Stoke Bruerne Visitor Moorings

[Tuscan]

As we came up the flight today, at about 17.00 there were two boats in the long pound, and we moored with another boat at the top within about 150 yds of the museum. At the bottom at about 15.00 all the 14 day mooring was full, the 48hr was empty.

 

Richard

 

For about 2 miles south of SB the nearside vegetation has indeed been well cut back, but the offside remains well overgrown in places.

Just goes to show that there is demand for at least some 5 day moorings

[madcat]

There is demand for 5 and 14 day moorings. Older less fit boaters need to be considered, we can manage a leisurely journey but a mad dash from 48 hr to 48 hr moorings is not suitable. Besides which if we are going to visit and spend money in the wider area we need to stay longer. Vulnerable boating customers should not be pushed out into the dark remote reaches of available moorings.

A lot of us cannot afford to pay overstay charges, how can we trust the implementation anyway. It's a dreadfull policy and needs to be dropped. There is no justification or need for it.

If boating is to be a pleasure then the last thing we need is a regimented over controlled environment .

[Leo No2]

Tonight's results are:

 

1 x 70', 2 x 60', 3 x 40'

 

There's still boats around that have been locked up and left but it doesn't seem to be affecting the mooring situation.

 

Edit - Graph removed

Edited August 15, 2013 by Leo No2

[Kwacker]

Quite busy tonight just space for:

 

1 x 70, 2 x 60 and 1 x 40 - there's always more to it than just the numbers. There's some boats have been here a while - locked up and the owners seemed to have gone away - may well have permission from CRT but they don't seem to move (they'll be gone tomorrow of course!). A bit more considerate mooring would have given a wee bit more space.

 

 

Isn't this what the new mooring regulations are all about?

Edited August 14, 2013 by Kwacker

[matty40s]

No, the mooring regulations are aimed at the ongoing abuse of visitor moorings by non compliant CCers.

evidence for this is Nil,however it is an IWA priority mission as well so them and CRT cant both be wrong...

 

can they??

[jenlyn]

Isn't this what the new mooring regulations are all about?

No, it's about the people and businesses of stoke bruerne not wanting scruffy boats there.

[Kwacker]

No, the mooring regulations are aimed at the ongoing abuse of visitor moorings by non compliant CCers.

evidence for this is Nil,however it is an IWA priority mission as well so them and CRT cant both be wrong...

 

can they??

If the new regulations incidentally get rid of the mooring hogs as well, then they get my vote.

[jenlyn]

If the new regulations incidentally get rid of the mooring hogs as well, then they get my vote.

What mooring hogs would that be? And why should I and others be punished for these "mooring hogs". If they exist, CRT should deal with them, not us.

[cotswoldsman]

The 2 boats that are locked up are they boats with a home mooring Leo? Would it be possible to check tomorrow please?

[matty40s]

If the new regulations incidentally get rid of the mooring hogs as well, then they get my vote.

how long did you stop at Cropredy....

 

the evidence clearly shows that ccers are NOT mooring hogs.That is from 12 months visual observations of many of the same VMs whilst moving boats.

most of the summer issues are boats WITH home moorings being locked up and left for 14 days....or more.

[Leo No2]

The 2 boats that are locked up are they boats with a home mooring Leo? Would it be possible to check tomorrow please?

John - Of course but how do I tell? Not up to speed on CRT Licences.

[alan_fincher]

John - Of course but how do I tell? Not up to speed on CRT Licences.

 

Look for a code on the licence starting BW, and ending 007.

 

Usually, (bur not invariably), it is BW-065-007.

 

If it has that code it means the no home mooring was in force at the time of the last licence renewal, (although this of course doesn't necessarily guaranttee they have not taken a permanent mooring since last licence renewal!).

 

A boat with a home mooring on the GU will instead have a code starting GU-, (and a different code for other canals).

[Tuscan]

how long did you stop at Cropredy....

the evidence clearly shows that ccers are NOT mooring hogs.That is from 12 months visual observations of many of the same VMs whilst moving boats.

most of the summer issues are boats WITH home moorings being locked up and left for 14 days....or more.

But Matty don't you realise those of us with home moorings are special we pay more than those with scruffy boats who hog all the best visitor moorings.

 

There will always be a few boaters who do not conform and I doubt a volunteer with a leaflet and a threat of a fine is going to change that however for the vast majority of boaters our travelling options are being effected.

[alan_fincher]

how long did you stop at Cropredy....

 

the evidence clearly shows that ccers are NOT mooring hogs.That is from 12 months visual observations of many of the same VMs whilst moving boats.

most of the summer issues are boats WITH home moorings being locked up and left for 14 days....or more.

Be careful what you wish for though, Matty.

 

When I did a survey in Berkhamsted a few years back, I recall that of about 21 overstayers, 20 actually had licences with a "no home mooring" declaration!

 

I hope you know me well enough to know I'm not anti cc-er, but I don't buy the "most overstayers have a home mooring" argument, I'm afraid. An overstayer can be someone with a home mooring, or someone without. Only CRT are likely to posses any real overall data which tells us who is in the majority.

 

(DEVILS ADVOCATE TIME....)

 

However given there are (from memory) less than 5000 boats declared "with no home mooring", out of (from memory) about 34,000 licensed boats overall, then only about 15% of boats are cc-ers. You could argue therefore that if more than 15% of overstayers on visitor moorings are cc-ers, actually cc-ers represent a higher percentage of the overstayers than those with home moorings. I strongly suspect at least that much is actually true!

 

EDIT:

 

No doubt I'll upset John Sloan there too, but I'm not sure you guys have factored in how relatively few licences are actually CC ones.....

Edited August 14, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Kwacker]

how long did you stop at Cropredy....

 

the evidence clearly shows that ccers are NOT mooring hogs.That is from 12 months visual observations of many of the same VMs whilst moving boats.

most of the summer issues are boats WITH home moorings being locked up and left for 14 days....or more.

Exactly .... it's them that will be stopped by the 48 hour rule. I didn't say it was CCers hogging moorings, and if it isn't, they won't be effected, will they?

[jenlyn]

Exactly .... it's them that will be stopped by the 48 hour rule. I didn't say it was CCers hogging moorings, and if it isn't, they won't be effected, will they?

Your missing the fact that moorings are being changed all over the system. Some by stealth. 14 day moorings are slowly being changed, by the time anyone starts shouting, it will be too late.

So yes, it does effect all boaters.

[Kwacker]

But Matty don't you realise those of us with home moorings are special we pay more than those with scruffy boats who hog all the best visitor moorings.

 

There will always be a few boaters who do not conform and I doubt a volunteer with a leaflet and a threat of a fine is going to change that however for the vast majority of boaters our travelling options are being effected.

How? It's your stopping options that may have to be modified.

[Mike Tee]

I don't see what difference it makes whether a boat is a CC'er or has a home mooring - if they are hogging the mooring, they need shifting. But I, along with a lot of others, (I think) would rather they applied the old rules, rather than bringing in a new, more restrictive regime that will only piss off the majority of rule abiding boaters.

[MtB]

I am driven to put my hand up. I recently left REGINALD for 56 hours on a 48 hour mooring. I feel so terribly guilty.

 

Until I think of the clutch of boats moored up just below Broadmoor lock on the southern Oxford for about six weeks since I first noticed them, with all their stuff on the bank.

 

Chill. More wine!

 

Maybe they are on long term CRT moorings, but I doubt it. There is no signage to say so.

 

MtB

[matty40s]

Be careful what you wish for though, Matty.

 

When I did a survey in Berkhamsted a few years back, I recall that of about 21 overstayers, 20 actually had licences with a "no home mooring" declaration!

I hope you know me well enough to know I'm not anti cc-er, but I don't buy the "most overstayers have a home mooring" argument, I'm afraid. An overstayer can be someone with a home mooring, or someone without. Only CRT are likely to posses any real overall data which tells us who is in the majority.

 

(DEVILS ADVOCATE TIME....)

 

However given there are (from memory) less than 5000 boats declared "with no home mooring", out of (from memory) about 34,000 licensed boats overall, then only about 15% of boats are cc-ers. You could argue therefore that if more than 15% of overstayers on visitor moorings are cc-ers, actually cc-ers represent a higher percentage of the overstayers than those with home moorings. I strongly suspect at least that much is actually true!

 

EDIT:

 

No doubt I'll upset John Sloan there too, but I'm not sure you guys have factored n how relatively few licences are actually CC ones.....

I know what you mean Alan, however, this time last year the enforcement process was working better than ever with long term NCCC moving from visitor moorings across many areas due to the focus being in the right place.

From what I have seen recently, that focus has lapsed,many of the same boats are back in the old haunts.

 

My dig at kwacker was not, it was a dig at CRT which decides it is ok to suspend mooring restrictions at cropredy in peak season when it wants to, but still isnt sure it is going to relax the 48 hr rule at the trial sites in winter.

[cotswoldsman]

Be careful what you wish for though, Matty.

 

When I did a survey in Berkhamsted a few years back, I recall that of about 21 overstayers, 20 actually had licences with a "no home mooring" declaration!

 

I hope you know me well enough to know I'm not anti cc-er, but I don't buy the "most overstayers have a home mooring" argument, I'm afraid. An overstayer can be someone with a home mooring, or someone without. Only CRT are likely to posses any real overall data which tells us who is in the majority.

 

(DEVILS ADVOCATE TIME....)

 

However given there are (from memory) less than 5000 boats declared "with no home mooring", out of (from memory) about 34,000 licensed boats overall, then only about 15% of boats are cc-ers. You could argue therefore that if more than 15% of overstayers on visitor moorings are cc-ers, actually cc-ers represent a higher percentage of the overstayers than those with home moorings. I strongly suspect at least that much is actually true!

 

EDIT:

 

No doubt I'll upset John Sloan there too, but I'm not sure you guys have factored in how relatively few licences are actually CC ones.....

Alan I know you do not have an anti Continuous Cruiser Agenda (unlike some within CRT) and I think we have all acknowledged that there is a problem with Non Compliant Continuous Cruisers though I have to say that due to the hard work of people like yourself and Jenlyn the problem on NCCC on Visitor Moorings has reduced. My problem has always been that CRT and the likes of IWA have always taken the default position that the majority of overstayers are Continuous Cruisers. CRT have also campaigned that overstaying at VM's is a major problem in order to push their new VM proposals, The reality is that VM can be a problem during June, July and August and that would indicate to me that the problem is not necessarily overstayers but simply to many boats during that period and not enough VM's

I also think your figures on declared boats without a home mooring is out of date, I think the official figure is over 5,000 and that of course does not take into account the number of boats that have moved out of marinas and off LTM but not done a No Home Mooring declaration.

[paddy r]

Look i've been keeping out of this but....the way i see it CRT now need to keep in with the IWA and the likes as thay need all the funding thay can get!yes there is over straying,some of which is nccc, last night we moored at Norton jnt Point "a".boat moored just past water point been there ages but has a on-line mooring on the other side! Point "b" boat just past bridge heading for the tunnel on the VM has been ages too.As Matty said when thay started clamping down a short while ago it was working,now thay seem to have had another relapse. What folks need to learn is that If you trun up after 6pm at a pop visitor mooring YOU MAY NOT GET IN!

[cotswoldsman]

Look i've been keeping out of this but....the way i see it CRT now need to keep in with the IWA and the likes as thay need all the funding thay can get!yes there is over straying,some of which is nccc, last night we moored at Norton jnt Point "a".boat moored just past water point been there ages but has a on-line mooring on the other side! Point "b" boat just past bridge heading for the tunnel on the VM has been ages too.As Matty said when thay started clamping down a short while ago it was working,now thay seem to have had another relapse. What folks need to learn is that If you trun up after 6pm at a pop visitor mooring YOU MAY NOT GET IN!

I do not think the reason CRT keep in with the IWA has anything to do with funding. It is more to do with the fact that CRT prefer to listen to an organisation that more or less sing of the same Song Sheet far easier than listening and meeting with those pesky boaters (customers) It appears that CRT now think it is to expensive to keep meeting with boaters guess meeting with IWA who also sit on all the various CRT talking shops (Council, Waterways Pertnerships etc) is far more cost effective,

[Tuscan]

Alan I know you do not have an anti Continuous Cruiser Agenda (unlike some within CRT) and I think we have all acknowledged that there is a problem with Non Compliant Continuous Cruisers though I have to say that due to the hard work of people like yourself and Jenlyn the problem on NCCC on Visitor Moorings has reduced. My problem has always been that CRT and the likes of IWA have always taken the default position that the majority of overstayers are Continuous Cruisers. CRT have also campaigned that overstaying at VM's is a major problem in order to push their new VM proposals, The reality is that VM can be a problem during June, July and August and that would indicate to me that the problem is not necessarily overstayers but simply to many boats during that period and not enough VM's

I also think your figures on declared boats without a home mooring is out of date, I think the official figure is over 5,000 and that of course does not take into account the number of boats that have moved out of marinas and off LTM but not done a No Home Mooring declaration.

 

John I think you are right and wrong IMO, there has been a large increase in the number of boats licensed in the last 10 years coupled with no increase in Visitor Moorings and a general decrease in available towpath mooring due to lack of dredging , overgrown trees, security etc. in addition due to the lack of physical presence of BW there has been limited policing of VM's leading to a small number but highly visible long term overstayers and a larger number of be temporary overstayers. IMO its the long term overstayers that tend to be CC'ers that the IWA have latched onto.

 

I don't believe the relatively small shift of boaters from home moorings to CC'ing has made a huge difference to this although as others have posted the increasing number of live aboards on long term moorings has led to more boats moving accross to LTM to the VM to sit nearer the water tap for extended periods Napton and Buckby are examples of this I've heard.

 

CRT made a concerted effort over a year ago ( don't think this was a result of hard work by any forum members happy to stand corrected) to focus on overstaying accross the network and this largely succeeded with many VM's having more space by early summer last year. Most VM's still have spaces now as the recent reports have shown.

 

The question to be answerered is the principle of fining boaters for overstaying necessary?? if it is then logic says this should be extended so why not the same fine for any boat that exceeds 14 days on the general towpath and so on., soon £25 becomes £50 reduced to £25 if paid within 14 days etc etc. then it becomes profitable to outsource it to NCP or similar as being piloted by the EA.

[Leo No2]

The 2 boats that are locked up are they boats with a home mooring Leo? Would it be possible to check tomorrow please?

Using Alan's guidance (and my 'recalculation' of how many boats I think have been there more than 48 hours - 5) 3 fit the CC licence criteria and 2 fit the home mooring criteria (One GU and one K and A) so 60% CC and 40% with a Home Mooring declared. It is a small sample.