ANGLERS ARE TRYING TO STOP DREDGING.

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

Hi all, i was given last weeks copies of Angling times and Anglers mail, and on page 5 of Angling times, there`s a report about anglers attempting to block the BAs (reported) plans to dredge Heigham sound, threatening to form a human shield in boats across the river, and chaining themselves to dredgers etc, and are trying to get ALL dredging on the Broads network stopped. This report is in the Tuesday Jan 26th edition, and should still be available to view on their website http://www.anglingtimes.co.uk Also in the same issue is a report by Keith Arthur (J-Arthur more like it) reporting that the dredging is being done because of bank erosion caused solely by boats, and that this dredging is being done to allow bigger and deeper draughted boats to navigate the upper Thurne causing even more erosion, which will require more urgent dredging. The dimwit obviously does`nt know what he`s talking about, as all new Broads boat designs are supposed to be low wash hulls, and most of the old designs are now in private ownership and are not used anywhere near as much as the more modern hire boats, many with environmentally friendly low wash hulls. I can feel an unpleasant e-mail developing. Regards to all................. Neil. : : : :

[pks1702]

I am an angler but sorry this is just some anglers not wanting their favourite haunts dredged in case it disturbs the fishing, what most of them want is relatively shallow water. There are of course a few theories floated with scare tactics attached but I think this group forget they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the Broads as toll paying boat owners do.

The most amazing thing to me is a certain PB who has at every opportunity knocked, criticised and harangued the BA to step up dredging has obviously had a road to Damascus moment and is against this initiative. Oh unless dregding is done in a certain way at a certain time and after much study. The BA has a statutory duty to maintaining navigable waterways; the Broads is for all not just a single interest group

Funny Oulton Broad was perfectly fine to do

If you have the interest and can't sleep see here:

http://www.speakerscorner.com/forum/topic1042

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

Hi Perry, yes, i`m an angler too, and we always hire boats in the fishing season so we can dangle our maggots when moored for the night. All too often have i seen fishermen occupying BA moorings in high season, and not wanting to give way when somebody needs to moor for the night. Also, when we are cruising, we are looking at wildlife, riverside scenery, etc and can`t always catch sight of fishermen tucked well into the reeds, almost camoflaged in fact, but we ALWAYS nock off the throttle so we pass on tickover, (depending on tidal influence that is), and try to move away from their swims. The vast majority of anglers show their appreciation for our considerations of them, but there are still a number who just ignore the fact that we have made the effort to cause them minimal disturbance, and the sad fact is the number seems to be growing. No matter who people think should take priority, the fact is most of the rivers were dug for trading wherries to reach isolated locations of which some interlinked the peat diggings, thus forming the "Broads". As a result, these became navigations, and therefore, IMHO, boat traffic should have priority over fishing. Also, if the Norfolk angling fraternity were to pay a similar liscence fee as a boat owner to fish where they like on the Broads, they should have equal opportunities. Regards to all................Neil.

[Guest]

None of the Rivers were dug, only the Broads, the New Cut, Waxham Cut, and the NW&D Canal.

[senator]

but the rivers link the broads and are as such a navigation and have to be maintained to a navigable depth

[Guest]

None of the Rivers were dug, only the Broads, the New Cut, Waxham Cut, and the NW&D Canal.

I believe this is incorrect. As mentioned above the rivers were altered to allow trading wherries to reach as far as possible. I know the Chet was cos i've got a picture of navvies digging it.

Perhaps a fair way of deciding whether a river needs dredging would be for anglers to stand in the centre. If they survive it needs dredging if they drown ... all is well.

[Guest]

"As mentioned above the rivers were altered"

But it didn't say that above, it said "the rivers were dug".

A few short sections were certainly artificially improved for Navigation, there's Thorpe Cut as well, to avoid the low Bridges. The majority of the 120 miles of the Navigable system is not man-made, the Peat and Clay diggings were the Broads themselves, which became flooded, together with the winding rivers system. Canals are straight.

The Wherries evolved after the Rivers formed, utilising them for transport, rather than the other way round.

and I wasn't implying therefore that they didn't need to be maintained as a Navigable right of way, just that they weren't dug for that purpose.

[marshman]

Strowager is almost right - the rivers were not actually dug but in the case of the River Ant very little is original. Almost all of the Ant now being used is man made, dug by wherrymen and others either because they preferred to sail in a "nearly" straight line or the original bit was to narrow/shallow.

Going back to the original topic it is perhaps not a surprise that the loudest voices now campaigning against dredging are those who villify the BA most. To be fair they are not campaigning against dredging per se but against the methods proposed to be used. Almost everything the BA wish to do is critisised and whilst they deserve some criticism, surely some things they do are right?

Anglers and their supporters perhaps carry too much weight, see Bramerton, but it is hardly a surprise that some people see the opposition as a personal vendetta - or so it might appear to some outsiders.

My guess is that hopefully the BA will ignore the opposition this time and get on with a long overdue piece of dredging. As someone said on another place, if the very worst came to the worst, fish stocks would recover, but lose the navigation and that would be gone for good.

[Guest]

Well that just leaves the Bure, Thurne, Yare, Waveney, & Wensum ! (ignoring the Chet if any was natural).

I'm surprised to hear that any appreciable length of the Ant has been artificially straightened or widened. It's surely one of the most winding rivers on the system. I've read a number of Broads Ecology Books, and never seen any reference to it ?

I know it used to exit into the Thurne via Hundred Dyke, instead of the Bure, and that the Thurne flowed the other way into the Sea at West Somerton, but that was hundreds of years before the Broads were dug.

[marshman]

Well Strowager, perhaps you have not read the right books!!! It seems much of the changes to the Ant took place in the 19th C. Very little record of the changes actually occurs but if you read Robert Malsters book on "The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads" all will be revealed.

It seems that a lot of the work was done following the opening of the NW & D Canal and indeed if you look at the old parish boundaries you will see they often followed what was the old river.

Above Barton the old river is still in evidence if you trudge around the marshes as I do in the form of old dried up riverbeds - it then followed a course to the east of the existing Broad and that dyke is also still there although not very obvious if you didn't know.

Oddly south of Irstead I think it went straight on but around the back of the How Hill it took a large detour westwards and that is still very evident and deep. The Electric Eel disappears down it opposite Johnny Crowes Staithe and it reappears at How Hill Staithe itself. Yes the new bits are still very windy but it was certainly done about that time.

Of greater interest however is the belief that the old Hundred Dyke was diverted by the monks of St Benets - you may or may not know that the hospital at Horning Hall was linked to the Abbey by a causeway and prior to the Ant emptying into the Bure where it now does, the Hundred Dyke was the actual river which then emptied into the Thurne.

Records themselves are non existent but the Thurne may have still been flowing north out of the Hundred Sream as late as the 13c- still again in evidence disappearing off at Dungeon Corner until as late as some great tidal surges themselves documented around 1287 and 1292!!

Fascinating stuff of which much is conjecture but if you do not have Robert Malsters book then I highly recommend it as a good source of info. and some fascinating facts - or conjecture!!

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

Hi all, Yes, my appologies to strowager for my choice of phrase. I should have put, Most of the rivers have been made navigable, but as Smellyloo states, the Chet WAS dug purely for trading wherries to reach Loddon and Chedgrave. All I know about this is because of the information board at the town quay states this as so, so unless this is in fact wrong, i`l take it as fact. It still does`nt alter the fact that anglers, of which i am one, are trying to stop the BA from dredging, albeit at a certain time, whereas to postpone any dredging will only put back vitally needed improvements yet again. This could result in a missed opportunity, which may never arise for yet many more years to come, which could render the whole area unnavigable. Regards to all........Neil.