New Cocker Agreement

[callwild]

Guys you may want to look at this thread and add comments reply to the EA etc.
Please note though I am just posting this as a request from Slime who is out of the country and he was asked to post it to solicit comment.
Neither Slime or I have had any dealings with negotiations or support this agreement or its sentiments so don't bombard me.
Cheers

Stu

http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29720&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

[ned]

Ive politely emailed;
jo.ratcliffe@environment-agency.gov.uk
and expressed my lack of agreement.

[Gav]

Not out to bombard. Shocked at the input by 'local users', totally unrepresented and misquoted. I had mentioned I might get involved as local i.e.compare it to Greta agreement...next thing I see is this access agreement...what happened there...I am sure they have received numerous e-mails about this...
Paddled the lower section other day when fair wack of water in it all good until the get out loads of fisherman. I had a chat with them...and left.

Gav

[callwild]

Thanks guys send him your feelings.
Already posted my sentiments on UKRB & sent them to Jo at EA.
I think everyone seems shocked at the ridiculous conditions which seem a step backwards after the Greta agreement.
I dont think anyone nowadays will accept ringing in to register where they are going canoeing.
There has always appeared to be untroubled access on the Cocker so why attempt to change it.

However a little bit of background (Which is all heresay and only as i understand it from my perspective).
This agreement appears to follow that recently made on the Lower Derwent with the Derwent Owners Association and the EA may see it as a step forward as in the past the Derwent Owners Association seemed to actively try and stop all canoeing. I heard one famous awful tale where a some bailiffs stopped a group of cold school children seeking shelter in their minibus until the Police arrived.
Anyway I believe John Crosbie of the Calvert Trust is the canoeing representative in these discussions and although he believes he is acting in good faith i dont think his views respresent the average recreational paddler. He is probably more concerned with opening official legal (access however limited) to organised club and centre groups to a couple of rivers on his doorstep, to avoid the disgusting situation I refer to earlier. So after negotiating an agreement, which for the first time actually allowed some canoeing, on the Lower Derwent they seem to have gone on to extend this to the Cocker.

Another point which I once heard was that originally this ridiculous agreement was muted should be applied to the Whole of the Derwent catchment area, which would include the Greta, Langstrath etc. etc. I remember haveing discussion with John about how ridiculous this would be, especially when it was muted that paddling would be totally banned in all feeder becks during November / December.
The reason the Greta greement is so good is because the fishermen thought thse were going to get beck paddling banned during these months but when it came down to it all the ladowners could not be found so that portion of the agreement fell through.
Interestingly our supposed LOCAL BCU site "Cumbria Canoeists" still states that paddling is banned in Greta tributaries during Nov/Dec, as it stated in the draft. This is not the case and it has not been updated to the correct agreement in the past 2 years despite my requests to their web master. A disgrace when people from out of the area need up to date info.
John Crosbie supported this outright ban on the becks in negotiations despite it being against BCU policy, which I checked with Simon Dawson, and it was lucky that at the time the Local RAO Mark Davies returned from abroad in time to attend some meetings before this right to paddle was given away. The good agreement on the Greta is actually result of luck rather than design. It could've been much worse.

So I believe negotiations on the canoeists behalf are not neccessarily being made by those with up to date recreational canoeits feelings.

It seems so out of date now to be talking about such restrictive agreements when the recent experiences of most canoeists is that we are able to go paddling relatively anywhere, undisturbed, without legal consequence.

On the other hand its probably not worth getting too bothered about as at the end of the day will it change anything for the majority of us who will paddle it anyway whatever. whatever is agreed I dont believe will even enter my thoughts when deciding what, when or where to paddle.

[Gav]

You are right about the website (cumbria canoeists) as it is going through a very slow re-invention with one fellow trying to do it all! People are directed towards the UK riverguidebook site. I was under the impression that the lower derwent access created a formula applied to the Cocker but was unaware of the other issues of becks higher up!
Even if by luck the access on the Greta should be an example of access..the debate will roll on!

[callwild]

Gav
I think this is just a draft agreement and that is maybe why they are soliciting opinion.
It woukd be interesting to know how the levels were decided upon and if local paddlers were involved, especially if you offered help. On the Greta we were asked for feedback and the mark was adjusted to a level we could all live with.

I know volunteers doing thankless tasks on websites have a hard time but I think this sort of information should be priority, and for a BCU website to suggest that an outright ban for a couple of months has been agreed is unacceptable. It could by default set a precedent and even give uninformed local fishermen the impression we are breaking the agreement. I have already heard rumblings about this amongst some local fishermen who want to blame somebody for their falling fish stocks.
How hard can it be to go in and delete 2 lines of text?

Otherwise the Greta agreement should be held up as a fine example. Indeed I often do on UKRGB.
But its hard to promote it when the official BCU website which publicises it to the general public has it wrong.
Stu

[ned]

I worry that any 'agreement' has danger of stumbling on the issues illustrated so clearly above.
The idea of an 'agreement' concedes the basic point that we are doing anything wrong by going boating. Any agreement not to boat should reflect a genuine conflict between users (not a perceived one) or be for genuine environmental reasons. I know the law does not reflect this, but natural justice does.
We have a long tradition of civil disobedience in this country, indeed, it is effectively written into a right. The countryside lobby who often are traditionally against us, understand this point and respect it.
We dont need to doff our caps and go begging for access. Where there are shocking incidents like the one described above, can i suggest that calling the press maybe helpful?
if we keep to the high moral ground, all will be well in the end.

[callwild]

Quite agree
Any agreement should only set out specific environmental reasons why an area should be avoided at particular times.
Agreements which presume that landowners have a right to stop boating on a whim are negative to the cause we are trying to put accross.

Ringing somebody to let them know where one is going is subservient in the extreme.

[Gav]

The CC website is out of date and needs sorting, I have voiced my stance to those involved as you rightly point out information is way out of date! New river access information seems to be put on UKRGB site first i.e. lower derwent etc maybe to solict opinion as you have suggested. Their are numerous parties involved and I feel that local/on the river paddlers are left out and agreements are arranged without full discussion. There is one access officer for cumbria based way down south who finds it difficult to be at these meetings - I suggested I could get involved. Next thing I know this agreements out for debate. Not a political fella, just a paddler looking to boat without conflict we need more locals to get involved...look at Scotland and Wales...