The paddlers have it
- Thread starter Badlad
- Start date
droid
Active member
grahams said:
Coarse anglers catch and release. Most use barbless hooks and rigs that prevent fish towing gear around in case of line breakage. Incidents of pollution are often notified first by anglers, and there are many more anglers than paddlers.
Lead shot (except microshot) has been banned for decades, so I'm not sure where the 'serious amounts of pollution' come from. Don't confuse commercial stillwaters with the sort of places paddlers will be interested in.
Anglers also pay for rod licenses, the money from which goes to waterway management.
Get your facts right, please.
mrodoc
Well-known member
As I don't do much canoeing I cannot really comment much on the issues but as in most sports there is a spectrum between responsible individuals and complete prats. I have dived for many years at a site near Torquay, on the coast, called Hope's Nose. This is very popular with anglers. Few, if any, give any thought to what their lost lines weights kit etc is doing underwater. I finally got a clean up team going a couple of years ago and we have pulled up over a hundred kilos of lead so far and probably a similar weight in fishing line which is non biodegradable. It traps seabirds and crustacea. So in my book anglers need to think a bit about how they go about their activities (a lot leave their disused bait bags etc all over beaches as well as anybody who has done a beach clean up will confirm). Paddling about in a boat seems a pretty innocent activity unless you start molesting nesting birds.
droid
Active member
When I lived in the North East, I never bought sea weights, just wandered round the rocky bits of Whitley Bay at low tide and scavenged them.
River fishing (where I guess the most paddlers are) is a bit different. Gear is rarely lost.
it's a good point you make RE the good to bad spectrum: people I've fished with wouldn't hesitate to 'educate' anyone behaving badly.
River fishing (where I guess the most paddlers are) is a bit different. Gear is rarely lost.
it's a good point you make RE the good to bad spectrum: people I've fished with wouldn't hesitate to 'educate' anyone behaving badly.
As a regular sea diver, the fishing industry needs to sort itself... The amount of crap left in the sea by these people from plastic crates, ropes, net, line, weights, hooks, etc. seems to be the greatest level of crap around our wrecks and a hell of a lot washed up on coastlands. Plus things like the damage from scallop dredging....mrodoc said:
Yes, we certainly have found something to "get our knickers in a twist about" though it has some serious relevance to caving and wider issues regarding the use and enjoyment of the countryside generally. Some serious misunderstandings of what others do and do not do showing here and I wonder how they can be resolved?
The canoeists are in a weak position when it comes to negotiation as they wish to change the law of the land and also find themselves in opposition to those with legitimate rights to use what they are seeking. Angling organisations pay a lot of money to buy or rent fishing rights and land. The individual angler pays for his/her Environment Agency license and a further sum to the angling organisation he/she belongs to or land/fishery owner. With these it is likely that the individual will have paid at the very least a three-figure sum just to be able to stand on the water's edge. The organisations and the individuals are unlikely to be favourably disposed to anyone who wishes to use what they have paid for free and further, where this happens, fails to take a responsible approach to this issue. This is reality and as for legislation it is already in place but does not suit everyone. As for the discussion on this forum it was basically civilised and informative and it is regrettable that one individual did not join it except to throw insults.
The canoeists are in a weak position when it comes to negotiation as they wish to change the law of the land and also find themselves in opposition to those with legitimate rights to use what they are seeking. Angling organisations pay a lot of money to buy or rent fishing rights and land. The individual angler pays for his/her Environment Agency license and a further sum to the angling organisation he/she belongs to or land/fishery owner. With these it is likely that the individual will have paid at the very least a three-figure sum just to be able to stand on the water's edge. The organisations and the individuals are unlikely to be favourably disposed to anyone who wishes to use what they have paid for free and further, where this happens, fails to take a responsible approach to this issue. This is reality and as for legislation it is already in place but does not suit everyone. As for the discussion on this forum it was basically civilised and informative and it is regrettable that one individual did not join it except to throw insults.
droid
Active member
mikem said:
But in reverse.
Kinder was a mass movement (ramblers) versus a minority (grouse shooting)
Rivers is a mass movement (anglers) versus a minority (paddlers).
Now I'm perfectly happy to share rivers with paddlers, as long as they keep out of my way and/or hold station while I get my line in.
But to be fair, I can't recall ever seeing a paddler on the rivers I've fished.
darren
Member
I'm sure all those giving there views on this have read the documents mentioned in the OP.
They will therefore be well aware of the statement on page 2 of the access document that says
"Access on English
waterways has been
disputed for more than 60
years. British Canoeing
believes there is a strong
case to demonstrate
an existing right to
navigation on rivers,
other parties disagree."
So what we have appears to be very similar to CROW. Two sides who believe opposite things. The only way to sort it will be when someone gets taken to court. People can believe what they want and post what they want. Doesn't mean anything till a court decides.
British Caneoing seem to be getting there ducks in a row before moving to the next stage.
They will therefore be well aware of the statement on page 2 of the access document that says
"Access on English
waterways has been
disputed for more than 60
years. British Canoeing
believes there is a strong
case to demonstrate
an existing right to
navigation on rivers,
other parties disagree."
So what we have appears to be very similar to CROW. Two sides who believe opposite things. The only way to sort it will be when someone gets taken to court. People can believe what they want and post what they want. Doesn't mean anything till a court decides.
British Caneoing seem to be getting there ducks in a row before moving to the next stage.
Without going onto the rights and wrongs of this, it is worth noting that some years ago (1970's and 1980's I think), this actually ended up with court cases re. the canoeists and anglers in Matlock Bath. There had been punches thrown, lines allegedly cut by canoeists, and certainly one angler deliberately trod on the deck of a canoe and wrecked it. The canoeists had a slalom course on the river, one of the few places where a river in Derbyshire was suitable, but it was also a favourite fishing spot and the anglers were bitterly antagonistic. The anglers tried to prevent canoeists parking in the riverside car parks and it all got really nasty and the dispute regularly made the local press for several years
The East Midlands Sports Council became involved at the time and tried to mediate but without any apparent success. However it has been quiet for many years now and the issue hasn't made the local papers since pre-2000. I did wonder if this had anything to do with the setting up of an artificial canoe slalom course at Holme Pierrepont in Nottingham around the same time as the aggro in Matlock seems to have died out - it gave the canoeists an international standard variable slalom course to play on and a very considerable amount of money was spent on developing the facility by the Sports Council.
However, this only satisfies the specialists and keen competition canoeists who have to pay to use the Holme Pierrepont facility. Maybe people who simply wanted to paddle down the river were put off and don't bother with Matlock any more.
Having canoed down the River Wye a few times with no problems whatsoever, it seems to be one of the few rivers in England which is both suitable for canoeing and must have a right of navigation and is also a fishing river where the fisherman have to co-exist with the canoeists. It's also the border between England and Wales for a good part of its length where it is suitable for canoeing. It's regularly used for commercial canoeing holidays with standard camp sites along the banks but this only seems to apply downstream from Hay-on-Wye and it is a pretty wide river for most of this lower length so easy to avoid bank-side fishermen.
Some rivers do have a right of navigation but they are the larger rivers, such as the Thames, the Trent and also, of course, places like the Norfolk Broads, where there are also fishermen but they seem to co-exist OK with canoeists.
Whilst I have every sympathy with canoeists, I'd be wary of siding with anyone in this dispute because so much of it is about money spent on fishing rights and the huge income potential for landowners with suitable fishing rivers on their land. The canoeists are going up against big money here.
The East Midlands Sports Council became involved at the time and tried to mediate but without any apparent success. However it has been quiet for many years now and the issue hasn't made the local papers since pre-2000. I did wonder if this had anything to do with the setting up of an artificial canoe slalom course at Holme Pierrepont in Nottingham around the same time as the aggro in Matlock seems to have died out - it gave the canoeists an international standard variable slalom course to play on and a very considerable amount of money was spent on developing the facility by the Sports Council.
However, this only satisfies the specialists and keen competition canoeists who have to pay to use the Holme Pierrepont facility. Maybe people who simply wanted to paddle down the river were put off and don't bother with Matlock any more.
Having canoed down the River Wye a few times with no problems whatsoever, it seems to be one of the few rivers in England which is both suitable for canoeing and must have a right of navigation and is also a fishing river where the fisherman have to co-exist with the canoeists. It's also the border between England and Wales for a good part of its length where it is suitable for canoeing. It's regularly used for commercial canoeing holidays with standard camp sites along the banks but this only seems to apply downstream from Hay-on-Wye and it is a pretty wide river for most of this lower length so easy to avoid bank-side fishermen.
Some rivers do have a right of navigation but they are the larger rivers, such as the Thames, the Trent and also, of course, places like the Norfolk Broads, where there are also fishermen but they seem to co-exist OK with canoeists.
Whilst I have every sympathy with canoeists, I'd be wary of siding with anyone in this dispute because so much of it is about money spent on fishing rights and the huge income potential for landowners with suitable fishing rivers on their land. The canoeists are going up against big money here.
Don't forget that canoeing is an Olympic sport so there are possible gold medals to be had - in fact, as I recall, GB has won some in recent Olympics. That should put the Sports Council on their side!
No gold medals for caving though, which is why some uni. clubs lost their funding a few years ago when the powers that be felt they shouldn't be spending the taxpayers hard earned money on "so-called sports" which are not competitive and have no chance of winning gold medals in international competitions. Sad really ...
No gold medals for caving though, which is why some uni. clubs lost their funding a few years ago when the powers that be felt they shouldn't be spending the taxpayers hard earned money on "so-called sports" which are not competitive and have no chance of winning gold medals in international competitions. Sad really ...
tony from suffolk
Well-known member
Well, Usain Bolt is a very keen angler, so that's your theory blown out of the water!thomasr said:
mrodoc
Well-known member
Caving is not really a sport. I always find it difficult to classify when talking to others about it and tend to describe it as exploration. We call it a sport because it gets us recognized. It is an activity with a purpose. In it's purest form it is exploration using a variety of techniques. Climbing is a sport. .You can virtually always get to the top without all that effort so there is a skill element in making it hard. Some people like to turn caving into a sport by seeing how fast they can do a trip etc etc and of course techniques such as SRT can be converted into competitive sports but caves should not be regarded as sports grounds. I have the backing of the the OED by the way:
"An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment". Caving is not and shouldn't be compretitive. OK somebody is going to bring up the digging trophy but I haven't seen anyone define digging for caves as sport - yet!
"An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment". Caving is not and shouldn't be compretitive. OK somebody is going to bring up the digging trophy but I haven't seen anyone define digging for caves as sport - yet!
