Has Nauti-lass been swept away from Strachur?

nauti lass

Aground on the west shore of Loch Fyne, not far south of the Loch Fyne Oyster Bar, Nauti-lass looks in need of recovery and attention.

We think we’ve seen her on a mooring off Strachur, south of Inveraray over on the east shore. This boat was noticeable over the last full year for wintering in the water, with her foresail unrolling, flapping and progressively shredding.

Nauti-lass’s foresail is in the same condition, which is why we think it may be the same boat.

If we’re right and she’s from Strachur, we’re assuming that the recent gales have torn her off her mooring, swept her north west and left her beached near the head of the loch.

Her owner may not have missed her yet but there may be Strachur folk who know who to alert?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

20 Responses to Has Nauti-lass been swept away from Strachur?

    • That makes sense. We were in the direction but the wrong specific location. Many thanks. We’re hoping someone who can rescue the boat sees this.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  1. I have seen the yacht with the torn sail several times but I am sure it was moored or anchored further north around St. Catherines rather than Strachur.

    It occurred to me initially that it might be stolen but Police patrol the road regularly and I assume they checked.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Perhaps a call to the coastguard?
    Anybody?
    Or do we just photograph it and “assume” that an organisation it has nothing to do with will have done something about it?!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • The first, quickest and most practical response is the local one – which we hope to trigger – in identifying and contacting the owner of the boat.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • You can do that – but it must be reported to the Coastguard (CG) as a wreck as well. To remove anything without informing the CG, like the outboard, is theft. The quicker it is reported the less likely things will walk off. At the very least the Police should be told to stop things being nicked. It is also important that she doesn’t pollute the loch – I like my oysters battery acid and diesel free

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. To clear things up.
    In the UK, the “Receiver of Wreck”, a post defined under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, is an official of the British Government whose main task is to administer the law in relation to Wreck and Salvage.Operating on behalf of the Department for Transport, the Receiver of Wreck is located within the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The Receiver is based in Southampton and is helped by local outposts of Her Majesty’s Coastguard. The current Receiver of Wreck is Alison Kentuck.
    It is a legal requirement under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 that all recovered wreck material landed in the United Kingdom must be reported to the Receiver of Wreck, even if the finder is the owner. All wreck material recovered must be reported, however small or insignificant it may seem. Not to report and keep a find is theft. Scavenging of artifacts which have drifted free as floatsam without reporting is also theft. To deliberately cause a wreck or subsequently force an entry is to be a wrecker (once carried the death penalty – not sure, but think disappeared as a capital crime in 1971, continued later under the piracy with violence act). The Police have powers under the Act to stop persons entering the vicinity of any wreck, and have the power of search, confiscation of articles and arrest on behalf of the Receiver.
    The Receiver of Wreck will investigate ownership of the recovered items. The owner (If she is insured she could remain the property of the insurer) has one year, after the material has been reported, in which to come forward and prove title to the property. During this period it is common for the finder to hold the wreck on behalf of the Receiver of Wreck while investigations are carried out. Finders should assume that all wreck items have an owner. If, after one year and a day no title has been established the wreck at the Receiver’s discretion, then belongs to the finder. First report it to the Coastguard, then put your name on it as the finder. As she lies she has a value, therefore worth stating your claim on behalf of the local community, but check current legal position as to do so you may subsequently be held responsible for her security,eventual removal and or prevention of pollution at the discretion of the Receiver.
    She lay to a mooring NW of St Catherine’s slip, (I have a photo). Therefore the mooring and Crown tag can be traced and the owner located. Early this year there was ice on the loch and she looked very neglected with the foresail shredding in the breeze – sad sight.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. For general information – and thank you everyone for the advice and information – we have reported this to Belfast coastguard and emailed them photographs.
    The main reason for the importance of doing this is that if someone sees it for the first time, say, at dusk and reports it to the Coastguard as an incident, they will know now that lives are not at risk.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. The costguard dealt with this a few days ago sending a coastguard team as the initial report was of the boat drifting with it’s mooring. The team stayed onscene until the boat washed up where it is pictured, on sand.

    The owner arrived while the team were observing the boat beach.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. There was a 2007 Convention in Nairobi for the removal of wrecks and finally the Wreck Removal Convention Act 2011. The Act provides a sound legal basis for coastal States to remove, or have removed, from their coastlines, wrecks which pose a hazard to the safety of navigation or to the marine and coastal environments, or both. It makes owners financially liable and require them to provide other financial security to cover the costs of wreck removal. It provides States with a right of direct action against owners. The UK MCA can be quite sloppy in dealing with small craft – the fishing boat in Oban Bay springs to mind – where I believe the local authority has contracted to demolish and remove the oiled up muck covered hull at the North Pier – not forgetting last year’s shocking spill at the same pier when a large yacht bunkering air locked and blew gallons of fuel into the water before being shut off – the instant use spill kit appeared to be a bottle of fairy liquid. All this, mind, is in the commercial important port of Oban. The fact that this Loch Fyne boat has been lying out to an open mooring all winter with the foresail shredding in the wind may perhaps indicate the care and attention lavished on her and her mooring – she may also perhaps be devoid of or invalidated her insurance. Notwithstanding that the owner has a duty of care and the MCA and Receiver of Wrecks the duty of enforcement – but don’t hold your breath she’s on a beach no where near a commercial port like Oban. There is a legitimate concern that pollution is always a possibility and therefore her removal may be requested sooner than later by the local shellfish fisheries. Oysters do taste better devoid of toxic diesel/petrol or battery acid or for that matter any number of cleaning products, or emulsified oil and paint. The longer the wreck lies there the less interested I’ll be in a Loch Fyne grown oyster – that’s for sure. So the Act is there, but only reminding the powers that be and of course our set about local politicians (bless their cotton socks) may get it into action. Oh and for those at the MCA the Act is at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/8/enacted – of late with one thing and another they may have not got round to reading it. But let’s hope the owner does the decent thing and removes his vessel as soon as possible, they are probably unaware of the Act’s potential of a maximum £50,000 fine and costs?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • It’s not just small boat wrecks that litter the shore of Loch Fyne – and many other sea lochs – there seems to be a historic tradition of fish farms abandoning sea cages that have washed ashore, or maybe even just served their purpose, and quite apart from chemical and biological pollution from fish farms these derelict cages really are an eyesore.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Yes Robert, we are all so uncritical, when it comes to managing our own back yard. Plastic is making us what we are. Our children’s children will curse us for our legacy – they will note that by and large we inherited a pristine environment then simply dumped in it. If we taxed plastic would it become collectable, we could start by reducing our mania for plastic carrier bags? Or moving unloved grounded boats off our shore line

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • I wonder what the Crown Estate think about decaying fish farming cages littering the west coast foreshore – or does their beady eye focus only on human enterprise that can be taxed, and the results of associated human irresponsibility is, of course, not their problem?
      If the Crown Estate ‘own’ the foreshore the Crown Estate should be held responsible for disposal of marine junk resulting from fish farming activities that they approve, licence and tax – and the Crown Estate is in a strong position to pursue the companies responsible. But of course, that might impact on the Crown Estate’s income, and that would never do, would it?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Environmental concerns among citizens around the world have been falling since 2009 and have now reached twenty-year lows, according to a multi-country GlobeScan poll [see today's Google Doodle http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/apr/22/earth-day-43rd-birthday-google-doodle ].
        The findings are drawn from the GlobeScan Radar annual tracking poll of citizens across 22 countries. A total of 22,812 people were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone during the second half of 2012. Twelve of these countries have been regularly polled on environmental issues since 1992.
        Asked how serious they consider each of six environmental problems to be—air pollution, water pollution, species loss, automobile emissions, fresh water shortages, and climate change—fewer people now consider them “very serious” than at any time since tracking began twenty years ago.
        Climate change is the only exception, where concern was lower from 1998 to 2003 than it is now. Concern about air and water pollution, as well as biodiversity, is significantly below where it was even in the 1990s. Many of the sharpest falls have taken place in the past two years.
        The perceived seriousness of climate change has fallen particularly sharply since the unsuccessful UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. Climate concern dropped first in industrialized countries, but this year’s figures show that concern has now fallen in major developing economies such as Brazil and China as well.
        6,774 citizens across these 12 countries were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone on this question between July 3, 2012 and September 3, 2012. Polling was conducted by the international research consultancy GlobeScan and its partners in each country. In 4 of the 12 countries, the sample was limited to major urban areas. The margin of error per country ranges from +/- 4.3 to 4.8 percent, 19 times out of 20.
        Despite the steep fall in environmental concern over the past three years, majorities still consider most of these environmental problems to be “very serious,” Water pollution is viewed as the most serious environmental problem among those tested, rated by 58 percent as very serious. Climate change is rated second least serious out of the six, with one in two (49%) viewing it as “very serious.”
        GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller comments: “Scientists report that evidence of environmental damage is stronger than ever—but our data shows that economic crisis and a lack of political leadership mean that the public are starting to tune out.
        Those who care about mobilizing public opinion on the environment need to find new messages in order to reinvigorate a stalled debate.”

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.