IWA

[mrsmelly]

I strongly suspect that it's been very many years since the IWA supported any interests other than feeding the ego's of the committee based people involved.

 

I cancelled my subscription several years ago. An organisation lost in it's own structures in my view.

 

Rog

 

I remember when we were about to buy our first liveaboard boat in 89 and had not much idea of the canal system we bought one of the comics ( waterways world ) I think as that was the only research material long before pcs with tinternet. There was an add inside to join the IWA and get some free book? I joined but never renewed as it quickly became apparent that it was/is simply an " Old Boys " club. Sad innit.

[Guest]

This is a really interesting thread with loads of valid points on all sides which just shows how difficult it is to come up with a licencing system everyone agrees with. The IWA have virtually carte blanche agreed and rubber stamped everything CRT come up with. Whether you agree with them or not at least NBTA, NABO etc have said 'no hang on a minute' to quite a few issues such as how far statute goes, terms and conditions and so on.

 

We hopefully all enjoy the cut and have varied boats, lifestyles etc which is great, however are CRT using a divide and conquer tactic, what is their real agenda? We have seen emphasis on cycle tracks, visitor numbers and fluffy duck signs. I don't think boaters and boating are their priority, just ramping up funding from somewhere when the government cash runs out and who is going to pay for that?

 

From a fat boat that moves and doesn't moor in silly places

[mrsmelly]

The cruising difficulties will not become apparent to them, only to others.☺

 

I have lived on 6 narrowboats, I seagoing boat and one widebeam fat type narrowboat and will give my experience ( actualy having owned/lived aboard ) I buy a narrowboat simply because we have inherited a system from yesteryear with 7 feet ish wide locks therefore a boat to travel inland all over the uk must be narrowbeam. I lived for three years in an area built for proper sized boats so I bought a widebeam to live on and cruise those waterways. I decided to move again so needed a narrowboat so sold the fat boat ( Instantly ) they sell easily and bought my present narrowboat. i will sum up. The widebeam was better in every way than any of my narrowboats. Its handled better especialy coming out of Keadby on a spring tide when my narrowboats all heeld the fat boat was rock solid. The only thing it didnt do better than a narrowboat was STOP due to the blunt aft swim. It was so much more comfortable than any narrowboat as to be immeasureable in as to just how much and was far far easier to equip internaly due to dimensions. Would I prefer another fatboat? your damn right I would anyone with more than one brain cell realises they are nicer boats in every way and of much more sensible dimensions. Would I take one on a small canal such as the Grand union, no I would not its built for small stuff such as Narrowboat pairs. Our problrm as boaters is that too many people are now buying boats to live on who still think they are buying property of which boats are not. I can offer no sensible solution having not realy considered it.

[matty40s]

The licence fee is in the broadest terms a tax on boat ownership. A bit like Council Tax on a house.

 

So broadly speaking the more boat you have in the water, the more tax you should pay on it. In my opinion.

No it isn't, more like a bus ticket.

Moor at Whilton, Sileby and many other places and you don't have to have one.

Go out on a waterway for the weekend and you do.

[peterboat]

 

I have lived on 6 narrowboats, I seagoing boat and one widebeam fat type narrowboat and will give my experience ( actualy having owned/lived aboard ) I buy a narrowboat simply because we have inherited a system from yesteryear with 7 feet ish wide locks therefore a boat to travel inland all over the uk must be narrowbeam. I lived for three years in an area built for proper sized boats so I bought a widebeam to live on and cruise those waterways. I decided to move again so needed a narrowboat so sold the fat boat ( Instantly ) they sell easily and bought my present narrowboat. i will sum up. The widebeam was better in every way than any of my narrowboats. Its handled better especialy coming out of Keadby on a spring tide when my narrowboats all heeld the fat boat was rock solid. The only thing it didnt do better than a narrowboat was STOP due to the blunt aft swim. It was so much more comfortable than any narrowboat as to be immeasureable in as to just how much and was far far easier to equip internaly due to dimensions. Would I prefer another fatboat? your damn right I would anyone with more than one brain cell realises they are nicer boats in every way and of much more sensible dimensions. Would I take one on a small canal such as the Grand union, no I would not its built for small stuff such as Narrowboat pairs. Our problrm as boaters is that too many people are now buying boats to live on who still think they are buying property of which boats are not. I can offer no sensible solution having not realy considered it.

Thats the issue Tim, fatboats where they shouldnt be, or should they? the grand union is a wide canal and so is the K & A the Regents looks large as well with big locks so were they built for pairs or proper size boats? Up North most of our canals were built for very large boats, you may have seen them on some rallies, the canals are full to bursting with these historic big boats. I wonder how long they would last if the license fees went up to astronomical amounts, a lot of these boats are run on a shoestring and area based license would be the straw that breaks the camels back. How would the IWA look then partially responsible for the destruction of historic boats, would look good on their CVs...................................

By the tim Greenie

Edited February 13, 2017 by peterboat

[peterboat]

 

Nor does it say anything about holding raffles, selling T-shirts, running events, recruiting members, lobbying CRT or Parliament, running WRG camps, etc. etc. So what? It's a set of broad objectives, not a list of permitted activities.

I agree however its my choice to cancel my subs and inform others that their aims might not be in line with boaters aims, the choice after that is theirs, but if the members leave so will their abilities to carry out their goals and whose fault will that be

[Jerra]

I agree however its my choice to cancel my subs and inform others that their aims might not be in line with boaters aims, the choice after that is theirs, but if the members leave so will their abilities to carry out their goals and whose fault will that be

On the other hand it may mean there is a higher proportion of non boaters and so the policies slowly become even less boater friendly.

 

Just a thought.

[matty40s]

Thats the issue Tim, fatboats where they shouldnt be, or should they? the grand union is a wide canal and so is the K & A the Regents looks large as well with big locks so were they built for pairs or proper size boats? Up North most of our canals were built for very large boats, you may have seen them on some rallies, the canals are full to bursting with these historic big boats. I wonder how long they would last if the license fees went up to astronomical amounts, a lot of these boats are run on a shoestring and area based license would be the straw that breaks the camels back. How would the IWA look then partially responsible for the destruction of historic boats, would look good on their CVs...................................

By the tim Greenie

The GU above Berkhamstead was not built for ( as you say it) proper boats,but for Narrowboats working as pairs. There are pinch points everywhere, as is obvious if you use the waterway on a regular basis.

I brought a slab sided fat boat up recently, and struggled for miles on two pounds (below Slapton and above Cosgrove ) as both sides of the bottom were stuck on the sides of the channel.

[cereal tiller]

 

I have lived on 6 narrowboats, I seagoing boat and one widebeam fat type narrowboat and will give my experience ( actualy having owned/lived aboard ) I buy a narrowboat simply because we have inherited a system from yesteryear with 7 feet ish wide locks therefore a boat to travel inland all over the uk must be narrowbeam. I lived for three years in an area built for proper sized boats so I bought a widebeam to live on and cruise those waterways. I decided to move again so needed a narrowboat so sold the fat boat ( Instantly ) they sell easily and bought my present narrowboat. i will sum up. The widebeam was better in every way than any of my narrowboats. Its handled better especialy coming out of Keadby on a spring tide when my narrowboats all heeld the fat boat was rock solid. The only thing it didnt do better than a narrowboat was STOP due to the blunt aft swim. It was so much more comfortable than any narrowboat as to be immeasureable in as to just how much and was far far easier to equip internaly due to dimensions. Would I prefer another fatboat? your damn right I would anyone with more than one brain cell realises they are nicer boats in every way and of much more sensible dimensions. Would I take one on a small canal such as the Grand union, no I would not its built for small stuff such as Narrowboat pairs. Our problrm as boaters is that too many people are now buying boats to live on who still think they are buying property of which boats are not. I can offer no sensible solution having not realy considered it.

As some one who has the resources and skills to own a Fake Dutch Barge or a Phat Canal Boat I still prefer my 70 Foot Narrow Boat.

 

Have come across many Phat Boat owners who ,as you suggest, believe they are on the "property ladder"'the reality is they are cluttering up Waterways that are not suitable for "Floating Bungalows"

 

CT

[magictime]

I agree however its my choice to cancel my subs and inform others that their aims might not be in line with boaters aims, the choice after that is theirs, but if the members leave so will their abilities to carry out their goals and whose fault will that be

 

Fair enough. Of course anyone's entitled to disapprove of their objectives, or the way they go about pursuing them.

 

We have seen emphasis on cycle tracks, visitor numbers and fluffy duck signs. I don't think boaters and boating are their priority, just ramping up funding from somewhere when the government cash runs out and who is going to pay for that?

 

But 99.9% of people are not boaters. How are CRT supposed to persuade those people to go on funding the waterways - through their taxes or otherwise - by putting boaters and boating front and centre in everything they do?

 

"Will you give just £5 a month to ensure that privileged people like Dave don't have to suffer the inconvenience of leaky lock gates while cruising around in their £50,000 floating holiday cottages?" is not a winning message.

 

"Will you give just £5 a month to help preserve wildlife habitats?" is better.

 

Same goes for "would you like the Government to spend an extra £10 million improving conditions for boaters" vs. "would you like the Government to spend an extra £10 million improving things for cyclists/walkers/families looking for a day out".

[matty40s]

Do you want to come and walk/cycle down a muddy ditch which used to have boats moving up and down it, but no longer does as we can't afford to dredge it.

 

Next year come back, when we can't afford to tarmac it for wheelchairs, or repair the breach which involves a 1 Mile diversion over farm tracks and a stream crossing on a sleeper.

Text £3 to get the sleeper extended to a 3 sleeper wheelchair friendly crossing.

[Jerra]

Do you want to come and walk/cycle down a muddy ditch which used to have boats moving up and down it, but no longer does as we can't afford to dredge it.

 

There are a lot of people still walk the towpath on the section of the Lancaster Canal that was cut off when the M6 was built in the 60s. So I suspect there could be a good number.

[dmr]

This is a really interesting thread with loads of valid points on all sides which just shows how difficult it is to come up with a licencing system everyone agrees with. The IWA have virtually carte blanche agreed and rubber stamped everything CRT come up with. Whether you agree with them or not at least NBTA, NABO etc have said 'no hang on a minute' to quite a few issues such as how far statute goes, terms and conditions and so on.

 

We hopefully all enjoy the cut and have varied boats, lifestyles etc which is great, however are CRT using a divide and conquer tactic, what is their real agenda? We have seen emphasis on cycle tracks, visitor numbers and fluffy duck signs. I don't think boaters and boating are their priority, just ramping up funding from somewhere when the government cash runs out and who is going to pay for that?

 

From a fat boat that moves and doesn't moor in silly places

 

I don't think there is a sinister plot within CaRT to "divide and Conquer" to get rid of boats, though I suspect many people within CaRT get rather frustrated by boaters, and we ourselves are pretty good at dividing.

All the new fund-raising stuff has not raised a lot of money and so when the current government funding arrangement ends the only option is for CaRT to ask for more government funding, and they feel that to get this they have to show a lot of people using the canals, not just a few boaters.

However there are many threats to us: I don't think CaRT fully appreciate just how destructive mass high speed cycling is to boaters, fisherman and walkers (actually they do but they have chosen a head in sand approach). CaRT are a corporate organisation full of corporate men (and women) and so if not controlled their natural corporate instinct will be to turn the system into a sort of tacky theme park, and finally, although boaters and boating puts a lot of money in, we actually take out more than we contribute, so a narrow minded "bean counter approach" will always be tempted to get rid of boating.

 

................Dave

[Bewildered]

Surely the most logical way to set boat licences should be based on water displacement?

The volume of water you displace = the amount of room you take up.

Although would this mean you get a refund on the days when you wake up to find some idiot has left a lock gate open, draining the pound and leaving you on the bottom not displacing very much at all?

[dmr]

Surely the most logical way to set boat licences should be based on water displacement?

The volume of water you displace = the amount of room you take up.

Although would this mean you get a refund on the days when you wake up to find some idiot has left a lock gate open, draining the pound and leaving you on the bottom not displacing very much at all?

 

But surely us with deeper boats should get a refund as we are often dredging the channel so saving CaRT a whole load of time and trouble.

 

.............Dave

[cuthound]

Surely the most logical way to set boat licences should be based on water displacement?

The volume of water you displace = the amount of room you take up.

Although would this mean you get a refund on the days when you wake up to find some idiot has left a lock gate open, draining the pound and leaving you on the bottom not displacing very much at all?

Would this mean that you would have to pay more if friends visited the boat for the weekend, and you would get a refund after a pump out?

[mrsmelly]

 

But surely us with deeper boats should get a refund as we are often dredging the channel so saving CaRT a whole load of time and trouble.

 

.............Dave

 

always makes me laugh when peeps talk about narrowboats and deep draughted in the same sentence. All narrowboats have a very shallow draught in reality. It reminds me of when we anchored off some places because we had a draught excluding us from docking but in most, nearly all docks because we had a shallow ( 18 foot ) draught which is very shallow in boating terms we could get alongside. Twas nice being ships company on a piddly boat though as there was less ( competition ) when in foreign ports.

[MtB]

Surely the most logical way to set boat licences should be based on water displacement?

 

 

And surely the least logical would be to charge according to length but ignore width!

 

A boat twice the size should pay twice the licence fee in my opinion, so yes weighing the thing would get us most of the way there...

 

 

 

And of course heavier boats use more water in locks, as any fule kno...

Edited February 14, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman

[mrsmelly]

Surely the most logical way to set boat licences should be based on water displacement?

The volume of water you displace = the amount of room you take up.

Although would this mean you get a refund on the days when you wake up to find some idiot has left a lock gate open, draining the pound and leaving you on the bottom not displacing very much at all?

 

So a full size narrowboat with a 2 foot draught pays less than one with a three foot draught That would go down well with some owners!!

[MtB]

 

So a full size narrowboat with a 2 foot draught pays less than one with a three foot draught That would go down well with some owners!!

 

 

And GRP widebeams with 8" draft would suddenly get very popular!

[Horace42]

 

And of course heavier boats use more water in locks, as any fule kno...

 

 

I am a fule and I don't know that...!

[peterboat]

What difference does it make for how much water we use? we dont use it at all we just float on it, and God in his wisdom sends down bloody gallons of the stuff from the skies at no cost!!!! All this talk makes me think that CRT have a team of guys knitting the stuff so that we dont run out

[MtB]

 

I am a fule and I don't know that...!

 

 

That will be because it isn't true.

 

(Did you not notice all the eyes peering out the letterbox smileys???!!!)

[mark99]

Yeabut they hardly ever move, so it balances out!

 

The only operate gates one way too so they save wear on gate.

[mark99]

Perhaps there will be a moritorium needed soon.

 

Anyone new applying for a new licence is not allowed to live on it unless residential marina. Existing cc'er retain grandfather rights.

 

Ok wont stop those trying but will send a message to "non boaters but property seekers" that that avenue is closing down.

 

Might mean law change which prob won't happen. The only "weapon" CaRT have at the mo is restrict facilities and make it bad for all hoping it will level out or enforce the <vague> rules. Or perhaps sleepwalk into creating a floating shanty town or getto <sp> in numerous main conurbations.

Edited February 17, 2017 by mark99