Jump to content

narrowboatworld


mikevye
 Share

Featured Posts

Despite other members thoughts I like narrowboatworld for the invariably spot on news reports and knowledgable comment. There's an item on there at the moment about destocking the Caen Flight of fish to give other species a better chance to breed. Up pops a treehugger complaining about the number of boats using the flight insisting that they should all go down once a day at a specified time and close the flight when the season finishes whenever that is. He then goes on to say that the side ponds have been there two hundred years and boats shouldn't have to go in them if his policies were adopted. NWB show an archive photo of a derilect flight circa 1980 with no side ponds. Exit treehugger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Tom is wrong. The side ponds have been there since 1810 but it doesn't diminish his point that they were put there to enable boats to navigate the canal and thus the boats have provided the habitat for the dragonflies (and the poor old, ethnically cleansed, fish) so they should be grateful.

 

There's also a chance that, if you stop boats using the flight, the ponds will end up being populated by a different species, that doesn't require the oxygenation of the water, that spinning props provide.

Edited by carlt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worrying thing is that BW are financing this exercise for the benefit of damsel flies etc. (and treehuggers), none of whom pay anything. Then the "idiot" wants those who do pay - us boaters - to go away.

 

If the nature lobby thinks that ponds are so important (which they are) why don't they raise some money, buy some fields and dig some ponds? Or restore existing ones. Instead of always leeching off some other peoples projects.

 

Oh and how come BW can find the money for this when they apparantly don't have the funds to fix, for instance, the broken paddle and leaking gates at Great Haywood, as reported elsewhere on NBW?

Edited by Rick-n-Jo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like their knowledgeable commentary and spot on reporting about Carl's boats? :lol:

 

To be fair, Tom did amend the piece, when the errors were pointed out (though a retraction would have been nicer).

 

One of the things I like about NBW is the fact that he'll jump in with both feet and take the stick afterwards.

Edited by carlt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Tom did amend the piece, when the errors were pointed out (though a retraction would have been nicer).

 

One of the things I like about NBW is the fact that he'll jump in with both feet and take the stick afterwards.

 

That's true I suppose. I just wasn't a fan of the fact that they made some story out of it in the first place instead of trying to find the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worrying thing is that BW are financing this exercise for the benefit of damsel flies etc. (and treehuggers), none of whom pay anything. Then the idiot wants those who do pay - us boaters - to go away.

 

If the nature lobby thinks that ponds are so important (which they are) why don't they raise some money, buy some fields and dig some ponds? Or restore existing ones. Instead of always leeching off some other peoples projects.

 

Oh and how come BW can find the money for this when they apparantly don't have the funds to fix, for instance, the broken paddle and leaking gates at Great Haywood, as reported elsewhere on NBW?

The article says, : "Gerald Walker, a (sic) amateur ecologist whom we contacted told us,.........

 

Why did they contact and seek a view from an unqualified, self-styled, ecologist? Did he just happen to be hanging around at the time, whiling away a quiet hour sticking some Rizlas together? You have to suspect that if this man actually exists, it was just to make the article more interesting, and get the huffy-puffy brigade into gear. With some measure of success it seems. Perhaps he is the brother of Jo the Plumber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he just happen to be hanging around at the time, whiling away a quiet hour sticking some Rizlas together?

Quite possibly:

 

Clicky

 

What surprises me is that people are bashing BW for ... Doing Their Job!! (CLICKY)

Removing native species, from a habitat is not doing that part of their job, though.

 

If they are intent on maintaining an artificial environment for these dragonfly larvae then they might as well put them in a fish tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing native species, from a habitat is not doing that part of their job, though.

 

If they are intent on maintaining an artificial environment for these dragonfly larvae then they might as well put them in a fish tank.

 

Ok - perhaps they aren't doing their job very well, or have been ill-informed by their ecologists. But at least they are doing part of their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least moving fish is not as bad or as expensive as spending £140,000 on two statues one for each end of the K&A, money which by the way they don't have and to which they have to apply for a grant. Or better still commissioning a wooden sculpture and then setting fire to it! You couldn't make it up.

 

:lol:

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Tom is wrong. The side ponds have been there since 1810 but it doesn't diminish his point that they were put there to enable boats to navigate the canal and thus the boats have provided the habitat for the dragonflies (and the poor old, ethnically cleansed, fish) so they should be grateful.

 

Not quite Carl, a number of the sideponds were totally dry for a number of years, so while they existed, there was nothing particularly pond like about them.

 

There's also a chance that, if you stop boats using the flight, the ponds will end up being populated by a different species, that doesn't require the oxygenation of the water, that spinning props provide.

 

Thinks like blanket weed, tree roots and all those things we used to get round the prop of the outboard and were gradually strangling the living daylights out of the wildlife perhaps?

 

I'm not quite clear how this ends up being BW's job though. The basic funding problem is that they don't have enough money to hold the waterways in a "steady state" yet this isn't steady state. I accept BW have some kind of moral duty to protect the environment but if they are to use their funds to IMPROVE the environment where is the line drawn? Can we reasonably expect improved navigation as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it a little bit odd that there is this much fuss over maintaining the "natural balance" of an artificial habitat?

But it is a fact that in Britain many protected sites began life as quarries, gravel pits and so forth. Even dew ponds and village green ponds are artificial. There's not a lot of England's landscape that isn't man made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd really like to know who this "amateur ecologist" is. tbh, anyone could call themselves an amateur ecologist, it's a completely meaningless designation. We have no way of knowing if this was some guy they found on the towpath picking floss from his toes or they found the definitive expert on lentic invertebrates to interview

 

A thought occurs that if I thought I was talking to a narrowboatworld rep, I'd be quite happy to spin them a ridiculous yarn, based on their pre-existing tendencies to foam at the mouth at the mention of the "e" word - and this ticks all the boxes that would set 'em off:

 

Random restriction on boating - check

 

Spending vast amounts of BW money on non-boating matters - check

 

Protection of insignificant invertebrates - check

 

implication that the only boats that matter are the holiday hire boats - check

 

glaring factual innaccuracy about canal history - check.

 

 

I reckon NBW have been trolled by a pro :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

narrowboatworld was going to be down over Easter for a major upgarde and I thought it was supposed to be back up today. However, I am getting a "site not found" message when I try to access it. Has it moved?

 

haggis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

narrowboatworld was going to be down over Easter for a major upgarde and I thought it was supposed to be back up today. However, I am getting a "site not found" message when I try to access it. Has it moved?

 

haggis

 

Try "refreshing" your screen or clearing your cache. Its there now!

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, so it is :-)

 

haggis

 

I have just voted in the "No Poll at Present" poll. I voted 'yes'. I see that 19 others have voted too. Some people see a radio button and just have to click on it!

 

I see that they have been looking at CWF. There is now an on line forum and a gallery and photo competition.

 

N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.