IT is clear from last week's letters' page the article entitled 'Seeking a way to share river' has provoked an interesting response. The reference to Maristow Estate not having a 'no-go mind-set' was sending out a clear signal that the estate recognised the changing times of recreational sport on inland waters and the subsequent pressures this brings. Therefore, a meeting was held with representatives of the British Canoe Union (BCU) and several other influential parties to conduct a review of the longstanding 'no access' policy. Following that constructive meeting, behind the scenes consultations continue. It is encouraging Maristow Estate is considered an 'influential body' in the matter of access to the River Tavy given the estate's extensive ownership of the majority of the lower stretches from Crowndale to Lopwell and the tidal waters beyond. This ownership and the responsibilities it brings has long been highly valued and protected by not only Maristow Estate but the other riparian owners who manage and assist the highly respected Tavy, Walkham and Plym Fishing Club in their encompassing role of conservation and fishing. Likewise, the Environment Agency's role must recognised as equally important. There are many other non-estate riparian interests that need to be considered and consulted, therefore, Maristow Estate does not hold the single decision. It is unfortunate that the BCU's Mr Goulden berates riparian owners for charging to fish privately owned waters and accuses owners of 'pure greed'. This single-minded attack undermines the will for consultation with the BCU and antagonises a matter where confrontation between opposing interests already occurs. It would have been tremendously encouraging to have read Mr Goulden praising the benefits of BCU membership to entice more canoeists to join the organisation and to enable the BCU to present a more persuasive case to riparian owners, rather than present an unnecessary attack on riparian interests. Besides, it is known that not all negotiated access agreements work and incidents where agreements exist have seen uncontrollable canoeing numbers and anti-social behaviour (by a relative few I am sure). These undoubted issues raise considerable questions over the effectiveness of any access agreement unless the BCU are willing to invest in the river eco-system — this has never been mentioned as a possibility, despite invitation. Regardless, Maristow Estate, the fishing clubs and it is hoped other riparian owners will carry forward the review and consultations are anticipated to continue over the coming months. Joseph E Hess Managing Agent Maristow Estate I READ with interest the letters in last week's Times and am pleased this debate is being opened up but I feel I must reply to the accusation that I am misinformed. Firstly, the issue of trespass. If I wanted to walk the banks of the Tavy from Tavistock to Denham Bridge I could freely walk public footpaths for short sections and roam the now designated CROW land at Double Waters, but the majority of the banks are privately owned farmland. The Tavy has never been designated as a navigable river and so no rights exist for canoeists to paddle except possibly a few stretches above Tavistock by private agreement. Canoeists on the Tavy are trespassers as surely as I would be if I cycled through Mr Parker-Moran's garden. The British Canoe Union, on their website, responsibly point this out but sadly does not accept the moral obligation to tell their members they should not trespass. While it may be possible to launch a canoe at Tavistock town car park, to retrieve it at Denham Bridge, the canoeist has to cross a narrow strip of private land. The owner of the land in question objects to this and has been informing people. The second issue is the effect of canoeing on fishing. The lower Tavy is renowned as a world-class sea trout fishery. Sea trout are extremely shy and are the most challenging to catch. Having fished the Tavy since, I have recorded their behaviour in response to environmental conditions; temperature, barometric pressure, light levels, wind direction and water levels as well as all types of disturbances. Swimming dogs retrieving sticks seems to have the most detrimental effect on my sport, followed closely by canoeists. While dog walkers/swimmers are restricted to a few areas with easy public access the canoeist affects large sections of the river. If a canoe passes me when I am sea trout fishing I now know that I am not likely to have any further sport. I used to remonstrate with the trespasser but now I just give up and I am being tempted to follow some fellow anglers and seek better-regulated river fishing farther afield. The local riparian owners are in danger of losing much needed income from the rental of fishing rights. I understand the canoeists' desire to paddle our very beautiful rivers. If I were younger I would want to give it a try myself but this is a very recent development and needs to be managed so that the rights and needs of others are not adversely affected. I implore them to behave responsibly and legally and to negotiate. Until there is agreement let us be clear. Canoeists on the Walkham and the Tavy are trespassers and are damaging the fishery. Robert Mountjoy 12 Morley Drive Crapstone
