The paddlers have it

thomasr

New member
not a theory Tony just a little obsevation.  Some unkind people might say  caving is a passtime for the elderly  :LOL:
 

Tripod

Member
There are still access issues relating to Derbyshire rivers generally and the Matlock area. There is no access to Derbyshire rivers except for the Matlock Bath Slalom course and the section of the Trent that is classified as navigable. Some canoeists disregard the current situation, even when it is stated on their own websites (or was last time I looked). I will not comment further as this is very much an active issue but will only add that I hope it will be the responsible canoeist who succeed and not the other type mentioned here. It is unfortunate that, as with most things, they all get "tarred with the same brush" though.
The Slalom course near Nottingham bypasses Holme Sluice and ironically canoeists might have to thank an angler, at least in part, for that development. Holme Sluice has a fish pass but this was kept closed to prevent it being blocked by debris. An angler in the !970s raised the issue of the then Severn Trent Water Authority acting illegally in preventing the passage of migratory fish. He might even have threatened court action at the time. When the Slalom course was opened Severn Trent offered a prize for the first photograph of a Salmon passing through what was also a new fish pass.
I suppose that if we are talking about competition at international level we should mention England's performances in angling at World Championship level, and in several different angling disciplines.
I like the definition of a sport, which opens up more possibilities in other fields, some even literally when I think of agriculture based competitions. 
 

darren

Member
darren said:
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.


I think Tripod probably falls into the "other parties disagree" category.
 

mikem

Well-known member
Holme pierrepont has lost a lot of it's paddlers to the Lee valley Olympic course & the water quality is still much more suspect (Trent trots being a regular complaint), but we also have world class slalom & sprint paddlers.

Mike
 

grahams

Well-known member
droid said:
grahams said:
Anglers pay serious money for fishing rights.

And so they should. Anglers take fish out of the river, harm the fish stock and cause serious amounts of pollution that is a danger to wildlife - lost hooks, floats and lead weights. Canoeists cause no pollution and do no harm.

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.

When I go down to my local river I see trees festooned with broken line, hooks, floats and weights. No doubt the situation is just as bad below water. I also see canoeists quietly enjoying themselves and doing no harm. Given the harm done to wildlife which is caused by angling, I little live and let live might be in order.
 

droid

Active member
grahams said:
When I go down to my local river I see trees festooned with broken line, hooks, floats and weights. No doubt the situation is just as bad below water. I also see canoeists quietly enjoying themselves and doing no harm. Given the harm done to wildlife which is caused by angling, I little live and let live might be in order.

Whether the situation underwater is the same as above water will depend on the 'snagginess' of the river bed. The two aren't related.

I agree that a bit of 'live and let live' is in order: I don't think paddlers are a major problem on most rivers.

I simply think it's a good idea to *understand* the details of the hobby/sport you criticise.
 

Tripod

Member
As for "others disagree" I sort of fall into both camps, having enjoyed being in, on and alongside rivers for all of my life. I can see where conflict arises and how very easily it does. Maybe I have some idea how matters might be eased, if possibly not fully resolved. I have no time for inconsiderate, discourteous or dishonest people or any who think they can shout and bully their way to getting what they want.
From the posts here it is clear that there is a huge amount of ignorance and misunderstanding between participants of the sports of angling and canoeing. It also looks as though no attempt has been made or is being made to bridge this knowledge gap, claims and accusations taking priority over gaining understanding.
Some very interesting information here; "Trent trots" is worrying when we are assured of good water quality. Not all that long ago the Trent was said to be too clean to sustain a reasonable head of fish - which of course was total nonsense.
Another thought - there are closed seasons for fishing and an angling club in my area bans wading during the spawning times for fish, with published lists of when these are for different species. There are precautions to take to prevent the spread of diseases between waters. Would canoeists observe similar limitations?
A part of what makes the "bottom line" and it has to be more complicated than this, is that it is not possible for everyone to do what they want in the same limited space at the same time.   
 

mikem

Well-known member
British canoeing have published advice to avoid spawning areas & clean kit between rivers for several years:
https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/go-canoeing/access-and-environment/environment-good-practice

Mike
 

Tripod

Member
Thanks for pointing that out Mikem - it is very much a step in the right direction. With regard to cleaning/disinfecting kit it is worth remembering that the population of White Clawed Crayfish in the River Manifold was wiped out by Crayfish Plague, without Signal Crayfish, which carry this disease, being present. It is believed that transmission was by way of angler's wet kit or swimmers/paddlers (the ones on foot, not in boats!) clothing.
By chance, yesterday, I was reading an article published last year regarding the situation in Scotland. This article was mainly concerned with wild camping and the mess, including abandoned cheap tents, left for others to clear up. There was also mention of provision - huts and seats, paid for and put in place for one group being used as if they were public property. A quote appeared in the article, which also appears in the Scottish legislation, "respect for the interests of other people". That really has to be the "bottom line" and there will be lot of work ahead to achieve this. 
 
Top