I think we have to be realistic about BW income from other sources than boating...
Angling The income from this is about as high as it can be - any significant increase and the clubs/anglers will move elsewhere. The angling clubs are responsible (effectively at no cost to BW) for policing their leased waters. The bailiffs are generally very efficient at this - and some clubs are extremely strict about members' behaviour. At the end of the day there would, IMHO, be no real gain from BW adding more policing to this at a sginificant cost. Cycling BW did try a chargeable cycle permit on the K&A. Unfortunately (again IMHO) they went about this the wrong way, by not talking to the CTC and other interested bodies first. One of the conentious issues was that it included a 3rd. party insurance element which is already included in CTC memebrship, so the move was strongly opposed. Even then it was only ever going to pay for the management and policing of the permits (like the majority of council car park charges) so would not increase bottom line income. Walking There's no realistic way to charge walkers - especially where towpaths are public footpaths anyway (same applies to cyclists where it's a bridleway). BUT There is one way income from all these, and boating, can be increased, and that is the fact that all the above groups will spend money when they visit the canals. Whatever we each personally think about BW owning pubs it is a fair bet that they will make more income by owning them and operating in partnership than they would by simply leasing out the building. Other canal side businesses that generate income can also be encouraged. After all of this though the boater is likely to have to pay the lion's share! At the end of the day anglers, cyclists and walkers can easily go somewhere else, boaters are largely stuck with BW and EA. My own view is that all the abovie "leisure" activities are a major positive benefit to the country as a whole, and that the gorvernment and councils should "subsidise" them in the same way as leisure centres, parks, etc. are subsidised. In addition the water management role of the canals also needs to be paid for. Beyond that a reasonable income needs to be generated from other sources (fibreway being an example) provided it does not affect the core operation of the waterways. Only then should the boaters be expected to find ever increasing sums of money! Glen ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/ygtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
