marshman

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?

I believe discussions have taken place!

Eastcoast IPA - did you read Pallys post where he points out that the guidance notes should perhaps be read with the byelaws? In the past he has generally been known to be accurate in his interpretation of the legislation - but I am sure you are sufficiently confident of your view to test it?? I must admit I think this is a battle some could well stumble on and you should be mindful of which battles you chose to fight! The BA signalled over a year ago that there were going to pursue this policy and it seems to be reasonably sensible and generally acceptable to most users. Even the NSBA seem to have acquessed in general. I am sure if you are on any historic vessels register you might find a way around certain bits if you can persuade the Rangers by talking to them rather than discussing them on an open Forum as some of you chose to do. They are only doing what they are told to do, and most Rangers I talk to, and thats a few, are genuinely nice people and only too keen to help. Still its up to the individuals concerned and like last year, I suspect the vast majority who have received notices, will just get on and comply - no one is suggesting that Griff takes off his number from the cabin sides, just that he adds another nearer his bow - job done I guess. Seems easier and less stressful than fighting it out in court, perhaps to no avail. I suspect he will get little sympathy from the local beaks, or the ones I know!!

Vaughan - Rangers do still have their patch, and people out and about a lot and especially the yard owners, will know their local Ranger just as you did! In the old days, your lot used to sleep a lot up in Bargate!! But the Rangers now do lots of other things, especially in the winter and also the BA use quite a number of volunteer Rangers. They don't require a salary and expensive pension!!

Of course, the voice of reason, MM, strikes again! We all seem to have a degree of uniformity on our number plates on cars/bikes without a great deal of fuss, don't we? Or perhaps that is my imagination? Presumably other waterways have similar requirements too? No doubt someone else will know this without me checking? I guess also most of the hire boat operators are complying without much difficulty. However having said this, I do think that they are being a little OTT in some cases but I guess it was felt that perhaps just too many were trying to get away with it, or rather just stretching the guidelines a bit.

Why is it I sometimes get the impression that some people really cannot have a lot to do in their life??? It is after all quite a nice day outside where I am now going again, having popped back from the boat this morning just for lunch and a quick browse......!!!

Season 18/19 - says it all!!! OTBC

And if one warning is not enough, and this applies to all users of disposable barbeques, NEVER NEVER USE ONE WITHOUT A STAND PLEASE ON THE BROADS

NEVER NEVER use a disposal BBQ without a stand to keep it off the ground especially at this time of year. This could easily cause a fire, and destroy acres of reedbed. They are EXTREMELY dangerous - please remember this. Peat burns readily and tends to burn downwards and then travel horizontally underground and break out perhaps a hundred yards away and can take weeks to extinguish properly. Even throwing water on the remnants of a BBQ will not extinguish it below the surface and it can till cause catastrophic damage to the habitat and many animals. And wild moorings? First come first served I am afraid, but you can mudweight!!!

Smoggy - Woodfordes have never in the past supported traditional Norfolk wherries, except by using the symbol, but only wanted to be involved with those more modern yachtie things! Could never understand why but perhaps the distinction was just too subtle for some to grasp! Since the Brewery changed hands though, I don't think that it was felt even that was appropriate - hence the rebranding methinks more suitable, or so they think, for a proper brewery!!!

Vaughan - it had been discussed but for many reasons, it just did not fit in with existing commitments I guess.

Or perhaps it will fit Mutford?

Not sure what it is but Ranworth (Malthouse) Broad is notorious for dragging - its the home of one of my two "excursions" !! Perhaps its the mud or that it gets disturbed a lot but more probably there is a hard bottom not too far down which is the issue -= mind it does have to be blowing old boots for boats to shift around although I suspect these more modern boats with often more windage, are a bit more vulnerable to shifting around at anchor!!

Most yards would give you another mudweight and there is no problem at all about dropping a second weight from the stern - I always do it as it keeps you in the same spot as you suggest, and it also can provide a bit of a lee from the wind if float fishing. However always lift the stern one at night in case the wind gets up in the night from a different direction - boats generally sit better with the bow pointing into the breeze and are much less likely to drag in those circumstances. Don't worry about the dragging bit too much as in over 50 years , I think I have only dragged twice!! If you are staying some time it can give you some peace of mind if you moor up towards the reeds or trees in the direction from which the wind is coming as that can give more shelter.

Cranes would still be seen at Billockby even without the land being "forced" into arable production - neither am I sure the lowering of the water table in the Ant Valley has really done Catfield Fen any good? Surely if it was having no impact, then the EA would not be withdrawing abstraction licences? I agree with Peter wholeheartedly about Carlton Marshes - like it or not the changes will increase the level of biodiversity and if as you say, you hide it away in accessible places, even the interested general public cannot see it all. Why should they be excluded from sharing some of the joys of Broadland, and if you leave nature alone entirely, I doubt we see the range of diversity we see today. Would it be a good thing if our reedbeds disappeared under scrub alder, willow and silver birch? I realise it is a manmade environment but if nothing had already been done, and nature allowed its way, we would already have "lost" more of Broadland!

Point taken - although even now in the spring I doubt I would risk taking my car down Middle Wall. I assumed others would not either but forgot quite how stupid people are with cars - I wondered why that track had got so bad and now the penny has dropped!! And now all I have done is drawn attention to it - with huge apologies ! The easiest way is to park in Lathams and walk the Middle Wall route - why do they not put a gate on the access off the A149, its not a bridleway??? And indeed the other way too?

Yes Peter, you are absolutely right - this is a fantastic opportunity to bring the masses closer to wildlife. The Norfolk WT has over the last few years been doing a similar project, albeit on a much smaller scale on the Thurne between Highs Mill opposite Martham boat yard and up to Candle Dyke - that has taken about 3 years or so but has resulted in a wonderful change from the old grazing marsh to a very wet freshwater habitat, and attracting bucket loads of birds! You can only access it by walking up the track towards the old Eel Sett and then round by the riverbank - the whole water level has been raised significantly and it just shows what can be done if you try and work those marshes properly. A grazing marsh was always going to be better than nothing but yet I continue to see farmers trying desperately to use the marshland for arable crops, all in pursuit of profit. The land alongside the Acle Straight towards Acle is an example but probably even worse is the attempt to grow arable crops around the Billockby end of the old road. All winter, even in our dry ones , the area is frequently under water, yet they still persist! Let marshland remain marshland and not try to drain it to pretend its just like other , higher, ground. The SWT have produced an excellent leaflet about what is being done explaining what is being done, and if you see it, grab as it shows the real efforts being made. Good 'ol job them boys.

Not sure that average speed cameras would work as you would have to set the limit quite low given that (most) people slow down for the roundabouts - think you would be hard pushed to average 50?? They could take the ones down on the A149 as I don't think they were ever switched on!

Or was it some world/alien power blocking everything just to throw us all out of kilter??? How I love a conspiracy theory!!!!! Don't believin them though!!!

I am not sure anyone ever said "lads on boats are never a problem ", but perhaps they did say it is not necessarily a problem that has got any worse! Occasionally it has always been a problem but I remain to be convinced it is a problem thats got worse! My memory goes back a long way and the tales then showed problems back in the 70's and 80's. I am sure Vaughan has plenty of tales!

Hi Carol - somewhere in the back of my mind I recall that Dungeon Corner reflected the depth of water originally around that spot. Something about it being so deep, the depths were as black as a dungeon? Having said that, probably a lud of ole squit on my part!!!

So is that what the referendum succeeded in doing?? You have some headway to catch up as all the yards have no problem with the current system and they would have a vote too! And P.S. some of us have better things to do so I am off to the boat!!!

As I said you are entitled to your view - this system has worked well for as long as I can remember, so why change it? Oh yes I know, a minority think it would be better but how often does a new system and process result in reduce costs? I remain to be convinced and I guess, so do the BA.

ECIPA - how do you know the BA hasn't already reduced, and taken into account, the reduced costs that the more modern system has resulted in? And MM and me introduce "scare tactics"? More likely a dose of healthy reality!!! The BA use some temporary help to help cope with the rush at this time of year - now perhaps everyone else would like all these fancy amendments to the rules to be introduced so as to allow these temporary staff to become full time, but its hardly a scare tactic! Like the most of us, we both are quite happy at this arrangement, it works well and I for one, cannot see any reason to change it. Others are entitled to their view.

MM - yet again m8 you are so right. Although it appears the BA have a seperate tolls dept it is not full time and any change in structure would involve more cost. If thats what you want, by all means push for a bigger department, to handle everything you want, then so be it, but for the vast majority it works fine and if its not broke, don't fix it!! I am sure JP would love to have a bigger department paid for out of the navigation account - but few would see any improvement or change other than more BA money going down the pan!!