Mooring wardens

[mayalld]

I, for one, would very much like to know what that reason is....any ideas ? (As I said in my original post, we're not talking about 'honey pot' areas here, where I fully understand that lengths of stay should be limited).

 

My boat is 70 feet long and that's how much of the canal it takes up - it doesn't get any longer if I stay in the same place for more than 14 days.

 

OK, it's a reasonable enough question.

 

The simple answer has to be that there has to be some limit. If you set no limit, you effectively give free reign to people to just find a spot of towpath that they fancy, and moor there for the next 10 years. There are many people with moorings that offer no physical security who might take just that option if there was no limit.

 

So, it is simply a question of striking a balance between a limit which would require a degree of movement which would be unreasonable, and which would not allow CCers to spend any time exploring a place, and a limit which would allow people to remain in a single spot for months on end.

 

You could argue that 21 days would be a better limit, but you could bet your life that somebody would want the limit to be a bit more flexible! No matter where you draw the line, there will always be somebody who says "ah well, I can nearly comply with the rules, s they should let me off"

 

14 days allows people to CC whilst only being weekenders, and allows them to have the occasional weekend off. It is a limit that those who are just trying to get a free ride find it hard to comply with.

 

If you occasionally find the 14 days hard to comply with by an odd day, but usually move every 7 days, I am sure that BW would accept that as being OK. If 21 day stays are a regular feature, then a paid for short term mooring is the answer.

 

Yes, your boat will have to be moored somewhere, but part of the idea is that everybody gets a chance to try out whichever mooring spot they want.

[US Marines]

Thanks Chris, I wasn't aware of that history.

 

I am in complete agreement with you, the laws of physics state that your boat will be somewhere, if it's causing no grief to no-one then that is, to me, 'reasonable in the circumstances' and, unfortunately for Mr Mayall, BW would appear to agree as they do not take action against people who use the canals like you do.

 

Yes, so far, I haven't had a problem - but I can't help feeling uncomfortable about having to 'push the rules' like this, and I can't help but feel edgy that one day, I'll get an enforcement notice.

 

I'd far rather that BW had clear and sensible (even 'reasonable' ?) rules that everyone could obey, and then enforced those rules 100% of the time, than this situation of having unrealistic rules that are inconsistently enforced.

[magpie patrick]

I, for one, would very much like to know what that reason is....any ideas ? (As I said in my original post, we're not talking about 'honey pot' areas here, where I fully understand that lengths of stay should be limited).

 

My boat is 70 feet long and that's how much of the canal it takes up - it doesn't get any longer if I stay in the same place for more than 14 days.

 

 

 

Are, but you see, there is not:

 

(i) marinas aren't the right distance apart,

 

(ii) most of my winter cruising is done at weekends and I don't want to spend most of my Sunday sorting out a berth for the week.

 

I go on a canal to relax and chug around, I don't want to have to organise and lodge a 'flight plan' weeks in advance......

 

And, as I said, I suspect I am not alone in this and the current licencing situation simply does not cater for it (i.e. as I said in my original post, I would be prepared to consider paying a premium if it was held to be necessary, so its not a question of fee dodging)

 

Just hazarding a guess on "thin end of the wedge" or "nip it in the bud" argument

 

The rules require you to have a home mooring unless CC'ing (and stuff Chris pink and his bona fides, I'll avoid going of at a tangent here). Why?

 

because with 25,000 plus boats in the system they have to go somewhere. that's over ten a mile (and my figure is out of date, it's gone up since then) and that number on 0n-line moorings of a any type is unsustainable, the canal track becomes a boat park. The idea behind the CC rule was that some people genuinely didn't need a mooring, and would be paying for an unused facility, not so that you could meander over about three miles of canal. On the Caledonian Canal (and on many non-bw waterways on the main system) there is no CC licence

 

clearly one boat moored in the middle of nowhere doesn't matter, but (and this isn't envy) suppose we have a recession. boat owners looking to save money. Lightbulb moment "I Know, I'll head for that bit of the Ashby where the single track road goes under, moor up there. It's not a honey pot, no one will mind" and indeed in the good old days when there were perhaps only 2000 licensed boats no one did.

 

But as I chug up from Saul, I find 100 other boaters are with me, and as we pass Upton and Tewkesbury, more come out, and then Alvechurch, Calcutt, and by the time I get to my isolated mooring on the Ashby, 500 other boats are trying to do the same thing. The only reason these moorings remain unsullied, is because of the 14 day rule. It could be 7, it could be 21, but it's needed.

 

As for bona fides, in Ireland, there was a rule that pubs could only serve bona fide travellers on a sunday, so everyone would cycle to the next village, passing those villagers coming the other way. It was known as "doing a bona fide", and that's some "continuous cruisers" are doing.

[Guest User]

If I may snip out a tiny but, I feel, important part .....

 

.... I am not alone .....

There is an increasing number of boats on the system, and with everyone wanting to take their particular enjoyment from it.

 

However, the increasing numbers means that the rules that exist are having to be imposed with increasing rigidity, the alternative is ultimately chaos and a very unpleasant waterway environment.

 

In some instances maybe the rules do seem to be a mockery of common sense, but I would imagine that, where in the past a one-off bending of the rules would have been just that, a one off bending off the rules, nowadays there's a perception that it doesn't end there but leads to a flood of "me too" rule bending. So, I can see why BW want to try to maintain some kind of rational control of boats on the system.

 

Edited to Add: just seen Magpie's post which says the same only better

Edited September 30, 2009 by Graham!

[US Marines]

14 days allows people to CC whilst only being weekenders, and allows them to have the occasional weekend off. It is a limit that those who are just trying to get a free ride find it hard to comply with.

Thanks Dave - and yes, I do recognise this point of 'free loaders' but that doesn't explain why there isn't a licence available to me to use the canal how I want to. If there was such a licence available, I'm guessing that there would be quite a few buyers and the overall situation would be clarified and thus easier to enforce.

 

The only reason these moorings remain unsullied, is because of the 14 day rule. It could be 7, it could be 21, but it's needed.

 

I take the point that the system is 'full'. However, your (slightly over the top, if I may say ! )) example would not apply if the licence to do what I do cost the same as a typical static BW towpath mooring.

[Neil Corbett]

Returning to the original point of the discussion, what I liked about a good mooring warden is that you could discuss with them the possibility of overstaying if you had a genuine reason and they would generally help out. The point is that they made the decision and not me. That way considerations regarding fairness and reasonableness were made without personal interest.

 

If its true that mooring wardens are being phased out I think it's a great pity.

[Chris Pink]

The rules require you to have a home mooring unless CC'ing (and stuff Chris pink and his bona fides, I'll avoid going of at a tangent here).

 

As for bona fides, in Ireland, there was a rule that pubs could only serve bona fide travellers on a sunday, so everyone would cycle to the next village, passing those villagers coming the other way. It was known as "doing a bona fide", and that's some "continuous cruisers" are doing.

 

You want to murder the english language, Mr P, you feel free.

 

And I tend to agree with your point about 25,000 licenced boats, but then nobody thought about that when they made the laws, did they?

 

But we do have a situation here where the number of boats outstrips the number of moorings so what is to be done about that? There are many many people who would like a mooring who can't find one and it doesn't really do for a boat owner who has one to say "well you can't have a boat then".

 

There are also many many people who were living peacably on the canals before they became so congested. Would you have them leave?

 

And I'll thank you to stop being rude to me, it doesn't suit you.

[furnessvale]

Thanks Dave - and yes, I do recognise this point of 'free loaders' but that doesn't explain why there isn't a licence available to me to use the canal how I want to. If there was such a licence available, I'm guessing that there would be quite a few buyers and the overall situation would be clarified and thus easier to enforce.

 

Such a licence has been suggested in the past where people without a bone fide mooring would pay extra. What a kerfuffle that suggestion caused!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Chris Pink]

Returning to the original point of the discussion, what I liked about a good mooring warden is that you could discuss with them the possibility of overstaying if you had a genuine reason and they would generally help out. The point is that they made the decision and not me. That way considerations regarding fairness and reasonableness were made without personal interest.

 

If its true that mooring wardens are being phased out I think it's a great pity.

 

Very true. It is found that the 'volunteers' that BW seem to be pushing at the moment are in the main people with some kind of undesirable agenda.

[mayalld]

Thanks Dave - and yes, I do recognise this point of 'free loaders' but that doesn't explain why there isn't a licence available to me to use the canal how I want to. If there was such a licence available, I'm guessing that there would be quite a few buyers and the overall situation would be clarified and thus easier to enforce.

 

 

 

I take the point that the system is 'full'. However, your (slightly over the top, if I may say ! )) example would not apply if the licence to do what I do cost the same as a typical static BW towpath mooring.

 

There was a proposal to introduce such a licence last year. It was known as a "roving mooring permit", but it died a death in the teeth of opposition from the usual pressure groups, who actually want to be allowed to get away with ignoring the rules. It is also fair to say that such a scheme would need to be well designed to ensure that it wasn't abused.

 

It is unfortunate that the system cannot accomodate what everybody wants, but not everybody wants reasonable things, and there are only so many options that they can offer.

 

However, given that you have a genuine desire for a third way that accomodates your needs, here's a thought. How would we design such a licence option so as to work for everybody, not be open to abuse, and how much would it cost.

 

Thoughts?

[sueb]

If you want to stay somewhere longer than 14 days, phone up customer service at Watford and tell them where and why. I have never been refused. It is simpler than a new licence

Sue

[GUMPY]

If you want to stay somewhere longer than 14 days, phone up customer service at Watford and tell them where and why. I have never been refused. It is simpler than a new licence

Sue

Thats all very well but:

A while ago I did that for the VM at Cowley as I came off the Thames and had 3 weeks until I went into dock at Uxbridge. Seemed silly to go back to my moorings ( 30 locks each way) with the use of water etc.

Came back to the boat on the 15th day and found an overstay notice, long phone call with BW about right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing ensued.

Was OK in the end when they saw sense and talked to each other.

[magpie patrick]

And I'll thank you to stop being rude to me, it doesn't suit you.

 

 

Sorry Chris, I was in a grumpy mood last night for other reasons.

 

Virtual pint coming your way (and if you will admit who you are at some festival round here then a real pint )

[magpie patrick]

You want to murder the english language, Mr P, you feel free.

 

I'm not murdering it, just using a phrase that has come into common usage and is widely understood. I would admit that with no context "continuous Cruiser" is ambiguous to say the least, but we all know what it means.

 

Yes, we could use bona fide cruiser and then for Dave's "continuous moorers" call them "doing a bona fide"

 

And I tend to agree with your point about 25,000 licenced boats, but then nobody thought about that when they made the laws, did they?

 

I don't know whether they thought of it but these laws were made in 1995 when there were already over 20,000 boats

But we do have a situation here where the number of boats outstrips the number of moorings so what is to be done about that? There are many many people who would like a mooring who can't find one and it doesn't really do for a boat owner who has one to say "well you can't have a boat then".

 

But it is actually what happens on other non-bw waterways, and on most BW waterways in Scotland. The problem we have in some instances (although I suspect, not as many as we are lead to believe) is that there is a mismatch and a certain amount of "I'm not going in a marina" mentality. Take the western K and A, it isn't actually that full, only Bradford lock get's very busy, and many days the locks in Bath are fairly quiet, but it's almost wall to wall moored boats (and that isn't an exaggeration). a couple of large marina's are needed if any more boats are to moor here (and I reckon the canal has capacity for more boats). At the other extreme, I do hope BW resist the temptation to allow too many more marinas around, say Barbridge and Braunston because in these locations the canals are getting very busy indeed.

 

BTW our boat is in Saul because it's where we can get a mooring

 

There are also many many people who were living peacably on the canals before they became so congested. Would you have them leave?

 

 

These will be a diminishing problem by definition and, in an ideal world, I'd have those owners granted grandfather rights

[Chris Pink]

I'm not murdering it, just using a phrase that has come into common usage and is widely understood. I would admit that with no context "continuous Cruiser" is ambiguous to say the least, but we all know what it means.

 

Yes, we could use bona fide cruiser and then for Dave's "continuous moorers" call them "doing a bona fide"

 

I don't know whether they thought of it but these laws were made in 1995 when there were already over 20,000 boats

 

The reality is that BW have no powers to refuse a licence on any other than the grounds in the 1995 Act. Perhaps there will be a situation where the crowded canals put people off and the numbers of boats decrease.

 

It is absurd that the waterways press is full of boat builders pushing shiny new toys that have a life of 30-40 years and then have people complaining that others pick up the older ones cheap and use them in ways they disapprove of.

 

A recent post on here estimated 7.5K to keep a boat as a leisure item. This sum is enough to say to me that this is a leisure pursuit of the very wealthy and i know some would like to see an exclusive canal but the system does belong to everybody and whatever your feelings the 'wall to wall' moorers - who in the main keep to the law and even the guidance - have every right to use the canals as they see fit.

 

I agree that the infrastructure on the western KandA is not overloaded except on bank holidays or peak season. Bradford lock used to have a lock keeper, as you know, and this went a long way to getting the hire boats through in good time, for many this is their first lock and this contributes to the delays there. Having said that i have never had serious delays there simply by choosing my timing. I also know of few boaters who have much difficulty in using visitor moorings.

 

I object to the term 'continuous cruiser' - firstly it has no basis in law but is used to imply a non-existent legal definition by BW. Second it lumps together a set of disparate boaters with different needs and desires. Third it sets up a 'divide and rule' situation. But mainly because the true term 'bona fide navigator' would do just as well but is devoid of pejorative meaning.

 

Yes there are people who break this rule but then there are continuous moorers (whoops, sorry Dave) who break the terms of their contracts and their are others who break other rules.

 

I do quite like the Irish 'doing a bona fide'.

 

As someone who works with communication in all the areas of my life i think language is very important and should beused with care - this is the basis for my challenge over the terms 'continuous cruiser™' and 'continuous moorer™.

[magpie patrick]

The reality is that BW have no powers to refuse a licence on any other than the grounds in the 1995 Act. Perhaps there will be a situation where the crowded canals put people off and the numbers of boats decrease.

 

It is absurd that the waterways press is full of boat builders pushing shiny new toys that have a life of 30-40 years and then have people complaining that others pick up the older ones cheap and use them in ways they disapprove of.

 

A recent post on here estimated 7.5K to keep a boat as a leisure item. This sum is enough to say to me that this is a leisure pursuit of the very wealthy and i know some would like to see an exclusive canal but the system does belong to everybody and whatever your feelings the 'wall to wall' moorers - who in the main keep to the law and even the guidance - have every right to use the canals as they see fit.

 

I agree that the infrastructure on the western KandA is not overloaded except on bank holidays or peak season. Bradford lock used to have a lock keeper, as you know, and this went a long way to getting the hire boats through in good time, for many this is their first lock and this contributes to the delays there. Having said that i have never had serious delays there simply by choosing my timing. I also know of few boaters who have much difficulty in using visitor moorings.

 

I object to the term 'continuous cruiser' - firstly it has no basis in law but is used to imply a non-existent legal definition by BW. Second it lumps together a set of disparate boaters with different needs and desires. Third it sets up a 'divide and rule' situation. But mainly because the true term 'bona fide navigator' would do just as well but is devoid of pejorative meaning.

 

Yes there are people who break this rule but then there are continuous moorers (whoops, sorry Dave) who break the terms of their contracts and their are others who break other rules.

 

I do quite like the Irish 'doing a bona fide'.

 

As someone who works with communication in all the areas of my life i think language is very important and should beused with care - this is the basis for my challenge over the terms 'continuous cruiser™' and 'continuous moorer™.

 

Chris, if you leave semantics out of it I'd agree with almost everything you've said. The cost of boating has got excessive and despite the bleatings the board about how many new boaters there have been in the last ten years most of this is retired people who have perhaps ten years when we need youngsters who will have forty. There needs to be an economy version of boating, and we have considered downsizing for this reason (and when you consider our combined salaries, if we are struggling it suggests boating has got far, far too expensive. I also feel strongly for boating to be inclusive and don't like the "look down our noses" brigade, although I don't meet that many of them

 

On the K and A I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet, I'm not saying those moorings shouldn't be there but that there is rapidly becoming no room, legit or not, to moor and yet the canal can handle more traffic. There is an element of intelegent management about this as well. BW wanted a marina at Saul to get boats onto a canal that had plenty of capacity, and perhaps a new large marina should be, say, somewhere near Weston Lock.

 

Mind you as chairman of the SCCS I rather fancy a large new Marina somewhere near Paulton

[mayalld]

Funny how a number of people are all drawing roughly the same conclusions. We must all be wrong and your the only one thats right eh?

 

"a number"

 

If ever there was a term that could be used to distort the truth, that is it.

 

So far as I can see, a tiny number of people have made so bold as to put forward a diagnosis (you being one). Given that neither you, nor Chris are doctors, and neither of you have met me, I believe that we can discount your diagnosis.

[Chris Pink]

So far as I can see, a tiny number of people have made so bold as to put forward a diagnosis (you being one). Given that neither you, nor Chris are doctors, and neither of you have met me, I believe that we can discount your diagnosis.

 

Classic symptons of denial.

 

On the K and A I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet, I'm not saying those moorings shouldn't be there but that there is rapidly becoming no room, legit or not, to moor and yet the canal can handle more traffic. There is an element of intelegent management about this as well. BW wanted a marina at Saul to get boats onto a canal that had plenty of capacity, and perhaps a new large marina should be, say, somewhere near Weston Lock.

 

Interesting that you should say that.

 

I have heard that BANES are not using the money allocated to provide traveller sites and are in real danger of being 'fined' by central government. One of the ideas they are looking at (tentatively) is a marina for the boater population.

 

Whether the boaters currently in the Limpley Stoke valley would use it is moot - I think it would just fill up with a new intake of the cheap housing brigade - not that you can blame them with the cost of housing.

 

Also knowing BW as we do (bless their pointy head) i would imagine they would want so much in 'connection' fees that the budget for digging t'hole would be 2 men and a spade.

 

I would also think a marine in the flatlands (past Hilperton) would also be feasible.

 

But who would dig a marina with BW's current policy? - talk about looking glass world, the left hand says 'get these boats offline', the right hand says 'charge so much there's no incentive to dig marinas'.

[mayalld]

Classic symptons of denial.

 

Is that so, Doctor?

[Lady Muck]

But who would dig a marina with BW's current policy? - talk about looking glass world, the left hand says 'get these boats offline', the right hand says 'charge so much there's no incentive to dig marinas'.

There are plenty of expensive empty leisure marinas in the Midlands and up North when what is actually needed is affordable, residential moorings in the South.

 

The cost of boating has got excessive and despite the bleatings the board about how many new boaters there have been in the last ten years most of this is retired people who have perhaps ten years when we need youngsters who will have forty

There are plenty of younger boaters on the system, come to down South and meet the average cc boater. Many of them are under 50. They don't have the budget for a new boat, they often cannot pay the silly mooring prices down here and they are not exactly celebrated for that. I'd be the first one to acknowledge that theres too many towpath moored boats down South, but I can also empathise with these boaters. It does get very 'us and them' and some boaters do go round screwing their noses up at them, it all boils down to money.

 

It is absurd that the waterways press is full of boat builders pushing shiny new toys that have a life of 30-40 years and then have people complaining that others pick up the older ones cheap and use them in ways they disapprove of.

See above.

If you want younger people on the waterways, you can't have it both ways. We can't afford shiny new toys nor can we afford to 'use them' or 'keep them' in the same way.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Lady Muck

[magpie patrick]

There are plenty of expensive empty leisure marinas in the Midlands and up North when what is actually needed is affordable, residential moorings in the South.

 

 

There are plenty of younger boaters on the system, come to down South and meet the average cc boater. Many of them are under 50. They don't have the budget for a new boat, they often cannot pay the silly mooring prices down here and they are not exactly celebrated for that. I'd be the first one to acknowledge that theres too many towpath moored boats down South, but I can also empathise with these boaters. It does get very 'us and them' and some boaters do go round screwing their noses up at them, it all boils down to money.

 

 

See above.

If you want younger people on the waterways, you can't have it both ways. We can't afford shiny new toys nor can we afford to 'use them' or 'keep them' in the same way.

 

LM, I think Chris was saying that people who buy expensive shiney boats shouldn't moan when people buy second hand ones and then want to share the water, after all, those second hand ones were once brand new, and one day the shiney boat owner will want to sell: who to? someone who can't afford or can't justify the cost of a new boat

[Lady Muck]

LM, I think Chris was saying that people who buy expensive shiney boats shouldn't moan when people buy second hand ones and then want to share the water, after all, those second hand ones were once brand new, and one day the shiney boat owner will want to sell: who to? someone who can't afford or can't justify the cost of a new boat

 

That's what I meant too.

[tomsk]

Is that so, Doctor?

 

 

We just worry about you Dave. I think it's called 'Care in the Communitee'.

 

As you know, I am not a medical man, however you have exibited classic symptoms of the unbalanced in recent times such as 'denial', 'delusions of grandure', 'self-righteousness' and probably many others that I have not picked up on, and as you say all these noticed without even meeting you!!

[mayalld]

We just worry about you Dave. I think it's called 'Care in the Communitee'.

 

As you know, I am not a medical man, however you have exibited classic symptoms of the unbalanced in recent times such as 'denial', 'delusions of grandure', 'self-righteousness' and probably many others that I have not picked up on, and as you say all these noticed without even meeting you!!

 

You, on the other hand are the classic classroom bully.

 

Oooh, look, look! Dave dares to express non-mainstream opinions. I'll just post the same old crap every time he says anything, and if he says anything back, I'll just call him a nutter.

[Naughty Cal]

You, on the other hand are the classic classroom bully.

 

Pot, kettle, black