Wave power in the islands
Yet another expensive hoop for developers to jump through. Or go elsewhere, where the hoops (and the seals?) don't exist.
Any chance of an assessment of the conservation zones on the human population?
The blog formerly known as "Angus Nicolson - an incredulous eye on the isles" this was the blog of an ordinary, boring, former Councillor in the Western Isles of Scotland.
Angus is taking a sabbatical to be with his young family
Debate strengthens democracy, except inside the SNP, as he has discovered.
If you want balance then get some scales. This is opinion - our opinion.
at 12:44 pm
Labels: Marine Environment, Politics
Any proven errors of fact made will be corrected in the original article, or by publishing a correction at the same degree of prominence, or both. As far as practical, others who have quoted the article will be requested to make a note in their article - this would include, for example pinging back with the correction those who had linked to the original piece.
If articles are ever removed, a statement of why that has been done will be left in situ.
The rest is entirely at my discretion.
6 comments:
Why the assumption? Orkney has seal protection and wave power developments. It doesn't have quite so many nay-sayers, however.
Don't think people here would have had a problem with wave power either actually. Only people who didn't want wave were those who saw they would clean up with onshore wind.
In the marine Scotland act a seal conservation area does not affect developers. It just means that people wishing a licence to kill seals might not get one or be more resticted in terms of numbers they can legitimately cull.
Sorry but there is a decline in the seal numbers and that is mainly due to human activity. If, if a blind eye was not so often made to the shooting of seals by the COMMERCIAL fish farmers it would not now affect the COMMERCIAL renewable industry.
My point - both of which effect affect local regional industry and employment.
Yes, there is a decline in SOME but not all species of seal. The Mediterranean Monk seal for example is being poisoned by toxic algae, not directly by man.
Both the Norwegians and Icelandic Governments have identified that seal flesh carries PCBs and heavy metals such as mercury; when was the last time a fisherman dumped a pound of mercury over the side? If you want to truly protect these species you should look at the pollutants pumped off the mainland and flowing up the North channel; plastics and the like do more damage to the seals long term survival than most fishermen ever do.
Still and all, its much easier for politicians to target the wee man, in Scotland it has always been thus.
Decline in seal numbers? Grey seal numbers continue to grow year on year and while common seal numbers are dropping. There is a growing belief the common are being displaced by the much larger grey seals. The much vaunted decline in common seal numbers follows an even more dramatic increase from circa 5000 in UK waters to circa 45,000. These animals are not in danger and are not being seriously persecuted by man. The fall in numbers is a bit of a mystery but it is possible numbers exceeded the environment's carrying capacity and now the numbers are returning to a more sustainable number - unless of course the grey seals are affecting them, in which case their decline may continue, until our conservationists allow their numbers to be controlled.
The picture is more complex than is generally recognised. Declaration of a conservation are, does not necessarily protect the species, ir just affects how man interacts with it.
Post a Comment