History repeating itself!?!

[Ollie5]

You say there is no need for an agreement, but there is an agreement. Unless kayakers are represented for change that agreement will stand. It seems to me Simon M is good at dishing it out but will not put words into action. I agree with him wholeheartedly but as Simon W has bothered to try and get some form of access I respwct that until someone else manages something different. Simon M seems to have all the answers so he is the perfect person to push for correct access surely?

[Matt E]

You say there is no need for an agreement, but there is an agreement. Unless kayakers are represented for change that agreement will stand. It seems to me Simon M is good at dishing it out but will not put words into action. I agree with him wholeheartedly but as Simon W has bothered to try and get some form of access I respwct that until someone else manages something different. Simon M seems to have all the answers so he is the perfect person to push for correct access surely?

An agreement that one party doesn't stick to is like the piece of paper Neville Chamberlain brought home from Munich

[clarky999]

You say there is no need for an agreement, but there is an agreement. Unless kayakers are represented for change that agreement will stand. It seems to me Simon M is good at dishing it out but will not put words into action. I agree with him wholeheartedly but as Simon W has bothered to try and get some form of access I respwct that until someone else manages something different. Simon M seems to have all the answers so he is the perfect person to push for correct access surely?

No, there isn't an agreement - outside of any you as an individual make anyway (no-one can make an agreement on your behalf without your consent, or you are clearly not in 'agreement' with it), and frankly I don't care if fishermen choose choose to think otherwise - it makes no difference to me. There is 100% access already, whether some people tell you otherwise makes no difference to this.

I don't know either of the individuals you are discussing so really can't comment on that, but rather than all this pointless bitchiness, it'd be better for everyone if paddlers just paddle when they want (excepting when it's low enough to cause real environmental damage). There is absolutely no need, IMV, to enter into debate with anyone (other than maybe the government - or genuinely concerned environmental organisations) about when or where we should paddle.

[DaveBland]

...it'd be better for everyone if paddlers just paddle when they want (excepting when it's low enough to cause real environmental damage). There is absolutely no need, IMV, to enter into debate with anyone (other than maybe the government - or genuinely concerned environmental organisations) about when or where we should paddle.

The wisest words on access spoken on this site.

[Mark Allen]

I thought this 'on the ledge' thing was merely saying 'you won't get hassle from fishermen if you paddle at that level or higher,' rather than 'you should not paddle lower than this?'

This is the point we tried to make several weeks ago!!! Thats all, and no more!!!

[Richard Gunton]

its gose round and round and round and round and.................................................................................................................................

[Mark Allen]

And is very very boring!!!

[Simon Westgarth]

In case you have missed the recent access survey (Simon W certainly seemed to!), there is a substantiated number of paddlers who do not want restrictive agreements, so given the DFA stance, there should be no negotiations.

In reading the survey, the way the questions are framed is very poor indeed, so any independent authority would throw it out as an unfair impression of the situation.

I do not want an agreement. Yet if we have 365 day access, this would always come with responsibilities, and it's here that low flow summer paddling would put us in direct conflict with fishermen. Unlike yourself, I do not think fishermen would be happy to share the river at the same time. This point of view has come about from speaking with fishermen and members of the DFA. In terms of responsibilities, we have a duty of care for the environment & conservation, and neither of us has sufficient local knowledge as to when the fish are actually spawning. Hence why I felt it's better that we always get on 400m below Two Bridges, rather than yes today and no tomorrow, which could place unsuspecting paddlers, as there is a lot of people who do not know why these things are so, at potential risk of damaging spawning beds, just because Morsey wishes to have his rights regardless.

Lastly, Simon Morse, please stop painting me as a member of the establishment, I am not, I represent not one of the parties that shape these things. I am aware that these parties may wish to consult with myself from time to time, but that does not make me party to their wishes and decisions. It's frustrating being a paddler in England & Wales on the subject of access, and on here and a few FB groups you have found an audience for your point of view, which for you is great, but would it not be best to use your energies to actually make a difference, perhaps you could start with a survey others beyond paddling would accept.

[morsey]

Lastly, Simon Morse, please stop painting me as a member of the establishment,

I never said you were, I made the comparison of repetition, I said BCU/CE SW and Dart Access used to shout at paddlers and now you have taken to shouting at paddlers. You are creating yourself as the organiser of a restrictive agreement. (Agreement, arrangement, accord, call it what you like, we all know what it is).


You missed the survey, and now you try to dismiss its value! You certainly know about unbalanced questions, the only question you asked in regards setting your on the ledge agreement for paddling the Dart:

"I go paddling when I like regardless of other river users" or "I go when the level is on the slab or more for summer paddling"

That sums up your view point Simon, you think people should play by your rules, they cannot possibly make the decision themselves, and if they disagree you assume that they disregard others and cause conflict. And, I'll repeat, that the conflict is all one sided and is being presented by anglers not by paddlers.




This was conveniently edited off the Dart group:

Congratulations Morsey, your foolish short sighted militant stance has lead to numerous low water, below the slab runs on the Upper Dart this past weekend during the fishing season. Beware what comes next, we're now into unchartered water where the outcome is quiet unpredictable. Which of course is all so easy for you to deal with living in Bristol day tripping down to Devon.

I think people need to respect a bit of what local experienced boaters are saying an stay off the Dart when it's below the slab during the fishing season. White water kayaking requires recant heavy and prolonged rain. We have moved forward on the Dart, now nots let us mess it up!!!

[Big Henry]

I do not think fishermen would be happy to share the river at the same time.

Yet the fishermen are not the ones that are being "told" to stop participating in their activity by paddlers (and don't mention the closed fishing season because that is imposed from on high and neither paddlers nor anglers have any control of this, and it is quite frankly nothing whatsoever to do with paddlers). It's always paddlers having to give way to anglers.

This point of view has come about from speaking with fishermen and members of the DFA. In terms of responsibilities, we have a duty of care for the environment & conservation, and neither of us has sufficient local knowledge as to when the fish are actually spawning.

I realise this is generally considered "outside" of the access debate, but since you persistently bring it up...What about the environmental impact of dragging aquatic creatures out of their environment for pleasure, massively stressing these creatures then suffocating them out of the water to remove metal from their faces (that the angler put there) and often proudly having a photo taken with them while they suffocate further. Anglers have absolutely no right whatsoever to start arguing about the environment and conservation whilst being completely hypocritical.

[Mark R]

Neither Simon W nor Mark A have been involved in setting up any form of Dart agreement, nor have they any authority or mandate to tell other paddlers what they can do on the Dart...yet they repeatedly imply otherwise.

That's all there is to this discussion, end of.

[RichA]

Neither Simon W nor Mark A have been involved in setting up any form of Dart agreement, nor have they any authority or mandate to tell other paddlers what they can do on the Dart...yet they repeatedly imply otherwise.

That's all there is to this discussion, end of.

And yet it appears Simon W is able to tell people when to stay off the Dart? Fair enough he's been involved (in one way or another) with these agreements/arrangements, but what justification is there for imposing a minimum paddleable level? What is it based on?

[Mark R]

he's been involved (in one way or another) with these agreements/arrangements

No, he hasn't. He's just another guy who paddles the Dart.

what justification is there for imposing a minimum paddleable level? What is it based on?

None and nothing. The 'above the ledge' thing is totally arbitrary and frankly, mystifies me.

[ChrisE]

what justification is there for imposing a minimum paddleable level? What is it based on?

None and nothing. The 'above the ledge' thing is totally arbitrary and frankly, mystifies me.

There is in some cases a basis for a minimum paddle-able level if it is in spawning season, and boats are likely to be disturbing the beds where fish are spawning, but these are on very specific spots (so could be say 500m portage in the middle of a run, not an issue down the whole river), and at levels such that you wouldn't want to be paddling that bit then anyway if it's all scraping...

[Mark R]

Down to 6 inches below the ledge - and possibly lower - a virtually scrape-free run is possible, indeed a quality trip as well. The 'level with the ledge' thing has no basis in anything at all.

[ChrisE]

ahh I think we read the comment differently.
I read it as in general what is the justification, I think you read it as this specific case what is the justification (and I agree there is no justification in this case apart from to appease some fishermen)

[SPL]

There are 3 reasons not to paddle the dart below the ledge in the summer. 1 It possibly has a negative impact on the environment, 2 it brings kayakers into conflict with anglers over this peceived issue and 3 its shit.

[Mark R]

There are 3 reasons not to paddle the dart below the ledge in the summer. 1 It possibly has a negative impact on the environment, 2 it brings kayakers into conflict with anglers over this peceived issue and 3 its shit.

1. There is no evidence for this.

2. No more or less than at any level they see us paddling at.

3. Are you serious?

[Ollie5]

How can 6 inches below the slab be virtually scrape free? The paddle in and out is a nightmare at that level? The photos of boof line do not look 6 inches below levels, The Upper Dart is hard work at lower levels and agree with SPL its pretty rubbish. Yet the lower it gets the busier it gets so people dont use their common sense and paddle at paddlable levels.

[jmmoxon]

Many boaters aren't up to paddling the Upper at levels over the edge, should they be excluded from enjoying the river? This also explains why it is busier when lower (there are more grade 3 paddlers in the country than grade 4)...

It seems the BCU have attempted to answer some of the questions:

http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/media/p ... ONMENT.pdf

Mike

[morsey]

This is the point we tried to make several weeks ago!!! Thats all, and no more!!!

Nice move, booting me out of the Dart group, Mark. See you on the river sometime, Si :-)

[Simon Westgarth]

..now you have taken to shouting at paddlers. You are creating yourself as the organiser of a restrictive agreement. (Agreement, arrangement, accord, call it what you like, we all know what it is).

No I have not, merely yourself be always tome and again, taking the rights only route, foregoing the responsibilities that would need to go with the brave new world you desire.

"I go paddling when I like regardless of other river users" or "I go when the level is on the slab or more for summer paddling"

This was from a question posed on the FB Dart group, to see if we as a collective of paddlers could come to an accord, that had been established.

Congratulations Morsey, your foolish short sighted militant stance has lead to numerous low water, below the slab runs on the Upper Dart this past weekend during the fishing season. Beware what comes next, we're now into unchartered water where the outcome is quiet unpredictable. Which of course is all so easy for you to deal with living in Bristol day tripping down to Devon.

Again from the FB Dart group, which post was deleted due to endless posting on off an unpractical entrenched view that no one beyond the contributors here and there would consider reasonable. Time and time again it's always I am right regardless from Morsey because it's morally right, yet where has this gotten us, others than debating on here and the Dart FB group, no where. The sum total of no where, absolutely not one mm of progressive. I like the stance, but it's impractical. The point of myself getting involved with the EA on the West Dart was to neutralise the concerns that the EA had on paddling up there, their request was reasonable. In throwing it out, you have picked a fight that was unwanted and more importantly not needed.

What's needed in the new situation, on summer low water paddling, is to arm paddler's with the law, what to do if confronted, and if law action is taken against them. As it's way more likely if this new trend keeps occurring, that we head into direct conflict with the DFA. Unfortunately it'll the likes of local paddlers who have normally avoided sharing the river with fishermen, who will be in the firing line when as likely injunctions start flowing. The on the slab summer level, has served them well for the last many years, but clearly others have a different point of view and we as a group of paddlers are heading in to a different situation. There will be a reaction, injunctions, probably, new by-laws may be, as the DNPA will get quite concerned about their conservation remit. For these parties it's often the perception of threat and not the actual threat, from which they will react.

Neither Simon W nor Mark A have been involved in setting up any form of Dart agreement, nor have they any authority or mandate to tell other paddlers what they can do on the Dart...yet they repeatedly imply otherwise.

That's all there is to this discussion, end of.

Not at all, my point of view on the access point at Two Bridges, is well presented above. As is my point that low water summer paddling is likely to get us into far more conflict than we currently have, we up until now paddlers have avoid fishermen on the river, because the prime conditions for both sports are different, where as Morsey & yourself, are looking for direct conflict, simply because it's moral right for anyone to have access regardless of what that actually means practically.

I have no mandate to say when and when not to go paddling, but merely understand that in having the right to go paddling, I have responsibilities to other river users. And in having this debate with fishermen from the DFA, I am acutely aware that they are very unwilling to share the river with us at the same time. So I feel the best way forward is to avoid each other, so in the summer months this is best done when the river is high, but at what level to ensure separation? Local paddlers have always gone on the slab at Newbridge. This is clearly up for debate, with so many day trippers wishing to hit the river, when the rain gauges show good conditions are on there way.

Now if you feel otherwise, the level is good to go, all the way down to 6 inches below, go ahead do as you like, but I do not think those actions would be neither fair to other river users nor reasonable to avoid direct conflict.

[davebrads]

those actions would be neither fair to other river users nor reasonable to avoid direct conflict.

How are we being unfair to other river users? The fishermen can still fish whether there are paddlers on the river or not. It is they (and you) who are being unfair to paddlers by trying to restrict us from paddling a perfectly usable river - one of a few in this country, especially in the south, that doesn't require it to be raining when you get on the river. There are plenty of other rivers that can be fished in those conditions though.

[Mark R]

The photos of boof line do not look 6 inches below levels.

I didn't say they were. But that is below the ledge - 2 inches-ish?

The Upper Dart is hard work at lower levels and agree with SPL its pretty rubbish.

The vast majority of paddlers clearly disagree with you. It's obviously not as good as a smooth medium-high run (what is?) but it's still a quality scrape-free paddle, some way below the ledge. Good enough for Si W etc to run 5 star assessments on, for instance.

[Mark R]

Local paddlers have always gone on the slab at Newbridge.

That's simply untrue - it's just an arbitrary and invented mantra that you and a couple of mates on FB have invented, claiming to be able to speak for all Devon paddlers.

Local paddlers ... day trippers

The we-locals-know-best-and-'daytrippers'-should-abide-by-what-we-say nonsense implied in your post does you no credit, and I'm fairly sure that you yourself do not really share such attitudes, were you to step back and consider some of your words.

In any case, you live in Finland.

[ChrisE]

Ok so we have the argument going round again and not getting anywhere.

Firstly can people like Morsey understand that fishermen want to use the river, and that they want no paddlers there when they are using it, and that they pay for the right to fish, and so feel they have more right to be there than we do.
Second can you not accept that the fishermen will see it as unfair that they never get their river to themselves. Regardless of whether or not kayaks coming past disturb the fish it still disturbs them, and makes their day less enjoyable.

If we can show that we can stick to some sensible level agreement then we are more likely to get it formally in any agreement (whether or not some paddlers want to agree to it). This may mean making some concessions and allowing the fishermen the river on very low levels.


Can you also accept that getting on 400m down from the two bridges on the west dart is a reasonable price to pay for being able to paddle the river without conflict.
Here if we can show the EA that we are capable of considering the environment, and are able to deal with the sensitive areas then we may be able to persuade them to relax the non-conflict position, say to only get in 400m downstream out of spawning time.

But we are not going to persuade people who think they own the rivers to give us better access agreements until we can show that we can stick to them with sensible restrictions properly. The only other way forwards would be a clarification / change in the law, which isn't something that we can affect so easily. So we have to do the best we can with what we have.

Also morsey and others can you accept that your paddle anytime attitude might well make it harder for locals/ anyone that sticks to reasonable restriction, which other river users have agreed will see no conflict, as the other river users extend their conflict as a response to try and get the river back to themselves.


Banging on and just carrying on with your point of view and shouting it does not help anywhere near so much as sensible discussion where you read others points and accept them, and try to see where they are coming from such that you can meet sensible compromise.

[Simon Westgarth]

Good enough for Si W etc to run 5 star assessments on, for instance.

Low water paddling during the closed game fishing season on the Upper Dart is great fun.

Local paddlers have always gone on the slab at Newbridge.

That's simply untrue - it's just an arbitrary and invented mantra that you and a couple of mates on FB have invented, claiming to be able to speak for all Devon paddlers.

I speaking with the regular guys who paddle during summer flood runs, they tend to keep to this arbitrary rule, to avoid direct conflict. It has served them well for many a year. It's not something I have made up.

Local paddlers ... day trippers

The we-locals-know-best-and-'daytrippers'-should-abide-by-what-we-say nonsense implied in your post does you no credit, and I'm fairly sure that you yourself do not really share such attitudes, were you to step back and consider some of your words.

Read the whole post rather than taking some of the words and grouping them to frame a poor argument.

The source of the debate it appears that some believe we can share the rivers at the same time, others not or dont care. My point of view has been outlined extensively above.

In any case, you live in Finland.

I am resident of the UK, although I am not there very much, more in Norway these days.

PS, fishing has gone on for centuries and more, whether for sport or food, I do not think our case for increased access has much merit trying to argue it's cruel.

[Randy Fandango]

The source of the debate it appears that some believe we can share the rivers at the same time, others not or dont care. My point of view has been outlined extensively above.

What a great quote -- amusingly one that I think both sides of this debate feel they have ownership of...
Giles

[Ollie5]

Last summer I went once in lower water and met with 3 fisherman, all 3 were not happy to see us, 1 even started casting at us. This is the only time I have come across anglers and do not want it again. they dont want us messing up their fishing end of story ! They pay a lot money to fish so cant blame them. This debate is going nowhere!

[Adrian Cooper]

And how did this make you feel? Perhaps sympathy for their point of view? Maybe you thought they were perfectly justified at being angry and threatening you with physical harm.