Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Massive Marine Reserve Created In Atlantic (bbc.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the deep-blue-sea dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The British government has announced that it will create a marine reserve slightly smaller than the UK in the waters off Ascension Island. The South Atlantic reserve totals 234,291 sq km and is being funded with the help of a £300,000 grant from the charitable Bacon Foundation. Charles Clover, Blue Marine Foundation chairman, said: "Ascension has been at the frontiers of science since Charles Darwin went there in the 19th Century, so it is entirely appropriate that it is now at the centre of a great scientific effort to design the Atlantic's largest marine reserve."

50 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. Looking forward ... by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    As a USMC veteran I am looking forward to the swag and discount offers in my mailbox.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    1. Re:Looking forward ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Holy shit! I opened this thread to say almost the same thing. You from the Island or are you a Hollywood Marine? ;-)

      (My retarded ass went not once but twice - I rejoined to finish paying for school. Man, that was a lot of years ago.)

      By the way, you are number four. I've found two other Marine vets here and met one of them in person. I suppose, 'tis an obligation that I say this: Semper Fi. However, you already knew that and it's a bit worn out by the masses.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Looking forward ... by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Im a Diego alum, no muddy feet on me. Platoon 1505 '74. In 'n' out in 23 months, with early release for college.
      I live near Las Vegas, drop me a line if you have an insatiable craving to play craps or see Penn & Teller live. (Your treat, I'm currently unemployed).
      My gmail account is the same handle.
      There seems to be a lot of us around for a force 250K strong
      Captcha "sagicity"

      . Be Well.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    3. Re:Looking forward ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Heh... You're old. :P I've got a place in Henderson and have been talking about going there before going back home in the spring. I may just have to hit you up. And, of course, it'll be on me. Anything less would be uncivilized. I'll try shaking the email and seeing what falls out tomorrow or something like that. I'm afraid I'd send only gibberish at this point, it's been a long day and my brain is mush.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. So useless. by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Who's going to stop factory ships from going in there and trawling up the fish?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:So useless. by jandersen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Who's going to stop factory ships from going in there and trawling up the fish?

      Creating a marine reserve is a declaration of intent; it means that if you violate it, you have been warned. We already have enough satelites looking down (think Google Maps) the be able to follow ships around across the oceans, just to mention one thing, and there has been a lot talk in recent years about actually using this to enforce rules on shipping and fishing. This is just another small piece in that puzzle; we don't necessarily need to have marine vessels defending these areas, when we can following the perpetrators on the big CCTV in the sky and then take them to court and strip to of all assets. If there is one thing the big multinationals that own the factory ships fear, it's losing money in a serious way. I hope they will be flayed and left in a salt pit.

    2. Re:So useless. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      then take them to court and strip to of all assets.

      What jurisdiction does England have over a Japanese fishing vessel?

      We have a blue water navy (yes, we still do) that is very successful at apprehending illegal fishing boats, pirates and other criminals.

      So the jurisdiction we have is that you are fishing in our waters illegally, and we have some ships with big guns that can stop you. Permanently. Or take you into custody, return you to a British port and put you infront of a magistrate.

    3. Re:So useless. by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      While the Royal Navy is well equipped and capable there is also the issue of political will and under the current Conservative government that is slightly lacking, nay, totally absent, when it comes to the interests of big money.

      Watch the idea of this marine reserve vanish when some multi-national corporation finds that it hampers them.

    4. Re:So useless. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      yes, we still do

      Barely. And not for long.

      More ships on the way.

      that is very successful at apprehending illegal fishing boats

      Close to home, I bet.

      If you call the Indian Ocean "home", then sure.

      pirates and other criminals.

      By yourselves or as part of a coalition?

      By ourselves and as part of coalitions, depending on the area. The Royal Navy is not afraid of operating on its own.

      we have some ships with big guns that can stop you.

      As if the UK is going to finance a navy large enough to permanently patrol that area with enough warships to successfully defend the area.

      We already permanently patrol several areas, including the Falkland Islands and territories in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific.

      Permanently.

      As if Britain has the collective testicles to sink a fishing boat. Now you're just being stupid.

      Not really, since it has happened in the past - we engage boats all over the world for many reasons. Why wouldn't we sink a fishing boat? Australia intercepts, boards and scuttles illegal fishing vessels many times a year, so why wouldn't we?

    5. Re:So useless. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The Navy? - Countries other than the US do have them, and the Brits in particular have never been shy about using theirs to plant flags and push people around.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:So useless. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Informative

      What jurisdiction does England have over a Japanese fishing vessel?

      England governs Ascension Island, so they have jurisdiction over all ships that enter the waters around the island, regardless of where they originated from. Being from a different country does not give you a free pass to violate the local laws.

    7. Re:So useless. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Large ships also are required to carry transponders which report to a public real-time database:

      http://www.marinetraffic.com/e...

      really pisses off the treasure hunters, but if a large fishing vessel were tracked into a reserve, or had its transponder go silent long enough for it to be in a reserve area, that could merit further investigation, fines, imprisonment of the captain, flogging of the crew (in Singapore), etc.

    8. Re:So useless. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The Navy?

      In 2016, do they even have the money to train in gunnery?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:So useless. by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Money in banks belongs to individual people, who have worked to earn it. The ocean and its resources belong to no person, although nation-states may claim rights to utilize it. Thus we have the tragedy of the commons, because of this type of socialism. If the ocean were demarcated into blocks and sold to the highest bidder, then then new owner would be sure to protect and preserve his valuable asset.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    10. Re:So useless. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      You realise the Australians do exactly that - intercept modern factory fishing boats - just as much as "rickety old things".

      And no, they don't want to hand Gibraltar back to Spain, quite the opposite in-fact...

    11. Re:So useless. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      You realise the Australians do exactly that - intercept modern factory fishing boats - just as much as "rickety old things".

      Good for them. But Oz isn't England.

      And no, they don't want to hand Gibraltar back to Spain, quite the opposite in-fact...

      This is old, but I bet the same attitudes still exist in the Foreign Office.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    12. Re:So useless. by swb · · Score: 1

      Read this:

      http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

      And realize nobody gives a shit and its essentially unenforced and borderline unenforceable.

      The only thing the Ascension sanctuary has in its favor is being out in the middle of blue water ocean with little or no shelf around it to support the kind of marine life variety you get around continental shelves.

      This means that the commercial fishing might not be that great and its far enough out that the shit boats used by the rogue guys may not be interested in that kind of open ocean adventure for the fuel and maintenance risks involved.

    13. Re:So useless. by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      You are more than just a little retarded if you think that Japanese fishing vessels cause problems in the Atlantic ocean.

      Well, I guess being ignorant is better than being retarded, but the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna is especially prized in Japanese cuisine, which accounts for about 80% of the market. I remember seeing many news stories that involve Japanese fishing fleets coming into conflict with European authorities, complaints that EU quotas were useless as they were not being applied to Japanese fishing fleets operating illegally in our waters, etc.

      I believe Nutria is due an apology.

    14. Re:So useless. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      That Independent article is also talking about a completely different government, with completely different policies. Its also taken from someones memoirs, someone who wasnt exactly above telling porkies...

    15. Re:So useless. by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      How advanced is their fishing enforcement budget? Do they have the money to keep the advanced crews and fuel on these advanced vessels in the neighborhood of Ascension on an ongoing basis?

    16. Re:So useless. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I totally realize that no one cares enough to actually do something about it.

      My point is, the tech is available to accurately track the fishing vessels and do something about it _if the government cared enough to do it_. For the big ships, they wouldn't even have to intercept at sea, they could present evidence and fine the crap out of the offending nation, who could in-turn:

      a) pay up (and take the money out of the fishing company that violated the sanctuary)

      or

      b) tell the "enforcers" to bugger off, in which case the enforcers have a myriad of options, not limited to only:

      1) economic sanctions (trade embargo, etc.)

      2) direct action against the offending vessel, or vessels owned by the same company, the next time it happens within intercept range of a navy ship, such direct action could include seizure of the vessel, arrest and detention of the captain, crew, etc.

      Having declared the sanctuary zone is the first step toward being able to take stronger action - whether or not the current administration has the balls to follow through with effective enforcement is likely: not.

    17. Re:So useless. by swb · · Score: 1

      The first thing these rogue ships do is turn off AIS, so while the technology exists, there's zero ability to enforce the use of AIS.

      So now you have a bunch of ships running around and you have no idea where they are. Maybe the military has some kind of magic satellite technology capable of tracking every surface vessel on the ocean, but I doubt they do and if they did, they're unlikely interested in using their space technology for fishing enforcement.

      Even if you can track them via AIS, it still doesn't do much good.

      The ships fly flags of convenience -- Liberia, Marshall Islands and Panama account for 40% of the world's fleet by deadweight tonnage, even though almost never are there actually companies based in those countries. The ships are owned by someone else in some other country and often leased out to shipping companies who may in turn lease them out again. And we still haven't gotten to the question of who's actually on board running the damn things, a motley crew of foreign nationals unrelated to the flag the ship flies, its owner or necessarily even its operator.

      So its entirely possible the *crew* may be up to no good, unbeknownst to the owner, operator or lessee of the ship and certainly unknown to the country the ship is registered to.

      By the time you get done doing the forensics, the damn thing is being broken for scrap off the coast of India or just scuttled outright.

    18. Re:So useless. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Perhaps tangentially related is that enforcement needn't be 100%, which seems to be something that is being assumed by more than one person. I'm sure the goal is 100% enforcement but a more tempered and realistic approach will be taken and the methods used with be commiserate with the amounts of abuse.

      Remember, the law doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything. It never has, it wasn't even really meant to do so. I'm not sure why people think it does. The law is there to provide a known, accepted, punishment for those who behave in manners considered unacceptable by the powers that be. It's like the people who say, "drone laws won't stop me!" True. Laws against murder don't stop all murders either. Instead, the laws indicate what is and isn't acceptable and describe the appropriate (as decided by the government) punishments.

      Will this area be subject to abuse? Probably. How much? We'll have to see. How much will it take to patrol this area? That too will need to be determined. They're called measured responses. Fortunately, most people aren't mentally handicapped and can see the world is full of choices that are not, in fact, binary in nature.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re:So useless. by KGIII · · Score: 2

      You're not very familiar with international law or maritime law, are you?

      I realize that you're hell bent on making yourself look silly but I'll try to help you out. The world is not a binary place. Enforcement can not be 100% and nobody is expecting it to be - well, nobody involved in this process. Regulations don't work like you seem to think they do. Instead of making authoritative statements, you can always just ask questions. I find it comes in handy and there are lots of people here who know a whole ton of different things - some of the are even willing to help me fill in the gaps in my knowledge.

      Whenever I say something stupid (which is fairly frequent), I make it a point to phrase it as a question. It's amazing what a difference it can make. Lemme give you an example:

      "Do progressives really want to force people to have gay sex, mandatory abortions, and adopt Islam as their main religion?"

      It's also handy for eliciting responses which isn't, by default, the same thing as trolling. You're giving the odd little critter known as a Nutria a bad name!

      You're the same person that said, "Well, I can just make my own drone and those drone laws can't stop me!" Aren't you? On its surface that appears to be a valid statement. Given some thought, however, and you'll realize it's just silly. Laws against speeding do not stop people from street racing. Laws against theft do not prevent people from stealing. Laws against murder have not eliminated murder. Funny how that works and yet we still have those laws. I'll see if you can figure out why on your own. Feel free to ask for help. Time is my greatest asset but I'm willing to share it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:So useless. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The first thing these rogue ships do is turn off AIS, so while the technology exists, there's zero ability to enforce the use of AIS.

      That's a whole lot simpler than you might think - you don't even need satellite or aerial surveillance (though they would help) - if you get a big ass radar ping with no AIS in that location, it's time for the patrol to go pay a visit and fire a shot across the bow. When they give some BS explanation about equipment malfunction, you confiscate the cargo and escort them from the exclusion zone with a warning the first time, and full fines/penalties for any repeat performances. Big ships without AIS are not welcome in sovereign waters, period. Big fishing vessels that go missing from AIS reporting for long enough to reach exclusion zones are immediately suspect and reason to send a patrol.

      So now you have a bunch of ships running around and you have no idea where they are. Maybe the military has some kind of magic satellite technology capable of tracking every surface vessel on the ocean, but I doubt they do and if they did, they're unlikely interested in using their space technology for fishing enforcement.

      Even if you can track them via AIS, it still doesn't do much good.

      The ships fly flags of convenience -- Liberia, Marshall Islands and Panama account for 40% of the world's fleet by deadweight tonnage, even though almost never are there actually companies based in those countries. The ships are owned by someone else in some other country and often leased out to shipping companies who may in turn lease them out again. And we still haven't gotten to the question of who's actually on board running the damn things, a motley crew of foreign nationals unrelated to the flag the ship flies, its owner or necessarily even its operator.

      Which is why jailing the captain and confiscating the vessel are two very attractive options for dealing with non-compliance.

      So its entirely possible the *crew* may be up to no good, unbeknownst to the owner, operator or lessee of the ship and certainly unknown to the country the ship is registered to.

      By the time you get done doing the forensics, the damn thing is being broken for scrap off the coast of India or just scuttled outright.

      Obfuscation of title won't stop the true owner from being truly pissed when his ship stops producing income and loses 100% of its resale value, and a long chain of holding companies just means a long chain of people who are getting hurt when operations cease. Most insurers don't cover losses due to illegal activity. Smaller ships might stay "off the radar" and fish just inside the borders (those areas are basically low-yield and unattractive to small ships anyway), but stopping the big factory ships is about 100x more important than all the little trawlers that might get away with a little poaching.

      5050by2150.wordpress.com

    21. Re:So useless. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      You're not very familiar with international law or maritime law, are you?

      So a fishing fleet owner can be sued in England, lose, and the Japanese government will seize the assets and transfer them to the Crown (or wherever seized assets in the UK go)?

      You're the same person that said, "Well, I can just make my own drone and those drone laws can't stop me!" Aren't you?

      Unless I've got an acute case of Alzheimer's Syndrome, "no".

      Funny how that works and yet we still have those laws. I'll see if you can figure out why on your own.

      What's the purpose of having a law if you can't/won't enforce it?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    22. Re:So useless. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Quite probably - in the case of another country acting on the UK's behalf - those are what treaties are for and there are world courts so you could see things like sanctions if they didn't.

      You don't really enforce (most) laws. You punish people for violating them. At least in most cases. Are you aware that we still have people who break the law? What do we do? We punish them. No, I have no idea why they call it enforcing traffic laws, they're just catching the violators of the law. They're not forcing shit. They should be called something other than law enforcement officers but I don't get to make the names up. Sure, sometimes they enforce the law but it's pretty seldom. How often do they prevent crime? Usually they just catch 'em afterwards.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    23. Re:So useless. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      those are what treaties are for

      So... do England and Japan have such a treaty?

      there are world courts so you could see things like sanctions if they didn't.

      My faith in the efficacy of world courts is pretty damned minimal. Since Japan has been so effective at neutering the International Whaling Commission, my faith that Japan would accept and enforce the ruling of a world court ruling regarding them fishing in someone else's marine reserve is zero.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  3. Read headline too fast by flopsquad · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought it said "Massive Mana Reserve Created in Atlantic"... which would of course be redundant since it's already filled with islands *ducks*

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  4. did poster forget reserve near diego garcia? by sittingnut · · Score: 1, Troll

    curious that no mention is made on main post or in news article (from state owned propagandist bbc) about the other marine reserve same uk government created in 2010 in indian ocean.

    the chagos marine protected area gave usa freedom to use diego garcia (even allowing environmental damage if caused by military use) while just on time to conveniently prevent original inhabitants of the area (forcibly removed by same genocidal british empire, in one of many such actions) from resettling. a right they have long last legally won.

    just another case of western media (mainstream and so called new/social/whatever) turning a deliberate blind eye to facts that make western voters uncomfortable. same voters who freely elect same human rights violating governments(in worse ways than anybody, repeat anybody, else ) under worst mass murderers of 21 century, like obama, cameron, blair, hollade , clintons, bush, etc,

    1. Re:did poster forget reserve near diego garcia? by N1AK · · Score: 3, Informative

      curious that no mention is made on main post or in news article (from state owned propagandist bbc)

      Not really, because this isn't a story about a different reserve, not that you'd let them stop you going off on an unrelated rant; I guess you got fed up of waiting for people to actually want your opinion on the matter so now you just project it it anywhere you can imagine up a tenuous link.

    2. Re:did poster forget reserve near diego garcia? by jblues · · Score: 1

      It is worth mentioning (at least in the comments) that the UK government has a history of creating "marine sanctuaries" for dubious reasons.

      "HMG would like to establish a "marine park" or "reserve" providing comprehensive environmental protection to the reefs and waters of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) official informed Polcouns on May 12. The official insisted that the establishment of a marine park—the world's largest—would in no way impinge on USG use of the BIOT, including Diego Garcia, for military purposes. He agreed that the UK and United States should carefully negotiate the details of the marine reserve to assure that United States interests were safeguarded and the strategic value of BIOT was upheld. He said that the BIOT's former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve." - Wikileaks Cablegate Disclosures, 2010.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    3. Re:did poster forget reserve near diego garcia? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      ... state owned propagandist bbc...

      Clearly you've never watched it, if that's what you think! Or are all the direct attacks and the snide remarks and insinuations about the government just a smokescreen to hide the state control?

    4. Re:did poster forget reserve near diego garcia? by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      i do watch it . it is bit left wing (and even sometimes unbiased) when it comes to domestic british politics. hence it sometimes does what you describe against current tory government.
      but when it comes to foreign countries and individuals, bbc is pure state propaganda, and toe the foreign office line.

    5. Re:did poster forget reserve near diego garcia? by sittingnut · · Score: 2

      you may cry and tag all you want, but that last marine reserve created by uk government in order to carry out a blatant human rights violation is relevant to this creation.
      btw if you read slashdot it is known for making these types of connections about related stories in its posts. except it seems, when it comes to facts about westersn crimes and human rights violations.
      westerners do not want to face facts that their freely elected governments are engaging in ethnic cleansing, and child rapes and killings, etc etc, to keep their lazy lifestyles intact.

    6. Re:did poster forget reserve near diego garcia? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's not implausible. See, for example, how the BBC was used for propaganda during WWII. One of the things they did was have a radio station that was *very* negative towards the UK government, including commentary about Churchill's impotency and similar, all while including enough rhetoric to be able to slip in comments that suggested the Germans didn't have to listen to Hitler and that they were being fed lies by Hitler's propaganda.

      Now, I don't believe that such is the case but, if I wanted to be controlling, I'd make damned sure that I had a station that was just critical enough of the government (while being powerless to effect change) that the people believing it felt that it was unbiased or independent. It's the logical thing to do. If it weren't ever critical, when the people knew criticism was due, they'd disbelieve it entirely. If it's just critical enough, or even overly so, then they're more likely to not worry so much about things that aren't being criticized.

      If I wanted to be really sneaky then I'd not only have the BBC specifically target certain things, things to be outraged about, but I'd have created those things to be outraged about and then pretend to listen to their complaints and change so that there were lesser impacts but actually getting what I wanted in the first place. To put that into more easily understood terms - if I needed $10,000,000 then I'd say I was going to raise taxes on homeless people to raise $150,000,000. I'd have the BBC get outraged, including the homeless part. I'd then settle by raising taxes on the middle-class to raise the original $10,000,000 and the people would be happy that they'd put that government in its place. And oh, they would be...

      I might even let the BBC find some underling who was going to embezzle the money and spend it on an evil terrorist plot, fire them and send them to prison, and only collect $20,000,000 in taxes to prevent that from happening every again - not on my watch!!! All in the name of charity and Doing the Right Thing - of course. Ignore that my umbrella corporation owns the company that will be supplying that welfare operation by providing food, shelter, services, and management... That's just not important and you'll be happy that we changed our minds about that whole homeless thing, found the criminal and punished them, and will forget the criminal's name within a week when the next news cycle hits.

      Fortunately, of course, the BBC doesn't do that and the government is not malicious like that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  5. Re:Marine Reserve by orledrat · · Score: 1

    We could use a reserve force of Marines to invade Syria and fight ISIL

    Wsilould use a reserve force of Marines to invade Syria and fight ISIL

    Indeed, who is else is going to lead all the sub marines in there. Can't just airlift a sub marine into Isilland -- they'll just molotov it like the Hindenburg. Always send some marines in with the sub, too. This principle is called the Plight of Liberty and this is the deep reason why every single shiIling in the treasury goes towards glorious fealty and so utmost care is taken to contain all testing evidence of the hypersonic Zeppelin-class bomber in the Isilstan area considering how decisive an "end stage" weapon like this ought to be.

  6. Jurisdiction? by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 2

    Ascention Island is a hunk of volcanic rock stuck in the middle of the atlantic. Does a country really get jurisdiction of 234,291 sq km (a zone roughly 500km across) out of that? I suspect someone is overstating the claim.

    1. Re:Jurisdiction? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Ascention Island is a hunk of volcanic rock stuck in the middle of the atlantic. Does a country really get jurisdiction of 234,291 sq km (a zone roughly 500km across) out of that? I suspect someone is overstating the claim.

      Countries claim whatever they want to and so long as they're carrying a big enough stick then they'll keep that jurisdiction unless someone with an even bigger stick feels it's worth going to war over.

      Gibraltar and the Falklands come to mind.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    2. Re:Jurisdiction? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Basically, you get jurisdiction over whatever you've got the political and military power to back up. 12 miles, 200 miles, whatever - there are plenty of disputed waters around the world. If you've got the guns, and the political will to use them, you can control the water. This includes pirates.

    3. Re:Jurisdiction? by solartear · · Score: 1

      EEZ can reach up to 370 km radius. This gives Ascension Island over 430,000 sq km. The UK is about 244,000 sq km of land.

      For a while the distance of control was based on how far your cannon could shoot, but that does not work when you can send a cannonball to orbit.

    4. Re:Jurisdiction? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Ascention Island is a hunk of volcanic rock stuck in the middle of the atlantic. Does a country really get jurisdiction of 234,291 sq km (a zone roughly 500km across) out of that? I suspect someone is overstating the claim.

      Something like this would probably go through the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO (International Maritime Organization). The list of member states of the IMO does include China and Russia, as well as many other countries (including the nearest ones of significance). It has probably been discussed at the UN as well, since IMO and UN matters usually overlap. Or maybe it wasn't discussed at all, and the UK just did this unilaterally.

      Such claims often come down to "does anybody care strongly about this?", and in the case of an island 1000 miles from anything and with little to offer economically, militarily, or politically, I would assume that nobody really cares that much.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  7. funny thing that GPS / GCHQ / SatComms by johnjones · · Score: 2

    people wonder if anyone would notice any violations of the marine park... YES, yes they would

    however not the reason you might thing the island is crawling with monitoring equipment both for environmental (its quite important to know the weather above and below the water if your a navy) and machines (satellites/networking/radio/sonar) basically its a rather nice outpost on which the British get to say what goes...

    so putting a nature reserve there is rather befitting

    regards

    John Jones

    1. Re:funny thing that GPS / GCHQ / SatComms by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, you are a British opposed-piston valveless, supercharged uniflow scavenged, two-stroke Diesel engine used in marine and locomotive applications? The pressure must be terrible to live with. (deltic)

  8. misreading the headline again. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    royal marine private" can we come in yet? its really cold out here.
    sergeant: negative soldier. we are to be her majesties largest atlantic marine reserve.
    officer: my floatie has a leak...
    major: Look alive soldiers! we've got a bit of large trout closing on our position!!
    ammunition technician boys ive got some real bad news...

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  9. Is there nothing that bacon cannot do?! by DontBlameCanada · · Score: 1

    Seriously! Ahhmmmm-nom-nom-nom.

  10. All cynicism aside, it's a pretty small budget by zuki · · Score: 1

    If I am reading this right, 234.000 square kilometers are getting a grant of £300,000 ? That's around just a bit more than one UK pound per square kilometer.

    Forgive me for pointing it out, but as the proverbial saying goes, it sure feels like such a paltry sum will amount to not much more than 'peeing in the ocean' in terms of effectiveness.

    Great PR for cheap though...

  11. Re:Cynic mode engaged by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2

    Ascension has no indigenous population. It was first settled by the British 200 years ago.

  12. Sinister Plot by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Can no one see it? These folks clearly have no interests in preserving marine ecosystems. Their aim is nothing more than to put fisheries out of business while driving the masses to cured pork products. This is diabolical. This is, ingenious.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  13. Re:Might Says They Are Right by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I'd like to add that the best Navy on the planet is the US Navy. Bar none, no discussion, end of topic. That's not something we can debate. I say that not as a braggart but to reach a point...

    See, the US and the UK kind of get along. As near as I can tell, the UK has the second best Navy on the planet - we could debate that but it is immaterial. On the off-chance that the Royal Navy is unable to intercept and respond with force (which is very unlikely - people may not realize it but the Royal Navy is pretty damned adept) they need only to ask and the USN will be there to lend assistance - even in matters such as this. Chances are, the USN actually has assets that aren't that far away from those waters at any given time. The USN is *very* well equipped and *very* adept at what they do - to the point that many people don't even realize this. For better or worse, when the USN comes to town people notice.

    That said, the Royal Navy ain't nothing to fuck with. They are pretty well set in their position as the second greatest naval power on the planet - they have greater blue water capacity than almost every other nation on the planet and greater capacity than many others combined.

    I don't know if people have seen this or know these things but those naval vessels, not just the floating islands that have airplanes, can do stuff like ACCURATELY launch projectiles, weighing as much as modern a mid-sized sedan, more than 25 miles inland. That fishing vessel? About that... They don't even have to be able to see it to be able to target and hit it from over the horizon. They probably don't even have to fire a second shot.

    Some of the earliest computers were actually targeting computers used aboard naval vessels. They've continually refined them... They can be in swells the height of a standard American home and *still* successfully hit a target that is so far distant that the curvature of the Earth means that they can not physically see that object.

    And they practice this...

    If you've never seen the big guns go off? Oh my... Just, oh my... The report is loud enough to be heard for many miles. The recoil is enough to move the whole ship - and ships are big things with lots of mass an inertia.

    No, the Royal Navy probably won't need any assistance at all but, if they do, someone is seriously fucked. The fishing companies will need to be lucky every time. The Royal Navy only needs to be lucky once. I'd behoove the fishing vessel captains to think clearly about their actions lest they raise the ire of the Royal Navy or, perhaps worse, awaken the sleeping giant that is the USN. See, for history sake, Japan and how well that worked out for them. Needless to say, the USN has improved greatly since those days and, frankly, the Royal Navy probably won't even need to ask for help. They've got this.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."