Canoeing the facts, U.K.

dorsetsteve

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
311
Reaction score
174
I listened to the first half of that before arriving at my destination, must finish it off. Seemed relatively interesting. His programs are often interesting and he’s done a few on aspects that relate to us such as river pollution.
 

rayner

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
4,333
Reaction score
1,520
Location
South Yorkshire.
I tried to listen, turned it off the chap is too boring to engage me.
I think we anglers believe that rivers are solely for our benefit. We have to learn to share.
 

sam vimes

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
11,775
Reaction score
1,250
Location
North Yorkshire.
I tried to listen, turned it off the chap is too boring to engage me.
I think we anglers believe that rivers are solely for our benefit. We have to learn to share.
You should have kept listening. Even the two canoeists discussing it agreed that the current legal situation did not allow them to go wherever they liked. We don't have to share a thing, not while anglers pay good money to own or lease waters. If canoeists are prepared to pay for their priveledges, or anglers no longer have to pay for theirs, then we will have to learn to share. Until then, they can take a running jump, except on waters with genuine and pre-existing rights of navigation.
 

rayner

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
4,333
Reaction score
1,520
Location
South Yorkshire.
I have nothing to counteract your argument, I do think we as anglers should be a little more tolerant of others use of rivers. I just can not get away from my feeling that anglers are wholeheartedly against other users.
 

sam vimes

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
11,775
Reaction score
1,250
Location
North Yorkshire.
I have nothing to counteract your argument, I do think we as anglers should be a little more tolerant of others use of rivers. I just can not get away from my feeling that anglers are wholeheartedly against other users.
As a stillwater angler, are you prepared to apply the same principles to the stillwaters you frequent? Will you be happy with kids in inflatable dinghies, canoeists, windsurfers etc, turning up and splashing about regardless of your presence? If the answer is no, then you are being rather hypocritical. If canoeists are allowed to go where they want and do what they want on rivers, then there's no reason for them not to be allowed the same access to every stillwater in the land. I have my doubts that you'll be quite so willing to share on that basis.
 

rayner

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
4,333
Reaction score
1,520
Location
South Yorkshire.
Normally owners of the still waters I fish would not allow other water users on their waters. I know that is a bit of a get out for me.
If I was back fishing rivers I would I'm sure not be so against other users. When I did come across anyone canoeing on the rivers I fished they were not that many. They soon passed and the fishing was not so much affected as I remember, fish soon settled. It appeared pointless getting upset.
Besides, there was nothing I could have done to stop them apart from grunt and growl.
 

dorsetsteve

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
311
Reaction score
174
I’m perfectly tolerant of other users, so long as their use is respectful and has been authorised.

As anglers we do not own the rivers and our access is not a right, we negotiate our access or clubs do on our behalf on a conditional acceptance of the terms and conditions of that access.

If watersport/water craft users wish to use the river then they should be engaging with the land owner, (that’s the law) as we do. They may find they get a lot further in getting more than the 5% of access or whatever it is, if they engaged as we do and put their hand in their pocket, as we do.

There is a difference between letting the neighbours kids play in your field and putting a public footpath through it, this is what these people need to grasp.
 

sam vimes

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
11,775
Reaction score
1,250
Location
North Yorkshire.
Normally owners of the still waters I fish would not allow other water users on their waters. I know that is a bit of a get out for me.
If I was back fishing rivers I would I'm sure not be so against other users. When I did come across anyone canoeing on the rivers I fished they were not that many. They soon passed and the fishing was not so much affected as I remember, fish soon settled. It appeared pointless getting upset.
Besides, there was nothing I could have done to stop them apart from grunt and growl.

So how is it ok for landowners to not allow other water users on stillwater, but it is on running water? There's no rational difference beyond the water flowing.

I don't tend to get overly upset with canoeists on running water. There is very little I can legally do to them other than get into a pointless discourse that they don't want to hear. I do my best to totally ignore the inconsiderate sods. However, I've actually got the odd gobful anyway. They get both barrels when that happens. However, none of that alters the fact that they are the ones in the wrong. They have invariably entered the water from private land without permission (at least on the rivers I'm fishing). They'll leave the water in the same way somewhere downstream. As they travel the water in between (unless there's a legal right of navigation) they need the permission of every single landowner/leaseholder as they go. As someone that knows plenty of river landowners and leaseholders, I know that this very rarely happens.
 

rayner

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
4,333
Reaction score
1,520
Location
South Yorkshire.
OK, Sam, we are getting nowhere we are just going backwards and forward. I concede. All other water users should now be kept off waters used for fishing. River usage is solely for the use of anglers, all unlicensed users need to be prosecuted.
 

sam vimes

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
11,775
Reaction score
1,250
Location
North Yorkshire.
OK, Sam, we are getting nowhere we are just going backwards and forward. I concede. All other water users should now be kept off waters used for fishing. River usage is solely for the use of anglers, all unlicensed users need to be prosecuted.

I'm not saying that it has to be solely for anglers. I'm saying that other users should either pay their way, as we do, or it's made a free for all. What you are effectively saying is that "I'm quite happy to share rivers because it has no impact on me". However, there's no logical reason that your desired free for all couldn't apply equally to every stillwater. Be careful what you wish for. The angling equivalence of what canoeists desire is that all waterways end up as free fishing. If and when that happens, I'll happily share water with canoeists.
 

grayson

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Messages
319
Reaction score
760
Location
North Yorkshire
I am also increasingly twitchy about the number of anglers I see boat fishing on two local rivers. It is navigable water, so boating is fine, but do they all have tickets for every length , each side of river they fish? Impractical and pointless to check but it does seem to be a free for all at times .
 

dorsetsteve

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
311
Reaction score
174

Molehill

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2017
Messages
870
Reaction score
520
Location
Mid Wales
In current climate of river sewage and pollution problems, we anglers should be standing beside all other river users to show a united front for water quality improvement. This means casting aside our many differences and working together, it will also require concessions from all parties that none of us have a sole right to the rivers.

Canoeists, boarders, swimmers do not bother me and I can fish around them (mainly), but I have always been critical that they do not contribute financially to the waterways or access to them. Perhaps this needs explaining to them because ultimately without clean water and life we all have nothing.
 

grayson

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Messages
319
Reaction score
760
Location
North Yorkshire
Anglers rarely contribute to the upkeep of waterways, but pay often nominal amounts to land owners for the right to fish. Complaining that a swimmer doesn't pay is like complaining that cyclists don't pay vehicle duty. Any amounts which are paid - by anglers or anyone else - usually end up in the owners' back pocket , rarely being recycled into environmental benefit . But , with those reservations . you are quite right - yet again the angling community doesn't have the public profile it should have because , with very few exceptions , anglers are apathetic . Other water users may be in the minority but they are making the running. Again..

If the price for healthier, cleaner rivers means legitimising other uses it may well be worth paying . Of course canoeists want free access - they can cover many miles a day and I struggle to argue (logically , rather than emotionally) , that a water based right to roam shouldn't co-exist with the terrestrial one . I find canoeists annoying ,and get cross at their repeated but mistaken assertion that they already have a right , but I can't muster a strong argument that they shouldn't enjoy our rivers .
 

mikench

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
19,940
Reaction score
7,128
Location
leafy cheshire
The actions of those paddle boarders and the consequences, whilst very sad , were idiotic. To attempt to paddle down a swollen and fast flowing river in flood by a means singularly unsuited to the task endangered their lives and others trying to rescue them. It also caused a great deal of stress and anxiety for the rescue services. Will others take heed; I doubt it.
 

steve2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
4,105
Reaction score
1,321
Location
on the move
The actions of those paddle boarders and the consequences, whilst very sad , were idiotic. To attempt to paddle down a swollen and fast flowing river in flood by a means singularly unsuited to the task endangered their lives and others trying to rescue them. It also caused a great deal of stress and anxiety for the rescue services. Will others take heed; I doubt it.
I understand there was a flood warning issued the day before so they chose to ignore those. Anglers are just as bad, many choose to fish flooded rivers and would expect others to rescue them. We also choose go out in all weather conditions that you wouldn't let your dog out in. But we keep on doing it.
 

nottskev

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
2,170
I'm off out shortly to fish a river with 2+'on and rising. The game remains the same, except I'll be fishing an area with with slacker water than usual and sitting higher up the bank. Is there anything you don't wag your finger, shake your head and grumble about?
 

markg

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
6,897
Reaction score
2,475
Location
South East England
I saw two just like that Mike, on a swollen river, a woman middle aged and the man quite elderly, came paddle boarding pass me into a very deserted river further up. The banks were high and full of vegetation so if they came off, nowhere to climb up on the bank and no one to rescue them. There is a picture of them on the HDYGO thread somewhere, the lady was dressed in pink trousers, the river was up about 5ft up, brown and dirty with boils and swirls all over it, absolutely mad. So, I am not surprised someone has drowned somewhere, it was going to happen.
As to canoes and other water users, if the problem is bad enough to stop me fishing effectively I don't go there, I had two places like that on my club but fortunately they have two other stretches canoe free that I like and for £40, just about worth it.
I don't mind them, where I came across it, mostly they were quite cheery and polite, there were people enjoying themselves, and they have every right to do that. I don't care if they don't pay for it, just happy that some people get something for free in this life and I wouldn't want to be the one personally to end their enjoyment by evoking some ancient law of right of way.
What I do think is that anglers and paddle boarders etc., where there is an issue between them should agree times or days that one or the other can be done so both parties can do their hobby without clashing. This wouldn't be practical everywhere but I think a lot of cases it would be if an agreement could be reached, or is it too late now to have any sort of amicable talk with these people, is that anglers fault? Generally they do seem to think they should take precedence over anything or anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Top