So what do we do?

[boatone]

In another post Andrew said:
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, EA may well be pricing themsleves out of the market, however I smell environmentalists influence, and they are not that keen on boating as opposed to creating habitats for small mammals. The idea of co-existence is a bit complex for them.


[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying the ultimate objective is no boats on the Thames?
That doesnt really stack up with their apparent wish to populate the Thames with narrowboats on a lower income scenario, does it?

I had hoped this forum would catalyse a strong body of opinion from Thames users that might become a groundswell for change but I am beginning to think I was wrong.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

>>>
So are you saying the ultimate objective is no boats on the Thames?
That doesnt really stack up with their apparent wish to populate the Thames with narrowboats on a lower income scenario, does it?
>>>

A very good point Tony and I do agree that it seems hard to reconcile. The glossy bumph we all got sent a bit back said very little about all those narrowboats. Mind you, I'm not certain anymore how the narrowboat economics work out, they are rapidly increasing in numbers generally on the waterways, suggesting that the pre-owned market prices will go up and more new construction will take place. I assume its the latter and it is money becoming available from retired people selling their homes and buying a boat with the proceeds. At >£1K plus VAT per linear foot these things are getting pricey, if you assume that 55 feet is a good length for a couple as a liveaboard. The lower income scenario might be better called a fixed income scenario perhaps? There was a thread a while back on how the narrowboat has an image of boating for Everyman whereas plastic gin palaces are for the idle rich. I have had a few further thoughts on that one and even looked around at home for an old Daily Mirror that had a feature on boaters (I was in it with my previous boat). One Dutch barge, main photo of the barge. One narrowboat, main photo was of the boat, one small 20' cruiser and main photo was of me. Now while I'm flattered to be seen as more photogenic than a narrowboat, it does suggest to me that the photographer felt that my poor man's plastic cruiser was not a suitable subject for the photograph as it did not convey the right image. I don't take arty pix, the camera is a tool to show what was there, maybe a photographer's viewpoint would be good. Would it help our cause to emphasise that there are a lot of <30' cruisers on the river and that they are not owned by the idle rich, just ordinary folk doing their best in the world?

I could be cynical and suggest that narrowboats don't make as much wash as some grp vessels and thus make less mess of those precious bankside habitats

If I get up to the boat this weekend I'll try and manage to chat to the Sunbury keeper and see if he would be allowed to let a MAD poster go into his window, and indeed what his not to be quoted officially opinion is on the numbers of narrowboats on the river.

 

[Hirdsp]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you saying the ultimate objective is no boats on the Thames?

[/ QUOTE ]
Am I right in saying wildlife has increased on the Thames over the past 20 years? Some of the investment that boaters put in can be fed back to wildlife so all can live happily. I certainly don't see any unhappy animals due to boats....think the ducks/swans and geese do very well out of us!

 

[apollo]

Also why rebuild the walkways if they want the boats to go, surely they would let them fall apart.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

All does rather assume that EA's right and left hand even know about each other, and that they can find their collective backside using them...

 

[boatone]

My question re 'no boats' was really facetious rather than serious.

Also, my comment about a 'lower income scenario' was not relating to the financial straits of narrowboaters, but rather the reduced income that the EA enjoys from them as visitors/gold licence holders compared to the full time EA licence holders.

I really do feel very angry that , at the same time that they are proposing draconian increases on the 'residents' they distribute largesse in the form of a 30% discount on visitors licence fees for several hundred boats visiting the IWA gathering. I would even like to question whether they have a right to actually do so, given that the licence fee is a statutory payment.
I wonder whether it might be possible for us to kick up enough fuss to seek a judicial review - after all, it's government/public funds they are being cavalier with.

What I would really like to see is more comment and involvement here that will show that we, as users, need to be treated reasonably.

 

[chuckaduck]

[ QUOTE ]


I had hoped this forum would catalyse a strong body of opinion from Thames users that might become a groundswell for change but I am beginning to think I was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There just arent that many thames users on this forum

 

[BG1]

[ QUOTE ]
>>>

I could be cynical and suggest that narrowboats don't make as much wash as some grp vessels and thus make less mess of those precious bankside habitats



I think we've all seen the damage cattle make to the bank side, far worse than wash from boats. Perhaps the fallen trees and overgrown edges are deliberately left to provide a buffer for boat wash!

 

[DWT]

What I am not sure about here is what we think we should and can do. Of course we do not want huge increases in our fees and it is irritating to see essential maintenance dressed ip as fantastic improvements, but what are the alternatives?

Charging full price for visitors would seem fair, but would that not just reduce the numbers and reduce the income from that source? After all we are saying that the increase in licence fees will drive boats away from the river so we can hardly say that an increase in visitors fees will have no impact.

My observation is that the increase in narrow boats in particular is as a direct result of the concessions on visitors fees. What would the position be if we did not have the income they generate?

I can understand that the EA wants to encourage more users to the river including walkers, fisherman and other casual visitors (I must start another thread asking for suggestions for how to get a smile from a fisherman), but the only way to pay for the extra facilities is to increase the carges for boaters.

Boats on the river is one of the attractions for visitors as is clear from the number of people who just like to sit and watch the movements through the locks. When we are part of the attraction it is a bit galling to have to pay for extra facilities which we are unlikely to use.

I suppose what I really want is a bit more of a balance and some acknowledgement that us boaters are important to the river, rather than the attitude that we are all filthy rich owners of gin palaces (there is another subject for a thread) and so can afford to pay whatever they want to charge us.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

>>>
My observation is that the increase in narrow boats in particular is as a direct result of the concessions on visitors fees. What would the position be if we did not have the income they generate?
>>>

Don't know about the income but it is an issue that a quid pro quo from BW is not that simple. Most of us would not get into the narrow gauge canals or under the bridges on the broad ones. I'd like to K&A to Bristol but doubt I could get beyond Newbury, to where the interesting bits are. You can stuff the Grand Union, metaphorically speaking. Perhaps there is a case for one body to deal with navigation and that EA and BW should be made to merge their waterways activities as was proposed a few years ago, and bounced by the respective empires.

 

[boatone]

On the basis of figures supplied by BW about 1500 gold licences have been issued of which about 10% are for non BW waterways boats wanting to use the canal system. That makes around 1350 canal boats presumably, though not necessarily, wanting to come onto EA waters. The additonal licence fee they pay is only a fraction of a full EA licence for the same length of vessel. For instance, my boat is 36' and the licence fee is around £400 this year. A 36' narrowboat would only pay around £75 on top of its BW licence fee for the gold licence and free access to the Thames for the whole year. They then proceed to take up most of the available mooring spaces, and bear in mind that many of these NB's are 60-70' long.
So, for a relatively small increase in income the EA is encouraging something that is making life much less pleasant for the full licence payers based on the Thames.

I dont want this to come across as an anti-narrowboat attitude, but the fact remains that almost every cruiser owner I speak to is fed up with the situation.

As for the visitors licence fee issue I mentioned earlier, I was not proposing that these be increased - merely that they should not have been discounted. It is also alleged that quite a few full annual licences were handed out FOC in connection with the same event.

 

[BG1]

At least next year the NWA festival is on the Ouse. It might mean a few more available mooring spaces.

 

[DWT]

Thanks for clarifying what the gold licence fee holders pay for access to the Thames. It does seem more than unequal.

I like the idea of one authority for all inland waterways. It would be interesting to see how the narrow boaters would react. I presume they would be up in arms at the thought that they may be contributing to us apparently rich cruiser owners.