Canoeists reportedly want access to every waterway in the country, so reports Valerie Elliott in The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2160308.html).
As ever, there are environmental impacts. There is (according to Martin Salter, Labour MP for Reading West and Labour's Spokesman on Angling) the risk of canoeing over shallow spawning beds. Now the destruction of spawning beds is something that we should be concerned about, but can Mr Salter really claim to be concerned for the environment given his role in the Labour Party. After all, if the canoeists are not allowed access then the spawning beds will be preserved, but for what?
Surely the spawning beds are worth preserving for the sake of natural survival of the fittest and natural biodiversity and not just so angling enthusiasts can go and kill off the fish at a later stage in their life cycle?
Mr Salter goes on to say that the pressure of the canoes can make angling impossible in small streams and non-navigable rivers. This seems to me to be a case of Labour favouring one leisure activity over another?
Where is the Labour Canoeing spokesman in all this? Are our government in the position of favouring one so-called sport that is common with many people who have historically voted Labour when ignoring another sport that is not linked with traditional Labour voters?
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment