Auxiliary EA Officers

[byron]

I put forward this idea for your comments and would be very interested to here reactions.

In the late 1980s it was mooted that the then River Authority should appoint Auxiliary Officers along the lines of the then Auxiliary Coastguard Afloat section maybe with the title Water Bailiff and an appropriate I.D. card. These 'officers' would be the eyes & ears of the authority with limited powers. Such as the ability to challenge people fishing out of season, speeders, unlicenced boats etc. Such 'officers' would be unpaid volunteers who could then report back to EA with such details of the culprits as they were able to obtain.

This idea was briefly considered then rejected.

What does this exalted Forum think of the idea under present circumstances.

 

[Brayman]

Anything that would help with those elements must be worthwhile. As for voluntary, I thought those were the sort of things the River Wardens of the River Thames Society were supposed to be on the look out for. It still needs some authority to back up the information, do we want marine PCSO's, ie paid less for lesser authority.

Unfortunately it appears that the EA are unwilling to exercise their powers on unlicensed boats etc anyway. Perhaps the survey questions on enforcement will strike a chord there.

 

[boatone]

Although I keep seeing reference here to unlicensed boats, I have to say that I have rarely come across any. Yes, liveaboards stay over the 24 hour period etc but every one I have peered at appears to have a licence for the current year.

I, too, have pondered the idea of 'volunteer' eyes and ears but the real problem these days is the unpredictable behaviour and possible rudeness and violence of so many people compared with times gone by.

 

[byron]

[ QUOTE ]
Although I keep seeing reference here to unlicensed boats, I have to say that I have rarely come across any..

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony, in my experience unlicenced NB Liveaboards isn't the problem. The unlicenced boats I see are launched after work hours and at weekends and are usually ski-boats. One only has to stand by heavily used slipways to see these, take the numbers of the launch cars and take it from there.

 

[TrueBlue]

Sources close to

EA give impression that it is a very costly process to prosecute license evaders, and I think they feel it's not worth the effort - except perhaps in extreme circumstances.

I'm told the proposed dis-harmonisation scheme (if it ever gets off the ground) contains a change which will reduce costs to them - bit that's at the disadvantage to boaters - but who gives a sh.. about us?

As to policing - what are the patrol boats for???? They're afraid to come the heavy lest they get a bunch of fives for their troubles - and then there's the form filling...

Very sad.

 

[Steve Clayton]

Re: Sources close to

[ QUOTE ]
EA give impression that it is a very costly process to prosecute license evaders,

[/ QUOTE ]
Could be possible for a lockie to have the powers to "clamp" a boat not displaying a licence; or issuing a day licence perhaps - but they will say it's not their job and they are not empowered to demand a name and address for follow up.

EA river police are the obvious peeps to deal with them - confiscate the boat and crush them like cars???

If it's the slip boats that are the major problem then EA need to do spot checks on them and hit them hard.

 

[boatone]

Re: Sources close to

[ QUOTE ]
Could be possible for a lockie to have the powers to "clamp" a boat not displaying a licence; or issuing a day licence perhaps - but they will say it's not their job and they are not empowered to demand a name and address for follow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the lockies can, and do, check for valid licences, and issue notices of infringement as well as passing details to Reading.

IMHO unlicensed craft, while undesirable, are not really a major issue for most river users. Inadequate moorings, exacerbated by the increasing numbers of NB's, and the need for dredging and general maintenance are far greater issues.

And its not fair to blame all the mooring issues on the EA either as local authorities up and down the river are just as likely to be responsible for poorly maintained mooring areas, or, in some cases, not make any provision at all.

Regardless of whatever so called 'alliances' are supposed to exist I see the complete lack of any cohesive strategy to tackle these issues as the key problem.

 

[byron]

Careful Fred Drift is taking over. Lets get back to the idea, Aux. Officers... good or bad ?

 

[pheran]

Re: Sources close to

[ QUOTE ]
Could be possible for a lockie to have the powers to "clamp" a boat

[/ QUOTE ] It would appear this is just the sort of power lockies and others would be given under the 'drink/boating' proposals.

 

[boatone]

Byron complaining of Fred Drift? Oh well, there's a first time for everything I suppose. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

As for your question re auxilliaries - on balance I would say no.

The job would attract the wrong sort of people and be open to misuse and abuse.

Any river user or member of the public is already free to note the name of a boat and advise Reading of delinquency. But its not in the British nature to 'snitch' so whats really needed is a shift of attitude back towards reasonable and compliant behaviour.

Oh dear - but thats not just a river problem is it??

 

[angelaquayle]

Hi- been on holiday so sorry for not participating for a while.

We have thought about using volunteers as lots of other places seem to be able to attract good people to work for nothing! We have even done a short trial this summer with the IWA rep on our 'Waterways Working Group'. I think the conclusion from that was mixed - who would help with lockkeeping for nothing? Where would we find willing volunteers? They would need a lot of training with all the health and safety issues involved with working near water. There would need to be a person/people to manage them to make sure they were deployed properly, would they be reliable... etc etc. It's not a quick thing to set up but is something that we're considering but not as a top priority.