JennyMorgan

Why would the Authority wish to see less boats on the higher reaches? Conservation by exclusion by any chance?

This might be relevant to the debate on BHP, I lifted it from another place where it had in turn been lifted from yet another place! Reposted from another thread in case the point gets lost - An interesting fact is reported in the papers for the 22 October Nav Com (Agenda Item 10). The officers have been researching Environment Agency data on water levels and have concluded that MLWL has been rising in the middle and upper reaches of the Bure (approx 10 - 20cm), falling in the Lower Bure through Yarmouth and on Breydon and staying relatively static in the southern rivers. They do not speculate about the causes of these trends but use the higher levels as an excuse for reducing the amount of dredging required in the upstream Bure. To my mind this is wrong headed. They should be asking why this is happening. Water levels are controlled by sea levels at Yarmouth and Lowestoft (equal effect on the whole river system), run off into the rivers (not likely to be very different proportionately across the system) and constraints in the river channels such as silting and bank modifications. So I am inclined to think that the increase in water levels in the north is the result of channel constraints - probably silting up in the middle reaches of the Bure upstream of Yarmouth. Thus it would seem sensible to consider additional dredging in those areas - not less. Remember, increased water levels reduce the ability of craft to access the upper reaches of the navigation due to reduced bridge clearances. Conspiracy theorists could have a field day.

Be prepared to take the knee for the mythical BNP and don't admit to knowing anything about the Broads, easy!

Such good news, am pleased for you and Marina.

Think that we have to blame tele-sales companies for that, especially Zenith double glazing. I have to admit to now being mega suspicious of even the most well meaning of call centre staff!

Having watched an Essex punt jerk backwards due to the recoil when a big punt gun was fired I doubt that the left hand fellow actually fired that gun!

He maintains that his Broads lineage goes back to 1066 and beyond thus the Royal family are true Broads aristocrats.

You didn't, the Anchor Bleu. As a bell-ringer and being Bosham based I had the Bosham Bell on my mind, silly me. Your welcome reminder about the punts triggered good memories of Tommy. I don't remember his surname, half the indigenous villagers were Gilbys but he wasn't one of them. Tommy's knees were shot, he'd had rickets as a kid, despite which he was more than capable of crawling around his punt and also his Bosham Scow, even at seventy. When I left Bosham Tommy presented me with a book about a Norfolk wherry called Gypsey that had toured Holland. We named our house after his. Tommy was a one off. If he hadn't befriended me then I doubt that I would have been accepted by the locals as I was.

I do indeed, just as there were several down at Manningtree on the saltings there. One of the Bosham punts belonged to a good fellow called 'Tommy'. His punt was flatter bottomed than a Broads punt but otherwise fundamentally the same. I never shot from one but occasionally I borrowed Tommy's and worked it along the fleet, the idea being that the ducks would keep their distance and would be worked towards the guns. Always ended the day in the Bell with Mary putting on a hot buffet and Barry pulling the pints.

A gun punt in action.

I'm afraid that that is true, but not for all of us. Courtesy and decency does still exist.

As one who doesn't volunteer, or at least very rarely now, when I did I had to balance my life between family and my own interests, that doesn't leave much time for volunteering. The same goes for participating in club activities, witness the decline in many club memberships.

The Rangers have powers in relation to the Broads Act but that is about it. The Auxiliary Rangers deserve respect and generally their advice should be heeded but I doubt that they have any powers as such. Just so long as their advice is sound.

I can't for the life of me understand why Rangers should encounter more confrontational issues than they used to. No, just can't fathom that one out. Surely the trust and mutual respect that was there in Aitken Clark's day is still alive and well? Perhaps I only encounter the more than decent Rangers but I suspect that most, if not all, could deal with any confrontational issues more than adequately.

I believe that Rockland parishioners still maintain a right to shoot on that Broad.

Regarding volunteers, some I have met have been excellent but then some of them were not. I've also met regular rangers who have been absolutely scathing in regard to the volunteer crew member that had been forced upon them.

My understanding is that BA volunteer rangers have no powers other than being able to report, just as you and I can. There is also a concern as to whether a volunteer should do an otherwise paid job that would provide a living wage to someone.

On the coast it's common practice to inform the relevant harbour master or boatman responsible for the moorings. Probably a case of 'where there is a will there will be a way'. A Broads version of the Cruising Association perhaps? In my own neck of the woods I see the same boats on the same 24hr moorings, arriving every weekend without fail. In principle no problem with that, their right. I used to see the same when I worked in Chichester Harbour, people would rush from their marina mooring and two miles later drop anchor at East Head. If all they want to do is to moor up then why not stay put? Perhaps more mooring operators should do what the WRC has done, have a pub on site.

As regards late evening patrolling, why should that cost more? A simple case of later start and variable shifts.

Such as the infernal electrification of the Broads that few of us need nor want. We also have the apparent need for two moorings per boat, one to go from and one to go to. There does need to be a revision of thinking on that one although I don't know the answer.

Re the free moorings at WDC, those within the basin are, at the moment, available to all of us, privateer or hirer. The original question concerned the reciprocal mooring agreement between hire yards. Many years ago I was a part of the 'Fowlers' syndicate that owned the WRC in its formative years. We took our hire fleet with us when we took over but we quickly passed our boats over to Ripplecraft at Somerleyton when we realised that we were duty bound to honour the reciprocal agreement whilst we hired boats out. Digging a hole, filling it with water and charging folk for mooring was clearly the way forward.

I suspect that the justification will be that it is a deterrent, illogical as it appears. What worries me is the continual and determined effort to grow the 'empire'.

I probably know even less than Floyd about the ability of the BA's present system but my understanding is that it is an HMG sponsored one. I do know people in the IT industry & apparently it was not a good buy, not up to the job, and through personal experience it was clearly not without its glitches, especially within the planning portal. Personally I'm happy with the prospect of a new system at Yare House, despite the projected costs. It does show that the existing system was probably not a good nor suitable buy in the first place but being wise after the event is a meritorious attribute! A better system has to be to everyone's advantage. What we mustn't forget is that approx 50% of our toll is hived off for so called 'overheads'. The more that he demands for and spends on navigation the more he can spend elsewhere.

If I understand correctly the answer is, or was, yes and no. Hireboats could moor up on the frontage that was used for their hireboats, if there was a vacancy, but not for free in the off-river mooring basin. In fairness to the WRC being able to use the shower and toilet block is worth the mooring fee alone.

Bated breath and all that sort of thing! Think I shall wait for a review of what transpired.