Is this a good idea?

[magnetman]

This must be an argument for local management including wardens. 

 

One could call them 'lengthsmen' or 'lengthswomen' or 'lengthsnonbinaryindividuals'. 

 

 

Introduce into the equation people who care about the place and things could improve.

 

Canals arrr much easier to handle than parks because of the limited extent of the land. 

 

 

 

Edited January 8 by magnetman
typo

[Jerra]

46 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

But is that anything to do with it being a NP or just some people being inconsiderate a*seholes wherever they go?

 

If it wasn't a NP but they still camped and crapped there, my suspicion is they'd behave exactly the same... 😞

Strangely we live just a fraction of a mile outside the official border and haven't heard of or seen a case outside.   So yes I blame the fact it is a NP.

[IanD]

45 minutes ago, magnetman said:

This must be an argument for local management including wardens. 

 

One could call them 'lengthsmen' or 'lengthswomen' or 'lengthsnonbinaryindividuals'. 

 

Introduce into the equation people who care about the place and things could improve.

 

Canals arrr much easier to handle than parks because of the limited extent of the land. 

 

 

And the money to pay for them comes from... ?

 

In "the good old days" such jobs were very badly paid but as compensation they often included accommodation. Neither is an option today.

 

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Strangely we live just a fraction of a mile outside the official border and haven't heard of or seen a case outside.   So yes I blame the fact it is a NP.

So do people also camp and crap outside, or only in the pretty bits which are inside the NP?

 

And blaming the fact that it's an NP which causes the littering/crapping is not the same as being able to show that this is generally the case -- even if it is in your particular example... 😉

 

(any more than one article in the Daily Wail about a scrounging benefit cheat shows that all benefit recipients are cheats -- in spite of what they'd like people to think)

Edited January 8 by IanD

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

And the money to pay for them comes from... ?

 

In "the good old days" such jobs were very badly paid but as compensation they often included accommodation. Neither is an option today.

 

So do people also camp and crap outside, or only in the pretty bits which are inside the NP?

 

Blaming the fact that it's an NP which causes the littering/crapping is not the same as being able to show that this is generally the case -- even if it is in your particular example... 😉

You will find wild camping, wild BBQs, and picnicking all over Cumbria (sorry that should now read Cumberland and Westmorland & Furness) all these cause mess in the NP.

[IanD]

Just now, Jerra said:

You will find wild camping, wild BBQs, and picnicking all over Cumbria (sorry that should now read Cumberland and Westmorland & Furness) all these cause mess in the NP.

 

So are you saying that people behave the same (camping, BBQ, picnic) inside and outside the NP but they only do the littering/crapping inside the NP?

 

Sounds unlikely to me, I doubt they're going to check where the NP boundary is on Google Maps before deciding whether to have a crap or not... 😉

[jonathanA]

18 hours ago, dmr said:

It would be good if this would stop the endless building of canalside housing estates and other inappropriate developments, but I suspect it wouldn't.

I also half remember that CRT looked at this option and rejected it.

it wouldn't.  just drive down the side of Lake Windermere and see all the inappropriate development....  initially the 'Lake district special Planning Board'  was able to control (for good or bad) development in the NP, but in the last few years they seem to have given up /had their powers eroded. 

 

it seems a completely impractical suggestion anyway, any 'canal national park authority' would have to deal with virtually every county and local council in the country.  (i'm sure there's a couple with no rivers/canals but can't be many).   

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

And the money to pay for them comes from... ?

 

In "the good old days" such jobs were very badly paid but as compensation they often included accommodation. Neither is an option today.

 

It is an option if the CRT exercise their right to provide a residential mooring for the warden. Nothing quite like living there to know whats what. 

 

[Jerra]

59 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

So are you saying that people behave the same (camping, BBQ, picnic) inside and outside the NP but they only do the littering/crapping inside the NP?

Did you miss the post where I said it was a NP problem?   I was pointing out we get the sort of thing which in the NP causes mess all over the two counties.  The problem is in the NP.

59 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Sounds unlikely to me, I doubt they're going to check where the NP boundary is on Google Maps before deciding whether to have a crap or not... 😉

 

[doratheexplorer]

The Canal Network doesn't come anywhere near meeting the criteria for a National Park.  More likely candidates would be a World Heritage Site, or to designate the whole network as a Scheduled Monument by Historic England (and the Welsh version).

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Did you miss the post where I said it was a NP problem?   I was pointing out we get the sort of thing which in the NP causes mess all over the two counties.  The problem is in the NP.

 

No I didn't miss your post. The problem is that saying it happens *in* the NP -- which I'm not denying! -- isn't the same as saying it happens *because* it's an NP -- because this would imply that if it was no longer an NP (same countryside) people would stop messing it up, which seems very unlikely.

 

In the reverse case, why would making the canals/towpaths into an NP increase (or decrease?) the number of people littering there? The fact it's labelled differently won't make any difference, what might is if the detection/enforcement of the rules is any different. And better detection/enforcement needs more staff, who have to be paid... (see below)

 

24 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It is an option if the CRT exercise their right to provide a residential mooring for the warden. Nothing quite like living there to know whats what. 

 

 

It would need to be a residential mooring with facilities, and the warden would have to be willing to live on a boat. And this would cost CART because that's then a mooring they can't sell to somebody else.

 

And yet again -- where does the money to do all this come from? Answer : out of the already inadequate maintenance budget... 😞

Edited January 8 by IanD

[Barneyp]

4 hours ago, Jerra said:

Did you miss the post where I said it was a NP problem?   I was pointing out we get the sort of thing which in the NP causes mess all over the two counties.  The problem is in the NP.

 

I live near a NP, when I'm drive past the signs marking the border of the NP I don't suddenly change my behavior and start throwing litter out of the car.

 

If I do go out for a walk in the countryside I'll choose somewhere scenic, which is more likely to be in the NP (thats why it is a NP). I'm not going there because it's an NP, I'm going because of the surroundings, if the NP status was removed I'd still go.

And I think that's how most people think, more people choose to spend there leisure time in places that happen to be NP's because NP's are nicer places to be.

More people equals more litter, abandoned bbq's, mess etc. There is less litter and mess etc, outside of the NP because the less attractive scenery mean less people spend time there.

 

4 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

The Canal Network doesn't come anywhere near meeting the criteria for a National Park.  More likely candidates would be a World Heritage Site, or to designate the whole network as a Scheduled Monument by Historic England (and the Welsh version).

Which of the current National Parks are World Heritage Sites?

A National Park covers an area far bigger than a world heritage site, and is generally undeveloped countryside which is unlikely to qualify for WHS status.

The Broads are not a WHS, and have been given "equivalent status" to a NP, so why not the canal network.

Edited January 8 by Barneyp
Typo

[Tonka]

9 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I live near a NP, when I'm drive past the signs marking the border of the NP I don't suddenly change my behavior and start throwing litter out of the car.

 

If I do go out for a walk in the countryside I'll choose somewhere scenic, which is more likely to be in the NP (thats why it is a NP). I'm not going there because it's an NP, I'm going because of the surroundings, if the NT status was removed I'd still go.

And I think that's how most people think, more people choose to spend there leisure time in places that happen to be NP's because NP's are nicer places to be.

More people equals more litter, abandoned bbq's, mess etc. There is less litter and mess etc, outside of the NP because the less attractive scenery mean less people spend time there.

 

Which of the current National Parks are World Heritage Sites?

A National Park covers an area far bigger than a world heritage site, and is generally undeveloped countryside which is unlikely to qualify for WHS status.

The Broads are not a WHS, and have been given "equivalent status" to a NP, so why not the canal network.

But why can they carry full beer cans, yet can not carry empty ones

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But why can they carry full beer cans, yet can not carry empty ones

Because they're selfish inconsiderate litter louts, who will chuck rubbish away regardless of whether they're in an NP, on a towpath, in a local park... 😞

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

I live near a NP, when I'm drive past the signs marking the border of the NP I don't suddenly change my behavior and start throwing litter out of the car.

Probably you don't, in fact, I suspect you don't drop litter fly tip etc anywhere.

 

From my point of view, I can't come up with any reason for the two counties (Cumbria is now two unitary authorities) to not have a problem outside the park other than the loonies think it is OK as somebody will be paid to clear up.

 

Yes we do get some fly tipping outside the park but it is locals not somebody collapsing their cheap tent rolling it into a ball and leaving it along with food remains, burst lilos etc.

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

If I do go out for a walk in the countryside I'll choose somewhere scenic, which is more likely to be in the NP (thats why it is a NP). I'm not going there because it's an NP, I'm going because of the surroundings, if the NT status was removed I'd still go.

Most of the two counties are scenic and I don't suppose when you go for a walk you take a cheap "festival" type tent or sleeping bag, folding chairs, stove, many tins etc (all I have listed have been left behind after campers.

 

It isn't the locals it is people visiting because it is a NP.  Is your ref to NT a typo as NT are a smallish part of the NP?

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

And I think that's how most people think, more people choose to spend there leisure time in places that happen to be NP's because NP's are nicer places to be.

So can you explain why the majority of the two counties which are all very pretty and rural don't have a problem apart from inside the NP.  As I said earlier I live a fraction of a mile outside the NP.  No problems until you get 5 to 10 miles in to the park.  The scenery doesn't magically change as I cross the border of the park.

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

More people equals more litter, abandoned bbq's, mess etc. There is less litter and mess etc, outside of the NP because the less attractive scenery mean less people spend time there.

As I said the scenery one mile up the road is the same as that where I live.  We get lots of tourists in the village.

 

[Paul C]

From the link on the OP:

 

"Designating the canal network as a National Park could help maintain the system for enjoyment of future generations by providing funding "

 

How is more funding  provided? Where from?

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Tonka said:

But why can they carry full beer cans, yet can not carry empty ones

I'm sure that the littering problem is contributing to flooding incidents by blocking up drainage channels. 

 

It is a societal ill which is complex to deal with. 

 

Shoot on sight might work.

 

Canal lengthspersons to be issued with Purdeys. 

 

Zero tolerance. 

[Midnight]

10 minutes ago, Paul C said:

From the link on the OP:

 

"Designating the canal network as a National Park could help maintain the system for enjoyment of future generations by providing funding "

 

How is more funding  provided? Where from?

 

Funded by central government, National Parks have specific purposes that are enshrined in law. In England and Wales they are: Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. Promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of national parks by the public.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Midnight said:

 

Funded by central government, National Parks have specific purposes that are enshrined in law. In England and Wales they are: Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. Promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of national parks by the public.

If central government wanted to better fund the canals as part of our cultural/industrial heritage, they could perfectly well do this via the grant to CART.

 

But they don't, in fact they want to do exactly the opposite... 😞

[Barneyp]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Probably you don't, in fact, I suspect you don't drop litter fly tip etc anywhere.

 

From my point of view, I can't come up with any reason for the two counties (Cumbria is now two unitary authorities) to not have a problem outside the park other than the loonies think it is OK as somebody will be paid to clear up.

 

Yes we do get some fly tipping outside the park but it is locals not somebody collapsing their cheap tent rolling it into a ball and leaving it along with food remains, burst lilos etc.

Most of the two counties are scenic and I don't suppose when you go for a walk you take a cheap "festival" type tent or sleeping bag, folding chairs, stove, many tins etc (all I have listed have been left behind after campers.

 

It isn't the locals it is people visiting because it is a NP.  Is your ref to NT a typo as NT are a smallish part of the NP?

So can you explain why the majority of the two counties which are all very pretty and rural don't have a problem apart from inside the NP.  As I said earlier I live a fraction of a mile outside the NP.  No problems until you get 5 to 10 miles in to the park.  The scenery doesn't magically change as I cross the border of the park.

As I said the scenery one mile up the road is the same as that where I live.  We get lots of tourists in the village.

 

Sorry, NT was a typo, should've neen NP.

National Trust are not linked to the National Parks, although they do own land and properties in National Parks, and may work with them on some projects as they have some similar aims.

 

Some people will be drawn in by the fact somewhere is a NP, so yes being an NP will increase visitor numbers, and as I said more people equals more mess, I still don't see why that means people are more likely to litter in an NP.  I and others are more careful in NP's, so that could be a positive of an NP.

 

If I were coming to Cumbria/the Lake District I would choose certain places to visit - all of which are probably in the NP, because when the NP was created it was designed to include all the best bits: the highest mountains, most attractive scenery, all of the Lakes.

And I guess most people would do the same.

 

[ditchcrawler]

1 minute ago, Barneyp said:

Sorry, NT was a typo, should've neen NP.

 

 

I did the same thing earlier.

[Barneyp]

17 minutes ago, Paul C said:

From the link on the OP:

 

"Designating the canal network as a National Park could help maintain the system for enjoyment of future generations by providing funding "

 

How is more funding  provided? Where from?

Central government provide some funding to NP's, I doubt the intial extra money would be huge. But the NP status would make it harder for future governments to let the canals continue to decline.

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

If central government wanted to better fund the canals as part of our cultural/industrial heritage, they could perfectly well do this via the grant to CART.

 

But they don't, in fact they want to do exactly the opposite... 😞

Have you thought that perhaps the government grant that CRT thought they were going to get included money for running the Ea waters. As they didn't get those waters then the grant was reduced by taking the EA bit out.

[Paul C]

3 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Central government provide some funding to NP's, I doubt the intial extra money would be huge. But the NP status would make it harder for future governments to let the canals continue to decline.

Given that the incidental benefit of simply "being" a NP is hard to quantify, "the government will give a NP extra money" makes sense. But it seems like deja-vu. 

 

The government have made their position on providing more funding, very clear. We need to move on from simply saying "the government should give more money".

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Have you thought that perhaps the government grant that CRT thought they were going to get included money for running the Ea waters. As they didn't get those waters then the grant was reduced by taking the EA bit out.

The government wants to get the canals and CART off their books as much as possible, just like many other things which should be centrally funded but they've cut so they can spend more on cronyism and their pet projects and white elephants.

 

The classic way to do this is to come up with some magic ways of raising the money elsewhere which turn out not to work, and then blaming the body that they've cut funding to for failing to do this. See the canals, local government, schools, social care, NHS, water, railways...

 

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

Given that the incidental benefit of simply "being" a NP is hard to quantify, "the government will give a NP extra money" makes sense. But it seems like deja-vu. 

 

The government have made their position on providing more funding, very clear. We need to move on from simply saying "the government should give more money".

How, and why?

Edited January 8 by IanD

[Barneyp]

35 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Given that the incidental benefit of simply "being" a NP is hard to quantify, "the government will give a NP extra money" makes sense. But it seems like deja-vu. 

 

The government have made their position on providing more funding, very clear. We need to move on from simply saying "the government should give more money".

Move on to what?????

If the government don't increase funding what alternatives are there?

 

Maybe we could have a whip round?

Find a massive company willing to pay millions per year to sponsor the canals? Or smaller companies sponsoring one canal for 1/2 a million  per year?

Or.......??????

 

Or does "move on" actually mean give up?

 

I'm willing to get behind a scheme that has a chance, and currently the best plan looks like putting pressure on central government.