MauriceMynah

I'm not sure whether Chris will like being called one of the "good guys" though I freely admit she was most helpful to me recently. Anyway, she forwarded the message. The questionable spelling was from Tom Hunter. (probably a guy!)

Is "Dike" a recognised alternative spelling?

Not shooting the messenger Alan, honest . Jonzo, You might be right but the fellow does seem to use the wrong words here and there. "Less" instead of "Fewer" that sort of thing.

That's a neat trick !! Hmmm, Not in a National Park you don't. Just what do you think the broads is? A holiday park?? Let it lie fallow and set up a Bittern breeding centre, You'll get the BA (RSPB) to support that. I can!

This is an exchange I had some time ago on another broads forum. (no, not that one, another one ) I don’t know if this is going to work but there were 3 people ‘talking’ I shall remain in black writing, of the other two, one will be blue, the other red as I shall keep them anonymous. I think this is relevent to this thread The conversation went as follows… Thread Titled “Ok, so what is REALLY going on ?” It seems apparent that the height under Potter Heigham bridge has diminished over the years. This again "seems" to be born out by old photographs. Yes I know that modern designs of boats can be less suited to this bridge, but there seem to be fewer of the old boats able to "make the trip" any more. This leads me to ask the following... What is REALLY happening? Can anything be done about it? If something can be done, who should do it? This isn't intended as a Bash the BA thread, I am hoping for constructive comments. M-M I don't believe the bridge is sinking to any extent more than that which has caused it to tilt very slightly over centuries. There's a very small difference in clearance side-to-side which probably wasn't there when it was built. It seems the water level is generally higher, not due to any grant-attracting sea level panic but because the lower Bure restricts the tidal ebb more than ever before. The Thurne is badly silted so it's necessary to 'tolerate' the water level in order to accommodate navigation up as far as the bridge. Which is why the Dutch pressure blast dredging experiment in the lower Bure some years ago wasn't taken up on any scale - it allowed the water to drain from the Thurne and all the ducks got sore feet from walking around on the river all day. Quite often following a forceful flood tide there is little evidence of a volume ebb because it can't get away, so the next flood accumulates over the previous one and so on. The BA bridge height data are about right for 50+ years ago but the silting of the lower Bure has rendered them useless now. Dredge the bottleneck and the level will drop - unfortunately it will just reveal a muddy bottom as there's nobody interested in the conservation of the rivers. It helps to keep in mind that when the bridge was built the Thurne wasn't so much tidally influenced through Yarmouth but directly by the sea. The river connected through the Hundred Dyke direct to the North Sea roughly midway between Horsey and Somerton, so the up and down river directions were reversed and the tidal scour was much greater than now. The modern navigation channel through Martham Broad to West Somerton wasn't the original course but was cut out for the busy trading traffic. Martham alone had no less then three public/wherry staithes... Thank you Xxxx, Does this mean that the Thurne needs dredging from the bridge to the mouth and the Bure from the Thurne down to Yarmouth? I believe so, although there may well be soundings available that show odd bits that don't need immediate attention. Trouble is that if the system were to be dredged from the bridge down river to release the constriction(s), the already critically shallow waters above the bridge would practically heal up. Which is exactly how to put a big cheesy grin on the face of the RSPB and its misguided and misinformed sympathisers. I am still genuinely trying to avoid the "bash the BA" trap, but if I understand your reply correctly Xxxx, the requirement then is to dredge the entire Thurne, all off shoots recognised as "navigational" in addition to the relevant length of the Bure. This surely must be the responsibility of the BA. How long after a navigable area ceases to be navigable, does it become officially not part of the navigation? M_M I hope your final question remains hypothetical ad infinitum. I don't believe it has happened yet, nor do I believe that the several blockaded tidal waters have ceased to qualify as navigable. There are many barricades which appear contrary to law, most are connected to the Bure. Ranworth, Cockshoot, Hoveton Great - surely are all part of the tidal navigation. The responsibility to 'protect the interests of navigation' is one-third of the Broads Authority's legal brief. Nobody else has any liability toward maintaining the navigation. Recently the BA's navigation revenue has increased as a proportion of its total income to the extent that navigation now funds virtually half the BA existence. It is thought by some that an influential element of BA executive sympathises with the RSPB's public declaration of their desire to see the waters above PH bridge dedicated to undisturbed nature. My own belief is that the BA staff and membership largely has no such ambition. The executive however... One final question Xxxx (unless I think of another one) When the BA use the term "Navigable", navigable by what? Are there any definitive rules that you know of? If a dayboat (with a draft of say 16") can just about make it from Potter Heigham to the Pleasure Boat, does that count as the stretch being navigable? MM, there is a document called the Sediment Management Strategy of which various versions can be found on the BA web site. It lays down the required depths at various points in the Navigation and the cross section of the channel. Each year a report is presented to the Navigation Committee demonstrating progress against achieving the specified depths. There are also maps published on the BA web site showing by means of colour the depths of water in the navigation. Pressure from the Nav Com over the last few years means that there is a sound evidence base on which to judge the extent to which the navigation meets the required specification, the rate at which things are improving (or otherwise) and on which to set priorities for future work. The dredging being carried out is slowly moving in the right direction. Each year a larger proportion of the Navigation meets the spec. In very rough terms, there is over a million cubic metres of silt that in a perfect world should be removed. Not all of that silt is economically dredgable - it may be in too thin a layer or in too isolated a location to make sense mobilising equipment to tackle it. In the last few years the BA have dredged about 50,000 cubic metres a year but the estimated deposition rate of new sediment is about 25,000 cubic metres a year. So perfection is 40 years away at current rates of progress. The perennial problem is finding places to put the spoil. If that could be solved the existing fleet of equipment could remove more silt and the amount of transport required to get it to disposal sites could be reduced, thus reducing the cost. Again, annual reports to the Nav Com provide figures for the cost per cubic metre of dredging and disposing of the spoil. Thanks Yyyy, a pretty definitive answer.

Mr Speedtriple sir, I am curious! Would you have objected in the same way if the lady at the desk had replied to your question.... " Well Sir, there is a subsidy for local people..." I just wondered!

I couldn't agree more. The damage they have done/supported is byond belief. For example they are in favour of allowing coastal errosion to continue unchecked, and some years ago, objected to somebody trying to defend their property from it. Unbelievable, indefencable and loads of other 'Uns' as well!

Vaughan, You and I don't always see eye to eye on things but here I think you have nailed it. Priorities have to start with navigation and the requirements of a wherry seem to me to be the perfect benchmark.

Good point Poppy. Planting trees is conservation, digging them up again is navigation and watching the resulting bonfire is recreation. The whole exercise would be a waste of money as well as time consuming and the end result could be called progress. I Politics.

I believe it's also a case of tying down exactly what it is we are all saying we want. Anglers won't be overjoyed with extensive dredging, it must take the fish population quite a while to repopulate a dredged stretch of river. Stinkies prefer tree lined rivers where sailies like the trees to be somewhat shorter and with larger gaps between them. The twitchers want the boaters to use any other bit of the waterway that the birds don't want, whilst the walkers would prefer the anglers to go where the twitchers sent the boaters. The Hire fleets want the private boats to go south and the private skippers want the hirers to go to the Thames untill they've learned one end of a boat from the other. In short everybody wants everybody else to go elsewhere. The only common ground is that every damned one of us wants Dr Packman to go anywhere that's over 500 miles from anywhere that's wet. It's all very straight forwards really..

Re the NBF and the Doctor, again I disagree. (oh what a disagreeable fellow I'm turning out to be ) I'm not at all surprised if such an impertinant question was met with a less than direct answer, I wouldn't have answered it at all! I read the responses on the NBF to that "Ask JP" session and thought it to be far more candid than I'd expected. I think the NBF did well to arrange this, and although I have no intention of returning to that forum, I take my hat off to them for a job well done. Credit where it's due. Various people have left that forum and come here for a variety of reasons, others (quite a few) are active members of both. Hylander for example is a highly respected active member of both forums. There is no problem with this, far from it. Smellyloo's sugestion that we bury our differences and join in the "ask JP" whilst fine in theory probably wouldn't happen in practice as those of us with strong personal reasons for leaving wouldn't want to give satisfaction to some there who would most certainly take it. I wish the session my very best wishes, and will no doubt read some of the responses, but contribute I will not.

I don't think I've ever stayed a night in a hire boatyard in all the years I was on a hirecraft. Very occasionally we moored in Richardsons whilst we went to Stalham high street at lunch time, but that's about it. Nor do I think we were unusual in this! Clive would have a better idea as to the level this reciprical agreement is taken up along with Andy Banner and MBA. No, sorry Peter, I don't think that works as an argument.

We know that there are fewer boats out and active on the broads these days than there were say back in the 70s, so where did they all moor back then? Before the Thurne mouth moorings were nicely piled, did many people moor there? The same question goes for the Woodbastwick moorings. I remember the Horning Ferry moorings when one needed rhond anchors to stay there, fewer spots, but more boats! Is it possible that the drop in the number of moorings is purely a reflection of the number of boats needing them Vs the cost of leasing them? Is it not just remotely possible that this is a good and valid cost saving excersise? We are very quick to damn the BA and it's executives, perhaps too quick. Not everything is their fault.

That point alone could do with a bit of clarification, or even moderating!

Quite right, Mark, who needs a boat if you have a nice port!

And when that stops, The Norfolk Broads will be finished for everybody except the RSPB.

I have already mentioned a canal between Hickling and Barton (called the 'Mitty Mynah waterway' ) some year or so back, and oddly enough, it would make, rather than cost, money to build. My design would avoid any danger of salt water incursion, and, if the master plan were fully adopted would make more money for the Potter Heigham pilots, not less.

I'd have to buy Brink's Emperors one and two. Have a local craftsman refit them, keep one in Herbert Woods dry shed, the other just the other side of "that bridge". Now you know why I needed two of them.

Perfik !

My boat Nyx is an ex hire craft and as such she carries all the scars that go with her 'previous life' . When I had a bit of cash I did wonder about having her re gel-coated. I decided against it as I like being out on her at any time, including when the broads are chock-a-block with novices. In fact that's my favourite time. So many people all trying to enjoy themselves, all on holiday, all having fun. That is when Nyx is at her most vulnarable. Do I worry? No!... If I had had her re-gelcoated would I worry then? Yes!... You bet I would. ... Do I want to worry or do I want to go boating in the worlds best National Park? (sorry Petrer, couldn't resist ) You all know the answer to that one. We all have different priorities and lets face it, to watch the mix of proud gin palaces and chereished woodies is one of mine. So, the larger boatyards have for hire everything from bling boats to rent a wreck and long may it remain.

Mine too JA. Calor have ripped us off once, They don't get a second chance from me!

Cold shower for Gracie please.

Thank God Robin hasn't a pic of a mankini. Edited to add... Oooh, for some reason I don't feel frightfully well !!!

To both Timbo and Baitrunner. You have both rather summed up my point (which can be painful at my age.) What is green and what is not, will always be so debateable that the term means next to nothing. For example, a diesel boat, whilst being less green than a sailie, is far more green than an electric boat globaly, though an electric boat is far more green than a diesel boat locally. So! which is better for the planet, yet which one gets all the plaudits. Yes I agree with you entirely Tim, the whole issue stinks of hypocracy, but that's politics for you. and no Mark, camels don't fart, at least not when they're standing next to me they don't.

My old dad's addage was... ..." If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well, and if worth doing well, it's worth paying somebody else to do it."