Adopt a canal

[Dave Payne]

So now they wish us to look after the canals for them...

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/volunteer/adopt-a-canal

 

I might adopt the Ashby and put the lock back in, you shall not pass, unless you pay me in beer!

[dor]

One of the more active groups is SUMBA - Shropshire Union Middlewich Branch Adopters.   As far as I can make out it is a very popular group and the participants have a very enjoyable time, and at the same time make a difference to the canal environment.  They are supported by C&RT with equipment, materials and use of a workboat.  You could say that C&RT are getting volunteers to do their work for them, but if the volunteers enjoy doing it, then why not?

[Sea Dog]

Oh, that's an interesting link. I think it's a great idea! Local community groups caring for their patch can have a far greater influence on the local trolley float-testers, etc, than a faceless national body.

[Dave Payne]

I would agree that a local team of volunteers could improve things, what does worry me is how much power these volunteers/organisations will have...

Or think they have.

[Machpoint005]

41 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

I would agree that a local team of volunteers could improve things, what does worry me is how much power these volunteers/organisations will have...

Or think they have.

What also worries me is how the existence of volunteer groups might reduce the amount of money that becomes available from central funds, and how that would affect "less popular" waterways.

[Sir Nibble]

Can you adopt say 70ft and live there?

[billS]

But what will you do if it starts to ask about it's real owner when it gets older?

[Sir Nibble]

Oo, yes. Maybe it would have a social worker.

[Catnip King]

I will adopt the lock chamber of the Runcorn and Weston canal then

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, Catnip King said:

I will adopt the lock chamber of the Runcorn and Weston canal then

I wish someone would

[Sea Dog]

7 hours ago, Dave Payne said:

I would agree that a local team of volunteers could improve things, what does worry me is how much power these volunteers/organisations will have...

Or think they have.

I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick, or are at least being a bit pessimistic.  

Down my current neck of the woods there's 2 groups at different ends of the spectrum. There's the Droitwich lot, who campaigned, lobbied, gave money, raised money and rolled their sleeves up to restore a considerable stretch of canal against enormous odds and, having achieved all that, merged with Worcester and Brum to continue to do good deeds - all whilst being non-interfering in any negative sense that I can think of. If you suggest they're a different kettle of fish to this scheme, then how about the Worcester group, who have done an appreciable bit of tidying up in their locale and are virtually transparent in that they don't appear to bother  boaters in any way in my experience, let alone Lord it over them as your post appears to suggest.

I've probably sold both organisations short above because I've done no research and have just quoted my own experience.  If so, I should point out that I for one admire them greatly and am very grateful for their efforts.

[Neil2]

I was discussing this with a CRT employee recently, and though he may not be representative he claimed there is some anti volunteer sentiment among the paid CRT troops simply because of the amount of time and resources being dedicated to volunteers/groups which is working to the detriment of the paid workforce.  If there is a negative side to the expansion of the voluntary network, that's it.  

 

[David Mack]

45 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

I was discussing this with a CRT employee recently, and though he may not be representative he claimed there is some anti volunteer sentiment among the paid CRT troops simply because of the amount of time and resources being dedicated to volunteers/groups which is working to the detriment of the paid workforce.  If there is a negative side to the expansion of the voluntary network, that's it.  

 

In BW days union opposition was often given as a reason for not allowing volunteer work on navigable canals (but didn't apply on BW-owned unnavigable waterways).

[gigoguy]

42 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

I was discussing this with a CRT employee recently, and though he may not be representative he claimed there is some anti volunteer sentiment among the paid CRT troops simply because of the amount of time and resources being dedicated to volunteers/groups which is working to the detriment of the paid workforce.  If there is a negative side to the expansion of the voluntary network, that's it.  

 

I can see why this would be. It's like the idiots who say unemployed people should do cleaning up work etc for their benefits. I mean how stupid. If there is work to do then pay someone to do it. Hey then they wouldn't be unemployed!!!!! Kin ell it's genius

I have no problems with volunteers wanting to do good works. They can organise walks, collect money, fund raise, organise coffee mornings etc. On the other hand, if a canal wall needs re building or towpath repairs etc. Then pay people a fair maybe even living wage or above, to do it. Just like if the roads need sweeping. Bloody well pay someone to sweep them!

Still things will only get worse when all the numpties go out an vote Tory next month. There'll be even less money spent on hospitals, schools, social services and everything else that  really matters. Canals will be well down the list for a share of the £350m a day. You do know that Tory means lying b'stard in Gaelic?

As for adopting a canal. That reminds me of the day my daughter came home from school and asked if we could adopt a lion. I said don't be silly princess, where would we keep it?

 

[Nightwatch]

I haven't read all of this thread but I have adopted,or contributated to the upkeep, of all the canals by donating nearly £1000 pounds a year.

why would I want to adopt a particular stretch?

[gigoguy]

37 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

I haven't read all of this thread but I have adopted,or contributated to the upkeep, of all the canals by donating nearly £1000 pounds a year.

why would I want to adopt a particular stretch?

Do you mean donate, as in give money to and expect or get nothing in return or do you mean pay your license?

[Nightwatch]

I,my boat,floats around on the water that is there and I contribute to the upkeep of such water retension and methods thereof.

[gigoguy]

So that's not a donation that's at least a contribution and best a duty to pay your fair share.

However you call it, it's a tax and a legal obligation to pay.

Which brings me back to the original point. If you don't want that tax to go up, or all the work being done by volunteers. DON'T vote for a party that thinks the only people who should have boats are the Philip Greens of this world

[Dave Payne]

13 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick, or are at least being a bit pessimistic.  

Down my current neck of the woods there's 2 groups at different ends of the spectrum. There's the Droitwich lot, who campaigned, lobbied, gave money, raised money and rolled their sleeves up to restore a considerable stretch of canal against enormous odds and, having achieved all that, merged with Worcester and Brum to continue to do good deeds - all whilst being non-interfering in any negative sense that I can think of. If you suggest they're a different kettle of fish to this scheme, then how about the Worcester group, who have done an appreciable bit of tidying up in their locale and are virtually transparent in that they don't appear to bother  boaters in any way in my experience, let alone Lord it over them as your post appears to suggest.

I've probably sold both organisations short above because I've done no research and have just quoted my own experience.  If so, I should point out that I for one admire them greatly and am very grateful for their efforts.

Not really, i have the correct end of the stick firmly in my hand, i applaud these groups that take on old/disused stretches of canal and bring them back to life, they do a great job raising the funds and putting in the hours, long may it continue.

What i am against is CRT asking people to look after a stretch of towpath so they do not have to worry about it, look down the line a little, this goes great and before you know it 60/70/80% of the canals are being looked after by groups of volunteers, what happens to all the employed workers of CRT that used to do this task, laid off? Then what happens to the surplus of money saved by laying off workers, do we get a reduction in licence fees? or maybe just more signs telling us that ducks are crossing or locks kill!

If people want to get involved in looking after the towpaths then fair play, but put these people along side the CRT workers.

 

Or maybe put some of these volunteers in charge instead of paying fat cat wages to de man at the top.

 

[Sea Dog]

Ah, then you really ought to vote for Dianne Abbot - she's got funding all worked out. Even after correcting her first guess of 300k, which would have meant £30 per year per head, she can provide10000 new police at 8k per year each. Who needs volunteers!

[Machpoint005]

15 hours ago, gigoguy said:

Still things will only get worse when all the numpties go out an vote Tory next month. There'll be even less money spent on hospitals, schools, social services and everything else that  really matters.

 

It'll be a Strong and Stable decline though, and we'll have our sovereignty. That's all right then.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Machpoint005

[Machpoint005]

3 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

Ah, then you really ought to vote for Dianne Abbot - she's got funding all worked out. Even after correcting her first guess of 300k, which would have meant £30 per year per head, she can provide10000 new police at 8k per year each. Who needs volunteers!

She can spell her name, though, unlike you (apparently).

If anyone is interested in the actual figures, they can look in the manifesto. Now, where's the Tory one for comparison? Oh, hang on ...

[Sea Dog]

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

She can spell her name, though, unlike you (apparently).

If anyone is interested in the actual figures, they can look in the manifesto. Now, where's the Tory one for comparison? Oh, hang on ...

My point wasn't a party political one, but rather that it's OK saying 'employ more people' instead of looking for volunteers but the money has to come from somewhere and funding is easier to talk about than achieve. However she's spells her name (Hers is with 2 Ts is it? Hardly a heinous error on my part I'd have thought), the lady I was referring to struggled to even make up realistic funding figures. My last sentence was "Who needs volunteers" and a smiley which I thought gave away that my comments were tongue in cheek. Most folk would surely have to recognise that her interview was rather amusing!

Anyway, to return to the central topic, I rather like the idea of groups adopting a patch for, amongst others and avoiding political issues, the following reasons:

- The CRT have clearly bitten off more than they can chew and need all the help they can get.

- Local folk taking a pride in their own patch can only be a good thing for the waterways.

- Herberts who vandalise canals and infrastructure are less likely to do that to the bit their mum has worked hard on. 

- Volunteering has been show to enrich lives.

- The areas I've seen where such projects are already in place bode well for the idea.

- CRT funds and expertise can surely be better targeted elsewhere than repeatedly cleaning up and such initiatives can be an enabler to that.

Further, I'd offer the example that villages that enter "Best Kept Village" or "Britain in Bloom" competitions are often lovely (or at least the best they can be) and aren't relying on their Borough or County Council for their achievements, but rather the voluntary efforts of locals who care about their environment. No reason not to promote that spirit on the waterways, surely?

All that said, neither you nor Dave P need to agree with my view, and neither does anyone else really - it's just one point of view being brought to the discussion.

 

 

[gigoguy]

6 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

My point wasn't a party political one, but rather that it's OK saying 'employ more people' instead of looking for volunteers but the money has to come from somewhere and funding is easier to talk about than achieve

A bloomin site harder still when some people think paying their way is making a voluntary donation.

6 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

Further, I'd offer the example that villages that enter "Best Kept Village" or "Britain in Bloom" competitions are often lovely (or at least the best they can be) and aren't relying on their Borough or County Council for their achievements, but rather the voluntary efforts of locals who care about their environment. No reason not to promote that spirit on the waterways, surely?

The point here is that these volunteers are 'residents' How many canal residents even bother cleaning up their own dog detritus never mind try to improve their surroundings?

How many groups of boaters that live in a locality ever get together and tidy the towpath, mend a fence or offer their time as volunteers on local projects?

I don't want to be bombarded by boaters who do. I know there are a lot and they do excellent work. I also know many that don't, they also seem to be the same people that complain the most about the canals and their management.

 

[Machpoint005]

13 hours ago, gigoguy said:

>>  I don't want to be bombarded by boaters who do. I know there are a lot and they do excellent work. I also know many that don't, they also seem to be the same people that complain the most about the canals and their management.

 

Boating by its nature is somewhat insular as well as itinerant. The majority of boat owners are comparatively affluent and middle aged, and hold right-of-centre views (volunteers good, public ownership bad). Volunteering is fine provided some bugger else does it. (No such thing as society, remember?).

There are, as you say, honourable exceptions.