Discussion Area
For discussion of any area relevant to DW, marathon canoeing or this site.
Posted by Allan Bennett (albenito@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk) (from e-mail; ID <Marcel-1.53-0917165820-9eeNovh@freeserve.co.uk>) on 17 September, 2001 at 18:17
In reply to: Re: Boaters and Anglers clash on K&A facilities? posted by grooke@cix.co.uk on 18:48 15/9/01:
>
> Message sent by: grooke@cix.co.uk
> Dated: 15 September, 2001 at 18:48
> From: e-mail; ID <memo.20010915184812.326D@rooke.compulink.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Boaters and Anglers clash on K&A facilities?
>
> 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.
Why? It has been raised - here. You are a non-committee member, too, aren't
you?
> 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.
Making *them* the preferred portage points and nettle-free because of
repeated use?
> 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.
Why?
> 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.
How about: much of the effort to revitalise the canal especially in the
early days was done by canoeists. Canoeists have kept the canal 'used' during
its most dilapidated stages...
Time for a bit of recognition, respect, pay-back?
> 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.
You seem to look upon these portages as obstacles rather than challenges.
For many, being the best at overcoming these challenges is what DW was all
about, surely?
Many of the locks do now have plush landing stages that could be used by
canoes - providing there are no motorised boats or other canoes taking up
all the space. In that case, the portages will be longer than usual, but
most will be little changed from before.
Similarly at County: the old iron boat moorings have been removed and
replaced by a wooden-edged landing stage - right in the turmoil of the weir
and eddy currents. Which leaves the original portage as the best portage
point!
And fishing is prohibited within the portage areas anyway.
> Ideally, if there are fishing only areas close to locks, which is often
> where public access exists,
Do we know if that is the case? I think it unlikely that fishermen would
choose to fish at such locations, and even the BWB are not that
insensitive...
(See also comment re County).
> 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.'
Oh dear. Not only are you advocating change to the character of the canal,
but a desire to remove choice from, essentially, racing paddlers. This must
be part of the 'control-freak' ethic, right?
> 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.
For DW, or at all times...?
> 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'.
Right-on, Gilly baby!
> 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.
Yeah, right. From the DW Committee???
From the BCU???????
> Let us treat it as an opportunity, not a threat.
>
Or a challenge?
Allan Bennett
--
Follow-Ups:
[ Devizes to Westminster Discussion Area ] [ FAQ ]
Post Follow-Up:
