Canoe access

In light of the NAFAC article regarding canoe access and the declared intention of the BCU to push for open access to all waters, should we not be pressing the Environment Agency to withdraw from any discussion on voluntary canoe access agreements? At the last RFERAC meeting in Thames region there was a paper proposing to spend up to ?1million on negotiating voluntary agreements. The Environment Agency reiterated the advice from the Minister that there would not be wholesale access to all waters and that negotiated agreements were the prefered way forward. As I pointed out at the meeting - there is no problem with getting access for angling on waters as we are prepared to pay for that access. The canoeists clearly are not prepared to pay and expect somebody else ie. the EA to spend money on negotiating free access for them. Not on I am afraid.

Dave Wales

Darned right Dave.

I am an angler and a canoeist so can see both sides of the issue. Voluntary access cannot work because who would volunteer access to their river, would you Dave, except canoeists on your stretch whilst other rivers deny access. No of course not.

What you also have to realise is that, canoe access would probably not affect your fishing in any way. Generally canoeist aren't really interested in paddling down the average slow running river, they're looking for a river with a little white water.

Every year during the winter I take a couple of trips to the lakes for some paddling whilst the river level is high. Many of the little stretches that I paddle haven't got open access to canoeist due to anglers, however I have never seen an angler on the bank, so I?m not going to deny myself some excellent paddling when there?s no reason for it.

In reply to mention of money, all canoeists should be members of the BCU (similar to a rod license) so we do contribute to funds, however how do you suppose we pay for access? When a canoeist does a trip its generally several miles, so would therefore pass through many private stretches. Who would we pay and how much? A little bit complicated I?d say.

I really haven't got a problem with it. If I were be on the bank and a paddler passed by, it wouldn't bother me at all as it would only take a few seconds to be well passed. No more disturbance than a duck landing or swan swimming through. Obviously if that canoeist started splashing around then I?d say something, but thats all to do with educating the canoeist.

Its all just a fear of the unknown.

Does'nt a canoe owner have to pay BW, NRA or EA fee's as a boat owner has to to use rivers within a region?

Good point Phil, no they don't, i would only imagine that the BCU funds one or more of those organisations, although i wouldn't bet on it. One of the problems i have, is that the BCU often don't speak on behalf of the canoeist and often don't have their best interests in mind.

At the end of the day the BCU are there to make money, you'd be hard pressed to find a single canoeist that regards the BCU with any praise at all, unlike anglers which are very thankful of associated organisations.

Many paddlers ask for better access because they break the law to use short stretches of rivers which would otherwise never be used by anyone else.

Many anglers on this page regularly mention the lack of use our rivers see yet canoeists can only use 6% of the total river systems.

Maybe there could be a season where canoeists are allowed to use certain rivers. It wouldn't matter to the paddlers when this was but it would help control the situation and put closure to it (atleast for a while). Unfortunately i can't personally see a way forward because it will always come down to money. Anglers pay for the use of a stretch whilst canoeists don't.

I dont have a problem so long as common courtousey is shown by all. I know theres Morons out there, but i share my river with 3 canoes, ok they assist with my river keeping in return for a jolly. The anglers dont seem to mind and infact several ask for a stir up of the swim, the fish soon start biting.

a canuist missed me by inches last time I was wading a river, why shouldnt they have a licence same as us, they us the water dont they and a canue is a lot bigger than a float and hook?

I quite agree that thjat they should pay a licence fee as we anglers have to.

When I used to fish the Bridgewater Canal the canoes were a real problem. These were not the single man things but huge fast boats with 8 or 10 rowers in them. No sooner would you see them than they would be tearing through your swim, a real problem if you are using 2 rods. I often wondered if these things were licenced, and if they were breaking the law by exceeding the usual 4 knot limit?

Wouldn't open access bring in all the ****heads from youth groups on to the rivers?
Emmmm I think so!

Along with bear cans, pop bottles, plastic bags, camp fires and other associated rubbish they can stow away in the canoe.

And who will get the blame from the landowner? Well anglers of course!

No to open access and I'll personally fight any legislation this or any other Govt. attempt to bring in regarding OA. All the way to the Law lords if needs be.
As for paddlers only wanting to use white water, that's bollox, the bloody Ribble?s full of em! All illegally navigating it I might add!

One or two might just get a shock from my club who own the water we fish in this year, when they get hit with a summons for criminal trespass.

Oh yes! We have the car numbers and the ability to trace them to their address and angler willing and able to come forward as witnesses.

And as a further thought on this subject of illegal canoeists on rivers. If a club gains a conviction against a canoeist they could then ask the court to use the new anti-social behaviour legislation them. Effectively gaining an ASBO against the individual from going on that river or any river that doesn?t have navigation rights on it.

The criteria in the legislation for an ASBO states distress, harassment or alarm, all of which a good brief could make stick regarding illegal canoeists.

It?s been used against several off road motorcyclists (Green laners) last few months on the Pennines successfully.

Penalty for constant breaching of an ASBO is imprisonment up to a maximum of 5 years.

Just catching up and I read what Andrew posted that all they want is a bit of white water.

Exactly what I want, but why they insist on doing rolls and stuff right where I am (already) fishing and this particular bit is not on the navigational channel. All I get back if I ask them to move is "Do you want all the river to yourself, then?"

No I don't. Just the small portion I am presently fishing in. And do they like a pouch full of hempseed in their ear?

Phil Hackett 2. Please allow me to to answer your comments.

Youth groups have plenty of canals and other still water for canoeing. A massive increase in access would not result in a mass increase in usage by youth groups. Novices do not belong on moving water without strict supervision IMHO.

As for the rubbish, I believe that most of the rubbish I have ever seen on river banks has been left by inconsiderate anglers. Why would a canoeist on a day trip leave their rubbish on the river bank when in your words they can stow it in the canoe. Also it would be most unwise to store a campfire in any canoe, and as for bear cans I have never heard of canned bear.

Any legislative changes that are brought in, I would be quite happy to fight for them and against you. The latest E.D.M on increased river access has been signed by 101 M.Ps. The amendment calling for voluntary access agreements has 5 signatures. I believe this speaks for itself. In Scotland there is free and unhindered access for canoeing. Has this been a disaster for scottish anglers? I think not.

I would hope that you do try to bring a summons against a canoeist this year. It would make a very interesting test case. I cannot see the CPS being interested in prosecuting a canoeist for simply paddling on a river. Just remember if you lose the case it sets a precedent, and I would shake your hand for that. If however your club commenced a private prosecution against an individual for trespass how you would prove that the individual who was the owner of the car was also the canoeist is beyond me. To "hit" someone with a summons for criminal trespass they have to be deliberately obstructing a lawful activity. I admit that the people some refer to as doing rolls and playing deliberately in the swim are tossers of the highest order and deserve a prosecution. However from personal experience this is 99% of the time not the case.

As for gaining an ASBO, don`t make me laugh. Distress, harrasment, alarm, yes a good brief might make it stick. But a good brief might also put a good case forward that a canoeist causing any of the above is nonsense, and that your angling club are being selfish about wanting sole use of a particular river, and that the access situation in England and Wales is laughable.

Woody, I can only apologise for the knobs that you sometimes encounter when you are fishing. But I would urge you and everyone else not to fire anything at them with a catapult or otherwise. That is assault and is unhelpful to both canoeing and angling.

Phil Hackett, from your profile you are obviously a well educated man. May I suggest that you try to enter meaningful discussion instead of making sweeping statements which are inflammatory and unhelpful. You appear very angry and frustrated with the situation regarding access, but I believe with a little respect from both sides then we can all enjoy the natural resources of the U.K

I am happy to answer any questions that anybody may have regarding canoeing. As an angler and paddler I can see both sides. But it appears that some people cannot.

Quote "Hello all, sorry about the long post.

Before I add my tuppence worth I feel it is worth noting down what I?ve been up to in the last few years; namely, 22 years of fishing all over the UK and 10 years of canoeing all over the world. I have been a reader of Fishingmagic for a while but have never felt the need to post until now.

I appreciate comments about a ?minority of prats? in canoes seemingly disrupting angling. However, every group has its minority. If you go on canoeing discussion sites where the access issue is being debated you will see people stating all anglers do is deliberately drop litter and leave discarded line around to strangle birds. Each side has its minority and I have vigorously defended angling on canoeing forums. Pot?kettle?black? Both sides are as guilty as each other and little is achieved by mud slinging.

I am not condoning the actions of canoeists who apparently disrupt fishing. But, imagine for one moment that the tables were reversed. This is the situation angling would find itself in:

● Canoeists control all access to rivers and deliberately prevent anglers from using them.
● Anglers are, however, allowed to fish on around than 2% of the nation?s rivers. The canoeists expect the anglers to be happy with this. (I?m not sure on the exact figure ? but it is in the 2% region).
● Anglers are expected to gain verification from their national body before they cast a line anywhere in the UK.
● Even in the canoeing closed season, when angling is at its best, the canoeists do not permit any angling on their rivers (angling physically cannot be done outside of the canoeing closed season, as water levels are always too high).
● The canoeists fear use of the river by anglers in their closed season may damage the river for canoeing, even though it has been categorically proved it is not the case if angling is done responsibly.
● After 30 odd years of trying to negotiate access for angling, the anglers have got absolutely nowhere. The figure still stands at around 2%, after 30-years of effort.
● The canoeists still refuse to budge or offer any level of compromise whatsoever. Angling must not be allowed.
● Canoeists refuse to acknowledge that angling is a leisure pursuit that brings much needed revenue to the local economy during the canoeing closed season. Businesses close because of the sheer bloody-mindedness of canoeists.
● Finally, after 30 years, anglers are sick and tired of not being allowed to go fishing. They decide to harmlessly enjoy their sport. When they do so, canoeists shout abuse at them, throw stones at them, try and embed pointed lumps of metal in them and fire sloppy vile-smelling substances at them.

If this were the case, do you think anglers would go out of their way to try to find the best approach to compromise with the canoeists, understand their needs and actively seek a common agreement that suits both parties?

Or do you think the anglers would say ?enough is enough? and simply and responsibly go fishing every once in a while with the aim of enjoying themselves whilst causing no harm whatsoever to anyone?

I firmly believe acceptance, compromise and education are the way forward and more open canoeing access and angling can (and should) go hand in hand.

Mike."


I believe Mikes post in another thread sums it up nicely.

Hi all,

This discussion was flagged up on one of the big paddling communities and I thought I'd add my two pennies as well.

What anglers need to appreciate is that paddlers can travel all over the world (Canada, the US, continental Europe, central and southern America, New Zealand, Africa) and enjoy virtually unfettered access to whitewater.

Just over an arbitrary line on the map, Scots like myself enjoy open access to our full natural heritage and are happy to share responsibly with anglers.

Yet, we are supposed to believe that fishing in England and Wales cannot co-exist with paddling, something that had French paddlers in stitches last time I was over there.

Surely you can see that we find it a bit bizarre to be threatened with ASBOs for enjoying our sport? I'm struggling to find words that express myself!

In response to demands that paddlers pay for access to rivers in a similar manner to anglers, I can only compare this to ramblers being asked to pay equivalently to grouse shooters to walk across the moors - the two sports are fundamentally different and not comparable.

Regarding the endless accusations of paddlers splashing around and disrupting fish (or leaving litter) - I haven't tried to argue that angling should be banned because I've been snagged on a discarded hook (*NOT* pleasant).

The vast majority of paddlers want nothing more than to pass anglers quickly and quietly and equating us with people who hire boats for the day is laughable.

As the previous post made clear, paddlers are finally deciding to take advantage of their natural heritage regardless of feudal laws, and to be completely honest I think we are waiting for a big court case to set a precedent of fair access across the country.

I don't see why equitable access is such a difficult thing to achieve -- but fortunately for paddlers, the defacto access situation seems to be rectifying itself regardless.

Dave

QUOTE

" When I used to fish the Bridgewater Canal the canoes were a real problem. These were not the single man things but huge fast boats with 8 or 10 rowers in them. No sooner would you see them than they would be tearing through your swim, a real problem if you are using 2 rods. I often wondered if these things were licenced, and if they were breaking the law by exceeding the usual 4 knot limit? "

These are not canoeists guys - bellboats or rowers maybe, but not canoeists

QUOTE

"Oh yes! We have the car numbers and the ability to trace them to their address and angler willing and able to come forward as witnesses. "

How do you intend to legally do this?

QUOTE

"Exactly what I want, but why they insist on doing rolls and stuff right where I am (already) fishing and this particular bit is not on the navigational channel. All I get back if I ask them to move is "Do you want all the river to yourself, then?"

There will always be one or two guys unneccesarily rolling/cartwheeling - thewy will always be had words with by senior members of the clubs they are paddling with and you must all realise surely that that these guys are only a minority?

Perhaps this picture will give canoeists a better idea of what we anglers are up against. It was taken last year on a Thames' weir.

There were four anglers along the bank where the young canoeists waited. There was plenty of room 50 yards or so downriver where they could have waited. There was no one along the opposite bank where they could have waited. The opposite bank was safe for them, safer in fact than the bank they used where our fishing was spoiled for at least two hours - a long time considering we had only four hours in which to fish.

I don't blame the kids for the thoughtless behaviour, and quite happily took their photograph and had a pleasant chat with them. But I do blame the four adults who were in charge of them, the four selfish adults who paddled around in front of us and who have now demonstrated to 16 young canoeists that they needn't be bothered about sharing the river unselfishly.

Canoeists on the Thames

"QUOTE

"Oh yes! We have the car numbers and the ability to trace them to their address and angler willing and able to come forward as witnesses. "

How do you intend to legally do this?"

the same way using someones name you can legally trace their address.