Canoe Trespass Must be Tackled

This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Canoe Trespass Must be Tackled

"The document, published by the Angling Trust and appended to this webpage as an attachment entitled ‘Conflict on the Riverbank’, has called on Ministers to intervene and to consider withdrawing public funding from organisations which refuse to respect the law of the land."

Typically the only time people (in this case the paddlers) will sit up and actually take notice is when they find their grants have dried up.

I sincerely hope that the Minister acts, and acts quickly, to stop this organised campaign of unlawful trespass.

It is good to see the Countrtyside Alliance and the CLA joining with the Angling Trust for a unified argument against these unlawful acts.

How about going for the full Monty and convincing the RSPB that these canoeists are disturbing nesting birds??

And when they're not disturbing birds, dorset, they're trashing the habitat for and disturbing spawning fish and so depriving the animals and birds that depend on both them and their hatchling progeny. By my calendar, that's the Salmon, Sea-Trout and Brown Trout Close Season, say late September to early March or so, soon followed by the Coarse Close of March 15th.

Carry far more weight than the repeated howls of the usual suspect, "Now look here!", special pleader landowners.

Paul Boote said:

And when they're not disturbing birds, dorset, they're trashing the habitat for and disturbing spawning fish and so depriving the animals and birds that depend on both them and their hatchling progeny. By my calendar, that's the Salmon, Sea-Trout and Brown Trout Close Season, say late September to early March or so, soon followed by the Coarse Close of March 15th.

Carry far more weight than the repeated howls of the usual suspect, "Now look here!", special pleader landowners.

Click to expand...

Now that is an interesting point of view, the paddlers would of course retort that the EA has proven that the passage of a canoe has no impact. How would you counter that Paul ?

My view has kind of flip flopped from my natural socialist leanings. Having spent a long time on paddlers web sites it seems they have no concept of redds or isolated and discrete spawning grounds, no inclination to disinfect canoes from one river to another , and don't appear to consider that a sufficient depth is required to paddle. Paul , specifically do you think this is an issue.

Having said all that most paddlers are often also anglers and the militant few , as ever , appear to be trying to hi-jack the many, most paddlers abhor what happens on places like the Wye and wish a harmonious resolution to the access issue.

I also do not like the inflammatory way the Trust appears to be inciting violence in order to gather support , still that is just my own view.

Foot in both camps.

Paddled as an early teenager on the Surrey Wey on the same club water (Godalming and Farnham) that I fished regularly, just choosing my times (high summer weekday afternoons) to be on the water when my fellow fishers weren't.

Saw what the worst sort of paddlers can do to a small spawning river in winter only a very few years later though, and had a taste - a right unpleasant earful - of the political paddlers' eff-you attitude (I've recalled the encounter twice online, one here, another elsewhere). Three posts actually - I had some paddlers have a go at me on Anglersnet years ago, destroying the "arguments" of a visiting militant paddler, who promptly hit Google and found the online reminiscences of a Paul Boote who was, er, a mover and shaker in the North West Gay Club scene of the 1980s. Very much the wrong Paul Boote, however. Nice crowd.

Bigger rivers, yeah, okay, at times and with enforced restrictions. Smaller ones, take a long hike back to wherever you came from.

Paul Boote said:

Foot in both camps.

Paddled as an early teenager on the Surrey Wey on the same club water (Godalming and Farnham) that I fished regularly, just choosing my times (high summer weekday afternoons) to be on the water when my fellow fishers weren't.

Saw what the worst sort of paddlers can do to a small spawning river in winter only a very few years later though, and had a taste - a right unpleasant earful - of the political paddlers' eff-you attitude (I've recalled the encounter twice online, one here, another elsewhere). Three posts actually - I had some paddlers have a go at me on Anglersnet years ago, destroying the "arguments" of a visiting militant paddler, who promptly hit Google and found the online reminiscences of a Paul Boote who was, er, a mover and shaker in the North West Gay Club scene of the 1980s. Very much the wrong Paul Boote, however. Nice crowd.

Bigger rivers, yeah, okay, at times and with enforced restrictions. Smaller ones, take a long hike back to wherever you came from.

Click to expand...

So is the proposition that , in low water , a paddler walking and dragging a canoe or simply trying to paddle ( also in low water ) , could disturb spawning grounds sufficiently to have an effect on subsequent repopulation?

The thing is , a lot of paddlers are very nice , but some are so determined to put their case forwards that they refuse to consider whether they might have an impact , specifically in low water and particularly during spawning.

One of their Champions Andy Biddulph scored a bit of an own goal and posted the following , which now appears to be doing the rounds on the web , of course being so single minded he refused to admit a mistake. This is related to the open access meeting in Denbigh on December 6th.

Listening to the farming programme on the wireless got me thinking that many of the people at the December 6th meeting will be benefit scroungers. They said that, UK wide one third of all farms, are not econmoically viable without handouts from the taxpayers. This proprtion would be greater in Wales with all that marginal land. If they run a few sheep then they will get the single farm payment. If most of the land is grass they automatically get the "green payments" without lifting a finger towards environmental improvement.

A few years ago I was camping in midwales watching the neighbouring farmer with his hay bailer going slow, taking his time. When he got to the halfway mark a big black cloud appeared on the horizon. When I was younger and did agricultural work, that would have been the signal to go like the clappers to get the rest safely gathered in 'ere the torrential rains begin. Instead he sat on his bailer and methodically loaded a large pipe which he enjoyed before resuming his sombulent pace of work. He managed another couple of rows before the floodgates of the heavens were broken open. After two days of rain, almost half the crop was black and rotting. At the same time the farmer I used to work for was selling mouldy 5 year old hay into midwales. He always had plenty to spare because he had a proper work ethic.

So on December 6th we will see the unedifying specticle of inefficient, work-shy spongers, who would not even be on their land without the billions taken from the pockets of hard working families, errecting barracades against those who finance their way of life. If as a nation we decide that we want park keepers to maintain the landscape, I have no problem with that. But it looks like the park keepers are neglecting the park and keeping everyone out when they could be encouraging access and earning some money of their own by providing services to visitors. There is obviously something wrong here.

from ‘Open Access’ Meeting – Denbigh 6th December.

Paul Boote said:

And when they're not disturbing birds, dorset, they're trashing the habitat for and disturbing spawning fish and so depriving the animals and birds that depend on both them and their hatchling progeny. By my calendar, that's the Salmon, Sea-Trout and Brown Trout Close Season, say late September to early March or so, soon followed by the Coarse Close of March 15th.

Carry far more weight than the repeated howls of the usual suspect, "Now look here!", special pleader landowners.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think I'd concur with that....

Rather leaves a sour taste sharing the same concerns as the CLA - dont we all wish that we owned vast tracts of land and could keep the damn peasants out of it?.

I think anglers need to be realistic. I am sure there are plenty of situations where canoeing is not damaging to a river. It may be damaging to an anglers day - especially if its a shallow river, but other than we anglers few would care about that.

Localised disturbance to banks by canoeists will be no worse than that caused by grazing animals or, dare i say it, anglers themselves. Anglers need to get their own acts in order - such as anti-social littering of banks, introducing alien species etc - before they can win any environmental arguments.

I have no doubt that anglers are stronger allies of the natural world, but activities such as canoeing are popular and healthy. If we do end up with an access for all canoe wise i would hope that it will be matched by an access for all angling policy. Just because angling rights and rights of access have been bought and sold for generations, shared by the few in the case of salmon waters, or by a few more in the case of club waters, does not mean that is the best way. The socialist ideal of free unfettered access for both canoeists and anglers would have a lot going for it.

There we go, the mention of a socialist ideal should prevent any politician ever granting canoeists free access, so our present system will be safe.