St Ninian's Isle

[Urabug]

I had the good fortune to visit St Ninian's Isle this summer and like Allen Fraser from Geotours was more than disappointed to see the state of the place . 

 

The Chaple site where probably the most important find ever in Shetland was found lies in what can only be described as a "##*?" disgrace.

 

A contraption lying on the beautiful beach,which would look out of place at Rova head,destroying one of the best beaches in Scotland.  

 

A lot of money and effort has been spent on historical sites throughout Shetland and yet in my opinion one if not the most important has been neglected. 

 

Well done to Allen for highlighting this and hope something will be done to remedy soon . 

[Ghostrider]

A contraption lying on the beautiful beach,which would look out of place at Rova head,destroying one of the best beaches in Scotland.  

 

I have very similar thoughts about the LBC pier, possibly because both serve very similar purposes as far as I'm aware.

 

Such an approach is hardly the way to go to ensure you get the locals onside, however worthy the main cause is, and without their backing you may as well shout at the wind.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Ghostrider

[hjasga]

Said 'contraption' is a perfectly serviceable pontoon used for the Bigton rowing regatta. It's lovely that we have sites of historic and natural value, but the communities that reside in them should be put first rather than expecting some sort of living museum.

[hjasga]

I also wonder if Allan Fraser had the good grace to speak to the landowners privately before he made a song and dance in the media, but I'm skeptical that he would have. I'm sure a polite request to move the pontoon would have been fulfilled.

[concerned shetlander]

I have to agree with Alan Fraser. I do not think he was getting at land owner, but whoever deals with sites of historical interest. I spoke with several people this year who had been to St minivans Isle, and couldn't believe that the site where the treasure was found was in such a state. Very many of them mentioned how it wouldn't take a lot of money to fix. They couldn't get near the site for nettles. With all the money shetland has had they surely could spend some money cutting grass and nettles.

[concerned shetlander]

That should have read st ninians Isle. Auto text changed it.

[Ghostrider]

Its also worth noting that over the years the land owner has allowed both unhindered access to the site, and works elsewhere on his land primarily for the benefit of visitors to the site, little of which was of any real benefit to himself, and most of which, have to have a significant nusiance and inconvenience factor in the middle of a working farm.

 

Were such an attraction on me, I seriously doubt I'd have the same tolerance and be quite so accomodating of such things. Yes, its "nice" Shetland has "attractions" that bring folk here and leave money behind, and it would be "nice" if those "attractions" were all always immaculately presented, but I do think its extracting the urine a bit to expect only the landowner on whose property any one given "attraction" happens to be to be solely responsible to keep it that way. Especially when they receive no direct benefit from the "attraction" themselves, and already allow legions to traipse over their land to get to it, have allowed roads and carparks on their land to improve that access, and have allowed a plot of their land on which the "attraction" is located to be fenced off so that they've lost any benefit from it.

 

We have Historic Scotland, we have the Amenity Trust, we have two (or at least we did last I looked) tourist bodies, if among them all they can't keep the grass cut and the fence maintained around a plot no bigger than an averge garden, then maybe we either need rid of them all and get someone in who can do the job, or then its not quite such an "important" site as some folk feel.

 

Alternatively, might I suggest that the "tour guides" who assumedly make an income from taking people on tours of sites such as this, instead of moaning, they get together and either do a bit of basic maintenance themselves, or pay someone to do it. I had sympathy for them when the Amenity Trust thought they should be paying the admission charge to the "Visitor Centre" at Sumburgh Head, when in fact they were going nowhere near it and only visiting other parts of the site, but with something like this I don't. They're the only people making  profit directly from this type of site, and if the "public" or "umbrella" bodies involved aren't doing it on their behalf, the "guides" need to either put up or shutup.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Ghostrider

[Wheelsup]

I am surprised that such a valuable archaeological site is left open as it is. The visitors tramping around it must be causing some erosion to the site, and if the site was fully developed anything might still be found. I would suggest that the site be fully developed and protected and if there is not sufficient resources available then Visitors should be banned forthwith.

[Ghostrider]

^ I could be wrong, but to my eye there's not much left, capable of being eroded or otherwise, certainly its in no worse state than many other sites (Jarlshof, Clickimin etc) which are presided over like babies. As for slowly disappearing back under a layer of sand though, that's a whole other matter, going past there during a dry SE'er is like being shotblasted.

 

http://www.mrtattieheid.com/mr%20tattie%20heid/wos2gv_2009/20_September_2009_files/StNI02.jpg

 

I suspect the greater "damage" that it was possible to do occured in the first 25 years after the original excavation when the site was wholly ignored and was so rabbit infested that the dried skulls nd other bones of old Bigton folk they dug up had to be cleared away every so often by locals.

 

No argument though that it could be further developed and made in to a much "better" attraction though. Wasn't their some sort of "plan" mooted by the Amenity Trust some years ago about having some sort of visitor" "shelters" either side and "transport" across that never got past the "Wish List" stage?

[Capeesh]

Said 'contraption' is a perfectly serviceable pontoon used for the Bigton rowing regatta. It's lovely that we have sites of historic and natural value, but the communities that reside in them should be put first rather than expecting some sort of living museum.

I was at the Bigton rowing regatta year before last it was a great day out, the beach was packed, beer tent, burgers, kids building sand castles etc everyone was enjoying themselves, the pontoon however was struggling to stay afloat with rowers getting wet feet getting on/off the yoals, no doubt it has seen better days.

I remember wondering at the time how much it would cost for Kinetics or somebody to build a new state of the art one.

Maybe they could use the negative press to start a fundraising campaign.

[hjasga]

That's the sort of constructive suggestion people like Mr Fraser should be making, instead of what came across as a fairly ignorant rant. Hopefully the relevant people see it as I think it could be a viable suggestion if costs are kept down. 

[Ghostrider]

Folk might also do well to bear in mind, that whatever "responsibility" they may or my not believe the landowner in question has towards this site, the last year can only have been a quite difficult one for the family concerned following a tragic accident last autumn, and very understandably they almost certainly have had far more important things to deal with than, what is to some, nothing more than a few weeds near yet another pile of old rocks.

[Colin]

That's the sort of constructive suggestion people like Mr Fraser should be making, instead of what came across as a fairly ignorant rant. Hopefully the relevant people see it as I think it could be a viable suggestion if costs are kept down. 

No it didn't..

 

I wonder if Mr Fraser (and other "Tour Guides" ) shouldn't seek the landowner's permission to, periodically, go in there with a strimmer and keep the weeds down themselves?  After all, they seem to be the only ones who appear to generate some income from it..

 

I also wonder how long the site would last with all the extra "footfall" causing a little extra erosion/damage(?) with each visitor that arrives there.  The chapel was buried for hundreds of years and survived without human interference but, now that it is available, is sitting there virtually unprotected.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Colin

[hjasga]

 

That's the sort of constructive suggestion people like Mr Fraser should be making, instead of what came across as a fairly ignorant rant. Hopefully the relevant people see it as I think it could be a viable suggestion if costs are kept down.

No it didn't..

 

The comments about the pontoon did. He has a fair point about the maintenance of the chapel site itself, but as you and others have said given the benefit he and other guides take from it, it wouldn't hurt them to be more proactive rather than whinging at others.  

 

I wonder if Mr Fraser (and other "Tour Guides" ) shouldn't seek the landowner's permission to, periodically, go in there with a strimmer and keep the weeds down themselves?  After all, they seem to be the only ones who appear to generate some income from it..

 

I also wonder how long the site would last with all the extra "footfall" causing a little extra erosion/damage(?) with each visitor that arrives there.  The chapel was buried for hundreds of years and survived without human interference but, now that it is available, is sitting there virtually unprotected.

[Urabug]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder