| 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 playground, essential road repairs etc etc. As a Marine National Park we would all be in this together and as one voice to get things done and delivered. Who is likely to get a road repaired on Coll, the National Park Authority or a couple of locals on the island?? Thirdly as a Marine National Park we would be illustrated in a thousand coffee table books around the world and many discerning travellers would get to know about the wonders of Scotland's Sea Kingdom and its people. Mull is currently lumped in with Stirling and the Trossachs !! Is someone out there going to tell me that there is some advantage in that!!! Fourth We become a 'quality destination' in the eyes of potential visitors instead of just another destination and that means a far more rounded and buoyant economy for all who live within the park. In my opinion this will stimulate more young people to stay and create the sorts of jobs for themselves that they could enjoy here. There are plenty more pluses and I will add more in a few days time for anyone interested. |
Tue 10 Jan 2006 @ [17:44] |
| Douglas Reid | Having relied on fishing for my income over the last 20years on Mull I have been really taken aback at some of the comments aimed at our industry recently. We work very much in the background getting on with our busy lives and so have a much lower profile than the tourism industry. We do however, provide well paid, all year round employment for the younger generations which are the lifeblood of any thriving community. The actual amounts of income is in the process of being quantified and I know the final figures will be staggerring . The majority of our generated income, significantly, goes straight back into the local economy. The biggest problem I have found on Mull is finding young people to work in our industry . The 'economic' migration of young people from the islands is mainly due to the lack of decent employment, coupled with unaffordable house prices. The tourist industry does not supply this to the same extent as fishing and aquaculture, as it is run, generally, by an older and sometimes semi retired age group and most of the profit genereted is tied up in personal bank accounts. Our industry has never been and has no wish to be at loggerheads with these other industries , the growth of which has expanded to what seems to be verging on over capacity ,but I do feel as if we are being undervalued. We are by far the most important users of the sea around our area and if we had not been fishing responsibly throughout our long past, then we would not have survived in our successful businesses and the wildlife in our waters and coast would not be as abundant and diverse as it very obviously is. I fail to see what a CMNP could bring to our area apart from further increases in house prices and the introduction of a nightmare of beaurocracy and the appearance of large numbers of unrepresentative quangos making decisions on areas of our lives which they know nothing about, the danger being that the single issue blinkered campaigners get a voice which is far above their significance. To thrive, Mull needs more industries like fishing and aquaculture providing long term all year round jobs for the younger end of the employment market so that we can buck the current trend of our increasingly aging population, not some politically motivated administration system which will waste vaste amounts of public money which would be far better spent on local infrastructure and attracting sustainable industries. We dont need any boost to tourism and we certainly do not need any further restrictions on our basic industries, so we have nothing to gain from the so called added value which seems to be one of the main aims in the formation of a CMNP. |
Mon 9 Jan 2006 @ [09:00] |
| Alan Stobie | May I commend SNH for including Argyll Coast & Islands as a contender for the Coastal and Marine National Park, and take the opportunity to make a couple of suggestions which I believe will add value to the ongoing deliberations. In a nutshell my suggestion is that the Argyll Coast & Island search area be expanded southwards to include not only Islay as discussed in the recent paper, but also more of the mainland. The recent report from SNH (CMNPA – SNH Stakeholder group discussion paper ‘stage 2’) rightly points out that two of the natural breaks in the West Coast are Kintyre and Mull. Together the South Coast of Mull, West Coast of Kintyre and the mainland between the two form a natural bowl with a common history, land and seascapes that would make a very well defined Coastal and Marine National Park. In making a case for what basically amounts to the inclusion of West Loch Tarbert and a small part of West Kintyre (down to e.g Tayinloan) in the search area, I give further consideration below to Geography & Administrative boundary; Landscape character and seascape; Transport; History & Biodiversity; and finally Economic benefit. The potential social and economic benefit that designating part of West Kintyre could bring to the whole peninsula should not be underestimated. [Map showing suggested search area sent to Emma Jordon available on request] Reasons in Detail: 1. Geography & Administrative boundary Inclusion of the mainland coast to include parts of West Kintyre along with Islay would create a natural bowl within which the Marine part of the National Park could comfortably sit. The addition of West Loch Tarbert and West Kintyre would complete the mainland encirclement of the area and form a neat self contained administrative area. 2. Landscape Character and Seascape West Loch Tarbert and the West Coast of Kintyre are designated as Regional or Local scenic areas (Kintyre & Mid Argyll Local Plans). West Loch Tarbert is often referred to as the most beautiful sea loch in Scotland (VisitScotland, http://www.visitscottishheartlands.com/areas/argyll/kintyre.cfm ), and its inclusion in any marine national park would not only be appropriate, but should be desirable. Addition of the Island of Gigha might also be considered. The entire area shares a common seascape with Jura at its centre, visible from both South Mull and West Kintyre. 3. Transport The inclusion of West Kintyre’s port of Kennacraig would provide the final piece in the public access jigsaw. From the port there are regular sailings to Islay and Jura and in the summer months it is possible to connect to Oban via Colonsay. Thus easy public access to the whole of the marine part of the Park would be available. In addition the ‘West Coast’ cycle route No 78, (www.sustrans.org.uk ), which extends from Kennacraig around West Loch Tarbert, Loch Caolisport and the banks of the Crinan Canal and onwards to Oban, provides excellent recreational transport through much of the coastal area. The Kintyre long distance footpath will also fringe the area. 4. History & Biodiversity The addition of West Kintyre would bring historic sites such as the Kilberry Sculptured Stones (Historic Scotland), Dun Skeig Fort and Duns (Historic Scotland) and the Ballochroy standing stones (www.ancient-scotland.co.uk ) within the National Park. Historic villages such as Clachan in West Kintyre could also be included. The inclusion of ‘West Kintyre’ would also bring part of the Tarbert Woods SAC, noted for its old sessile oak woods, within the National Park. (http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0030286 ) The Rhunahaorhine Point section of the Kintyre Goose roosts SPA (http://www.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=1948 ) could also be included, providing the opportunity for closer & better management of both these nationally important areas. 5. Economic Benefit The last consideration in stage 3 of SNH’s published assessment is ‘Are there likely to be specific social and economic benefits for the area of designation as a National Park? The approved Argyll and Bute Structure plan (http://www.argyllbute.gov.uk/yourcouncil/doclib/structureplan ) deals with the potential of “the West of Argyll and Bute to be promoted as an Argyll Isles – Rural Development Area”. This includes all the islands and an area of the mainland including Seil, West Loch Tarbert and Kintyre. In part this reflects the benefit that increased tourism could bring to these beautiful but relatively depressed areas. The inclusion of part of West Kintyre in a National Park could bring economic benefit not only to the immediate area, but also to the whole peninsula which is recognised as one of the most economically depressed areas in Argyll. Tarbert, often described as having the most beautiful natural harbour in Scotland, but economically disadvantaged due to its wrongly perceived remoteness, could benefit economically from being one of the gateway towns into the National Park. Alan Stobie, Achavit, PA29 6XZ |
Wed 4 Jan 2006 @ [21:20] |
| Anon. | In response to Mr.Palmers suggestions that a line be drawn from point to point around the coast of Skye and that ALL commercial inside this line be banned..Why!The vast majority of the fishing within these lines offers little enviromental impact.So why should it be banned.Does Mr.Palmer know how many fisherman would lose their livelihoods.Does he care? Anyway the largest percentage of marine diversity lies in the shallow kelp beds just off the shore,where many species of fish/shellfish are found,lumpsuckers,wrasse,pollack,congers,pipe fish,dragonets,bullheads,rockling,shore cod,cuddies,green crab,velvet crabs,small brown crab,lobsters,sand crabs etc are all found here.(These species are all the main diet of the otter,a main player in the world of ecotourism.)The only type of commercial fishing to take place here is creeling for velvet crabs,a very enviromental friendly fishery.So any suggestions of banning ALL commercial fishing is i`m afraid very naive and totally misguided.It is as ridiculus as me suggesting a ban on all English people retiring in Skye! |
Fri 30 Dec 2005 @ [22:05] |
| A big park plus | I have a huge list of pluses for Marine Park status and will happily list these in a few days time if anyone is interested but meantime I have a thought which links in to my 'think big' because I can hear someone saying, that sounds expensive!! With regard mainland national parks it has always been pretty impractical to create some sort of entrance fee/environmental tax, entirely because of logistics and because bigger parks usually have many entrances. At the same time it has been an aspiration of management groups and local communities to do this because the environmental mood of the public is very sympathetic to such things. In fact most peole visiting Mull would I think be rather pleased to contribute to the parks maintenance, provided their £1 or whatever was going directly into community run environmental projects. As our new park would be an island and sea thing we therefore have the perfect opportunity to actually put such a thing in place and I suggest this because all who visit here would have to get on a ferry. I am not sure of the legal situation but I would initially suggest a small charge be included within the ferry ticket, making it perfectly clear what this is for. I would expect the ferry operators in conjunction with the Park authority to create a small map/ticket showing the park in illustrated simplistic form and on the back of this could be business sponsors who would offer £2 off a whale watch and perhaps another half dozen discounts from other business's, that idealy have a green bias. Perhaps even a free glass of organic wine at a restaurant etc. This would then mean that the £1 tax could end up being a £10 gain for any visitor. The bottom line however is that the park would have regular and substantial funding going into community projects. Cal Mac obviously have figures showing how many people currently visit the islands and this could be a starting point as to how much to charge. Mull has 1,000 people on its 10am summer sailing to Mull as a point of interest. I would also back this suggestion up with the fact that almost all of my own guests that I have run this idea past, have indicated that they would be genuinely 'happy' to contribute. Add of course the fact that we know that most people visiting these islands are pretty environmentally sympathetic anyway and so the target audience is already on our side. We are not after all asking them to donate a pound to the new casino in Glasgow. Needles to say that local people who always buy a discounted book of tickets [ i.e. 2 returns and get the third free] would be exempt from the charge. I think we would be positively foolhardy not to look very seriously at the above suggestion and how to implement it because it also gives us more reason to think big re the park boundaries if financing this is considered an issue. The above is a suggestion only and is obviously for debate but please do not come up with the usual stock answer, in that visitors would be put off by such an idea, because this is not true. It is after all the cost of half a lager!! |
Fri 30 Dec 2005 @ [11:22] |
| pete rawcliffe | Further to the request below, the specific links are: * fisheries management - http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/natparks/CMNP/CMNPASG3-2.pdf * assessment framework - http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/natparks/CMNP/CMNPASG3-3.pdf Alternatively, click on 'stakeholder involvement' on the left hand side of this page, then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on 'coastal and marine national parks stakeholder group'. The papers from the thee meetings held to date can then be accessed - hopefully these are all of interest, but the the papers specifically referred to can be found by clicking on the '3rd meeting' bullet |
Fri 30 Dec 2005 @ [09:08] |
| David Woodhouse | I am with Ben Palmer and Skye but I am with Mull also. However I am also with Colonsay, Coll, Islay and Rhum etc. In fact I have always felt that any Marine National Park in the west would make no sense if it included some islands but excluded others because each have their own special something to offer such a park. It is essential in my opinion that we think bigger than is normally the case!! I would go north to the Butt of Lewis and south to the Mull of Oa on Islay. Then to the eastern tip of Mull and west to the most westerly point in the Outer Hebrides. Yes this is an environmental designation but in this case it is most definitely an economic one too and I see a huge life line in National Park status for our remoter islands if my bigger park suggestion were taken up. I also feel that it would dilute the honey pot argument which might concern some if it were a small park area. Reflecting on some peoples keenness to include the mainland of Scotland. I have a feeling that this was something that felt right, rather than is right with regard a Marine National Park and I believe there would be gigantic complications in how far it went inland etc etc. I also feel that it weakens what would be a very 'romantic sell' for the area if the mainland were part of this!! In fact I know that any commonsense individual standing on the mainland and looking west to what they perceive as Scotland's Marine National Park, would not assume it included the mainland they were standing on. In fact I think that commonsense would tell them that yes the sea out there and the island's in the distance but why the actual mainland? I therefore feel that the boundary of the new park should begin with the water lapping the mainland shoreline, or possibly the immediate shoreline? I will leave the nautical experts to decide how far out to sea the parks northen, eastern, southern and western extremities should go. I believe the above is very deliverable without the mainland complication and above all it would make sense to almost everyone. We cannot include Skye without Islay. We cannot single out Mull and its satellite islands because it is unfair not to offer the chance to Lewis and Harris. We also currently have the quite ridiculous situation of the islands I have mentioned operating under different tourism areas, which weakens the tourism effort hugely in my opinion. I mean, what the heck is Mull doing lumped with Stirling and the Trossachs!!! Surely we should all be part of a Hebridean Islands tourism umbrella or under Scotlands Sea Kingdom etc. On rural transport, marketing of tourism and local produce etc etc each island is currently doing entirely its own thing. Given my more holistic approach we could truly become the exciting force that we should be in bringing international attention, quality jobs for young people, European revenue, medical care etc etc to the area. The sea would be managed in a fair way for all, there could be more inter island ferry sailings, probably an environmental tourism interpretive project for the region instead of this sticky back plastic approach that we currently have. We could genuinely grab the ecotourism baton and every single person here would prosper under the green thinking environmental umbrella of Marine National Park. |
Thu 29 Dec 2005 @ [13:54] |
| Ben Palmer | I would recommend that the Isle of Skye be designated as the first marine park as it is readily accessible, has around 350 miles of coastline, an abundance of wildlife, uniique geology, is tailor made for an abundance of water sports and has spectacular land and seascapes although that may change if Highland Council have their way with their proposed renewable energy strategy which will cover Skye with wind turbines. I would also suggest that a line is drawn around Skye from point to point and ban all commercial fishing inside that line. |
Mon 26 Dec 2005 @ [11:54] |
| Mark Carter | Hi Pete, Can't find the discussion paper mentioned in your posting, please can you give further directions. |
Sat 24 Dec 2005 @ [11:58] |
| Pete Rawcliffe | Thank you for all your continuing contributions – which we are taking careful note and will report on as part of our advice. As we break for the festive period, I thought it may be useful to flag up two specific aspects of SNH’s work. First, the assessment work we are undertaking, and which we presented at the recent national seminars, has progressed to the point where we have an initial list of the areas that are likely to be the main contenders for a coastal and marine national park. The list was presented to SNH’s national stakeholder group for coastal and marine national parks at its meeting on the 15th December, and the relevant paper can be found elsewhere on these web-pages. The list includes locations in Argyll, Lochaber and Skye, the Northwest Highland Coast, the Western Isles, Shetland, and the Solway, Clyde and Moray Firths. We need to develop a shorter list of possibilities to give to Ministers in March next year, but before then we welcomes views from everyone with an interest in these areas. Comments can be placed on this message board or separately in writing to SNH. Second, we have been giving some further thought to the options for fisheries management with a Coastal and Marine National Park. A paper on the subject was presented to the recent meeting of the national stakeholder group and can again be found elsewhere on these web-pages. This suggests a number of issues and opportunities for fisheries management within a future National Park, and highlights the critical importance of developing an effective relationship between a future Park Authority and the work of the new Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFGs). The importance of ensuring the Park Authority can draw on a wide range of fishing expertise in the management and governance of its area is also emphasised. We would again very much welcome views on the options presented in this paper. Pete Rawcliffe CMNP Project Mananger Scottish Natural Heritage |
Fri 23 Dec 2005 @ [18:00] |
| David McNair | From an angling perspective common skate being captured by hull based longliners gutted and dumped so as not to be recaptured each fish approximate worth £1000+ to the local economy enormous quantitys of Spurdog being removed the overall population is approx 15% of what it was previously. lesser spotted dogfish captured and dumped as groundbait for the above. if your shell fishing is sustainable and not environmentally destructive then you have no gripes from sea anglers and most likely no conflict with a national park. Anglers however would benefit from some environmental protection and would support you should you have issues with newer more intensive forms of shellfishing that undoubtably will appear in the future. |
Thu 22 Dec 2005 @ [15:12] |
| Keith Chesney(formerly anon) | You say that many MPAs and MNPs help replenish dwindling fishing stocks because obviously you think our stocks need replenishing.Wrong.The level of creel caught shellfish stocks around Mull(by far the largest sector)have remained at a sustainable level for many years now with very little enviromental impact. Could you please tell me what needs protected in our enviroment? What is so under threat that we need to create a national park?Specific details please. Why do you think your children may never see seals or otters unless a MNP is formed? |
Wed 21 Dec 2005 @ [23:13] |
| Mark Carter | The concept of Marine National Parks is not new, around the world many MNP’s and Marine Protected Areas provide for protection of habitats, help in replenishing dwindling commercial fish stocks and provide for local economies. I had been studying the best possible/available legislation to provide for duel purposes: protection of our environment and sustainable use of our seas resources. The National Park (Scotland) Act 2000 appears to fit the bill. For the past three years, along with others I have been trying to explain the current situation to our local area. When I started I firmly believed that aquaculture was the way forward for a sustainable future and that fishing can be truly sustainable. Maybe I was naïve, or maybe it has just been the nature of the businesses or individuals that I have been dealing with. During the last three years I have witnessed the following from selected members of the fishing and aquaculture industries: lying, being economical with the truth, bullying, delaying tactics, contraventions of legislation and mass seal slaughter affecting a Special Area of Conservation for seals. This is by no way indicative of the majority of fishermen who I know and respect. I have seen a “whitewash” situation build within Management Forums in favour of the fishing associations, the Head of Inshore Fisheries publicly stated that she had the “the ear of the Minister and that (a conservation issue) would not happen”, people have told me that they feel unable to voice their own concerns for the fear of loosing their jobs and the latest is that some fishermen have felt the need to reluctantly withdraw support due to peer pressure. It is a shame that Nick (and his previous comments) have not been party to the history of these issues. If the new alliance includes “new blood” and not dictated to by the “old guard” then I apologise if I have offended anyone. However at present the status quo remains: fishermen, who feel unable to give their names constantly refer to themselves as those with “real” knowledge of the sea. If this were true, why are most of the world’s commercial fish stocks outside safe biological limits? But this is not just the fault of any fishermen; blame must also lie with the buyers, the consumers and the politicians. Why has a local fish farm application been moved closer to a protected seal colony, one that has been subjected to such abuse in the past? There is room out there for everyone, if there could be just a little give and take, especially by those who currently have access to just about 100% of the total area. As to my personal prejudices, I wasn’t aware that I had any, but the deeper I delve into selected members of the two industries the less I feel that they have the will to even want to comply. This may be a case of “a few rotten apples” but it’s a view that is spreading, some of which is being pressured. If this is a case of a few spoiling it for the majority then I welcome any new approach. Especially one, which actually wants to discuss issues rather than what has presently been seen as some simply stating, “We don’t want it”. Back to the real debate: no fishermen need loose any jobs with the creation of a CMNP, indeed if managed properly they could benefit greatly, aquaculture could find favourable areas free from other conflicting users and just a little of what makes this area so special can be protected for future generations. We currently have just 0.0006% of inshore waters afforded “true” protection. If I am to be held prejudice, for wanting to protect just a few small areas around my home, for wanting my children to witness the wonders that I have seen, to want to continue to see the otters and seals outside my house then I am guilty: guilty as charged. I'm with David, have a Happy Christmas! |
Sun 18 Dec 2005 @ [11:50] |
| David Woodhouse | Well I am very glad to see the site is livening up. I was getting pretty bored of starring in the Dave and Anonymous show. Why don't we all have a rest now with Christmas coming up? First week of January I will post a huge list of reasons why we should look favourably on a Marine National Park and someone can post a list of why we shouldn't. |
Sat 17 Dec 2005 @ [18:13] |
| Nick Turnbull | I am saddened that Mark Carter has made the assertions that he has in the most recent comments. If anyone is bothering to read this message board they will have a clearer picture of his own vision of our fishing and fishfarming businesses. The debate, I believe, is about MNP's and his personal prejudices have no place here. Perhaps it would be best for Mark to wait until our new Mull Aquaculture and Fishing Association has decided on its policy re. Marine Park before any more comment. I hope we can all be mature enough to listen to each others viewpoints without descending into slanging matches. It is a pity that Mr Finnie and his proposed marine park is unwittingly causing conflict where it didn't exist before. We have only formed an Association out of necessity. After all, is this not what Mark has already done with his Hebridean Partnership, and many other associations and groups? If our sector doesn't do something we are likely to be marginalised. Is there a real problem to our industries being allowed to express a view? While I don't necessarily agree with Bill McDermott, his method of debate is reasonable and fair and I respect him for that. |
Sat 17 Dec 2005 @ [17:09] |
| Bill mcDermott | The anonymous local fisherman has nothing to fear and everything to gain. The whole basis of any management system for fisheries within a national park would be to localise it and to make it sustainable. What is more, almost everybody recognises the disaster which has been visited on our fishing communities by the CFP. Maintaining that fishing heritage as an active and viable activity would be a prime mover in any national park authority's deliberations. Making sure that the catch sector is represented on the authority and on advisory forums is equally important. | Sat 17 Dec 2005 @ [09:17] |
| Anon. | All the commerical fisherman are asking for is a fair `stakeholder` representation to protect their interests within any proposed national marine park that may or may not occur.Why should we stand by and let the whole thing be controlled by people who know little or nothing of the area.Fisherman spend more time in the marine enviroment than any other user and yet until recently were scantly under represented in any of the clandestine consultations(and it would seem we are not the only ones) The cornerstone of many peoples arguments seems to centre around how much income their particular concern generates and not what that income does for the island.O.k so the commerical fishing on Mull only brings in around 3million a year but it supports an awful lot of cultural heritage.The vast majority of fisherman have young families,look at any school role on Mull. |
Fri 16 Dec 2005 @ [23:12] |
| Mark Carter | For two weeks running the Oban times have printed front-page articles concerning fishermen and the prospect of a Coastal & Marine National Park. When I contacted the newspaper to try and refute the validity of the information given by a particular fisherman I received a very unhelpful barrage of comments from the reporter. She constantly stated “right of reply, right of reply”. What about my right of reply? “You can write a letter to the editor”. No front page for me! To which the reporter leapt out with the comment, “he (the fisherman) is responding to your front-page article”. However, I don’t recall having had a front-page article. The Oban Times did send a reporter to an open forum hosted by the Hebridean Partnership and the views printed on the front page the following week were comments made by members of the general public at that “open” meeting. I guess that is as near to a front-page article that I could possibly hope for? When you consider that the Oban Times Group also includes the “Fish Farming Today”, “Fish Farmer Magazine”, “Fishing Monthly” and the “European Fish Trader”! What makes matters worst, having been self-employed and an islander, is that I am fully supportive of sustainable, environmentally friendly use of the seas resources, furthermore I believe that these can co-inside with protecting habitats and the species, which occur within them. And yet we now see the fishing and aquaculture industries trying to form an alliance, against CMNP’s. This alliance will be formed within small communities with influential people at its heart, those who shout and push the loudest. What of the regions largest industry, tourism? Perhaps all of the bed and breakfast owners, hoteliers, restaurants and boat operators, the anglers, canoeists and yachtsmen etc. etc. should form another alliance to protect their interests? What is really silly is that a CMNP must cater for the cultural and natural interests, sustainable business lies at its heart. Maybe that is the problem; those who shout the loudest know that their industries are not sustainable? And can only exist by gaining the support of their more sustainable colleagues around them? What is for sure one of Scotland’s best most eligible areas, one short-listed by SNH, may fail to become Scotland’s first CMNP due to the influence of a few greedy or ill-informed people and a biased press. As usual the quiet majority, still having to earn a living on the “left-overs” continue unaware of the potential missed opportunity. A point of interest to end with: Scotland has over 1500 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI’s) and many other conservation designations, the world of commerce still exists on land. What is so different at sea? |
Fri 16 Dec 2005 @ [14:52] |
| Ian Burrett | It is disappointing for many that recreational sea angling (RSA) will be so poorly represented in the Marine Park stakeholder meetings. The UK government has produced figures estimating that RSA is worth up too £1.3 Billion to the English and Welsh economy. Details at http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/latest/index.php?view=236 Figures released by Carwyn Jones, Minister for Countryside, Environment and Planning reveal that a partnership, between Environment Agency Wales and the Wales Tourist Board (WTB) has proved to be a winning formula for angling in Wales. A recent marketing campaign by Results from research carried out to measure the effectiveness of the Fishing Wales marketing campaigns show that those requesting a Fishing Wales brochure took a total of 58,687 fishing trips to Wales worth £69 million to the Welsh economy in 2004-2005, £27.3 million of this was directly attributable to the campaign activity itself. Details at http://www.anglingnews.co.uk/rep_detail.asp?ID=3967 The Welsh report also shows clearly what can be achieved with the right political will. The problem as my organisation the Sea Anglers Conservation Network (SACN) Details at http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/sacn sees it, is that 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. We have many times demonstrated that, in some cases, for some species, in some areas, 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’. RSA are only interested in Whitefish. The total UK commercial landings for these species were only £49 million last year. Compare this to the £1.3 Billion then you can see why Tony Blair said “Sea anglers must be given equal stakeholdership.” On the 7th December Ben Bradshaw the English fisheries minister said in the fisheries debate in the house of Parliament “It is extraordinary that although we have 1 million recreational fishermen who spend £1 billion a year on their activity, they are totally excluded from making decisions on what could be a really exciting and expanding sector of the economy. We would expect such people to have full influence when recreational angling gives significant value to a fishery. The first ever byelaw was passed recently in England which gives angling precedence over commercial fishing. It is now illegal to land tope in the jurisdiction of the North Eastern Sea Fishing Committee The Bass management plan drawn up by anglers has been given the full UK government backing which as its main proposal will increase the MLS to allow the fish to have spawned at least once. This will be hopefully implemented in the 2006 marine bill. In just a few years there will be more and bigger fish for both RSA and the commercial sector. In Scotland the value of RSA is not recognised by Mr. Finnie, Ceerad and other government departments. I thought it very typical that there are 5 commercial fishing organizations on the Marine park stakeholder group and not one from RSA even though we create 19,000 full time jobs in the UK and are also considered major stakeholders by Defra. On the Marine park issue I was disappointed that more emphasis isn’t being placed on conservation. It appears that they will be not much more than theme parks using the trendy fashionable marine park title to promote tourism. Many of the marine parks models around the world have Marine protected areas (MPA’s) and No Take zones (NTZ’s) and their basic remit is to improve the fish stocks and the general state of the eco system within the given area, whilst promoting tourism. Do you envisage that a Scottish marine park management will be allowed to impose their own restrictions on conservation issues? If not then this could be a missed opportunity to help restore fish stocks. Happily, the kind of management needed to produce an angling, rather than simply a commercial 'product' also align well with the long term conservation needs of most species. Anglers want to catch larger specimens, which happen to produce far more and healthier fry, resulting in more available fish for the commercial Industry. It really is a win win situation. RSA is changing fast with the emphasis now being on catch and release. Anglers are accepting that bag limits might need to be imposed and are quite prepared to do their bit to help restore fish stocks As RSA will be one of the major targets for developing income in the marine parks I ask the SNH management to reconsider and invite a representative from the SACN and the Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers (SFSA) to the stakeholder meetings. Kind regards Ian Burrett Scottish Regional co-ordinator for the SACN |
Fri 16 Dec 2005 @ [14:09] |
| David McNair | A Scottish Marine National Park what an opportunity, a chance to tap into our other natural resource, unlike our oil this can be a sustainable resource and a shared one at that. Correctly managed and promoted this should be a godsend for the fortunate population that wins this prize, an opportunity to create jobs that may hold dwindling populations in areas when the EU grants begin to run dry. However the park does not stop at the seashore probably 90% of it will be subsurface where almost no one has a clue as to what is going on below the surface with the exception of a few, notably Recreational Sea Anglers, Divers and Static Gear fishermen. Some would rather you never knew, that some people are destroying the right of others to share in this sustainable resource. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/Video/6770.wmv This is the Can of Worms that Ross Finnie and SNH are afraid of and why they wish to keep the control of marine spatial planning off the table and bury it in a welter of EU/Westminster/Holyrood legislature. Scots have never been afraid to lead so why do the powers that be hide from this issue. Hand control of the marine spatial planning to the park authority, remove all other layers of bureaucracy, (at present 10 monkeys with 10 typewriters could come up with an effective marine spatial plan quicker than EU/Westminster/Holyrood). A park without this autonomy is a park in name only; would the public tolerate open cast mining on a park size scale in the cairngorms/peak district or indiscriminate destruction of wildlife and fauna in any other national park? Recreational Sea Angling is Scotland's forgotten resource an opportunity to fill the vacancies in the winter, and keep people in tourist driven economies busy, long after the summer season has ended. Completely sustainable and simple to develop (all you need are fish and they don't cost any thing to grow) Ross Finnie will long be remembered as the man who missed the boat if he does not grasp the simple concept that Recreational Sea Angling is worth 100 times more to our economy than commercial fishing. Turn the boat around, stop blindly supporting the commercial sector at the expense of all others, and avoid almost certain economic and ecological disaster. Get with the program - sustainable economic and ecological development. Recreational Sea Anglers demand representation David McNair Coaching Coordinator Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers |
Fri 16 Dec 2005 @ [08:07] |
| maths not my best subject | Got it wrong sorry 200 visitors not 100. |
Thu 15 Dec 2005 @ [16:42] |
| agree of course | As a big fan of National Parks as a promotional tool as well as a protection tool I of course agree with the angler and I think he highlights a massive failing by those in decision making positions who do not recognise that there is more to the rural economy than just our historic industries of farming, shooting etc. Lets look at the cash that a hundred visitors bring into somewhere like Mull, remembering of course that this cash seeps into the pockets of everyone here both directly and indirectly. Remembering also that there are 1,000 visitors alone on a 10am summer ferry from Oban!!! I would say that when two people come here for a weeks holiday staying mid range accommodation and doing the sort of things that visitors do, they probably spend around £1,000 on the island plus cash in getting here. Now anyone can question these figures but they are almost certainly conservative!! So only 100 visitors staying for a week bring in roughly £100,000 to put in the pockets of people on Mull. We all know what is charged by accommodation providers and people like myself doing trips. We know how much it is to eat out and visit the theatre or have a beer at the pub or go fishing!! Now lets suppose that some of the other islands got a little more interested in tourism and like Mull promoted their green credentials!! Lets suppose we truly embraced ecotourism and national parks? Isn't there a good chance that Lewis and Harris and the Uists and others could enjoy their share of these green tourism pounds? We are not selling people insurance here on Mull, we are not selling them a car they do not want, or double glazing, or a new TV, when they have just bought one. They are on their holidays and want this fabulous product that we have in abundance. I suggest that it is plainly stupid not to get greener thinking and become a National Park because it is a win win win situation for all. If our wildlife and wild places also get better protection because of National Park status then what is there to question? |
Thu 15 Dec 2005 @ [16:39] |
| anon | At last RSA(recreational sea angling) has been told of this plan by SNH to create and national park. its a TOTAL DISGRACE that we were not involved at the very start. Bluntly the commercial fishery is small change compared to how much money RSA brings into the area. we believe there is room for the static creel fisherman but there is NO room for the destructive clam dredger and his like. worst of All is the long liner who will wipe out huge stocks of fish and then move on. without these stocks these areas will suffer greatly from the so far hidden benefits of angling. Ask yourself, how often have you seen people fishing from rocks or small craft. how many larger charter boats are there in the area each carrying 12 people at a time. take 1 case. 1 boat(out of many) from Oban for 1 days fishing. 12 people. boat cost £350-£400 a day. 12 people staying at B&B for a night usually 2 because of distance. 12 lots of meals each night. cars fuelled. Drinks in the pubs. snacks bought from the shops. local tackle shop sales. that is the basic spend. add people making holidays out of these trips etc etc. these boats work weather permitting EVERY day. that is just the tip of the iceberg and i could go on and on about the value. Better still ban commercial work and the angling will improve greatly and so will the local economy. do nothing for us and watch whats left wither and die. other countries have identified the benefits of putting anglers at the forefront and now reap the reward. get us onboard before its too late because once its gone it can NEVER be brought back. |
Thu 15 Dec 2005 @ [12:22] |
| correct | What are you on about Mull is inundated by deer especially those estates that don`t shoot them.Yes man is to blame for the initial decline in native woodland and yes i know that the deers` natural habitat used to be such woods but we have to address the current situation.The deer do not allow the trees to regenerate so why isn`t there more of an effort to fence in existing native woodland to allow them to recover.I take it this is why the forestry have deer fences around their plantations!It is a simple point. |
Tue 6 Dec 2005 @ [21:08] |
| yes and no | Agree with most of Bills comments of course but I was not impressed with Madeira and much more impressed with little Gomera also in the Canary Islands. I thought Madeira was a bit like Mauritius, pretty built up and heavy with traffic. I think Madeira went for national parks because they realised they had left it too late and the island was steadily getting destroyed by development. Gomera on the other hand is a bit like Mull, big and beautiful, though it has terrific road surfaces unlike Mull!!!! It also has small roadside timber and stone 'up market' looking shelters, whilst on Mull we have almost nowhere for people to even park let alone shleter!! | Mon 5 Dec 2005 @ [17:51] |
| Bill McDermott | Anent the last flurry of comments, could the anonymous contributor not offer his name? It is better to be open in these matters. We are all on a learning curve, so lets be humble enough to accept this idea of a marine national park might be worth exploring. Faced with positive people or negative people, I know who gets my vote. Life is for living and facing opportunities and challenges. Whilst I hold no brief for the tin pot people at the bottom of the Royal Mile, I do acknowledge that governments can do things and our lives can be improved immeasurably by government action. That is not to say that I am a corporatist or social planner, merely to acknowledge that democracy works most of the time. At long last Scotland has climbed aboard the bus labelled 'national parks'. I wish it had done it 50 years ago or even 126 years ago when it could have. What we need is somebody like Tom Johnstone (Secretary of State in the war years) who could add shape and vision to an idea which is accepted the world over. Unfortunately for us, he was caught up in Churchill's desire to create deutarium for atom bombs, but he did it with style, leaving us a legacy of hydro electricity. What we have with national parks is a 'toe in the water' approach to see if it works. Will any politician out there have a Tom Johnstone moment and start campaigning for a strategy for many more national parks, marine and terrestrial, so that we can lead by example in the world? Even little Madeira can designate 80% of its land mass to natural park status while maintaining an island population that folks in the Hebrides would die for! |
Mon 5 Dec 2005 @ [14:48] |
| Wrong | Deer are a problem but entirely because we have chopped their native woodland down and show no signs of repairing that situation. If deer were such a major problem Mull would be inundated with them when in fact very little shooting actually goes on here. Lets not also forget that deer are hunted by golden eagles and I have seen them many times trying to get deer to stumble when they would take them as carrion later. If sheep were not on the landscape I guarantee that eagles would prey on deer as they almost certainly did a few hundred years ago. If you are worried about deer we could of course also reintroduce the wolf which is a natural predator to deer and this would be good for the economy. As I have stated this whole matter is a big big subject and not for debate here. |
Mon 5 Dec 2005 @ [12:34] |
| Anon. | AND I QUOTE-`I forgot his comment about fencing native woodland to keep deer out but this is already being done and on Landward last week it was also reported that a 6 year study of this very subject has found that deer are not actually the problem!! `Of course areas of woodland will recover when they are fenced and protected. I am trying to do the same around our own small area of land and feel that more people building new houses here should go entirely native as we have done. But the research I mention was not conducted by some village idiot but a very reputable organisation and they have found as I have that deer are not the only problem for young trees trying to regenerate. I am not complaining here but simply stating a fact for the last contributor` So you are agreeing that deer are a MAJOR part of the problem then????? |
Sun 4 Dec 2005 @ [18:40] |
| David Saunders | Dear all, I am studying Marine Resource Management at Aberdeen University, and as part of my final year studies I will be researching the proposal to create a Marine National Park for Scotland. I have created a questionnaire regarding the proposal, and it would be of great help if anyone interested in answering my questions would send me an e-mail at david_saunders_belltree@hotmail.com and I can pass on the questionnaire (please note that the lines at my name in the email address are underscore lines rather than hyphens, shift key and hyphen on the keyboard). My research depends upon receiving a sufficient number of responses from as varied backgrounds as possible, so any help at all would be very much appreciated. Thank you in anticipation David Saunders |
Sun 4 Dec 2005 @ [15:56] |
| too complicated for a website | I agree with some of the stuff in the last two postings. Of course areas of woodland will recover when they are fenced and protected. I am trying to do the same around our own small area of land and feel that more people building new houses here should go entirely native as we have done. But the research I mention was not conducted by some village idiot but a very reputable organisation and they have found as I have that deer are not the only problem for young trees trying to regenerate. I am not complaining here but simply stating a fact for the last contributor. I am unclear as to why the previous person thinks that people supportive of national parks such as myself should want more visitors? I have argued at meetings recently and always have, that we should be pursuing quality on the West Coast and not quantity. Can anyone honestly tell me that Fort William or Oban are a quality product attracting quality tourism pounds? I would say they go for quantity don't you and they want even more coach parties to go there. Is it really they way tourism should be going here?? The point is that the designation of National Park status and more emphasis on ecotourism rather than just any old tourism creates 'at least' the perception that this is a quality destination and don't we all want visitors to stay for a week rather than a day, with endless bed changes and a lack of real interest in the area from these tourists simply passing though. I have previously also pointed out that when prospective visitors have to get a ferry to the entire national park how can we be inundated with more? Wouldn't any sensible park management group ensure that numbers to the park are regulated. All of which creates the sensation for any visitor that they are priviledged to be able to visit and all of this means quality cash going to all here. And before the doubters suggest that more ferrys will simply be deployed, lets remember that this can happen far more easily right now, as can a thousand other things because we have an 'anything goes' policy at the moment. Isn't this why many young people cannot afford a home here, because developers are not providing affordable homes but providing for the rich because there is more money in it!! I think it a 100% certain that a new park board will address this situtation. As for providing quality jobs, perhaps it might be better looked at the other way around. What precisely do we have on the distant horizon to provide any jobs never mind quality ones for young people? As I stated at the outset no one can cover all of the pluses of National Park on a site such as this BUT hopefully the park and oceanic gateway centre wil be truly stunning and provide scientific/research jobs, a land and marine ranger service and obviously people to run the centre. It will be a major outlet for all local food producers, boat trips may well operate from the center. There will be tourism tree planting schemes, possibly kayak hire, cycle hire and hopefully we may even pursade the Scottish Executive to devolve some of their current sea management to the new centre. SNH may well have an office there as may RSPB and that means staff. Could it become the west coasts premier conference centre attracting corporate business from all over Britain? But the most important thing of all is that the region will at last have the quality tag that it has always deserved. Will this create the new community run eco hotel which local people have shares in? because we desperately need more high quality green accommodation throughout the region. Isn't it likely that with park status the quality of tourism accommodation/eating out will improve? All of the above doesn't just create new jobs but stimulates the existing economy and upward into the quality realm and not downwards or sideways as we are moving at present. It is a big big subject and I suggest 'travel' and seeing how others in the world do things as the best way of getting informed. Interesting also that a Scot began the entire national park movement only for his own country to be the second last country in the entire world to agree with him. |
Sun 4 Dec 2005 @ [10:48] |
| anon | I also totally disagree with the research that suggests that deer are not reponsible for the lack of tree regeneration.I have seen plantations on Mull protected by deer fencing and the regeneration is clearly obvious,it took five minutes to come to the right conclusion as opposed to six years to come to the wrong one.I`m sure the researcher was well paid for his troubles,maybe these are the kind of highly paid jobs we could invent in the marine theme park. | Sat 3 Dec 2005 @ [20:39] |
| anon | I cannot understand how the creation of a marine park will address the apparent reduction in whale sightings and decline in breeding seabird levels.If the birds food source has vanished i suggest this is more to do with global warming than any local fishing practises.Although i fear that the local fishing community may well end up as the proverbial whipping boys if a park is created! The large rafts of seabirds i mentioned in my previous post were definately feeding on young fish and there was also a fair number of juv. birds amoungst these rafts.Large `marks` of fish were also seen on the echo sounder around this time.This was also the same time as the majority of the whale sightings,the whales obviously feeding on the same plankton as the fish.Oh and this was in August/September when the birds would have left their breeding cliffs anyway. You seem preoccuppied with the notion that everyone will benefit from the increased tourism that a park status will produce in some direct or indirect form,how exactly?Did it ever occur to you that not all people want increased tourism,i myself would prefer a quieter island as i`m sure the wildlife would.Surely this causes enviromental issues of it`s own,increased sewage,car pollution,disturbed wildlife,litter etc & What are all these highly paid jobs that the `brighter youngsters`are suddenly going to land when a park is formed? |
Sat 3 Dec 2005 @ [20:02] |
| reply to last posting | I don't really want to drop down a level in the debate about Marine Park status but have to take up the specific points raised by the last contributor. The marine environment is not under some imminent catastrophic collapse, but as he should have observed by now we are not particularly good round here at getting ahead of situations!! Our community councils are for instance often bailing things out rather than being proactive and a little more visionary. I can assure the creel fisherman that pressure on the marine environment as well as the islands themselves [which are of course part of any marine park] is increasing and will increase further. I think it is better for all concerned to get ahead of that. He then suggests that I will somehow benefit as a wildlife operator if we are a national park? I don't need the business!! In fact here on Mull at least three other operators have started similar operations and in a nutshell copied me!! I have encouraged others around Scotland to take up the eco baton and spoken on ecotourism to other communities. We have received truly exciting TV and media coverage here because of my own lobbying of the right people and all on Mull benefit from tourism pounds coming into the economy. I could equally say to the creel fisherman 'sounds like you don't want a marine park which will benefit all here because you are only interested in your own business'. I know that I am very community minded and want local people to have better incomes and for young people to have better opportunities here and I have spent 26 years of my own time and money trying to bring that to Mull. If he reads my postings he will see that I am not arguing selfishly for Mull on this but want to see the park bring benefits to the Outer Hebrides and smaller islands. I cannot see how I will gain from operators on Lewis or Barra doing wildlife trips? And anyway I have no idea what greed feels like because I am an Aquarian !!!! Strangely enough one of the few times I do feel what I assume is greed, is when I am eating prawns and my daughter is eating them faster than me!!! Good to hear that this fisherman has seen more whales and dolphins than ever because that is not what the records for 2005 say. In fact here on Mull's west coast it was the worst year since records began!! I have also seen huge numbers of seabirds all summer and this is entirely because most of them have not been breeding and they are not therefore at their breeding cliffs. No one is sure why this is the case but it is almost certainly because of a lack of food. He then goes on about eradicating mink and deer problems but surely this is precisely the sort of thing that will get major attention under park status? The marine environment is not doing 'very well' as he puts it. The seas have been overfished because of greed and fabulous technology on fishing boats but instead of recognising this fishermen blame seals!! I forgot his comment about fencing native woodland to keep deer out but this is already being done and on Landward last week it was also reported that a 6 year study of this very subject has found that deer are not actually the problem!! I am on his side but it is too obscure for him to see. We buy from local fishermen and recommend them, we support farming and have sheeps wool insulation throughout our entire house and employed entirely local people on the build. I should not be attending next weeks National Park meeting in Glasgow at my own expense because I am doing very well thankyou and there is nothing in it for me but I do feel that someone has to speak for our eagles and any dolphin would thank me for my efforts. The natural environment needs better protection in place ready for the future but we also need better promotion of the area because we will never keep our brighter youngsters here with what we currently have to offer them. |
Sat 3 Dec 2005 @ [15:58] |
| anon | That should read`Why does the SNH NOT pursue...... | Sat 3 Dec 2005 @ [10:16] |
| anon | You seem to think that the marine enviroment is under some imminent catastrophic collapse,from what exactly?What exactly do we need to protect ourselves from.Greed?Surely you are thinking that the creation of a marine national park business will benefit your own business,is that not a form of greed? The area is under absolutely no threat whatsoever.This year i have seen more whales and dolphins than in the last fifteen years put together aswell as fantastic numbers of Razorbills,Shearwaters and Guillemots.Does this sound like an area that needs protected?If you want to champion a cause David what about the eradication of mink,not glamourous enough?Or want about putting deer fences around some of the few surviving native woodland corpses so that they can regenerate and provide an enviroment for numerous insect and bird life.Why does the SNH pursue issues that would plainly make a difference instead of trying to control a marine enviroment that is doing very nicely thank you. |
Sat 3 Dec 2005 @ [10:13] |
| David Woodhouse | Not sure whether the creel fisherman is asking a general question or is concerned about his future and livelihood? I cannot think of any reason why a creel fisherman going about his business in the right and proper way should have anything to fear from a marine national park, in fact they would gain from it. However he indirectly raises the point that many people raise when asked to be a little more caring about their natural environment. In short 'why can't I do as I please and why should someone else tell me what to do'? The trouble is that we humans are generally greedy and tend to think of number one. As the most dangerous creature on the planet we unfortunately have to be protected from ourselves. The idea that the west coast and islands is unlike everywhere else in Britain and can simply bob along into the next century and nothing will change simply cannot work and human history has shown that. Within his own area of creel fishing I would suggest that as people are getting more prosperous they are going to have more leisure time. There will be more kayaking, sailing, water ski-ing, wind surfing and far more leisure use of small quays, harbours and bays. Scallop dredging is damaging to his own creel fishing, is he ok if that increases, because why shouldn't it under his anything goes approach. Pouring anything into the sea happens with little control at the moment, does he think that is ok? The reality is that Marine Park Status is a very green way for the whole region and its economy to move forward and creel fishing is only a small part of that jigsaw. Many many other things will improve for himself and his family under National Park status and I personally look forward to enjoying his prawns in our world renowned Oceanic Centre! |
Fri 2 Dec 2005 @ [12:05] |
| anon | As a creel fisherman who works in the firth of Lorne i am rather perplexed that the area in which i earn my living could somehow be controlled by people with little `real `knowledge or understanding of the marine enviroment. |
Tue 29 Nov 2005 @ [19:20] |
| Mark Carter | In reply to the low numbers of comments: The number of contributors to this message board is relatively low those from a bottom up designation are continuously presenting two reasons, they are: - · Few people seem to know what a CMNP actually entails? · Users expect it to produce another layer of bureaucracy and restrictions on their activities. Government agencies and the Ministers appear to do little to address these issues, although it is still early days in the process route chosen by officials. Would it not have been better to explain just what a CMNP is and the potential benefits and pitfalls are before imposing the designation on an area? That way members of the general public would be able to give an informed opinion rather than what is currently seen as scare mongering by some, especially by some in the fishing industry. A CMNP has the potential to radically improve income and infrastructure to coastal communities. It has the potential to improve fishery yields. It has the ability to put in place true spatial planning with more local input and awareness of local concerns actually being acted upon. It has the potential to simplify current legislation. It has the potential to protect vulnerable habitats and species. It has the potential to provide for our children, their children and us. Depending on its make-up, size and location it also has the ability to destroy the very environment and communities that it is set to protect. Government agencies and the Ministers MUST come clean on their views, thoughts and ideas at an early stage. This would allow members of the general public to be able to assess for themselves whether a CMNP in their area is to be a benefit or catastrophe? Marine National Parks around the world have a proven success record, especially those, which employ zoning systems, ALL can benefit. In Scotland however there is an air of a political “white elephant” emerging. |
Tue 22 Nov 2005 @ [10:33] |
| David Woodhouse | As I stated in my previous posting it is a wonder to me that there is so little debate by the populace on the potential that the Marine National Park offers. To be somewhat brutal about this, Loch Lomond is a national park like many others around the world. Cairngorm is another mountainous national park like so many 'BUT' a Hebridean Islands Marine National Park !! Now isn't even the title imagination grabbing? let alone the natural wonders that can behold the visitor here. Here I am in the middle of November and yesterday was my best willdife trip of the year. Mirror calm seas, colours to die for, clear blue sky and warm sun. Who needs wildlife!! But then just after we had seen the otter we were looking for at least 12 bottle nosed dolphins came along the coast and between the point we were on and a small islet just offshore. They were perhaps 40ft away and the wake they created lapped our boots and the sea eagles and golden eagles we saw later just added to another wondrous day in the islands. My guests were in raptures and others were stopping on the roadside and gasping at the antics of the dolphins. A Marine National Park set in one of the most exciting oceanic destinations in the world has to be a gigantic prize for the people of Scotland and a massive green feather in the cap of the nation. Lets get the maps out and finalise the boundaries!! |
Fri 18 Nov 2005 @ [17:25] |
| Bill McDermott | I too am concerned about the lack of debate on the opportunities and challenges the MCNP will present. I trust and hope that SNH will take its nature conservation responsibilities seriously and at least allude to the need for a much wider conservation strategy as proposed in the DEFRA report, 'Towards a Strategy for Marine Conservation'. I would see it as a gross failure on the part of SNH if it did not step up to the plate on this one. Further, we hear a lot about restrictive tendencies in park authorities: to restrict this activity or that practice, when what should be debated is how an MCNP authority could generate positive management of the marine environment, opening up entirely new fields of economic activity and improving the sustainability of past and present activity. | Thu 17 Nov 2005 @ [13:58] |
| David Woodhouse | Interesting that this is definitely the most positive thing ever to confront an area like Mull and the other Hebridean Islands and I have attended hundreds of meetings where people go on about the lack of quality jobs for youngsters, lack of opportunities here etc etc and here we are with the biggest opportunity ever and there is almost no debate about it on this site. | Mon 14 Nov 2005 @ [18:28] |
| Emma Jordan (SNH) | I would just like to make it clear that Ministers have not ruled in or out any areas for consideration by SNH. But they have provided a number of steers: · that the area must contain both land and sea; · that the area meets the criteria contained in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 · that the area should have not be too ‘remote’ and should have potential for access and enjoyment; and · that designation of the Park could make a significant contribution to the social and economic development of the area SNH will undertake an assessment of all the proposals that may come forward, together with other areas which we believe may also merit consideration. We will be doing this systematically against a standard list of criteria using the information we have available. This assessment and the supporting data will be made available as part of SNH’s advice to Scottish Ministers. Further information on this assessment work is is contained in the papers prepared for the stakeholder group which are available on these webpages. The work will also be discussed at the forthcoming national seminars on the 30th November in Inverness and the 8th December in Glasgow. |
Fri 4 Nov 2005 @ [10:51] |
| David Potter | Apologies if I am re-eating previously made points but I have not been able to review the board until now (just before I leave on holiday) - when I return I will study the messages more carefully. For now here are my initial thoughts on this exciting prospect. I think that this is one of the best ideas I have heard for the development of the economy in the Western Isles, although, as with all these significant changes, the introduction of such a scheme must be handled sensitively since there are many people who will be affected, not always (in their view) positively. Time and time gain I see good ideas squandered at the outset because of poor communication causing resentment amongst local people and allowing those who oppose such ideas to exploit these weaknesses and cause failure of the intiative. Provided it is handled with due care and consideration and full practical involvement of local interested parties and stakeholders, and that care is taken to position and market the attraction to encourage eco-tourists rather than hordes of visitors looking for an amusement park, this surely is a tremendous opportunity to improve the economic stability of the area (as we all know, such opportunities are few and far between) and I am all for it. |
Mon 31 Oct 2005 @ [19:04] |
| Anon. | I warmly welcome the idea of a Marine National Park in Scotland, however iam at a loss as to the areas apart from the Hebrides which are being considered? Any help with this query would be greatly appreciated |
Thu 20 Oct 2005 @ [17:50] |
| David Woodhouse | I think the previous park suggestions are for now overly complicated and a bit foggy. I am always for commonsense and getting to the bones of things as quickly and efficiently as possible and commonsense says that the new marine national park should encompass the Hebridean Islands both Inner and Outer. Yes conservation and protection is vital but I personally want to see the outer Hebridean Islands and the small islands benefitting from Marine National Park designation because I see nothing on their horizon to help them improve their economy and employment prospects. I see nothing that is going to retain their brighter youngsters and this applies to places like Mull also to a lesser extent. Being part of an "imagination grabbing" marine park would solve much of this and the benefits would innevetably spin off into the rest of the West Coast and Islands economy. We need recognition up here and for the world to know that we are possibly the most beautiful place in the world to live, work and to visit. |
Thu 20 Oct 2005 @ [09:36] |
| Mark Carter | The Hebridean Marine National Park Partnership warmly welcomes the possibility of the establishment of a marine and or a marine and coastal national park. National Parks are world renown, the majority are respected and in the marine environment when combined with no take zones, sustain biodiversity and assist in the replenishment of commercial resources. It is for these reasons that if MNP’s or M&CNP’s are to succeed in Scotland the following needs to be addressed: 1, Several marine NP’s and Marine & Coastal NP’s strategically placed around our coast each with its own Park Authority thereby keeping local stakeholdership. 2, Each Park must be large enough to: - cope with the dynamic conditions found within our coastal environment, include preservation of different types of habitat, take into account wide-ranging species and species migration. 3, Each Park must contain areas of no take, 10% is a minimum, 20% will aid conservation and 30% will aid refurbishment of commercial stocks. 4, With areas of no take we must also indicate take zones suitable for different fishing activities, aquaculture and tourism. 5, National stakeholder groups must include people from grass-root level and environmentalists, not just the usual fishing associations and aquaculture industries. The area proposed by the Hebridean Partnership is unique for its combination of marine influences, an unusually rich range of species bio-diversity, its geomorphology, cultural history and rural community fabric. The area is however, under increased pressure from advances in technology and improved infrastructure. With careful management sustainable industry can coexist with nature. The worst-case scenario would be a small-designated park close to one of our major cities, the mass influx of people would devastate the very environment the MNP was set to protect. We have a moral obligation to our children, we are the custodians; for future generations some areas must be left intact. These areas will not only act as control sites but if large enough will also allow for the regeneration of commercial fish stocks. |
Sat 15 Oct 2005 @ [22:20] |
| David Woodhouse | I absolutely agree that the smaller inshore fishermen should be represented on the stakeholders group for they illustrate exactly how to behave sensibly when fishing the waters of the west coast of Scotland. Many of the larger vessels and their skippers have been very bad role models in my opinion. The problem as always on these big occasions is that the powers that be only seem to recognise you if you have some sort of overseeing body or committee. I have much the same argument as the previous contributor because SNH and VisitScotland do not seem to understand that we have an Ecotourism industry in Scotland, despite the reality that virtually every tourist that visits the west coast and islands is already an ecotourist because they are not here to play bingo as a rule nor lounge around swiming pools all day. To my knowledge most are here to enjoy our wonderful natural environment and peace and quiet. Or so all the surveys tell us!! Because of this lack of recognition by the decision makers Scotland has no official ecotourism industry body and that means that business's like my own are also not represented on the stakeholder group, which is truly ridiculous when a Marine National Park is surely connected 'big time' to ecotourism?? |
Sat 15 Oct 2005 @ [09:15] |
| Anon. | I read the proposed make up of the consultative stakholders group with interest but also foreboding. Fishing is an important part of our coastal economy. However, the bodies represented on the group appear to be those of the major trawling and dredging interests which have little or nothing to say on behalf of the small creel or inshore boats which are the backbone of our local coastal communities. It will be interesting to see if one of the two SFF places is allocated to someone who can speak out on behalf of the smaller/creel boats who have been ignored for many years, by government, by the fishing bodies and just about everyone else. There are several thousand small boats around our coasts and they are the ones who fish in a sustainable manner which seems most consistent with some of the proposed objectives of the Park. A pity that their voice will probably be totally absent. Not surprising, though, as a fair number have expressed "concern" that speaking out for their own interests could lead to total loss of livelihood. One trawler/dredger in one night can totally destroy a creel fishermans livelihood. It has happened - maybe not often, but the fear is enough. |
Wed 28 Sep 2005 @ [22:13] |
| Tim Havard | The concept of a Marine National Park somewhere around the coast of Scotland has been a long time coming. In reality the whole of the coast line needs to have the status of "A national Park". However much care will be needed to determine what exactly are the objectives of such a Marine Park. Having spent much of my time working in under-developed African countries over the past 40 years I have seen the National Parks of many countries go through a whole gambit of ideas driven by different ideologies and beliefs - in many cases not to the benefit of the the environment as a whole nor the local people. The key issue from my perspective is that of the role and status of the local human population as they are, at the end of the day, the key players - critical stake holders is I think the term. Their traditions,skills and desires are the first stepping stone that will enable the Park to thrive as this provides a stable start point. Over time improved ideas and new concepts can be brought in but the local people have to make their livelyhood within the park on a day to day basis and they need to believe that The Park will continue to provide for them and their families. They must feel that the park is to their advantage and worth supporting and preserving and thus local management content is critical. I would suggest that The Scottish Executive find funds for key resident members of the local communities - where ever the Park is proposed - to be sent on a well designed global study tour to see for themselves what can be done and to hear it directly from the horses mouth. There are many good examples in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and many other places. If they are convinced they will also be able to convince others and if not convinced at least the problem will be better defined. |
Wed 28 Sep 2005 @ [14:29] |
| Bill McDermott | I note that you are specifically seeking comments from fishing interests. As someone who runs a shellfish farm in Ardnamurchan and has a background in strategic development and management of national parks, I like to think that I have something relevant to say. Here is my starting point. The concern by some people about layers of bureaucracy and stifling of local enterprise on creation of a national park is hopelessly out of date, if ever it was a real problem. I ask these people to raise their horizons and learn about all the positive aspects of becoming members of the world family of national parks and stop fearing the future. We really must try to see beyond the ends of our noses and our own sectional interests here, take our environmental responsibilities seriously and celebrate the fact that we have been gifted a huge bonus in our coastal scenery, our marine wildlife diversity and the fact that our seas remain relatively clean, though showing signs of stress. I regret that our politicians' approach to the issue of marine national parks/reserves is so tentative as it was with mountain areas. If a little country like New Zealand can create, what is it, 17 or 18 marine reserves in 20 years, which have revolutionised the outlook of fishing communities and increased their economic viability, why should be so arrogant as to think we know better that "it won't work". Here is a once in a lifetime chance for a government to exercise its collective mind on an area of strategic importance to all of us in the West Highlands. Of course, its approach is less than bold and, of course, the eventual outcome will be less than ideal from the point of view of available resources, but at least it gives us a start in the proper stewardship of our marine heritage. For those of you who are cynical and would prefer the 'leave us alone, do nothing approach' think on about all the issues that confront us - declining population and threats to indigenous culture, tankers in the Minch, waste disposal, CFP, lifeline ferry services, aquaculture, wave energy, off-shore wind energy etc.,etc. Unless you are an anarchist, surely it is better to argue from a position of strength and be able to confront bad decisions with proper argument and debate. Who in Eilean na Siar would go back to the days of the old Inverness-shire and Ross and Cromarty councils. Few I would guess. |
Wed 28 Sep 2005 @ [10:35] |
| David Woodhouse | To add to my previous posting on the benefits to local people. The very designation of Marine National Park moves us more up market and that automatically means higher profile for local business's from tourism to food producing to making picnic benches etc etc but I would also envisage benefits that are more obvious even at this early stage. For instance we need more white collar jobs for young people in places like Mull and I would hope that the executive might consider moving some of their sea management posts to the new super, duper Atlantic Islands Gateway Centre!!! I assume there would be no questioning by anyone on Mull or anywhere esle as to whether this is a good thing for the area!!!! |
Mon 26 Sep 2005 @ [12:12] |
| David Woodhouse | In reply to the previous contributor. He is quite right, we should all have noted that out in rural Scotland there is virtually no environmental pulse beating despite the fact that we live in one of the most beautiful places on earth. I watched my three children go through Tobermory High School and I am sad to record that they never went on one single field trip with their school. I regularly offered free wildlife trips but to no avail. Is there any wonder then that if an environmental tourism destination like the Hebridean Islands cannot educate their youngsters in the value of their natural environment, what chance is there for anywhere else in Scotland. The above of course is precisely why The Highlands and Islands must sooner rather than later embrace ecotourism and also create the Marine National Park. Here we are with potential visitors hungry for the very product that we have in abundance and we are doing virtually nothing with it. Until the powers that be recognise its massive value to the economy we will never have a population that cares about it. We duly dived headlong into Sitka forestry, fish farming and now massive wind turbine developments and all of this is fighting against the 'environmental philosphy' that my area should be creating. The Marine National Park is one piece of a large green jigsaw that we should be putting together and when the picture is completed I think we will have a far more caring society where littering the landscape and abusing it will be quite rightly frowned upon. The problem is that the jigsaw has been in some old dusty box for years and years. The National Park declaration from the Minister merely hints that we may be about to open it. |
Fri 23 Sep 2005 @ [09:22] |
| Aitken Scott | We have little chance of persuading anyone to designate any coast as "Reserve" until the locals stop using them as a convenient dumping grounds for any old rubbish they want rid of. Our beach on Loch Linnhe is a case in point. BEAR Scotland dump old road materials there, so do local builders but the biggest offenders are the owners of the properties along the A82 into Fort William. The foreshore is basically 3 miles of garden waste dump. Until that mindset is changed "reserves" are a waste of time and money. Incidentally, we are actively involved with MCS and the "adoptabeach" compaign and have just completed their September Beach Survey on a sample of the above beach on their behalf. | Tue 20 Sep 2005 @ [08:32] |
| Melanie Gomes | Having just been to an inspiring talk by Bill Balantine, who pioneered marine reserves in New Zealand, I think that if the park was effectively zoned, it would be of extreme benefit to all of us. I think it will not be effective if it does not incorporate areas for the different users including the first actual No Take Zones free from all human impacts within Scotland. This will benefit fish stocks if placed in the right areas and will have extremely positive benefits for the future. I believe it will also benefit the smallest components of the ecosystem, larvae, plankton etc. which build the ecosystem and are the 'foundation of our seas' (WWF, 2005) and in turn will have positive effects for the whole ecosystem and us providing it is a large enough area and free from all impacts including chemical inputs. All we need to do is look at the evidence already there from all around the world about the benefits to mankind of species diversity and healthy ecosytems. Natural highly diverse systems are more resilient to impacts, both climatic and anthropogenic and provide more 'product' due to their very health. The more we degrade our environment which is after all where all our real wealth comes from, the more we will suffer for it. It is our choice. "The oceans are the planets last great living wilderness, mans only remaining frontier on earth and perhaps his last chance to prove himself as a rational species" Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 2004). | Fri 16 Sep 2005 @ [15:19] |
| David Woodhouse | I answer to Euans question I would say that having watched the tapestry of life here for 25 years both human and wild and having been involved with lots of community groups concerned about this and that, the Park would definitely benefit all local people in one way or another. It will also bring benefit to wilder creatures that live here with us and which are paying their way in putting real cash into the economy. It will also benefit some of the most stunning natural enviroment in the world which we should all surely wish to protect? | Thu 15 Sep 2005 @ [08:45] |
| Euan Graham | Who would pay for the development of the park? My guess would be the locals, who seem devided on whether Argyll should be a National Park. But what will the local communities actually gain from the park? Considering other National parks in the UK I can guess that there will be more tourists who will bring money to the local communtiy but they also bring many problems, look at the lake district for example the litter, the footpath erosion, the noise and air pollution, the conjestion; hardly a good thing is it. So what i would like to know is who is this national park for? | Mon 12 Sep 2005 @ [10:40] |
| Emma Jordan (SNH) | We very much welcome the continuing inputs to this forum, including those from fishermen. In response to these, we should emphasise that fishing will continue to be an important activity within any coastal and marine National Park, and the Scottish approach to National Parks provide opportunities for this sector to play an important part in the selection, management and governance of a future Park. A Park Authority may want to look at the potential of a number of options for fishery management measures to assist in the delivery of all four Park’s aims - conservation, sustainable use, enjoyment and understanding and sustainable development. These options could range from education and voluntary measures through to use of specific restrictions in parts of a Park (and here the size of the Park to allow effective zoning becomes an important consideration). We will want to listen carefully to views on these options from stakeholders over the coming months, so further contributions on this subject are very welcome. |
Mon 12 Sep 2005 @ [10:04] |
| Mark Carter | Marine Reserves in New Zealand: Talk, Free Admission. For a chance to find out more about Marine Reserves, Hebridean Marine National Park Partnership is hosting a talk by Bill Ballantine, pioneer of Marine Reserves in New Zealand. The talk is on Tuesday, 13th Sept. 2005 at 7.30pm, at St Moluags Centre, Croft Ave., Oban. For further details please contact Hebridean Partnership 01631 750140 |
Sat 10 Sep 2005 @ [20:17] |
| David Woodhouse | Clearly a lot of people will come to this debate and situation feeling pretty green and cold about the possible Marine Park for Scotland. As someone who is pretty well infomed and I would say hot on the subject maybe I could offer some thoughts which are well honed after 20 years of lobbying for this. Firstly I have always seen the potential Park as a 'protection' and 'promotion' thing. It does need protecting and it will enable us to promote the wonders of our coast and islands to the benefit of local people. Why do we need a Marine Park? Well anyone who believes that the West Coast and its Hebridean Islands can somehow stay the same into the 21st century with all of its recreational and development pressures would have to be very naive. Why do we need to raise awareness about the area? What I see from my own window and what millions of tourists enjoy here should be presented as an upmarket and quality destination. In fact I joke with my wildlife customers and say that it should be the Seychelles of the north!!! They think that equally funny but understand the point perfectly, in fact many think it is already a National Park!! and the rest do not understand why it isn't!! Moving the region more up market in perception as Marine Park status would, has to help the economy, wages and job potential for families here. In particular we urgently need to hold more of our well educated youngsters because it is they that will bring new ideas, green thinking and breathe life into the region. There is almost nothing for them here at present. What should be the location and boundaries? The Hebridean Islands and its mainland coastline are the automatic choice and I would start big and take in the Outer and Inner Hebrides if the communities there wish to be part of it. Life in general struggles here and the umbrella of Hebridean Islands National Park would enable all to shelter and flourish here. Lewis would not now be facing the largest wind turbine development in the world if they had been part of a National Park. Should they have shown vision and supported me 20 years ago? In fact I have consistently suggested that they follow Mulls ecotourism thrust which would obviously have helped their economy and given them more power to fight the development. I argued many moons ago that as Scotland was the second last country in the entire world to have National Parks we should have gone far bigger than we did at Loch Lomond with a major swaithe of the Highlands and Islands being declared a National Park. But if the Marine Park must be scaled down for whatever reason then Mull and its dozens of satellite islands would also be a perfect candidate with Staffa, Treshnish islands, Inch Kenneth, Iona, Little Colonsay, Ulva and the Ardnamurchan Peninsula etc etc etc being talior made for the designation, but big is better I think because this also relieves the honey pot siituation. Will we be inundated with visitors? Impossible because almost all of the Park will only be accessible by ferry and numbers could therefore be regulated and I think that anyone priviledged to come here will consider themselves to be somewhat special and honoured which they should be of course!!! What are the current environmental pressures on the region? Scallop dredging is causing untold damage, fish farms have been very badly sited and poorly regulated, they are also going to increase without some sort of cap on numbers. We have some of the worst looking housing in the UK and this is not because of cost of building but about the negative philosophy toward the beauty of the area that has always existed. Recreational activity on the sea is multiplying and will obviously multiply further as people get more prosperous and have more leisure time. On our own coast kayaking has increased ten fold and although reasonably green, a shoreline with otters and nesting birds can really only take so much before we damage one of our most important economic resources. This is an etc etc etc etc situation of course that I am happy to elaborate on if someone wishes to create that debate but I have stated recently on Radio 4 that this is the most exciting and positive thing ever to confront the Hebridean Islands and it is!! |
Fri 9 Sep 2005 @ [09:22] |
| Anon. | Living in a fishing community which has seen a number of different threats to the local industry over the past few years- - and a serious decline in the local fleet - I would like to see more effort being put into ensuring that the local fishing industry is supported, so that the community which relies upon it can have some sort of secure future. The bureaucracy surrounding a Coastal and Marine National Park, run by what is a large scale quango - ie. SNH - would probably be the deathknell of communities such as ours, and would most definately have a detrimental effect on the fishing, by well meaning, but often ill-informed environmentalists. Please ensure that the communities served by the industry - and the fishermen themselves are both consulted - and listened to, as very often, it is the fishermen who spend their lives at sea who know better than anyone, about the local environment. At the moment there is a greater threat to the people in our communities, and our own future - than there is to various species of fish - or sea moss or lichen..... We will end up like an exhibit in a heritage centre, with fishing communities taken over completely by holiday homes, guest houses and tourist facilities. We need to support the real industries, or lose the real lives and livelihoods of our communities. | Thu 8 Sep 2005 @ [14:13] |
| Andy Gallagher | A Coastal and Marine National Park in Scotland has the potential to conserve our natural and cultural marine heritage and to establish our status as a country that is actively promoting biodiversity conservation. To effectively do this the scale of the park needs to be extensive and planning control within the park needs to be vested with a park authority that has a primary obligation towards conservation. National parks attract visitors and create economic opportunities but unrestrained growth in parks is detrimental to conservation interests. If Scotland is to have a credible CMNP rigorous and internationally accepted standards of conservation protection towards species and habitats need to be applied. |
Fri 2 Sep 2005 @ [12:05] |
| Colin Davidson | Before being enthusiastic we would need to know what benefits there might be and what restrictions might be imposed. Certainly there are many exceptional areas on our west coast, indeed some of them are already SACs, but what size of area do you have in mind. Secretary, West Highland Anchorages and Moorings Association. |
Mon 29 Aug 2005 @ [11:36] |
| S Wardrop | Following the references to the New Zealand Parks, I visited the websites associated with the Marine Reserves in that country. In these areas the emphasis seems to be on pure conservation and protection - reserved areas where activities of any kind appear to be restricted. Given the scale of economic and commercial activities around our coast, the dependency of many small coastal communities on being able to exploit the marine resources, this type of pure conservation area should be a non starter. I believe the emphasis in any Marine Park area here must give equal weight to sustainable use/development of the marine resources by local communities and stakeholders as to the conservation of the marine habitat More pertinent perhaps was the New South Wales Marine Park website which describes a graduated zoning strategy - four types of zones, with some areas highly protected and others available for appropriate use of different kinds. Although from our perspective (i.e piecemeal or non existent regulation other than whoever shouts loudest or has the greatest "muscle") the area appeared to be overregulated, but at least there was only one management body which appeared fair, coherent and consistent. In my original comment, I noted the pressures which are only too apparent in the Argyll area; it desperately needs an objective, well informed and appropriately impowered body to co-ordinate, arbitrate and manage the incredible natural resources in the area, in a fair and coherent manner. |
Thu 25 Aug 2005 @ [14:34] |
| Becky Thomson | Please don't divide up the coast of Scotland - nature doesn't. Artificial boundaries create bureaucracy, confusion and frustration. We will be subjected to different areas wasting time and money competing for MNP status where everyone should be working together for the common good of the whole area. | Thu 25 Aug 2005 @ [11:31] |
| Emma Jordan (SNH) | We very much welcome all the comments made to date, most of which we note have focused on the possible location of the Park. Some useful thoughts and suggestions have been made and these will all be recorded as part of the process. A further strand of this debate on this message board has been on the added value (or not!) that a coastal and marine Park could bring to the planning and management of an area. What should we expect it to deliver in terms of the protection of the natural and cultural heritage ; the promotion of opportunities for access and recreation; and also critically for sustaining and creating much needed jobs for coastal communities? And what sort of vision, powers and resources will it need to deliver these sorts of things? We would particularly welcome further contributions on this issue (both negative and positive), perhaps using examples drawn from relevant experience here in Scotland or elsewhere. |
Wed 24 Aug 2005 @ [13:28] |
| Keith Hiscock | [See links at end of message] The Marine Biological Association recently hosted a workshop on highly protected marine reserves which was organised and run by English Nature. The success of marine reserves in New Zealand (yes, including boosts to tourism and local economies!) was a central theme and example. The workshop was highly informative and help to 'shake-out' many of the practical issues involved in establishing marine protected areas. At the conclusion of the workshop, key speakers made presentations to an invited audience at the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth. Selected talks, and particularly the presentation by Bill Ballantine, will help you to understand what works and how, especially using the New Zealand example. See the press release on: http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=733 See a video of the presentations at the conclusion of the workshop on: http://www.mba.ac.uk/media/media.php?ballantine |
Fri 19 Aug 2005 @ [09:39] |
| Alister Wallbank | Don't agree with the marine parks idea as such. This would just add yet another tier of Government beurocracy. If the UK had 'sensible' and effective legislation which invariably means a massive reduction in the levels of beurocracy, there would be little need for marine reserves as the marine ecosystems around the UK would be in a much healthier state anyway! CFP is a mockery. Look at the effects of the sand eel fishery in the North Sea. Year by year we see dramatic seabird breeding failures. Look at last years breeding success in Shetland and this years in Orkney? Why on earth do we fish for sand eels in such large quantities? Fish meal for animal feeds, salmon pellets, fertilizers, fish oil? We don't need fish meal from sand eels. So many marine species are heavily reliant on this link in the food chain. A permanent cessation of the commercial sand eel fishery should be seriously considered (but not for small scale commercial fishing for sea angling baits etc). The stomach contents of a large proportion of mackerel we have been catching around Orkney at the start of August contained zooplankton when it should have been sand eels. They are just not around in the quantities they should be. Perhaps a larger proportion of the sand eel stocks have just not frequented Orkney waters this year for some reason? But my suspicion errs on the side of a major reduction in the total stocks. Stop thinking about the introduction of yet more legislation, job creation and expenditure and focus on the direct issues that can have a major effect on the quality of our marine environment and heritage. Go back 100 years before the large scale raping and pillaging of the seas, intensive farming of agricultural land (and it's associated nutrient enrichment of rivers, estuaries and coasts) and industrial and residental marine effluents and things were much healthier. When these issues have been pragmatically addressed and remedied there would be no need to establish marine reserves in any on area, as the whole coastline of the UK would be one healthy marine reserve! |
Wed 17 Aug 2005 @ [12:18] |
| Allan Beedie | If the same token jesture policies of the 2 current national parks are used ( jej skis, and sitka plantations) then i dont think its worth the trouble, because they are national parks in name onle | Mon 15 Aug 2005 @ [10:16] |
| Nick Turnbull | As an individual who has made his living both from fishing and shellfish farming for the past 35years and whose family continue to do the same, I am concerned that the "freedom of the sea" is about to be jeopardised. I am also concerned that the same criteria used on land based national parks are proposed for the sea. What is it that is endangered on the westcoast of Scotland? The only endangered species that I can think of is the indigenous human population! Contary to some opinons most people I know who make a living from the sea care about their enviroment and despite already crippling bureaucratic legislation continue to believe that the sea is a sustainable provider. Why don't those who really want to make a difference pursue those authorities whose obligations under EC rules are to improve the cleanliness of all waters around the UK. Virtually every village on the west coast of Scotland pumps raw sewage out into the sea. This of course increases considerably during summer months when visitors arrive. The words used in the proposed criteria are in my opinion the catchphrases of today and if the truth were told the only options left to families like ours will be running tourists around a theme park(avoiding the sewage outfalls!) | Sat 13 Aug 2005 @ [09:46] |
| Stephen Willis | Re: marine national parks. The location, size, and remit of a marine national park should be very carefully considered. Given the enormous challenges being faced by our terrestrial n.p.'s I feel strongly that the first marine np should be somewhere remote, so as to have a minimum amount of hassle with all stakeholders, and somewhere of international significance in terms of its marine flora and fauna. With that in mind St Kilda would be an ideal place to start. As a world heritage site its significance is already recognised and it is already in the care of the National Trust for Scotland anyway. It is a truly iconic place and worthy of consideration. Given its limited number of stakeholders there would be minimal fuss, costly and slow consultation. Compare this site with the Forth, Clyde, or Moray Firth (which presumably are all in the running too) where the park would be visible and 'available' to a massive number of people and the establishment of Scotland first marine np would be considerably easier. It is a fantastic step forward that this is being done. What will it mean though? Will no take zones be a consideration? They should be. What will be the policy on recreation (particularly diving), commercial fishing, military activity etc? If fishing is allowed it should at very least be a transparent, sustainable fishery. There is at leat one formal accreditation scheme for sustainable fisheries in the UK. Will it be a manageable size? How will it be staffed and what resources will be available to them? The costs will be massive, but well worth it!!! | Sat 13 Aug 2005 @ [09:15] |
| S Alderson | I think that this is asuperb idea and something that has long been needed, our coastlines and waters have often been overlooked as a potential dumping ground for unwanteds and there is insufficient protection in place. However despite many preconcieved ideas that have been noted regarding a lack of sustainbility within national parks, there is evidence elsewhere in the world to show how it can be achieved, through control of funds and economic benefits being tied into the local communities and reinvestment into the park area. It is automatic to assume that as it is marine that it will attract the high powered boats and jetskis, but with the right rules and powers to enforce then this can be curbed and it then allows the use of more sustainable marine activities such as sailing, kayaking, and canoeing, and even fishing. All of this can be controlled through licensing and enforcement, but it would need teeth. Bring on the MNP, but please, please, please give it teeth so that everyone can enjoy it |
Tue 9 Aug 2005 @ [18:02] |
| A Elliot | S Wardrop might be right, but remember that a NP effectively creates an additional tier of local government. We need to make sure that it is the appropriate vehicle to address marine problems. High powerd jet skies and speed boats are a very real issue, I do not deny it. (I used to live beside a harbour and it was a right pain on Sunday mornings). A numerically a small number of people can create a disproportionately large nuisance. Whether the creation of a MNP is warrented by the scale of the problem and importantly whether it would actually have the power to address these problems (under the existing legislation) still needs to be looked into very carefully. By way of comparrison last year over 12 million people visited the Lake District National Park! The effective use of bye laws by Local Government and a genuine national CZM strategy just 'might' be a more apropriate use of money. It is equally true that the creation of a MNP in one 'fortunate' part of the west coast doesn't resolve the conflicts that arise from the multiple use of marine resource arround the rest of Scotland. Perhaps effective national CZM is better value for Scotland than simply selecting one particular area for protection. As I said I am not trying to knock the idea on the head before we have even looked at it but lets make sure that all of the options are consideres in the SNH review. |
Tue 9 Aug 2005 @ [14:08] |
| S Wardrop | The last comment included the statement " I am not aware of any extensive marine areas of Scotland which are really under this kind of visitor pressure". I take it by this that the contributor has not recently visited the seas around Argyll, the Sound of Mull, Firth of Lorne, Loch Etive area which particularly this year is seeing increased levels of visitors with speedboats, jetskis, small boats, ribs, diving boats etc along with the usual summer yacht visitors, all in an area which has traditional inshore fishing boats, fish farms, charter and cruise boats all making a major contribution to the local economy alongside the tourist and leisure sectors. All of these "users" depend on access to the same resource - the marine environment, and without protection/mediation, the environment will not be sustainable. There are many cases of ongoing conflicts over access to marine resources and given the damage already being done, we should be praying that we are not trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. |
Tue 9 Aug 2005 @ [09:35] |
| A Elliot | D Aubrey makes a valid point. There is no sense in creating a Marine National Park (MNP) 'just for the sake of it'. We must be clear in our minds exactly 'why' this specific designation needs to be made. Looking around the country the rational behind UK NPs is pretty clear. They are invariably areas of land with very high levels of visitor pressure (think Loch Lomond, Lake District etc). The NP designation gives the Park Authority the powers (mainly planning) which allow this pressure to be managed in a way that minimises human pressure on the environment, increased opportunities for access and maximises benefits for the local population etc. I may be mistaken but I am not aware of any extensive marine areas of Scotland which are really under this kind of visitor pressure. There are two possible justifications for creating a MNP. (1) if we can identify areas which are under sufficient pressure (from visitors or otherwise) where the designation can give a level of protection or (2) an area where the designation would create significant imporovements (to the environment and/or economy/sustainability) to justify the designation. In other words if there is need for protection or scope for improvement. Even if we do identify areas that need protection we must consider the range of powers that any MNP authority is likely to have, and whether these are able to address any needs identified. Remember that (with the exeption of salmon farms) planning authorities have no jurisdiction below the low water mark and it is in their role as planning authority that terrestrial NPs exercise most of their control. If, for arguments sake, the big problems in that marine environment are difuse pollution and demersal fishing I dont think the MNP designation can do very much (without significant additional legislation). If it really is about managing visitor numbers and access then perhaps it is worth looking at. I am not trying too knock the idea on the head but we need to proceed with some caution. The pressures, problems and the available responses to them are very different in the marine environment than they are on land. I think that any review will need to focus very specifically on what a MNP might be able to achieve given the tools likely to be available to it and the nature of the problems faced. If it is the right way to proceed then any MNP may need to be a very different beast from its terrestrial namesake. |
Mon 8 Aug 2005 @ [14:11] |
| Dan Bailey | I am very supportive of the idea of establishing a new Marine National Park. Why stop there, however? As the land- and sea-scapes of our West Coast are so inextricably interlinked, what about consulting on the idea of establishing a new integrated sea and land National Park spanning the Highlands and Islands from Cape Wrath to Argyll, St Kilda to the borders of the Trossachs and Cairngorm Nartional Parks? These huge areas of mountain and water represent our finest natural resource, currently scandalously under-protected. National Park status would help to protect the best of the country's truly unique and globally significant highland and island landscapes and marine ecosystems from inappropriate developments, while simultaneously promoting eco tourism and sustainable community-scale development. SNH needs to think big and ambitiously in response to the current threats posed by windfarms and other environmentally inseneitive proposals. The idea of a new supersized National Park ought to be seriously considered. |
Mon 8 Aug 2005 @ [12:02] |
| Wolfgang Schlick | Managed properly national marine parks can be an ideal umbrella organisation to handle the different interests from tourism to local fishery and nature protections. This is at least one result we can see from similar developments along the German coasts in both North Sea and Baltic Sea over the last 10 years or so. Having this in mind I am a bit wondering why Sotland is just talking about o n e marine national park. There are the waters around Shetland & Orkney & Eilean Siar and the northwestern and northern coast of Scotland mainland as well as the great estuaries and mudflats on both the western and eastern coast of Scotland mainland. |
Sat 6 Aug 2005 @ [08:55] |
| D Aubrey | It seems strange to first decide whether we need a marine national park, and then to decide where it should be. Surely we should have first identified an area which is already believed to require the designation, or are we to have a marine national park just for the hell of it? If the marine national park is to be designated under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, one of the objectives will have to be the promotion of recreation, which will lead to increased visitor numbers. It is difficult to see how this could be promoted in areas of ecological sensitivity, especially SPAs. The Park should also try to avoid areas of the marine environment which might require use for wave and tidal energy generation in the future. The need for renewable energy generation as a means of helping to combat climate change is far more important an issue than the designation of a national park for its own sake (the Government's chief scientific advisor has stated that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism or WMDs). Close consultation with the marine renewables industry should be carried out at this early stage. After all, there's no point designating a coastal region as a national park if that habitat could be destroyed in future by climate change and sea level rise... |
Fri 5 Aug 2005 @ [11:18] |
| Alex Dawson (KLBCDP) | I would like to suggest the area stretching in a westerly direction from Strathy Point, round the coast to the Summer Isles, and stratching across the Minch to include the coastlines on the Western Isles. In addition to the existing MCAs at Loch Eriboll and Loch Laxford, there are are a lare number of SSSIs on the coastline, and SPAs and NNRs as well as NSAs. The area proposed would be an extension of the new North West Highland Geopark, SNH being a major partner and influence in this project. As with the comments made by Jennie Macfie, it would have to be compatible with the inshore fishing fleets based at Kinlochbervie and Lochinver, which, although restricted due to legislation from Brussels, still remain major financial contributors to the local economy. Oops - almost forgot the highest cliffs in mainland Britain, the highest waterfall in Europe, and the longest fetch of waves on the British coast are all contained in this proposed area. | Fri 5 Aug 2005 @ [10:53] |
| Mark Liddiard | I would suggest the area from Strathy Point to Dunnet Head on the Caithness & Sutherland coast. This is a diverse area already famous for it's cetacean and bird life. This area also needs urgent thought about a sustainable economy once the main local employer (Dounreay) ceases following decommissioning. A fisheries exclusion zone in the Dounreay area has already seen a significant regeneration in the benthic ecology, which acts as a worked example of what benefits this can bring. In addition to Scandinavian experience, I would suggest the Poor Knights Islands in New Zealand set a good precedent for this type of marine park. | Fri 5 Aug 2005 @ [10:01] |
| Jennie Macfie | As long as it is compatible with continuing small scale fishing by local people, which keeps the area alive, I'd suggest that as much of the West Coast and the shores around the Inner and Outer Hebrides as is possible and practicable should be conserved. A reasonable definition of heaven would be to sit on Knoydart and watch the gannets diving while a basking shark waggles along the coast and as dusk falls to watch the otters play on the rocks which are named after them in Gaelic, indicating some considerable continuity of habitation,; or to sit on a beach in Harris looking out at the Atlantic surf where the sensation of timelessness is such that it would not be a complete surprise to see a Viking longship round the headland, or even a pterodactyl.... But I hope that any such park is run sensibly, and would suggest that a look at Scandinavian practice in the first instance would be a very good idea. Somehow over there they seem to manage stylishness and sensible attitudes so much better than we do over here. |
Thu 4 Aug 2005 @ [15:59] |
| Anon. | One area that should be considered is Scapa Flow in Orkney. | Thu 4 Aug 2005 @ [15:47] |
| Andy Freeman | A coastal and marine national park for Scotland is long overdue. Perhaps the issue of the revenue generated by the Crown Estate could be addressed here as well? Boat owners may feel less opposed to paying for their moorings if a substantial amount of the money generated goes towards protecting our marine environment. | Thu 4 Aug 2005 @ [15:28] |