lobbying parliament to gain access to inland waterways. This is total access they are after, so it affects all of us. They were thwarted 2 years ago but now they have the backing of MP John Grogan, early day motion 1331 is the motion being put forward.
John Grogan currently has the backing of 67 other MP's whereas Martin Salter has the backing of only 11 currently. This needs turning round now.
Everyone should take time out to contact their local MP and ask them to oppose the early day motion 1331 and back Martin Salter.
Some anglers are contacting their MP's to find they are already backing the canoeists which is too late I am afraid, they cannot back both!
Each and every one of us, if bothered of course, needs to contact our MP now and put our concerns to them in the hope that this motion can be thwarted again.
Part Two
|
 |
You are actually supporting a common sense amendment here which will ultimately be in the interests of all parties (including canoeists). This template is from the Angling Unity website:-
"Dear
Re. Early day motion 1331 river access for non-powered craft
I am opposed to EDM 1331 as originally drafted but in support of the amendment put forward on the by Mr Martin Salter MP.
Ministers have repeatedly made it very clear that the Government does not and will not support unfettered access to rivers and canals.
For example, the Environment Minister Jonathan Shaw made a statement in the House of Commons on 6 February 2008: "The Government share canoeists', and other user groups', aspirations for more and better access to inland water and have been working, through our agencies, to deliver this over a number of years. The Government's view is that a statutory right of access to inland waterways is not appropriate. The evidence indicates that the demand for access would more effectively be met by a targeted approach, which involves identifying where access is needed, and then creating access agreements with the landowner and other interested parties."
While the BCU continues to maintain a dogmatic position demanding access to all areas, at all times, free of charge, the reality on the river bank is that local joint access agreements are working and proliferating. New agreements have recently been signed on the Dee, Wye and Usk, and webcams installed to make it clear when canoeing is allowed. Anglers and riparian owners are very keen to work with local canoe clubs to draw up these agreements, but this positive work is being damaged by the BCU's stance, which is generating misunderstanding and ill feeling.
Unregulated canoe access could be very damaging to local economies reliant on income from angling, which is worth £3bn each year to the UK economy. It would also impact on the riparian rights of angling clubs and landowners and could damage delicate ecosystems which need to be protected at particular times. Each river has a unique flow regime, array of sensitive habitats and faces particular local issues. To legislate nationally for such a local issue would be quite wrong.
Anglers spend hundreds of millions of pounds each year maintaining and improving rivers to protect fish and other wildlife. They pay £21m in rod licences to contribute to the Environment Agency's work protecting fisheries. Angling clubs and riparian owners have spent billions buying the angling and access rights to rivers.
The BCU's demand for unregulated, free access, without making any contribution to the maintenance or improvement of the resource is unrealistic. It is an organisation that seems to be increasingly out of touch with its membership and we urge them to focus instead on supporting locally-agreed joint access agreements.
Principal angling organisations are committed to agreeing a negotiated solution to this problem and I would therefore respectfully ask you to support EDM 1331 as amended by Mr Martin Salter MP.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to read this letter.
Yours sincerely,"
Just Google 'find my MP', follow the link, enter your postcode and paste the above template. Easy!
|
|
I've done mine.
|
|
 Me too
|
|
 Just a couple of points for what they are worth Fred. Although no canoist I am a boat owner and myself and other boat owners would be the first to say that canoists are a pain in the arse the vast majority of the time. They seem to think they own the place and that you can stop a barge on a sixpence while they dither and faff about in front of you. They think they have utmost rights to use slipways and access for nothing that every other person has to pay for. Its a common trait amongst them. I only wish that all our rod license money did go into our sport or even on the riverbank but Im afraid it isnt the case. Beleive it or not the priority for the EA is combatting fly tipping and thats were a massive proportion of your rod license goes. Anglers probably dont know that or maybe dont wish to believe it but thats directly from the horses mouth. I dont know for the life of me were anglers spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year improving and maintaining rivers. Certainly not on the rivers around me thats for sure.
|
|
 Done. Could not email from find my MP. Jack Straw is far to elusive. If you have the same problem you can do it from Here
|
|
|
|
|
 E-mailed my MP a couple of weeks ago, received the obligatory reply from her parliamentary aid, which annoyed me intensely. Sadly she had already signed the EDM Now started my own campaign HERE If not to change her mind on the EDM, to get her out at the next GE I also e-mail Dafydd Evans, after I failed to get a reply from the Northumbria area EA, on a more specific Wear canoe issue. To his credit Daffyd has replied and said he will take it up within the NE Region.
|
|
 Done
|
|
 id love to see a canoist on the ray or cherwell as they wouldn't get very far with all the trees, weed and shallow stretches plus a flow gate at the end of the ray .
|
|
 Done both MP and constituency office
|
|
 Done
|
|
 Done.
|
|
Fred says we should be supporting a commonsense agreement; yes if it wasn't for the fact that the EA, in most instances, is acting as 'the honest broker' and that's my current beef with the EA. My club was TOLD what was to happen on our waters. No negotiations (at least not involving us) instead the EA 'agreed' with the riparian owners that canoeing could take place over sections of the river we already pay excessive rents for. Plans are already in place to build portage points, erect riverside signage, an international standard slalom course and even changing and shower facilities, all funded apparently by the EA. The original 'agreements' on the Wear (concocted by Prof Ravenscroft and his team of academics from the University of Brighton) did give regard to some kind of 'close season' water levels etc (also canoeing could only take place on given days/times) but all this has been scrapped and the 'new agreement' virtually gives them access 24/7 52 weeks of the year. Be very careful about 'local access agreements' especially when you are the one party not 'party' to any agreement. I just ask what is to be done when those charged with bringing all parties to an agreement just refuses to talk/discuss? Sorry to kind of hijack this thread Fred, but anyone involved with local agreements need to be very very careful, especially where the EA is involved. We did have a perfectly good relationship with the 'Friends of Durham University Canoe Club' where we each organised events to suite both sides, since the EA got involved neither party is happy. I'm just waiting for the day when a load of crackhead canoeists come down the river (as they will under the current situation) when the Durham Regatta is being held. The 2nd oldest and most prestigious regatta after Henley.
|
| Edited: 07/07/08 09:46 |
John no hijack here, although I am sure I don't have to ask,your agreement with the riparian owner was looked at closely I take it? You're paying "excessive rents", you must surely now have the ability to reduce the rent, you didn't sign up with shared use, did you? I can't see that the EA are to blame ,the riparian owner is to blame by agreeing to it in the first place.The EA are taking advantage of that. Oh, and by the way, I didn't say it, the page break was unfortunate!
|
|
 Done Fred
|
|
Well they seem to be getting what they want when they want it ,and asking for access to everything is a shrewd move on their behalf,seem well run and in contact with the powers that count.Not sure we can say the same about fishing can we?
|
|
 Well Gav; This is you,re chance to do some thing.
|
|
Not sure I would want to Jimmy ,being a man who likes to canoe from time to time,it is the slalom things that John describes I would object too.Plus rivers that are classed as navigable will end up taking the brunt of idiots in canoes and all the famous beats and stretches will be left unscathed ,so if you are not fishing an sssi site your fishing will not be classed as worthy enough to avoid the paddlers.
|
|
 I only wish that all our rod license money did go into our sport or even on the riverbank but Im afraid it isnt the case. Beleive it or not the priority for the EA is combatting fly tipping and thats were a massive proportion of your rod license goes. Anglers probably dont know that or maybe dont wish to believe it but thats directly from the horses mouth. I dont know for the life of me were anglers spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year improving and maintaining rivers. Certainly not on the rivers around me thats for sure.
Hi 'Risque",
What do you mean by "thats directly from the horses mouth" ?  Are you an EA employee? I am not sure which horse you have been talking to, but rod licence revenue is not spent on fly tipping. It is used only to fund Fisheries activities across England and Wales. (apologies Fred for also going off topic, but I thought it was a point worth clarifying)
|
| Edited: 07/07/08 17:38 |
