Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[barney20]

Yes we are different, thankfully. We have different laws. That's the difference. And ours are better laws in my opinion. Though I agree some changes would improve them - for instance I would forbid any paddling on upper-rivers where fisheries are disrupted by navigation. Not the changes you would like I know, but I have to put up with what I see as the negative aspects of the present laws, the same as you do. What I, and most other anglers I know want, is to have the existing laws better enforced.

So your saying they manage every where else because their laws are different to ours. Which seems to me an acknowledgement that if are laws were similar to theirs we would also manage.

I have tried to understand the difficulties paddlers cause to anglers, and I have a had a few sensible responses to my posts. But endlessly repeating what (you believe) the law is doesn't really get us anywhere.

If there are good reasons why some rivers shouldn't be paddled explain them, and many paddlers will stop calling for a clarification/change in the law.

---------- Post added at 10:29 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------

i'm not what you would called well travelled but my thinking would be coarse anglers in this country are the most environmentally aware and fish welfare conscious in europe...put on top of that the years of tradition, history within societies/clubs, relationships with there landlords and the general sense of ownership for there bits of water after many years of looking after them backed with hard cash ...then put more on top of that all the **** we have to put up with from the government bodies that suppose to support us then **** on us from above.

if you had any idea of what that means to us you may start to understand...which i doubt you will ever do

Jason

Thank you for answering, and being honest. It seems that you are saying that it isn't that the rivers or fish that are different, but years of history/tradition have made people feel differently about them. And I can see that for those anglers that have invested time and/or money in maintaining them, to have some one who hasn't contributed come along and use the river and limit the enjoyment/pleasure/satisfaction that can be had from angling, would seem very unfair.

My only response to that is that as some one who has never fished I find it hard to understand how a canoe being paddled quietly over the water can have such a big effect on the fish.
Is the effect of canoes being exaggerated or is the effect really that bad?

 

[richiekelly]

There is away in all other European countries, why are England and Wales so different, if there really is something about the rivers or fish that make them unique please tell me what it is.

Well if there is a way in other European countries and perhaps you should be looking at what was done there.

I don't live in other European countries I live in England and it is the laws of England that count for me and has been explained numerous times on here that is what paddlers should abide by until such time that it is changed.

Should we be allowed to carry guns in England because its allowed in America?

Should we be allowed to slaughter bulls for the sake of entertainment as is done in Spain?

Lots of things done in other countries that are not done here its their country and their laws they abide by, but it doesn't mean we should adopt the same things just because others do it.

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 18:03 ----------

So your saying they manage every where else because their laws are different to ours. Which seems to me an acknowledgement that if are laws were similar to theirs we would also manage.

I have tried to understand the difficulties paddlers cause to anglers, and I have a had a few sensible responses to my posts. But endlessly repeating what (you believe) the law is doesn't really get us anywhere.

If there are good reasons why some rivers shouldn't be paddled explain them, and many paddlers will stop calling for a clarification/change in the law.

---------- Post added at 10:29 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------



Thank you for answering, and being honest. It seems that you are saying that it isn't that the rivers or fish that are different, but years of history/tradition have made people feel differently about them. And I can see that for those anglers that have invested time and/or money in maintaining them, to have some one who hasn't contributed come along and use the river and limit the enjoyment/pleasure/satisfaction that can be had from angling, would seem very unfair.

My only response to that is that as some one who has never fished I find it hard to understand how a canoe being paddled quietly over the water can have such a big effect on the fish.
Is the effect of canoes being exaggerated or is the effect really that bad?[/QUOTE]


Absolutely not, 1 paddler could ruin the whole day for every angler he passes on the river.

 

[jasonbean1]

barney, i'll go over what i've said before.

it's not you and the genuine considerate paddlers, it's what you bring with you should you get what you want.

i only fish rivers and canals and i bare the brunt of other river and canal users and the bodies that govern them...to be honest it's a total **** take on the rights and wrongs of those environments

so even though i fully understand every bit of what you genuine paddlers are saying i will do my best to ensure it does not happen.

Jason

 

[geoffmaynard]

So your saying they manage every where else because their laws are different to ours. Which seems to me an acknowledgement that if are laws were similar to theirs we would also manage.

No I'm not saying that they manage, I'm saying that they (the anglers) suffer because of those laws.

 

[jasonbean1]

and if CG74 wants to get is usually vocal voice involved on this...which i cant understand why he as not he'll tell you why boats for pleasure, the business's that run them and then the directives and regulations are totally ignored and pushed aside for commercial reasons...then we can get into some proper EU directives, WFD objectives that suppose to be looking after our waterways....

paddlers, tell us what you are doing?...again i'm throwing my cash at this what are you doing.....

Jason

 

[david perry]

Xmas Eve. I'll have to be quick Santa is expected down the chimney.

Sam you asked how much I'd be prepared to pay. Interesting question and raises some problems. I don't canoe every week. Sometimes not every month, depends. Others paddle more than once a week. I suppose your argument, if you belong to a club, is that it's the same payment for you whether you use it once or everyday.

But I'll repeat myself - I am prepared to pay even If that meant not having access to every river in the country then I'd be quite happy. BUT I don't speak for every other angler. (get someone from the BCU here!)

You also said canoeists are not interested in your (anglers point of view) and we are not listeneing. Thats why I'm here, although I appreciate I'm and individual and can't speak for others.

Geoff mentioned a Toll which could make payments proportionally fair. But..difficult to operate I guess.

Geoff you also said in relationship to other countries where anglers and fishermen have access rights that the anglers "Suffer". But you've not given us/me an example of how.

Jeff.
For me one aspect of Canoeing I do enjoy is running rapids. So I don't smash my £600 worth of boat up, I like many other paddlers, go to rivers with plenty of boulders and paddle them whilst they are in spate. Hopfully I'll be going next week to the North Tyne where theres an access agreement.

Jason
You mentioned that UK anglers must be the most environmentally aware in europe? Not getting at UK anglers at all as they vary (Like paddlers) - but I believe in Germany anglers have to take a test before they can fish or have a licence?

That said, I've fished in Spain and some of the 'anglers' I met ....Well it brings tears to my eyes. some couldn't care less about how they treated their fish, and certainly couldn't care less about the environmnet. I recall once going to a river in central spain many years ago and seeing European Catfish which had been caught then tied to the bank and left to struggle at the end of the line, still hooked or tied through their gills. When I asked someone why they did it, I was told it was a away of showing how good you were by leaving your catch like that.

Have a good Xmas & New year if I'm not on-line sooner

 

[nicepix]

The main differences in UK to French navigation laws as far as I am aware is that in France there never has been laws to prevent navigation on many waters. This means that riverside properties have been bought and sold for generations on the basis that boats may use the water and there is not the same privacy. In the UK riverside properties have been bought with navigation rights attached or on the understanding that there were no navigation rights and therefore a degree of privacy.

Also, navigators and anglers in France have the right to be on and to access river banks even though they might have to cross or be on private land. Not so in the UK.

Another difference is that here in France canoes can be left out at leisure centres all winter without being stolen, vandalised or used without authority. Imagine that in the UK. Total difference of culture.

I am not aware of any plans or offers by the canoeists to redress any privacy or legal rights enjoyed by those riverside land owners and cannot imagine where they would find the finance to do this. That alone should kill their plans to have a total right to paddle all waters.

 

[jasonbean1]

dave.. too many questions and problems to resolve......if you were the only one, you could paddle dowm our bit of river and i would join you....but sadly that is not the case.

have a good xmas...cheers jason

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I'll have to be quick Santa is expected down the chimney.

Do you have a right of decent or is it at a voluntary site?

 

[geoffmaynard]

Geoff mentioned a Toll which could make payments proportionally fair. But..difficult to operate I guess.

Geoff you also said in relationship to other countries where anglers and fishermen have access rights that the anglers "Suffer". But you've not given us/me an example of how.


and

That said, I've fished in Spain and some of the 'anglers' I met ....Well it brings tears to my eyes. some couldn't care less about how they treated their fish, and certainly couldn't care less about the environmnet. I recall once going to a river in central spain many years ago and seeing European Catfish which had been caught then tied to the bank and left to struggle at the end of the line, still hooked or tied through their gills. When I asked someone why they did it, I was told it was a away of showing how good you were by leaving your catch like that.

Point 1) A toll would be easy if canoes were legally required to display a clearly readable registration number

Point 2) The word Suffer is not too strong. Read back through these pages and see the myriad times you've been told why and how even one paddler can destroy an anglers whole day.

Point 3) Wels catfish are often restrained by a rope which secures them, it passes through the gill cover but does not actually damage the fish in any way. This can be proved by identifiable fish being repeatedly caught year in year out. The idea you seem to have is that this is unacceptable (cruel?) is misunderstood. A long length of rope helps keep the fish in contact with the angler whilst it recovers from a fight. An immediate return might kill it. After a hard fight some of these big fish can just go belly up unless they are given a little care for a few hours after capture and a rope is a proven good way of doing that - better than a keep net or sack anyway.
We don't have a problem sticking hooks in them either

---------- Post added at 23:26 ---------- Previous post was at 23:22 ----------

if you were the only one, you could paddle dowm our bit of river and i would join you....but sadly that is not the case.

Agreed Jason. If it was only the odd guy every few hours I doubt anyone would even comment on it. But it's not, is it. It's dozens and dozens of the damn things all day long. Give them and inch etc...

 

[nicepix]

Geoff, You have only to see the situation on the Welsh rivers to understand why charging canoeists will not work. There are those who have paid their licence monies and act responsibly. Then there are those who simply buy a play boat and along with their mates and all their kids, descend upon some river with no navigation rights and with no thought to laws or nuisance caused. They just park up near a bridge put their canoes in the water and do whatever they want.

In many ways this topic is mirrored in the off road motorcycling problem. It is the ones who act illegally who spoil it for others and unfortunately if you encourage canoeists by offering them some more navigation rights in return for licence monies then you have to accept that it will also encourage more of the unlawful element.

There are other factors at play here too. I used to have a seagoing fishing kayak. In the UK virtually any inland water I wanted to use it on entailed buying a permit and having insurance. To use it on my local council owned lake where there are hire craft and fishing tickets would have cost me more in fees than the total cost of a 200 mile round trip to the coast. There are plenty of waters where canoeists are welcome, but at an unreasonable price. If those waters were opened up by making the fees more reasonable a lot of the pressure to paddle vulnerable rivers would be reduced and many family canoeists would be able to practice their sport in safer environments.

 

[david perry]

Geoff

Re the Catfish. I could have been wrong, but I thought these fish were left unattended. There were a couple of anglers further away, but these fish (about four or five) were tied up close to the bridge where anglers had accessed the river. My assumption which could be wrong - (my 9 year old grandson was doing the English/Spanish translation) was that they were left there by the anglers as 'trophies'

I accept that the passing of canoes, kayaks, drunks and rogue father christmases etc, do disturb fish especially in small waterways. I was really asking whether there is any particular issues between anglers and canoeists in other european countries. Thats all.

Santa Claus came down the chimney fine. Mind you he has a freedom to do this only on the one day only. Couldn't do with clearing up the mess every day of the week if he made it a daily visit.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Santa Claus came down the chimney fine. Mind you he has a freedom to do this only on the one day only.

Perhaps that's the compromise we are looking for with canoeists then, canoe anywhere you like but ONLY ON CHRISTMAS DAY!

Settled...

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Perhaps that's the compromise we are looking for with canoeists then, canoe anywhere you like but ONLY ON CHRISTMAS DAY!

Settled...

I always thought of you as a quitter Jeff.

I'd prefer February 29th to be the North of England Canoe Access Day . . . . . and they can come and paddle on my bit of the Hampshire Avon every time there is a sighting of Halley's comet . . . LOL

[insert huge great daft smiley thing > > > > > > HERE in case anyone thinks I'm being serious - or am I? ]

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I'd prefer February 29th to be the North of England Canoe Access Day . . . . . and they can come and paddle on my bit of the Hampshire Avon every time there is a sighting of Halley's comet . . . LOL

Alright then, since we haven't yet voted that's the first amendment, but if I may make a second amendment (which takes precedence) Not Halley's comet, but Hale-Bopp comet as this can be seen much more clearly.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

but if I may make a second amendment (which takes precedence) Not Halley's comet, but Hale-Bopp comet as this can be seen much more clearly.

Well, you know, if they miss it, then they miss it for another 75 to 76 years . . . . . . . tough really, but then again, who really cares?

[please add another huge daft smiley thing > > > > HERE ]

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Yes, but Hale-Bopp comes round only every 2,500 years, which is better from the angler's perspective?

 

[barbelboi]

What about the on day after a Mayan EOTW prophecy being accurately forecast.:wh
Jerry

 

[geoffmaynard]

Re the Catfish. I could have been wrong, but I thought these fish were left unattended. There were a couple of anglers further away, but these fish (about four or five) were tied up close to the bridge where anglers had accessed the river. My assumption which could be wrong - (my 9 year old grandson was doing the English/Spanish translation) was that they were left there by the anglers as 'trophies'

It could be that was where the deepest marginal water was to restrain them. Its not a good idea to leave fish roped like this in shallow water due to the lack of oxygen, especially in Spain where the water can get very warm in the margins. It's also possible that they were being kept for a collective trophy photo - not something many UK anglers would agree with but some countries anglers would have no problem with this; nor with the idea of roping them to keep them fresh before killing them and taking them home for the pot, which is also a possibility if the anglers were from central or eastern Europe.
As for issues with canoeists/anglers in Europe, I have no first hand experience here but I imagine they suffer the same as we do in the UK. I do have experience of BC, Canada where canoeists have ruined my flyfishing sessions and where shouting matches between the two groups were not uncommon.
So the anglers don't 'manage' David, they suffer. Only in the UK are the anglers protected from canoe activity by law - and I think it's only going to be a short while before those laws start getting enforced. I hope so anyway.

 

[waterways]

The fundamental issue confronting both anglers and canoeists right now is that canoeists are going to continue to paddle in accordance with their opinion of the law. No amount of discussion here is going to change this. It is going to grow and grow and get more and more publicity.

Windy suggested that the law could be used to bring bankruptcy to both canoeists and those who support them. My problem is I didn't understand what he said or how it would happen. I still think that, no matter what legal action is taken, the penalty for canoeist is virtually nothing, because he does no damage. The worst that could happen is that he would receive an injunction to stop him paddling on that piece of the river again.It wouldn't affect other rivers or other paddlers. I know the police are not interested and no crime is committed.

So on a practical level, canoeists can canoe where they like...

This is of course a bad state of affairs because this conflict which just go on and on... But no one is suggesting a practical way to overcome the problem... Apart from insisting on something that will never happen, like canoeists stop believing their interpretation of the law, or anglers doing the same.