Access Awareness April 2012

[Neil H]

Ahh yes thanks I missed that bit

So people be prepared to get out there in numbers sounds a good starting point. Nothing ever changed for nothing.
I am also in what the responsibilities of the riparian rights owners are - presumably maintaining the river etc? What happens if they don't live up to their rights. Pollution might be a good example, I can't imagine it's allowed to let pollution into the waterways either directly or indirectly i.e. if a farmer owns riparian rights on one or both banks and agrochemicals find their way into the water indirectly what is the repercussion
Keeping the waterway clear might be a simpler example

[James Hastings]

Seedy paddler, your comparison between Lea Valley and Yeo Valley is a totally erroneous one. The first is an artificial, purpose built, site that has cost someone money to build and run and thus the owners have every right to charge for its usage. The second is a natural river which should be part of the environmental heritage for all of us. We are not asking anyone to 'manage' our natural rivers for us, thus why should we pay to use them?

Once again, a kayaker has fallen into the trap of promoting the angling view, i.e. they pay to fish the river so we should pay to paddle it. However, much of the 'management' of natural rivers by the EA is done to facilitate fishing and as far as I am concerned, that is why they pay. In fact, we, as tax payers also pay for the 'management' of rivers for fishing. Even a cursory examination of EA accounts shows that the rod license does not cover the total cost of the EA's fisheries management, the remainder coming from government funding, i.e. our taxes.

Quite frankly, until we all start singing from the same hymn sheet and stop swallowing angling/landowners' propaganda, any rivers access campaign is doomed to failure. I'm not holding my breath!

As I said before, just get out and paddle.

James

[Seedy Paddler]

James you have missed the point and I have not fallen into a trap, apologies over Yeo Valley my intention was more to the whimsical ad campaigns than the actual valley. The key issue is as you state Anglers promote their payment and hence a requirement for anyone else using the river to pay. To attempt to host a protest on this at a venue that we pay for merely re-inforces the angling argument that we are short changing and seeking something for nothing.

Lea Valley has been developed with substantial amounts of public funding, as is the case at Cardiff; HPP; Teeside etc. In the main those facilities subsequently rely on public fuding to continue operations. Whether we (personally) ask or not all Landowners have a legal responsibility to maintain their property. The EA can and will prosecute landowners that do not look after the resource and Local Authorities can enforce repair where River erosion leads to damage to public roads at the expense of the river bank owner. Arguments on public funding are liable to be circuitious and merely re-inforce entrenched percepions.

When looking to protest it is key to understand the argument of the opposition and avoid situations that may be used to counter your argument. Hence the view that any demionstration should be on a Natural site where large scale access and publicity is possible. The big Ramblers protests used available public access to highlight the lack of access to the wider outdoors.

I do agree with free public access to the outdoors and fail to see why the Scottish Land Reform model cannot be applied throughout the UK. I also believe that the works of Rev Caffyn and others demonstrate a current and historical right of passage on inland waters in England and Wales under English Law. As we both conclude get out and paddle and exert your rights.

CD

[James Hastings]

I don't think I have missed the point in that you can't make comparisons between artificial and natural sites. As it is I actually agree with you about protesting at the selection meeting, but for a different reason, in that I don't see it serving any useful purpose.

However, I don't see a mass protest at a natural site serving any useful purpose either and could in fact be counter productive. At present we have a situation around which the law is grey. On the one side are those that believe they can 'own' rivers and control access to them, on the other, those - not just kayakers, but wild swimmers and other too - who believe that the law as it stands allows for river navigation as long as said river is accessed and egressed from public points. It is illuminating that despite all the huff and puff from the angling/riparian owners' lobby, they are yet to attempt to prosecute a kayaker in recent times. An attempt by the EA to prosecute Coventry Council last year under the SAFFA legislation, which relates to disturbance of spawning beds, ended in failure. Thus the ball is in their court. If they wish to stop canoeing/kayaking then they have to demonstrate a legal right to do so. Until then I as far I am concerned - and a lot of other kayakers - there are no legal issues around the responsible use of our rivers and streams.

However, given the political complexion of the current government, any attempt to force legislation to clarify the law could well blow up in our faces. For from obtaining fair access to rivers, we could end up with the criminalisation of those accessing rivers without the agreement of riparian owners.

Cheers,
James

[Montynod]

This topic seems to be going round in circles with people getting more and more frustrated with each turn. The fact of the matter is that land owners have a corporate responsibility to ensure that their activities do not negatively impact on the aquatic environment, in practice this means that the majority of farm owners are obligated to enforce a strict no access by man nor beast "buffer zone" which means fencing off 6m from the edge of the water onto their land. The EA offer financial incentives to set aside this land, this land is overgrown with weeds and acts to filter surface run off and to stabilise the banks thus limiting unwanted pollution into Britains waterways. If a landowner is found to be polluting the waterways through ignoring the importance of the buffer zone the they are subject to massive fines.

In addition to this giving people the right to roam the waterways opens the possibility of the spread of disease, and what with the recent devastation caused by mad cow disease, which is bound to make land owners nervous. Now if you were faced with this, would you allow kayakers to go walking all over your buffer zone whilst possibly carrying disease from the last persons farm?

Most riparian owners are not adverse to letting kayakers float past their land however however they are gambling their livelihood that the water users will be responsible and educated. Would you risk that?

Now any peaceful protest that you intend to hold is bound to cause embarrassment and hurt to people and if there are any riparian landowners present at any event that you hold a protest then I can assure you that it will not be peaceful.

Instead of fighting to force others to share you skewed opinion, and shouting off at my friend Kendal, why don't you more constructively use your time working on a solution that would allow you to paddle more stretches of river without affecting peoples livelihood!

Agreed, most people would try to act responsibly but do they know that access and egress in certain areas is simply not possible? It would only take a small percentage of paddlers to break the rules and set back our cause massively.

I have read 3 pages of this rant and nobody has even asked why can't we paddle the rivers? Nobody seems to understand how they can cause damage and how they can be considerate water users. I am not claiming to know either, but nobody is willing to listen to the other side of the argument, we wouldn't be arguing if there weren't people with a valid reason as to why we shouldn't be allowed to paddle where ever we wish.

Ramblers have the right to roam... So long as they keep to footpaths.... Keep their dog on lead so as not to scare sheep... Close the gate behind themselves...

Are we really ready to be let loose uncontrolled onto all of Britains waterways?

[Neil H]

[quote="Montynod"]and shouting off at my friend Kendal.

Yeah, apologies are due to Kendall. Not least from me, he told me he had a friend......I remember how I laughed.

[kendall chew]

Tee he!

Could I suggest that we move ahead with the e petition, which is not going well - 318 signatures to date. If we get enough the whole thing can then be debated it parliament. If we don't have sufficient numbers on the list no one important gets to hear about it at all! Signing the e petition does not prevent us from addressing the problem of access in other constructive ways, it simply adds to it.

If I look at the 318 signatures ( not that I can) it would seem that no one really gives a monky's uncle about river access and the whole lot is just time wasting hot air, the effort from which could be put into something else more constructive - like mowing the lawn. Does the state of the petition reflect our true atitude towards river access?

I suggest that if we really have issues with rives access then we need to get signed up in large numbers. We need 100,000 signatories - that is less than 50~% of the numbers of people who clicked on the farcebook "canoeing" page. So, please if you agree with the principle(?) of greater river access, sign and cajoule others into doing the same but do not complain if we get nowhere. We live in a democracy!
Please note; the petition is not mine, I do not even know who Mark Hannant is, so I am not doing this out of a sense of ego boosting.

[Canadian Paddler]

Just a bit of history folks (shows how old I am)

In the late 1980s a group of British canoeists decided that a militant approach was needed in the campaign for river access. They set up a group called CRACK - Campaign for River Access for Canoes and Kayaks.

Some years later, in early 1988, there were some access problems on the River Seiont in North Wales. There were reports of canoeists cars being scratched, or of their tyres let down, and of stones being thrown at canoeists on the river. When there was no success with access negotiations, CRACK organised a mass rally (or mass trespass).

That's my memory, so went off and googled to get some more info

The Seiont is a great paddling river but has seen its fair share of epics; most of them involving aggressive fishermen rather than rapids. Even in the very early ‘80s, the river was fraught with hassle. Often as the paddler was left on their own whilst the car shuttle occurred, they would be surrounded by three or four threatening figures objecting to their enjoying a hard-earned day out.

Stonings were more commonplace than in the Bible, and it seemed to matter little who the kayakers were. School children were equally fair game for some individuals. In 1987, the proverbial hit the fan when Ben Wright, a local paddler, was stoned and suffered serious facial injuries whilst assisting another paddler in distress. A mass rally / trespass was organised on the Seiont, by the Campaign for River Access for Canoes and Kayaks (CRACK). An enormous amount of publicity was raised, much in sympathy with the cause of paddlers. It is debatable as to the outcome regarding access to the Seiont but in the long term, surely, it must have raised awareness of problems facing people wishing to enjoy the country’s heritage

Where was that - oh yes the CanoeWales website.

[BaldockBabe]

If I look at the 318 signatures ( not that I can) it would seem that no one really gives a monky's uncle about river access and the whole lot is just time wasting hot air, the effort from which could be put into something else more constructive - like mowing the lawn. Does the state of the petition reflect our true atitude towards river access?

I suggest that if we really have issues with rives access then we need to get signed up in large numbers. We need 100,000 signatories - that is less than 50~% of the numbers of people who clicked on the farcebook "canoeing" page. So, please if you agree with the principle(?) of greater river access, sign and cajoule others into doing the same.

Or perhaps as stated on here, UKRGB and Facebook (and not just by me) we are not signing not because we dont care but because the petition is badly worded and does not support our cause.

[James Hastings]

Sorry Montynod, but I actually think that most of us are having a reasonable discussion about access, access awareness, how that could be promoted, and that most of the posts on this thread have been pretty reasoned.

You seem to have taken criticism of Kendal's epetition as some sort of personal attack on him, which it is not. While I do not know Kendal personally I have no doubt that he formulated his petition with the best of intentions. However, that does not change the fact that it is poorly worded and factually incorrect.

The sentence "However, this is deemed to be trespass in England and Wales since the riverbeds belong to riparian landowners" is not correct. It is the OPINION of certain riparian owners (not necessarily the majority) that they have the right to control passage down navigable rivers. I am of the OPINION that this is incorrect in law. The Rev Caffryn in his research has postulated the OPINION that the right of passage on all navigable rivers was enshrined in the Magna Carta in 1215 and that this right has never been repealed. Thus it is my OPINION that as long as I access and egress rivers at public points, then I have every right to paddle said rivers (incidentally recent research by the Land Registry has even thrown into doubt the long-held axiom that riparian owners on each side of the river own the river bed to the mid-point). The important word here is OPINION and until these opinions are tested in court, that's what they remain, opinions.

Thus if Kendal had of phrased that sentence along the lines of "However, there are a number of riparian owners that are of the OPINION that such ownership allows them the right to obstruct passage on rivers", then I would have had less issue with the wording of the epetition.

Some may think that this is being precious over semantics. However I assure you it is not. You can bet your bottom dollar that those who wish to keep us - and others, because it is not just canoeists affected by their attitude - off our river heritage will seize on this wording along the lines "canoeists admit that paddling without permission is trespass". The militant wing of the riparian owners faction are very good at misrepresenting our position - just go and have a look at the Angling Trust web site.

The wording of the petition is, I suspect, the main reason why it is getting very few signatures. My objection to it, and all such petitions is much more fundamental and it is one that I have already alluded do, but will set out again for clarity. At present I believe that we have a right to paddle all navigable rivers. I hope that I, and other kayakers will exercise that right responsibly. It is up to those that do not believe that this is the case to prove that they have a right to obstruct passage down a navigable river in a court of law. Until then I will exercise my right accordingly. Given the political complexion of the current government, and the relative power of the hunting/fishing/landowning lobby compared to other river users (canoeists, wild swimmers etc.) attempts to press for clarity through legislations is just as likely to lead to less access than more.

Montynod, I was intrigued by your "spreading diseases" argument and its provenance. I've been paddling rivers for close on 20 years now and thought I had heard pretty well every argument from those who wish to keep us off the rivers, but this is a new one on me. Given that those that do not wish to share access to our natural heritage have thrown every spurious argument into the pot over the years, I can only assume that this is not one they believe holds any water. Your choice of example is also poor. Mad cow disease was not, I believe, contagious. It was actually caused by feeding domestic herbivores (cattle) the dried offal of other domestic herbivores (mainly sheep) in an attempt to keep costs down and increase profits. The only people to blame for mad cow disease is the agriculture/food industry community themselves. A much better example to use would have been Foot & Mouth, and in the last large outbreak, back in 2000 or 2001 I think, kayakers were exemplary in ensuring that they were not contributing to the spread of it.

Finally, why do you assume that the arguments being used against river access are valid? Most of them are not and have been demonstrated to be spurious on many other forums. The two most used by those who do not wish to share access are 'damage to spawning beds' (several EA studies have shown no link between kayaking and damage to spawning beds), and 'we pay, so should you' (they are paying for fisheries management, we would prefer natural, unmanaged rivers - incidentally some of the 'rivers management' by the EA for the benefit of fisheries in the past, such as the introduction of non-native fish species has been nothing short of catastrophic for local ecosystems).

I'm assuming by the fact that you have posted on this forum that you are a slalomer, or a canoeist/kayaker of some description. Thus why are you taking a position so unsupportive of your own sport?

James

[kendall chew]

Actually, as I have said a few times, the petition is not mine, it belongs to a chap by the name of Mark Hannett. The reason I brought the matter up and found a petition was because I disagree with the idea of demonstrating at Lee Valley. There are more effective and less aggressive ways of achieving a result. What is important is the need to pull in the same direction. Patently, the original e petition was either not to everyone's liking or, apathy rules. I have sent requests to people outside the slalom community to sign (UKRGB and others). When I last looked there were fewer than 400 responses. If you go to the farcebook page titled "canoeing" there are 225,487 friends. Perhaps we just don't want to be bothered with the effort.

I take James' comment that it is possibly easier, in many ways, to just paddle the rivers and address the consequences when they arise. Personally, I am unlikely to paddle much outside Bala, HPP, Matlock, Tully, Washburn, Stone, etc but, If it is important to address the issue of river access, then it does need to be coordinated or else any "campaign" will be as effective as a Div 4 paddler racing on the olympic course at Lee Valley - somewhat entertaining for those involved but not really up to much.

[James Hastings]

In that case Kendall, my apologies. I had not picked up on the fact that it was not your wording. I obviously should have been directing my comments to the originator.

I agree that I don't think that a protest at the selection races is appropriate, but for different reasons. I don't think apathy reigns, just that most kayakers on forums like UKRGB are not happy with the wording. There have also been many other epetitions addressing the same subject in recent years, none of which have had much impact, even with a significant number of signatories.

I also agree that it is important to all pull in the same direction. You would have thought that the most appropriate organisation to coordinate a rivers access campaign would be our NGB. However CE/BCU have an appalling record on this topic. At best its current position on access is muddled and inconsistent, so much so that I for one would rather it didn't involve itself in this area any more and leave it to those kayakers with real commitment to the cause.

It''s a pity that you only seem to get out on the slalom sites from your post. There is a wealth of beautiful rivers out there - beautiful for many reasons, scenery, wildlife etc., and not just white water. It is well worth investing a plastic and doing a bit of river paddling as well - it widens the horizons!

Cheers,
James

[Neil H]

I think this forum is great and it brings up many different viewpoints which is only right and surely the point.
It can be a bit emotive at times but I put that down to being passionate about the topics, this one is a good example.
Not wishing to over simplify it, I think I read that some people are signing the petition, albeit slowly, and some are not willing too, due to the wording.
I read too that there are some committed paddlers prepared to get out on the waterways and test what has become accepted. I admire that, in whatever numbers.

The good ideas on this forum sometimes shrivel up with the passage of time, when the people get tired of a long running post probably or just not agreeing with the posts maybe.

However, and at risk of reining this back, and whether or not you believe in a protest at Lee Valley, I think history, in many areas, shows that nothing ever changed through inaction. Leaving aside the issues over the petition, for me two questions remain.

How do we keep the good ideas (on this or any thread) alive?
How do we get where we all want to be?

I mentioned before the parallel to the ramblers campaign; now they got out there and did something in numbers on a regular basis too. Very organised.
To me this doesn't have to interfere with any event or be aggressive, although if cameras are around, it's always handy. The thought of many boats turning out on a river with contested access is a big photo opp. Effectively this is what the ramblers were prepared to do. Well managed, regular (annually) and with some friendly, possibly paddling, journos on board and Robert's your Father's brother

I think petitions can be good but not possibly not effective on their own