Your anonymous correspondent Rattus Rattus errs in suggesting the economic benefits of restoring the Montgomery Canal (put at £10.5m a year in a recent report) would be greatly at risk if, as has been public knowledge since 2005, boat movement numbers were restricted. 

These benefits do not come only from what boaters spend. 

Experience gained from canal restorations elsewhere have shown that boat activity, especially in areas where locks are located, leads to an increased number of other visitors, both local and from a distance. 

For example, on the Kennet & Avon Canal, there was an increase of 46% after full restoration. Significant and numerous cost / benefit advantages to local communities can be cited where assets such as canals or preserved railways, for example, exist in or close to those areas.

OTHER NEWS:

The final sentence of the letter appears to follow the writer’s usual tone when commenting on matters he (or she) raises through your columns. In this instance, there is more than a degree of ambiguity. 

Is the ‘trashing’ of the canal being advocated in order to allow more boat movements, or, is the writer suggesting the removal or reduction of boat traffic to allow the navigation to become the sole domain of ‘wildlife’ thus halting the perceived need for further investment in the restoration? 

There is a presumption – that it is a case of ‘boats’ or ‘wildlife’ and never the twain shall co-exist. Both elements deserve to be accommodated. 

I was also in attendance at the forum meeting, not as a ‘volunteer’, not as a ‘boater’: merely as a local resident who appreciates the wider benefits of this great asset and the remarkable and sustained efforts of a wide range of volunteers –and others, who have provided and continue to provide the means of securing the canal’s future.
Vic Smith, Deytheur