Home | News & Events | News | If you want to share your Swim with a canoeist…

If you want to share your Swim with a canoeist…

image

…or sit by a fishless, polluted water, then read no further, because nothing of what follows will interest you in the slightest…

As many of you will be aware, the Angling Trust is a body recently formed from the Anglers’ Conservation Association (now known as ‘Fish Legal’) and the various other UK angling organisations like the National Federation of Anglers and the Specialist Anglers’ Alliance.

The result will hopefully in the long run be a strong organisation dedicated to the task of fighting the coarse and sea fisherman’s corner and representing us effectively, not least with politicians and parliament. I say ‘hopefully’, because as many of you will be aware, there are many threats to angling in the UK, and they are growing. These vary from the nutty vegans and animal rights activists who want to ban us to competition for space from other recreational interests. Anglers are increasingly fighting other water users for resources.  

But by far the greatest threat of them all to fishing is the enormous apathy of coarse and sea fishermen themselves. For as long as I have taken an interest in angling politics, and that is for more than forty years, anglers have acted as if they wanted to vote themselves out of existence.  They have consistently refused to vote money in support of angling organisations, have ignored, or simply been unaware of, the many threats to the sport and generally reacted by sticking their heads in the sand.           

Those of you who love to fish rivers may or may not be aware that the British Canoe Union is once more mobilising its resources and contacts in Parliament to gain access to the whole of the UK river system – virtually on its own terms. Amazingly, this has not had much of a mention in the angling press, as far as I am aware. But it has featured in the national press. The canoeists have not been slow to put their case. And how many letters from anglers have we seen? None.

And the non-angling general public is likely to be sympathetic to the canoeists’ case. Especially after watching the BBC’s ‘Rivers’ series, with that nice Griff Rhys-Jones repeatedly plugging the ‘right to roam’ argument. And if the general public is sympathetic, the politicians will follow looking for votes.

The Angling Trust has recently been very active on the canoe issue on a number of fronts: mobilising political support in order to get angling the press and the standing it deserves.

This is only one specific example of why we anglers need a tough, professional body to represent us. But we will not have a tough organisation giving us the representation we deserve without more support. Only a pathetic 1% of the coarse and sea fishing public has signed up.                                    

There are many other threats to angling which need to be fought such as fish theft, damaging barrages and hydropower installations. I and the members of a club I was a member of lost some prime barbel fishing a few years ago when a productive traditional weir was replaced with a hydro-electric installation which works on a surge principle and causes the river to rise by a foot for several hundred yards downstream every twenty minutes when stored water runs away. Other things not in our interests are local bans and restrictions, declining fish stocks, cormorants, and of course the old enemies -  abstraction and pollution.

Over its long existence Fish Legal has lost only three cases, and has won compensation for its members totalling millions. Some of you will be aware of the relatively recent case of the total wipe-out in 2007 of the River Wandle in Surrey, which had been restored over a period of 15 years to the status of a top-grade urban chalk stream. Pressure was brought to bear on the culprits, Thames Water, who paid out record compensation of £0.5m.

The Angling Trust will also be actively promoting angling as a sport on a national basis, and in particular will be supporting the development of angling clubs. We badly need to recruit more young anglers into the sport, and now is an excellent time to begin, when more and more youngsters are re-discovering the attractions of the outdoors. Most clubs that I am aware of are crying out for new blood, junior members to see the sport into the future. But they are virtually powerless to make youngsters into the anglers of the future without outside resources and assistance: in the shape of the Angling Trust.

I’ve been hammering on mainly about what the Angling Trust can do for anglers. But there’s one thing which anglers can do for the Angling Trust: join, and join now. To give angling the support it deserves.

Visit ‘www.anglingtrust.net’, and/or telephone on 0845 6010699.

Rod Sturdy

Rate this article
0


Comments (27 posted):

Stealph Viper on 16/11/2009 09:25:38
avatar
Do you think that one of the reasons that a very high percentage of Anglers have not joined the Angling trust, is because, they feel that the Environment Agency should be doing more to protect them, and they already pay them. See, i say that because, i always thought, well felt that this was what we paid towards a Rod License for, i know differently now, but, only through asking questions and questioning people about it.
Graham Whatmore on 16/11/2009 10:00:57
avatar
Why is it that every user of the river (or canal) no matter how few have representation at the highest level and their demands heeded, everyone except the angler that is, who is hardly ever considered yet have the biggest membership? The recent fiasco at Hereford is a prime example where the majority user is totally deafed out in favour of the minority user i.e. the canoeists. I would like to think anglers had the common sense to organise themselves better in the face of these onslaughts but anglers being their usual thick selves just sit back and let it all wash over their heads "it can't happen to us so I won't bother" is their stance. Well, it is happening and from every corner not just canoeists, farmers, boaters, abstraction, industrial polluters yet your average angler won't even pay a few quid to get some representation in parliament to get their views heard and recognised? Lambs to the slaughter.
beyondrusty on 16/11/2009 11:07:42
avatar
Personally I have very little faith in EA, based on recent experience, and this is why I have joined Angling Trust in the hope that they will eventually change things (we have already experienced being sworn at by about 30 canoeist on the Severn). The trouble is that as long as anglers are apathetic about joining the trust is going to be more or less powerless to do anything.:(
tigger on 16/11/2009 13:08:31
avatar
Funny thing canoes.....they sink pretty easily lol.
Xplorer1 on 16/11/2009 13:29:22
avatar
The Environment Agency is not exclusively dedicated to the angling community. Its statutory obligations are many, varied and often conflicting, and include enabling all manner of recreation on water bodies. Canoeing is a perfectly legitimate recreation, is low-impact, is good exercise and encourages people to enjoy the countryside in a different way. Attempts to obstruct the activity in general will a) fail, and b) make anglers look like a bunch of miserable killjoys. Personally I have NO issue with canoeists and I've never encountered one that had an issue with me angling. I find it adds to my enjoyment of the day to see a couple of canoeists passing by. Get a life guys, it's a densely populated country with lots of pressures on its recreational resources. And canoeists want what anglers want: clean, flowing water, diverse wildlife (including otters), and nice countryside. As for the general thrust of the article, absolutely! Anglers are an apathetic, disengaged lot, as evidenced by the appallingly low AT membership rate.
Peter Jacobs on 16/11/2009 13:34:58
avatar
And canoeists want what anglers want: clean, flowing water, diverse wildlife (including otters), and nice countryside. Indeed they do. Sadly however, they want it all for free being totally unprepared to pay their way! Nice trick of you can manage it, eh? I mean, let the anglers pay thousands a year to riparian owners and then paddle up and down all day long, for free.
Cakey on 16/11/2009 13:38:15
avatar
as a canoeist Im willing to pay my way ......no one has never asked me to yet
The bad one on 16/11/2009 14:58:15
avatar
as a canoeist Im willing to pay my way ......no one has never asked me to yet Cakey you may well, but the BCU doesn't share your view. It wants and demands if for Jack Poo! What the piece doesn't mention is that campaign is for open access to all rivers for all non-powered craft and wild swimming. Effectively, any Richard Head could turn up on your piece of river for nowt, and **** about in your swim till their hearts content. And YOU THE ANGLER, landowner would have no redress in law!
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 16/11/2009 15:05:56
avatar
Canoes are just the start. It'll be yatchs next and the keels can really f*** up a swim.
Xplorer1 on 16/11/2009 15:51:49
avatar
Peter, that's a different issue. How to fund something (or share the cost of the amenity) is a very different matter from the principle of whether it should be permitted. A canoeing license would be about as enforceable as a rod license and is a potential means.
Cakey on 16/11/2009 16:04:47
avatar
I think the problem is that there is section of canoeist that want to go anywhere and every where where as I was happy to keep to the main river by the way not been out in one for about 15 years now and cant see me ever doing it again.......................
Graham Whatmore on 16/11/2009 16:13:58
avatar
Cakey. You only did it to collect all those free maggots the anglers pelted you with :p
Cakey on 16/11/2009 16:48:19
avatar
ha ha ha .....never happened to me
Peter Jacobs on 16/11/2009 17:17:41
avatar
Peter, that's a different issue. How to fund something (or share the cost of the amenity) is a very different matter from the principle of whether it should be permitted. A canoeing license would be about as enforceable as a rod license and is a potential means. Neil, The main problem is that the paddlers want absolute freedom to go anywhere, and not pay anything for the privilage, not even a license. Now, what do you think would happen on, say, a syndicate stretch of a river when the paddlers get their way? For starters, my syndicate would vacate the place, leaving the Riparian Owner with a 40,000 pounds per annum deficit! Believe me, the paddlers are not going to make-up that income, so the owner will not bother with bank maintenance, tree coppicing or anything else and the river and its banks will go into decline. The paddlers are basing their case on the (ill-concieved) CRoW Act, (known incorrectly as the Right to Roam Act) but please don't get me started on that particular piece of crass stupidity. Yet another piece of daft legislation that should be repealled at the very first opportunity.
Xplorer1 on 16/11/2009 22:17:33
avatar
Peter, would your syndicate REALLY pull out if a few canoeists appeared? Especially if there was nowhere better to go to (because canoeists would be there too)? And do you really think the number of canoeists would mushroom overnight, flooding our waterways?!
geoffmaynard on 16/11/2009 22:42:28
avatar
"Effectively, any Richard Head could turn up on your piece of river for nowt, and **** about in your swim till their hearts content. And YOU THE ANGLER, landowner would have no redress in law!" That is already the case now and has always been. On a river, the land-owner owns the land, not the water. If any boat user is not anchored nor moored, then the land owner has no rights.
The bad one on 17/11/2009 00:59:47
avatar
"Effectively, any Richard Head could turn up on your piece of river for nowt, and **** about in your swim till their hearts content. And YOU THE ANGLER, landowner would have no redress in law!" That is already the case now and has always been. On a river, the land-owner owns the land, not the water. If any boat user is not anchored nor moored, then the land owner has no rights. Sorry Geoff you wrong, they do if there are no navigation rights on the river, its trespass and enforceable through the civil courts. Unless the pricks cause distress, harassment or alarm and that's a criminal matter.
Peter Jacobs on 17/11/2009 06:35:22
avatar
Peter, would your syndicate REALLY pull out if a few canoeists appeared? Especially if there was nowhere better to go to (because canoeists would be there too)? And do you really think the number of canoeists would mushroom overnight, flooding our waterways?! Neil, At the last meeting of the syndicate members the vote was resoundingly in favour of terminating the agreement(s) with the Riparian Owner(s) if they allowed canoe access - remember this also would allow swimmers etc. There is a stretch not too far away where the Riparians have stated, loudly, that they will not allow paddlers of any description. so we do have an option. As to 'mushrooming' canoeists, yes, we have even seen them on the lower-middle Hampshire Avon 'testing' out the local opposition! The person we saw was followed back to his launch place and told, in no uncertain terms, that he was trespassing and the Police were informed.
klik2change on 17/11/2009 08:30:58
avatar
Cakey, are you a memeber of any canoeing organisations? If so have you told the members that they OUGHT to be paying and they OUGHT to be making sharing agreements? If not, then please join so you can make the anglers' case!
Graham Whatmore on 17/11/2009 09:09:49
avatar
If these canoeists showed some consideration for anglers on the river, and lets be honest not a lot of them do, then it wouldn't be a problem but most of them seem hellbent on charging all over the river splashing and shouting and show absolutely no consideration whatsoever. They earn the backlash that anglers sometimes give them by catapulting 'objects' at them or even worse in a few instances. Over the years I've encountered all sorts of problems as a result of boats, even water skiers on the Trent (legally by the way) charging up the river at high speed and washing your gear away if you weren't careful. There is a speed limit on all inland waterways and few boat users abide by them but when did you last hear of anyone being charged for doing so (excepting the Fens). Misusing our waterways should be enforced and if they had a licence, that they paid for, then a penalty system plus fines like road users have might deter them somewhat.
john m h on 17/11/2009 20:24:11
avatar
As I have posted on FM before the EA is doing the canoeists work for them. Slowly but ever so surely (or very fast on my club waters) the EA is approaching riparian owners and getting access 'agreements' very often without the involvement of the angling clubs/associations paying for the rights to fish. In my own clubs situation we were invited to attend a 'river users forum' AFTER the canoe access had been agreed. When I was first contacted by the EA the conversation went 'I'm calling to inform you (my club) what WE have decided re: canoe access on YOUR waters. No consultation what so ever, and this is happening all over England and Wales. If the A.T. doesn't act NOW it will be too late. It's all well and good putting out policy statements but without action these are meaningless. It would appear that when canoe access is concerned EA cash and resources is not a problem and endless, what they want they get; even car parking, toilet, shower and changing facilities. I actually attended one of these river users forums and was alarmed at hearing that canoe activity was taking place after dark. I suggested it could be a real problem for the sea trout anglers who are expected the share the water WE PAY FOR, the chair of the forum, an EA 'person' actually suggested that anglers wear lights about their body. This just shows what p***ks we are expected to... I was going to put 'work with' but that evidently is not the case. I must say that before the EA became involved, first with the Brighton Uni study and now going direct to the riparian owners, my club had a perfectly workable arrangement with the Durham University canoe club; they would contact the club to check whether we were holding any event and asked which part of the river they could use. Now with the EA's involvement every Tom Dick and Harriet are coming down the river at any time day AND night.
Cakey on 17/11/2009 20:29:45
avatar
sorry klik missed your post no I dont belong to any and no Im not interested any more
Graham Whatmore on 18/11/2009 23:06:31
avatar
I was talking to the match secretary of the Hereford AA tonight and the subject of the canoes was brought up by me. The good news is that the proposed new launching point for these monstrosities can't be built without The Hereford AA's permission because they own that land and no way will they allow it to happen. Thought I would share that with you.
john m h on 20/11/2009 07:44:40
avatar
This is the letter my club received AFTER the previously mentioned telephone call from the EA Letter to Landowners and angling Interests between Shincliffe Bridge and the Sands Our ref: Your ref: Date: 4th March 2007 Dear Wear Canoe Access Pilot Project River Wear between Shincliffe Bridge and the Sands Thank you for your involvement with this pilot project over the last twelve months. The national project carried out by Brighton University has now finished and we are working locally to reach a conclusion on the issues the pilot has raised. Attached is a brief position statement explaining what we propose to do next. After consulting with landowners and recreational users,(sadly not with anglers) we have decided to continue the negotiation of a voluntary canoe access agreement for the River Wear between Shincliffe Bridge and the Sands. Barbara Pike, our Recreation Officer, will contact you shortly to take this work forward. If you are not the appropriate representative of your organisation to deal with this matter please contact Barbara at the address below with the appropriate person’s contact details. If we are unable to achieve significant progress towards a voluntary agreement for canoe access along this stretch of the river by May 2007 we will consider stopping work on this initiative. In this eventuality, some landowners have already expressed a wish to dedicate a Right of Open Access under the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act. We will be working closely with all of the landowners and user groups over the next few weeks to negotiate a voluntary access agreement that is acceptable to all parties and sustainable in the long term. If you would like any further information about the canoe access pilot project in the mean time, please contact Barbara Pike at the address below. Yours sincerely Dr J B Hogger Environment Manager Direct dial 0191 203 4040 e-mail john.hogger@environment-agency.gov.uk
Coelacanth on 22/11/2009 22:03:35
avatar
Tragic though it is, I think the recent news BBC News - Canoeist dies on River Dart 'mad mile' from the River Dart shows the level of responsibility that canoeists will potentially show towards themselves, their friends and other river users. Going on a spate river in the current weather conditions isn't "EXTREME!!" or "ON THE EDGE!!", it's just effing stupid and selfish. Emergency services have much better things to do than attending to people deliberately putting themselves in harm's way.
iwish4afish on 12/01/2010 16:43:42
avatar
i do a bit of canoeing/kayaing and have found that most of the people that canoe dont care about anglers. as an angler i will always stop and ask where they are fishing and then keep away from where they are baiting so as not to disturb the swim. on the kayaking trips iv been on iv often found that i am the only person to vacate the water and walk around the bank so as to not disturb the anglers swim others will just go straight through.. i would give up kayaking rather than pay as i only go 2-3 times per year if that if i go on a river. the rest of the time its on a private stretch of canal no one fishes i would choose fishing over canoing though as its far more relaxing...apart from all the bloody canoeists going through the swim lol ---------- Post added at 09:43 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ---------- i also dont understand why canoeist would need a jetty or launching stage to get into the water. why cant they jus go down the edge of a bank at the safeist point like i do...crazy ppl
bendsomecane on 19/01/2010 20:45:35
avatar
Hi guys , im involved with trying to stop canoe gaining acces to the river Dearne in south yorkshire.The EA in this region have totally by passed any angling veiws and gone along with implementing a so called recreation policy that it simply non river specific. The Dearne is no more than 20 yards wide in most places and not wide enough to allowing the two sports to take place comfortably. It matters not who was there first ( angling by many many years). I dont have a problem with canoeing on rivers like the trent or Don , and ther miles of canal near me that is more than 40 meters wide, but why must they insist that they use the Dearne. The propaganda that they BCU spew out is disgusting. We are not selfish anglers we just want a fair crack of the wip and the EA are in bed with the Canoes. dont let them ruin our sport BSC
Comment on this article

  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version
  • Plain text Plain text
Tags
No tags for this article