Consequences, yachties and various stuff

[NickB]

.
Just to let you all know that the OT's reporter responsible for last week's 'Money Down the Toilet' article phoned me today and chatted at some length.

I did not say anything intended for publication, but you never know. I certainly trust that I did not say anything that will appear in this week's paper either misquoted or hopelessly out of context, but talking to the press is always dangerous so should that happen I would ask you lot NOT to jump straight down my throat, OK?

Essentially Ms Glen-Lee seemed surprised to hear that anyone was in favour as allegedly there have been a large number of negative letters about it and no positive comment. As I said before, if you believe your views are not being represented then you really ALL need to write to the paper yourselves.

- NickB

[novus ordo seclorum]

Nick
I've largely stayed away from posting over the last six months due to travel and other commitments but feel that, if you're not already aware of it, I should raise a slight warning over your strategy with the Oban Times.

There [u]could[/u] be three [u]unintended [/u]consequences if your letter is published and your interview (mis)quoted.

1. George H [u]may[/u] (or may not) take umbrage at being described as being unrepresentative seeing as the bulk of the views expressed in the article were his.
[b]"last week’s article was based on the views of a small and unrepresentative number of residents" [/b]

2. I would guess far more (by a long way) residents of Seil read the Oban Times than read this forum. These fellow residents [u]may [/u]form the impression that you are setting yourself up as spokesman for the island and [u]may[/u] (or may not) take umbrage at that.

3. Your letter may prompt many people to log in to the forum for the first time and, thus, outsiders [u]may[/u] get the wrong impression about Seil residents. They will see all sorts of petty arguments, wee strops and all kinds of insults; most recently to a successful local businessman and his (presumed) German ancestry, to Frances S-K and to her daughter.

Hopefully I am wrong but, just in case, forewarned is forearmed.

Personally I feel the fault, if any, lies with the CC (who normally do a fantastic job at great sacrifice to their own time). They should have been more active in representing the views of both sides of the divide. Similarly the OT should have approached the CC in the first instance. We do not have a resident Laird and the days are gone when the local doctor could be seen as the leader of the community. Leadership should, nowadays, fall on our elected representatives; the CC. Probably faults at both the OT and the CC in this communication problem.

[Mona Lott]

The primary fault lies with the OT reporter who wrote a front-page story without researching it competently and possibly also with the OT editor who, in headlining, attributed the remarks of a couple of unrepresentative islanders to the whole population of Seil. Relative to that fact, your points 1-3, NoS, aren't so important in my view. The doc is bigger than that, the forum is fine as it is and the moderator has no need to worry as he has represented this site on this matter very well and responsibly. Just my opinions of course!

[Bit of a Mink]

Yes, I agree with Mona.
On this topic the forum has been really well administered, thanks Nick.
The Oban Times has been extremely biased in it's reporting of the sewerage works, incredibily giving a half page spread to the nameless holejumper who would rather not be named and at the same time quoting his views, and then declaring it had received no letters in support of the works when I know of at least three letters that had been sent in, one by email and two by post.
The Doc is his own person and has the right to his opinions same as the rest, but the "rest" have the right to be given voice too.
As Mona Says, Just my opinions of course!

[Maggie]

Personally I never saw the need for the sewage works but agree with most others now. The BB lads have tried their hardest in difficult geological and meteorological conditions so well done to them. I,m sure that reinstatement will make the island look as good as new, albeit parts may look like Surrey unless careful thought is given to tree and shrub planting. I do feel that having spent close to £10million in an attempt to make the waters 100% pure of our poo something should now be done about the b****y yotties who, if they are allowed to continue dumping their toilets in Balvicar Bay and up the Sound, put all the effort and money to waste. Could restrictions be put in on where yachts are allowed, ie only in open ses and not such restricted waters as ours? Could heavy fines be imposed on yotties who continue to foul our waters?

[Mona Lott]

I think you are going to upset our moderator-on-high as this topic has arisen in the past before you joined us (because he, NickB, is a yachtie and can be easily upset!). At first this issue seems minor but I would guess that the number of yachtie-nights&days spent in Balvicar Bay and up the Sound will be of the order of 500 person-days per year. Their effluent is introduced nearer to fish and shellfish farms than current releases from shore so it seems sensible to me that such discharges by yachties should indeed be restricted.

[Bit of a Mink]

I agree with Maggie 100% on this.
The sailing fraternity have a lot to answer for as regards poo and other debris floating around the seven seas.
But how does any legislation be seen to be kept even if there was any? It's a big ocean out there
Seems wierd and exasperating that SEPA have awesome powers that they wield like a sword on some poor blighters and at the same time ingore glaringly obvious whole tanks of effluent being churned out into the sea, very close to the shore in the case of an anchorage.
Even if this is "seasonal sewage" in the waters around here it isnot good enough.
Sorry to offend any sailors around here but we have a right to voice our opinions.

[NickB]

.
NOS you are being silly . . . the letter I wrote to the Oban Tmes expressed the views of posters on this thread and anyone who is upset by anything in it is a) oversensitive and b) reading more into it than is there.

As for the rest of you and your insistence that yachties are shi**ing in your seas - this is nonsense. Very few yachties spend nights on board in the Sound and the odd few that overnight in the bay have toilet facilities ashore at the boatyard. Vastly more - hundreds of times more - effluent from shore-based toilets and outflows goes into the bay, and it may also interest you to know that the runoff from sheep pasture can also raise levels of pollution beyond that acceptable for shellfish production.

Comments like this do nothing to encourage rational debate and will indeed confirm to whoever may look at this thread that you are all quite incapable of rational debate on this matter.

Now, if you want to rant about yachties, potential libel actions or any other nonsense then start another thread - yet again I am going to have to split this one, and if you post irrelevant nonsense on it again I will lock it - which will be a shame as I would prefer to leave the poll open.

- NickB

[Eric the Viking]

Their effluent is introduced nearer to fish and shellfish farms than current releases from shore

What bears do it the woods fish do in the sea?

When you have a marine fish farm of with a discharge consent of lets say 800 tonnes of salmon your fish farm owner's not going to be concerned about a few jobbies from yachts (allegedly!) floating by when the fish themselves are probably producing many tonnes of poo every day.

Ask yourself where that goes?

Shellfish on the other hand area filter feeders and as such are greatly at risk from bacterialogical contamination by faecal coliforms and accumultion of toxins.

Now why don't you all be good girls and boys and leave poor Santa (or should that be Saint Nick?) alone - can't you see he's hopping mad

[Mona Lott]

NickB, You are turning this site into a bit of a shambles with your somewhat irrational interferences, splitting threads, censoring and locking topics. For Pete's sake, give us a modicum of peace and courtesy at this time of goodwill. It's sad to admit but, from my lofty vantage point, I keep a log of overnighters in Balvicar Bay and the Sound and I have told you the result. Your dismissal is a poor reflection on yourself. Please try a bit of modesty and stop playing God with us.

As for Eric, I agree with you 100%. The local effects of salmon farming are dreadful.

Happy Xmas all!! Maggie you succeeded! The fish took the bait.....

[NickB]

Mona,

I split the thread to protect you lot from yourselves. If we are to persuade the OT - or indeed anyone else - that there are sensible opinions re. the new sewage scheme being expressed on this board then massive thread drift into wildly irrelevant areas and falling out with other posters is surely best avoided. Moan as much as you will - it is after all the persona you have chosen - but how I run this board is my business and frankly no-one else's. Your choice is whether to continue to use it or not. Personal attacks on the moderator will - as on any other bulletin board - get you nowhere.

As for the matter of the significance or otherwise of overboard discharges from yachts in the Bay and the Sound - well sorry but you simply do not have any evidence or backing for your assertions. Your attempt to stir up trouble by insinuating that there is a significant problem in the Bay or the Sound caused by yachts is in my opinion unsubstantiated rumourmongering of the worst order aimed at a thoroughly harmless category of visitors that make a substantial contribution to the economy of Argyll.

(Fishing boats also have toilets on board of course - why not have a go at them as well while you have your tarbrush out.)

give us a modicum of peace and courtesy at this time of goodwill. Once again you have over-reacted irrationally, by dismissing those who produce facts as being incapable of rational debate.

I've reacted irrationally? I've disturbed the peace of the season and acted discourteously? Give us a break!! The assertions you are making are not backed up by any objective evidence, statistics or indeed any recognised body of opinion inside or outside the sailing industry. It is you who have disturbed the relative peace of this board by jumping on this particular hobby horse of yours once again and riding it roughshod through the middle of an entirely unrelated thread.

You haven't produced any facts. So you have seen yachts moored overnight in Balvicar Bay - I don't think any of us would dispute that. Unless you have very good binoculars indeed you certainly have no way of knowing whether or not they used their sea toilets during that time, neither do you know whether or not each yacht has a holding tank - which increasing numbers do. Now, draw us a map of these overnight visitors and correlate it with the colifirm figures from water samples you have taken at strategice points with times, boat positions, tidal conditions at the time etc - or if you can't then please just give it a break.

I don't have time for any more of this.


- N

[Eric the Viking]

Fishing boats also have toilets on board of course

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[NickB]

But how does any legislation be seen to be kept even if there was any? It's a big ocean out there.

Effective legislation comes in the form of requiring yachts to have holding tanks. This is already the case in many areas including most of the Med, and will soon be law here I am sure. Problem is it requires the provision of pump-out stations.

For more information about yachts and the environment have a look at the GreenBlue initiative.

- NickB

[Mona Lott]

'scuse me, Nick darling, I think you'll find it was Maggie who raised this matter. All I did was try to quantify things as best I could based on observation. Then you responded by accusing me of irrational debate, as you did last week about the cataclysmic noise and disruption from the BB boys. This week you're a convert to the latter. Please try to be less brittle and erratic. All you have done is risen to Maggie's bait.......you've probably made her happy but, alas, not me....

[Eric the Viking]

Could heavy fines be imposed on yotties who continue to foul our waters?

That sounds like a good job Mags ..........You haven't really thought this through though, have you dear?

How much do you think it would cost to equip a 'Yacht Police' patrolling the West Coast for the odd stray jobbie. Fast patrol/interceptor launchs, the crews, piers, a shorebase with a sophisticated communication network, the obligatory uniform and the latest DNA testing laboratory to link the offending excrement to the offender. Or have you another idea.

Why don't you leave the poor yachties alone? They're a strange bunch granted with some irritaing habits but for the most part they're harmless and like it or not they do contribute to the local economy.

[longshanks]

I split the thread to protect you lot from yourselves.
- N

Gee, thanks NickMacB

Was it me who first raised our awareness of the discraceful habit of yachties dumping their poo in the Sound some time ago? Can't remember now but didn't the debate end in the admission by NickMacB that he did this occasionaly? Still, I say "Peace and Love", poo where you want; it'll all be washed away by global warming.

Without wanting to raise blood presssures further, Eric & MMcB, just what do Yachties contribute to our local economy? (ships that pass in the night and all that).

Long Hair (Split ends..and threads...by choice)

[Pentlandpirate]

Why is poo so disgusting? Isn't it about the most natural thing around? Isn't it sterile should you want to eat it? Can all those rabbits be wrong?

Surely the world is created in a way that it can cope with poo naturally? What would dung beatles do without poo? What would so many nomadic peoples use to cook their food with if they had no poo to burn? How would millions of Chinese grow food if they couldn't liberally smear human excrement over their produce? Yes, poo has it's natural place in the food chain.

Yacht poo is literally a drop in the ocean, especially compared to other pollutants. The waste people create everyday in their lives, through discarded packaging and materials has a far more lasting effect on our world than the poo they create. At least poo is organic.

[Maggie]

Could heavy fines be imposed on yotties who continue to foul our waters?

That sounds like a good job Mags ..........You haven't really thought this through though, have you dear?
How much do you think it would cost to equip a 'Yacht Police' patrolling the West Coast for the odd stray jobbie. Fast patrol/interceptor launchs, the crews, piers, a shorebase with a sophisticated communication network, the obligatory uniform and the latest DNA testing laboratory to link the offending excrement to the offender.

I like your scenario Eric. Sure, an expensive operation but if we make the fines for dropping jobbies in the water (yotties and fishermen) massive and pay the "Yacht Police" on a target and bonus system then it pays for itself and the problem would be solved.
You see yotties have the choice as to where they dump their poo. Fish and sheep don't. So to keep our waters clean once the BB job is done and houses no longer discharge into the Bay or Sound then we should target the other pollution faction over which we have control: Yachts!
I feel a letter to the O.T. coming on. Thanks for your suggestions Eric.

[Eric the Viking]

just what do Yachties contribute to our local economy?

I can't believe I'm actually defending the yellow-wellied brigade - still season of goodwill and all that.

Yachts need fuelling and provisioning, moorings, overwintering and maintainence. Yachties aside from pooing need to eat, sleep, travel.

So I would say that they (for the most part) buy locally, eat locally, use local fuel, the occaissonal sleep in a dry bed (b&b), pay for their own moorings or rent from a third party, pay for haul out/in, overwintering, pier and berthing dues, use local yards for maintenaince and repair, local marine engineers, sparkies, boat builders. Call out local life boats. Add an additional turnover to the MCA, customs, council etc all of which keeps the economy turning over.

Aside from that I don't suppose they contribute much else
I imagine To kick off I imagine the boat yards a Balvicar, Ardfern, Crinan, Dunstaffnage and Craobh Haven may struggl

[Herby Dice]

I have not been posting much, busy and so on, and am frankly astonished at what has been going on in my absence. people worrying that Dr H miight take offence at being called "unrepresentative"? What nonsense, he expressed his own opinion and doubt he ever considered that he was speaking on anyone else's behalf, certainly he made no claims to be our representative. Claims that moderation of this board is erratic and turning it into a shambles (it seems to me to be considerably less draconian than on any other mb I have seen). People spying on every yacht coming into the bay, twitching their curtains and assuming that each comes into the bay for the purposes of clandestine effluent discharge.

Mona, you ask NickB to stop playng God with us. Well, here's the scoop - as far as this board is concerned, NickB IS God. He owns it, he pays for it, he keeps it running, he stays up all night fixing it when it comes down. I'm surprised that so far he has not banned any posters, there are several whose goal in life seems to be to stir up animosity and provoke bickering and argument, rather than debate - they are not the same things.

My suggestion to NickB is to give yourself a Christmas present, mate. Scrap this place, it represents only the pretended opinions of a half dozen or so fake personae, some of whom seem to believe that it is their inalienable right to spout off on your webspace slagging off the effort you put into it.

Anyone wants to set up an alternative, the software is freely available and server space can be had for buttons. Better read up the laws regarding internet publishing first, mind, and set aside plenty of time.

Herby Dice is off the menu.