Close all towpaths to non boaters

[GRPCruiserman]

I mentioned this on the other post re the DEFRA issue, but I feel it deserves it's own debate.

 

It is, I understand, as a result of DEFRA fines for something or other they did wrong that we are all to suffer with regards to licence fees, or at least I would had I not now sold my boat. I have sold the boat because of this issue and the costs involved. I will soon buy a coastal boat as soon as I find one I like.

 

As the grant in aid I see as the general tax payer's contribution for their use of the canals, ie the towpath walkers, cyclists, fisherman, and other users of the canal who don't pay BW directly, it is THEY who should suffer. Boaters pay anyway though licence, mooring permits, etc, and should not have to pay more.

 

Therefore, those whose money has been cut should be denied access to all towpaths.

 

Can you imagine the national news headlines when BW announce that until the grant in aid is restored, you will not be able to use any towpath in England. Apart from the towpaths designated public rights of way, there is no reason why BW shouldn't do this, is there?

 

If DEFRA have messed up, then they should pay, why should boat owners? That's my opinion, anyway. Perhaps the DEFRA people responsible should have a wage cut. I work in retail, and as retail is suffering, then my salary had beeen reduced accordingly by about one third in the last two years. Why cant the same think be done to those who are responsible for incurring the fines?

[tomsk]

I mentioned this on the other post re the DEFRA issue, but I feel it deserves it's own debate.

 

It is, I understand, as a result of DEFRA fines for something or other they did wrong that we are all to suffer with regards to licence fees, or at least I would had I not now sold my boat. I have sold the boat because of this issue and the costs involved. I will soon buy a coastal boat as soon as I find one I like.

 

As the grant in aid I see as the general tax payer's contribution for their use of the canals, ie the towpath walkers, cyclists, fisherman, and other users of the canal who don't pay BW directly, it is THEY who should suffer. Boaters pay anyway though licence, mooring permits, etc, and should not have to pay more.

 

Therefore, those whose money has been cut should be denied access to all towpaths.

 

Can you imagine the national news headlines when BW announce that until the grant in aid is restored, you will not be able to use any towpath in England. Apart from the towpaths designated public rights of way, there is no reason why BW shouldn't do this, is there?

 

If DEFRA have messed up, then they should pay, why should boat owners? That's my opinion, anyway. Perhaps the DEFRA people responsible should have a wage cut. I work in retail, and as retail is suffering, then my salary had beeen reduced accordingly by about one third in the last two years. Why cant the same think be done to those who are responsible for incurring the fines?

 

Sorry Cruiserbloke, This is as workable as Snibbles nadgers.

 

How do you propose controlling access?

Edited October 19, 2006 by tomsk

[Tony Brooks]

I mentioned this on the other post re the DEFRA issue, but I feel it deserves it's own debate.

 

It is, I understand, as a result of DEFRA fines for something or other they did wrong that we are all to suffer with regards to licence fees, or at least I would had I not now sold my boat. I have sold the boat because of this issue and the costs involved. I will soon buy a coastal boat as soon as I find one I like.

 

As the grant in aid I see as the general tax payer's contribution for their use of the canals, ie the towpath walkers, cyclists, fisherman, and other users of the canal who don't pay BW directly, it is THEY who should suffer. Boaters pay anyway though licence, mooring permits, etc, and should not have to pay more.

 

Therefore, those whose money has been cut should be denied access to all towpaths.

 

Snip

 

 

 

 

First of all Fishermen do pay (in theory) via the fees their cliubs pay BW for fishing rights, but I strongly suspect it is far less per person per year than boaters pay and I know many do not pay.

 

It would appear that walkers, by and large, behave responsibly and cause no great problem (although I do think blockads/protests at honey spots that make the walkers aware that they are effectively leeching of the backs of boaters would be a good idea.

 

If BW need more money they have two more targets that can be enforced without actually locking people up.

 

First is cyclists. Simply make them pay a yearly license fee AND diplay a clear registeration/license plate.

BW or more likely voulantry baliffs coudl tour the popular spots with a boat equiped with storage and any cyclist not licensed and not displaying thiri plates get the bike confiscated pending payment (as per EA fishing license enforcement). If Sustran objects then let them pay several million a year instead.

 

Secondly fishermen. BW shoudl obtain the power to levey a BW rod license simmilar to the EA one, but at (say) £50 to £100 per year. Again enforced (as per EA) by tackle confiscation. AS fishing leases fall due for renewal they should be reduced by an appropriate ammount and the club baliffs charged with enforement of the BW rod license - the cluibs could even be given a proportion of the fees coolected (as per parking).

 

If enough continuous cruisers volanteered for baliff duties it might even stop that gripe.

 

Now what is this BCU special license all about? Can IWA/NABO/RBOA etc members get special license terms?

 

 

I calcualte that the average boater pays about £200 per person per year for their boating and see no reason why cyclists and fishermen can not do the same. However it is imporant not to present this as Boaters V the rest because that just allows small minorities to be isolated. I do think that boaters are being subject to a stelth tax that no-one else is.

 

Tony Brooks

[NB Willawaw]

Just to add to the previous posts, contrary to the beliefs of a lot of boaters, canoeists also pay to use the BW navigations. Most serious canoeists belong to the British Canoe Union, who pay an undisclosed sum of money to BW to allow their members to paddle on their canals. The BCU fee for me is £27 a year.

[bottle]

Now here's a thought...................................................

 

Scrap all licences/charges the canal system belongs to every person in the United Kingdom so it should be paid for out of general taxation.

 

The canals are available to 'everyone' so 'everyone' should pay.

[Sir Nibble]

This is as workable as Snibbles nadgers.

Mutter mutter bluddywomble.

[tomsk]

Now here's a thought...................................................

 

Scrap all licences/charges the canal system belongs to every person in the United Kingdom so it should be paid for out of general taxation.

 

The canals are available to 'everyone' so 'everyone' should pay.

 

Can't see why not....

[Tony Brooks]

Just to add to the previous posts, contrary to the beliefs of a lot of boaters, canoeists also pay to use the BW navigations. Most serious canoeists belong to the British Canoe Union, who pay an undisclosed sum of money to BW to allow their members to paddle on their canals. The BCU fee for me is £27 a year.

 

I stress this is not about hitting canoeists or others with extra fees, although that may be the effect if equality ever comes in to paying for tha canals.

 

I suspect (not know) that your £27 gets you a newsletter and probably third party insurance. Even if we leave the insurance bit out I recon BW probably gets a maximum of about £15 a year from each BCU members.

 

The fee for the smalest boat on the BW site gives a £300 anual license and that boat will probably hold two people so I think the BCU should be paying £150 a year per member on the basis of the publiushed fees others boaters have to pay.

 

I bet the canoe centre at Cropedy license through the BCU and if they paid full license fees there would be several thousand pouds extra income for BW.

 

There is no really fair way to solve this, but certain users are certainly being taxed unfairly at present.

 

Tony Brooks

[boatchad]

Absolutly brilliant!!!!!!!!!! Alienate the vast majority of the British public/voters in one fell swoop, walkers, cyclists, fishermen and then write to your MP for their support, the reply if any would be interesting.

 

 

I am a cyclist, angler, walker and license paying boater so you have even managed to p**s me off as well.

[NB Willawaw]

Actually I pay twice; once for a narrowboat and once for the canoe.

As to whether the relative costs are fair is difficult to say.

The canoe is unpowered, doesn't damage the banks and doesn't use locks, lift bridges, etc.

Narrowboats are in the water almost all the time. A canoe is maybe a few hours a week on average ??

 

Regular walkers will keep the towpaths established and tread down the undergrowth seeking to overcome the path -should walkers be charging BW for the service ??

Although walkers have the enjoyment of looking at the canal architecture, they don't actually use very much, apart from the bridges.

 

I get a bit tired of hearing the old chant from the leisure narrowboater about how they are the only person paying to use the canal and how its all so unfair.

 

The only fair way to charge to use the canal is to decide how much of a toll each user group inflicts on the wear and tear of the essential parts of the canal and charge accordingly.

I would presume that cyclists and motor boaters will inflict most wear.

 

A few years ago I was working in Hong Kong and I was talking to a Chinese girl in an office. She offered to tell me a joke for HK$10. I thought she was kidding me, but she was serious about the charge.

 

Is this what we are coming to here ?

 

I stress this is not about hitting canoeists or others with extra fees, although that may be the effect if equality ever comes in to paying for tha canals.

 

I suspect (not know) that your £27 gets you a newsletter and probably third party insurance. Even if we leave the insurance bit out I recon BW probably gets a maximum of about £15 a year from each BCU members.

 

The fee for the smalest boat on the BW site gives a £300 anual license and that boat will probably hold two people so I think the BCU should be paying £150 a year per member on the basis of the publiushed fees others boaters have to pay.

 

I bet the canoe centre at Cropedy license through the BCU and if they paid full license fees there would be several thousand pouds extra income for BW.

 

There is no really fair way to solve this, but certain users are certainly being taxed unfairly at present.

 

Tony Brooks

Edited October 19, 2006 by NB Willawaw

[roger]

If BW need more money they have two more targets that can be enforced without actually locking people up.

 

First is cyclists. Simply make them pay a yearly license fee AND diplay a clear registeration/license plate.

BW or more likely voulantry baliffs coudl tour the popular spots with a boat equiped with storage and any cyclist not licensed and not displaying thiri plates get the bike confiscated pending payment (as per EA fishing license enforcement). If Sustran objects then let them pay several million a year instead.

 

 

BW actually did charge cyclists to use the Kennet & Avon until recently. The charge was met with much opposition and that is why it was dropped. I think actually cyclists (without a boat of course) should pay as they do cause a lot of wear and tear on the towpath

Edited October 19, 2006 by roger

[Bones]

Does that mean boaters are meant to float down the towpath to their boats? If we are allowed to cycle and walk down the towpath how do we demonstrate we are boaters, and not freeloaders. In addition, how will our 'guests' come to visit? Will they have to submit a request in advance to have clearance (for a small fee) to use the towpath? A congestion charge for the towpath sounds like an april the 1st situation.

 

Down with this sort of thing. ID cards, controlling the population, privilaged use - it all leads to aggrevation and a seregated society. There are freeloaders in all aspects of life; the only reasonable solution is for BW to order boaters to moor their boats with iron ropes across the towpath which makes it difficult and dull for a cyclist and walker. Gosh navigating the tow path could be the start of an extreme sport for the elite for which BW could charge a fortune!

[roger]

The mountain must come to Mahommet - so therefore the boat must come to the boater!

[tomsk]

Does that mean boaters are meant to float down the towpath to their boats? If we are allowed to cycle and walk down the towpath how do we demonstrate we are boaters, and not freeloaders. In addition, how will our 'guests' come to visit? Will they have to submit a request in advance to have clearance (for a small fee) to use the towpath? A congestion charge for the towpath sounds like an april the 1st situation.

 

Down with this sort of thing. ID cards, controlling the population, privilaged use - it all leads to aggrevation and a seregated society. There are freeloaders in all aspects of life; the only reasonable solution is for BW to order boaters to moor their boats with iron ropes across the towpath which makes it difficult and dull for a cyclist and walker. Gosh navigating the tow path could be the start of an extreme sport for the elite for which BW could charge a fortune!

 

 

Down with this sort of thing indeed Bones....Once again you prove yourself The Voice of Reason!!!!

 

Sometimes I think that NBers and their lesser relatives The Plastic Floaters (joke) consider that they are the only people on Dogs earth that matter, By The Lord Harry, a spot of objectivity now and again wouldn't go amiss.

 

BOO!!!

 

Down with Reactionary Nonsense in all its forms !!!

[Breals]

The main drawback to this nasty (in my opinion) little idea is that 99.99% of towpaths are public rights of way and BW would be prosecuted for closing them without going through the necessary channels...

Edited October 19, 2006 by Breals

[roger]

The main drawback to this nasty (in my opinion) little idea is that 99.99% of towpaths are public rights of way and BW would be prosecuted for closing them without going through the necessary channels...

 

no they are not. Many are permissve rights of way, not public rights of way. What the percentages are I coulndt say but its defintely not 99.9% as public right of way, so BW could actualy close down quite a few towpaths if they wanted to.

[tomsk]

The mountain must come to Mahommet - so therefore the boat must come to the boater!

 

 

Care to elaborate?

[Yamanx]

 

 

BOO!!!

 

 

 

Christ you made me jump

[Breals]

no they are not. Many are permissve rights of way, not public rights of way. What the percentages are I coulndt say but its defintely not 99.9% as public right of way, so BW could actualy close down quite a few towpaths if they wanted to.

 

Ooops, yes you are quite right Roger. I didn't realise that Towpaths are legally part of the canal so the normal thing of a path being in general use for X number years becoming a recognised public right of way, doesn't apply.

[StoneHenge]

I thought the canals and towpaths were for the use of everyone to enjoy the water and the wildlife and countryside.

 

It would be very difficult to split the costs of maintance between all those that use it. I don't particularly like paying high license fees, and do feel it can be an unfair system, but if you start charging unrealistic fees to fishermen, cyclists and walkers, then they will end up feeling alienated and not bother to use it, hence our licence fees would go up anyway to pay the shortfall.

 

There is never any really fair justice with things like this. As a liveaboard, I spent 99% of the time on the water (when not working on land), and I pay my dues like most people. I would rather see a bustling canal network with lots of people using the towpath and enjoying what is a very nice way to pass time to see the wildlife, the countryside and waving to passing boats, then it be emtpy or for people to think that boaters think they are the be all and end all (which I certainly don't think), and just enjoy what we have while we have it.

[Yoda]

I think that all users should be charged for a lock full of water each year. This would be fare to all and quantifiable to all. If you want to, you can take your lock full of water home.

[Moley]

If we can cut through some of the absolute rot that's being spouted on this thread, can someone please tell me who actually owns the canals?

 

These were dug by individuals or companies who owned the land they were cut through, and who charged boats for transporting their cargo along their waterways. But at what point did ownership change? They are now part of our national heritage, and we pay BW for their upkeep and the priviledge of using them, but who owns the land and the water?

[alan_fincher]

I take on board that (licenced!) boaters are directly paying for the use of the waterways, whilst others may or may not be, (anglers), and others definitely generally are not (walkers / cyclists).

 

However to argue that all should be making a similar level of direct payment does seem frankly ludicrous to me.

 

OK, some people may be able to move their boat some distance before they encounter their first lock, but I can't move more than about 3 miles before I have a requirement to use literally thousands of gallons of water in order to make any further progress. If someone doesn't keep the locks in a useable state of repair, eventually I could go nowhere.

 

I'm also a towpath walker and cyclist.

 

But, whatever your view on what damage a pair of boots or a pair of bike wheels can do, and how much maintenance they cause, it's very obvious to me that BW must have to spend a very great deal more to keep me boating than they will ever have to, in order to keep me walking or cycling.

 

The way to tackle the issue here is for ALL waterways users to challenge the grant reduction resulting from the DEFRA cock-up, as we all risk losing at least some of what is dear to us.

 

To suggest that it is realistic to make up the shortfall from other canal users is frankly unrealistic. All canal users should be uniting to fight a common cause, rather than trying to breed resentment because one group is seen as getting something for free, whereas another group has always accepted that a licence payment comes as part of the deal.

[bottle]

If we can cut through some of the absolute rot that's being spouted on this thread, can someone please tell me who actually owns the canals?

 

These were dug by individuals or companies who owned the land they were cut through, and who charged boats for transporting their cargo along their waterways. But at what point did ownership change? They are now part of our national heritage, and we pay BW for their upkeep and the priviledge of using them, but who owns the land and the water?

 

Hi Moley

 

we do they were nationalised in 1948, hence my previous post.

[Moley]

we do, they were nationalised in 1948

Thanks Keith

 

So does that mean BW are employed by us?