I still think that anglers have a strong case when negotiating with landowners. We are far more "Regular" customers than the paddlers or wild swimmers being on the river many more weeks per year than the ephemeral paddlers and swimmers.
We provide a more regular income to the riparian owners who, if given the choice between one or the other, would probably agree to restrict the paddlers etc., in favour of the anglers.
It would help greatly if the Angling Trust used some of their influence as well to sipport the angler's case.
Whilst doing some research prompted by this topic and meeting 3 paddle boarders on the Ouse above Kempston (ie. Non navigable) google found a link the the Angling Trust’s legal opinion (from I think 2017) that the canoe lobby doesn’t have a leg to stand on ... so I don’t think they are silent. Sadly the link was broken (404 error) as the AT have just updated their website and it’s not yet completed (don’t tell me you haven’t noticed?).
anyway - after said (Brief) research I noted:
1. From a legal perspective any ”craft” from a board to a powerboat is covered by the navigation law (albeit vague and disputed). Most of the available info is in relation the canoes. I didn’t find anything on swimming as a form of navigation, but there was a lot about ‘rights of way’ which would I suppose include.
2. an interesting if verbose paper on the historical context and some international comparison
Rivers have historically been spaces of recreation, in addition to work, trade, and sustenance. Today, multiple groups (anglers, canoeists, rowers, swimmers) vie for the recreational use of rivers in Britain. But, this paper argues, legal definitions of rights of use have not kept up with the...
link.springer.com
3. that British Canoeing and other bodies websites simultaneously state
a) there’s a pretty limited set of navigable waterways that you’re allowed to use (“Of the 42,700 miles of inland waterways in England, only 1,400 miles can be paddled”)
b) they believe the law is wrong and there should be “access for all” ... with no recommendation to avoid non-navigable.
My experience
- in many years of fishing I’ve only very rarely had a swim ruined by paddlers etc, and most of that was due to inconsiderate behaviour rather than the presence of craft passing through
- i suspect the effect is worse on clear and shallow rivers, although I’ve not observed that myself.
- the nuisance is exacerbated by volume and frequency of disturbance (as per the OP). The Grand Union Canal became intolerable in the summer due to the number of leisure barges passing through. Equally a canoe regatta or constant capsize drills in your peg will ruin the day. My own worst experiences are on venues with rowing clubs on training days where you get all the boats and also the coaches launch (Shrewsbury and Hereford)
- As the OP says, the easier option is to abandon the venue if it becomes intolerable ... at least during summer holidays!
I wonder whether angling’s best course of action is to actually support the calls for access to all inland waterways? Thereby diluting the paddlers per linear mile so they aflict more waters, but less intensely?
in the end, the migration of match and pleasure anglers to commercial pools in the 90s has created a vacuum.
I suspect many of The people involved have no knowledge or interest in the legal situation ... I canoed on the upper Ouse as a teenager blissfully unaware of the rights of navigation.
