Patrick Adams appears to display some fundamental misunderstandings of the Montgomery Canal.

This may be due in part to his involvement with ‘Zero Climate Llanidloes’ (source ZCLIDG web site), given that organisation’s stated aims and relative distance from the Canal. It might be argued that his comments seem at odds with two of the aims of ZCL, namely, ‘Protecting Heritage & Culture’ and  ‘Healthy Landscapes for All’. (Are ‘wind farms’, mentioned in his letter, excluded from this consideration?)

His letter uses the emotive term, in this context, ‘motor boats’ no fewer than  six times: the vessels that he complains of are properly referred to as narrow boats.

There is of course the potential for smaller craft to use the waterway: these would include occasional maintenance craft should it be possible to navigate at all following its effective abandonment to ‘nature’. 

OTHER NEWS:

As with a re-opened railway, the trackbed of which may have served as a route for walkers and cyclists for many years, any cries of protest at the reversion to original use can simply be addressed by the obvious rejoinder that it was built as a railway.

So it is with the Montgomery Canal. It is a canal, not solely a linear habitat for flora and fauna. A friend, who has the observational benefit of living alongside the Canal, commented recently that she noted the return of ducks to her area of the  Canal following the partial die-back of the all pervading Soldier Weed.

For ‘ducks’, also read ‘kayaks and horse-drawn barges’ (sic) mentioned by Mr Adams. These modes of transport would currently find it impossible to navigate significant stretches of the Canal.

With regard to reinstatement of road bridges, and the inevitable cost and no doubt some disruption, it is this writer’s understanding that there was/is an obligation on the part of the respective highway authorities to reinstate the through access for canal traffic at the points where bridges have been ‘dropped’, should the need arise.

Mr Adams is quite wrong to suggest that canal towpath users generate much more economic benefit than boats. Whilst research has shown that on some navigable canals, towpath users are more numerous than people on boats, the fact is that most towpath users don’t spend money when they go out.

Whereas boat users can generate income to local businesses such as pubs/restaurants and local shops. Research has also shown that towpath users find a navigable canal with activity more attractive to walk by than a derelict one.

Mr Adams also suggests that a few motor boats would damage the flora and fauna. The experience of the Rochdale Canal shows otherwise.

Restored over 20 years ago, the rare luronium natans plant has coped. The Montgomery Canal Conservation Management Strategy (CMS) looked into all this. Recognising that no boats would lead to a Canal clogged up with invasive and other weeds (damaging the rare ones) and, on the other hand, that unrestricted boat use ran the risk of causing damage, the CMS proposed a cap of 2,500 boat movements a year.

Surveys have shown wide support for the Canal’s restoration. Not so long ago, 68% of those asked were “very supportive” and 25% were “quite supportive” of restoration. The new Government is keen on economic recovery and the Canal restoration is a good example of a project which not only does that but brings wider benefits to the community at large.

Vic Smith

Deytheur