OVER the past weeks narrowboatworld has been literally crammed with opinions about continuous cruisers and continuous moorers, and so it is time for a rest from the subject—for the foreseeable future—unless some decision comes from Canal & River Trust.
So to be completely fair, we shall give the last word to a continuous cruiser, Keith Gudgin, who replies to some of the comments by our contributors:
Why are we at each others throats again?
'What happened to personal choice, I ask. If you feel badly done by because you can't cruise and thus need to pay for a mooring, perhaps best not to buy a boat, but to buy a caravan you can park on your drive'. (Pam Pickett—narrowboatworld 23 December 2012.)
So far I have nothing fundamental against the people in CaRT or those on boats in marinas, I just wish they would look at their own actions and wishes before they try to impose them on others. As a continuous cruiser I pay my way, I pay all that is asked of me but I see no reason why I should be expected to pay for something I am not getting just so someone else can have it for free. I've used marinas and when I have, I've paid what has been asked even though I felt it was sometimes a bit much.
Hope fees will drop
I now read that some marina moorers want to put part of their mooring fees onto the licence fee of everybody in the hope that their marina fees will drop!
Some hope! Are these people so gullible that they think the marina operators will pass all this windfall onto them? If they don't want to pay the exorbitant fees that marinas charge then get out, it's their choice.
I'm fed up with being ripped off by marinas and their chandleries. I can say that out of all of those I've used so far only one was priced at what I would call fair, and I see no reason to subsidise any of them by other means. I only use them in emergencies now.
More to the issue
As Orph Mable wrote (narrowboatworld.com, 22 December 2012):
'There is more to the issue than you may think at first.'
Do these marina moorers think that with a general increase in licence fees of this nature they will get any more out of CaRT? Or that all the continuous moorers will disappear overnight or at least leave all the visitor moorings and water points etc. clear?
Do these people really think that by imposing a 10 to 20% plus increase in the licence fee it will make the continuous moorers toe the line any more than they do at the moment, I think it will just instil in them the attitude that I'll moor where I like for as long as I like, after all, I'm paying for it now.
Grounds of fairness
John Kerley wrote (narrowboatworld.com, 27 December 2012): 'On grounds of fairness and equity it is right that those who occupy CaRT long term moorings which provide services and/or the security of an off-side mooring should pay extra, just like those in marinas.'
I agree so far, but he then goes on to say: 'However if the increased licence fee also gave the right to an allocated towpath mooring spot, away from visitor moorings, for no extra charge, then this may encourage some 'continuous moorers' to take advantage of this, and not occupy visitor moorings'.
Yes—some 'continuous moorers' may take advantage of this. I wouldn't hold your breath though. He also suggests we should all pay this extra even when we don't want a mooring? Why?
An option
I say make it an option, just a small fee paid by those who want it. 50p per foot per calendar month sounds about right to me, to moor in an allocated spot on a towpath, without any facilities, which is what a vast majority of continuous moorers do now anyway. A 40 footer would then pay £240 per annum and a 70 footer £420. It seems to me to be reasonably affordable and not a bad bit of income for CaRT and it would also reduce the amount CaRT need to spend on enforcement etc.
It would also have an argument for making sure that no one moors on lock/bridge landings, water points, visitor moorings, sensitive areas etc. as there would be a feasible, affordable, controlled alternative. Those who want to work or go to college etc. from their boat will be able to do so, those who need to send children to school etc. will be able to do so without any worries or recriminations.
The answer
This will also be the answer for the marina moorers who don't want to pay what they are being asked for, they could also find a bit of towpath and fork out 50p per foot. Just increasing the licence fees without any benefits whatsoever for anybody will only mean an increase in non-licenced boats and continuous moorers that need dealing with as more boaters will not be able to afford such a sudden and high increase to their licence fees and it will not stop inconsiderate continuous moorers.
And as Pam Pickett writes (narrowboatworld.com, 23 December 2012): 'The attitude that it is unfair that they who use the system less, i.e. leisure boaters 'have to pay' for a mooring, whilst those that continuously cruise don't, really cheeses me off. What happened to personal choice, I ask. If you feel badly done by because you can't cruise and thus need to pay for a mooring, perhaps best not to buy a boat, but to buy a caravan you can park on your drive. Simples!'
Have enough trouble
I am a continuous cruiser and I have trouble enough finding visitor moorings at the moment, so this is a problem for me that I would like to see resolved. I don't want to be tied to a home mooring, I have also resisted taking on a winter mooring so far as I consider them too expensive but I would consider one if the monthly price was what I have suggested above.
It could also be used to allow boats to overstay in an area for a short time if needed, and their requirements were telephoned to CaRT in advance so people like me could visit doctors, hospitals and other appointments, attend to breakdowns etc. that need time to resolve without incurring the wrath of CaRT enforcement etc. (Could also be a nice little earner for CaRT don't you think?)
Your choice
You chose your method of boating/mooring. You knew, or at least could have found out, what it would cost when you took it on. If you don't like it then cruise like me or get off the cut. In any case why should you expect me to pay your mooring fees? If you do then please tell me how I will benefit by such a large increase in my licence fee?
On the subject of continuous moorers I would like to draw the attention of the CaRT senior personnel readers/trustees and ask them to get their staff to lead by example. I have seen many, of what are now CaRT work boats, moored on lock landings, water points, visitor moorings etc. for far longer than the stated time limit and/or not making use of the facilities as asked on the adjacent signs.
Empty winter moorings
In one example I came across there was approximately 200 yards of visitor mooring given over to winter mooring, leaving approximately enough room to moor two smallish boats as visitors. The winter moorings were empty, and there was a CaRT dredger moored on one of the two visitor spots. I was told that it had been there for at least a month without being moved at all. This was late November and as I was unable to stop on the visitor mooring there I had to travel far farther than I planned that day and ended up not finding a suitable safe mooring spot until well after dark.
You will find that you will get a better response when asking boaters not to do something if you don't do it yourselves. There is no better way to educate than by example. The ‘do as I say and not as I do' syndrome doesn't work any more!
[No further comments concerning continuous cruisers or continuous moorers will be accepted for the foreseeable future—Editor.]