marshman

Read the post carefully from Freedom and Andy! He knows what he is talking about! More importantly take note of what he says - at that time of year the weather can be much more harsh than on benign summer days and its not uncommon these days for Breydon to be closed to hire boats in windy conditions. And it is not just a question of "lobbing" the mudweight over - do that at high water and in more than a breeze, you could easily be blown a mile across the mud flats right up against the sea wall and even hole the boat! Thats very unlikely but it could happen and the consequences of that involve life! As a skipper you are responsible and you must make real decisions - whilst Breydon is easy in normal summer conditions, its not always normal, especially out of season and with a more limited daylight window. Inland waters are categorised and its not categorised at a higher level for no reason - its your choice but I wouldn't do it a high tide in the winter months unless I had to and unless the weather the weather was settled and the forecast was good. David H has said you won't die - its unlikely but never say that about the sea - I bet he has never been across in a proper S/W blow with wind over tide!!! Never trifle with the sea and Breydon in those conditions can seem like it for a good hour or more!!

The Otter Trust was effectively run down about 15 yrs ago or even more, so I would definitely discount that!!!!! Whilst they do actually exist, they no longer rear them to release them and are exist merely as a wetland centre, if that now!

You are right PW - I don't know enough about it it but was merely assuming that the EA themselves have their own scientific advisers who have agreed to it. I will leave the discussion to those who are fishermen and clearly know more than I do!! So why did the EA appear to change their mind? Incidentally whilst out on the rivers I did bump into the EA guys who where checking the transmitters in some fish - clever stuff!!

Best scientific evidence from one interested party??? Some scientific evidence to be fair!! I am sure they said all this and tried to stop the Clearwater Project on Barton, but you cannot deny that was a huge success for many reasons.

To be fair, Barton has seen some success with excluding fish from certain areas to allow plant regrowth but they didn't bother at Upton - not sure what criteria they use I am afraid. Not sure if they took the fish out of Cockshoot or not but I suspect not.( Perhaps someone wiser than me can remember?? )

Perhaps because Hickling is deeper than Hoveton? I have no real idea how deep HGB is - do you have the details??? My understanding is that it is very shallow - if so it will have less weed, if any, which is why it is being mud pumped I guess. The petition needs just over 99k signatures to get a debate.

Hickling Broad continues to be dredged and they have also dredged Heigham Sound and Waxham Cut as well as Catfield Dyke. However the big issue remains the disposal of spoil in that area with it all having to be put somewhere. In comparison, I do not know how deep Hoveton is compared to Hickling but I suspect the latter is deeper as I know it does have more weed growth, including some pretty rare stuff!!

Tuesday today - he should have made it by now with some luck!! Going north, he perhaps stopped on the pontoon by the yellow post until the tide had actually stopped running out of the Bure - usually I find the tide tends to run out of the Bure at least an hour or even an hour and a half or more after low water. Having said that it was coming up to a spring tide, so once the tide had turned, he would have no touble getting to Stracey, Stokesby or perhaps Acle!!!

Surely its the EA who are responsible for fish stocks and if they see no issue......? Presumably its not the only place they breed?

But note Vaughans post above!! Fish destroy the plant life - note his comments about Cockshoot and it is also very evident on Barton within the fish barriers! 'Fraid you cannot have it all ways! Although having said I am concerned too at the amount of time it will take - just seems another excuse to have a private Broad to me!

Oh - I thought this may be a petition about a barrier at Yarmouth to halt salt water surges - they don't do a lot to help stocks either. Whilst I understand their concern, I would have thought if stocks were really under threat, would not the EA have objected ????

I would never bother to read them online....!

No reason why not. It would not be the first time that I have actually moored fore and aft in the rivers themselves, in out of the way places!

I am not really sure how the "average" speed cameras can work seeing as there is a mix of speed limits. For an average speed camera to work surely there needs to be cameras at either end of the section of road and for the speed limit to be the same within that section? I believe it was intended to catch motorcyclists going up and down at high speed!! As far as I am aware they have never actually been commissioned, other than the one at the Potter end and I certainly know of no one who has been fined.

Simply because my boat is designed, and indeed certified, for inland waterways and not vice versa!! Although the Broad Ambition boys have taken their boat to sea, it is not something you do without an enormous amount of preparation and fore thought and very careful check with the forecast! If you want to cruise at sea regularly, buy a boat capable of doing so and certified accordingly and, I guess then moor it where you can use it properly! Don't moor it on the Broads and then moan you cannot get in and out when it suits you, and not the railways or GYBC!!!! This is not a new problem with the bridges!!!!!

And I felt quite guilty contradicting Mr AB!!!!!!

I am strongly against throwing the second mudweight off the back despite the accumulated knowledge Andy will have!! A mudweight when thrown off the front will allow the boat to allows point to where the wind is coming from and as such will allow the boat to show a lower profile to the wind with the nose nearly always pointing into the wind, even if the wind shifts round. However if you lob one over the back this stops this happening and if say, the wind shifts 90 degrees, you are immediately presenting the whole of one side of the boat to the wind, thereby causing a significantly greater windage to the wind - IMHO a recipe for dragging in even a modest breeze! If you must throw over a second mudweight surely it would be more effective over the bow - if possible to avoid a tangle bung it over so its several feet away from where you think the other one is and whilst they might tangle up when bringing it in, you will certainly hold better than having the second one out the back!! Incidentally when deciding where to mudweight, always check from which direction the wind is blowing and if you can, head towards that direction and get some shelter, if you can, from reeds or trees or the side of the Broad. OK it can catch you out if the wind goes round 180 degrees but that rarely happens as much as that and even if it does it is usually a soft landing!!!!!

Whilst I am impressed with your skills Chris, I am sure you will have missed at least one vital piece of information which will mean the punters will have to go to the normal sources anyway i.e. the handy information section on the site!!!!

Well they should never take on the commitment in the first place then! I still have little or no sympathy with the OP though!! My guess his mooring fees at Brundall are less than they might be in say, Lake Lothing - perhaps he has spotted why now!!!

Of course it is completely stupid in a tourist area but the councils spotted an opportunity to pass on the cost to boat owners just as they have to cottage owners - if they know its let!!!! The real issue remains that these facilities are used by many of the locals to get rid of their rubbish - there have been numerous complaints that locals, and I guess others, drive up, deposit their rubbish such as garden waste and then its the tollpayers who will pick up the tab!!! The "encouraging tourists" argument doesn't wash with them either - somehow though they usually manage to squeeze through an uptick in expenses when that comes up!!! When it does apply to all moorings as most of you wish, I think it will be a higher cost than you imagine on the tollpayers - and P..S. if it is ringfenced as suggested, can I get a refund as I always bring mine home!!!!!

All hobs for domestic houses now have to have FFD's as standard as it is a requirement of landlord/tenants etc

Currys? B & Q? But you may need to change the jets!

I know someone in Kent who must have a 60yr glut of them, and I dont suppose you and he are the only ones! They will make your recycling bin heavy!!!!!!

Strange - and there was me thinking Haven Bridge came within the jurisdiction of Peel Ports! Seems to be some at cross purposes but I did not not think either Haven Bridge nor the Railway Bridge in Lake Lothing had much to do with the "authority" (which one?)

And who cares very much anyway????? Yet another Archant non story!!!