The paddlers have it

[Badlad]

Some interesting parallels to caving but the conflict is on a much higher level.

https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/news/2018/british-canoeing-launches-access-and-environment-charter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=LYWKGf6L-5k

[mikem]

& has been ongoing since at least the 1980s (download of a document from 21 years ago):
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.outdoorrecreation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CRN-WORKSHOP-1997-ACCESS-TO-WATER.compressed.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjuvJCnpobfAhUyThUIHU1uAJ44ChAWMAF6BAgHEAE&usg=AOvVaw3y3YqXehO1XzXvjTGpeSPf

Mike

[SamT]

I suspect they're up against some massively powerful/influential/rich landowners.

I doubt the top 10% percent want the plebs rowing up and down the rivers that run through their gardens estates

[idriswilliams]

Perhaps their document should provide a framework for BCA to formulate a policy on access to caves on Crow open access land.
Idris Williams

[Ed]

Perhaps their document should provide a framework for BCA to formulate a policy on access to caves on Crow open access land.
Idris Williams

Perhaps joint working with the aim of land access like Scotland?

[Tripod]

I have taken a look at the presentations accessed by the links here and I am appalled by them. Total misrepresentation of how virtuous canoeists are and anglers are not, about the (in reality very few), good works canoeists do, with no recognitions of anyone else and the work they do, for the environment, for youth and more. There is unimaginative use of buzz words and current health concerns, as if canoeing is the answer to everything. Let's address some facts - canoeists have demonstrated no wish to pay to use the waters in the same way as anglers do, to the Environment Agency, monies in part used towards the health and maintenance of rivers. Canoeists as a group have a history of refusing to negotiate with land owners and legitimate water users and of withdrawing from or ignoring agreements. They also have a record of disruptive and aggressive behaviour to others. Canoeists demand Rights that no-one else in the UK have - no-one has the right to go wherever they want and do as they like and certainly not at the inconvenience or expense of others. It is time to drop the "navigable" nonsense - what by, poo-sticks? It matters not if my local river was declared navigable by the Romans or King whoever hundreds of years ago as it is not the same river now and, as a single example, harnessing its power in the Industrial Revolution put paid to navigation. Laws become obsolete, they fall out of use and stop being Laws without the need to be repealed. The efforts made by and on behalf canoeists in this direction have been proved, in Law, to be a invalid. It is way past time that canoeists accepted that they live where they live and the reality of this; this is not a wilderness but an overcrowded island, every inch of which is owned by someone. They need to learn that they should negotiate, not demand, as this is the way progress is made. I believe that cavers should take no notice of the example canoeists are making and should continue with the well thought out and responsible route the majority take. If my views above sound totally biased I can add that when my Partner, who knew my feelings about the nuisance canoeists, first visited my home she looked down the garden and said "what's that?". "My canoe" I answered. Yes, I have been there and know the pleasures, enjoyed legally but illegally, inconsiderately and wrong too. I know better now.         

[MJenkinson]

Canoeists demand Rights that no-one else in the UK have     

Fairly sure that rivers are open access in Scotland.

[thomasr]

Things are a little different for Scotland in law, and a little more mutual respect i guess paddlers keeping clear of the tay in salmon fishing season. However their is much more waterway per user so it can be difficult to compare the 2 nations on a like for like basis

[Tripod]

There have been problems in Scotland, between anglers, rafters and paddlers, all wishing to use the same water at the same time. I hope that these have now been resolved. Commercial interest come into play here, with fishing being expensive and rafting companies wishing to make a profit. Rafting companies can be a menace, outside Scotland, using waters they have no right to be using, disrupting the legitimate and paid for pursuits of others, making money and giving nothing back.

[mikem]

However, they definitely aren't to blame for the parlous state of fish stocks:
https://www.speycaster.co.uk/single-post/2018/05/06/Salmon-Fishery-Owners-Take-Heed

& how come anglers & canoeists manage to coexist in USA, New Zealand & western Europe..?

[SamT]

& how come anglers & canoeists manage to coexist in USA, New Zealand & western Europe..?

Because their much much much much much bigger countries, with generally much much much much much more space for everyone to share ???

[mikem]

Interesting map showing countries rescaled by population size: https://kottke.org/18/09/a-map-of-the-world-where-the-sizes-of-countries-are-determined-by-population

[Cap'n Chris]

There have been problems in Scotland, between anglers, rafters and paddlers, all wishing to use the same water at the same time. I hope that these have now been resolved. Commercial interest come into play here, with fishing being expensive and rafting companies wishing to make a profit. Rafting companies can be a menace, outside Scotland, using waters they have no right to be using, disrupting the legitimate and paid for pursuits of others, making money and giving nothing back.

It is normal for companies (by definition) to seek a profit; without it they cease to exist. The comment regarding companies having no right to use waters seems odd, especially if paddlers and other users are allowed - are they effectively not the same thing? As for the comment regarding giving nothing back that seems pretty hostile - rafting companies might well be the principle source of converts to paddling/rafting who subsequently buy their own gear and take up the pursuit, spending money and becoming patrons for accommodation, food etc.. To seek to separate professional/commercial interests away from amateurs is an old cliche, particularly beloved of the caving world, but the sooner such a mindset dies out, the better, imo.

[mikem]

The companies referred to are operating on disputed waters, nothing to do with professional v amateur, but more to do with the arguments that brought in open access land.

At the moment there is nothing clear cut about access ALONG rivers being legal or illegal in England & Wales. Many ancient mills had to remove, or have sluices in, their weirs, so boats could pass through. Nowadays the land registry are recording ownership to the edges of the river, unless deeds show the centre as being the boundary. Access TO the river is a different matter & is covered by trespass laws.

[Tripod]

I read the last post and thought initially that I was basically in agreement with it. However, on reading it through again I find that more explanation is required. Acknowledging that mikem might have examples I do not know of I would offer the following:
Regarding "disputed waters" those disputes on waters I know of come by way of some people wishing to use waterways that they have no right or entitlement to use.
The only "ancient mills" I know of can be found on old maps and have long ceased to exist. I do know Mills dating back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution but would not describe these as "ancient". I know of no Mills which have had to remove their weirs or had sluices put in them "so boats could pass through". Sluices are fitted to Mill weirs to adjust water height, holding water back for power or releasing it in times of flood. Removing weirs and opening sluices would lower water height, which would restrict navigation. Boats do not pass through sluices. Boats pass through locks in order to negotiate weirs. My local river had Mills at every town and village along it and except for reasons of flood prevention all are intact. This river flows into another that has had weirs built to enable boats to use it. If we were to pursue a weirs discussion further how do gauging weirs stand in this argument? Where has this weirs and sluices argument come from?
The issue of the legality of access along rivers is interesting, returns us to basic access issues and but also has a hint of the spurious "no-one owns the water" argument. The Land Registry note, is also interesting and if correct would surely require an major change in the Law in this country?   

[thomasr]

All very interesting and food for thought.  Then,  when a river decides to change its course,  where do boundaries lie ? 

[Ed]

Much of Magna Carta was concerned with things like the removal of fish weirs to allow navigation

[Greg Jones]

Canoeists need to negotiate?
Canoeists have been negotiating all of my life, and it has got them nowhere. Negotiating with anglers is evn more difficult than negotiating with the EU. They have no reason to give an inch, so they don't.
So Mr Tripod, you can shove you well-meant words where the sun don't shine thank-you very much. I have listened to the sort of shite that you spout all my life, and I am sick to death of it.
Don't bother responding, because I have absolutely no interest in reading anymore of your crap.
Canoeists, wild-swimmers, and other water users need more access to our rivers and lakes; and it will take legislation to get it. I hope that day comes soon.

[droid]

Anglers pay serious money for fishing rights.

Canoeists pay sod all.

Mind, them and 'wild swimmers' generally bugger off when a well aimed 2oz swimfeeder lands next to them....

[grahams]

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.

[paul]

Canoeists need to negotiate?
Canoeists have been negotiating all of my life, and it has got them nowhere. Negotiating with anglers is evn more difficult than negotiating with the EU. They have no reason to give an inch, so they don't.
So Mr Tripod, you can shove you well-meant words where the sun don't shine thank-you very much. I have listened to the sort of shite that you spout all my life, and I am sick to death of it.
Don't bother responding, because I have absolutely no interest in reading anymore of your crap.
Canoeists, wild-swimmers, and other water users need more access to our rivers and lakes; and it will take legislation to get it. I hope that day comes soon.

Global Moderator Comment

As with any topic discussed on this Forum, all can express their opinions whether you agree with them or not. Please refrain from personal bickering.

[droid]

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.

[mrodoc]

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]

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.

[mikem]

Apart from the lines you find hanging in trees...