Steve quoted Simon Salem saying > "However, we continue to support the view expressed by many boaters in > the 2007 consultation that it is unfair that continuous cruisers do not make > a contribution to the cost of maintaining the waterways that is commensurate > with those who take a home mooring."
Surely CCs make exactly the same contribution to maintaining the waterway. Last time I looked there was no discount for continuous cruisers... I'm sure as hell not going to contribute extra for the convenience and security of a mooring I don't have or need and I don't see why I should. If you want me to pay extra to use the canals 52 weeks of the year than can we please have clarity about how many weeks everyone else is allowed to use them for and how people are going to be prevented from using their boats the rest of the time. > "We appreciate that this is a difficult issue and not all boaters agree on > either the extent of the problem or on the solution. Sales of continuous > cruising licences have been growing significantly and, despite the terms and > conditions of the licence, there is evidence that a growing number choose to > remain on temporary moorings in relatively narrow geographic areas. The > risk of congestion on particularly popular waterways therefore presents a > management challenge that we must address. So are we to infer that not even senior BW management realise there is no such thing as a continuous cruising licence? I give up! There is certainly a problem with boats which may or may not have a mooring elsewhere and which may or may not have people living on board overstaying on moorings but this is indeed a management issue. In the last user group meeting I was at a couple of months ago much was made of the new computerised system to monitor licences and the way in which this can be used to monitor boat movements. If this system is used properly why is anything else needed? I'm not downplaying overstaying, it is a very serious issue and deserves a high profile but has sod all to do with continuous cruising. > "BW is therefore considering workable policies to implement during 09/10 > that will encourage the proportion of boaters without a home mooring but who > wish to remain within a specific area of the network to choose an > appropriate mooring option. The option of a 'roving mooring permit' could > cater for those who like to have no fixed base and cruise short distances > between temporary moorings within easy reach of their work or other > land-based commitment. By purchasing such a permit, they would no longer be > classified as continuous cruisers." This a REALLY BAD idea. By doing this BW would be condoning on line moorings, something which they say they are working to eliminate. How on earth are they ever going to get people to shift off time restricted and honey pot sites if they have already charged them to stay there? Actually what is needed first is clarification, are BW trying to stop overstaying or to raise revenue? I hope its the former but I fear it's the latter. > Alongside proposals for a 'roving mooring permit' BW will continue to > examine alternative options relating to the structure and pricing of > continuous cruising licences. Any proposals, which will seek to avoid > penalising those who genuinely cruise extensively around the network, will > be discussed with BWAF and other representatives of national boating > organisations. They will also take account of any relevant market research. > No further formal public consultation on the matter is planned. Great so they will make a major decision without consulting people who are affected. Thanks for nothing. I've so far not been either consulted or market researched. Note the use of "will seek to avoid" as opposed to "will avoid." Anyone fancy a fiver on which of those two it will turn out to be? Wonder who is going to be next to be split off for surcharges. Divide and conquer :-( Steve NB Bream
