Open boating on County Lock Weir

Having not been down to the centre of Reading for a while, it was good to spot this submission for the Canoe England monthly photo competition:

Photo reproduced with kind permission of Oliver Richardson.  Good luck in the competition!

With the fall off of Kennet river levels during April, the wave below the weir at County Lock appears to be perfect for a spot of open boating.

This weir was not always such a good spot for paddling.  For many years a footbridge topped the weir on support stanchions, but by the 1990's it had fallen into disrepair, before being completely removed.  If travelling dowstream to the weir take care with the floating bollards which are designed to stop larger craft missing the lock, and whether canoeing or kayaking, airbags are always a good idea at this spot, as can be seen from this earlier video:

RDAA accuses Devizes to Westminster teams/crews of littering the Kennet

In its General Secretary's report for April, the Reading & District Angling Association (RDAA)has made the following statement: 
 
CANOE RACE

Following the latest race I will be contacting Canals & Rivers Trust with reference to the amount of litter discarded by the contestants and watchers on to our Froxfield venue. If this had been anglers leaving this amount of rubbish we would have been reprimanded.

The race referred to is the International Devizes to Westminster Canoe Race which took place over the Easter Holiday weekend.  The Froxfield section concerned is on the Kennet and Avon Canal from just above Lock 67 to just below Lock 71.  Froxfield Lock (#68) is at the DW Race 23 mile marker, some 2.7 miles before the Hungerford race checkpoint.

Given that no evidence or any actual information on the amount of the alleged litter was provided, I took a couple of bin bags down to the parking point at Froxfield Lock (#68) yesterday, which is at the DW Race 23 mile marker, some 2.7 miles before the Hungerford race checkpoint.

Free parking is available next to Lock 68 near Froxfield on the Kennet & Avon Canal.

I almost immediately found a canoeing-branded 500ml drink bottle and an isotonic gel sachet taped for attachment to a canoe race competitor, which were duly picked up, and have since been recycled/binned.

The better news is that in a 7km search upstream as far as Lock 67 and downstream to Lock 71 and back (including careful checks around all the lock portage points) no other canoeing related litter was found.  However, that's still two bits of litter too many, so, to borrow the words of an advertising campaign originally set up in Australia...

This message is less offensive than litter.  There is no excuse: take your litter home or bin it properly.

More positive environmental news comes in the shape of some other 'debris' discovered at the side of Lock 71:

The remains of an Otter's lunch by Lock 71, which means there are at least three less American Signal Crayfish (ASC) in the Canal.

Click on the highlighted text for more information on ASC biosecurity for paddlers and Otters in the River Kennet.

Minority environmental abuse on the River Kennet

Last November, this blog reported on how Access to the River Kennet at Arrowhead Road had been lost to legitimate river users, an action possibly influenced by the litter left at that location by "a minority of the public".

Another stretch of the River Kennet is now suffering from similar ongoing seasonal abuse by a small but persistent anti-social element, which is affecting a section of a navigable riverine Kennet channel, principally over a length of approximately 350m, and up to a maximum recorded extent of about 800m.

The area in question is facing the following issues.

 

1.  General littering of the banks (which could be down to anyone), and some very specific angling related litter.

 

Luncheon meat (and a number of similar canned meat-based products) is a favourite bait for River Kennet Barbel anglers, but hey, one discarded 'tin' spotted yesterday doesn't constitute a substantial disregard for the environment...

 

 ...so lets play 'how many cans can you spot in one photograph?' (this image is from 24.03.13 and perhaps reflects an 'end of season' attitude)...

 

....or we could consider a selection of photographs from the last month.  It may be that I've seen the same rubbish before, so I've only added a small selection here.  Over the summer the undergrowth behind the access footpath will disguise previously uncleared rubbish.

 

 The length of time some of this rubbish has been left undisturbed and the process of slow decay is attested by these images from today.

 

You might think that the colour of some discarded angling equipment might help hide it from ready view, and 'excuse' those responsible for cleaning up for not having spotted it 
(assuming that those people who dumped it the first place couldn't have taken it away)...

 

...but when the undergrowth dies back you may come across the fishing umbrella equivalent to an  uncleared elephant graveyard.
 

More of the same (from January 2012)...

...and from today.

Some of the angling litter at this location is less easy to miss; this reel lying by the side of the public footpath today was not exactly hard to spot...

...and neither was this large plastic bag left beside the river.  It's a shame that the Angling Trust haven't been more rigorous in promoting their Tidy Angler project (funded by the Environment Agency, which therefore means the taxpayer is paying for a scheme that doesn't appear to be having much effect at this location).

 

Some of the angling rubbish at this site has obviously blown in from fishing lakes behind the river where anglers seek different prey, but it's a good place to escape from immediate view, which leads to point no. 2...

 

2. Human excrement.

 

Unfortunately, this is not the only example of anglers being 'caught short' on this section of the Kennet (their foresight in bringing toilet paper might be more commendable had they also thought of bringing a trowel or a bucket and bin bag too) but I think one photo is enough.  Those who may shortly be cleaning up this area might want to adopt appropriate health care precautions.

 

3. Now we come to a problem that affects all waterways, and which is an issue affecting both wildlife and paddlers when it comes to this section of the River Kennet.  Discarded and abandoned fishing tackle.

 

It's often really hard to see fishing line when paddling, but whilst this section of the River Kennet is only legally fished from the north bank (and therefore the fishing rights may only extend to half way across the river) that doesn't mean you won't face the possibility of snagging at any point along either side of this riverine section.

 

Most decent anglers will try to remove snagged lines (look closely at the center of this picture; so far as I'm aware the angler whose rod was still attached to this line removed it before departing)...

 

 ...but this section of the River Kennet seems to suffer from a surfeit of either myopic or vicariously thoughtless and careless anglers (this picture was taken in November 2012: it shows a fishing hook and length of fishing line at head height which was removed by a paddler from a clearly visible angling bankside location along the section of concern).  Once again, the principals of the AT's Tidy Angler project don't seem to have made much of an impression here.

More line with hook and float from today; if you think this looks fairly harmless...

 

...it's also difficult for wildlife to spot discarded fishing line as a snag hazard.  The victim in this picture, taken today, was a moorhen.

 

4.  We now come to a little recognised hazard which may be particularly relevant along this section of the River Kennet.  Underwater snagging.  The type of line and hooks shown in the pictures above are no less dangerous to wildlife when underwater.

This tree fall has remained in place for a long time during which time it has become a favoured spot for local anglers.  However, there is a risk that it has gained a considerable underwater collection of lost line and hooks. 

The words of a concerned angler best describe this issue: "Fishing to snags can be VERY productive BUT it has a shocking downside that as anglers we rarely see. I am talking about tethered fish.

Through my work within fishery management I have been involved in many snag removal projects and they are always unpopular with the anglers fishing the venue at the time. They change the appearance of the fishery and they will change the behaviour of the fish. However in the last twenty or so years I have rescued a number of tethered fish during such operations and also removed miles of line, bucketfuls of leads and of course many rigs. Sadly I have also found fish that have been tethered that have not survived."

It is the responsibility of riparian landowners (or their delegated authority) to ensure that water can flow through their land without any obstruction.  It is also a responsibility to "clear any litter and animal carcasses from the channel and banks, even if it did not come from your land."

This particular hazard can be negotiated with care by paddlers in normal flows, even when residual growth and accumulated summer foliage appears to present a curtain against downstream view.  The complaint of an angler of this section of the Kennet that this blog contains "photos of some favourite swims being cleared for passage" presumably refers to this picture from 2011:   

This is the same location as pictured in the preceding image.  The paddlers are not removing the branches in this instance, but canoeists are uniquely able to assist in clearance of river debris.  Unfortunately, and as the above quote indicates, there are those who would rather see such blockages remain in place.

Elsewhere on this stretch of the Kennet banks have been cleared to provide ease of angling access and reduce the chance of snagging, but in the following examples (pictures taken of a spot opened up to provide an additional point from which to cast a line just below the previously pictured tree falls) care for the environment does not appear to have been the priority.

Branches cut to avoid snagging would be better properly removed...

...no, lesson not learned.

 

This particular point does not assist paddlers wishing to portage here because the bank is too high.  However, there are numerous other places along the course of this channel where the banks and vegetation have been previously cleared for angling access, and which might serve for access or egress where the public footpath runs alongside the north bank (river left), or, further along the loop, in emergency need.

Where bankside clearance has already been made, access/egress for paddlers is often ideal if the location is not otherwise occupied and where it provides access to legal rights of way; a vacant peg on the River Kennet yesterday.

Just in case you haven't worked it out by now, this section of the River Kennet (and from where all of the pictures above have been taken, although there are many more from other locations along this river) is the Sulhamstead loop which runs for about 900m from Sulhamstead weir to the point where it rejoins the canal cut below Sulhamstead Lock. 

The fishing rights here are exclusively leased by the Reading and District Angling Association (RDAA).  The President of the RDAA is Martin Salter, who is also the National Campaigns Co-ordinator of the Angling Trust.  RDAA call this beat the "Lower Benyons" in deference to the owners of the estate which leases them the fishing rights here, a family of which Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Natural Environment, Water and Rural Affairs Richard Benyon MP (his ministerial portfolio includes inland waterways) is a member.

It should be emphasised that the vast majority of anglers care deeply about our rivers, and have a great deal of knowledge to share with all those who feel the same way.  There is great opportunity for all river users to work together for the benefit of the environment. The minority who are not willing to accept their responsibilities have no place by our waterways, and those who seek to use environmental arguments to exclude canoeists and kayakers from English and Welsh rivers might first wish to put their own house in order.

National exposure for the Kennet access issue

Guardian writer George Monbiot has highlighted the issue of river navigation rights with a focus on the River Kennet in his latest blog, in a piece titled "We have no right to our rivers while Richard Benyon's interests are served" [posted online Thursday 4 April 2013 13.43 BST and reproduced today on his own blog under the heading "Political Barbed Wire. Why are 97% of our rivers shut to the public? A millionaire minister’s amazing conflicts of interest give you a clue."].

Whilst the full article, complete with referenced links, is well worth a read (as are the readers comments that follow the Guardian post) selected excerpts relating to canoeing and kayaking on the River Kennet are reproduced below.

"We have no right to our rivers while Richard Benyon's interests are served

The environment minister is being permitted to oversee a highly sensitive issue in which he has an active proprietorial stake.

 

[...] Now here we go again. This article is about yet another of the minister's potential conflicts of interest.

For many years canoeists, kayakers and wild swimmers have been seeking access to the rivers of England and Wales. In Scotland, as in most parts of the world, the rivers are open to those who can navigate them. But in England and Wales, canoeists and others have formal rights of access to only 3% of our rivers: 1,400 out of 42,700 miles. Everywhere else we are told we are trespassing. We have been denied one of life's great joys: messing about on the river.

There are 2.5 million canoeists and kayakers in this country, and doubtless many more people who would like to jump in the water or take their children for a paddle. But the landlords - primarily those who own or lease the fishing rights - resolutely seek to prevent public use of this great national asset: the waterways that by right surely belong to everyone and no one.

Now here's where it gets interesting. The landowners seem to be asserting a power to exclude that they do not possess. Going back to the 15th century and beyond, there appears to be a general right of navigation on all rivers. As the campaign River Access for All points out, this right was tested in the high court in 2002 (Josie Rowland v Environment Agency, case number HC 0102371.) Mr Justice Lightman ruled that the: "Public Right of Navigation [PRN] may only be extinguished by legislation or exercise of statutory powers or by destruction of the subject matter of PRN eg through silting up of the watercourse."

As no such legislation has been passed, the public right of navigation remains in force. But because landowners and their tenants do not recognise this right, everywhere but on the 3% of rivers where it has been formally conceded, canoeists, kayakers, swimmers and the rest of the public are barred by threatening signs, barbed wire and intimidating men insisting that they are trespassing.

Canoe England, which is also campaigning for access, stresses that it is not asking to navigate every mile of brook and stream. Though canoeing has very little impact on the environment, there are a few places of particular sensitivity where it could be detrimental.

But the general claim the landowners make, that it damages fisheries, is incorrect. A study for the Environment Agency concluded that: "the consensus opinion of the assembled panel of experts is: 'Canoeing is not harmful to coarse or salmonid fish stocks in rivers'."

But the evidence is of little interest to those who refuse to share the rivers: it's not, in reality, about the sensitivities of fish; it's about excluding the great unwashed from their preserves. This is particularly the case on rivers used for very expensive trout fishing, though such sentiments also infect more popular clubs. The Angling Trust lobbies politicians to prevent the recognition of wider rights of access. It is well-placed to do so: its national campaigns co-ordinator is the former MP Martin Salter.

I suspect that on this issue and on others the trust is an embarrassment to some of the anglers it claims to represent. I have met plenty of fisherfolk who have both strong democratic instincts and a great love of wildlife, positions the Angling Trust does not appear to share. I wonder how many would support, for example, the trust's demand that the government should "authorise the trapping and lethal control" of any beavers spreading from Scotland into England. (Beavers were native to these isles until they were hunted to extinction a few centuries ago and have now been reintroduced in two areas in Scotland). I wonder how many would endorse its ecologically illiterate claim that beavers are bad for fish. Studies in both Europe and North America show that their presence in rivers boosts fish populations, as they create shelter and habitat.

As a keen angler and a keen canoeist I have, so to speak, a foot in both boats. I've fished in many of the rivers of Britain, including those frequented by kayakers and canoeists. And I have kayaked on quite a few of them as well.

Paddle down the Wye during the school holidays when - because it is among the very few rivers where canoes are permitted - the river becomes extremely busy, and you'll see a sight which immediately destroys the claim that fishing and canoeing are incompatible: trout rising all around the boats. Where fish are accustomed to them, they quickly lose their fear.

Given that it claims to encourage people to keep fit and to participate in sports, given that there appears to be no legal basis for exclusion, you might have expected the government to clarify the law and either accept the legally established general right of access or change it. But it refuses to do so. Instead it suggests that landowners and canoeists should resolve the issue through "voluntary access agreements".

The problem with voluntary access agreements is that if the landlords don't volunteer, they don't happen. Unsurprisingly they have been a flop: the British Canoe Union has been trying to strike them for nearly 50 years, and has been rebuffed almost everywhere. Without guidance from the government, the issue is resolved in favour of landlords prepared to use force or threats of force to prevent people from exercising their natural and ancient right.

The man currently responsible for the issue is Richard Benyon. During a recent interview with the Angling Trust, he said this: "There will be no change to our policy of supporting voluntary access agreements as the only way forward. Anglers and fishery owners spend a lot of time and money caring for our rivers and streams and their rights deserve to be respected."

But not apparently the rights of canoeists, whose organisations also spend a lot of time and money caring for our rivers and streams.

Benyon has sided with one constituency against another. Now why would he do that? Could it be because he owns fishing rights on the River Kennet and the River Pang?

His estate office tells me that it regards its section of the Pang as closed to kayaks and canoes (in other words "non-navigable"). Benyon leases his fishing on the Kennet to the Reading and District Angling Association (RDAA). Here, his office conceded, "the entire stretch is fully navigable by water craft." This is indisputable: the right of boats to use this water is spelt out in the 1715 Kennet Navigation Act. But has Benyon's Englefield Estate transmitted this fact to the association?

The RDAA's fisheries officer says this on its forum: "Lower Benyons from the weir downstream ... is most defenatly [sic] NON-NAVIGABLE. That means no boats, dingies, rubber rings surf boards etc etc without the landowners permission. All of which I have seen!!" He then goes on name a number of other sections of Benyon's lease which are also "defenatly NON-NAVIGABLE".

Members of the association have proposed their own solutions to the access issue, such as casting at canoes with "a three-ounce zip lead, trebles and 50lb-whiplash braid". "Trebles" means a set of three fishing hooks, welded together at opposing angles.

I would have liked to pursue the question of what advice Benyon's office has given to its tenants, but after confirming that his estate has "interests" on the Kennet and the Pang, and that it regards the Pang as closed, it told me: "We have nothing further to add to our comments."

It is wholly inappropriate that Benyon should be permitted to oversee a highly sensitive issue in which he has an active proprietorial stake. He seems incapable of standing back from his own interests. In fact the nature of his brief makes it impossible for him to do so. If he had any sense of what democracy means, and how it differs from government by the aristocracy, he would spare himself further embarrassment and stand down."

The quoted text above is © 2013 George Monbiot.