Jump to content

marshman

Full Members
  • Content Count

    1,517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by marshman

  1. marshman

    Vagrancy

    I think they are no longer rare - they are much more common than they were. Its as a result of a gradual climate change as the ranges of differing birds are altering gradually - although I suspect some will still say its not happening. Incidentally I think there are some that have actually been breeding here.
  2. There are really only two places to mudweight down "sarf "- Surlingham, (or more correctly) Bargate and Oulton. ( Yes Vaughan I know you are partial to Rockland but thats for the brave! ) Bargate is very sheltered generally and like all Broads, you ascertain which way the wind is blowing and gently nose up towards where the wind is coming from - this will automatically give you some shelter as you approach the trees/reeds and lower the weight. Some people throw it in, but I prefer to lower it - saves problems if its round your foot!! I never leave the second weight down at night so as to let the boat always point into the breeze - if there is one. Leaving the weight at the back down, is inviting the wind to test your boats windage as its bound to move around over a 10/12 hour period. Oulton Broad? Generally off the end of Mr Wallers garden suits me nicely, unless he has a bonfire going - thats in North Bay which is the first bay on the left as you go in!! However these answers about the sarf are all a bit academic really as you are only going for 4 nights and you would be hard pushed to get much south of Acle as you are supposed to be on holiday!!!!!!
  3. Aha....! The art of a good Broads sailor - knowing how long to hold the bank after a tack and as a result, making real progress especially into the tide!!
  4. Technically there is a charge for mud weighting on Wroxham - but no one has ever tried to collect off me! Salhouse is free for mud weighting but a charge if you moor either on the spit or in the Broad itself.
  5. No idea - I guess only an accountant could work that out!!!
  6. Phew! Being supported by the eminent PW is some achievement!
  7. Ok ! There is a belief that it hides further down - stirring mud with a boat does not seem to set it off. I am sure an ardent fisherman will come along and suggest the possible whys and wherefores!
  8. I do not have a view on what causes prymnesium outbreaks - just go back over the old threads!
  9. Griff - at a cost of £45 a grab thats only 777 grab loads. Probably not worth the effort!!
  10. Dredging priority has little to do with traffic, but much more to do with equipment and more importantly, adjacent landowners! The bit from the main channel on Hickling up to Catfield Dyke was dredged this last winter but that rig is too big to go up Catield Dyke, and in the dyke itself, they would as a result probably need to side cast the spoil - perhaps they cannot get permission? However one of the smaller rigs is likely to be up above Potter in the winter I believe and we shall have to see what they do - but I don't think it is Catfield. One point you sometimes forget is that in the Upper Thurne they are paranoid about a prymnesium outbreak - as the Forums generally were convinced in the past that dredging and prymnesium were linked, they will now only dredge when the water temperature has fallen to a certain level leaving a much narrower window in which dredging is possible up in that area. The posts at the time went on and on trying to prove a link and as a result I suspect no one wants to start all that again!!
  11. ECIPA - whilst I accept that you and others have this doomsday scenario about above Potter but if that was the dase why do the BA spend a lot of money every winter dredging above Potter? Its been going on to my knowledge for at least 7 years, so why bother?
  12. Graceful Emblem is I think brand new, and as its completion date had been a bit fluid, my guess it has not had many bookings allocated yet - I may be wrong though!!
  13. That figures a little as that looks as though it is just about where the drain from Stubbs Mill comes out into Meadow Dyke and it will have brought silt down from that area before dumping it into the main Dyke. I do know the Ranger who covers that area and perhaps it is worth getting them to check it, especially as I know there is a possibility that one of the smaller rigs may be in that area over the next 12 months or so. In the short term the situation may improve if we see water levels go back up or we have some decent rain to help flush out some of the Upper Thurne area. Well its always worth asking them to check - progress not guaranteed especially as it is a bit out of the way!!
  14. I think weed cutting is due up above the bridge pretty soon - or so I believe. They usually do it around this time of year before the weed cutter goes off south to do the upper Waveney. I was surprised to hear about the "hump" in Meadow Dyke - last year I must have gone up and down the dyke at least about a dozen times without any issue whatsoever. Water levels were quite low then and that was in a sailing boat of around 3'. However if the one above Martham was just after you go round Dungeon Corner, then I did hit that one and picked up some weed around that bit - it is were the chanel becomes a little indistinct as it broadens out, or narrows down! The trouble is that it is that matt weed stuff ( sorry don't know the real name) and that can cling a bit and winds on really tight. I don't know, but I suspect all weedcutting now requires EA approval!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't be fooled by the Potter report as it really applied to earlier this week when the pressure rose to over 1040 millibars - some people even reported "sticking"at Irstead where it was down almost to a metre - however with pressure now falling that may now alter rapidly and I suspect by tomorrow and the weekend it may have changed - a quick call to the pilots would be sensible to check!! in any case never take my word for it - always check, as many things alter the issue and things can change overnight!!
  15. Did everyone go on about all of this last year when they carried out the same exercise? Or did they just get on with it and comply?? My guess is the latter!!!
  16. marshman

    Sob?

    It is nothing to do with it being "unsuitable" - it is almost certainly an engine issue which cannot be fixed. But I know no more - others may. As Pally has suggested the reputable firm who supplied it have been involved since the start - over the coming months I suspect we may learn more but as has been pointed out, trying to blame the CE directly seems a waste of breath and further speculation without more info probably a waste of time! I am sure I have said something that can easily be picked to pieces - off you go and do your worst!
  17. I know a bit about Barton - I am also a little sceptical of whether it will work or not. Well I know it will work, as the existing fish barriers worked well originally, but the trouble is momentum was not maintained and gradually they became a little like the rest of the Broad - having taken the fish out which they need to do that regularly as fish find their way back in, and it needs doing again. And again and that did not happen. I know some people will always be sceptical, but almost all ecologists, would agree that clear water is best for almost everything, - anything is better than the turgid stew that exists outside the barriers. The BA regularly carry out plant surveys throughout the Broads and rivers and you would be really surprised how few have much at all - perhaps some would like it like that, but even not being an ecologist, even I can see the benefits of having a healthy underwater environment. Clear water really does improve the underwater weed growth and it is that that maintains the balance. Incidentally ospreys do not need to be introduced - they come through Broadland on their annual migrations and one was resident for most of last year on Ranworth /Cockshoot. As to Sea Eagles? I don't think that will happen here and realistically, see little real pressure to do it.
  18. Incidentally it is, Ranworth Broad they are talking about and not Malthouse i guess.
  19. I also notice from something Pally posted way back, that this exercise started in 2018, and 436 notices of contravention were issued last year! Correct me if I am wrong but I do not recall this fuss last year - is that because some people just want to ratchet up pressure on the BA as they like poking them or was it perhaps that most were complied with without a great deal of fuss? I also assume that those who have been affected have also spoken to the NSBA - if they are members. I have generally thought the NSBA worked pretty well on behalf of owners and indeed they have been talking to the BA about this particular subject over the winter. You have to accept, I suspect, that such a group generally have a better chance of success than individuals pontificating their OWN views on an open Forum?
  20. No question about historical vessels - they should be on one of the Registers run by the National Historic Ships organisation - otherwise they might be old and classic but not historic. Thats sorted that then but you would still have to discuss it with the BA I suspect.
  21. Depends entirely how many it is licensed for - after the registration it will have a number. That is the maximum and above that, technically I guess you may be uninsured so I would check carefully.
  22. And of course, you are so sure of the ground on which you stand, that you will actually stick your hand in your pocket to help those defending any prosecution? Please don't count me in though....!!!
  23. I have no axe at all to grind with Griff- indeed I like the guy and have a lot of time for what they have done but if that photo is accurate, it shows exactly why the BA are pursuing the exercise! All they are after is that most boats comply with the requirements even if over the years they have changed a bit. With respect, though, I doubt he will get a lot of sympathy with suggesting that was how it was done originally. I am sure he has changed an awful lot within the boat from what was there all those years ago, so in fact its a restoration, but not quite back to the original, just as close as possible. By all means keep the ones on the cabin sides but perhaps all they are suggesting is you put them on the bow as well. With that in mind........
  24. Vaughan - yes dinghies need them - see guidance notes for details! There will always be some boats that need a discussion so if you believe that applies to you, discuss it with as Ranger but you do have to be sensible I guess - I suspect its not a lot of good saying it wasn't like this 50 years ago and neither is it a lot of good of good putting numbers on a push tug, just where you make contact! It seems to me that all they are trying to do is to reduce the number of anomalies - neither are they going to issue notices or threaten prosecution to every offender! Is it what happens on the roads? Everyone speeding should get a ticket but that doesnt actually happen does it?
  25. I believe discussions have taken place!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.