BCU Access Policy, what do you think?

[Mark R]

What's the count now, Rob?

[robp]

What's the count now, Rob?

980 completions, with pretty much the same response mix as previously reported. The vast majority strongly disagreeing with the BCU negotiating non 365 day+environmental agreements, 684 willing to put their name to an EGM call etc.

The survey has two more weeks to run and is getting in to the numerical territory where it could just make a difference, but could use more publicity if anyone has access to any good places (thanks for the plug on the front page here!).

--
Rob

[Transplant]

You might want to see if Jeroen would mind putting a link up on Playak for you, that should generate a few more hits :)

[Big Henry]

I was having another look through the survey to ask about something else when I noticed the wording of question 4:

Should the BCU be negotiating access agreements to gain or maintain access to contested rivers?

Do you really mean access TO the river (ie across the field or along the footpath, etc) or did you mean ALONG/Down/ON the river?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that you have nigh-on 1000 sets of answers, can I ask what are you specifically going to do? Taking the results to the BCU will almost certainly be non-productive, so are you going to try to call a EGM, and if so, what exactly are you going to ask/put forward?

[morsey]

What were the scores on the doors?

[robp]

I did say that I would close the survey at the start of May and then post the results, I'm away at the moment and not near too good an Internet connection until after the Bank Holiday.

Last time I looked there were about 1500 responses, pretty much the same mix as previously reported.

I will make some time next week to produce a formal write up, but may as well leave the Survey running until Tues night so please do complete/publicise it in the last few days if you haven't already.

--
Rob.

[morsey]

[Vernon voice over]Our survey says?

[robp]

It's all here in detail ...
http://goo.gl/V0sPW

Summary:

Out of 1447 respondents, 1045 disagree with the BCU negotiating date restrictive agreements. It won't make a lot of difference as 70% of paddlers will just paddle anyway when conditions are right (but half of those will expect more confrontation as a result). Of the handful of respondents that said they strongly agreed with BCU negotiating restrictive agreements many were identifiable committee members of one particular Angling Club (yes, they left their e-mail addresses - doh) who all answered the questions in exactly the same way!

Lots of people are members of the BCU (61%) but the most common reason by far is because they have to, to maintain their coaching status (63% of them) with no other reasons cited by a majority although the waterways license gets close (40%).

Contentedness with the BCUs general performance by members is a mixed bag with moderately satisfied being the most common (22.5%) and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied very close at (21.8%). Overall 37% express various shades of satisfaction with the BCU vs 41% who express shades of dissatisfaction.

When it comes to access performance though, members are pretty dissatisfied: 40.9% are extremely dissatisfied, 18.5% moderately dissatisfied, and 11% slightly dissatisfied. Just 17% of members are satisfied with the BCUs performance vs over 70% that expressed their dissatisfaction.

It looks like a good number are willing to do something about their dissatisfaction with 977 willing to submit a written EGM call and a similar number willing to give a proxy or physically attend the 2013 AGM to support a motion on one of a range of access and governance reform proposals.

So what next?

[Keith Day]

Of the handful of respondents that said they strongly agreed with BCU negotiating restrictive agreements many were identifiable committee members of one particular Angling Club (yes, they left their e-mail addresses - doh) who all answered the questions in exactly the same way!

Name them and shame them! This deserves to be recorded and publicised as the sort of underhand tactics used by some (part of the vocal minority) anglers. Whatever happened to honest debate? Have these fraudulent results been excluded from the analysis?

Some of the responses are of the "other (Please Specify)" type. How can we see what they specified?

[Mark R]

Rob, would you consider making Richard Atkinson (BCU Access bod) aware of some of these statistics, before the 29th May meeting about the Barle 'Agreement'? I rather suspect he'll be attending.

[dougdew99]

Rob
I want to congratulate you on this splendid and creative effort. You could submit an article for Canoe Focus. They are always looking for material, and what could be more relevant? This survey should be very useful for Richard Atkinson as he looks to relaunch the CE Access Campaign. He now knows exactly what his clients think of the service provided by his predecessors and what they want him to do. He knows that there thousands of canoeists who want action and would be happy to support him if he showed himself to be a proactive and serious campaigner.

[robp]

Name them and shame them! This deserves to be recorded and publicised as the sort of underhand tactics used by some (part of the vocal minority) anglers. Whatever happened to honest debate?

I won't be sharing their names or contact info. The survey says that personally identifying information will not be disclosed and unfortunately that works for everyone, even the disingenuous. In any case pointing out daft anglers is a distraction from the real issue the survey is trying to highlight.

Have these fraudulent results been excluded from the analysis?

I haven't omitted these as the results are not mine to "adjust" in this way. I'm content to report all responses verbatim with the observation that even the handful who answered that they strongly support the BCUs current actions are either fishing trolls or a few folks who, from the rest of their individual answers, failed to parse the question properly an ticked "strongly agree" when they almost certainly meant "strongly disagree".

Some of the responses are of the "other (Please Specify)" type. How can we see what they specified?

Yes, I'll work out a way of sharing all of these soon. There are some remarkably insightful comments buried in the free form answers, but some of the questions had over 300 answers of this kind which means that if I include them all then the 12-page results become over a hundred pages!

[robp]

Rob, would you consider making Richard Atkinson (BCU Access bod) aware of some of these statistics, before the 29th May meeting about the Barle 'Agreement'? I rather suspect he'll be attending.

Sure, I'm still trying to work out the best way of using the huge number of responses we have received to actually make a difference. That's the main reason that I've been quiet for the last couple of weeks - I don't want to waste this opportunity to generate an impact and I'm trying to work out the best way of doing this.

[morsey]

Rob thanks for taking the time and effort to run the survey and to compile the results. You asked what's next! I would be inclined to compile the open answers, spot any trends and then run a second round of the survey incorporating those answers as options. Appreciate that might involve too much work. Like your integrity on not outing the dullards who gate crashed the survey and left their email addresses. They seem to have followed the cartoon genius script to the letter! Haha! :-)

[morsey]

There are certain questions that give an unequivocal response in the survey I would be inclined to present those to BCU ASAP.

[robp]

Link to full results, including comments/other boxes...

http://goo.gl/WIwIU

[Mark R]

681 different written replies to Q9, and I could still instantly identify Morsey's.

A very impressive piece of work indeed, I will comment more as I get into it and absorb it.

[robp]

Answer 3 of Q6 nearly resulted in a tea in keyboard moment. I do hope SurveyMonkey don't have an abuse policy.

[Mark R]

Many thanks to whomever it was who commented bizarrely claiming that I personally could solve the access issue in a year flat, clearly mistaking me for someone who has a clue about anything.

[Big Henry]

3. If the BCU do negotiate a restrictive "access agreement" for the Dart or any other river you paddle or want to paddle, how will this affect you?

I see that quite a number of paddlers in Scotland missed the point of this question! As did the person who suggested the questionnaire was biased towards the Dart, a comment I suspect was made by a local fisherman.

Several times the issue of charging commercial groups was raised. The last time I paddled a river as part of a "commercial" group (ie I paid a coach) there was three of us. Not much money changed hands. Should we then have to pay to use a river? The only result this would create is that the paddler paying the coach would be charged the access fee on top of the normal coaching fee. (I suspect the term "commercial" was meant to apply to rafting companies and large groups, but that is not necessarily the case!)

Quite a lot of times the French system of only allowing paddlers on the water between about 10am-6pm (the comments varied and I don't know what the exact situation is) midweek. This will stop all early morning and evening paddling for those who want to get out during the week who work, and I would suggest unfairly biases the river usage towards anglers, especially when you consider that the EA have demonstrated that paddling doesn't effect the fish, and it has been suggested that fish often rise immediately after paddlers pass by!

So what next?

Since there was so much support (at least 82.9%) for formal motions, would drawing up some motions be the next course of action? Since there was at least 44% support for the four motions mentioned, you could start there.

[morsey]

[quote="robp"]I don't want to waste this opportunity to generate an impact and I'm trying to work out the best way of doing this./quote]
Rob have you submitted the survey report to BCU/CE?

[morsey]

Did this survey get presented to BCU?

[morsey]

You've taken a vow of silence, how fascinating. Tell me about it.

[robp]

It is in hand. I should have a lot more to say within the next few weeks.