In 10 years, we will lose the beach and it will be the end of the industry as we know

The picture of the weathered tree stump in front of Barry's Bar is misleading. The beach around that stump comes and goes. Last year there was a good 40 feet of sand bewtween the tree stump and the water. Other years, the stump is in the water.
The beach narurally comes and goes. Oftentimes, when the beach is narrower at one point, there is a large sandbar parked 100 feet offshore - all of that sand will eventually work its way back in to the shore, just to be washed out again when heavy seas return.
I'm not saying there is nothing to the article, but articles such as this often are written to sensationalize a cause, and can be overly pessimistic, you never get an unbiased, balanced view from reading just one article in one newspaper.
As for the morass burning, locals have told me that the morass has been burning for as long as they can remember, not just since a small part of it was drained.
I tend not to take the 'chicken little' view of the world.

Gilbert destroyed the "barrier" reef that once protected Negril and her beaches. So there was problem #1. Problem #2 was construction....back in the day I could walk Long Bay...a little bar or restaurant, then bush and narrow beach for a long while, next a little hotel or guest house...then beach and bush for a long while...etc.

Folks have built too close to the shoreline and/or ripped out the native plants that actually HOLD the beach in place on shore - and rip out the seagrass in the water so that the tourists can wade more comfortably. With the strip of beach already unprotected due to the destruction of the barrier this already vulnerable strip of sand has no chance.

We were boating along the south coast yesterday and I took notice of some of the building up on Parottee Beach. One guy basically is asking for it - his building sits RIGHT on the shore, void of any trees around it. His neighbor though built back, did clear a nice beach for himself but was PLANTING around it - good for him. Hey, he wants to KEEP his beach.

In California we struggle with erosion issues all the time - ice plants were all the rage until they started taking over and killing the native plants (there is now a project going on to remove all the ice plants).

In passing I saw that the controversial jetty project is underway (or it looks as though...in the sea right near the Issa's villa on the beach...). Makes me sad for many reasons I won't get into here. The problem can be fixed with proper planting, allowing some sea grass to grow back...taking the beach back to a a more natural state. Well, maybe not "fixed" but improved.

Mother Nature can be a toughie in any event - jetties, planting - whatever conservation measures are taken can be compromised with one big storm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rastagirl777

In passing I saw that the controversial jetty project is underway (or it looks as though...in the sea right near the Issa's villa on the beach...). Makes me sad for many reasons I won't get into here.

---

Rastagirl,

I am surprised you never noticed the concrete barriers in the water by the Issa's villa on the beach - they have been there for years and are finally sinking low enough to be about the same height as the sea level. For several years they were sticking well above the sea. This is nothing new and has nothing to do with either "controversial jetty project".

To all,

Here is a picture that I took just a couple minutes ago on the beach at Charela Inn. Please note the position of their sign as well as the curve of the bay off in the distance.

Attachment 8614

Here is a picture I took at this same location back in March of 1998. It was featured on the Negril.com Negril Today page.

Attachment 8615

Once again note the sign and the curve of the bay in the background. As you notice, they are taken from approximately the same position, but some 14 years apart.

For the Smith Warner report from 2008 as referenced in the article to be accurate, there must be some 40 to 80 feet of beach missing since that old picture was taken in 1998. Do you see 40 to 80 feet of beach missing in the current picture?

As Kahuna said, "articles such as this often are written to sensationalize a cause, and can be overly pessimistic".

Nicely done, Rob

"I am surprised you never noticed the concrete barriers in the water by the Issa's villa on the beach - they have been there for years and are finally sinking low enough to be about the same height as the sea level. For several years they were sticking well above the sea. This is nothing new and has nothing to do with either "controversial jetty project"."

Nope - never did notice that before last week when we drove by. No surprise though as I'm not at the beach all that much and I guess I never looked out the window in that direction or noticed anything before last week.

"

Rastagirl,

Living here, I do suppose I am more aware of the runnings in Negril than those on holiday. I guess I need to be since I do own and operate Negril.com. I have an obligation to all our viewers to set the record straight when misinformation is posted here. Rumor and speculation does no one any good.

"(or it looks as though...in the sea right near the Issa's villa on the beach...)"
Sorry for the misunderstanding - but I did put that "caveat" in there as I wasn't sure.

do you have any pics from tony's hut and maripossa, i am curious if there is any beach left ? we are waiting to book soon, stayed there last year, but saw pictures from boat bar that looked like water was right upto the steps thanks and cheers!

A business on 7-mile that cries 'henny penny' and then cites one study claiming a loss of 1m/yr is most definitely 'sensationalizing' for their own benefit. But with all due respect, Rob, time-lapsed photos from a single site doesn't tell the whole story of beach erosion either. The Univ. of the West Indies has been studying the issue of beach erosion for decades .... and UWI's study, which estimates a net average loss of 23cm/yr, was not cited in the article .... Why not?? Because it's not as sensational. That there is such a disparity in estimates between the Smith-Warner study and UWI's study suggests that there is variability and uncertainty, but both conclude that beach erosion has been an issue for decades. UWI used data from 1971-2008 to estimate the 23cm/yr loss ... and states that is is not a gradual loss, but rather episodic (particularly following storm events), and most certainly some areas experience more loss than others based on many factors (ie. site position relative to the wave action, vegetation cover/loss, etc). Yes, the sand comes and goes .... that's a natural phenomenon. And the remaining reef structure that still sits in the bay will continue to be an important source of sand as it degrades .... but it is predicted that as the reef structure continues to deteriorate it will also become less effective in protecting the shoreline from the force of the waves ...... in other words, if action isn't taken - erosion rates will get worse. And that's why the university is studying it - they are hoping to find a solution, whether it is through conservation efforts, stronger environmental policies, or to raise funds for long-term protection. The original article most definitely 'sensationalized' the situation ..... but look, it's also raising awareness .... which is an important first step in environmental conservation. A little I & E never hurts.

EXCELLENT post Kritter!!!! VERY informative!!

From a very non-scientific, completely observation stance - I was at the beach yesterday (at Wild Parrot) and took a short walk down to White Sands and back.

Plenty of beach. The beach at the Parrot is nice and wide as it is at Sun Beach and every place I walked (which wasn't far).

Last week I walked in the other direction (I know, I say I'm seldom at the beach but I had back to back guests in town - so "the" beach is always on the check-list)and of course encountered the no-beach at Tree House and Foote Prints. The sign was not in the middle of the water as I recall but the tide was out.