Implications
Of the implications, Ralph writes:
However, closer inspection of the CaRT data on my boat movements reveals some disturbing problems that may have serious repercussions with regard to licensing.
Is this a problem I hear you say? Well if you are a continuous cruiser (or an 'Extensive' cruiser?) the answer is yes. If CaRT considers you have not moved enough during the period of your license then they may start proceedings which could eventually lead to a section 8 notice being served.
There are several periods during 2012 when my boat was not logged which gives the overall impression I have spent most of the summer cruising a relatively small area. This was not the case.
Lost month
In fact the Grey Nomad was logged at Compton on the 26th April but not logged again until the 25th May, almost a month later, below Star Lock Stone. In the 'lost' month, I did the Wolverhampton 21, the Curley Wurley, Rushall & Tame Valley, Birmingham & Fazeley to Fazeley and back up the Coventry and Trent & Mersey canals. A distance in the region of 81 miles and 67 locks according to canal planning software. Photograph shows the Grey Nomad at Pelsall Common.
My other major cruise was also missed. This was from a sighting at Star Lock Stone on the 22nd June to my return to Stone on the 17th July. A round trip of approximately 44 miles and 56 Locks. (Photograph Bridge 7 Leek Arm.)
More missing
A further period spent on the Birmingham & Fazeley Canal in early September also went unrecorded, the irony was I visited Fazeley several times for supplies and moored just a few hundred yards from the CaRT offices at Peel's Wharf.
The 'log' produced by CaRT for 2012 is far from complete, and could have very serious implications now I am classed as a Continuous Cruiser. CaRT's records makes it look as though I only cruise a relatively short section of the Trent & Mersey with the odd trip up the Staffs & Worcs. The truth I suggest is somewhat different.
Guilty until proved innocent?
Continuous cruisers according to CaRT are guilty of not moving for far enough until proved innocent. Why do I make this statement, well the rules state clearly it is the skipper's job to keep a log and to be able to prove compliance! On the other hand all CaRT has to do is accuse?
This problem may well cause problems in the future for all boaters. CaRT's 'sightings file' shows my boat was sighted in the same location on the Trent & Mersey Canal on the 9th October and two weeks later on the 23rd October. Now one could draw the conclusion that I had used up my 14 days on that mooring. Not so. For a start I had spent five of those days on my home mooring in Aston Marina!
Not reliable evidence
So again the raw data stored on CaRT's computers does not tell the complete story by any means. The data itself may well be accurate, but there is not enough of it to form an accurate picture of a boat's movements in my opinion.
With CaRT starting to take a more restrictive policy regarding boat movements I think it's imperative that all continuous or 'Extensive' cruisers keep a log, preferably backed up by photographs to prove where (and when) you have been.
Perhaps the days of meandering around the system without a care in the world have gone forever thanks to the efforts of some person(s) in Ivory Towers?
Whose orders?
Looking through some of the email it's clear the licensing side of CaRT have not been involved. It's the enforcement side that has been shall we say 'behaving badly'—under whose orders I wonder?