A GOOD test of meaninglessness in bland government statements is to invert them. Thus, “We take our marine environment seriously” becomes “We do not take our marine environment seriously.” Of course, they take the marine environment seriously. It goes, as it were, without saying. However, in the case of the already destroyed flame shell reef in Loch Carron at least, the statement issued yesterday might have said: “We now take our marine environment seriously.”
Last month, it was revealed a scallop dredger had destroyed the reef in the sea loch near Plockton. The rage of conservationists was palpable. Pictures were painted of metal teeth ripping through fragile clam nests, destroying reefs that also nurtured crustaceans, young fish and scallop spat. A local marine biologist said starfish, squat lobsters, spider crabs and sea urchins had also been mangled in the dredging.
And, at the time, to the disbelief of the conservationists, this was legal. Now, at least, after an investigation by Scottish Natural Heritage, scallop dredging has been banned in the loch, initially for one year, under an urgent Marine Conservation Order.
This is a welcome move, even if the chorus of “too little, too late” has been loud from critics, who describe the Scottish Government’s management of inshore waters as “prehistoric”. In denying being stuck in the stone age, the government adduces a rock and a hard place, assaying a balancing act between environmental protection and the need for “legitimate and sustainable fishing”.
The word “sustainable” is not the first that springs to mind when it comes to dredging. The reef could take decades to recover. It’s also far from clear damage caused by dredging is worth it for the profits of a small number of fishermen.
In the meantime, as the usual unflattering comparisons with Scandinavia are made, the Scottish Government needs to consider seriously fundamental reforms to the protection of Scotland’s inshore waters, including the possibility of a ban on dredging up to three miles from shore. And we mean “consider seriously”.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here