Clear Water, Clear Access Campaign

  • Hey Guest, For sale we have Hultafors Outdoor Knives with Firesteel PLEASE LOOK HERE for more information or use the Pay Now button in the sidebar

Broch

Full Member
Jan 18, 2009
5,152
4,503
Mid Wales
I've not really read all the posts here so forgive me if I'm wide of the mark.

I've had a few thoughts ref how cultures are different and if it would be possible to change certain attitudes and behaviours to the environment and litter etc.

As an example I believe the Japanese don't employ Caretakers in the primary and secondary schools - instead the children are expected each day to maintain the cleanliness and upkeep of their school environment as they have from day one a vested personal interest in its state of upkeep.

I believe this upkeep mentality then extends into their mature adult life and as such littering in society isn't an issue.

There are LOTS of difference between our cultures and theirs would seem to be far more the collective rather than the western way where individual believes they are sacrosanct. But I do wonder how much positivity and maybe how quickly that ethos could be ingrained in the next generation if it was allowed to be implemented if needed.

But something like the concept of the environmental DAVOS driven 'Great Reset' maybe pushed upon people sooner rather than later.


I don't think you can pick that specific cultural characteristic out of Japanese society on its own TBH. Japan has the lowest (I think) intentional homicide rates in the world and one of the lowest crime rates. I believe there is a far wider level of respect for others across the board in Japan - how we get that into society I have no idea. Of course, there may be negative aspects about Japanese society that we are not aware of that affect the level of respect - there is always Yin and Yang :)
 

henchy3rd

Full Member
Apr 16, 2012
415
270
Derby
The trouble is schools have taught about environmental issues including rubbish for a generation or more. It's not being seen as there's as much rubbish as ever. That's how our discussion went. It's not old it young doing it. It's all ages and social or economic groups doing it. People into the outdoors as much as townies. There's something wrong and it's not down to education. Probably a social or societal issue that's deeper than education.

It's worse since lockdown, especially with dog mess on our canal towpath. There's a boat owner who's a bit of a psychopath with right wing tendencies. Sounds not very nice but he's ok if you're ok with him. What he hates is dog owners who don't scoop their dogs pool. He once intimidated a jogger with two labradors that he never watched. The guy tried to claim it wasn't his dog but one went and did it right in front of them as they were arguing. He picked both up with bags the boat owner gave him. He never even had a bag with him!!!

Recent snow melted to reveal dog pop everywhere. Seriously brown pop on white snow isn't n hard to see. Even bags of it under the snow in the middle of the path. It was once rather clean towpath but lockdown was the change here. It's similar along pavements in town.
I no what the problem is, I see it day in & day out with regards to dog mess on the tow path..owners let that their dogs off the lead & pay no attention to what’s it is doing. I’ve told many to pick it up?so maybe the C&RT should make it mandatory for all pets to be on a lead?
I’ve seen boat owners let their dogs roam, most go out at some point to scoop it up, but not all. it’s still not nice to see tho.
 

TeeDee

Full Member
Nov 6, 2008
7,655
1,631
47
Exeter
I don't think you can pick that specific cultural characteristic out of Japanese society on its own TBH. Japan has the lowest (I think) intentional homicide rates in the world and one of the lowest crime rates. I believe there is a far wider level of respect for others across the board in Japan - how we get that into society I have no idea. Of course, there may be negative aspects about Japanese society that we are not aware of that affect the level of respect - there is always Yin and Yang :)

Characteristic , No , - But maybe possible to replicate a Cultural behaviour.
I forget the native term for it but the Scandinavian nations also seem to share a common ethos of care for the environment. Where that comes from I have no idea , but if these things are ideas and concepts I believe them, like other ideas to be possibly replicable.
 

TLM

Native
Nov 16, 2019
1,903
883
Vantaa, Finland
Until the Meiji restoration a samurai could in theory behead anyone he pleases. Only about 160 years ago, you had better be polite and not litter or ...
 

billycoen

Forager
Jan 26, 2021
108
72
north wales
Just read a report that when a rubbish bin was removed from the layby on a bypass,that litter dropped by the bin went down by 80%. Which then led to the question whether bins attracted fly tipping.
 

Paul_B

Bushcrafter through and through
Jul 14, 2008
5,162
965
Lancashire
Until the Meiji restoration a samurai could in theory behead anyone he pleases. Only about 160 years ago, you had better be polite and not litter or ...
Duels happened more recently in Japan among locals apparently. They just keep it away from western eyes. I heard of a challenge at a London martial arts gathering where a Japanese practitioner challenged a superior British one and got sent home because they can't turn a blind eye if it happens outside Japan. A good 15 years ago now.
 

henchy3rd

Full Member
Apr 16, 2012
415
270
Derby
Characteristic , No , - But maybe possible to replicate a Cultural behaviour.
I forget the native term for it but the Scandinavian nations also seem to share a common ethos of care for the environment. Where that comes from I have no idea , but if these things are ideas and concepts I believe them, like other ideas to be possibly replicable.
I’ve just messaged my scandi friend, he said it could be Janti or Jante law
( I’ve no idea how to spell it).his written English is very bad & my Icelandic is non existent.
Reading between the lines..it’s some kind off respect for the earth born out of a caring culture or something like that?
so I guess you were on the right track.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeeDee

TeeDee

Full Member
Nov 6, 2008
7,655
1,631
47
Exeter
I’ve just messaged my scandi friend, he said it could be Janti or Jante law
( I’ve no idea how to spell it).his written English is very bad & my Icelandic is non existent.
Reading between the lines..it’s some kind off respect for the earth born out of a caring culture or something like that?
so I guess you were on the right track.

Yes, this.
Thanks.
 

FerlasDave

Full Member
Jun 18, 2008
1,290
145
Off the beaten track
Just had a flick through this thread. There’s some interesting points here, I’m all for permits and insurance but it is annoying to not have the rights to paddle in some parts.

I was about to start a thread but I did a quick search first and found this one, but I was going to let people know that Tim Gent has just done an article on this subject in the latest issue of the bushcraft magazine. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else who read the article, it seemed quite abrupt to me.
 

Paul_B

Bushcrafter through and through
Jul 14, 2008
5,162
965
Lancashire
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.
 

FerlasDave

Full Member
Jun 18, 2008
1,290
145
Off the beaten track
I’m an angler and a canoeist. General outdoorsman I think is a more accurate term. The only thing I can see that is a physical factor is that sometimes they can get in the way of each other. The best line for a boat might be right where the fish are, which is annoying for both sides although potentially far worse consequences for one.

Ill be honest, if anything I think more access rights will be taken away from us rather than the opposite. The amount of mess people are making in the mountains and at picnic spots now is.. well, words cannot describe.
 

Paul_B

Bushcrafter through and through
Jul 14, 2008
5,162
965
Lancashire
You mean access rights from anglers and canoeists? I can see CRoW being eroded with restrictions but I do not think rights will be taken away completely.

However rivers and waterways are a special case in terms of open access. It was never included in CRoW act despite it being initially included in the campaigning that led to the act. It was dropped by all outdoors organisations except BCU.
 

FerlasDave

Full Member
Jun 18, 2008
1,290
145
Off the beaten track
I think rights for all. Wether you’re on the top of a mountain or in the nearest town park I can see people’s rights being restricted due to the absolute idiocy of a few.

It’s interesting that anglers don’t seem to want to fight for access to be in the water when a lot of them are often found up to their waist in waders. You’d think they’d also be an outdoor organisation that would be fighting to keep river access. Although, from what I’ve read, I believe they only have access to the water through angling clubs which pay an annual fee to the land owner? At least that’s what the local club here do, I could be wrong.
 

henchy3rd

Full Member
Apr 16, 2012
415
270
Derby
Unfortunately there are bigger irresponsible groups now often organised by clubs - just far too many people in one stretch of river. I have paddled since a kid and Have never had any problems at all and, to some extent, I would like things to stay as they are - but that's being selfish.

The reason some rivers are pleasantly quiet is because there is confusion over the law. The reason the landowners don't take those of us that paddle them to court is because there is confusion over the law. Suits me perfectly.
I don’t think there’s any confusion, the farmer/ landowner owns the land/bank down to the rivers edge.( that’s it)
Even if he/she has land on each side of the river, they have no rights to stop anyone passing through. That’s down to the relevant river authority.
But they do have a duty to protect the banks from erosion & danger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FerlasDave

FerlasDave

Full Member
Jun 18, 2008
1,290
145
Off the beaten track
I agree, it’s not a confusion regarding the water. I understand it’s a muddle about access, if one takes the other to court then both parties may lose access rights. Though I’m not sure there would be enough reason for one party or the other to take it that far. :dunno:
 

Pupers

Member
May 6, 2021
29
29
63
Dartmoor
I don’t think there’s any confusion, the farmer/ landowner owns the land/bank down to the rivers edge.( that’s it)
Even if he/she has land on each side of the river, they have no rights to stop anyone passing through. That’s down to the relevant river authority.
But they do have a duty to protect the banks from erosion & danger.

May I respectfully ask, what/who is the relevant River Authority?
 

Broch

Full Member
Jan 18, 2009
5,152
4,503
Mid Wales
I don’t think there’s any confusion, the farmer/ landowner owns the land/bank down to the rivers edge.( that’s it)
Even if he/she has land on each side of the river, they have no rights to stop anyone passing through. That’s down to the relevant river authority.
But they do have a duty to protect the banks from erosion & danger.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case. There are 'rights of navigation' on waters and, currently, there is disagreement as to who owns those rights and can control them. People who have the Riparian rights, through ownership or lease, believe they have the right to control navigation on that stretch of water - this has never been tested.
 

Hultafors Outdoor knife for Sale

We have a a number of Hultafors Outdoor Knives with Firesteels for sale.

You can see more details here in this thread OUTDOOR KNIVES The price is £27 posted to the UK. Pay via the paypal button below.