Tomahawks Bughuggers

[GrandadPig]

Can I enquire, do you have a boat and mooring to your liking?
or to put it another way round, if you were looking to start boating, would you still feel the same given the fact almost every bating facility is full to the fences.

Just got a swinging mooring on the Deben. No shortage of moorings or places in the Marinas here, just shortage of funds in my wallet. The same applies to the Blackwater.

what’s your point? Are you suggesting we build marinas everywhere so that anybody who wants a berth can have one at a price they can afford?

Didn’t Benidorm try the same idea with hotels from the ‘50’s onward? That ended well.

 

[Tomahawk]

Not at all, what I am saying is that environmentalists of all shades and colours are only a very small part of the population. That being interested in the so called environment is a hobby for those who are interested in the environment much like other people are passionate about music, or chess, or gardening, or F1 or football, or rugby, or sail racing, or wild camping, or rock climbing, or cycling, or .. or.. or.. or.. the list is endless. There is even a Morris Ital owners society! They must get full marks for being passionate about the most unlikely car ever to have disgraced the roads, but it is still their hobby and passion.
Yet environmentalists seem to have rights and privileges over everyone else. The argument goes, I am an environmentalist and I have seen a species of something. Therefore no one is allowed to do anything that affects the thing that I have seen and we have used legal process to enshrine our privileges. There are 215 million Ha of Ramsar sites in the UK where environmentalists and on one else are allowed to pursue their hobby. That is a huge area of land given over to a very small number of people.

 

[WoodyP]

Actually there are 149 sites covering 787,439 hectares, and I don't begrudge one inch of them. We live in the environment in case you hadn't noticed, and there would be precious little left if we followed your wishes.

 

[WoodyP]

.

 

[Pye_End]

Not at all, what I am saying is that environmentalists of all shades and colours are only a very small part of the population. That being interested in the so called environment is a hobby for those who are interested in the environment much like other people are passionate about music, or chess, or gardening, or F1 or football, or rugby, or sail racing, or wild camping, or rock climbing, or cycling, or .. or.. or.. or.. the list is endless. There is even a Morris Ital owners society! They must get full marks for being passionate about the most unlikely car ever to have disgraced the roads, but it is still their hobby and passion.
Yet environmentalists seem to have rights and privileges over everyone else. The argument goes, I am an environmentalist and I have seen a species of something. Therefore no one is allowed to do anything that affects the thing that I have seen and we have used legal process to enshrine our privileges. There are 215 million Ha of Ramsar sites in the UK where environmentalists and on one else are allowed to pursue their hobby. That is a huge area of land given over to a very small number of people.

So much illogical or incorrect comments in several of these posts. Are they windups?

The assumption that the world around us is just there for human development or play areas is completely wrong. Environmentalism and conservation is so much more. It is not self centred, but selfless. Even if you are ego centric, humans need nature. We utterly rely on the natural world around us - and even if we didn't - what does it say about humans who allow or deliberately destroy so much of the life around us? Trying to degrade conservation into small minority attempting to enjoy a day out with a pair of binoculars couldn't be further from the truth. There is no credit in resorting to name calling in an effort to degrade.

We need to be much better custodians of this planet.

 

[Tomahawk]

So much illogical or incorrect comments in several of these posts. Are they windups?

The assumption that the world around us is just there for human development or play areas is completely wrong. Environmentalism and conservation is so much more. It is not self centred, but selfless. Even if you are ego centric, humans need nature. We utterly rely on the natural world around us - and even if we didn't - what does it say about humans who allow or deliberately destroy so much of the life around us? Trying to degrade conservation into small minority attempting to enjoy a day out with a pair of binoculars couldn't be further from the truth. There is no credit in resorting to name calling in an effort to degrade.

We need to be much better custodians of this planet.

Pye,
Not a wind up, but an alternative perspective based on observation and experience. You make a number of very strong statements. I don't agree with them.

You say environmentalism is selfless. I question that. Is a hobby diver who likes looking at seahorses being selfless when he campaigns to designate the area he looks at seahorses as a marine conservation area with the objective of stopping people from anchoring being selfless? Or is he feathering his own nest as he then gets the benefit of pursuing his hobby without the need to consider other water users? How many people go seahorse diving compared to the number of people who will be prevented from anchoring in Studland and be deprived of a recreation area? When I look over the Blackwater, the Pyefleet, the Orwell or the wallet of a weekend, it is full of boats sailing . You can count the numbers in hundreds. Yet I don't see thousands of people with binos looking at birds.

You say we utterly rely on the world around us. Again I contest that is not so. A basic examination of human history reveals that when our forebears were hunter gatherers who lived in and as part of the natural ecosystems, their numbers were really tiny. By way of example, on the Masai Mara, the human weight of tribes peoples is about the same as that of the lion population (source BBC natural history program). It was only when we started to cultivate the soil and deliberately degrade biodiversity in favour of a handful of plants that we can consume out of the billions of species of plants on the planet that the human population began to expand to beyond that which the natural environment could sustain . The human population took its second leap in expansion when we discovered fossil fuels and could harness them for power. Before we had coal the most powerful thing on the planet was windmill or a horse. When we harnessed coal, we could pack fifty horses into a single cart and do much more work. With that ability to do more work, we could till more soil (destroying more biodiversity in the process), cut more wood, (more loss of biodiversity), build moe homes and grow our population. But that was done at the expense of the natural world.

However I do accept that calling people bug huggers is lacking politeness.

 

[Biggles Wader]

Pye,
Not a wind up, but an alternative perspective based on observation and experience. You make a number of very strong statements. I don't agree with them.

You say environmentalism is selfless. I question that. Is a hobby diver who likes looking at seahorses being selfless when he campaigns to designate the area he looks at seahorses as a marine conservation area with the objective of stopping people from anchoring being selfless? Or is he feathering his own nest as he then gets the benefit of pursuing his hobby without the need to consider other water users? How many people go seahorse diving compared to the number of people who will be prevented from anchoring in Studland and be deprived of a recreation area? When I look over the Blackwater, the Pyefleet, the Orwell or the wallet of a weekend, it is full of boats sailing . You can count the numbers in hundreds. Yet I don't see thousands of people with binos looking at birds.

You say we utterly rely on the world around us. Again I contest that is not so. A basic examination of human history reveals that when our forebears were hunter gatherers who lived in and as part of the natural ecosystems, their numbers were really tiny. By way of example, on the Masai Mara, the human weight of tribes peoples is about the same as that of the lion population (source BBC natural history program). It was only when we started to cultivate the soil and deliberately degrade biodiversity in favour of a handful of plants that we can consume out of the billions of species of plants on the planet that the human population began to expand to beyond that which the natural environment could sustain . The human population took its second leap in expansion when we discovered fossil fuels and could harness them for power. Before we had coal the most powerful thing on the planet was windmill or a horse. When we harnessed coal, we could pack fifty horses into a single cart and do much more work. With that ability to do more work, we could till more soil (destroying more biodiversity in the process), cut more wood, (more loss of biodiversity), build moe homes and grow our population. But that was done at the expense of the natural world.

However I do accept that calling people bug huggers is lacking politeness.

I think you might have explained that there is a fundamental problem with human expansion and why there needs to be strict control of it.

 

[johnalison]

I think you might have explained that there is a fundamental problem with human expansion and why there needs to be strict control of it.

I think that he has demonstrated that there is a problem with human attitudes as well, with his repeated insistence that the natural environment is only of interest or importance to a small minority.

By chance I have come across an extract from Tomahawk's log from when he last sailed up the Wallet. "Left Stone Point 8am. Not much to see across Harwich except a fine car-carrier leaving the port. The Naze Tower looks a bit dilapidated. It's time they pulled it down. At least the Gunfleet wind farm is visible, as well as the lovely block of flats in Frinton. Spent next hour trying to get my iPhone radio to work while the others played with the sails or something. Fortunately there were some jet-skis off Clacton to break the monotony, but at least we got into Brightlingsea in time for a lunchtime drink to cheer me up."

 

[Pye_End]

Pye,
Not a wind up, but an alternative perspective based on observation and experience. You make a number of very strong statements. I don't agree with them.

You say environmentalism is selfless. I question that. Is a hobby diver who likes looking at seahorses being selfless when he campaigns to designate the area he looks at seahorses as a marine conservation area with the objective of stopping people from anchoring being selfless? Or is he feathering his own nest as he then gets the benefit of pursuing his hobby without the need to consider other water users?

I don't know his motivation, but suspect he really believes in his cause. That is where you want a mature scientific approach to conservation to look at the correct facts and come up with an appropriate response.

Continuing to call conservationists as 'hobbyists' is similar to the oil industry trying to degrade the observations of climate scientists. Many will have relevant degrees, and carved a career in science. That may make them career professionals - perhaps worth taking note of their stories ahead of hobbyist deniers?

How many people go seahorse diving compared to the number of people who will be prevented from anchoring in Studland and be deprived of a recreation area?

Impact of conservation more readily measured by its effect on the environment in the first instance, I would have thought.

When I look over the Blackwater, the Pyefleet, the Orwell or the wallet of a weekend, it is full of boats sailing . You can count the numbers in hundreds. Yet I don't see thousands of people with binos looking at birds.

I am not really sure what point you are trying to make. You are aware that the Blackwater is designated Ramsar wetland of international importance - and still us sailors are allowed to enjoy it.?

You say we utterly rely on the world around us. Again I contest that is not so.

I know someone who can hold his breath for 4 minutes!!!

A basic examination of human history reveals that when our forebears were hunter gatherers who lived in and as part of the natural ecosystems, their numbers were really tiny. By way of example, on the Masai Mara, the human weight of tribes peoples is about the same as that of the lion population (source BBC natural history program). It was only when we started to cultivate the soil and deliberately degrade biodiversity in favour of a handful of plants that we can consume out of the billions of species of plants on the planet that the human population began to expand to beyond that which the natural environment could sustain . The human population took its second leap in expansion when we discovered fossil fuels and could harness them for power. Before we had coal the most powerful thing on the planet was windmill or a horse. When we harnessed coal, we could pack fifty horses into a single cart and do much more work. With that ability to do more work, we could till more soil (destroying more biodiversity in the process), cut more wood, (more loss of biodiversity), build moe homes and grow our population. But that was done at the expense of the natural world.

Industrialisation has also led to huge pollution issues. Climate change is the biggest problem faced by man. Hence the growth of environmentalism and conservation.

Do you really think the world is in good shape at the moment?

 

[Gargleblaster]

There is actually a beach with a swimming area and also some mooring piles in a bay off the canal. It is on the north side, I think somewhere east of the Eider, but it’s some years since I went that way.

Duckerswitch Siding I think you are referring to. Lovely little beach and recreational craft can moor between poles overnight. It is 20 Kliks from Brunsbuttel and on the Northern side. Another great beach at Lake Flemhude which is on the southern side 30 Kliks from Holtenau. You can anchor overnight.

Unfortunatley I am not very good at wildlife recognition. My capablility extends to being able to tell the difference between a Swan and a Duck and on land I can tell the difference between a Squirrel and a Vole. I took a ride on my bike along the Canal something I have always wanted to do as I love watching the taught bottoms of the German riders from my boat. I had stopped overnight in the Giselau Canal and early in the morning took my ride for two hours. Interesting that in the bushes and trees was the abundance of small mammals as well as birds. As far as the canal was concerned there were a lot more varieties of wildfowl other than just Swans and Ducks particualrly hiding out in the reeds at the side of the canal.

I have also spent some time sailing and or motoring through the Hiddensee on various trips to the Baltic. I don't see half the wildlife there that I see on the busier Kiel Canal.

 

[johnalison]

Duckerswitch Siding I think you are referring to. Lovely little beach and recreational craft can moor between poles overnight. It is 20 Kliks from Brunsbuttel and on the Northern side. Another great beach at Lake Flemhude which is on the southern side 30 Kliks from Holtenau. You can anchor overnight.

Unfortunatley I am not very good at wildlife recognition. My capablility extends to being able to tell the difference between a Swan and a Duck and on land I can tell the difference between a Squirrel and a Vole. I took a ride on my bike along the Canal something I have always wanted to do as I love watching the taught bottoms of the German riders from my boat. I had stopped overnight in the Giselau Canal and early in the morning took my ride for two hours. Interesting that in the bushes and trees was the abundance of small mammals as well as birds. As far as the canal was concerned there were a lot more varieties of wildfowl other than just Swans and Ducks particualrly hiding out in the reeds at the side of the canal.

I have also spent some time sailing and or motoring through the Hiddensee on various trips to the Baltic. I don't see half the wildlife there that I see on the busier Kiel Canal.

I think you just need to keep your eyes open. I used to keep a bird list on my Baltic trips and generally reached about 150 species, from home. I don’t regard myself as knowledgeable when I compare myself with experts I meet, but my repertoire is improving. There is no doubt that the company of an expert is one of the best ways of improving one’s recognition, though a good bird book such as the Collins Field Guide will help.

An example in my case of expert guidance is the Sandwich tern. This was a bird that I had heard of but hadn’t seen until twenty years ago. On that occasion we did a boat birding trip from St Mary’s in the Isles of Scilly on our first visit there. It was a brilliant outing, and at one point a Sandwich tern passed by, making its distinctive call, which famously sounds ‘like a dental filling being put in’. On our return trip we stopped in Salcombe, and there, just nearby, was a pair of Sandwich terns. Not only that, but as we came past Harwich harbour - ‘creek, creek’ - a small group of them flew past. It was quite clear that they had been all around me and I hadn’t noticed them in thirty years sailing. Nowadays, I have come to expect to see and hear them most times that I leave Titchmarsh.

If you want a wildlife spectacular in the Southern Baltic, you could do worse than visit Ruden. We only stopped there once, since it isn’t always permitted, but it hosts most of the cormorants in the region. There may be as many as ten to fifteen thousand of them, and the sight of them feeding communally is quite something. This was maybe a third of a feeding army.

 

[Tomahawk]

...

Do you really think the world is in good shape at the moment?

Pye,

We have different opinions. That is all. I start by looking at people and how they live. And from what I see there are a lot of people who live pretty shitty lives, particularly those who live in cities. So I ask why, and I consider that much of the time their lives are constrained by poor housing and lack of infrastructure to break out of poverty. SO I ask why don't we have the infrastructure to lift people out of a shitty life and I find a lot of the time there was a proposal to build infrastructure but that it was stoped by environmentalists. Our present energy problems being a case in point. We are sitting on huge reserves of fuel yet because we let environmentalists have their way we do not use our own reserves. Instead we import goods from the other side of the world. Goods made from dirty coal fired energy without a tenth of the environmental protections we apply. Remember that China is building coal fired power stations and buying Indian coal extracted in open cast mines where they are destroying pristine rain forest to get at the stuff. We are causing more pollution than we would if we mined our own coal and extracted our own gas. But it's in someone else's back yard so it doesn't count.

Lets cut to the chase and focus on your last question.. No the world is in a pretty shity condition. When the oil gets scarce and it will there will be global conflict to make WW2 look like a tea party. I

 

[GrandadPig]

Not much point building new marinas then I suppose

 

[Tomahawk]

To late for me.. We have swallowed the anchor after a nasty life changing illness. But that doesn't mean I think other people shouldn't have the chance.

 

[Pye_End]

Pye,

We have different opinions. That is all. I start by looking at people and how they live. And from what I see there are a lot of people who live pretty shitty lives, particularly those who live in cities. So I ask why, and I consider that much of the time their lives are constrained by poor housing and lack of infrastructure to break out of poverty. SO I ask why don't we have the infrastructure to lift people out of a shitty life and I find a lot of the time there was a proposal to build infrastructure but that it was stoped by environmentalists. Our present energy problems being a case in point. We are sitting on huge reserves of fuel yet because we let environmentalists have their way we do not use our own reserves. Instead we import goods from the other side of the world. Goods made from dirty coal fired energy without a tenth of the environmental protections we apply. Remember that China is building coal fired power stations and buying Indian coal extracted in open cast mines where they are destroying pristine rain forest to get at the stuff. We are causing more pollution than we would if we mined our own coal and extracted our own gas. But it's in someone else's back yard so it doesn't count.

Lets cut to the chase and focus on your last question.. No the world is in a pretty shity condition. When the oil gets scarce and it will there will be global conflict to make WW2 look like a tea party. I

So presumably you will only be happy when all the rain forests are gone. The lungs of the planet.

Carbon fuels are best kept in the ground.

 

[GrandadPig]

To late for me.. We have swallowed the anchor after a nasty life changing illness. But that doesn't mean I think other people shouldn't have the chance.

If, as you say, you have swallowed the anchor, that leaves a marina space for the next generation. Natural replacement without the need for more berths.

With the current state of the economy I expect demand will fall anyway.

 

[LONG_KEELER]

I don't think life is under any obligation to give us what we expect.

 

[Tomahawk]

So presumably you will only be happy when all the rain forests are gone. The lungs of the planet.

Carbon fuels are best kept in the ground.

It worries me when people make such a categorical statement that leaves no room for negotiation.

I have to presume you are unaware that energy only accounts for half fossil fuel use? To illustrate, you are looking at the use of the other half whilst reading this post. The plastic that your computer, shirt, underpants, your TV, GRP for your boat, your foul weather gear, washing machine, fridge, washing up liquid bottle packaging that keeps your food protected and fresh .. the list is endless ... all are made from fossil carbohydrates. We cannot substitute "natural" materials like wood and wool for oil based products. The last time we tried that we cleared most of our forests to make ships (the Victory alone took 150Ha of ancient oak forest) and slaughtered most of the wales in our oceans.

But to blow your envoiro trumpet it angers me how we waste the gift that is oil on single use plastics for our convenience. We need a reset of our thinking. But we annot afford to eimply abandon fossil based products overnight. Sri Lankla tried that and now they are actually starving.

 

[Tomahawk]

If, as you say, you have swallowed the anchor, that leaves a marina space for the next generation. Natural replacement without the need for more berths.

With the current state of the economy I expect demand will fall anyway.

That would hold good if the population of SE England was not growing with new housing.

 

[GrandadPig]

That would hold good if the population of SE England was not growing with new housing.

Not growing as much as you may think. A large proportion of the demand for housing is a consequence of divorce and separated couples. Most children in secondary education now come from what used to be called ‘broken homes’. As a retired teacher I found it surprising how few students came from ‘conventional families’,