For starters what is so wrong in the AT defending the rights (and in most instances rights obtained at a high financial cost) of its members?
Possibly, Mr. Youngs, had the BCU and its supporters adopted the same attitude you suggest then there might just be grounds for some kind of consensus.
There's nothing wrong with the Angling Trust defending anglers rights, as long as they do it in a responsible way, preferably without antagonising other user groups.You see John, what's happened in my neighbourhood, is that the River Waveney (upon whose banks I reside) was singled out some years ago as a pilot scheme for a voluntary canoe access agreement. Several years later the agreement was ratified (at least until such time as the next parcel of land changes hands again) but it took the combined influence of the Environment Agency, and the expenditure of £100,000's of public money to achieve it. And this is on a river, where navigation rights have never been challenged or resisted. Meanwhile, anglers in adjacent catchments such as the Wensum became even more militant and entrenched in their opposition to canoe access.
The result is that the Waveney has become firmly established as a honeypot site for canoeing because it's one of the few rivers in the country which you can actually paddle down without risking verbal assault. But if you try going static bait fishing on the Waveney during the summer, especially on weekends during the summer months, and it's virtually impossible due to volume of canoe traffic passing through.
As far as BCU invovement is concerned, they've been placed in an invideous position. They've been told by the Govt, the EA and the Angling Trust that voluntary access agreements are the way forward, but it's a totally impractical solution which they don't have the resources to implement anyway.
I've never been a member of the BCU, and I've got no intention of joining any time soon. I go paddling once a year, usually during the closed fishing season, and usually just to check out new swims etc. However when I do that I do not expect to be verbally assaulted by other anglers.
The proposed paddle down the Hampshire Avon had nothing to do with the BCU either. It was being organised by a few private individuals who are no doubt perfectly well intentioned, law abiding citizens who simply want to enjoy the river and learn more about their natural environment.
Before the EA (and the infamous Prop Ravenscroft and his team) started getting involved we on the Wear had a perfectly good working relationship with the local Uni canoe/kayak club; its Sec, a Chris Lomas I seem to recall, and I regularly used to exchange e-mails on water use/availability.
But when we were presented with what was virtually a loaded gun held at our heads in the form of the EA telling us (the paying riparian occupier) just what THEY had decided, without involving anyone from the angling side, and that we would have to accept it, there is little wonder that what cooperation there was went.
I would dare to suggest, Mr. Youngs, that the real reason you have decided to irritate the members of FM is because you received very little attention on Anglers Net.
On the contrary John, I was very encouraged by the lack of of attention to my post on Anglers Net. Makes me think that at least some anglers have got the message that when they engage in intolerant rhetoric towards other river users, they may well find that it bounces back on them. Over the years I have had many exchanges on Anglers Net, which have been every bit as spirited as this one has proved to be.
I'm sorry to learn of your difficulties in finding an accommodation with canoeists on the Wear. I would dare to suggest that if you erect a polite notice saying "please respect the wishes of the riparian owner by only paddling through this stretch between 11am and 4pm between June 16 and Sept 30. Outside of these dates there are no restrictions" then 99.99% of canoeists would respect it, and conflict would be avoided. However if you erect a sign saying "Private property, keep out, no canoeing", then the liklihood is that it will end in a bun fight. Added to which, if you are actively engaged in introducing a non native fish into an environmentally sensitive habitat then you will probably end up doing your cause more harm than good.
As for the R. Wensun that seems so close to your heart, I presume you were at the forefront of the campaign started to prevent the theft of its precious life support some years ago?
As more and more river anglers come to see the benefits of the
Angling Trust, I can foresee its membership increasing proportionately
The Wensum is close to my heart. So is the Waveney, and the Bure and the Yare. I dare say if I lived in Hampshire, the Hampshire Avon whould be close to my heart. I just want to see a fairer use of our rivers for everyone, and that includes canoeists.
---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------
To top all that Andy,you had made so many errors,even down to labeling the entire membership of an angling society with all the names you could think of .
Not once have you apologised for any of these.
The locking of the previous thread was a forgone conclusion, following it's error filled rants.
If you had any legitimate argument at any time, and I don't think you had, you have now lost all credibility.
Believe me Fred, we've only just scratched the surface. I retract not one jot of anything I've said, and I've got no intention of apologising to anyone (other than my erroneous assertion that Norwich were due to be playing Fulham yesterday). In fact, I think the Angling Trust and the Barbel Society owe me an apology for what been going on down on the Wensum in recent years.
I think you're criticising me for telling the truth, because you're a member of both the Angling Trust and the Barbel Society, and it's not what you want to hear. Sorry about that, but it's still the truth and banning me from the forum, or locking the thread will not change that.
