Can anyone clarify what the position is regarding the negotiated access for the slaloms on the Dee. I was under the impression that the Competition access was negotiated separately with no mention of restrictions on WW Paddling. Now I read that the BCU and WCA are distancing themselves from this. If this is the case how can they endorse the slalom?
If the competition access hinges on recreational paddlers not using the river then it will all fall to pieces.
This was raised on UKRGB
Cheers
Rich
Dee Races - Access
I asked the WCA last week about the River Dee tours, there are none again this year. I was told that the slalomists had negotiated their own access for the races but there was not full access to the Dee as we had in the past. (for 25+ years?).
For the last 2 years slalom has backed the call for full access to the Dee, moving the races to HPP in the hope that pier pressure from local traders would help gain the access. (Many thousands of pounds have been lost by local businesses).
We ought to ask if we are really doing the 'right thing' by going it alone.
My impression from the WCA office was one of dissaproval!
For the last 2 years slalom has backed the call for full access to the Dee, moving the races to HPP in the hope that pier pressure from local traders would help gain the access. (Many thousands of pounds have been lost by local businesses).
We ought to ask if we are really doing the 'right thing' by going it alone.
My impression from the WCA office was one of dissaproval!
"having looked at the other forum it appears as though quite a few people are not going to be happy!"mikey wrote:Are there likley to be problems then this weekend?? I did not know any of this having looked at the other forum it appears as though quite a few people are not going to be happy!
Which forum??
-
Seedy Paddler
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm
The other forum is the UKRGB linked in Boater Richs opening comments!
Assuming that the negotiations are purely for the slaloms then clearly anyone paddling the river above or below Llangollen are not party to the slalom and cannot be regarded as representative of slalomists. So do the locals want the benefit and money the slalom brings or to target and bring action against any boater that paddles outwith the agreement. An interesting dichotomy for the landlubbers?
Slalomists have gone with the no agreement unless for all, with no real benefit to anyone. Negotiated Access is only viable when it introduces a compromise acceptable to all parties, in England and Wales there is no requirement for the landowners or their agents to compromise. Hence no negotiated access agreements, Westminister keeps reminding us of the benefits of the UK so I suggest (again) the Land Reform (Scotland) Act be used as the basis for a Land Reform (UK) Act in Westminister.
I would suggest we need to build positively on the general local support for the slaloms, ensure we identify how many people visit the area, get some idea of spend etc. Then threaten to withdraw until a more open and acceptable agreement can be reached for all aspects of the sport. I.e. build the case for what the local economy will lose unless a compromise can be reached. At present it is largely conjecture or emotive argument which is blown away and disregarded by the landowners and anglers.
Can't guarantee that the tactic would work but hen we are not getting anywhere with the previous strategy so perhaps a change might shift the battle lines.
Assuming that the negotiations are purely for the slaloms then clearly anyone paddling the river above or below Llangollen are not party to the slalom and cannot be regarded as representative of slalomists. So do the locals want the benefit and money the slalom brings or to target and bring action against any boater that paddles outwith the agreement. An interesting dichotomy for the landlubbers?
Slalomists have gone with the no agreement unless for all, with no real benefit to anyone. Negotiated Access is only viable when it introduces a compromise acceptable to all parties, in England and Wales there is no requirement for the landowners or their agents to compromise. Hence no negotiated access agreements, Westminister keeps reminding us of the benefits of the UK so I suggest (again) the Land Reform (Scotland) Act be used as the basis for a Land Reform (UK) Act in Westminister.
I would suggest we need to build positively on the general local support for the slaloms, ensure we identify how many people visit the area, get some idea of spend etc. Then threaten to withdraw until a more open and acceptable agreement can be reached for all aspects of the sport. I.e. build the case for what the local economy will lose unless a compromise can be reached. At present it is largely conjecture or emotive argument which is blown away and disregarded by the landowners and anglers.
Can't guarantee that the tactic would work but hen we are not getting anywhere with the previous strategy so perhaps a change might shift the battle lines.
As someone with feet firmly in both camps, I supported the WCA when they refused to agree with the original proposal by the Llangollen Anglers which severely restricted access to the river, even though it lost us my favourite race of the year.
I understood that the agreement to allow us to run the races came without any other restrictions, however in an article in the Daily Post quoted here in a thread on UKRGB, future events are "dependent on the control of “rogue” canoeists". This suggests that in order to secure the event we have somehow taken on a commitment to prevent other canoeists using the river as they please. Since I probably fit under the heading of "rogue canoeist", this does concern me.
Can Jim or Mike confirm that they have not undertaken any such commitment?
I understood that the agreement to allow us to run the races came without any other restrictions, however in an article in the Daily Post quoted here in a thread on UKRGB, future events are "dependent on the control of “rogue” canoeists". This suggests that in order to secure the event we have somehow taken on a commitment to prevent other canoeists using the river as they please. Since I probably fit under the heading of "rogue canoeist", this does concern me.
Can Jim or Mike confirm that they have not undertaken any such commitment?
How may I ask are we supposed to "control rogue canoeists" ?? Unfortunatey one of the journalists given a piece from a Llangollen publicity guy regarding the event distorted it totally. Others went out in other publications but f course only this one has been picked up! When did we start believing the press anyway?? Come on guys give us a bit more credit!
That's my point! I am troubled by the comment in the article, and it doesn't seem the kind of thing that a journalist would have made up himself (unless, of course, he is a fisherman). Either it formed part of the agreement, or else he has spoken to someone on the angler's side who may have made an off the cuff remark. If we can confirm that we did not agree any restrictions on the rest of the river, or at other times apart from the race weekends, I will be a lot happier and will support the decision to run the events as robustly as I can.
Anne, your reply doesn't unequivocally state that there are not restrictions attached to the agreement, please confirm that there aren't any.
Anne, your reply doesn't unequivocally state that there are not restrictions attached to the agreement, please confirm that there aren't any.
I would suggest we need to build positively on the general local support for the slaloms, ensure we identify how many people visit the area, get some idea of spend etc. .
When the Dee Tours were first cancelled one of the things paddlers were asked to do were to fill in post cards saying how much they spent elsewhere as a result of having to go and paddle something other than the Dee that weekend. It would be good if we as slalomists could accurately calculate how much money we spent in Llangollen i.e car parking, acccomodation, food, petrol so that there are some more recent figures of our economic value to the area.
Personally as one of the 'rogue paddlers' I quite enjoy not currently having an access agrement as there is therefore no access agrement to break and I can paddle the Dee whenever I want to. What I don't want is an access agreement which agrees to competition use but states there will be no recreational paddling. Obviously Anne states that there are no restrictions. Hopefully, we can have the best of both worlds competetion paddling and no access agreement for the rest of the river.
-
jon lords hammond
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:44 am
white water racing is also using the Dee again, weekend after Btitish open, not well enough informed to comment on access situation in North wales, but seedy paddlers suggestion about the poor unfortunates south of Hadrians Wall taking a leaf out of Scotlands book with the Land Reform Act is a good one and the forward thinking Edinburgh Parliaments positive approach to access may help to put pressure on Westminster to do something in England and Wales, unfortunately England Wales still appears to be governed by the laws of the nineteenth, eighteenth and probably the seventeenth century when it comes to access.