Setting the clock backwards on the Dart?

[Keith Day]

However, this illustrates nicely why someone with more time than me is needed for this post.

There are lots of paddlers with a little bit of time each who will be willing to help. All we need is a constructive dialogue with Canoe England and a way of raising concerns without being seen as antagonistic.

[morsey]

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.

[Tony Aiuto]

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?

Sorry, I had meant to fully answer the original question in my last post but see I had not specifically referred to the Dart. In response to instructions from my CE line manager I had been negotiating an arrangement for the Dart under the terms described in my last post. This arrangement has not been signed and will not now be signed until a new Regional Advisor is found.
Adam Box

Simon I believe that Adam has already confirmed your first question.

[Simon Westgarth]

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.

[buck197]

Many thanks Adam for all your efforts in keeping access on my local piece of joy, the Dart.

[Rhod]

I think we should continue to push for clarity in the law. I believe that this is achievable, but even if it is not, to stop pushing forwards would result in the only pressure being backwards. I see no problem in principal with voluntaraly restricting our access to some hotspot areas when the river is empty from the standpoint that we are doing nothing wrong if we chose to paddle, but most won't chose to paddle at those times cos we are nice! In fact this is the only way access can be effectively negotiated as demonstrated by the converse successes of climbers and kayakers.

So not that I agree with everything you have said, but mostly very well said Simon! It is important to remember who the good guys are and to be able to make unbiased decisions as to what aspects of communication and policy are good and which aspects are bad, rather than demonising all of it.

Thanks for your hard work Adam. I’m very glad we don’t need to book months in advance to scrape down a dry river bed anymore! There have been many positive strides forward in access, long may it continue.

[Mark R]

I’m very glad we don’t need to book months in advance to scrape down a dry river bed anymore!

Extremely important point of order: we never did need to.

But our governing body negotiated it and agreed to it, alongside claiming the apparent authority to ban paddling on the other rivers in the Dart catchment, including the best grade 3 run in southern England.

Their actions were understandable in the climate of 10-15+ years ago, but would be wholly unacceptable now; this is why I was so critical of CE SW getting involved in the new Barle 'Agreement'/ restrictions. This is why entering into any new 'Agreement'/ restrictions on the Dart - at a point where no one at all is pretending that anyone is following any 'Agreement'/ restrictions beyond simple common sense - would be wholly unacceptable: setting the clock backwards.

[DaveBland]

I think there is a lot of merit in any agreement if it is positioned more as a 'no confrontation' agreement rather than an 'access' agreement. The key issue is to maintain a stance of "We believe that we have the right to paddle at all times". The very term 'access agreement' flies in the face of a standpoint of a 365 day right.

If you look at the ways of sharing river use, there are two ways to cut the pie. You can do a time based one, based on the seasons, or you can do a river level one.

I have little knowledge of fishing but it's my understanding that the fishy folk like to have med to low flows. It's also my understanding that us paddling folk prefer med to high flows. This seems an ideal starting point for any river-use sharing scheme - especially as most rivers have gauges these days. I'm sure that there would be an overlap of level where both parties would want to use the river, but it seems a better starting point that using a time-based method where the river may be in pukka condition for either sport but in the wrong time period.

The other benefit of this, is the message it gives out. It says we have the right to paddle 365, but are prepared to be reasonable and share to accommodate both sports, however we will excersise our right to paddle whenever the levels are appropriate.

[Chas C]

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.

Nicely said, I too would like to thank Adam for the work he has covered over many years.

[Adrian Cooper]

If you look at the ways of sharing river use, there are two ways to cut the pie. You can do a time based one, based on the seasons, or you can do a river level one.

Only if one wants exclusivity. Last weekend we ran two river sections in South Wales, day one we met a group of kayakers who had got on half way down, day two there was no-one else on the river. If anyone was out fishing, the inconvenience of us being there would have lasted probably 5 minutes, maybe less. We were quite happy to share our river with anyone else.

[DaveBland]

If you look at the ways of sharing river use, there are two ways to cut the pie. You can do a time based one, based on the seasons, or you can do a river level one.

Only if one wants exclusivity. Last weekend we ran two river sections in South Wales, day one we met a group of kayakers who had got on half way down, day two there was no-one else on the river. If anyone was out fishing, the inconvenience of us being there would have lasted probably 5 minutes, maybe less. We were quite happy to share our river with anyone else.

But in practice it's the really popular rivers where there's most issue. The odd paddler doesn't disturb anyone, but several big groups could.
It's all about perception. On popular rivers, a mexican stand off where the anglers say "no access" and paddlers say they are "going to paddle anyway" - which then causes agro - is in no-one's interest.

The only point I was making was that if an agreement is to be based on something, river levels rather than dates makes the most sense to me – and for gods sake don't call it an ACCESS agreement. Call it a "River-share agreement" or anything, but calling it an access agreement totally undermines any claim to a universal right to paddle.

[Simon Westgarth]

Their actions were understandable in the climate of 10-15+ years ago, but would be wholly unacceptable now; this is why I was so critical of CE SW getting involved in the new Barle 'Agreement'/ restrictions. This is why entering into any new 'Agreement'/ restrictions on the Dart - at a point where no one at all is pretending that anyone is following any 'Agreement'/ restrictions beyond simple common sense - would be wholly unacceptable: setting the clock backwards.

I do not agree, most paddlers keep to the spirit of the of the old agreement, but never the letter of the agreement. The reality on the ground is paddling happens when fishing does not and vice verse. There are a handful of days during Summer floods that a few locals go paddling, and on these days little fishing if any is undertaken, so we do not have a conflict unless we wish to look for one.

In speaking with the guys who fish on the Dart, very few fish for salmon, they mainly go for sea trout, which is a twilight or night time pursuit for most. I understand salmon fishing is a little to lively for the demographic! One of the issues from the fishing point of view is that they are somewhat regulated and paddling is not, this paddlers free for all in their eyes is an impress they simply can not overcome. Further to the concern is that they fear the large Winter weekend crowds in the middle of the Summer, and as such are not willing to entertain Summer spate agreements.

Very few local paddlers come across fishermen in the Summer on spate runs. One thing we could do is understand a little more about fishing, game fishing is different from course fishing. On flat rivers, paddlers avoid the maggot bombers and move to the far side, where as a game fishermen would be stalking the fish often from the opposite side, so a paddler needs to pass close to the fishermen. Still I always wait until they are ready for myself to pass, it's often nice to watch them at work.

[Mark R]

no one at all is pretending that anyone is following any 'Agreement'/ restrictions beyond simple common sense

most paddlers keep to the spirit of the of the old agreement, but never the letter of the agreement. The reality on the ground is paddling happens when fishing does not and vice verse. There are a handful of days during Summer floods that a few locals go paddling, and on these days little fishing if any is undertaken, so we do not have a conflict unless we wish to look for one.

We're saying the same thing. The point is that - even on an extremely popular river like the Dart - paddlers do not nowadays require negotiated restrictions to gain access to, and to enjoy appropriately, their natural river heritage.

[Simon Westgarth]

We're saying the same thing. The point is that - even on an extremely popular river like the Dart - paddlers do not nowadays require negotiated restrictions to gain access to, and to enjoy appropriately, their natural river heritage.

May be but from different standing points. The access situation has moved on from the traditional agreements, and paddlers generally keep to the spirit of the original agreements, where as you suggested, paddlers go paddling because they can. We have arrived at this point because of the changes to the agreement, and an understanding we share the rivers with others, not because it's a god given right to go paddling.

Personally I have an accord with yourself, but that is not the reality on the ground. Perhaps though, the old agreements what war win the 1990's policed by local canoe clubs were so poor and restrictive, people just though sod this nonsense and simply decided to go paddling when there is water in the river. No doubt the coming of the internet with access to real time data, opened up more possibility to paddle. None the less there are 100's of paddlers on a May Bank Holiday paddling the loop, and if it was all about rights, they might be, but they don't. Even if the level was on the slab at Newbridge all week, and it was updated so, I still very much feel paddlers would not come out of the now established paddling season.

[Rhod]

[even if levels were perfect] I still very much feel paddlers would not come out of the now established paddling season.

For fear of being shouted at and/or because of they misunderstand their legal rights. A sad throwback of the access agreement age.

We do have a God-given right to paddle, as much as we do to walk. If 200kayakers days are ruined by the abuse they get from the one fisherman they see all day as they paddle past him, how on earth does that fisherman have the right to feel hard done by? Especially as kayaking past has not been shown to affect catching fish. But of course if levels are good you wouldn't see any fishermen fishing. Just hanging around in car parks looking to upset people.

Limiting the season based on water levels would not be based on any scientific reasoning. It would just be a nice thing to do + would encourage peope out in their boats when the conditions are right, knowing they wouldn't get abuse, whatever time of year. It may also go some way to getting rif of this guilt that some paddlers feel for exersising what is their right and heratage.

Only rivers like the Tawe, Dart or Conwy which sees a lot of paddlers and conflict need apply.

[jmmoxon]

You're not going to see many paddlers in the summer because the levels are usually up & back down again so quickly that the majority of us don't have time to get there & it's usually dropped off before we even hear that it was running...

Mike

[Jim Pullen]

You're not going to see many paddlers in the summer because the levels are usually up & back down again so quickly that the majority of us don't have time to get there & it's usually dropped off before we even hear that it was running...

Mike

Didn't Jack Butcher run it about 70 times a couple of summers ago? You only have to look at the Dart levels topic to see that its being regularly run throughout the summer.

[Simon Westgarth]

Didn't Jack Butcher run it about 70 times a couple of summers ago? You only have to look at the Dart levels topic to see that its being regularly run throughout the summer.

Yes by a handful of locals, not the destination of canoe club outings.

[Jim Pullen]

Didn't Jack Butcher run it about 70 times a couple of summers ago? You only have to look at the Dart levels topic to see that its being regularly run throughout the summer.

Yes by a handful of locals, not the destination of canoe club outings.

But surely that's because canoe clubs are scared off by there not being an agreement? Isn't it mostly just clubs and school groups that still stick to agreements and individuals/groups of friends just paddle when there's water? When the Dart is very low in the winter it still tends to be clubs that get on and paddle, whereas non-club paddlers do something else because they don't retain the "paddling season" mentality.

[Alec]

Don't think its down to the clubs continueing to abide by the paddling season as defined in the old access agreements but more down to the practicalities of organising a club trip (they're generally organised/accomodation booked months ahead). I wouldn't organise a club weekend to the Dart in June as its much less likely to have water than it is between October and March. It's much harder/impossible for a club to organise a trip at short notice in the summer to take advantage of spate river levels than it is for small groups of locals/friends.

[morsey]

My point is that if Adam is no longer the BCU/CE SW rep then Pete Thorn should, as current rep for the NGB be delivering the upto date info, and show that they are taking on board concerns and issues. Regardless of what Adam now write, it is not the BCU/CE point of view, it is his personal view. We want the official current viewpoint.

I stated the lack of integrity of BCU/CE in not replying to questions about access, that still stands. No official response from BCU/CE. Adam is no longer part of BCU/CE and it is notable that he is more forthcoming with information.

I disagree that BCU/CE cannot just step back from negotiations, they can and there is every indications from the actions of CW that it is beneficial to paddlers. BCU/CE have not shown any reason to suggest that they have taken on board the wishes of paddlers to remove agreements. (Regardless of whether you hold the opinion that the "Majority" are happy with agreements, the "minority" have repeatedly requested the removal of them.)

Simon did you really say we should not use the river in the summer as club groups! I hope I got that wrong.

If a company of the calibre of Gene17 can run courses in all water levels on the river in the winter months then it sets a precedent that the quality of paddling on the river is not limited by water level. i.e. Low water paddling is no lesser or greater than medium, high, spate level paddling, and as such there is no reason why paddlers should be ransomed into only being able to use rivers in high water levels in the spring, summer and autumn months.

Water level is really not an issue for paddling, there is no reason to restrict paddling on the Dart river. The physical boundaries of being able to float are approx 7 inches below the ledge at Newbridge for the Upper and 3 inches below the ledge for the loop. Above that level all year round you can have quality kayaking (Maybe slightly higher for open Canoes, would need a specialist canoeist to check what is and what is not possible).

It make me chuckle a little that of those who are saying agreements are worth while, are those who do not attend to the agreements, even down to those attending the meetings and negotiating on behalf of BCU/CE! That is quite a ridiculous situation. Contrast this with Canoe Wales, they do not agree with the need for agreements and specifically with the unbiased position from which the negotiations take place and as such they stick to principles. More emphasis is being placed on making good relationships than on establishing long term goals for paddlers.

Simon, have read the excited words of the DFA? They are literally bursting with joy that they are going to get an agreement with BCU/CE. We all know the last agreement could not be signed because of restriction, so the only way an agreement can now be signed is if one side has removed the restrictions or the other side has accepted the restrictions! Which one is it? If you say we are close to an end result, then you can confirm whether BCU/CE are going to accept restrictions in the agreement. I guess Adam could also have given a view as to the make up of the agreement. But it is really BCU/CE who should give clarity on the matter to paddlers as an ongoing matter, and not only when the agreement is signed.

[morsey]

You're not going to see many paddlers in the summer because the levels are usually up & back down again so quickly that the majority of us don't have time to get there & it's usually dropped off before we even hear that it was running...

That is if you follow the premise that is being bounded that you should only go on the river if it is lapping the ledge or higher. If you accept that the quality of paddling is there down to the physical cut off, then you realise the full restriction of use of the river is excluding quite a few paddlers and not just those who hunt the big summer rains!

[jmmoxon]

The rivers are often only paddleable for a few hours, even at the lower cut off points, whilst the base level in winter is (normally) high enough to scrape down, in summer it (usually) isn't (this has been a very dry 12 months on Dartmoor whilst the North seems to have had more rain than average).

For example the Tawe moorland section was running this morning - for about an hour around 8am!

Amusingly the BCU have set up a communcation survey:
http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/828329/Me ... ons-Survey

Mike

[morsey]

Yes by a handful of locals, not the destination of canoe club outings.

That is not strictly true, various groups from Plymouth, Exeter, Bristol are making the journey to paddle the river Dart and other South West rivers in the summer period. The river does behave differently to wintertime when the moor is laden, but even with a one and a half hour journey to the river you can still catch the summer flow for much of the day!

[morsey]

For example the Tawe moorland section was running this morning - for about an hour around 8am!

That is due to the amount of rain. If it rains for eight hours the river stays higher, in summer and winter. :-)

Also the Upper Tawe is right at the source of the river, more akin to the high reaches of the East and West Dart rivers, so you expect a quicker run off period.

[Big Henry]

On flat rivers, paddlers avoid the maggot bombers and move to the far side, where as a game fishermen would be stalking the fish often from the opposite side, so a paddler needs to pass close to the fishermen.

As we are often told, the landowners own the river bed up to the halfway point unless they own the land on both sides of the water. Often angling clubs only have the right to fish from one bank, so if their line is beyond the centre of the river - the 'far side' - then they are technically poaching. So you must always ascertain that they have the right to fish from the opposite bank before you decide which side you should pass on!

[Simon Westgarth]

I stated the lack of integrity of BCU/CE in not replying to questions about access, that still stands. No official response from BCU/CE. Adam is no longer part of BCU/CE and it is notable that he is more forthcoming with information.

The BCU/CE do indeed seam shy about these matters, and the recent change in policy on their Facebook page really indicates the lack on engagement with the membership they clearly fear.

Simon did you really say we should not use the river in the summer as club groups! I hope I got that wrong.

My comments about Sumer use by clubs was an observation, not opinion.

If a company of the calibre of Gene17 can run courses in all water levels on the river in the winter months then it sets a precedent that the quality of paddling on the river is not limited by water level. i.e. Low water paddling is no lesser or greater than medium, high, spate level paddling, and as such there is no reason why paddlers should be ransomed into only being able to use rivers in high water levels in the spring, summer and autumn months.

My personal position is that we share the rivers with other users, some of whom make their living from the river, as I do. I feel it is a fair result to have no conflict for the closed game fishing season on the Dart and their should be an understanding that on high water days in the game fishing season, paddling would not cause concern. Gene17's position would be not to invite direct conflict and as such it would not run courses, coaching or guiding within the game fishing season, mainly out of respect of other river users and not wishing to have it's paddlers potentially be a target of discourse by said river user.

Simon, have read the excited words of the DFA? They are literally bursting with joy that they are going to get an agreement with BCU/CE. We all know the last agreement could not be signed because of restriction, so the only way an agreement can now be signed is if one side has removed the restrictions or the other side has accepted the restrictions! Which one is it? If you say we are close to an end result, then you can confirm whether BCU/CE are going to accept restrictions in the agreement. I guess Adam could also have given a view as to the make up of the agreement. But it is really BCU/CE who should give clarity on the matter to paddlers as an ongoing matter, and not only when the agreement is signed.

I have not seen the DFA proposed agreement. Adam can we see it please? In my conversations with members of the DFA, there is an intrenched point of view to do with access, yet an acceptance that there was not much they could do about it. Agreements with BCU/CE would place outcomes in the BCU/CE's court, which is what DFA almost certainly want, someone in a formal position to complain and engage with. One thing that may be of interest, would be the actual amount of fishing that does go on, I would like to know the numbers, I very much suspect it's very very low indeed, and the amount of days fishing upstream of Holne Bridge are all but a handful. If these figures were obtained, our position would be strengthen. Still the fishing lobby, would then normally go back to the unregulated issue of paddlers!!!!

[jmmoxon]

On most upland rivers both banks are usually owned by the same person/organisation. Although the land registry are no longer recording the river bed as being owned, when it borders a property, unless they can find evidence that it is (this applies to rivers that have water in over most of the year, rather than tributaries that are usually dry).

The other reason may be due to the fact that, in the case of footpaths, if an agreement is in place then walkers cannot claim that it is a public right of way, even after many years use.

Mike

[morsey]

On flat rivers, paddlers avoid the maggot bombers and move to the far side, where as a game fishermen would be stalking the fish often from the opposite side, so a paddler needs to pass close to the fishermen.

As we are often told, the landowners own the river bed up to the halfway point unless they own the land on both sides of the water. Often angling clubs only have the right to fish from one bank, so if their line is beyond the centre of the river - the 'far side' - then they are technically poaching. So you must always ascertain that they have the right to fish from the opposite bank before you decide which side you should pass on!

That point is somewhat redundant. Riparian ownership does not have automatic application to all land. There is no certainty that the land where fishing rights have been sold/arranged has riparian rights even on the adjoining bank, let alone on the opposite bank. Mostly it is redundant because riparian rights do not give any lawful consideration of control of navigation and have no bearing on whether you paddle down either side of the river. And, in practise, canoeists, being considerate and friendly types, normally adjust their route to take the line of least conflict.

Land ownership has changed, or more specifically it has been made clearer, in the eyes of the body that carries the weight of consideration in law. Land registry say riparian ownership is not considered as default in application to land adjacent to rivers. Fact. And further, without riparian ownership in place, there is absolutely no chance of being successfully prosecuted for trespass, because there is no landowner to claim trespass. If the historic position of access agreements being made is to pay homage to the riparian owners, then surely that status needs to be confirmed for any access agreement can be arranged!?! I imagine that fisheries and landowners objecting to canoeing would not want for there to be a full scale exploration of the existence of valid riparian ownerships! I am not sure what the feasibility of carrying an extensive search would be. Perhaps the river Dart would be the ideal location of which to carry out a search from the sources to sea and then if the yield is significant further searches could be identified. Surely cannot be any more commitment than the current system of trying to set up agreements!

[Adrian Cooper]

Just to be clear, riparian property means 'bounded by a river bank'. Riparian owners do not necessarily have rights over the water but usually do have rights to fish and water extraction rights and responsibilities.