Why the glaring silence from the Yachting press?

KristiferColumbus

KristiferColumbus

N/A
Joined
22 Apr 2009
Messages
6,820
Location
Just driftin
Visit site
It is astonishing to me that though I have vaguely heard of the new proposed Marine Conservation Zones I had heard nothing of the smaller projects that are coming in under the wing of this edifice like the proposed anchoring ban in Studland Bay until I looked in this forum & that it is not reflected in the wider Yachting press many of whom are patrons of this site.....you would think that something that could considerably effect "cruising" that so many of us love would have the Yachting Magazines that patronize us up in arms trying to inform their readership.Would'nt you?:confused::mad:
 
I doubt that the magazines wish to get involved. We are living in times in which anyone who objects to environmental projects is demonised. They would face the risk of boycotts and withdrawal of advertising, both of which could mean the end for financially-marginal publications.


“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
 
Cerddinen said:
We are living in times in which anyone who objects to environmental projects is demonised.
Click to expand...
Well said -- very true.

It's also been a very long, slow-burning story. I vividly recall writing a piece about "putting the rights of lugworms over the rights of people" several years ago.

But unfortunately, if you report each step along the way, the letters to the Editor start by accusing you of making a fuss over nothing, then of having some kind of axe to grind, then of being boring -- "why don't you write about something else for a change?". Somewhere along the line, someone accuses you of letting personal political opinions intrude into a boating magazine. But the one that trumps them all is "anyway it's not going to happen for another X years"

X years later, the Editor suddenly starts getting letters saying "why didn't you tell us".
 
kristifercolumnbus said:
It is astonishing to me that though I have vaguely heard of the new proposed Marine Conservation Zones I had heard nothing of the smaller projects that are coming in under the wing of this edifice like the proposed anchoring ban in Studland Bay
Click to expand...
That's because the dastardly RYA were concealing so much information from you by putting it on their website, and cunningly trying to convince you that they are a royalist enclave when all the time they were really fighting it tooth and nail! ;)
 
Cerddinen said:
I doubt that the magazines wish to get involved. We are living in times in which anyone who objects to environmental projects is demonised. They would face the risk of boycotts and withdrawal of advertising, both of which could mean the end for financially-marginal publications.


“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
Click to expand...

I can't believe that they would loose advertising revenue if they had more guts I think it is much more likely that they will loose more of their readership if they continue to dum down.Anyway thanks for that & I love that quote from Martin Luther King.:cool::)
 
timbartlett said:
That's because the dastardly RYA were concealing so much information from you by putting it on their website, and cunningly trying to convince you that they are a royalist enclave when all the time they were really fighting it tooth and nail! ;)
Click to expand...

Very droll but I'm still not convinced that the RYA can tell the difference between sea horses & the 3.30 at Plumpton.
Sounds like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted (where anchoring is concerned):rolleyes:
 
seahorses

kristifercolumnbus said:
It is astonishing to me that though I have vaguely heard of the new proposed Marine Conservation Zones I had heard nothing of the smaller projects that are coming in under the wing of this edifice like the proposed anchoring ban in Studland Bay until I looked in this forum & that it is not reflected in the wider Yachting press many of whom are patrons of this site.....you would think that something that could considerably effect "cruising" that so many of us love would have the Yachting Magazines that patronize us up in arms trying to inform their readership.Would'nt you?:confused::mad:
Click to expand...

I have seen quite a few threads and posts about studland bay ,seahorses etc

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219617&highlight=seahorses

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216483&highlight=seahorses
 
kristifercolumnbus said:
Yeah so have I but only in here & only after our anchoring rights had already been given away to unelected bureaucrats.
Click to expand...
They weren't "given away": they were snatched.

But as for the "why didn't the magazines tell us? " theme... well, they did. But the trouble is that you probably missed it, because unfortunately the vibes that Editors and publishers consistently get from readers is that they want to read about boats, not politics. And they want to read about news that has just happened, rather than so-called "speculation" about things that are in the pipeline but won't emerge for another five or ten years.
 
timbartlett said:
They weren't "given away": they were snatched.

But as for the "why didn't the magazines tell us? " theme... well, they did. But the trouble is that you probably missed it, because unfortunately the vibes that Editors and publishers consistently get from readers is that they want to read about boats, not politics. And they want to read about news that has just happened, rather than so-called "speculation" about things that are in the pipeline but won't emerge for another five or ten years.
Click to expand...

OK tim maybe you could explain this to me.Somebody must have come up with the idea of marine conservation zones;"Finding Sanctuary" was given the job of administering it as I understand it but by who?
& when you think of marine conservation.I at least think immediately of things like preventing oil tankers from cleaning their tanks at sea.Pollution from sewage & all the rest of it.Over fishing maybe preventing those clam type dredges that scour the bottom but anchors & preventing people from anchoring?:confused:That must have got on the agenda somehow & who wrote it into "Finding Sanctuary's" powers for setting up these marine conservation zones?
Banning anchoring seems so trivial in the whole scheme of things & particularly when looking at the amount of coastline that we have that I can't help thinking that this will alienate many people.It is about peoples little pet individual projects & not looking at genuine protection & the wider scheme of things.
I now think that it is conservationists that we need protecting from!
 
I was aware of the Marine Bill, but I must admit it was being sold on the basis of controlling those "awful" scallop dredgers rather than stopping me anchoring in Studland bay.

I don't think in truth you could have the MCZs (which as I have said previously I support) without the potential to control anchoring, I think the real battle is to come on how these zones are implemented.
 
glashen said:
I was aware of the Marine Bill, but I must admit it was being sold on the basis of controlling those "awful" scallop dredgers rather than stopping me anchoring in Studland bay.

I don't think in truth you could have the MCZs (which as I have said previously I support) without the potential to control anchoring, I think the real battle is to come on how these zones are implemented.
Click to expand...

But we have thousands of miles of deserted coastline glashen most of which no body in their right mind would consider anchoring in.Why give so much attention to one or two little pet projects that will have absolutely no impact on the wider scheme of things?:confused:
This is just a bureaucrats charter.
 
kristifercolumnbus said:
But we have thousands of miles of deserted coastline glashen most of which no body in their right mind would consider anchoring in.Why give so much attention to one or two little pet projects that will have absolutely no impact on the wider scheme of things?
Click to expand...

I don;t have any problem with these zones in principle. I doubt if there are many areas where yacht anchors make much difference, either because they're aren't enough of them to cause much damage (bays where a couple of yachts a week anchor) or because they're isn't anything important down there to damage. Puilladobhrain must look like a ploughed field on the bottom, but if there is nothing of significance to plough up, who cares?

If, however, there are areas where rare creatures are being damaged by loads of anchors, restrictions on anchoring seem perfectly justifiable.
 
MCZ have other ridiculous consequences, you won't even be able to fish with rod and line or trail a hook for Mackerel in some areas for miles offshore.
 
kristifercolumnbus said:
OK tim maybe you could explain this to me.Somebody must have come up with the idea of marine conservation zones;"Finding Sanctuary" was given the job of administering it as I understand it but by who?
Click to expand...
DEFRA

kristifercolumnbus said:
when you think of marine conservation.I at least think immediately of things like preventing oil tankers from cleaning their tanks at sea.Pollution from sewage & all the rest of it.
Click to expand...
Of course you do. That's precisely what you were meant to think. If you were a civil servant spin merchant trying to sell the idea to MPs or to the public, would you mention all the harm it would do? or would you concentrate on the supposed benefits?
Banning anchoring (even banning access) in MCZs has been on the agenda from the start -- as has allowing the world and his wife the right to stroll through dinghy parks and marinas.
kristifercolumnbus said:
Banning anchoring seems so trivial in the whole scheme of things & particularly when looking at the amount of coastline that we have that I can't help thinking that this will alienate many people.It is about peoples little pet individual projects & not looking at genuine protection & the wider scheme of things.
I now think that it is conservationists that we need protecting from!
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
But that isn't the message that is being put out to all the good folk who subscribe to the likes of the RSPB and the National Trust.
I'm afraid an awful lot of yachtsmen and motorboaters didn't want to believe it, either. Some of them are still trying to pretend that it is all a scare story whipped up by a handful of biassed journalists with personal axes to grind (or by fat cats in blazers in committee rooms ;) )
 
Last edited:
Ubergeekian said:
If, however, there are areas where rare creatures are being damaged by loads of anchors, restrictions on anchoring seem perfectly justifiable.
Click to expand...

Are there really any rare creatures that justify a bureaucratic body having the power to ban anchoring?That is the question.
The whole of nature is in a flux new creatures come in all the time & old ones either die out or move to new habitats.
We have whales turtles & God knows what visiting our waters now that did'nt just a few years ago.According to a tv program I watched the other night Sun Fish are now common in Cornwall.Little Egrets have established themselves in large numbers around here just recently & apparently now with Global warming the tree line is moving further North with our old established trees probably going to die out according to another program I watched.
This will be a field day for "conservationists" just monitoring them & as in the case of Studland Bay setting up little 'zoos' to try & hold back the forces of Nature.
Just the other day it was mentioned on South Today that they have found sea horses by that new fangled "surf reef" in Boscomb & a friend hearing this mentioned that they had discovered sea horses in the Thames a few years ago.
Make of it what you will.
 
Last edited:
Palma Bay

These conservation zones were started by the Italians (would you believe?)
15 or so year ago we found the first on the west coast of the tiny island of Ustica, about 30 miles NNW of Palermo. There, a large part of the sea bed was designated out of bounds to shipping of all sorts.
Later on we were on passage from Greece to France when we put in for a night's anchorage at Palma Bay, near Santa Margharita Island, which is wildish country and one could spend a quiet free night there before moving on.
A large RIB approached and demanded a fee of 150 euros, not for mooring but as a fine for disturbing the continuum. We could have a season ticket for an appropriate fee. The bay was no longer sparsely occupied. About a dozen mega-yachts were anchored there where they come from Porto Cervo, and with their political clout had managed a scheme to keep Oi Polloi away from their playground. We moved on, farting as we did so. It appears the justification for this discrimination in favour of richesse was to "protect marine environment".
That was how it started, but within 2 years the pampered petty princelings of Porto Cervo had got a concession and some politician was probably a bit richer.
You are worried about Studland?
How long before "exceptions" are made?
Most of my county of Norfolk is bird sanctuary which started off with good intentions, but now consists of very private holiday camps for the elite of the RSPB.
Am I cynical or what?
I was not so once upon a time.
But "if I am so, it is thou who hast made me so."
 
timbartlett said:
That's because the dastardly RYA were concealing so much information from you by putting it on their website, and cunningly trying to convince you that they are a royalist enclave when all the time they were really fighting it tooth and nail! ;)
Click to expand...

Hey Tim. Thanks for pointing out how great the RYA are again. I haven't read one of your posts for a while and was starting to believe those fools who think they're a useless bunch of beareucratic pompous upwind sailors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top