| name | comment | submitted |
| Anon. 2 | I thought this was meant to be a discussion board. It appears everyone is asleep. I was pleased to see today (Oban Times) the George Lyon MSP has called for a delay in the executive's descision on the MNP to let more consultation take place. To quote from the article ' Fishing representatives feared for their livelihoods and islanders feared they would have little say in the management of a coastal and marine national park ' Well now, funnily enough should one turn to the letters page of the same paper they will find an angry letter from a resident in Balloch describing how the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park has only 20% (5 out of 25) of their board members directly elected by the local population (none of whom have to actually live in the park area). And the remaining 80%? - you guessed it - appointed directly or indirectly by Scottish Ministers! Hurrah for Local Democracy! Let's drop the silly MNP concept now and actually work with the democratic bodies we have - executive, council etc to bring in new people to Argyll while retaining this wonderful place we live in. The West Highlands were never about countless quango bodies telling people what they can and can't do - they are a place where there is enough room for everyone to be happy. STOP THE MNP! |
Thu 6 Apr 2006 @ [12:11] |
| Gordon | I have just recently found this forum through "Clyde Breakers" the Newsletter for The Firth of Clyde Forum. As a recent contributor to that Newsletter I am intrigued at the out come of this National Park. As Area Co-ordinator for Marine Life Rescue within the West Coast i am interested in the movement of Cetaceans, Pinnipeds etc along the UK coastline. We in the West Coast have a large diversity of Marine Life that visits our shores on a regular basis. 2005 saw a welcome return to our shores of Basking Shark, once hunted and driven away from Scottish shores these magnificent beasts are back in large volumes. The various species of whale and dolphin visitors is also on the increase. I welcome anything on this coast that will invite more of these magnificent beasts to Scotland. Properly monitored The interaction between them and agencies such as ours, The Hebridean Whale & Dolphin Trust, Millport's Basking Shark Project can go on protected from dnagers such as long line fishing etc. |
Wed 5 Apr 2006 @ [09:45] |
| tail o the bank | What makes every one so certain that Oban etc is the venue for the MNP The Clyde box would a much better option ,a bold experiment in marine regeneration,easy access for thousands of visitors ,Sheltered water, plenty of land for building accomodation,seals, whales etc. I am surprised that Inverclyde are not actively campaigning for MNP status when they have no minority pressure groups opposing them |
Tue 4 Apr 2006 @ [11:44] |
| Anon. 2 | Have I said something out of turn, or is everyone just having a wee think over this one? | Tue 4 Apr 2006 @ [11:06] |
| Anon. 2 | Another thing I am confused about. What exactly are all these myriad of 'conflicts' that the MNP will solve eureka style? Is it more fishing, because I thought that could be more effectively solved through better licensing and more attention from the Fisheries Protection. Is it the increase in tourists and the damage they bring? Call me daft, but a MNP is only going to focus attention from tourists/divers/pleasureboats* (add your own definition) on a small area and create a 'honeypot' effect that will need more funds for bigger car parks etc etc. This problem does not exist to the same level at the moment because activity is spread over a wider, undesignated areas. The area does not have any heavy industry that needs to be controlled and general pollution is minimal (apart from some very localised fish faming disturbance) So what is the point of the MNP? It looks like a PR exercise from the Scottish Executive to be seen to be doing something 'green', and conviniently create a few civil service jobs in the process for graduates to wander about in green fleeces and patronise everyone. I seem to recall that voluntary partnerships were a lot cheaper to run and a lot more effective (look at what the Cairngorms Partnership achieved as opposed to the bumbling Cairngorms NP). The debate for the MNP seems to have already decided that we need one. Again, before we start selecting areas and planning what colour the visitor centres will be painted let's actually have a debate as to why (and if) we really need one. I have a sneaky suspicion that no-one wants to have this, as the answer would look a lot less obvious. Start the debate now before it's all too late!!!! |
Mon 3 Apr 2006 @ [20:25] |
| seventhseil | God (or whichever great entity you believe in) save us from Eco-tourism hell!!!!!! | Mon 3 Apr 2006 @ [19:34] |
| Anon 2. | Here we go - Ross Finnie is already saying what a wonderful idea a marine national park is (BBC, Today), even though SNH are still meant to be investigating the possibility. So much for an unbiased assessment of the pros and cons me thinks. Soon we will be awash in another layer of beaurocracy dedicated to protecting everything except local people. My heart cries with despair that we can be making peoples homelands into a unwelcome 'desgnation' - aka theme park for middle class urban outdoor types. So much for the future! |
Fri 31 Mar 2006 @ [16:32] |
| ANOther from Mull | Whilst it's good to see views from Mull debated here, there's been precious little on the Park in the local Mull papers, possibly because the ordinary person still does not really comprehend what it really entails and an unbiassed list of pros and cons provided to the public. Some information was given out at the MICT AGM, but this was at a time of day when many people were working. Presumably, we will now get this so that a full debate amongst all islanders can be engendered and a vote taken, preferably organised by an independent body. | Fri 31 Mar 2006 @ [14:48] |
| A Person From Mull | If Mull needed National Park status 50 years ago to protect the species Bob below is so delighted to see then why are they still here? We have more designations than you can shake a stick at already. Wildlife has never been so well protected in legislation. Any economy reliant on one industry alone is setting itself up for a fall. Tourism, contrary to DW's assertions, will not support well paid year round work. I do not believe the beaurocracy, red tape and urban sentimentality that already encroaches on every day life here in the islands assists in the development of vibrant, sustainable communities. A National Park will likely increase these problems. Increasing environmental awareness is a worthy cause that all should champion. A CMNP is not the best way to do it. |
Fri 31 Mar 2006 @ [11:24] |
| Bob Talbot | We don't always get everything we want in life, but Ben More, two sea eagles, a golden eagle, an otter, a short-eared owl, seals, mergansers and my particular favourite, a great northern diver, all in one day on Mull, thanks to David Woodehouse, gets pretty damn close! So yes, I have an interest. My distant ancestors came from these islands, from their lonely lochs, abandoned crofts, patchwork hills and silver beeches bent against the onshore wind, They are part of my heritage, though I was born many years and miles away from them. Some day, god willing, I will be able to bring my grandson to see this wonderful part of Britain. As David says, it should have been a National Park 50 years ago. Surely the questions to be resolved are trivial besides solving the problem of ensuring that the natural heritage of these marvellous islands and their coastlines is there for future generations, both of islanders and visitors alike? It is, I am afraid, a decision which has to be made now for those future generations. Otherwise, uncontrolled, un-managed and always, always, ugly piecemeal development of the area for the benefit of those with no interest other than in profit will be the inevitable and tragic result. | Thu 30 Mar 2006 @ [22:20] |
| Alexander McMurdo | I fully support SNH as a way of protecting my area of Islay.We are inundated with nasty kit houses going up in very scenic areas to the visual detriment on our environment.Yes people need houses but could they not be along the Norwegian design of house rather than the mean looking kit bungelow that proliferates from Lands End to John o'Groats if its in England its 'The Cotswold' in Scotland its 'The Balmoral' but they are ALL the same awful design. | Thu 30 Mar 2006 @ [12:05] |
| Ian Burrett | Hi Robert Recreational sea angling does not need to be an us and them conflict with commercial fishermen. Many of the species sea anglers are interested in are of very little importance to commercial fishermen like tope, wrasse, conger, Bass and Mullet. RSA would like to be involved with stock management of these species by increasing minimum landing sizes and imposing maximum landing sizes. The majority of sea angling now is catch and release. If we can improve the stocks of these species then the money developed from tourism/angling will grow as the fish stocks grow. You talk of reductions in the fishing fleet. What about the 42 charter boats that use to work out the clyde. I believe there is now just one There have also been closure of tackle shops bait shops etc. and many lost bookings to hotels etc. This is because the commercial fleet wiped out the once abundant cod stocks or is it only commercial fishing jobs that matter. It is time for Scottish politicians to realise that many species of fish are far more valuable to the scottish economy left in the sea to be caught, photographed and released. than on a fish mongers slab. |
Mon 27 Mar 2006 @ [21:50] |
| Robert | Can any of the pro-park lobbyists please explain specifically what benefits a CMNP woyuld bring to this area? Can someone from the angling lobby please explain the importance of sea angling to the economy of the Inner Hebrides (not the UK). How can it be that sea angling is thriving in this area if commercial fishing is doing so much damage to the stocks? The fishing fleets of Campbeltown, Oban and Mallaig have been reduced by at least half in the last five years; I wonder how other business that glean their income from the sea would feel about that level of reduction? (Please note - the fleet has been reduced because of ill-concieved Europen fisheries regulations not because of over-exploitation of stocks - UK fisheries scientists showed last year that West Coast prawn (nephrop) stocks is some 40% bigger than was previously thought). |
Sun 26 Mar 2006 @ [11:18] |
| Shuttleworth | Self catering accommodation required - cheap but clean - 24 May to 30 May inclusive - 2 rooms (one double and one single). Or a Bed and Breakfast private home NOT hotel!! Thank you |
Thu 9 Mar 2006 @ [11:38] |
| I`m afraid | I`m afraid i`m still not gettng all this pro-park stuff and it`s necessity to ensure Hebridean survival before it floats off into an atlantic abyss.Do we really need saved from super quarries?What is wrong with the one at Glen Sanda, it provides many well paid jobs,overfishing?could you be more specific with regard to species,not enough low cost housing,would a marine park not aggravate this situation by making mull a even more desirable place to live and thus perpetuating house price increases higher still. |
Wed 8 Mar 2006 @ [21:11] |
| David Woodhouse | I must say that I am still not getting this pretty strange anti park/anti environment stuff coming from certain quarters. In the last few postings there has been a suggestion that a so called green lobby are pushing this through. Who precisely are they? I have lived on Mull for a quarter of century and never been remotely aware of any green lobby except odd individuals like myself who are passionate about the Island its wildlife. I have sat on transport groups, community trust, tourism marketing group, millennium group, renewable energy, land and sea forum, etc etc etc and never come across an environmental or green group. In fact as some might notice, not even the chamber of commerce or Mull Bird Club have any position on this matter. Any chance of any names on this green lobby group? As for this fictitious group or even the thousands of tourism business on the west coast. It seems to me that despite the idea that they have lots to gain from this they seem pretty laid back and not lobbying for anything !!! Isn't it in fact precisely the other way around and that certain groups have already officially decided that they do not want it and so if anyone is pushing anything through I would suggest that the criticism is aimed at the wrong people. The suggestion that people outwith these islands do not understand what a national park means is pretty daft when our visitors are about as environmentally aware as any world travellers could be and very often live in National Parks themselves!!!! As for Mulls Island Voices Survey where the majority of islanders supported the idea of a national park, this was a totally private and confidential survey and could not have been more aimed at the so called 'silent majority'. Yes a number of people did not have any position on this but surely that is perfectly acceptable when none of us really know what Park status may mean !! But you do not simply rule something out full stop, just because the knowledge is not out there as yet. Some things are pretty obvious though and the idea that the Hebridean Islands can simply bob along in isolation from the rest of the world as they have done for centuries is just not realistic today, with oil, super quarries, overfishing, far more housing [that is not at all low cost], young people not coming here but going elsewhere etc etc. All of this and more is going to degrade rural life in these islands not preserve it or add to it. The few cries for things to stay the same are not being thought out because it is a hundred times more likely that things will indeed change here without the protection of National Park status than with it and this situation is true in countries all over the world. |
Wed 8 Mar 2006 @ [14:39] |
| Jason Kirby | ohh im sorry, i agree, we want national parks cos we need like places for animals to call home, we get them so why not them. ohh and can we have liek a camp site and like a hotel with a heated pool cos that what bring people in and therefore supply the park with money to keep it going. | Wed 8 Mar 2006 @ [11:02] |
| Jason | omg u guys are so sad, u dont even know what your talking about, we need more animals, mayeb we can ship them from madagascar or better still, go to the labortory and make some using the dna from prehistoric mosquitos. | Wed 8 Mar 2006 @ [11:00] |
| Anon? | With regard to "serious reservation", the evidence that the people of Mull want a Marine National Park is to be found in the results of your own "Island Voices", where 53% saw benefit. What was also clear from this community poll was that over 30% wanted to know more about it or just didn't know enough to comment. What about the silent majority, who we have still yet to hear from, those who do want a Marine National Park? |
Wed 8 Mar 2006 @ [10:31] |
| Anon. | There is an important point being made by the previous poster ("serious reservation"). The park is being imposed on the local population. Although there is to be consultation, it seems that the decision to have a park has already been taken. At best, local voices which manage to be heard in the consultation process (above the racket created by the single-interest groups and individuals) may result in minor changes to the details. And once established, the board will be mostly made up of appointees. Say what you like about A&BC, at least we get to vote for the councillors every few years. I worry that people who live outside this area really think of it like a public park, with a pond and swings - somewhere to walk the dogs, play football... Then everyone goes home at the end of the day and the gates are locked. Apart from the jakeys on the benches who live there... but they don't count, do they ? |
Tue 7 Mar 2006 @ [21:31] |
| serious reservation | Can`t help but notice that some people posting on the site seem to think a national park would provide solutions to every problem that exists on Mull or indeed every problem that we didn`t realise existed.I`m not saying there aren`t problems to solve but would marine park status really improve our lot?There has been many claims that it will do this and do that but where is the evidence to back these claims up.Where is tthe evidence that people on the island want a marine park?Is there going to be some kind of democratic vote on the issue or are the autocratic green lobby going to tell us what`s best for us and steamroll the whole process whilst the ambivalent natives are left on the starting blocks. | Tue 7 Mar 2006 @ [19:26] |
| Not Nearly So Uncomfortable | Thanks to SNH for continuing this message board and the information that future submissions on the subject may be made both here and to SNH. Also for the information regarding the two areas with the strongest case; I have not been in the country and missed this. Personally, arguing on my previous point about geographical, rather than arbitrary local authority, boundaries being far more logical in terms of what is trying to be achieved, I would support David Woodhouse's vision (albeit that extends to a much wider area, but this is a start), that these areas could be combined. After all, developments on Ardnamurchan, especially wind turbines, the new generation of which seem to higher and bigger, will affect Mull, and vice versa. It would also be administratively ridiculous to include the Sound of Mull but not Morvern or south Ardnamurchan in any park that included Mull - no-one would know what the rules were! It is ludicrous to envisage a National Park of this nature based purely on arbitrary boundaries drawn on a map for administrative purposes. I agree that begs the question of planning and other issues, but the result would be no different from the present situation where one Council has its plans, another has there's and the residents are left to pick up the pieces! That was one of my previous experiences and why I made such a point about bureaucracy. |
Mon 6 Mar 2006 @ [15:53] |
| pete rawcliffe | Many thanks for the continuing contributions and discussion on this message board We are currently drawing together our advice to Scottish Ministers. This will include, as part of a full report on stakeholder views, a summary of the key points made on this message board unto and including the 28th February. Turning to the specific queries made in recent contributions Further Opportunity for written contributions The stakeholder report we are preparing as part our advice will include all submissions unto and including the 28th of February. Further contributions can still be made, though it may now be worth waiting until SNH’s advice has been released by Scottish Ministers in April. We will maintain this message board for now to allow for further debate online, and to provide updates on any developments. The papers reported in the press The ’papers’ referred to in the recent Herald Article are those prepared for the final meeting of the stakeholder group on February 20th. In addition to the one reported on possible areas, they include papers on the added value of national parks, concerns about National parks and aquaculture – subject which all of which has featured on this message board. These papers can be found elsewhere on this website (see http://www.snh.org.uk/strategy/CMNP/CoastalMarineNPStakeholderGroup.asp) Membership of the stakeholder group The Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers have not been the only group to complain that they should have be represented on the stakeholder group. Selecting the membership of this group was always going to be challenging given the limitations on the numbers we could effectively have round the table. However, I should stress that the stakeholder group itself was never a decision-taking one, but was conceived as one of the means for SNH to identify the main issues and opportunities surrounding coastal and marine National Parks and for developing options for addressing/maximising them. The national seminars have also been part of this process as have been a number of bilateral meetings with specific organisations. As noted above, all the papers discussed at the stakeholder group are available on the SNH website, and anyone had been very welcome to provide comments on them. Pete Rawcliffe CMNP Project Manager Scottish Natural Heritage |
Thu 2 Mar 2006 @ [12:57] |
| David Saunders | In Reference to an article in Glasgow Herald, dated 20.02.06, regarding the Proposed Marine National Park. The article makes reference to 'papers' released which state a shortlist of areas, and describes two areas as having the "strongest all-round case" as a future national park, namely Argyll Islands and the Coast and Ardnamurchan, the Small Isles, and the South Skye Coast. The ‘papers’ also state that the east coast is now completely out of the running. Would anyone be able tell me from which ‘papers’ these statements have been made? |
Wed 1 Mar 2006 @ [19:37] |
| Barry Scholes | Thanks to Peter Rawcliffe (SNH) and Campbell Gerrard (SportScotland) for taking time out to meet with Ian Burrett (SACN) and myself, on behalf of the Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers. We met to discuss the role that Recreational Sea Angling (RSA) should have in the parks and to press home the need for representation during and after the consultation periods. We also stressed the importance of RSA, and the benifits it brings to an area, both in social and economic value. I am therefore disapointed to note that neither the Sea Anglers Conservation Network or the Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers are recommended as stakeholders. This must be addressed by SNH before we go much further. Barry Scholes PR/Sponsorship Officer Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers |
Wed 1 Mar 2006 @ [11:43] |
| Simon Towler | I am from the English Midlands, but spend at least one week a year-and often more, on the west coast, on holiday.I have read the recent postings with a great deal of interest. i have to agree (largely) with David Woodhouse-a national marine park, with proper local input, with the interest of residents of all those living and working on the islands etc in mind, form an enviromental point of view, can only be a good thing.If done properly, it can provide a marriage of tradition and innovation that could be nearly as inspiring as the wildlife and environment we are talking about.People go to this area mainly to enjoy the scenery and unique "feel" of the place,. there is a shortage of good accomadation,and there is a need for innovation.It is impossible for almost any visitor not to be inspired, even if they are on a trip to Balamory or Iona-my father in law still talks about a close Sea Eagle sighting, with something approaching awe.With the right people, a park could be just what the area needs.(I must declare an interest, having been on many trips with the strong minded Mr Woodhouse) | Wed 1 Mar 2006 @ [08:53] |
| Uncomfortable | Mr McDermott and David Woodhouse have started to make me more comfortable. I presume you have gathered that I am not anti the park, but am raising issues based on past experiences in an English National Park area and as a visitor to the area and formerly a temporary resident (on Mull) doing research. I think that there is a huge potential for the vast majority but particularly residents, hence my concerns about local representation. David, if you'll forgive me, what you seem to be describing in your various postings is not the modern person's description of tourism but the real antithesis of the " package " and that is travel - the concept of visiting another country or unfamiliar area for the purposes of experiences outside one's normal life. And I wholeheartedly support that - I have only gone on two "packaged" elements - and changed both of them for the entire group - much to the irritation of the tour bosses but resulting in great appreciation of fellow passengers, who got a whole different perspective - it entailed local car hire; getting half a dozen fellow "oldies" out on a rib ride and another dozen paying a trip to Seil to see the remnants of the slate industry and looking for garnets and fool's gold! We then all had a superb lunch in a local hostelry on local seafood. On another trip, I changed the itinerary so that folks could visit the RSPB Osprey hide at Loch Garten - amazingly for a spring coach tour not included (it now it!!!) None of this was done by the "thou must" attitude but the "I'm not going to miss" one that gets people asking and curious enough to join in. If that can be achieved, then the Park will have satisfied most of the concerns of those who will have to live with it and wish to see sustainable development without loss of traditional values. The point about the trains is vital - not only to meet environmentally perceived standards, enhancing visitors' journeys but, also, I suspect through increasing penalties through fuel prices and vehicle taxes. It is becoming increasingly expensive to vist and the costs islanders and remote communities have to bear on top of normal charges must be a tremendous burden, as they are in other rural remote parts of Britain - comments about "urbanite's" views are particularly valid here! I know many folks who remember the old MotorRail service - stick your car on a train in Wales or England, get in your sleeping compartment and wake up in a different world. Who knows, there may be a comeback and this would be an excellent opportunity. I presume that SNH are taking note of the comments. Perhaps they would clarify if people can still write directly to them in support (or otherwise) - the website seems to imply not at this late stage. |
Tue 28 Feb 2006 @ [20:33] |
| David Woodhouse | Frankly I am pleased that 'uncomfortable' offers sensible comments and questions and for that matter wise observations about this matter without ruling the possible park out in the somewhat 'reckless' way that some have. I agree that bombing down to Oban is not that environmentally friendly and I exaggerated the convenience of this journey I suppose, but from the moment you step out of your door in Dumbarton you have scenery galore and a great journey even in midwinter. It always seems be sunny to me!!! These issues concerning fuel and sustainability etc ? I personally think there should be 'balance' about such things as usual. If Mum and Dad in Partick bring little Jimmy and Sally down to the park area to see the seals they have always wanted to see, they get to build an eagles nest in the Gateway Centre and see a group of dolphins passing by, while Mum and Dad are having a delicious lunch of local prawns and organic vegetables followed by a brew of the local ale, and they return to Partick inspired by nature and want to come again. I see that as huge payback for the fuel they 'wasted' [and anyway if the rail operators get their finger out and create panoramic scenic viewing carriages, we can all get to Partick in more style and in a reasonably green way] and if Jimmy grows up and aspires to being a marine ranger here and Sally becomes the local doctor because she turned down the Tenerife job and builds her solar powered new surgery, then we have all gained something that may well not have happened without the marine park drawing their attention and beckoning them here. Ok tongue in cheek !! but I hope my point is made? Another big issue that keeps reoccurring is the one about representation of local people on any new park board. There will automatically be strong local representation because they have the knowledge that is needed to run such a focused and unusual park. But look around at our roads, young people in caravans, valuable trades people living in poor accommodation, litter, coastal and on land, its tough to get teachers, doctors and rural transport for the elderly and the very young. We simply must have new ideas and new people with wisdom and experience and those that have actually 'done things' and 'produced' and who don't just talk about it !!! So yes, plenty of local presence on any new park board but caring, green thinking and successful people also. |
Tue 28 Feb 2006 @ [13:38] |
| Bill McDermott | In response to 'uncomfortable', I will just make 3 comments. 1) Like David Woodhouse said, the central issue isn't bureaucracy, which has assumed a perjorative meaning, it is focus. Here is a chance for national funding to be made available to local communities to spend on improving their environment. It is money strongly linked to ecotourism and the essence of ecotourism is that the visitor is a guest in a place which simply gets on with its normal day to day existence. Ask yourself why visitors assemble at fishing harbours to watch boats unloading catches or a collie working sheep. These are fundamentally interesting to ecotourists because they represent the essence of a place. I wish I could add a vibrant Gaelic culture, but unfortunately we need to work on that one. So if the essence of a place is wrapped up in its environment, culture and wildlife, that is where the national park authority will put its support mechanisms. 2) The National Parks Act is specifically geared to local representation. I don't know what SNH will recommend to the Executive, but locally elected members will certainly feature, because the legislation says it must. 3) Those who make use of the natural resources of the area in a sustainable way - fisheries, aquaculture, farming, forestry, diving, wildlife tourism, cultural tourism have most to gain from Park designation. |
Mon 27 Feb 2006 @ [22:14] |
| Uncomfortable | Thank you, Mr Woodhouse, for responding. I take your valid points on the bureaucracy issue; I may have made my point badly but what guarantees are there that the local people are going to have a strong say in the management? I speak purely from bad experiences in an English National Park - now rectified but not after serious problems for many years. I suspect that many concerned folks, given the categorical reassurances that locals will have a strong voice on the Board (or whatever the management team would be called), would be willing to support the proposal. To try to illustrate what I am attempting to say, in various parts of England there are unelected Regional Assemblies making decisions without accountability to the people who live in those areas. Naturally, this raises not only worries but anger and frustration - with its consequent effects of escalalating lack of co-operation and costs to rectify same. I hope this puts my previous posting in context? A clear and legal commitment now to strong local representation would prevent this to a great degree and ensure that local people are empowered. It would be interesting if SNH in their investigative capacity responded to this point. In some other parts of the UK, direct action has been taken by National Park Authorities to restrict second home etc. ownership and to promote affordable housing - there is much that can be done in Argyll & Bute to enforce this, which would assist young people and families; again, should the CMNP system include planning, this should be a requirement. I appreciate that a Park that extended over more than one local authority area would cause serious planning issues but there is something to be said for using geographical rather than arbitrary administrative areas. My point about travelling time (under two hours, David (if I may) in the middle of winter maybe or perhaps I shouldn't ask? ;-)) - by car or train - is that these are for many determined by cost (a huge problem with ever increasing fuel bills and road charging possibly on the way), the weather and what they can do at the end of the journey. You have stated that Scotland is largely environmentally ignorant and I have sympathy with that view. If parents are ignorant, neither they nor their children are going to appreciate the scenery (if visible); you must know more about the Balamory day visitor than I but all I'll say on the unfortunate day I was subjected to the invasion is that many were fairly blinkered to scenery, loathed climbing Tobermory's hills and wanted a McDonald's! But conversely a National Park is there for all, not simply the affluent, and should also be a (in the loosest sense of the word) an educational tool, whilst having fun. Guaranteed improvements in access roads and train and ferry services would benefit this element, whilst having a huge potential for making life easier for islanders and other remote mainland areas, reducing their costs and enabling them to invest more. I have deliberately refrained from issues regarding fishing for previously stated reasons and from farming, about which I am a little better informed but still coming to grips with the new systems. I hope that those in those industries would also respond to the points. |
Mon 27 Feb 2006 @ [19:18] |
| anon2 | RE the pros and cons of living in a national park, and what designation can mean, see; http://www.amblesideonline.co.uk/people.html |
Mon 27 Feb 2006 @ [19:16] |
| David Woodhouse | Some valid points in the last posting that I am going to try and answer because no one else probably will!! I still do not get this concept of more beaurocracy, when what we all want around here is far more interest and focus and call it beaurocracy if you wish, from the current beaurocrats. Surely it is clear to all by now that the Hebrides receives little or no attention from the big boys at present and never will, because they perceive us to be not that important compared with the big economies of Edinburgh and Glasgow. Scotland is also generally not that environmentally aware and most politicians would almost certainly look through the wrong end of a pair of binoculars if I handed them some. Lets get round there with a clipboard and ask all of them when they last saw a golden eagle or a whale? So surely it is commonsense that a national park authority totally focused on the environment and economy of this region, is going to be far more proactive on all fronts and will have little if any focus on Glasgow and Edinburgh's wallets. We concern ourselves about road repairs, jobs for young people, lack of quality tourism accommodation and eating places, more inspiring low cost housing, less litter, more environmentally aware youngsters etc etc etc. Which is more likely to deliver this and more, the current regime who have had years and not even looked at these things, or a new group of people committed totally to the area? I am also pretty bothered about this repeating of masses of tourists somehow coming here. On and in what when they have to get a ferry? and as for people not coming down from Glasgow for a day on the west coast, why not?? I make it under 2 hours but lets make it 3 !!! Isn't a drive through some of worlds most wonderful scenery worth the drive ? and isn't it worrying that Tenerife is more appealing, with often huge flight delays, masses of luggage to lug around airports and to then look at what when you get there, the next persons deckchair? and spend more than 3 hours doing that. I don't seem to see from my window this ordinary 'why bother with it' place that some seem to see. In fact I see spectacular mountains across the sea topped with a dusting of snow and across the Hebridean sea, Iona and glistening white sandy beaches and more islands. I see places steeped in ancient history and sea eagles flying by, dolphins occasionally splash and the colours are a photographers paradise. This should all have been a national park 50 years ago and if it were, I guarantee that all who live here would wonder how it could be anything else. I am sorry if this is a cue for someone to say that we cannot live on the natural environment alone, but I thought this was precisely what everybody was doing and has been doing for centuries here? This could be payback time and every other creature on Mull is willing us to sign on the dotted line. A Marine National Park for the Hebridean islands is an environmental step forward and an economical step forward. Every single person here will benefit. |
Sun 26 Feb 2006 @ [20:44] |
| Uncomfortable | Reading the information on the proposed CMNP and this message board has been fascinating and I’ve learned a lot of interesting things. But … 1. I’m still concerned about the issues of bureaucracy and the level of local input into the management of the proposed park; I sympathize with the view of one poster who doesn’t want control in the hands of a lot of “urbanites” – we already have this to a great extent in Scotland and the UK and seen what happens to the detriment of all aspects of life in the countryside. 2. I agree that the threat of “apathy” and the tendency for folks to react rather than pro-act is a general problem – not just on Mull as David Woodhouse (I think) posted. 3. Eco-tourism I presume means wildlife and environmental tourism – but if Mull is really going to go green then some of the practices by some accommodation providers need to be addressed – the heavy use of little plastic pots of butter and preserves are just one example! (Agreed, they are simple and easy to use, but the energy and waste is great!) It’s also noticeable that the Council does not appear to assist individuals and businesses that wish to be more environmentally friendly by their restrictions and their abysmal planning section! If a CMNP would address these issues, I would support it. 4. Someone mentioned that Mull does not have the infrastructure – I feel this is true of other islands and much of the Argyll coast – to cope with the potential number of visitors. We are too remote from major population areas (2 hours from Glasgow being a good journey time to Oban without breaking the law by road and as for the train journey!) to attract the day visitor – they can more easily slip up to Loch Lomond. We are therefore looking at the staying visitor and accommodation is limited – without more accommodation, it is difficult to envisage how greater numbers and therefore more jobs – direct and indirect – year round would be generated. If having a CMNP would result in improvements in access from major cities – especially rail and possibly with improvements in rail links to other parts of the UK – this is a plus point. Should that happen and there is an influx of visitors and a spur to more accommodation, where are the people for whom jobs would be generated going to live? There is already an affordable housing shortage on Mull – not just caused by incomers/second homers but in some cases by islanders themselves buying up properties to use as holiday lets, rather than those who new build. How will this situation be dealt with? Our bright young people need quality jobs and affordable housing to stay here 5. I profess to know little about the economics of the fishing industry – although the message board clearly indicates that, whilst clam dredging is destructive, creel fishing and shellfish diving are sustainable. We cannot afford to lose such activities; they do provide year round employment and, like farming, are an integral part of the way of life so many visitors and locals alike appreciate. If Argyll is chosen, I hope SNH will get off their sometimes autocratic high horse and get down there and dirty with the folks who are the ones who ultimately will have to live out the reality and I want those assurances up front and public NOW! |
Sun 26 Feb 2006 @ [17:49] |
| David Woodhouse | I am not sure whether this site will eventually close but before it does I would like to give my view of how the Marine park will look in a few years time. It should be a large Hebridean Islands Marine and Land National Park and not a honey pot small collection of islands. It will have its own tourism literature and website extolling the wonders of these fabulous islands and the seas that surround them. On each of the larger islands there will be an oceanic gateway centre possibly at the ferry points but not necessarily. These will be built of timber and stone and hopefully be dramatically sited. Inside will be as much high quality and imaginative environmental interpretation as possible with lots of interactive things for youngsters to do. The food will be organic and excellent and there will be daily lectures from experts and even members of the young ranger team that will operate from the centre, whether by boat or land. There will be lots of glass to allow the seascape and landscape to speak for itself, models of sea eagles and dolphins etc etc. Each centre will be an inspiring place to be on a wet day or a sunny one, but we do need more wet weather facilities here!! There will be more inter island ferry sailings and far more interaction and joined up thinking and barnstorming between the different islands where currently there is no interaction at all. Water taxis will ply some of the headlands and across sea lochs as we enable visitors to move around the area more freely and in a more interesting way. Here in Tobermory, why is there no water taxi taking people to Aros Park for instance or picking up those that have already walked there and want to get back to town. Hopefully visitors will also be able to visit the new World Heritage Site of Little Colonsay, Ulva, Gometra, Inch Kenneth and Eorsa thus adding more value to the tourism experience here on Mull. We will have a young and vibrant marine and ranger service and they will look smart and enjoy their 'Indiana Jones' looking outdoor gear!!! They will interact and meet regularly with other rangers on other islands and swap ideas and suggestions. In fact I see these young people doing most of the thinking and physical work within the new marine park. I also see hundreds of young people interested in the natural environment whether land or sea clambering to get one of these jobs and it becoming a must have post for any adventurous youngster. I remind all at this stage that a huge concern and regular talking point is that we have no quality jobs for young people. The Hebrides needs more up market eco friendly tourism accommodation and I think the park authority could look hard at stimulating community run and funded eco lodges with local people buying shares in each project. These would offer high quality accommodation, be solar and wind powered, with large glass areas looking out on the elements, again offering organic food where possible and where not just visitors but local people can enjoy a quality night out with their family and friends. Hopefully these hotels would be a must stay destination for any eco traveller. There might also be a network of small self catering timbered lodges run by local farmers. Perhaps there because of the new scheme between the tourist board, NFU and HIE. Remembering that all in the Hebrides benefit from tourism and not just the accommodation providers themselves. Bums on beds means cash into the economy. If all of the above has a huge green slant in look and delivery wouldn't we truly have our finger on the pulse of world travel? And help farmers and fishermen who would sell far more of their produce in the immediate area. I can see cleaner beaches and coastline, little rubbish on grass verges and roadsides. More tree planting schemes to address the terrible wind damage that we all suffer from now and I see the ranger service in conjunction with FE doing that. We need more footpaths and access to areas that are almost inaccessible at present and an across the board interpretive project for the park for both land and sea. Coming with all of the above will naturally be more environmental education in schools throughout the region and that means children will be a little more caring about the place they live. It means that young people will not see the Hebrides as somewhere that they have to leave for employment or because they perceive it to be old fashioned. Off season trade will develop for all, because coming down from Glasgow or Edinburgh to visit a Gateway Centre on a wet day or get out into the natural environment on a sunny day, will not seem such a bad idea. The Hebridean Islands Marine Park will be in every coffee table travel book all over the world and that isn't just good for the economy of these islands but a massive feather in Scotland's cap. At last Scotland would also be delivering the product that it promises so often with its monarch of the glen pictures, castles on islands and dolphins leaping. These islands would not just be here and a figment of peoples imagination but truly delivering the product for local people to benefit from, not just economically but also via the up market social ambience that would ensue. Given all of the above it would then be a natural evolutionary process for the sea to be taken greater care of, so benefitting all that live and work on it. |
Tue 21 Feb 2006 @ [11:36] |
| David Woodhouse | I am also a disgruntled Argyll resident because we pay very high rates and to my knowledge have absolutely no services whatsoever that I can think of and we are no different from many people out in the wilds of Scotland. But I am not too disgruntled with SNH like the previous contributor. I mean they are after all the best we have got on environmental matters. Having the free for all that some seem to want is a pretty diabolical thought. But yes SNH staff can be a bit twee as can many in the academic world. But they generally have a slow and studied approach to things, unlike some fishing groups who have already thrown out the idea of a Marine park with not an ounce of study!! So lets be fair and find a bit of balance on the matter. I don't understand this moaning about ignoring the 'unpopular' industries.I don't see farming or fishing as unpopular here or anywhere else? In fact I thought it was they that are often doing down tourism? It was tourism that gave farmers their fullest backing during the foot and mouth mess and lost a great deal of their own money in doing so. He goes on to refer to Ecotourism being important? I was not aware that any of the authorities gave it any importance at the present time. In fact I am on a crusade to get it and its value to rural economies properly understood. So I may personally use the expression but he will find that almost no one else does so lets not imply that it has some recognition around here. SNH, Argyll and Bute Council, the Tourist Board, HIE etc etc etc rarely if ever refer to ecotourism and are far more likely to refer to fishing or farming in fact. The previous contributor goes on to wheel out the standard one about more bureaucracy. Frankly I would give anything to have any bureaucracy around here whether its from the Community Council, through Argyll and Bute Council and right up to the Scottish Executive. Bureaucracy might mean that someone round here would pick up the litter or maybe clean up the shorelines, Bureaucracy might even send someone on foot down our track to collect the dustbin? It might even bring us rural transport. Can you believe that it is still rumoured that the council have some person actually responsible for tourism and the environment. In fact I spotted him around 20 years ago !!!! The fact is that a Marine National Park authority would be a hundred times better than the so called 'bureaucracy' that we currently have or do I mean not have. Frustrated of Argyll should not be frustrated when he lives in one of the most beautiful places in the world. Get your boots on and some bino's round your neck and go and look for Pine Martens or Sea Eagles on Mull this weekend. Then spend all your money and go and see Blue Whales in the Pacific I guarantee that in time you will be inspired instead of frustrated. He will also see more smiling faces in the new Marine Park than he sees at present. |
Fri 17 Feb 2006 @ [17:00] |
| Seventhseil | As another member of the increasingly disgruntled population of Argyll, I would like to raise my fears about a national marine park. My first fear is the involvment of the SNH. This is the body who's employees would not move to Inverness because "there were no deli's and you couldnt see good world cinema" and when they threatened to go on strike thier head honcho was quoted as saying it "would not affect there work". They have a very poor reputation on most of the islands the are envolved with. Having also attended the early Firth of Lorne MSAC meetings it is clear that there has been no sientific or rational thought on the govermental side. When asked if there had been a proper sientific survey of the marine life in the Firth of Lorne, the SNH representative said none had been carried out or would be carried out as there was no funding available. Add to this the Fisheries representative who admitted she did not have a clue about any of the fishing tecniques discussed and our Marine Natura officers who couldnt actualy produce a chart that showed the boundrys of the site. This does not bode well for those trying to live and work within a national park. My greatest fear is that Argyll will be swamped by more beaurocracy.As with most of these urban led projects a great emphasis will be put on the liesure industry,tourism etc. While the tourist industry is indeed important to Argyll it should NOT be placed above other industrys .We need the other unpopular industrys (fishing/fishfarming/renewables/manufacturing) to keep people in full time employment.As for "Eco Tourism" although important it is not the be all and end all of Argyll's economy ,nor should we behave as though it is enviromentaly sound . Argyll and its environs are not a "playground" (as they have been described by a leading local scuba diver), they do not exist for only the urbanites who can afford to buy property or holiday here. Yours Frustrated of Argyll |
Thu 16 Feb 2006 @ [13:31] |
| Anon. 2 | Here's a crazy idea from someone who lives right in the heart of one of the proposed MNP areas ; Instead of smothering the coastal areas of Argyll (and c'mon, we all know the park - when, not if it comes, will be centred on the Firth of Lorne) with another layer of well meaning beaurocracy, invest and encourage proper economic development of the area. I, and many others that would neither have the inclination or the time to post a message here, feel that the NP debate is flawed. Many people here in Lorn are not overly enamoured with the thought of another layer of centrally contrived, urban ideas as to how 'the countryside' should be 'protected' from those dafties that happen to live there. In principal I am not against designations and the protection of habitats and wildlife. However, there is a dangerous image being projected by many conservationists that areas of the west coast are 'pristine wilderness' and need to be wrapped in kid gloves should they have any possible chance of survival. I would like to see proper economic development of the west - better communications (roads, railways), investment in small, dynamic, sustainable business, promotion of renewable energy (cleverly tying into the creation of local business) and with luck, the return of some of the many local people that are forced to leave the area. I would rather see the Scottish Executive form a truly radical 10-year plan to tackle the above problems, than throw good money at a NP scheme that I fear would make token gestures to the above, but would be far more concerned with covering the area in bubble wrap and making it look pretty. |
Thu 16 Feb 2006 @ [12:22] |
| Anon. | Oh dear. Anon from 13 Feb here. Let me say it in bullet points and maybe even Mr Woodhouse will understand. 1. It is misleading to argue the marketing value of a CMNP to the tourism industry unless a CMNP has the resources to address the existing structual problems in that industry. 2. Tourism is an important industry but it is not more important than other industries : a MIX of economic activity is essential to a healthy community. 3. A CMNP is likely to bring a disbenefit of bureaucracy. 4. The prospect of a board which is unelected and unrepresentative of local people making decisions which put natural heritage above sustainable economic development should be seriously worrying to ordinary people who live here. What follows is a more detailed reply to DW's 15/Feb post. Probably not worth reading. DW thinks that the only worthwhile tourism on Mull is his own particular brand of eco tourism. Sadly not true. The rally, the music festival, day trips to Duart, families on Calgary beach all week in summer, munro baggers on Ben More, even (cringe) Balamory, and not to mention the No1 destination of Iona Abbey all pretty much ignore the wildlife. It's hugely important, but not the only thing here. Yes, Tourism spins off economic benefits to other industries. But Tourism is not unique in that. All economic activity has multiplier effects in other industries. Having a healthy mix of industries in an fragile community is vital. Saying that tourist business owners should be thanked for spending money to attract people to the island because this eventually puts money in other people's pockets as well is just unbeliveably arrogant. It really undermines your credibility. If you bother to read what I said, I clearly stated that a CMNP would benefit tourism. That's not in dispute. I don't agree that a "trickle" of winter visitors will bring full year round employment. And increasing winter trade will not reduce the summer peak "16 hour days". We have to agree to disagree on this, since this is opinion rather than fact. I do like the idea of a park which covers all the Hebrides. However I think such a large area would have too many political complications to get off the starting block - maybe better to start with a more mangeable area and extend it in years to come ? And (I don't expect anyone's reading this far down), to respond to the incredibly touchy people from the sea angling community : I have no beef with you at all. I imagine a CMNP would be very good for sea anglers. I agree there is local economic benefit to having this activity, although I would expect it to be much greater on the Argyll coast than here on Mull, which my comments referred to. |
Thu 16 Feb 2006 @ [11:55] |
| Bill | I'm so glad somebody has brought up the uncontrolled nature of Balamory tourism. Imagine driving around Mull in a minibus hunting down the stars of television shows. It wouldn't happen with eco-tourism. | Wed 15 Feb 2006 @ [14:52] |
| David Woodhouse | Anon simply does not understand the tourism industry and he does not understand its connection with the natural environment here. However this would have to be strange as he intimates that he is in tourism!!! Surely he must then have noticed that his guests are not here to enjoy the casino or spend all day spread-eagled in the sun. They are not normally drinking all day like many do in Tenerife. Are his customers spending all day around his swimming pool or maybe its his health spa that attracts them? The fact is and Anon knows it, is that the vast majority of people visiting Mull and the other Hebridean Islands are very much in the thinking tourist mould. They are hugely sympathetic to the islands landscape, its wildlife and local people, which they assume care for all of that. This sort of visitor is a positive pleasure to have in your establishment, they stay for decent periods of time, they spend quality cash and go away as huge ambassadors for us, to attract more green thinking visitors to come and spend cash here, which almost all goes into the local economy. That means garages, shops, visitor attractions, the local museum and they buy local produce or consume it in the place they are staying etc etc etc. All tradespeople, council workers, forestry staff, gardeners, hotel staff, bar staff etc etc are directly or indirectly benefiting from tourism cash going into the economy. Maybe it should be noted also that every member of the tourist board in Scotland is via membership fees of one form or another contributing large sums of money annually to attract that cash not just into their own pockets but into the pockets of all of the other workers that I have mentioned because they are paying for the promotion of places like Mull. Lets get another reality out of the way. Mull is not doing well just because of the efforts of Anon but because of sea eagles, otters, dolphins, whales and the fact that at last the knowledge is out there that this is one of the most spectacular environmental destinations in the world. TV programmes have followed as have numerous articles in numerous publications. So I here Anon saying why do we need a Marine and Land National Park then? Acquiring National Park status underpins all of the above, it keeps us up there as a quality environmental destination if the green bubble subsides in some way. The Hebrides cannot exist on farming and fishing alone!!!!!!!!!! The National Park would definitely help the so called off season because people are getting greener thinking, they are getting more environmentally aware and there is a thirst for such things out there. This winter my own business of wildlife trips and accommodation as had its best year because of the public interest in all things environmental. We need more quality accommodation, hopefully with an eco friendly slant, we want more young people in the industry with new and bright ideas. Tourism can develop and be sympathetic to the natural environment. It is the current uncontrolled sort of tourism like Balamory that can send us backwards here. The park authority would hopefully steer that green tourism course for the benefit of all including the wider Scottish economy. On a business level I feel that many islands not currently flying the Ecotourism flag such as Lewis and Harris would benefit hugely by being in the park and learning from places like Mull. A prize for business's here is that even a trickle of visitors in the off season would enable them to retain staff, thus creating employment and above all it means that we do not have to engage in the 16 hour working days that many have because they know they must try and make their living during the short summer season. National park status sends a signal to the world at large that this is a truly important environmental destination and that we want to take care of it 'officially'. It puts us on the map as an upmarket and quality place to visit.The park authority will improve dozens of things that are not even touched by the current authorities. It would, lift the whole social ambience of the region and open doors for many local people particularly young people wanting to stay and work here. Anon should travel more and see how the connection between tourism and the natural environment can work and even 'rescue' the economy of many remote communities. |
Wed 15 Feb 2006 @ [12:28] |
| Tony Jeffree | My thanks, Nick, for taking the trouble to "put right" some of my comments, although in some cases, it seems that this process is simply one of substituting one opinion for another. To answer your rhetorical question, I did not assume that no-one had thought of doing so, but in my conversations to date with islanders that are involved in the fishing industry, your comments are the first indications I have had that anyone actually has been thinking about it; all other indications have been to the contrary. I'm not at all surprised by your comments that the existing (mainland) processors would not be interested in such ideas, but from the point of view of the benefit to the island, it would be more beneficial to have a local processing facility anyway. I'm sorry to hear that your investigations so far indicate that that would not be economical at present. Would that assessment change if there was a source of funding, grant aid for example, that would help with establishing such a business, or was that already factored into your assessment? There are, however, good examples on Mull of where value add has worked; Mull Cheddar is one, the smoked fish products of the Tobermory Fish Company is another, and I am sure that there are more to add to the list. Mull Cheddar certainly seems from the outside to have been spectacularly successful in a dairy industry that is generally in decline in the UK - it is now stocked in specialist cheese shops throughout the country. No doubt it has required significant investment in premises, marketing, ... etc. to get there. Certainly, your comments indicate that the fishing industry on the island is flourishing; however, although the industry does employ significant numbers of fit youngsters, my guess is that these are predominantly men, which begs the question as to what opportunities the island offers for the women, and for those of both sexes that are either not inclined or not sufficiently fit to work in the fishing industry, or are not sufficiently old to join the ranks of the semi-retired B&B owners referred to by Anon. For the island economy as a whole (as opposed to just the fishing industry) to flourish, it is going to need a sensible answer to that question. I'm seeing conflicting comments in this forum as to whether or not the tourist industry really is flourishing. On the one hand, we have comments on the closure of hotels; on the other hand, comments about accommodation being booked up years in advance and the infrastructure not being able to cope. Are these symptoms of a flourishing industry, or just of an industry that is failing to meet the apparent demand? What we're missing here (and in most of the other comments below, including mine!) is some hard facts. |
Wed 15 Feb 2006 @ [11:34] |
| Ian Burrett | Quote from ANON and none so blinkered as the single issue lobbyist I can only assume you are part of the Mallaig and North-west Fishermen's Association, who said that they had to be wary of people with single-issue agendas who always seemed to get involved much to the detriment of people trying to make a living in the area. Sea angling in the UK provides 19,000 full time jobs and is worth £1.3 billion pounds per annum. The total commercial landings were £700,000 last year. Of this only £52 million is related to species anglers are interested in. Fish stocks are treated as if their only function is to support the needs of the commercial fishing industry and only environmental considerations can be taken into account. There is a far greater potential for social and economic value if the management objectives were to be aligned to produce a ‘product’ that would benefit the development of the valuable Recreational Sea Angling sector. And that such management would produce a far greater ‘Best Value’ return to the wider economy, ultimately benefiting all citizens of Scotland PLC Primarily the Recreational Sea Angling sector needs not only quantities of fish of the species of interest to anglers, but large fish too. These larger fish produce more and healthier eggs, which in turn will produce more fish, benefitting both recreational sea anglers and commercial interests. It really is a win win situation. Anon You may consider us as single issue lobbyists but our aims are; to be considered equal stakeholders in fish stock management, which i guess will produce far more issues than the sinle one you have suggested. As for global warming and the middle East, I think this is the wrong Forum to discuss these matters Ian Burrett regional co-ordinator for the SACN http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/sacn |
Wed 15 Feb 2006 @ [09:53] |
| Anon. | and none so blinkered as the single issue lobbyist. while you're at it, can you outline the Angling solutions to global warming and the middle east ? |
Tue 14 Feb 2006 @ [21:09] |
| David McNair | bringing in tourism in the winter a simple answer recreational sea angling the sealochs etive,sunart,the sound of Mull: sheltered waters with easy winter access shore angling has only touched the potential You may not be aware how big small boat angling is south of the border some clubs have 200 or more boats 400+ anglers, if the resource is managed properly and the anglers target species (mostly rays,spurdog,conger and skate normally returned alive) which are very minor part of comercial activity are given a degree of protection there is enormous growth potential. the irish tourist board went through this exercise many years ago, ask them how important recreational sea angling is to their tourism industry there are none so blind as those that will not see |
Tue 14 Feb 2006 @ [12:10] |
| Anon. | The suggestion that (Eco-)Tourism can provide year round employment for significant numbers of people on an island like Mull sounds great, but does not stack up. Mull does not have the infrastructure to support the existing numbers of tourists in the summer. Would a CMNP have the funds to engage in a large scale road building and widening exercise ? I doubt it. Or encourage the development of large resort hotels to accomodate visitors ? Would that sort of development be good for the island ? Currently, tourists are accomodated on Mull either in holiday houses (incidetnally making the same homes unaffordable to local people) or in B&Bs, run seasonally by the semi-retired. A few small hotels are left : most have been converted to private houses during the residential property boom of the last few years. I hear even the Western Isles Hotel (currently for sale in Tobermory) has had interest from property developers who would convert it to flats at considerable profit. 2) While a CMNP would certainly benefit the Tourism industry through more focussed and better funded marketing, it will not have the power to bring visitors in the winter. Every tourist authority and business in the highlands has at some time tried and failed to counter the seasonality of the tourism market in this part of the world. Wake up : it's not going to happen ! As a nation we do not go on holiday in winter, or if we do, we go to the cities and the sun. A CMNP is not going to change that pattern of behaviour. A CMNP will not suddenly be able to create significant numbers of high-value year-round Tourism jobs on a Scottish island. Particularly when there isn't the infrastructure to accommodate them (see above). People also don't take short breaks from work when the transport links are weather dependent. We are stuck with seasonality in tourism employment (mostly, by the way, on a minimum wage). Don't get me wrong - tourism is a hugely important industry here. I myself make my living from it. But for those who do not live here, it appears larger than it is, since they view the island as visitors themselves during the busy season. But from the point of view of those who live here, it should not be elevated above the others sources of employment which make up the fragile social balance. For the record, my own concerns over a CMNP are currently : - the likely bureaucratic muddle, particularly with planning (Argyll & Bute is already a mess in this regard). - the likely interpretation by non-local people (who will comprise the majority of the unaccountable and largely unelected board) of the elevation of natural heritage above sustainable economic development. |
Mon 13 Feb 2006 @ [12:19] |
| Nick Turnbull | I am compelled to reply to Tony Jeffre and put right some statements which he is using to support CMNP's Firstly I am sure eveyone is delighted that you enjoy your visits to Mull and hopefully you will continue to come whether in a Park area or not. I don't think those of us who live here think of Mull as an "undicovered gem" It is not for me to speak on behalf of tourist orgs. but I think that during summer months many are already working to full capacity and there seems to be some consensus that Mull's infrastructure is struggling to cope. The indications are that Mull is booming tourist wise and indeed I know that some are booked into 2007. You refer to "economic decline" well clearly not in tourism and you are right there are opportunities in the new eco-tourism industry. It takes its place alongside traditional industries which I would dispute with you are in decline. Fishing and the new industries of fish farming continue to provide real opportunities for the young folk of the Island. My own son has recently, in partnership, purchased a new creel boat. This is a big investment with good long term returns. Next year a brand new supercrabber will be coming to the Island skippered and part owned by a young islander. The fishing and fish farming are major employers on the Island and employ many of the fit youngsters who might not find similarly well paid work in other industries. Be assured these industries are not in decline. Your notions on crab are I am afraid fanciful. Do you assume that no-one here has thought of these value-added ideas? I myself have spent the last year looking at processing crab locally and have visited the 2 main processors in Scotland. Both incidentally have been struggling with competition for the last couple of years. and I have sadly decided that it is not economic at present. While some crab from the south end of the Island is processed the rest goes live to France/Spain/Portugal. This crab can be mixed with crab from the East coast , Orkney anywhere in Scotland. I don't think these buyers will differentiate a crab from a Park area and physically they would find it difficult as they all go into the same tanks. What they are interested in is good quality crab--bad quality crab! No park will make any difference to this criteria. I could go on at length about crab it is a subject close to all creelfishermen but suffice to say that if fishermen thought there would be added value in crab or any fish from a park they would be supporting CMNP's |
Sun 12 Feb 2006 @ [19:12] |
| ill Bradbury | During the 1980's whilst working in Scotland, I used to visit seaside towns and villages on the Fife coast, where the sea view is beautiful. Can you imagine my shock on seeing human faeces floating in the sea just off Kirkaldy? I was so taken aback that I immediately left the area and have never been back It was obvious to me that sewage had been deliberately dumped into the sea instead of being processed properly. To me, this is pathetic; all to save money they would rather poison marine animals. I have never mentioned any of this to anyone until now. But I regularly think of this experience. Can you pray tell me if such filth and pollution is still prevalent? |
Sun 12 Feb 2006 @ [17:10] |
| Tony Jeffree | I have been visiting Mull regularly, with my family, for a number of years now; the beautiful landscape and rich and varied wildlife keeps drawing us back, as I imagine it does with the many thousands of people that have visited the island and choose to return. I (and my family) now can't imagine surviving for a year without at least one visit to the island, and we hope to be fortunate enough to live there permanently in the future. The selfish part of me would like to keep the island exactly as it is, as in many ways, an undiscovered gem; I relish our occasional visits in the "off" season when the feeling of peace and quiet is incredible, and find myself muttering about "b***** tourists!" when we visit in the summer and find ourselves stuck behind drivers that don't understand single track roads. However, it is very clear that one way or another, Mull, along with other remote and sparsely populated parts of the country, have to do something to halt the decline of their economic activity, and provide some means whereby their young people can be encouraged to make a life there rather than flee to the mainland in search of work, and increased "eco-" tourism is one way that that can be achieved. It is also clear that we have a duty to protect the environment so that it can be enjoyed by generations to come, and National Park status sounds like a useful tool in ensuring that that happens. From my somewhat remote (from the day-to-day realities of life on Mull) position, it seems to me that there ought to be the basis of a "win-win" here for all concerned. Properly managed, and properly funded, National Park status should have the potential to benefit the tourist industry, to help ensure that the environment is both properly conserved AND appropriately explolited, and it should also have some potential spin-offs for traditional industries such as farming and fishing. The "organic" veg and meat movement gives a key to this - some farmers, facing tighter margins and falling subsidies over the past decade, have managed to make a viable business by going the organic route, thereby attracting a premium price for their produce as well as farming in a more environmentally friendly way. It seems to me that the label "grown/reared/caught in the XXX National Park, using sustainable, environmentally friendly techniques", or some such, ought to command a premium price if properly marketed. It has also struck me that there may be the potential to do more of the "value added" processing of Mull-originated produce there on the island. A case in point; I can buy dressed crab products in M&S that I know make use of brown crab caught on Mull. At the moment, they are shipped to the mainland to be dressed, or turned into crab paste, or whatever, and the "value add" that is earned for that processing goes into the pockets of the processing company on the mainland. If that processing was done on the island there would be greater employment opportunities, more wealth kept on the island, and the opportunity to stick a label on the product indicating where it really came from, rather than the current M&S packaging that simply indicates that it came from somewhere on the Scottish West coast. |
Thu 9 Feb 2006 @ [20:02] |
| Ian Burrett | A report released today has shown that the effects of bottom trawling can take years to recover from. Details at http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=08472935110 In my opinion, this is the sort of issue that a marine park should be looking at. Let's preserve something for the future. I also would like to applaud the SNH for conducting their on line survey about recreation usage of our marine resources. Details at http://www.scotland-coastal-recreation.org.uk/ Ian Burrett regional co-ordinator for the Sea anglers Conservation network http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/sacn/ |
Thu 9 Feb 2006 @ [10:44] |
| Mark Carter | NO TAKE ZONES I’ve just conducted a web search on Google for “No Take Zones” and nearly 38 million hits came up, I went on to “Marine Protected Areas” and obtained 15 million hits and “Marine National Parks” scored 14 million hits. Below are a few which were on the first few pages with their links: - BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A2309564 WWF http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/what_we_do/sustainable_fisheries/no_take_zones/index.cfm Cornwall County Council http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=12878 JNCC http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1572 European fisheries http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/notakezones.htm I haven’t selected these websites they are just some on the first few pages. If you are interested please do the same search. During my studies as a Marine Science student I identified the Midwest Scottish Coast as one of the best examples for biodiversity and natural phenomenon, which includes mountains, sea lochs and tidal flows. The area includes vulnerable remote rural communities with a declining population. In a bid to investigate how to turn this situation around I went on to study the mechanisms around the world, which have a proven track record and those currently available in Scotland. We currently have about 0.0006% of the UK sea area (out to the 12 mile limit) fully protected (check out the Lundy Marine Nature Reserve). Marine Nature Reserves are very limited when dealing with legislation and here the designation is due to local by-laws. We are fortunate in Scotland to have the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Section 31 allows for the marine issues to be considered. What is so good about the Act is its move to protect the environment and promote sustainable industry, that is it recognises people as part of the equation! A CMNP without powers, without the ability to apply true spatial planning, could be potentially flawed from its inception. Nation Parks do create “honey pots” of people however this comes with increased revenue. To have this increase in visitors without ecological protection could be damaging to the environment and the local communities. “No Take Zones” within a CMNP could well be the successful solution. No Take Zones have a proven track record. All industries, including fishing are able to reap the benefits. In order not to adversely affect commercial activities the total area needs to be large with smaller protected areas within. I would prefer people to check it out for themselves rather that take my word for it, if you would like my input please follow the links below. I hope that this helps, for more information please visit www.hmnpp.org.uk and follow the hmnpp extra link. |
Wed 8 Feb 2006 @ [13:16] |
| Keith Chesney | Why do you think that `no-take zones `should be applicable in a CMNP in this area?What species are you hoping to protect and why do you think that they would be of great benefit to fisherman? | Tue 7 Feb 2006 @ [19:26] |
| Mark Carter | The debate is widening at last, this just in from the ninth survey results of the Argyll and Bute Citizens Panel, “PEOPLE ALSO THINK THAT THE IDEA OF A COASTAL AND MARINE NATIONAL PARK WITHIN ARGYLL IS A GOOD IDEA”. Also the BA (the British Association for the Advancement of Science) held an event titled, “WHAT CAN SCIENCE ADD TO THE NATIONAL MARINE PARK DEBATE?” in Oban last night. The event was well attended and very successful. Members from many sectors were present including the fishing and aquaculture industries. The event put forward the facts backed with good science and proven examples from around the world. Marine Protected Areas, that include “no take zones” WORK. A Coastal and Marine National Park large enough to incorporate “no take zones” will be of great benefit to ALL, including the fishermen and the environment. |
Tue 7 Feb 2006 @ [12:19] |
| Bill McDermott | I respect Nick's desire not to get into a tit for tat. However, I need to make 2 corrections. The first is of my own making. The Lake District budget is in fact £7 million not £8 million and the overspend reported by the BBC was £90,000 arising from an accounting method whereby interest on capital was combined for two financial years. As a public body it will still have to reorder its priorities to remain legal. Secondly, The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park is doing well on development, despite not having its own Local Plan. In fact, it legally has to operate to existing plans, and decisions on planning issues are made in the context of presumptions in favour of development unless harm would result to the long term interests of the Park environment or its communities as defined in the Act. Some people on the environmental side would in fact say that the planning regime is too loose for a national park. The Park authority, quite rightly in my judgement, got on with developing its vision and its National Park Plan as a matter of urgency. These have been completed and are able to be used as material evidence in planning decisions. |
Tue 7 Feb 2006 @ [10:14] |
| Nick Turnbull | Bill, My information came from what appears to be reliable sources. "Bankruptcy" was the term used by the BBC and the media. Bearing in mind media terminology, I only quoted from what I heard and read. Your insight into local politics is far greater than mine, however if they don't have the money to cover their costs what exactly are they? Lomond and Trossachs Park is only just doing its Local Plan. I think you have just made my argument stronger. 3 years on and no plan with a mess of the other 4 policies no wonder there is no development! Sorry Bill but even those who are supportive of CMNP's would be unlikely to quote Lomond and Trossachs Park. In the absence of any detailed information on the management of CMNP's we have to make some conclusions on what has gone before us. You and I know each other and it would be better to talk than write. I have no intention of wasting any more time on this message board. I wonder now if SNH are continuing to use these comments to any purpose? I replied to some inmflamotory comments, which I should have possibly ignored. As I've already stated we(MAFA) will be open to scrutiny through our web site very shortly. | Tue 7 Feb 2006 @ [09:43] |
| Bill McDermott | Nick, you and I ought to be on the same side of the fence here, but I am afraid your information on what is happening elsewhere in the national park family is sadly far from accurate. The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park is only just doing its Local Plan. Until now it has been operating on 4 Local Plans which were widely divergent in their policies. It has a duty under the Scottish National Parks Act (2000) to promote economic activity within its sustainability remit. Surely nobody these days would advocate unsustainable activity. You can't say the Lake District National Park is bankrupt. No public body can find itself in that state. It may not have enough money to do what it wants to do, but that is a matter of priorities. It spends abot £10 million per year gross, £8 million net. That means £10 million going into environmental works every year that the local councils can not afford, but the Government provides either directly or through the councils as earmarked funding. A fair proportion of that finds its way into the pockets of local farmers and land managers to encourage them to farm sustainably. Surely Mull could be doing with an injection of cash to improve its tourism infrastructure and to support environmentally friendly activities amongst its farmers, shellfish farmers and fishermen. Cash is one thing, but much more important is the ability to plan for the long term, something that local authorities don't do too well. |
Mon 6 Feb 2006 @ [21:48] |
| David Woodhouse | have re read my posting and do not see anything personal in there as Nick implies. He reads into my offers of free wildlife expeditions for the school children as if there was something in it for me!!!! I took the same school children football training for years and to my knowledge there was nothing in that for me either. My statement that everyone can understand is that in around 25 years of schooling my own three children never went on one single outdoor fieldtrip around the island with their school. As that was the case, the point I make is that local children are not exactly getting the environmental input that they probably should have. The fact that Nick's sons are out at sea and love the natural environment here is great, as it is for my own son who from being in nappies joined me on my wildlife expeditions. BUT not every child is so lucky. No one is surely telling me that because our children live on a Hebridean Island they do not need to be told anything about it or learn more about how it functions. I go back to my point that it is far more likely that children will get real environmental input under National Park Status than without it and this happens in National Parks all over the world. That is not a criticism but a straightforward fact of life. That better environmental education then opens up more opportunities for our youngsters. During his summer holidays my own Sam was able to get a job as wildlife guide on a boat operating out of Tobermory. Not because of any environmental education from the local school but because of his dad. Nick and I are lucky that we are so in touch with the natural environment because most parents are not so lucky. |
Mon 6 Feb 2006 @ [16:11] |
| Nick Turnbull | I am aware that SNH are monitoring this site so I guess I have to respond to some of Mark's and David's comments. Firstly we(MAFA) have been at pains not to criticise any other organisations or individuals. We have no interest to do so. However I am afraid I now have to answer David's outrageous statements which will be a criticism but this is a personal response not one from our association. Our association is attempting to make the powers that be aware of our concerns, I trust no-one has a problem with that. Mark, we are an open association and we have had a public meeting which was advertised. We are about to set up a web site which will contain our minutes of meetings and all corespondence re. CMNP's and other matters. As soon as it is set up, I will give you the link. There will be no message board but you can see what we are doing and are welcome to contact us. We have not simply said that "we don't want a Park" We have given what we believe are sound reasons why we do not believe it is in the interests of our members. We will shortly be able to give you numbers of people who have joined our association which we believe is encouraging and shows the depth of feeling. We also believe that there are a number of other groups on Mull who are also organising themselves to make representations and who support us in our views. While we can't rattle off polls we believe that we have the broad support of many on Mull and it is noticable that some organisations whom you might expect to oppose our views are deciding either not to enter the debate or quietly approve of our position. As regards scaremongering. I believe this comes from lack of knowledge and perhaps SNH and the ministers need to take note of this. One comment I hear over and over, is that there is not enough information on how the park will be managed. What we can say, as an example, is the apparent problems in managing theTrossachs and Lomond Park. One of the aims of the CMNP is sustainable economic development. We are led to believe that since the Lomond Park came into being there has been no commercial development with a backlog of applications. Is this what lies ahead of us? Just in the last day or two we have learn't of the bankrupcy of The Lake District Park. How long will Scot. Exec. bankroll the CMNP? On Mull everyone agrees that we have serious infrastructure problems a "go it alone park"could make the situation untenable. I hope this answers some of your questions. David, your arrogance defies belief and I don't intend to spend much time on this. The fact that no school children went on your or anyone- elses free trip does not condemn them as anti-enviroment! Both my sons are now fishing commercially and have never been on your wildlife trips. There knowledge on the marine enviroment might surprise you as would any individuals working daily on land or sea.You are not alone in either appreciating or understanding the enviroment we live in. Perhaps you should spend a free day with them before you make any further comments. These sorts of personal comments have no relevence to CMNP's I will not pursue this further but you can obtain info. about our org. on the website when it is completed |
Mon 6 Feb 2006 @ [11:30] |
| Mark Carter | Dear Nick, Your responses have been quick to criticize the activities of others. Fortunately we live in a democracy and we should all be able to voice our own opinions. However to answer some of your questions here I feel would be outside of the scope of this message board. I would be happy to give examples of many problems that we have experienced during the last few years. In response to your comments regarding one of my previous messages I tried to give some examples. We have still not heard the fishermen's answers to my previous questions, similar questions can apply to those engaged in aquaculture. You are quite right in realising that not all have the same views and objectives, does your new organisation accept the opinions of others? Your recent article in the Oban Times regarding your own new organisation, “Unanimously rejected the development of a CMNP”. Todate the largest industry within our local area; tourism, has been very absent from any of these discussions, I have just heard from some in the tourist industry that they knew little about what was going on. There has been much in the way of scare mongering and divisions between sectors but the opinion of the masses have become very strong and grows stronger as evidence of occurrences and ill-practices have been revealed. Surely now would be the time to engage in useful dialogue rather than to simply state, “We don’t want it”. I agree with you that the majority of local fishermen and aquaculturists are environmentally aware and many are concerned, but still a few from these industries carry out activities, which are damaging to the environment and to other users. The results from every poll that I have seen recently disagree with the decision put forward by your organisation. A CMNP may not be the best designation to protect the environment but it does currently offer the best available way to encourage a joint way forward: protecting the environment whilst promoting sustainable industry. The majority of people and these people are the voters, want something done to protect our marine environment now and for future generations. |
Sun 5 Feb 2006 @ [12:01] |
| David Woodhouse | Nick I understand perfectly other peoples viewpoints and I have spent around 25 years here listening to them and trying to be constructive about them. I have driven thousands of miles and spent thousands of pounds of my own money to argue about those viewpoints. I attended the SNH Marine Park Glasgow meeting entirely at my own expense to argue on Mulls behalf. I personally do not see Marine National Park status for the Hebridean Islands as some demon but as one of the most positive things ever to happen here and probably the most positive that ever will happen in my lifetime and yours. I therefore cannot treat this so casually and I remind you that it is your own industry that has already thrown this out with no information, discussion or debate among the community. Your question to me about people being environmentally aware is the tactic of a politician Nick!! You and I could walk every road on Mull picking up litter and we would both have back ache after 200 yards. We would also find much of it to be pretty recent and so it does not come from tourists. A friend sent me a video of a fisherman on his boat with the Cal Mac ferry behind him and on the blind side of the ferry the skipper chucked endless rubbish over the side of his boat and this went on for some time. This is not to say that all who use the sea are reckless with their rubbish, but for you to accept that all are not angels or mermaids!! In around a quarter of a century of schooling here not one of my three children went on one single field trip with their local high school and this despite my offering free wildlife trips to the school. The same children are now young adults and can hardly demonstrate a passion and love of the natural environment here when it was not in their education. In every National Park that I have visited around the world local children are far more caring and environmentally aware. I also believe that caring about somewhere as wondrous as Mull and the other creatures that live with us here can have a profound effect on a young persons whole outlook on life and so there are other social prizes to be had. We should not be nitpicking here because I know we would both probably agree with the overall concept of taking care of the Hebridean Islands because it is in the long term interest of all of us to do so, if not for this generation but the next and the next. My overview and wisdom on this tells me that to be part of a Hebridean Islands National Park would be a big plus for all including people who work on the sea and the land. Someone has to speak up positively about that because most will not, entirely because we all live together here and must at the end of the day get on together. Given some confidentiality as was the case with our 'Island Voices Survey' roughly twice as many people supported the idea of a national park than were against it. I have a feeling that once the positives are rolled out this figure will rise and why shouldn't it? Finally I do not for one moment see support for the idea of a Marine National Park as being somehow against fishermen, in fact I see myself and any potential park as very much for them!! I couldn't personally live without sea food!!!! In fact if you want to run the idea of a seafood stall for Tobermory past our Islands Community Trust put me down for supporting it as I do a farm shop etc etc. There are many positive nuances in having the Park of course that are not getting aired just yet. I have for instance suggested that a park authority will be far more proactive than the current regime and Nick will know that getting his produce to the ferry is an endless round of reversing back and reversing back etc on our single track roads, often for something as small as a mini. Fuel lorries, buses and hauliers all have the same problems. My suggestion is that we have an unofficial 'give way to the larger vehicle policy' on all single track roads. This could be advertised on the ferry or in any park literature etc etc. What a joy it would be for any lorry driver to actually go forward for the day on our roads!! Merely stopping a large vehicle and trying to get it into gear and then the actual act of reversing a large vehicle perhaps 50 times in a day is a nightmare. Yes our community council could organise this and Argyll and Bute Council could do the same but we all know that their wheels grind painfully slowly and often come off altogether. |
Sun 5 Feb 2006 @ [12:01] |
| Nick Turnbull | David, no one doubts your sincerity but like so many extremists you fail to understand other viewpoints. I do not know the individuals who you refer to as "enviromentally unfriendly" Perhaps you would like to identify them? Certainly the people I come into contact with, in their own quiet way appreciate living and working in the rural Island enviroment. The difference may be that while we all appreciate the existing "sunrises and sunsets"etc. we don't all feel the need to have them enshrined in a National Park and the possible human social and economic disadvantages that a Park might bring with it. While you speak of the "soaring eagles overhead" I would remind you that some of us are also concerned about the people who live and work below the eagles and are as important a part of the enviroment as any bird. Sadly you seem to have left out the human element except to brand some of them as philistines. I thought we agreed at a recent meeting that it was important to treat all sections of the Mull community with respect and not allow the prospect of a park to create divisions. |
Sat 4 Feb 2006 @ [18:58] |
| David Woodhouse | Speaking from the heart, what has surprised me greatly in all the years I have been here is just how environmentally unfriendly so many people are. The awe and love that I feel for the area as a non Scot is not shared by enough people here. We have dazzling sunrises and sunsets to die for and eagles glide over your house, how can anyone not be touched by Scotland's natural wonders. National Park status is a feather in the cap for the natural environment and all of us here. Why is this anti environment thing seemingly branded into many people souls when it offers them such opportunities? I truly feel that this is our big chance to gve something back to places like Mull. |
Tue 31 Jan 2006 @ [18:09] |
| Jan Gold | As a recreational diver in the waters around the Isle of Lewis, I have seen the damage done by frequent clam dredging. Large areas of seabed are left as barren wasteland, with little life or interest. Nearer the rocks where the dredgers are lifted there are areas broken shells of various shellfish, from clams, crabs, winkles etc. Numbers of shellfish in certain areas seem to be rapidly declining, as are the sighting of Congers who live in the rocks near the dredged areas. Whilst I appreciate the essential employment needs of our islands and see fishing as of vital importance to our local economy, the extensive use of dredgers destroying the seabed around our coast is very worrying. The knock-on effects could be quite serious if no controls on this type of fishing continues. We have a wonderful, varied under-sea environment & I feel some consideration needs to be addressed to these issues, whilst retaining a viable & sustainable fishing economy in the Western Isles. |
Mon 30 Jan 2006 @ [22:54] |
| Roc Sandford | Just wanted to say that I am gloomy about the prospects for farming on Mull and neighbouring islands should the coastal and marine national park go elsewhere. I have run farming businesses and was brought up on a farm in two different National Parks and my experience is positive - the character of the National Park depends on a thriving farming sector and the support needed to keep farming thriving tends to be given within a National Park - this is something we will not be able to continue to rely on outside a National Park I think farming, especially in our marginal situation, needs a National Park to come to Mull. Also I have found the National Park Authoriites more responsive to problems and closer to the ground than local authorities are, so my experience is that the beaureacracy actually seems less within a National Park than outside. |
Tue 24 Jan 2006 @ [14:17] |
| Charlie Clark | Why not add the Forth and Tay esturies to the sites being considered for inclusion as Coastal National Parks. Would this not make it harder to transfer crude oil between ships in these waters? | Thu 19 Jan 2006 @ [20:34] |
| Howard Wood | Mark, If you would like to understand some fishermen's (not all) viewpoint you need to buy the book "SILVER FROM THE SEA" written by Freddy Gillies. It is an excellent account of what has happened around our coasts for the last 50 years and written by a fisherman. Hopefully we can learn from the mistakes & mismanagement of the past. |
Tue 17 Jan 2006 @ [16:39] |
| Mark Carter | When you break down the aims of National Park (Scotland) Act 2000 several sections stand out: · Conserve and enhance the natural AND cultural heritage · Promote sustainable use of the natural resources · Promote understanding and enjoyment · Promote sustainable social AND economic development With this much emphasis on: PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE USE OF RESOURCES and PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Why are some fishermen so against it? To state, “There isn’t a problem” is simply not true. As other areas important for commercial fishing fail (most are now outside safe biological limits – FACT) more and more interest will be focused on areas such as the west coast of Scotland. This was the case witnessed by Galloway fishermen, when they saw their local agreements and commercial stocks striped away by large commercial fishing vessels from other regions. Surely it makes sense to try to protect our local stocks for our local community fishermen? Especially as most of these community fishermen are very environmentally conscious. A properly managed CMNP with local involvement could help to achieve this and eventually reduce the amount of legislation or certainly simplify it. I would very much like to understand the fishermen’s viewpoint as it is an important angle and may help in future discussions and decisions. |
Tue 17 Jan 2006 @ [11:35] |
| Janet Church | For the last twenty five years I have earned my living farming mussels, I have swum, dived, bird watched, sailed, water skied, picnicked and enjoyed sunsets and sunrises of breathtaking beauty on the West coast of Scotland and am fully aware that anyone using the marine environment for commercial gain whether they be boat hirers, scientists, aquaculturists, eco-tourism operators, fisherman or shore side hoteliers will have a biased agenda as will any group or individual seeking power or notoriety: this should always be borne in mind by any public funded body such as SNH who are asked to submit policies that may result in legislation affecting the future of the marine environment and the people involved in it. I feel it is extremely important that a balance be kept between the eco systems which exist at present and that any meddling by humans whether well intentioned or exploitative must be very carefully monitored. If an area proposed for a Marine National Park has been well documented over the past few years and the data recorded it will be far easier to see the effect such designations may make in all their aspects and without this criteria there can be no comparisons; the introduction or reintroduction of new activities or species should always be envisaged in the over all picture and clear criteria of the purpose of the marine park should be tabled for everyone to see. My own suggestions therefore are as follows:- 1. Specify clearly the purpose of establishing a Marine National Park in Scotland. 2. Research all data concerning other Marine National parks noting the failures as well as the successes 3. Preserve all data already recorded in the chosen area for future reference 4. Select a similar control site for monitoring over time. 5. In order to preserve a balance the controlling body or its advisory arm should contain as wide a variety of stakeholders as possible 6. Monitoring all aspects of the park should take place constantly and the data correlated alongside that of a similar non-designated site, including fiscal data. 7. Any changes in policy should be put forward for consultation again. |
Mon 16 Jan 2006 @ [15:11] |
| David Woodhouse | Don Macneish puts an enthusiastic case for the Clyde but I feel that most people standing on the edge of this would see the Clyde as some sort of playground national park and I can hear some people talking about theme parks all over again of this were to go ahead. However!! linked in to a much bigger park would be another matter entirely and I think the rest of the park being wilder and more unspoilt would in a sense help to 'green up' the Clyde area. As part of a bigger island and marine national park covering a big slab of the West Coast I see green sense in adding Clyde to such a park. However as I have stated in a previous posting I can also see gigantic problems in bringing any of the mainland into the marine park scenario and I actually do not feel that it makes that much sense to any normal thinking person. So there's the problem! Can I also suggest something to Douglas Reid. The biggest single threat to what he appears to hold dear is 'apathy' and it has not helped Mull or any of the other islands in the past. The reality is that these islands have no 'plan', they have 'no sense of direction' and no 'philosophy' for the future, there is also no collective 'ambition' for the future. In short there is no body or community force on any of these islands that is prepared to care deeply about them and decide on a way forward. Or put even shorter for Douglas, one thing rules here and will into the future and that is 'market forces'. Is that really the way for somewhere so delicately poised as this area is with all of its natural wonders and current quality of life? Market forces have destroyed most of mainland Britain where rural people were also not looking over their shoulder at so called 'progress' heading their way. I suggest that the only way that we can go forward into the future with a philosophy that will bring contentment and success here, is to be a Marine National Park and for this to be as large an area as possible. Can I also say that the suggestion of lots of little parks makes no sense at all. |
Mon 16 Jan 2006 @ [10:47] |
| Don Macneish | I think a Marine National Park would be a very positive step forward for Scotland. By Marine National Park I understand it to mean: Marine: found in, or relating to the sea. National: involving or relating to the nation as a whole. National Park: an area of countryside for the public use, designated by national government as being a notable scenic, environmental, or historic importance. I would like firstly to question why a country like Scotland with so much important marine habitat should be only considering one Marine National Park, why not several? Having surveyed the short list of proposed sites by SNH, I feel the Clyde has a strong case to cover the above criteria. These could be identified as follows, 1. Easily defined area of relatively sheltered water, with an overall balance of all types of marine habitats ranging from estuarine to open water, with multiple access points. The area covered should be from Greenock to Ailsa Craig, with everything in between including all the islands of the Clyde. 2. The park would be easily accessible to the public by bus, train, car and aeroplane. The potential site lays next to the central belt on Scotland and would offer access to the greatest number of people with the shortest travelling time. 3. The area is world famous for its scenic quality and reflects all aspects of the nations topography, including mountains. 4. From designation the marine environments point of view the Clyde is the Cinderella of Scotland. It has had no protection of the marine environment of any sort and consequently seen over exploitation of marine stocks to a point of near collapse. This would be a prime candidate to demonstrate Scotland’s resolve to look after its marine habitat for future generations. 5. The Clyde area is the historic cradle of the nation, from the Neolithic chambered cairns that ring the Clyde, the Castles that stud its shores, the Industrial heritage that made the name of the Clyde synonymous with quality engineering, to world class recreational opportunities the now cover the shores of the Clyde. To conclude I feel the Clyde meets all the possible criteria for a first rate Marine National Park, I am aware of the pressures from other quarters to site the first park in other locations and I wish those proposing them well, but I think the practical and pragmatic considerations tip the balance in favour of the Clyde. |
Fri 13 Jan 2006 @ [14:27] |
| Douglas Reid | Having read Davids points I see nothing to improve our lot. On point one we are already here and if we leave things alone rather than interferring unduly then things will stay the same! Its not daft, its just a case if 'if its not broken , dont fix it'. Point two would suggest that the National Park Authority would have some elevated bargaining position over our local and community councils.....but , as he rightly states , none of us have the time to sit on commitees etc so who will??? This is one of my points ,that we will not be represented properly in any of the controlling bodies in a CMNP and there is the potential for the 'lunatic' fringes to have a voice beyond their significance. Points three and four are pretty well the same thing and really are to do with promoting tourism which , I do not think is necessary as we are already bursting at the seams during the season. I dont , therefore , see where any year round employment is going to come from for our dwindling numbers of young people. We have a huge danger on this island of becoming a glorified 'theme park' with an aging population who will be able to lock up after the rally, take the summers profit to the sun for the winter and come back at the end of february to start work. Maybe a slight stretching of the point but if we do not build on our basic industries its a possible path!! |
Fri 13 Jan 2006 @ [09:03] |
| David Woodhouse | The following are a few initial suggestions as to why I believe Marine National Park status would be good for the area. Firstly if anyone believes that these wonderful islands can simply wander into the 21st century and things will stay the same must be daft when so called progress has crept over the whole of Britain and swallowed up most of the countryside on its way. Secondly we are an area where every island and every headland community is currently abandoned by government to do its own thing, often with a very scattered population where local people already work hard and battle the elements and the damage it can do to their properties and business's on a daily basis. Can anyone here truly afford the time, money and energy to attend committee meetings to discuss rural transport, closure of the local school, the need for a children's playgro |