morsey wrote:So we have established that Adam Box is no longer having dealing with the Dart. But I still don't think we have been given clarity.
Pete Thorn, given your BCU/CE SW position, can you confirm whether you or others from BCU/CE are negotiating an access agreement for the river Dart?
(For the love of all things cute and fluffy, like baby gorillas, please just answer the question, and if the answer is yes, please give specifics as to the restrictions being presented by the DFA. And, then please listen to our concerns or rejections of those restrictions and do not sign any agreement that has any restriction not based on bona fide environmental concerns.)
Based on previous lack of integrity, I doubt we will get any direct answers from BCU/CE, but would love to be proved wrong.
Surely there has to come a point when all the regional access advisers and river advisers realise that the task is fruitless and they should just throw in the towel! Then the pressure will all be on the paid staff at BCU/CE HQ, and paddlers will be left to truly make their own decisions one way or the other, without the hangup caused by the precedent set by pitiful agreements.
Simon, the venom you show on this matter is simply too sharp. And your advise for CE to simply say we do not agree, and we'll not enter any agreements is unpractical, for a massive amount of reasons, more specifically for CE's membership demands. Adam's recent approach to arrive at an accord that outlines that the legal point of view is different, and both parties undertake each others wishes is the way to move forward. Like many others on here, do we really want a legal challenge, can we afford it to go all the way to appeal and beyond. I doubt it. We need local people shaping local decisions. The paddling community has more muscle these days, mainly as there are very tangible incomes for local people for paddling destinations, and most previous arguments along conservation grounds, have been proved misleading or simply wrong. Adam and his team have help shape these outcomes in the South West. I've sat in meetings with all the concerned parties, and at the end of the day, we talk to each other, and arrange at an accord. My advise to the last one of these meetings, was you can not stop paddlers coming, if you carry on saying you're not allowed, in the end the paddlers will stop listening, everyone needs to be ask the right questions, how can paddling not effect others.
In my life time, we've come a long way in the access debate, we pretty much have near uncontested paddling in the closed game fishing season, and outside a few minor river side discussions with others, we are closer to where a workable end point is, than you think. A change in the legal position is unlikely to go our way, where working with interested parties is the only way to resolve conflict before it becomes intractable. And Simon, its here where your efforts would be of use, not throwing demands with red blood coursing through your veins at the converted. If you wish to shout, simply get yourself down to a local fishing club, and debate it out with them. Belittling Adam's efforts is in my view quite disrespectful, whether you agree with them or not, we are further forward now than we were 20 years ago, and people like Adam are the ones to thank.