Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[tiinker]

Its that bit mate that does my head in , people express opinions all the time on all sorts of things they do not directly have experience of , have you experienced everything in life ? Have you been on a space shuttle ? But you could express an opinion on the cost of space exploration on a forum , in fact that analogy is less related to me in that I do actually fish.

To me it smacks of the usual forum technique , I don't agree with you , neither does tinker , so post any old b*****s to win the forum point.

I have tried to understand why you can't see my point and I have tried just as hard to understand yours , equally I can't so lets just disagree on this one issue as we have so much else in common on most of the other things that crop up on here ..... Tight lines mate.

It may be a forum point to you Benny but angling is a life blood to some of us you may only dabble in it but some of us live it maybe one day you will understand because you do not at this time that is for sure .

 

[Berty]

Its that bit mate that does my head in , people express opinions all the time on all sorts of things they do not directly have experience of , have you experienced everything in life ? Have you been on a space shuttle ? But you could express an opinion on the cost of space exploration on a forum , in fact that analogy is less related to me in that I do actually fish.

To me it smacks of the usual forum technique , I don't agree with you , neither does tinker , so post any old b*****s to win the forum point.

I have tried to understand why you can't see my point and I have tried just as hard to understand yours , equally I can't so lets just disagree on this one issue as we have so much else in common on most of the other things that crop up on here ..... Tight lines mate.

No i haven't been in a space shuttle Benny, VC10, Hercules, Lynx, Puma, Chinook, and civvy aircraft small and large ( first parachute jump was by stepping out onto the wing strut of a Cessna)

But that limited life experience would in no way qualify me to comment on space travel, but anyone who pays towards something via their taxes has the right to comment on it, what they don't have the right to do is to comment for those in the sharp end.

This "paddler" thing is VERY important to anglers who pay huge amounts to fish magical waters.....and they are the ones at the sharp end.

Sorry mate,thats how i see it.

 

[bennygesserit]

It may be a forum point to you Benny but angling is a life blood to some of us you may only dabble in it but some of us live it maybe one day you will understand because you do not at this time that is for sure .

Ha ha how pompous are you ? Try actually commenting on the subject instead o me mate , there is no " one day you may understand " for you the comcepts expressed seem to be just too difficult. I give up.

 

[tiinker]

Ha ha how pompous are you ? Try actually commenting on the subject instead o me mate , there is no " one day you may understand " for you the comcepts expressed seem to be just too difficult. I give up.

It my be pompous to you Benny but it is the truth and the truth hurts by the sound of your reply and I stick by it.

 

[waterways]

Waterways,

Or then again you could actually get together with some other paddlers and buy yourselves some river access. :wh

Nicepix
This is a question that is often asked. I will try to answer it. Recreational canoeists do not want a section of a river that they can canoe on repeatably. This is fine for racing canoeists who need somewhere to train and are happy to return to that spot week after week and do their training laps.

Recreational canoeists are like Ramblers who like to walk in many different places. I would not usually return to a river I had paddled more than say once per year. Exploring new rivers is part of the attraction.

Asking me to always paddle in the same spot would be liking asking a Rambler only ever to use one footpath or a touring cyclist only to cycle round a track.

 

[nicepix]

Nicepix
This is a question that is often asked. I will try to answer it. Recreational canoeists do not want a section of a river that they can canoe on repeatably. This is fine for racing canoeists who need somewhere to train and are happy to return to that spot week after week and do their training laps.

Recreational canoeists are like Ramblers who like to walk in many different places. I would not usually return to a river I had paddled more than say once per year. Exploring new rivers is part of the attraction.

Asking me to always paddle in the same spot would be liking asking a Rambler only ever to use one footpath or a touring cyclist only to cycle round a track.

I can solve your dilemma quite easily.

If enough canoeists bought enough stretches of river then you can all share your facilities with each other like golfers and anglers do.

I can buy a day ticket to fish a different water every day if I wished. Golfers can play on thousands of courses just by paying a green fee. No reason canoeists cannot work out a similar system.

 

[bennygesserit]

I can solve your dilemma quite easily.

If enough canoeists bought enough stretches of river then you can all share your facilities with each other like golfers and anglers do.

I can buy a day ticket to fish a different water every day if I wished. Golfers can play on thousands of courses just by paying a green fee. No reason canoeists cannot work out a similar system.

You know thats nonsense mate consecutive and continuous stretches of water are required , so it only needs one owner to disagree and th thing is scuppered.

Besides would you pay to walk i the Forest of Dean ? Its owned by the nation for the nation.

The Trust should worj with canoeists to move this situation , here is another idea allow canoeists to go anywhere provided they pay for a license.

 

[richiekelly]

You know thats nonsense mate consecutive and continuous stretches of water are required , so it only needs one owner to disagree and th thing is scuppered.

Besides would you pay to walk i the Forest of Dean ? Its owned by the nation for the nation.

The Trust should worj with canoeists to move this situation , here is another idea allow canoeists to go anywhere provided they pay for a license.[/QUOTE]





Benny that really is a daft thing to say, can you as an angler "go anywhere" because you have paid for your licence? no of course you cant, you need to pay to the club/ syndicate/land owner as well as your licence as you well know, truth is that canoeists want access to all rivers no matter what damage some will do to an anglers day(an angler that has paid for that day), they cannot or wont accept that they cannot legally "go anywhere" and continually say that its up to anglers to show that canoeists cannot "go anywhere", it is not, they do not have legal access to all rivers and it looks like that's how it will stay thank goodness.

 

[tiinker]

Buy yourself a canoe Benny then you can play both sides of the fencemg:

 

[nicepix]

You know thats nonsense mate consecutive and continuous stretches of water are required , so it only needs one owner to disagree and th thing is scuppered.

Besides would you pay to walk i the Forest of Dean ? Its owned by the nation for the nation.

The Trust should worj with canoeists to move this situation , here is another idea allow canoeists to go anywhere provided they pay for a license.

Do you pay to fish in the Forest of Dean? If so then you don't have the rights that you imagine. I can freely roam the Peak District National Park, but it costs money to fish the streams and lakes within it.

If they want long stretches then they had better have deep pockets. No different from angling clubs and associations. But you and I really know that they have no intention of actually paying a fair price for their sport. They want it for next to nothing, or nothing at.

 

[geoffmaynard]

The Trust should worj with canoeists to move this situation , here is another idea allow canoeists to go anywhere provided they pay for a license.

No fekkin' way! What are you trying to do? Destroy river fishing completely? That is the most stupid idea and anti-angling post anyone has ever made on this forum that I have ever seen.
The Queen owns everything. She allows people to walk in the Forest. She doesn't allow the public to walk in her Buck house gardens. Nor paddle on river stretches without permission. And for the same reason, they would trash it!

 

[bennygesserit]

Do you pay to fish in the Forest of Dean? If so then you don't have the rights that you imagine. I can freely roam the Peak District National Park, but it costs money to fish the streams and lakes within it.

If they want long stretches then they had better have deep pockets. No different from angling clubs and associations. But you and I really know that they have no intention of actually paying a fair price for their sport. They want it for next to nothing, or nothing at.

True but proposing that canoeists deal with every landowner consecutively on a piece of river is not practical , so proposing a continuance of VAAs is actually proposing no real movement on the issue at all.

As an angler I don't need the same contiguous piece of river to enjoy myself.

I am not proposing that this is given away for free , I am proposing its a way forwards, licensed canoeists displaying a license on their canoe that can be checked.

A ban on unlicensed canoeists might alleviate the saturation on places like the WYE , opening up the number of places one can canoe might dilute those canoeists across more rivers resulting in less disturbance for the individual angler.

Increased revenue would go to the EA.

having a license would mean adhering to rules like an angler does eg a commitment not to row in water below a certain depth.

makes sense to me.

 

[geoffmaynard]

I am not proposing that this is given away for free , I am proposing its a way forwards, licensed canoeists displaying a license on their canoe that can be checked.

And in contrast, that's a great idea - which has been proposed time and again

 

[sam vimes]

True but proposing that canoeists deal with every landowner consecutively on a piece of river is not practical , so proposing a continuance of VAAs is actually proposing no real movement on the issue at all.

As an angler I don't need the same contiguous piece of river to enjoy myself.

I am not proposing that this is given away for free , I am proposing its a way forwards, licensed canoeists displaying a license on their canoe that can be checked.

A ban on unlicensed canoeists might alleviate the saturation on places like the WYE , opening up the number of places one can canoe might dilute those canoeists across more rivers resulting in less disturbance for the individual angler.

Increased revenue would go to the EA.

That may or may not be the case, but it's got little to do with angling or the Angling Trust. Angling has little or nothing to gain from dialogue with canoeists. While it might have a vested interest in the outcome, it's the landowners that canoeist need to engage with. Angling only has an involvement as a party with an interest.
Angling may well influence the landowners, they'll certainly not be keen to see their asset potentially devalued by the presence of canoeists that will only give them a fraction of the income.

having a license would mean adhering to rules like an angler does eg a commitment not to row in water below a certain depth.

I'm no canoeist but that does not strike me as practical for them. I regularly fish the kind of river they love. They wouldn't get much more than a few hundred yards with such a rule in place. Riffles of a foot deep and less connect pools of a few feet in depth. A pool of five foot and above is only likely a couple of times in miles of river, and these pools aren't the bits canoeists really want to paddle.
I've a feeling that, as before, you have different types of rivers in mind to those that canoeists really want access to. I don't really mind a canoeist paddling in five foot plus of water, provided they just transit through and make an effort to avoid lines etc.

 

[richiekelly]

True but proposing that canoeists deal with every landowner consecutively on a piece of river is not practical , so proposing a continuance of VAAs is actually proposing no real movement on the issue at all.

As an angler I don't need the same contiguous piece of river to enjoy myself.

I am not proposing that this is given away for free , I am proposing its a way forwards, licensed canoeists displaying a license on their canoe that can be checked.

A ban on unlicensed canoeists might alleviate the saturation on places like the WYE , opening up the number of places one can canoe might dilute those canoeists across more rivers resulting in less disturbance for the individual angler.

Increased revenue would go to the EA.

having a license would mean adhering to rules like an angler does eg a commitment not to row in water below a certain depth.

makes sense to me.

You cannot be serious!!!

 

[jasonbean1]

benny.....despite you thinking your in the middle of the road..your totally wrong, you are deluded by self interest...bullied at an early age?..maybe?

but you are a ******...simple, after reading all your posts on this subject.

end of from me

 

[bennygesserit]

benny.....despite you thinking your in the middle of the road..your totally wrong, you are deluded by self interest...bullied at an early age?..maybe?

but you are a ******...simple, after reading all your posts on this subject.

end of from me

ha ha PMSL a keyboard warrior.

 

[richiekelly]

Benny, I don't know if you are just winding people up with some of your ideas about giving canoeists access on all rivers or if you really think the ideas that you have put forward would really work only you know the answer to that, fact is that you don't fish small clear rivers and have no idea of the effect that canoeists would have on an angler,i am not saying that you shouldn't have an opinion on this but how are your opinions formed without the knowledge/ experience of small rivers that is needed to have a balanced view or is your view that anyone should have access to everywhere.

 

[bennygesserit]

Benny, I don't know if you are just winding people up with some of your ideas about giving canoeists access on all rivers or if you really think the ideas that you have put forward would really work only you know the answer to that, fact is that you don't fish small clear rivers and have no idea of the effect that canoeists would have on an angler,i am not saying that you shouldn't have an opinion on this but how are your opinions formed without the knowledge/ experience of small rivers that is needed to have a balanced view or is your view that anyone should have access to everywhere.

Tbh I thought a designated depth would therefore preclude smaller shallow rivers , for the life of me I cannot understand why something that someone posts on a forum about fishing , which is a hobby , should provoke a reaction like Jason's. Its all got a bit silly really , but I know for a fact , absolute , that he wouldn't say it to my face, these keyboard warriors never will.

Probably this is why Fred gets cheesed off with the place sometimes.

Anyway seeing as its getting so silly I'll take a break , the private messages where getting up my nose a bit anyway, be back in a couple of months with lots of questions about fishing ... Tight lines.

 

[cg74]

ha ha PMSL a keyboard warrior.

Let me commend you Benny, you're a troll of the highest order.