CJW Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 Fair enough - as I said, I have no axe to grind on this particular matter. I don't mind people trying to protect the environment, it's just the shrill tone of certain types that gets my back up (I have at least one close relative who is a holier-than-thou eco-freak). And despite the previous denials, some of the 'pro-tern' postings on here have sounded hysterical in tone (and horribly self-aggrandizing at some points). Hopefully, my last words on this ("Finally" I hear you all say): 1. This is one of the problems of a forum - you cannot hear what is being written. Then again, some people can't understand what is being written! 2. I think 'pro-tern' is an unfortunate choice of phrase - it implies there's an 'anti-tern' faction. I'm sure no right-minded individual would be 'anti-tern' 3. Perhaps I have been self-aggrandising. I'm sorry, but it wasn't without foundation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooks Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Fair enough - as I said, I have no axe to grind on this particular matter. I don't mind people trying to protect the environment, it's just the shrill tone of certain types that gets my back up (I have at least one close relative who is a holier-than-thou eco-freak). And despite the previous denials, some of the 'pro-tern' postings on here have sounded hysterical in tone (and horribly self-aggrandizing at some points). Hopefully, my last words on this ("Finally" I hear you all say): 1. This is one of the problems of a forum - you cannot hear what is being written. Then again, some people can't understand what is being written! 2. I think 'pro-tern' is an unfortunate choice of phrase - it implies there's an 'anti-tern' faction. I'm sure no right-minded individual would be 'anti-tern' 3. Perhaps I have been self-aggrandising. I'm sorry, but it wasn't without foundation... Don't sell yourself short, the Terns have much more right to live in peace than the morons and their motorbikes have to wreck innocent creatures habitats. I'm a true Manxman but can't understand why we capitulate so much to the motorcyclists. Especially the off roaders who truly need to be controlled or preferably f@cked off altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 1. A hundred yards??? The birds' nests and their young are seldom more than 10 yds above the high water mark. The young are also usually creched away from the dunes and between the high water mark and the water's edge- directly in the intended paths of the motorcycles. These creched young cannot fly out of the way. Wouldn't that line mean that the young are creched under water for part of the day - between high water mark and water's edge would be somewhere between high water mark and low water mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronague Ram Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Wouldn't that line mean that the young are creched under water for part of the day - between high water mark and water's edge would be somewhere between high water mark and low water mark It seemed clear to me and I'm sure anyone else with even a vague appreciation of maritime matters - water's edge is the limit of the tide at any given time. Low water mark/high water mark are the points the tide reaches twice daily (in respect of each) when farthest from/nearest to the shore. Water's edge could also be the low water mark - but only twice daily for a matter of a minute or two! Sorry if this sounds in any way condescending, but your query suggests you are 'way off the mark'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 They built roads first and then motorcycles. If you were to tax the first 'motorcar' now it would be classed as a bicycle as it was a three wheeler. Motorbikes predate cars and predate tarmacced roads by some margin. In fact the first TT could almost be classed as an enduro event. Untarmacced roads with motorcyles ??? That's an enduro that is. Why do they insist on taking them where they aren't supposed to be?Hills and beaches occur naturally and, as such, aren't designed to accommodate motor vehicles of any sort, Were you on the original design team for the planet ? Do you have the exacting specification that the earth was designed to so you can validate this point? In the same vein as your point the planet wasn't designed for human life. It wasn't designed for anything. It would be as reasonable to say that the planet wasn't designed for walking boots either. And it sure as hell wasn't designed for centres of population ! Unless you are living in a cave wearing nothing but a vegan loincloth I don't think you are in an position to criticise what someone else does. Got ADSL in your cave ? so why oh why do folk insist on trying to climb trees on a bloody motorbike? They don't - stop being stupid. Why do people insist on walking up hills to steep for them to get up without cutting steps ? It's going totally against nature and community. Nature ? unless you are living etc etc (see above) I realise they feel that if they don't fall on their arses whilst climbing a 1 in 1 hill of mud and shale and negotiating the Victoria falls while only wearing full body armour and steel capped booties that they have achieved something, that's their delusion. If that's what they want to do then fair enough, but why not buy a piece of land for that purpose and not encroach on nature reserves and beaches? The motocross guys did and they got banned from using it. You only have to go on Sky Hill to see the damage done to ancient paths and walkways Ancient paths and walkways are not natural as if humans weren't here then the paths would not exist. All you are doing is saying its acceptable for me to cause damage the way I chose but not the way that you do. by motorbikes and their careless attitude to the countryside to see why I don't particularly like the off-road section of motorsport. In some places the paths they have carved out of the country are 40ft wide and up to 2ft deep. There's no need for that, but I see no compensation offered by the vandals in leather, just more winging "I have a right to ride here, you can't stop me" bullshit. I'd like to see a 40 foot wide track. I really would. Tell us where as I am calling "bullshit". Given that if you didn't walk there the tracks would almost disappear then walkers clearly damage the hillside. For proof all you have to do is to go somewhere like the hill above windy corner. Walk near the summit and you will find a series of boot cut steps where the terrain gets too steep to simply walk up. This is clearly a walkers version of trying to climb up a 1 in 1 slope (etc) And then once at the summit what do you find ? A pile of stones visible for miles. Stones placed there by walkers. What I find bizarre is that motorcyclists are just other people who enjoy the outdoors in a slightly different way to you but they do enjoy the outdoors. You are saying "You can only enjoy the outdoors the way I do and only damage it the way I do" A very narrow minded viewpoint if you ask me. Lets get back to the terns here. Why are they endangered ? It’s not due to motorbikes it’s due to what we as humans do – we’ve encroached and encroached on their habitats until eventually there is little left. More damage is caused to tern nests by walkers, people going fishing, dogs etc every year but you guys ain’t got the balls to say it. You are just using this as an excuse to block something that you personally don’t like – prove me wrong and ban everything from the ayres as one misplaced foot is as likely to cause more damage than 30 motorbikes going no where near the nests. But then of course arguing on the internet is like..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3v0 Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Given that if you didn't walk there the tracks would almost disappear then walkers clearly damage the hillside. For proof all you have to do is to go somewhere like the hill above windy corner. Walk near the summit and you will find a series of boot cut steps where the terrain gets too steep to simply walk up. This is clearly a walkers version of trying to climb up a 1 in 1 slope (etc) And then once at the summit what do you find ? A pile of stones visible for miles. Stones placed there by walkers. What I find bizarre is that motorcyclists are just other people who enjoy the outdoors in a slightly different way to you but they do enjoy the outdoors. You are saying "You can only enjoy the outdoors the way I do and only damage it the way I do" A very narrow minded viewpoint if you ask me. Lets get back to the terns here. Why are they endangered ? It’s not due to motorbikes it’s due to what we as humans do – we’ve encroached and encroached on their habitats until eventually there is little left. More damage is caused to tern nests by walkers, people going fishing, dogs etc every year but you guys ain’t got the balls to say it. You are just using this as an excuse to block something that you personally don’t like – prove me wrong and ban everything from the ayres as one misplaced foot is as likely to cause more damage than 30 motorbikes going no where near the nests. But then of course arguing on the internet is like..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJW Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 More damage is caused to tern nests by walkers, people going fishing, dogs etc every year but you guys ain’t got the balls to say it. May I refer you to post #9 of this thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 More damage is caused to tern nests by walkers, people going fishing, dogs etc every year but you guys ain’t got the balls to say it. May I refer you to post #9 of this thread... So if you are agreeing with that statement why aren't you banning them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronague Ram Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 So if you are agreeing with that statement why aren't you banning them ? Dogs are banned from being up there at this time of year without being on a lead. Once the nesting ground is established, that is often fenced off banning the public from getting any closer. Signs are placed advising all users accessing from the car parks of the presence of these birds and to take care. Legislation exists to prosecute anyone not complying. I would refer you to previous postings as well - it is a small risk and may not kill the eggs/young or cause the parent birds to abandon them, but why insist on this risk during a small period of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomTucker Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 some details of the event just in a case any bird watchers were keen to sample the dark side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Take Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Wouldn't that line mean that the young are creched under water for part of the day - between high water mark and water's edge would be somewhere between high water mark and low water mark It seemed clear to me and I'm sure anyone else with even a vague appreciation of maritime matters - water's edge is the limit of the tide at any given time. Low water mark/high water mark are the points the tide reaches twice daily (in respect of each) when farthest from/nearest to the shore. Water's edge could also be the low water mark - but only twice daily for a matter of a minute or two! Sorry if this sounds in any way condescending, but your query suggests you are 'way off the mark'! Can you draw a picture? I don't think you explained it very well and I don't want thoughts of drowning terns to stop me from getting to sleep tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Wouldn't that line mean that the young are creched under water for part of the day - between high water mark and water's edge would be somewhere between high water mark and low water mark It seemed clear to me and I'm sure anyone else with even a vague appreciation of maritime matters - water's edge is the limit of the tide at any given time. Low water mark/high water mark are the points the tide reaches twice daily (in respect of each) when farthest from/nearest to the shore. Water's edge could also be the low water mark - but only twice daily for a matter of a minute or two! Sorry if this sounds in any way condescending, but your query suggests you are 'way off the mark'! Can you draw a picture? I don't think you explained it very well and I don't want thoughts of drowning terns to stop me from getting to sleep tonight. My thoughts too - still unclear. Ronague Ram says "water's edge is the limit of the tide at any given time. Low water mark/high water mark are the points the tide reaches twice daily (in respect of each) when farthest from/nearest to the shore" - surely water's edge cannot be higher than the high tide mark, and therefore if the terns are between water's edge, which would therefore be somewhere between low water mark and high water mark, and high water mark, when water's edge moves up the beach with the rising tide, any terns below high water mark would be eventually inundated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 You only have to go on Sky Hill to see the damage done to ancient paths and walkways by motorbikes and their careless attitude to the countryside to see why I don't particularly like the off-road section of motorsport. In some places the paths they have carved out of the country are 40ft wide and up to 2ft deep. There's no need for that, but I see no compensation offered by the vandals in leather, just more winging "I have a right to ride here, you can't stop me" bullshit. Erm it's not all motorcycles, 4 x 4s use the tracks as well and in my opinion cause far more damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.