Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[sam vimes]

I understand that in many places anglers need to pay for the right to fish in addition to their rod licence.

On rivers with a navigation authority no fee is paid to the landowners, the navigation authority charges fees and uses the money to maintain the navigation. Fees can be charged by landowners for launching, parking, changing rooms and toilets etc.
This is the same as public rights of way, you can't be charged to use them, but landowners may be able to find ways of making money out of them.

Yep, fine, I understand that, and what about the places where you just pass through but there's no standing right of navigation? As it is there's nothing conclusive to suggest that a river in its entireity is a right of way. Just a supposition of those that think they understand the law. Naturally, you are well within your rights to make a legal challenge any time you like.

Why not offer to pay to pass through in just the same way as an angler has to pay, or at least seek permission, to be there? That way there would be no argument. Anglers would just have to put up with it whether they like it or not. Unfortunately, that seems to be the problem for the paddlers, they want it all for free, effectively at anglers expense. There's your compromise. Pay for your access, where the landowners are agreeable, or at least seek permission. The issue goes away then. I put good money on the fact that many landowners will give you exclusive rights, should you pay more than anglers. Money talks, the snag being that, unlike anglers, you don't really want to pay.

 

[bennygesserit]

What has been encouraging is the thread on canoeing rights. So many posts from FM regulars fighting collectively for their rights and privacy and agreeing most of the time (except for Benny occasionally )

Just refreshing as to how we can come together when we want to and put any petty differences to one side. Well done all you posters...

Thing is Jeff if the problem were a simple one my sympathies would lie mostly with the canoeists , I think resources like large forests , moorland and the rivers should belong to all and should be enjoyed by all.

Oh and I am a cyclist too.

If every canoeist were reasonable and similarly every angler was too there shouldn't be a problem.

Now the caveats are not everyone is reasonable and a small minority spoil it for the few on both sides.

Drunk canoeists on the WYE , people deliberately spoiling swims , catapulting shot and maggots at people its no way for civilised people to behave. I really don't see how one canoeist gliding through your swim can spoil your whole day.

You get much more done in business and in real life by compromise , that doesn't mean you have to be soft , but it does mean you achieve more than by legalities and pig headedness.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

Thing is Jeff if the problem were a simple one my sympathies would lie mostly with the canoeists , I think resources like large forests , moorland and the rivers should belong to all and should be enjoyed by all.

I agree with you there Benny. Problem is, apart from the places where the two activities conflict most (smaller, shallower rivers and the like), anglers have also spent many decades securing access to river reaches with clubs building relationships with landowners for generations. Not all bits of rivers have access for fishing - or anything else for that matter. The canoeists seem to think we do!. Where i would be on their side is opening up those exclusive areas where virtually no one can benefit at present (apart from a rich arab landowner for example).

 

[sam vimes]

I really don't see how one canoeist gliding through your swim can spoil your whole day.

Says the self confessed non-river angler. I also suspect that, mostly due to your location, your idea of a river will differ significantly to mine. On a fairly deep lowland river (not the kind of water a paddler really wants access to) a paddler going by will have minimal impact. On a small to medium sized river, particularly in its upper reaches (just the kind of river that paddlers really like) it's a quite different story. You haven't got ten feet of turbid water in front of you. It's classic pool, riffle, run, riffle, pool stuff. Generally, the water is little more than a couple of feet deep and it's clear. Disturbing a shoal can see them gone or not feeding for the rest of the day. If a canoe goes through most swims on the upper reaches of my local river, you may as well go home.

 

[bennygesserit]

Says the self confessed non-river angler. I also suspect that, mostly due to your location, your idea of a river will differ significantly to mine. On a fairly deep lowland river (not the kind of water a paddler really wants access to) a paddler going by will have minimal impact. On a small to medium sized river, particularly in its upper reaches (just the kind of river that paddlers really like) it's a quite different story. You haven't got ten feet of turbid water in front of you. It's classic pool, riffle, run, riffle, pool stuff. Generally, the water is little more than a couple of feet deep and it's clear. Disturbing a shoal can see them gone or not feeding for the rest of the day. If a canoe goes through most swims on the upper reaches of my local river, you may as well go home.

true , self confessed non river angler - I have made no secret of that , then maybe some other compromise targeted at those sorts of rivers needs to be reached.

 

[sam vimes]

true , self confessed non river angler - I have made no secret of that , then maybe some other compromise targeted at those sorts of rivers needs to be reached.

As I said earlier, there's already a compromise in place. Paddlers do paddle in such places already. As yet, I've yet to hear of any of them being prosecuted for doing so. They are tolerated, to varying extents. If they want blanket access and immunity from the threat of any kind of court action based on their understanding of the law, the onus is on them to take it to court. However, paddlers don't really want compromise, they just want concessions.

 

[twotrucks]

Why not offer to pay to pass through in just the same way as an angler has to pay.

Whenever I have conversations with more radical anglers, this always seems to be one of the arguments that gets trotted out. I can't really tell if they are being serious or if it is just another one of those "being difficult" ploys as they know just how impractical this would be.

On balance I have quite a lot of sympathy for their position due to the amounts of money landowners seem to be able to extract for fishing rights. It is quite eye-watering in some cases, but I guess angling is a victim to supply and demand.

To fish from a location, you need a lot of cooperation from the landowner at the spot where you want to fish. You need access over adjacent property, parking fairly close by so that you can cart all of your tackle in, and long term occupation of a finite number of locations along the river. The landowner has a monopoly position and you are paying through the nose for it because you need them to cooperate with you.

To canoe along a river I don't really need anything from any single specific landowner, my presence in "their" bit of the river is only going to be for seconds or at the most minutes and when I'm gone there will be no trace whatsoever that I've been there. There is no use of any of their resources at all (the water definitely doesn't belong to the landowner). Sure I need somewhere that I can get access and I often do have to pay or choose to pay for things like parking with access to the river and that is the same as you, but that doesn't need to be in any specific place as it does for you when you are fishing.

Apart from the access to the river, our requirements are totally different and it would be impractical in the extreme to have to deal with the dozens or hundreds of owners of land adjacent to a river to seek their permission if this were legally necessary. I certainly don't have a problem paying one amount for a river to some sort of consortium of landowners if they wanted to get together and then divide it up between themselves but I rather think that the amounts involved wouldn't be worth the overheads of setting such a scheme up.

 

[bennygesserit]

As I said earlier, there's already a compromise in place. Paddlers do paddle in such places already. As yet, I've yet to hear of any of them being prosecuted for doing so. They are tolerated, to varying extents. If they want blanket access and immunity from the threat of any kind of court action based on their understanding of the law, the onus is on them to take it to court. However, paddlers don't really want compromise, they just want concessions.

If they paddle in such places already then what further concession are they after ? If they are not being prosecuted what threat is there ?

 

[sam vimes]

If they paddle in such places already then what further concession are they after ?

they want blanket access and immunity from the threat of any kind of court action based on their understanding of the law

If they are not being prosecuted what threat is there ?

Very little beyond the odd irate angler. They know full well this is the case already. It's precisely why they do what they do when the law, rightly or wrongly, doesn't appear to be on their side. The reality is that most landowners or angling clubs either don't care that much or don't have the resources to attempt a prosecution, even if the law was watertight. The problem here is that existing compromise isn't enough for the more militant. They want their "rights" and they want them now.

---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:39 ----------

I certainly don't have a problem paying one amount for a river to some sort of consortium of landowners if they wanted to get together and then divide it up between themselves but I rather think that the amounts involved wouldn't be worth the overheads of setting such a scheme up.

I'd quite like to be able to pay one relatively small fee that allowed me to fish wherever I liked too. Unfortunately, I don't live on Fantasy Island.
If the idea of paying a consortium of landowners floats you boat, go for it, money talks. I'm sure it would be possible, even if it was only on a single river basis. However, I'd be prepared to have eye watering amounts extracted from you by the landowners.

---------- Post added at 00:15 ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 23:45 ----------

Whenever I have conversations with more radical anglers, this always seems to be one of the arguments that gets trotted out. I can't really tell if they are being serious or if it is just another one of those "being difficult" ploys as they know just how impractical this would be.

By the way, I'd just like to point out that I'm not remotely radical. I've no wish to stop you doing what you do, particularly if you go through the relevant legal niceties to remove all doubt that you are entitled to do what you do in a particular location. I'm not a landowner and I'm not a club, or official of a club. The worst you'll get from me is a withering look.

As for paying individual landowners for access to an entire river being impractical, I quite agree. It's also damned expensive. Welcome to the real world, or at least that of anglers.

 

[Berty]

Thing is Jeff if the problem were a simple one my sympathies would lie mostly with the canoeists , I think resources like large forests , moorland and the rivers should belong to all and should be enjoyed by all.

Oh and I am a cyclist too.

If every canoeist were reasonable and similarly every angler was too there shouldn't be a problem.

Now the caveats are not everyone is reasonable and a small minority spoil it for the few on both sides.

Drunk canoeists on the WYE , people deliberately spoiling swims , catapulting shot and maggots at people its no way for civilised people to behave. I really don't see how one canoeist gliding through your swim can spoil your whole day.

You get much more done in business and in real life by compromise , that doesn't mean you have to be soft , but it does mean you achieve more than by legalities and pig headedness.

I have been both a paddler and cyclist........In Herefordshire i have seen forest footpaths, river banks, and even deer tracks ripped to bits by cyclists and the Wye is a mass flottila of canoes at times...not only drunks either!

Canoeing and cycling are both exhilerhating pastimes but the cost to the land and others is great and those taking part can sometimes be the most selfish of folk.

One land owning person i know is a true countryman but he had to ban off road bikers.....they were destroying the land!!!

Anglers on the whole are conservers not destroyers, sure we have our idiots, every thing do's but on the whole we look after our surroundings......where as canoeists and cyclists can and do destroy them!

Bring back the ACA title!

 

[twotrucks]

I have been both a paddler and cyclist........In Herefordshire i have seen forest footpaths, river banks, and even deer tracks ripped to bits by cyclists and the Wye is a mass flottila of canoes at times...not only drunks either!

Canoeing and cycling are both exhilerhating pastimes but the cost to the land and others is great and those taking part can sometimes be the most selfish of folk.

OK Berty, so please educate me about how canoeing is analogous to cycling in it's potential to cause environmental harm. Last time I looked behind me, there was no dirty great rut in the water left behind by the keel of my boat. When I've paddled by, once the tiny ripples have faded you literally wouldn't be able to tell I had been there.

As far as I know canoeing is one of the most environmentally benign ways to be out in the countryside that I can imagine - we don't even leave footprints.

How is that the same as cyclists tearing up a track?

Sure there is the potential for issues with disturbance of wild birds and spawning grounds at certain times of year, but that is just the same as walkers or wading fisherman and most paddlers are responsible and understand these. The BCU are taking the lead with education and access codes like You, your canoe and the environment. I don't think I've ever seen a similar comprehensive code for anglers although I'm sure one exists.

There is also the potential for issues with bank erosion, but this is generally only a problem where paddlers are forced to skulk around using footpaths and other informal access points which may not be the best place to get onto the water. The easy answer to this is for landowners or others to put in decent, well maintained access points with convenient parking then this issue goes away. Up to now it seems to be mostly public authorities that have the foresight to do this, but there are places where private landowners make a fortune doing this so I don't really see why it doesn't happen more widely. Kills two birds with one stone, shuts up the "you don't pay lobby" and also removes the possibility of bank erosion issues in other less suitable places.

Anglers on the whole are conservers not destroyers, sure we have our idiots, every thing do's but on the whole we look after our surroundings......where as canoeists and cyclists can and do destroy them!

Sorry Berty, but that is just balderdash. I don't know if anglers genuinely believe this, or it is just last ditch PR to try and make a case for keeping paddlers off the water.

The fact is that most paddlers leave no trace that they have been there, not even a footprint whereas I've recovered literally 100s of bits of discarded fishing detritus, bits of line, even hooks hanging from trees over a river, each one has the potential to maim wildlife but you see it all the time. There seems to be a minority of anglers who simply cut their lines when they snag in riverside trees and leave them to cause mayhem. That's before we even start on discarded bottles and lager cans dumped in hedge rows where anglers have been sitting all day. Yep, a real conservation attitude! I'm not saying that all paddlers are saints and I've in the past personally cleared up an entire picnic worth of litter left in a car park park by a group of youngsters (words were had with the head of their centre), but painting fishing = good, paddling = bad is totally disingenuous.

As you said, there are idiots in every sport.

 

[Fred Bonney]

Not wishing to answer on behalf of Berty and not really wanting to read through all the same old stuff, I'll just respond to the opening comments

The dragging of canoes through shallow gravels, perhaps spawning gravels is just one of the areas of damage I can think of, off the top of my head !

 

[twotrucks]

The dragging of canoes through shallow gravels, perhaps spawning gravels is just one of the areas of damage I can think of, off the top of my head !

If you had read down my post you'll see that I addressed that and that the BCU is working to actively educate about this issue. In any case doesn't the same issue exist with coarse anglers wading in the same gravels?

 

[sam vimes]

If you had read down my post you'll see that I addressed that and that the BCU is working to actively educate about this issue. In any case doesn't the same issue exist with coarse anglers wading in the same gravels?

Again, this shows up the propaganda you are being fed. The vast majority of coarse anglers don't wade at all. The more prolific waders of the angling fraternity are game anglers.

 

[Fred Bonney]

...and even if they did ,it wouldn't be during the Close Season from 15th March to 15th June!

 

[Berty]

OK Berty, so please educate me about how canoeing is analogous to cycling in it's potential to cause environmental harm. Last time I looked behind me, there was no dirty great rut in the water left behind by the keel of my boat. When I've paddled by, once the tiny ripples have faded you literally wouldn't be able to tell I had been there.

As far as I know canoeing is one of the most environmentally benign ways to be out in the countryside that I can imagine - we don't even leave footprints.

How is that the same as cyclists tearing up a track?

Sure there is the potential for issues with disturbance of wild birds and spawning grounds at certain times of year, but that is just the same as walkers or wading fisherman and most paddlers are responsible and understand these. The BCU are taking the lead with education and access codes like You, your canoe and the environment. I don't think I've ever seen a similar comprehensive code for anglers although I'm sure one exists.

There is also the potential for issues with bank erosion, but this is generally only a problem where paddlers are forced to skulk around using footpaths and other informal access points which may not be the best place to get onto the water. The easy answer to this is for landowners or others to put in decent, well maintained access points with convenient parking then this issue goes away. Up to now it seems to be mostly public authorities that have the foresight to do this, but there are places where private landowners make a fortune doing this so I don't really see why it doesn't happen more widely. Kills two birds with one stone, shuts up the "you don't pay lobby" and also removes the possibility of bank erosion issues in other less suitable places.




Sorry Berty, but that is just balderdash. I don't know if anglers genuinely believe this, or it is just last ditch PR to try and make a case for keeping paddlers off the water.

The fact is that most paddlers leave no trace that they have been there, not even a footprint whereas I've recovered literally 100s of bits of discarded fishing detritus, bits of line, even hooks hanging from trees over a river, each one has the potential to maim wildlife but you see it all the time. There seems to be a minority of anglers who simply cut their lines when they snag in riverside trees and leave them to cause mayhem. That's before we even start on discarded bottles and lager cans dumped in hedge rows where anglers have been sitting all day. Yep, a real conservation attitude! I'm not saying that all paddlers are saints and I've in the past personally cleared up an entire picnic worth of litter left in a car park park by a group of youngsters (words were had with the head of their centre), but painting fishing = good, paddling = bad is totally disingenuous.

As you said, there are idiots in every sport.

You don't half talk sperical objects!!!......i didn't bring cyclists into the debate!! but i CAN compare the disturbances and bank erosions on the Wye to the cyclists!.

Your multi coloured flotilla on places like the Wye is a damn eyesore and couple this with hundreds of canoeists using the bank anywhere they see fit (private land!!!) then i have no problem whatsoever comparing!! you have turned a wonderful river into a damn circus ground!......heaven help us if you gain access to the upper rivers in such numbers!.....leave no trace??? you are having a laugh, but theres no so blind eh?

Of course we have idiotic litter bug anglers.....just as paddlers have litter bugs, its a society problem not an angling or paddlers problem, if you read FM regular you will see we have a great hatred for any angler leaving litter......any angler doing so in any club i ran would be banned....end of!

Of course anglers as a whole are more conservation minded.......when did your "body" last fight against polution in court?

 

[bennygesserit]

...and even if they did ,it wouldn't be during the Close Season from 15th March to 15th June!

So all anglers support the close season and this is being used to support the case against canoeists ?

---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 ----------

Berty how would you counter the same thing being said about a 100 plus angler mTch on the canal ?

When I am cycling I usually take an alterntive route , if I can , when there is a match on , but last year I was walking the dogs on the opposite side if the bank and because I had hi viz on a few lads started having a pop daying I was ruining their swim. Now I wasn't deliberately skylining their swim , but I don't expect someone to have a pop when I am on a public footpath , that I am certain I have the right to walk along and the dogs don't jump in the canal , if they did and their was a mstch on I would have kept them on a lead.

My point is , as in the case above , aren't some anglers being a little over sensitive ?

 

[Berty]

So all anglers support the close season and this is being used to support the case against canoeists ?

---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 ----------

Berty how would you counter the same thing being said about a 100 plus angler mTch on the canal ?

When I am cycling I usually take an alterntive route , if I can , when there is a match on , but last year I was walking the dogs on the opposite side if the bank and because I had hi viz on a few lads started having a pop daying I was ruining their swim. Now I wasn't deliberately skylining their swim , but I don't expect someone to have a pop when I am on a public footpath , that I am certain I have the right to walk along and the dogs don't jump in the canal , if they did and their was a mstch on I would have kept them on a lead.

My point is , as in the case above , aren't some anglers being a little over sensitive ?

Do you have a towpath cycle permit?..........the anglers have paid the water authority for the days hire, do you have a public right of way? is a tow path a public footpath or private property?.......if so you have as much right as them.

 

[bennygesserit]

Do you have a towpath cycle permit?

Ha it must be Christmas because that old chestnut is being wheeled out.

A) if I am cycling and there is a match on I usually take a different route , that seems coniderate , but no I don't need a permit because I am 50 and I have been cycling along the canal for 45 years.

B) more importantly I don't need a permit to walk my dogs on common land , and I don't need an angler telling me every few minutes that I shouldn't be there .

 

[Berty]

Ha it must be Christmas because that old chestnut is being wheeled out.

A) if I am cycling and there is a match on I usually take a different route , that seems coniderate , but no I don't need a permit because I am 50 and I have been cycling along the canal for 45 years.

B) more importantly I don't need a permit to walk my dogs on common land , and I don't need an angler telling me every few minutes that I shouldn't be there .

A) The permits are free, but i can't see any refrence to age?????.....so i believe you do need one, whether you are 5 or 105?

B) I ask if a towpath is common land? i doubt it very much, isn't common land something that dates back well before canals?.......you (and i) may not agree with the anglers who say you shouldn't be there........but perhaps they feel you are not abidding by the waterways greencode (available where you obtain your cycling permit from!) which states you should look out for anglers tackle.


A few posts back Benny you said you had the right to cycle anywhere you wish..........you do not.


I have to put up with all the paddlers on the Wye........it meand they have in effect STOPPED my daytime fishing at certain times of the year, I do not want their masses on the stretches of river i can still fish.