Discussion Area
For discussion of any area relevant to DW, marathon canoeing or this site.
Posted by grooke@cix.co.uk (grooke@cix.co.uk) (from e-mail; ID <memo.20010915184812.326D@rooke.compulink.co.uk>) on 15 September, 2001 at 18:48
In reply to: Boaters and Anglers clash on K&A facilities? posted by David Kemper on 19:37 13/9/01:
Very interesting. I have a feeling that Paul Andrews knows the mooring only bit.
I think he has talked to Terry Kemp or someone. I think it was mentioned at
committee when I was there and from memory was said not to impact of canoeists.
However, there are some implications, but we should think them through carefully
and then get the committee to push for what we want. This is an ideal thing that
non-committee members can raise and discuss at a committee meeting. David,
please follow it up.
I was concerned that having well prepared 'boat only' moorings next to each lock
means that some of the favourite canoeist landing points will be 'improved' so
that they are better for boats but less so for canoeists. This will mean a
greater likelyhood of having to exit earlier amongst the stinging nettles and up
steep banks. I had not pushed the point because in most cases, that will not
occur.
Now, if there is an equivalent space set aside for fishing, the probability of
this will be significantly greater. I think we could consider discussing the
fact that Canoeists also need dedicated sections of canal before all locks,
where the stinging Nettles were kept at bay and exit was made firmer.
If the lengths of the spaces for each group is in proportion to their financial
contributions, and if we got a length either side of each lock and in proportion
to our licence fees, we may not have enough to exit even a 'Stubby'. Maybe we
shouldn't support the size of fees game.
HOWEVER, it would not be unreasonable to find a dozen locks where we do
genuinely have difficulty, such as 'Put ins' at Dunmill, Fobney Lock, County
Lock and even Blakes Lock, and suggest that these could have Canoe only landings
included in the finances for these further fishing additions.
Ideally, if there are fishing only areas close to locks, which is often where
public access exists, the order of
canoeists, fishing, moorings and lock
seems right, because it means that canoeists wouldn't have to paddle past
deployed lines. However, I agree with Paul B, the tow path should be kept clear.
If rubbish collection points are included, that would clear another of Paul's
points.
We should suggest facilities along the lines of:
'This will include bank protection of various types, including hazel faggoting,
permanently identified peg locations and sympathetic posts/signage indicating
"Canoe Portage Only" position.'
The ideal Fobney lock entry is actually just outside the BW restriction, but
Peter Begent has had good discussions with the Fishing Club there and I'm sure
they, the EA or whoever owns it might allow BW to provide such niceties.
If they are doing some more work, let us get our fair share. The canal was not
built for DW any more than for the fishermen, but we did do a lot to keep it in
existance. And we are 'Boats'.
As they clearly have not sent this notice to DW before the end of the discussion
period, otherwise our committee would have posted it as Robin has done in the
past, we can be fully justified in raising the issue after the date, but please
let us do it with a quiet sensible, well though out proposal.
Let us treat it as an opportunity, not a threat.
Gil
>
> Message sent by: David Kemper
> Dated: 13 September, 2001 at 19:37
> From: 62.255.26.172
> Subject: Boaters and Anglers clash on K&A facilities?
>
> Copied below is a message from a waterways newsgroup. Are we as paddlers
> going to be affected and if so should we put our veiws forward?
>
> Comments please
>
> David kemper
>
>
> "Paul E. Bennett" wrote in message
> news:...
> > On Sunday I was in the Barge Inn at Honeystreet on the K&A and saw the
> > following letter floating around the pub's clientelle (mostly boaters).
> > I am, without BW's permission, posting the text of that missive here for
> > comment and to give it broader scope than seems to have been allowed
> > given the admitted low number of snail-mail postings. I am also posting
> > a response by Paul Morris (with his consent)
> > to fuel the debate. Paul's response gets a bit ranty but you will get
> > the gist of his message I am sure.
> >
> > My own views on this proposal is that the it seems disproportionate
> > treatment of boaters and anglers in comparision to respective
> > fees and the mandatory costs incurred. When there are many anglers who
> > are breaking the rules that exist (fishing in locks and at lock entrances
> > and within bridge holes or winding holes - seemingly with impunity) then
> > proposals like this should be resisted, especially as it seems to be
> > circulated to such a limited audience and at such short notice - note
> > the dates please.
> >
> > ********************************[%X]********************************
> >
> > BW "Angling Only Lengths" The Kennet & Avon Canal. A consultation
> > paper issued 30th August 2001.
> >
> > Background,
> > On completion of the Kennet & Avon Canal's Heritage Lottery funded project
> > December 2002 in excess of 5,500m of formal visitor moorings will have been
> > created.
> >
> > These comprise a piled edge, finished with Eki timber fendering, 900mm depth
> > of water, mooring rings, turfed edge and posts indicating duration.
> >
> > We also plan to install notice boards indicating where the nearest
> > facilities and next adjoining visitor moorings and other services exist and
> > most locations will include rubbish disposal facilities.
> >
> > The very nature of this facility suggests an accommodation for moored boats
> > and experience is showing that these locations are for the majority of the
> > time occupied by visiting boats.
> >
> > Most locations have been identified due to access, local facilities or
> > attractions and by their very nature are adjacent to local communities and
> > road access.
> >
> > The majority of the length of the K&A on the towpath side is either let to
> > angling clubs for fishing rights or in some locations owned outright by
> > angling clubs or land owners where historically fisshing rights exist. Many
> > of the locations where visitor moorings have been constructed previously
> > offered easy access for anglers, offering particularly easy and safe
> > positions for children and disabled anglers.
> >
> > The presence of boats or expectation of boaters to be able to moor up at
> > these locations often presents a conflict.
> >
> > Proposal.
> > It is proposed to install "angling only" lengths of a similar length and
> > immediately adjacent to visitor moorings.
> >
> > These locations will be maintained in a way to provide safe access and use
> > by anglers of all abilities. This will include bank protection of various
> > types, including hazel faggoting, permanently identified peg locations and
> > sympathetic posts/signage indicating "Angling Only" position.
> >
> > Remaining lengths will be available for all purposes on a first come first
> > served basis although there are times when local a angling club arranges an
> > angling match that they locally sign and request boaters not to moor. This
> > appears to have worked satisfactorily in the past and is not proposed to be
> > changed.
> >
> > Consultation Period.
> > This consultation paper has been widely distributed to over 200
> > individuals/organisations representing wide interests on the Kennet & Avon
> > Canal and will be debated at the Kennet & Avon Canal User Forum on 12th
> > September.
> >
> > Views and comments are requested to be returned to M. Goodenough, Waterway
> > Manager - British Waterways, The Locks, Bath Road, Devizes, Wiltshire, SN10
> > 1HB by Tuesday 30th October.
> >
> > A paper reflecting the summary of views received will be published by 31st
> > December with a proposal to move this forward.
> >
> > ********************************[%X]********************************
> > The reponse to BW by Paul Morris
> > ********************************[%X]********************************
> > Dear Sir,
> >
> > In response to the British Waterways latest proposal for "angling only
> > lengths" it seems to me that boaters rights or lack of them account for
> > nothing....! This latest proposal seems to me to indicate that boaters
> > in general are a nuisance to the canal. Are British Waterways aware that
> > in the later part of the 18th century this is in fact the reason the canal
> > exists at all? I don't fancy you would have found such a proposal on the
> > agenda then..! the fact is that in any one year I myself am expected to
> > pay my licence UKP502, boat safety certificate UKP90.00, insurance for
> > the boat UKP98.00 a total of UKP690.
> >
> > I would guess that anglers pay only a fraction of this perhaps as little
> > as UKP20.00 so how is it that they have any say in the matter at all..???
> > Also in your letter/memo you mention the word conflict, in my experience
> > the only conflict is from anglers themselves, I myself have witnessed rude
> > and abusive behaviour from anglers and this is coming from somebody
> > who used to fish the canal. I always slow down for anglers and indeed
> > pass the time of day but I could not say the same about them, what about
> > all the litter empty tins and general rubbish after fishing matches....?
> > not to mention all the dead fish..! Also there is the wildlife to think
> > about only the other day I myself had to help a Moorhen out of a tree
> > bound by fishing line and this is not the first time this has happened.
> >
> > There is also the issue of cyclists I myself have been unable to cycle
> > to my own boat due to the amount of poles bags etc. all over the towpath
> > or should we now call it the anglers path...! as horses are no longer
> > allowed to use it..! Don't you think that British Waterways and perhaps
> > Kennet District Council should pay some more attention to the issues of
> > dogs mess "the amount of dogs mess along the canal these days is
> > absolutely disgusting you try walking along the towpath at night and
> > get into your boat only to find you have walked it right through the
> > whole boat a most unpleasant experience I can tell you.
> >
> > Its about time somebody did something about that, these silly little
> > signs along the canal nobody takes any notice of them and a so called
> > UKP1000 finehas anybody ever been fined ..? I will close on the fact
> > that in your letter it says and I quote "This consultation paper has
> > been widely distributed to over 200 individuals/organisations representing
> > wide interests on the Kennet & Avon canal. Who are these people..? because
> > most of the people I have spoken to know nothing about it. So dont you
> > think it would be better to write to all boaters in response to this
> > matter...?
> >
> >
> > --
> > ********************************************************************
> > Paul E. Bennett ....................
> > Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....
> > Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 .........NOW AVAILABLE:- HIDECS COURSE......
> > Tel: +44 (0)1235-814586 .... see http://www.feabhas.com for details.
> > Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
> > ********************************************************************
> >
>
>
> Author's personal e-mail: davidkemper@midlanddryerservices.freeserve.co.uk
Follow-Ups:
[ Devizes to Westminster Discussion Area ] [ FAQ ]
Post Follow-Up:
