Is there a 3rd way?

[mayalld]

This is something I have been thinking about for a while and now I have finally joined the internet world and this forum I thought I would put my thoughts here to see what the wider boating audience thinks

 

I've been living aboard for 11 years now and have always seen that there seems to be only 2 ways of existing on the canals, you have a home mooring or you CC and jump through the required hoops.

 

I have always wondered if there was not room for a 3rd way and for want of better words a mooring/cruising area

 

We are all aware of the problems of a percentage of CC'rs not fulfilling the requirements of CCing but within the CCrs there are many who would love a mooring but from the are I'm in, Grand Union South, there does not appear to be many moorings available, certainly not for liveaboards, Cowroast marina laughed me out of the office when I asked if they had any liveaboard berths for rent under both the previous owners and the current ones

 

I know that according to BW/CART whomever that staying in one area because of work or children's school commitments is not their problem and is not reason enough to stay in one area even if you move around within that area and if you cannot meet the CC requirements then you should leave the water.

 

Over the years I have spoken to many boaters about this and many would like some kind of compromise and this has lead my thoughts to this.

 

Would it not be possible to licence an area within which you will adhere to the 2 week rule but between 3 points of destination and for this we would pay a premium

 

If, for example, the price of a BW leisure mooring within this area is £2000 per annum. I would propose that a fee of 50% would be payable to BW and for this the boats move every 2 weeks within their area, areas can be agreed we only really have to look at the guides to tell us lock mileage etc and you also get a 3 month winter mooring.

 

This would achieve a few aims

 

1: Boaters who are faced with a requirement to be in an area that do not wish to break the CC rules and cannot find home moorings can take advantage of this scheme and no longer fear the inevitable ticket/knock on the door and the request to move on, or the fines that I cannot see Cart not wanting to implement

 

2: This keeps the boats moving and therefore gives everyone a chance to visit and moor at different areas which I understand is a very common complaint from trip boats and all others

 

3: BW/Cart gain, what I can only see as, valuable income for the coffers

 

4: CC'rs who do not want to participate can always continue with their ways but this would help BW/Cart police the, as this forum calls them, continuous moorers therefore reducing the amount time/costs to police and enforce the 14 day rule.

 

There is a lot of resentment to BW amongst the boaters I know, and these range from the young to the retied, the moorers to the CCrs, and feelings that the move to Cart will ostracise people even more which means that you could see a lot more people not moving at all when Cart finally introduce more draconian measures to try to enforce rules that just don't seem to be working.

 

The requirement for people to be in an area has happened and these people are not going to go away and compromise, to me, seems better than fighting.

 

If people were allowed this option they would become more attached to an area and I hopefully would be more willing to give their time to volunteer groups working on the canals.

 

There will always be the "I know my rights" brigade and those that just chose to ignore all rules but there are a large group who would like to pay to reach an agreeable resolve.

 

So I open my thoughts to the forum to see if I am living in cloud cuckoo land, or that my mind has missed some piece of legislation, or that in other areas of the system that I have not visited, K&A for example, that this is just not a workable idea.

 

I do not have much access to the net so will not be able to immediately answer any queries or thoughts people will hopefully raise but I will get online as often as I can

 

And I know CC etc is an emotive subject on this forum, and the canals but let's try to stay away from the mudslinging and maybe try to work together to see if we cannot improve the system

 

Kindest regards

 

Steve

 

Steve,

 

this has been proposed before, and I set out a proposal for how it might be achieved.

 

I actually think that a prerequisite to having a sensible discussion about such a proposal is that, once and for all, people have to accept that boating is a lifestyle CHOICE, not a necessity, and that as such, making that choice requires boaters to be grown ups, not expecting nanny to sort it all out for them.

 

Until we get beyong the excuses for not either getting a mooring or CCing, until boaters accept that they have to take responsibility, rather that "well I would get a mooring if I could" or "well I don't want a mooring, but the CCing rules aren't fair" it will be difficult to move on.

 

Bluntly, as boaters, it is our responsibility to choose from the available options, and stick to the rules. The fact that the option we want isn't available isn't a good reason to break the rules. The right way is that we comply with the rules, whilst lobbying for more options to be made available.

 

Such an option could be made available, in the form of a Roving Mooring Permit.

 

The option would remain for those who wish to to continue as CCers as at present, but a new form of mooring permit that allows for a restricted cruising range, whilst imposing certain restrictions on where and how long a boat can moor, and which would attract a charge would seem sensible.

 

Just like permanent moorings, the number of such permits in a given area would be limited by the capacity of the area, and it is possible that they would be auctioned just like permanent moorings.

 

In parallel with such a move, which would provide a 3rd way for those whose aspirations lie somewhere between mooring and CCing, there would have to be a more rigorous enforcement of CCing rules. The fake excuse of necessity would be gone.

[Leni]

Once again a thread about possible ways to solve a problem descends into people calling other people "Piss takers" ! All I can say is, I've always found far more tolerance and sympathy for the circumstances I've found myself in from BW than from many of the posters on this forum!

 

Please bear in mind that other people's circumstances may differ from you own, and that not everyone who finds that 'one size doesn't fit all' is a piss taker!

 

I'm leaving this one to you to go over (again and again) I can see how much you enjoy it! I'm off to search (probably in vain!) for a home mooring anywhere in the South East!

[Higgs]

I don't think it is at all academic to discuss the effects of what a permit to moor and remain in one locality will be. Wether we call what we have guidance or law, most boaters apply an understanding to it's meaning.

 

In my view, a roaming permit will not sort out the problem and will end up at square one, having made the situation worse.

[mayalld]

Once again a thread about possible ways to solve a problem descends into people calling other people "Piss takers" ! All I can say is, I've always found far more tolerance and sympathy for the circumstances I've found myself in from BW than from many of the posters on this forum!

 

Please bear in mind that other people's circumstances may differ from you own, and that not everyone who finds that 'one size doesn't fit all' is a piss taker!

 

I'm leaving this one to you to go over (again and again) I can see how much you enjoy it! I'm off to search (probably in vain!) for a home mooring anywhere in the South East!

 

Leni,

 

whilst I'm not the one who used that particular turn of phrase, it cannot be denied that there ARE a significant number of people to whom that term could be sensibly applied.

 

Such people have not the slightest intention of playing by the rules, and live their lives according to what they think they can get away with.

 

Equally, there are those who lack the deliberate intent to take the piss, but are drawn by the siren voices of the piss takers, and come to believe that merely because they don't really WANT to break the rules, and would comply if an opportunity presented itself, that they are somehow the victims of circumstances beyond their control.

 

Certainly, BW/CRT should be working to create opportunities for people to comply, because doing so increases the access to the canals, but the boater must also take responsibility.

 

If CCing isn't an option, and he hasn't secured a mooring, then it is foolhardy to buy a boat, KNOWING that he will not be in a position to comply with the rules.

 

I hope that a 3rd way can be found, but the lack of it isn't an excuse for breaking the rules now.

[mayalld]

I don't think it is at all academic to discuss the effects of what a permit to moor and remain in one locality will be. Wether we call what we have guidance or law, most boaters apply an understanding to it's meaning.

 

In my view, a roaming permit will not sort out the problem and will end up at square one, having made the situation worse.

 

I don't think that it would.

 

The problem with the current situation is that, notwithstanding just how tenuous the claims made by the bridge hopper to CCing status might be, those claims tie the machinery up for months on end, stretching BW's ability to take enforcement action.

 

A roving mooring permit would move such boaters in with boaters with moorings (it is a different sort of mooring, but still means that there is a "place where the vessel can be lawfully kept").

 

This has two effects;

1) Those boaters who take it up are now unarguably subject to the terms of the permit, and if they breach the terms repeatedly, they are MUCH easier to enforce against.

2) The number of boaters pretending to CC will reduce, meaning that there will be less cases needing CCing enforcement, and BW/CRT will be able to get their teeth into them.

 

Clearly, there would have to be a limit to the number of RMPs in a given area, they wouldn't be free, and they would have to include a series of rules that would mean that they DON'T actually permit the RMP holder to monopolise moorings in an area.

 

I would certainly have no problem with RMPs being trialled locally to me, particularly if their introduction was coupled with a zero tolerance approach to those who don't have a MP/RMP and fail to CC

[Higgs]

I don't think that it would.

 

The problem with the current situation is that, notwithstanding just how tenuous the claims made by the bridge hopper to CCing status might be, those claims tie the machinery up for months on end, stretching BW's ability to take enforcement action.

 

All well and good, if it could be kept to some kind of a steady state level. Without enforcement, others will just try it on too. Square one.

 

Would it be run on a first come first served basis? It serves those people who are there now, but they will tie up all the available permit allocation, until someone leaves and gives this up.

[Fat Boat]

Hi all and thank you for your responses

 

i do not have much internet time today but will have a read over the next few days and hopefuly try to answer some points, and points raised like the number of potential roving licenses available in an area is one that would need looking at as i hadnt really thought of that.

 

This was just the bones of a thought, the method and nitty gritty would have to worked out in much more detail, by people probably a lot cleverer than i.

 

I didnt know this had been muted before and i dont claim that this is the answer to all problems but it would appear that on here and on the cut there is at least reason to discuss and debate sensibly the question

 

kind regards to all and back soon