Graham Marsden
Editor Emeritus
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: If you want to share your Swim with a canoeist…
If you want to share your Swim with a canoeist…
- Thread starter Graham Marsden
- Start date
Stealph Viper
Well-known member
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.
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
Senior Member
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.
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.
P
puttestuts
Guest
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.
Xplorer1
Well-known member
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.
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.
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
Well-known member
as a canoeist Im willing to pay my way ......no one has never asked me to yet
The bad one
Well-known member
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)
Senior Member
Canoes are just the start. It'll be yatchs next and the keels can really f*** up a swim.
Xplorer1
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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.......................
by the way not been out in one for about 15 years now and cant see me ever doing it again.......................
Graham Whatmore
Senior Member
Cakey. You only did it to collect all those free maggots the anglers pelted you with
Cakey
Well-known member
ha ha ha .....never happened to me
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
Well-known member
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?!
And do you really think the number of canoeists would mushroom overnight, flooding our waterways?!
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
"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.
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
Well-known member
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.
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
Well-known member
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!
If not, then please join so you can make the anglers' case!