SC(3) - AIW135

Sustainability Committee

Inquiry into access to inland water in Wales

Dear Sirs,

I am far from a habitual emailer or letter writer but I am moved to write to you, in my capacity as an individual angler, in the the strongest terms on the matter of the Welsh Canoeing Association's (WCA) efforts to persuade the Assembly to change the law to allow paddlers completely free and unfettered access to all rivers in Wales at all times of the year.

I mainly enjoy fishing on the Upper Wye, Welsh Dee and River Severn by day ticket. I enjoy fishing for both coarse and game fish and 100% of any game fish I catch in these rivers.

As an angler and a citizen I have a clear knowledge and respect for my legal rights when obtaining access to beats on these (and all other) rivers. In short, it is a trespass to go on a river above the tide which is in private ownership without the owner's prior permission, and I abide by this 100%. I feel strongly that this legal position should be upheld.

My experience of voluntary agreements with canoeists has been mixed. On the Welsh Dee above Llangollen prior to the close of the salmon fishing season in mid October, I have, on many occasions been (in some cases) deliberately disturbed by canoeists whose manners and language have been appalling. Similarly on the Upper Wye I have been disturbed by canoeists paddling through despite the river height being well below the 2 foot 6 inch mark in clear breach of the voluntary agreement. Again, when politely challenged, the response from canoeists has ranged from a shrug of the shoulders to a volley of blue language. I would also point out that on some occasions canoeists have shown extreme courtesy to me and asked where I would like them to paddle to cause least disturbance and we have exchanged pleasantries. Sadly such events have been in the small minority. On the navigable stretch of the Wye at weekends I have at times during the summer simply been forced to reel in and sit on the bank as fishing was rendered impossible to the constant flotilla of canoes and rafts, to say nothing of "spooked" fish. Such is life, before I bought my day tickets I have know this to be a risk and I have not complained in this regard. I mention this to illustrate the incompatability of unchecked canoeing and rafting with angling.

Other points I would also raise include:

• the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act (1975) which protects spawning fish and, in the case of salmon & sea trout their redds, from disturbance. This should be upheld. Anglers respect this. It is law therefore so should others.

• Canoeists give the entirely false impression - backed up by some far fetched statistics - that they have little or no access to running water in Wales. To start with there is free navigation on all tidal stretches of rivers and Wales has the second highest tidal reach in the world! The tidal stretches of some rivers can easily amount to a quarter of their whole length.

• I object to the deceitful way in which the WCA has withdrawn from some perfectly good access agreements to try to show the Assembly that they don't have enough water, whilst still continuing to give ingress and egress points on maps in their website, so inciting trespass.

• The main reason why canoeists do not have more water to paddle in the upper reaches of rivers is that the WCA will not accept any restrictions to their paddling - for instance they will not accept that paddling should just take place in the six winter/early spring months when little fishing occurs. Unfortunately the WCA have pressurised local canoeing clubs to adopt the same intransigent attitude.

• Riparian owners and angling clubs have to endure almost constant trespass by canoeists who seem to think that they should be rewarded for their unlawful behaviour by the law being changed in their favour. This is not how a democracy should work and a key tenet of our way of life should be upheld on this point.

• Anglers put a significant amount of both work and finance into Welsh rivers to improve the habitat and water quality which seems to have gone almost unnoticed. Anglers pay twice in order to fish: once to the EA (£68 per annum for a migratory fish rod licence) and again in club fees or whatever to be able to fish a certain river or stretch of river. 

• Anglers do not pay to be able to take fish (which canoeists constantly maintain); they pay for the enjoyment of using someone else's asset. This is proved by the fact that coarse fishing clubs who return 100% of their catch still pay an annual rental to the riparian owner. Their members would think it very strange if they were given this water for free.

• The canoeists and now the Petitions Committee point to Scotland where the Scottish Land Reform Act (2003) gave open access to rivers and say that this would work in Wales. I believe it would not work and that it would be quite wrong to impose something similar in Wales for the following, and many other reasons:

Scottish rivers are on the whole much bigger than Welsh ones, so a group of maybe ten rafts going down a river say 3m wide is bound to have a much greater ecological effect than if the river is 10m wide;
-the numbers of major conurbations (Liverpool, Manchester & Birmingham) a couple of hours away from north & mid Wales is much greater that similar sized urban areas to the Scottish Highlands, so far more canoeists/kayakers/rafters/gorge walkers would access smaller rivers;
-the main game fish in Scotland, the salmon, is much less wary than sewin, which are so important to Wales both economically and culturally.  Anglers from England and mainland Europe will not come to Wales and support local economies if big sea trout have been scared by canoeists above them and are therefore uncatchable.
-the amount of trouble there has been on Scottish rivers since the Land Reform Act was passed has been grossly downplayed. Anecdotally, I understand that the upper Tay is "nothing but a war zone" with commercial rafting companies making angling virtually impossible.

Finally, to change the law to allow unrestricted access on Welsh rivers would be a direct parallel to allowing the 'right to roam' on golf course. These areas were specifically excluded from the CRoW Act as they are commercial enterprises - but so are rivers. If the law was altered as canoeists wish, riparian owners and angling clubs would quite rightly require very large amounts in compensation from the Assembly for the reduction in value of their assets and the derogation of their leases respectively.

Yours faithfully,

John DW Cox BA MSc MA MRICS