Page 3 of 3

Re: British Canoeing AGM

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:26 pm
by Adrian Cooper
I am sure many paddlers keep a logbook of their paddling like mountaineers do. Some for the purposes of their coaching records. Simply asking paddlers to supply this information would provide a potentially huge resource of historic usage which could support the argument. This would be a huge inputting task which would be more easily done by the individuals although this would reduce the quality of the response.

Re: British Canoeing AGM

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:12 pm
by BC Waterways Env
Adrian Cooper wrote:I am sure many paddlers keep a logbook of their paddling like mountaineers do. Some for the purposes of their coaching records. Simply asking paddlers to supply this information would provide a potentially huge resource of historic usage which could support the argument. This would be a huge inputting task which would be more easily done by the individuals although this would reduce the quality of the response.
Yes - I'm looking into ways of facilitating that, and having a system as open as possible. A few considerations to weigh up - ease of use, need for tight quality control etc.

I'd like this to be something everyone in the 'paddling community' can feel some ownership of.

Re: British Canoeing AGM

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:18 pm
by DaveBland
Thanks for your replies Chris. It really is refreshing to hear and have engagement and feedback. Your answers to my questions made me happy.

Whilst this seems like a great idea it will be really useful to gather and prove a PRN on as many rivers as you can – I can't help thinking this inevitably downplays claims to PRN on those not 'proved'.

The benefit of a blanket 'PRN on all rivers' approach is that not only is it in line with Caffyn's work but is simple and clear. But as long as it isn't a shift towards grabbing as many rivers as we can that have access to them, and selling out on the rest, then I think this is a great idea.

Re: British Canoeing AGM

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:42 pm
by stonercanoe
Chris are you after specific things to back up our argument for PRN? Examples are; the Monnow at Skenfrith there is a medieval dock, this proves that the river was used for navigation for hundreds of years. Alfred Russell Wallace wrote in his autobiography that as a child he watched coracles being used on the river Usk at Usk. This world date it about 1820. Stuff like this?
Jason

Re: British Canoeing AGM

Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:27 am
by morsey
The question is; Will BC be representative of, respondent to, and controlled more by a reflective of membership following this AGM? Or is the board still going to govern, effectively as and how they choose?

Re: British Canoeing AGM

Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:55 am
by BC Waterways Env
stonercanoe wrote:Chris are you after specific things to back up our argument for PRN? Examples are; the Monnow at Skenfrith there is a medieval dock, this proves that the river was used for navigation for hundreds of years. Alfred Russell Wallace wrote in his autobiography that as a child he watched coracles being used on the river Usk at Usk. This world date it about 1820. Stuff like this?
Jason
Yes - exactly this kind of knowledge. The aim is to collate this so we have as much evidence prepared as possible. Also to identify gaps - so for example if we have the suggestions you've made below, but not the actual sources, we can put something in place to find them.

Re: British Canoeing AGM

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 12:12 am
by morsey

Re: British Canoeing AGM

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:41 am
by Dave Manby
A very good piece and I recommend people read it all the way to the end! Morsey - maybe it should be re-posted under another topic title to get wider readership?
morsey wrote:Ring any similarities?

https://spark.adobe.com/page/0QN8kOi6YNKua/

Re: British Canoeing AGM

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:11 am
by davebrads
morsey wrote:Ring any similarities?

https://spark.adobe.com/page/0QN8kOi6YNKua/
I don't think so, apart from maybe the comments about intransigent old men. British Cycling was always about competition. They are now being pushed to be more active in the recreational side of the sport by Sport England but this is a recent change that seems to have come about from the realisation that producing more medallists in the Olympics doesn't seem to have translated into more people taking up sport. Producing athletes requires lots of resources and commitment not just from the governing bodies and sports clubs, but even more so from the athletes themselves and their families. Increasing recreational cycling has probably been seen as low hanging fruit requiring much less investment for a far greater increase in numbers.

In contrast British Canoeing is an umbrella body that has always included recreational and competitive disciplines. On the whole the competitive disciplines have been left to run themselves while the governing body has been more concerned with administration of the membership and recreational coaching. The funding that has come into the sport has mostly been streamed directly into the coaching of the Olympic disciplines with the two teams pretty much running as autonomous units under the oversight of the performance director. Perhaps because of the success of British Cycling these teams have looked to take it as a model for their activities, perhaps with the same issues.

I get the impression that British Canoeing is being pushed to smarten up its act on the recreational side for the same reasons that British Cycling has moved into recreational cycling and that is why we have seen the recent changes in personnel.

Re: British Canoeing AGM

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm
by Adrian Cooper
Reason for the recent board changes:

https://www.sportengland.org/media/3492 ... -and-9.pdf

Re: British Canoeing AGM

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:27 pm
by morsey
Adrian Cooper wrote:Reason for the recent board changes:
"Cash Cow"