Proof of movement

IAN WATERS point is well taken that any log is better than none and that taking dated photos constitutes a level of proof of movement, writes John Quinlan.

The problem is that, a mobile phone, or camera is the property of the boater not the boat. To ensure that it had been used correctly the boat must always be in the picture which is, of course, not difficult.

Time on mooring

The second point is that distance travelled is of lesser importance than time spent on each mooring according to the law. That is not to say that it would be considered meaningless by a court.

The third point is a lack of correspondence with CaRT recording and records. If you have a log of where you are every day, and on the days that CaRT log your boat the positions recorded by both you and CaRT agree within a few metres, then it provides a high degree of proof that your log is correct. Only GPS provides that unless you only ever use visitor moorings. A photo log may, or may not have any points of correspondence.

CruisingLog

It was agreed by the Environment Agency official I spoke to whilst initially developing CruisingLog (I was on EA waters at that time) that any form of Log kept by a boater was held in esteem by the courts. However any record kept in, for example, a mobile phone, could obviously be falsified by the person catching a bus to another waterway. It required correspondence with the enforcement records to be considered correct. CaRT stated that they had considered producing a system similar to CruisingLog but did not have the resources to do so and were pleased that it now existed.

Ultimately a log may have to be used in court to convince a judge and, if your log is dated photos, you will have to prove that the locations you have photographed are what you claim they are to someone who knows nothing about boats or boating.

I re-iterate that in my opinion any form of log is far better than not having a log, whether it is quill and parchment, photos, or a purpose built system.