CC Petition

[cotswoldsman]

I will go back to the point I made in the other thread. When I retired at the age of 54 I decided to have a boat built so that i could cruise round the system 52 weeks a year. I have no interest in mooring during the winter I love cruising in the winter far quiter time!! I am at present on the Llangolen and it is fantastic no hire boats I am leaving Wrenbury tomorrow after 8 days not one boat has been passed during my time here, and only 2 private boats here and moored on the towpath about 25 hire boats!! Why should I pay more to use a facility that hardly anyone else uses in the winter!!! If I pay the higher licence fee does that mean during the summer when I arrive at a visitor mooring and it is full I can untie one of the boats with only an ordinary licence and use that mooring only fair as I will be paying for mooring on the canal 52 weeks of the year so want the mooring I have paid for!!

[NB Alnwick]

Scenario:::As a CCer I have a licence with the appropriate fee to allow me to moor, I travel the canal and would expect a mooring to be available (I have paid for it) but a boater with a marina mooring is there, (how I would know this, I have no idea) would I be within my rights to get him to move as he has not paid the fee to moor on the canal.

It could be argued that this is covered by the ten percent that BWB get from the mooring fees collected by marina operators . . .

I will go back to the point I made in the other thread. When I retired at the age of 54 I decided to have a boat built so that i could cruise round the system 52 weeks a year. I have no interest in mooring during the winter I love cruising in the winter far quiter time!!

I also enjoy cruising during the Winter but I tie-up on the towpath everynight - it would be very hard going if I was expected to cruise non-stop, day and night! I think there is a reasonable argument that we should all make a contribution towards the privilege of so doing. Surely, we would all be pleased to pay a modest figure (say less than ten percent of what a marina would expect) that was applied to the general upkeep of our canals?

[fuzzyduck]

it all seems a bit hypocritical to me. In high season, most of the hireboats will spend most of their time moored up on visitor moorings (when they're not actually moving)

 

It's up to the CCers, but if it were me, i'd be making sure that ACPO members were paying some of this too.

[cotswoldsman]

I have a friend that pays for a marina so that he can moor up safely for December, Januaryand February the rest of the year he cruises so guess he should pay for his marina and then a percentage more for his licence as he uses the towpath 9 months of the year!!

So I should pay say an extra 10% as I use the towpath more than some other people having removed 3 big lumps of dog ***t from arround my boat today and dont think this 10% represents very good value for money.

[NB Alnwick]

I have a friend that pays for a marina so that he can moor up safely for December, Januaryand February the rest of the year he cruises so guess he should pay for his marina and then a percentage more for his licence as he uses the towpath 9 months of the year!!

So I should pay say an extra 10% as I use the towpath more than some other people having removed 3 big lumps of dog ***t from arround my boat today and dont think this 10% represents very good value for money.

 

Ha! Tempted to go off topic here

 

Whatever we boaters pay - dog walkers who allow their charges to foul the towpath should pay at least double.

 

At the end of the day they are our canals! We should all look after them and I am sure none of us mind paying a fair share to do this. Whatever system of licensing or charging for overnight mooring, BW (as our servants) choose, I hope it will be fair and sensible.

[KenK]

I have to say I did wonder why hire boat operators would be so concerned by CCers. I tend to suspect this petition has more to do with removing CMers (permanent moorers) and tatty boats from the visitor moorings around the honey pots on the system. When customers return at the end of the holiday the hire boat companys hoped for response to the how was it question is "wonderful we'll do it again next year" not complaints that they were unable to moor at the best places because of tatty old boats hoging the visitor moorings. However it's difficult to target them directly but they will almost certainly have declared themselves to be CCers. If CCers are forced to pay more I suspect the hope is many of these boats will disapear as the owners can no longer aford the costs.

 

I make no judgements but I did see the problem at Bradford on Avon this summer and a couple of families on hire boats further down the canal made the point that the hire boat company had recommended they stop there the first night but they could not moor.

 

There may be other reasons but I don't know what they might be.

 

Ken

[Chris Pink]

Ha! Tempted to go off topic here

 

Whatever we boaters pay - dog walkers who allow their charges to foul the towpath should pay at least double.

 

ahem. I believe you moaned about the other topic wandering off (which in my opinion it didn't).

 

But one of the things none of you advocates of extra charges for people without permanent moorings have considered is; if an extra charge is levied then the motivation to move will be removed and you will find more boats overstaying for longer.

 

The other consideration is that there will result a situation where one person pays the same for a mooring and a licence as another pays for just a licence. I notice that all of the advocates of the higher charge fall in the former category.

 

So... i propose.... we all pay the same, I get to use your mooring 50% of the time and you have to cruise 50% of the time.

 

no?

 

thought not, get real.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Chris Pink

[blackrose]

do you know how many people were involved in the petition? and who were asked to be included in the petition?

 

Yes I'd like to know that too. Who organised it?

 

Since the existence of the petition has only been raised on this forum after it's submission to BW, I think it's fair to assume that its respondants were carefully selected and the results are therefore biased. How many CCers or widebeamers did they invite to respond for example? By using similar methodology it would be easy enough to compile another equally unrepresentative and invalid petition with the same questions and achieve a complete inversion of those percentages.

 

What I find most depressing in all this is that at a time when we're all paying too much already, the petty-minded out there would like other boaters who they've decided are the cause of all our ills, to pay yet more. Not only will this not benefit anyone, but it may even result in further action across the board which will ultimately affect us all negatively. I think someone already coined it the politics of envy and in my opinion it's the psychology of the jealous child who screams about the minor misdemeanour of his siblings, resulting in mum losing her temper and a giving a clip round the ear to everyone.

[Maffi]

CCers are by definition making full year round 24x365 use of visitors moorings, while non-CCers will make only occasional intermittent use of them.

 

Every licence allows every boat to do that.Surely given that every licence allows the same access should it not be that campaigners ask for a reduction for Continuous Moorers rather that an increase for Continuous Cruisers. After all if you are not using your licence to its fullest a discount should be in order.It is not that CCers use the system more than CMers, but that CMers don't use the system as much as CCers.

 

I agree that license and mooring should be kept separate - but I think if you elect to make year round constant use of visitors moorings then you should pay something for that service. A CCers Mooring License could be introduced and you cant apply for a boat license without showing you have some form of mooring, either permanent or CCing.

 

The whole point of the legal status of a CCer is that:-Once upon a time in the land of Hush-a-bye to have a boat on the canals it was a pre-requisite to have a permanent mooring. Some people, notably retired folk who wanted to spend their retirement travelling the canals didn't see why they should have to have a mooring when they were never going to use it.

 

A decree was issued round about all with a flourish and a shout and a gaily coloured mascot tripping lightly on before "let's make it possible for retired folk to cruise the canal without the need to have a permanent mooring" and a law was passed to allow this to happen.And so it was that the CCer became legal.

 

Any questions?

 

Yes I'd like to know that too. Who organised it?

 

If it came from the APCO then it was probably only circulated among its members. This is surely yhe best way to ensure you get the result you want.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Maffi

[Chris Pink]

an' another thing......drunken sashay.....

 

How come the respondents could vote for extra charges for boats with no permanent moorings and extra for wide beams but not one or t'other.

 

Seems a mite fish-like to me that no-one at all appears to have voted that way.

[Maffi]

(say less than ten percent of what a marina would expect) that was applied to the general upkeep of our canals?

 

And how much revenue do you think that may generate?

[KenK]

ahem. I believe you moaned about the other topic wandering off (which in my opinion it didn't).

 

But one of the things none of you advocates of extra charges for people without permanent moorings have considered is; if an extra charge is levied then the motivation to move will be removed and you will find more boats overstaying for longer.

 

The other consideration is that there will result a situation where one person pays the same for a mooring and a licence as another pays for just a licence. I notice that all of the advocates of the higher charge fall in the former category.

 

So... i propose.... we all pay the same, I get to use your mooring 50% of the time and you have to cruise 50% of the time.

 

no?

 

thought not, get real.

 

Works for me, you get the mooring in the summer, I get it in the winter.

[Chris Pink]

and...and....and....falls drunkenly against doorframe.

 

What about those people who cruise for a bit then get a paid-for mooring somewhere for a bit then cruise again and might get a winter mooring, might carry on cruising, may then go onto other waters and back onto BW managed waters.

 

Can't see any provision for them in the 'proposed' changes.

 

and...and....what about someone who buys a boat from someone who had a mooring and then decides to go trekking around the system, no more transferable licences then?

 

What about trail boats with 12 month licences?

 

Do youse want a different charge for everyone, as long as yours is the cheapest?

 

It does seem that everyone on this topic is 'after' someone for something.

 

Speaking of new laws, ever so slightly off-topic (bad buoy) – a jelly baby and an Werther's Original to the people who can spot the similarity between our discussion and this;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2226425,00.html

Edited January 15, 2008 by Chris Pink

[KenK]

and...and....and....falls drunkenly against doorframe.

 

What about those people who cruise for a bit then get a paid-for mooring somewhere for a bit then cruise again and might get a winter mooring, might carry on cruising, may then go onto other waters and back onto BW managed waters.

 

Can't see any provision for them in the 'proposed' changes.

 

and...and....what about someone who buys a boat from someone who had a mooring and then decides to go trekking around the system, no more transferable licences then?

 

What about trail boats with 12 month licences?

 

Do youse want a different charge for everyone, as long as yours is the cheapest?

 

It does seem that everyone on this topic is 'after' someone for something.

 

I don't think it's what we think that matters it's what BW think of the proposal. It does fall in line with their thinking, less boats moored on line, more revenue to replace the DEFRA shortfall, removal of unlicenced boats.

 

I don't have any problem with CCers, I also don't have a problem with boats moored on the system. I do have a problem with inconsiderate people who don't give a hoot about anyone but themselves, but that's not confined to the canal system.

 

What I suspect matters to people who do CC or who own a widebeam is that any change, if one comes about, is a fair one.

 

Ken

[Lady Muck]

I have to say I did wonder why hire boat operators would be so concerned by CCers. I tend to suspect this petition has more to do with removing CMers (permanent moorers) and tatty boats from the visitor moorings around the honey pots on the system.

 

Doesn't it just? What's next? Will there be an extra fee levied if you are deemed to be 'a bit of a crusty?'

[Nige G]

Where was the option to vote for forcing boats in a marina that never move to have a licence?

[Chris Pink]

I do have a problem with inconsiderate people who don't give a hoot about anyone but themselves, but that's not confined to the canal system.

 

Agreed, but the problem with a bureaucratic entity coming up with charges and regulations in order to single out a few people who they want to target is that it will hit all sorts of people in unintended ways.

 

As has been pointed out the difference between someone whose behaviour you don't like and that you do like is unlikely to be covered by any different licensing regime.

 

And you might find that such a blunt instrument hits you in its operation in some way you didn't expect.

 

As with most other areas of life there are already many instruments to deal with abuse, are you looking for some kind of automatic deterrent?

Do you really want BW to spend your money on enforcing another layer of complicated rules?

[fuzzyduck]

I'd support a square meter license for boats (and I'm buying a wide beam)

 

But what I'd like to see in return, is a decrease in licenses at the lower end of the spectrum, to keep inland boating available for all, say for those weekenders under 25 feet (i'm buying longer)

 

I don't even care about the proposed (here) wide beam canal license. (but then I'm a river boater anyway)

 

I've made my feelings known about APCO.

[NB Alnwick]

So... i propose.... we all pay the same, I get to use your mooring 50% of the time and you have to cruise 50% of the time.no?

 

Yes! We do cruise at least 50% of the time and, although we pay BW a four figure sum each year for our on-line mooring and almost as much again for our 'Gold' licence, we probably cruise a much greater part of the system than some of the people that call themselves 'Continuous Cruisers'.

 

Please don't misunderstand - we are not complaining about what it costs us - we are pleased to support the waterways in any way we can and we also make donations to various restoration societies.

 

We live on a modest pension and we are happy to spend our money on the canals - it is our choice and we recognise that others may have made different choices and we would never seek to criticise or judge them for that.

 

It has been said before that none of us have any problems with the principle of genuine 'Continuous Cruisers' but, as others have pointed out on this forum, there are some that are kidding themselves and British Waterways by pretending to be 'Continuous Cruisers' when in reality they are 'Continuous Moorers' - this in itself does not really effect us that much but surely we all can see how it might affect someone who has hired a boat for £1,000 a week and then finds that they cannot moor safely because there are boats already there that have spent the best part of the last six months on the same length! Remember first time hirers will not have our experience or knowledge of the system.

 

We must also remember that the economy of our canal system depends to a large extent on the success of the hire companies.

 

Finally, if you want to moor at Cropredy while we are away cruising you are more than welcome to tie-up at our on-line mooring . . .

 

What's next? Will there be an extra fee levied if you are deemed to be 'a bit of a crusty?'

 

I think I may be already paying it!

Edited January 15, 2008 by NB Alnwick

[Sylver Lining]

I do get fed up with the politics of envy... Am I mistaken in thinking that NBW represent a sector of society that I would normally categorise as reactionary conservative. That is, they don't like anything that they regard as off beat or somehow someone getting more than they are.I pay BW £600 for an EOG mooring. For this I get to leave the boat at the end of someone's garden for as long as I want: can leave it there 52 weeks a year if I want. CC'ers don't get this, so why should they pay even a token towards it.I don't get to get my car particularly close to the boat: the owner of the house is generous in allowing me use of electricity etc but he doesn't have to, and if I want a pump out it's off to Lyme View 4 miles away. I don't get Marina facilities so why should I pay as much as people who do.Your licence gives you the right to cruise year round: your mooring gives you the option not to do so. I'll also venture that I covered more miles of canal than many CC'ers last year: why should they pay more than me for a licence. (this is not a dig at CC'ers, there is a difference bewtween CCing and having a crazed lust to cruise every inch of navigable waterway!).I'm one of the seven percent. No I don't agree with NBW premise as stated.

[tired old pirate]

The points on the questionable objectivity of this survey hardly need making. Ridiculous.

 

There does seem to be a concerted effort by folk to put pressure on BW to take draconian measures against CC'ers at the mo. I had a long conversation with a mooring warden just before christmas who openly admitted that there was a agenda within BW to "encourage" everyone into marinas and make online mooring less appealing. She told me that this was driven by several factors, one being the amount of letters of complaint complaint coming in regarding boats moored online coming from marina based boaters (she used the phrase polishers and rivet counters). She told me that availability of moorings wasnt a problem as new marinas would be opening up all over the place in the future.

 

I am currently waiting for a permanent mooring to become available, and when I approached a brand new marina with very expensive moorings they would not even take an application from me without having a house address, they wern't interested in residential boaters at all (blisworth marina)

 

After living on the cut and cc'ing for a while I've decided I dont want a marina mooring anyway, there is an online marina I would like to be at but their waiting list is huge and any boats sold there remarkably seem to come straight up on the list, so no turnover anyway. BW lists are closed so effectively there are no permanent moorings available.

 

This winter I couldnt afford a winter mooring let alone a marina space even if there was one available. I turned down winter moorings and have had to deal with the very difficult but hugely rewarding task of working thru the winter with kids and moving to avoid overstay. Its doable but v hard.

 

Any suggestion that I should pay an extra fee for this priveledge is obviously made by people who havn't actually done it. Its hard and not everyone could do it. I have lived in a marina and I feel that many of the folk I met living there wouldnt last long on the cut with no security or facilities. I have showed numerous people how to use their inverters and basic equipment, some folk were so frightened of moving their boats over (100 yds)to get diesel that they had to be accompanied. They also exhibited some fairly extreme judgemental behavior and were so worried about security that marina gates had to be locked etc, many people would actually approach members of the public who walked in to look at boats to inform them that they were tresspassing! talking to folk like some of them did out where I moor would get you twatted. If you are cc'ing you depend on the community for security and have to work really hard to survive, certainly so hard that there isnt alot of time left to worry about what other people are doing or paying for or not paying for.

 

My point being that I dont think people realise how difficult it is and would not actually be able to survive outside marinas, theres no shorepower, no convenient pump out, no security cept us, no handy water, no carparking, no mailboxes, no launderettes, not that many places to moor. If you choose to pay for that stuff then you get that stuff, if you dont, you dont. Folk writing letters to BW should stop it or try a few seasons on the cut first to see if they'd be willing to pay extra for it.

 

Some folk are fighting for survival and trying to pay for their boats, work hard and bring up their families. Its hard enough the way things are without extra pressure by well resourced wealthy folk who want to pull up the ladder behind them and keep the riff raff out, which is what were talking about isn't it?, price the peasants out, cos if the fees go up, lots of people cant afford to keep going.

 

Extra charges shouldnt happen. Be nice if BW used the revenue generated by marinas to give free licences to those who CC as a mark of respect. Widebeams are too fat and should be parked on land in my opinion, given a garden path and refered to as flats.

[Neil.A]

that there was a agenda within BW to "encourage" everyone into marinas and make online mooring less appealing. She told me that this was driven by several factors, one being the amount of letters of complaint complaint coming in regarding boats moored online coming from marina based boaters (she used the phrase polishers and rivet counters). She told me that availability of moorings wasnt a problem as new marinas would be opening up all over the place in the future.

 

Blimey, where have you been for the last 10 months?

[fuzzyduck]

Some folk are fighting for survival and trying to pay for their boats, work hard and bring up their families. Its hard enough the way things are without extra pressure by well resourced wealthy folk who want to pull up the ladder behind them and keep the riff raff out, which is what were talking about isn't it?, price the peasants out, cos if the fees go up, lots of people cant afford to keep going.

 

Couldn't agree with you more, and as most of these people seem to be in their 50's or so pandering to them is just not sustainable. Madam Fuzzy (medium and drinker of battery acid) predicts a real problem for the waterways in about 10-15 years time as these people start to die off.

 

 

Extra charges shouldnt happen. Be nice if BW used the revenue generated by marinas to give free licences to those who CC as a mark of respect. Widebeams are too fat and should be parked on land in my opinion, given a garden path and refered to as flats.

 

but here you're just doing that the ladder pullers are doing with CCers, poor show for someone who has shown such enlightenment in the past. but if you're good, I'll take you out in the wash, and we can plane my new (to me) widebeam

[tired old pirate]

but here you're just doing that the ladder pullers are doing with CCers, poor show for someone who has shown such enlightenment in the past. but if you're good, I'll take you out in the wash, and we can plane my new (to me) widebeam

true I just thought I should finish with a comment guaranteed to take the thread totally off thread I'm sure ur widebeam is loverly, I know lots of people like fat things edited for technical incompetence Edited January 16, 2008 by tired old pirate

[carlt]

Widebeams are too fat and should be parked on land in my opinion, given a garden path and refered to as flats.

 

Too Right! Far better to have a proper boat shaped boat....like a narrow boat eh?

 

Edited January 16, 2008 by carlt