Re-reading this thread, I'd forgotten about it, makes me think about the permits and insurance idea. It makes me think of an analogy that may or may not be right.
One activity I do is cycling, mostly road, commuting and a few easy bridleways or towpaths. There's a lot of online discussion about cyclists among motorised road users who dislike cyclists' existence on the roads? Typical arguments against them is that they don't pay road tax to maintain the roads, they're not insured, they aren't licensed, they don't have number plates to enable identification when they do wrong or cause harm, they're all red lightjumpers who ride on the pavement, etc. All points that have a very reasonable answer or justification.
It seems to me there's a similarity to that from pro anglers to kayakers and canoeists. They cause trouble, damage Riverbank, not licenced, not insured, have no right being there, etc. Truth is both cyclists and canoeists often do have rights, are licenced, do have insurance (through BCU membership or club insurance), cause less damage to the riverbank than anglers who walk to fishing spots often creating damage at the good fishing spots, cause less trouble because they often access the river by public access footpaths and so on.
Not all behave correctly but trust me when caught those that do often get the hardest time from fellow canoeists. My two clubs have modified many a small group's behaviour. Helps with people like big Simon,off duty coppers, prison officers, etc who know how to deal with trouble!! But even without them it's often the least likely who change behaviours. We had a number of older, experienced paddlers who were not physical shape at all but they policed groups better than they should.
My point being that all the arguments against cyclists and canoeists are based on incorrect information, minority behaviour and prejudice against another user type that the current power holders believe are competing for access.
I know people who cycle and drive (including for a living). I know people who are anglers and canoeists. It is very interesting to get their view as it's balanced because they have a foot in both camps?
Key points I've got from listening to their opinions is that there are problem minorities from both sides. All problems caused by the other side are very minor or fabricated. There's no problem between opposing users that can't be settled. There is no reason to stop any group using the same resource whether rivers or roads. The most fervent opinions are often from the most closed minded too.
Right now river access to canoeists is not good. Agreements work but only when fair to both sides. I knew people who canoe on rivers without access agreements. I knew of places where agreements have been reached, proven to work well for both sides but still get cancelled by one side. I knew of rivers where the local access officer was working very hard and getting close to an agreement so the word goes out to not paddle the river for awhile to help the case for access agreement. Usually people stay away to give the access a chance?
I've seen the best and worst of anglers and canoeists. I have to say it's a small minority IMHO. I've had many a chat with anglers as equals with respect? Most of both sides are actually good people who see both users should have access?
If anyone thinks that's not true give me your examples of bad kayakers and I'll equal with bad anglers. It'll get us nowhere because the minority means we'll eventually run out of examples. Plus I prefer to look at this as what can we agree on. Where are the positives and potential for cooperation? How can we need solve the issues? No matter what this current situation cannot last. Also, I do believe sooner or later open access for open ground will have its equivalent in open access to our waterways. We are certainly late to the open access compared to other European nations I reckon.
