top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]bearhos 1458 points1459 points  (213 children)

To everyone confused by how a ship could tear up 80% of a reef and not realize it -- they lay hundreds of yards of anchor chain that is immensely heavy. The yacht gets pushed around by wind and waves which causes the anchor chain to drag along the bottom, tearing up everything in its path.

[–]jk_baller23 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There was a video recently posted that shows what goes on under water. Found it: http://youtu.be/U3l31sXJJ0c

[–]RoslibTheWise 263 points264 points  (47 children)

Caymanian here.

We're in the middle of a nation-wide debate as to whether a cruise ship dock should be built (destroying some of the reef in the process), or let ships stay freely anchored.

Then this shit happens and now I have no idea what the right answer is...

[–]Reddisaurusrekts 58 points59 points  (22 children)

I'm going to take a guess that CIPA is on the "build a dock" side and further guess that they'll be the ones getting the money to build the dock.

If you're not allowed to talk, blink once for yes, twice for no.

[–]kittyburritto 86 points87 points  (0 children)

blink blink

" 'yes, yes' take em away boys"

[–]Reeeltalk 7 points8 points  (2 children)

There's no middle ground like a dock away from reefs that people can shuttle to and from, or no anchoring at all, or floating docks, or?


I'm not really sure but cruise ships provide so much income for the island. I remember staying there and as the ships would dock, all the shops would put out new prices that were like 30% higher.

[–]zeqh 5829 points5830 points  (939 children)

He wasn't on board of the yacht and the people in control of the yacht claim they followed instructions from the locals on where to anchor. Let's wait for the full story to come out before blasting the guy.

[–]iskandar- 4958 points4959 points  (556 children)

local Caymanian here, its not his fault. The port authority gave him permission to anchor there.

No one on the Islands can give a reasonable explanation as to why this was allowed, however at the end of the day it is not Paul Allens fault.

Unfortunately the DOE has already jumped the gun and are trying to make this a bigger issue. They were hoping they would have the ire of the people on there side, but once the facts came out (almost immediately) every one told them to eat a bag of dicks.

Edit :rip my inbox. In the morning i will try and answer some of your questions. Its 12 am and im tired

[–]Aramz833 60 points61 points  (57 children)

What does DOE stand for in this case? The acronym DOE is so widely used that google was of little help.

[–]TrapLordTuco 47 points48 points  (5 children)

Department of Environment

Source: their website Www.doe.ky

[–]blorg 98 points99 points  (15 children)


a deer
a female deer

[–]kjhwkejhkhdsfkjhsdkf 1401 points1402 points  (263 children)

This is why reddit is such a good news source, a single post from a local can often dispel thousands of erroneous media reports.

Edit: I don't mean this to sound like some naive belief in a post by an anonymous user. While there have been hiccups, for the most part I have found reddit's user base to be a very good source of information about breaking events. I followed many a live event, such as the China explosion and the Paris shootings on reddit, and the information I got was invariably more accurate and faster than what the major news outlets reported. All things being equal, this is a good source for news.

[–]wgriz 34 points35 points  (9 children)

You also have heavily upvoted comments that can supplant the truth because of inertia. Keep your bullshit meter on.

[–]IrrelevantLeprechaun 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Example is Unidan. It got to a point that people were up voting him purely because it was Unidan. At that point he could have fed you complete bullshit and it would have been top comment.

Votes never equal accuracy.


But on the same hand why are we so quick to absolve responsibility of this stuff based of a few comments?

[–]mrturcot 26 points27 points  (11 children)

Good point... I mean he "sounds" legit but how the fuck do we know he's a local.... He's a paid shill from Microsoft get em fellas!!!

[–]lauraskeez 21 points22 points  (8 children)

He's legit guys trust me. We're neighbors.

[–]BruceyC 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Do you go bowling together?

[–]VoteForAnyonePlease 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Didn't this actually happen with a cruise ship too just a few months ago? Again the port authority had given them permission.

Is this protected zone no longer protected? Used to be protected? Why does this keep happening...

[–]VagueSomething 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I think it's a case of someone doesn't give a shit and just wanted to hurry their job.

[–]BinghamL 41 points42 points  (3 children)

Yeah, no one lies on the internet!

[–]321Cheers 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Almost everyone is anonymous so ultimately you believe what you want.

[–]Kringels 6 points7 points  (2 children)

This local could be Paul Allen though.

[–]wgriz 42 points43 points  (27 children)

I lived in Bermuda once and the locals told me about how they used to have a Bermuda Orange.

They gave a contract to one guy to go do pest control on all the Bermuda Orange trees. He used the wrong kind and they're now extinct.

Shit happens. People make honest mistakes with drastic consequences.

EDIT: Also, hello to any Bermudians reading this. I miss the rock. Please smuggle me back and drown me in black rum.

[–]NabiscoLobstrosity 22 points23 points  (12 children)

How could the port authority be so negligent? And isn't diving a big thing in the Cayman Islands?

[–]restorerofjustice 42 points43 points  (20 children)

Yacht owner here. No one deliberately runs their boat over a coral reef. Besides the environmental destruction there's the probability of major, costly damage to your yacht. I believe that this was an accident.

[–]foo_foo_the_snoo 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I don't think anyone was ever assuming it was deliberate. Negligent at worst

[–]GitEmSteveDave 234 points235 points  (19 children)

Didnt a cruise line have the same problem recently. It's a protected reef, but the port authority doesn't care because they need the traffic to help the local economy, which is more than they'd earn in diving fees.

EDIT: http://www.caribbean360.com/news/investigation-launched-as-video-shows-cruise-ship-damaging-cayman-islands-reef

“The graphic attached shows the vessel was properly anchored well inside of the anchorage area.”

He nevertheless conceded that from the video the damage to the reef appeared “significant,” and the department of environment will conduct tests of the water to assess just how much damage has been done.

So the vessel was "well inside of the anchorage area" but damaged the reef nonetheless.

[–]42N71W 60 points61 points  (5 children)

I wonder how much of the $600k fine the guy who told them to anchor on the reef was hoping to pocket.

[–]GitEmSteveDave 22 points23 points  (4 children)

It says "could". If you have proof a superior told you to do something, you are not usually at fault. Especially if you have a pilot when docking, who is employed by the port, not the vessel.

[–]archontruth 216 points217 points  (14 children)

Yeah, the (Reddit) headline made it sound like he was sitting on the bow with a cocktail personally directing the captain to 'destroy that reef blocking his view' or something. The reality is a lot more mundane.

[–]draginator 71 points72 points  (9 children)

Laughing menacingly as he plowed over the coral!

[–]AadeeMoien 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Alejandro! Take her around for another pass, there's some coral left!

[–]Ebonic_Plague 6 points7 points  (2 children)

He fired someone because they only managed to destroy 80%

[–]marijuanaperson 136 points137 points  (29 children)

Paul Allen is a gem of a dude out here in WA state, very good dude, too bad this happened but i wouldn't expect any purposeful wrongdoing on his part.

[–]MountainDrew42 134 points135 points  (22 children)

He's also quite the environmentalist. It's not just a luxury yacht he's got there. It's a full on scientific vessel. It has not one, but two submarines docked within, and he regularly lends it out to scientists for exploring the ocean.


There's no way he would let this happen if he was on board and knew where the reef was.

[–]47ronin47 33 points34 points  (2 children)

Just to be clear the yacht that is in discussion here is this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatoosh_(yacht)

Not Octopus (though he uses both for science and owns both).

[–]Deeliciousness 34 points35 points  (4 children)

I don't think anyone is claiming he directed his yacht to the reef for some good old coral shredding.

[–]RogueRaven17 23 points24 points  (2 children)

"Jeeve's, I think today I'll irreparably damage a protected habitat. Prepare the yacht."

"Very well, sir."

"And Jeeve's, lay out my tuxedo-speedo"

[–]huihuichangbot 708 points709 points  (217 children)

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy, and to help prevent doxxing and harassment by toxic communities like ShitRedditSays.



[–]hectorinwa 234 points235 points  (52 children)

Bing maps, you mean?

[–]dinosaurs_quietly 435 points436 points  (42 children)

No, he wants sailors to be able to find these reefs.

[–]plasmanaut 142 points143 points  (16 children)

Hey now, it's not Apple maps that he referred to.

[–]fatkiddown 68 points69 points  (12 children)

Now finding reefs in the middle of The Outback!


This comment thread sort of fixed my shit day. Thanks guys.

[–]Tin_Foil 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Apple maps put all the reefs squarely in the Sahara desert.

Edit: Damn you /u/fatkiddown !!!

[–]Derbl 23 points24 points  (16 children)

Yeah, bing maps and imagery is actually pretty good!


[–]The_Power_Of_Three 12 points13 points  (10 children)

Bing everything is honestly pretty good. They suffer from a stupid name and, well, not being google, but in my experience these days they're really no worse than google in most ways, and their image and video searches are actually better in my opinion.

[–]StoneGoldX 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It works amazing, as long as there's porn on the reefs.

[–]enjoys_doing_stuff 34 points35 points  (12 children)

pretty sure you ripped that wall of text from a post about the great barrier reef, where the guy bullshitted his way to the top comment. he told everyone he was talking shit but by that time they'd all gilded him.

but yeah, that looks familiar

EDIT: paging /u/MrEngleman for that legendary response he made



The fact that they are referring to it as "anchor line" and not rode is also a bit of a giveaway. Anchor rode may be line- but a chain rode is not a "line".

i.e. rode includes chain, line, and combinations.

They also said "hand out accurate maps". Sailors use charts- not maps.

[–][deleted] 100 points101 points  (30 children)

Where I sailed last in the BVI, we had a briefing telling us good anchor spots and were given a map.

You were given a chart, not a map.

Additionally, depending on how you anchor, the current and tide can pull your ship in a full 360 circle around your anchor point.

A good captain is well aware of that and will always take it into account- not the least because it may trip the anchor and allow the vessel to drift away.

Also- tides rise and fall. Currents ebb and flow. A tide cannot "pull your ship in a full 360 circle".

A 30 foot boat should lay out around 50 feet of anchor line (most of which sits on the bottom).

So if you're anchoring in 40 feet of water you only need 50 feet of rode?

Also- most of it should not be sitting on the bottom. The only way that would happen is if there was no wind or current, you were using a chain rode, and you had a ton of scope. Heck even the picture you linked to doesn't show the rode sitting on the bottom.

At 330 feet, we're talking about a 1000 feet of heavy chain to keep that ship in place.

I'm sorry but where are you coming up with these numbers?

I've sailed my entire life and I've never once heard anything like this. The amount of rode you pay out is dependent on depth and desired scope. Scope is determined primarily by weather conditions and bottom composition (though duration of stay and whether or not you will be aboard are also factors). The only time the size of the vessel is taken into account is if it has a lot of windage- e.g. a tall cruise ship versus a low slung tanker and that's still largely a weather concern- not really a ship size concern.

A heavy chain rode needs less scope than a nylon rode or a combination rode- but it still doesn't have anything to do with the vessel's length. Chain is used because it artificially increases the scope of the rode near the anchor and helps keep it set.

Here is West Marine's page on selecting an anchor rode:


Scroll to the bottom. They mention the thickness/strength of the rode as a function of the size of the vessel- but not the length of the rode. Specifically:


the buoyancy of the hull makes a larger ship harder to anchor

This statement doesn't make any sense. Did you mean the displacement of the hull of a larger ship makes it harder to anchor?

[–]JackMH96 30 points31 points  (6 children)

This. The rule of thumb is 3-5 times the depth, not the length of the boat.

[–]lofilofilofianalog 27 points28 points  (5 children)

...for danforth anchors.

You don't need any scope with a clump anchor if you drop it right, but probably want to pay some out anyway for comfort.


...for danforth anchors.

and Bruce anchors :)


danforth anchors

At this point I am just upvoting people who sound like they know what they are talking about.


My pitchfork has been unsheathed. It cannot be sheathed before it tastes justice.


[–]God_Damnit_Nappa 1151 points1152 points  (50 children)

I love how the article mentions the fine Sean Parker had to pay for fucking up part of the redwoods. The difference is Parker knowingly and willfully destroyed that part of the forest. The article clearly states that the people onboard the yacht immediately got the fuck out of there when they realized they were anchored over a reef. Fuck you Guardian for trying to make Allen out to be the bad guy when he wasn't even on the boat.

Edit: As multiple people have pointed out, the Port Authority cleared the yacht to anchor there. If anyone's at fault, it's the government.

[–]DragonTamerMCT 205 points206 points  (17 children)

Sensationalism sells.

All that matters is that people share before they see the real story.

[–]Pires007 32 points33 points  (11 children)

I was hoping The Guardian would be one paper that doesn't go that route, but they're bad also. Sensationalism on the left is just as bad it is on the right.

[–]ignore_my_typo 19 points20 points  (3 children)

And he wasn't even on the yacht. Who knows where he was. His crew might have been touring a close friend or business partner around.

[–]KidOmega0 217 points218 points  (72 children)

For the record, these super yachts are rarely used by the owners and are normally rented out.

Source: Used to do IT for a company that built super yachts.

[–]whymauri 130 points131 points  (63 children)

[–][deleted] 66 points67 points  (27 children)

It's a mini cruise ship.

[–]6offender 208 points209 points  (24 children)

14,000 square feet is a pretty small area. What is it? A protected zone for ants?

[–]Au_Struck_Geologist 68 points69 points  (9 children)

Yeah that's basically like the end zone to the 20 yard line

[–]snatch_hugger 77 points78 points  (8 children)

This technical drawing I put together shows it's about 30yds of football field.
edit: Well now my technical drawing skills have been made to look redundant. A lot of training and skill went into that schematic.

[–]InternetUser007 35 points36 points  (2 children)

Since it's such a small area, how in the world did the Port Authority tell them it was okay to set anchor there? It's such a small protected area, how in the world did they not avoid it?

[–]robbstarrkk 52 points53 points  (4 children)

Patrick Bateman is gonna have a hay day with this at the office.

Edit. Holy shite thanks for the gold

[–]Bossinante 14 points15 points  (1 child)

"Does he own a yacht?"

"No, he just hangs out there."


Is that a rain coat?

[–]vehementi 91 points92 points  (7 children)

Can we get a "hilariously misleading" tag or even remove this garbage submission?...

[–]TheAdmiralCrunch 46 points47 points  (4 children)

So this has nothing to do with Microsoft OR Paul Allen, really. But hey, sensationalism.

[–]lionmuncher 87 points88 points  (5 children)

Downvoted for sensationalism.

[–]nMaibO 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Allen going to get killed by a guy named Patrick Bateman, calling it now.

[–]alberto_barbosa 12 points13 points  (16 children)

People on here wonder why news sensationalizes things for profits when you have someone like /u/drewiepoodle who will spread disingenous information for internet points

[–]Stringskip 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Try to get into Dorsia now Paul!!

[–]BlackSteveJobs 24 points25 points  (2 children)

Well it doesn't seem like this is directly his fault, he didn't give the order or give the permission to lay the anchor there. Too bad the guys names gonna be trashed for the next few weeks

[–]ReservoirGods 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Hell he wasn't even on the boat. The Port told his crew where to anchor, they should know better

[–]ErieSpirit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you will allow me to jump in with a few comments and opinions (source I hold a USCG Masters Captain license, have spent most of the past 4 years at anchor in various parts of the world while on a circumnavigation)

1) Amount of anchor rode deployed is based on water depth, plus local conditions, not vessel length

2) If operating a vessel in an area under control of a port authority the master will obey orders of the port captain, including anchoring location.

3) Pilots are often required to be aboard when operating in these areas.

4) The Carnival cruise ship mentioned was operating within the control area of the Georgetown port authority with a privately contracted pilot aboard. The pilot missed the specified anchorage placing the ship in a live coral area.

5) The Tatoosh is reported to have damaged coral in the West Bay Replenishment zone, which is about 5 miles north of Georgetown. It is questionable if the Port Captain would have been providing anchoring instructions in this area.

6) The coast where Tatoosh is reported to have been has a sharp dropoff, thus a limited anchoring area. Looking at the chart as I write, the depth goes from 20 feet to 1000 feet in a distance of 900 yards.

7) A captain will do everything possible to avoid anchoring in coral, as it is very poor holding, and anchor chains are prone to get wrapped in the coral heads.

8) The charts for this location do not indicate coral once you are past 300 yards from shore, at which point the depth is 15 feet.

[–]bludvein 24 points25 points  (6 children)

People reacting without even reading the article. The guy seemingly wasn't even on the yacht at the time, he just owns it. Responsibility would lay with the captain or port authority in any case, since even if he was on board he'd be little more than another passenger along for the ride.

This is just shameless clickbait to bash on the rich.

[–]Jim_Nills_Mustache 774 points775 points  (221 children)

80 fucking percent?!? was it deliberate? How the fuck do you even do that? 14,000 square feet... Edit: wasn't deliberate, and the owner of the yaught wasn't on board.

[–]Purple-mastadon 1496 points1497 points  (57 children)

Port authority told them to anchor there. When a diver informed the crew that the anchor was on a reef, they pulled anchor and moved.

If anyone is to blame it's the port authority.

Purely sensationalist headline, at least it wasn't a slideshow.

Yay journalism!

Edit :

Its a shame, but people get upset by these crap headlines, and forget/aren't notified that the Australian gov't wants to demolish a huge chunk of the great barrier reef for a coal port.

[–]sgtmattkind 246 points247 points  (20 children)

I wish Reddit news/worldnews mods would delete these stupid ass sensationalist headlines.

[–]hawaiian0n 154 points155 points  (4 children)

or at LEAST tag the damn thing.

[–]cdnsniper827 30 points31 points  (3 children)

I'd like to se a "trash" tag beside these shitty click bait headlines.


Well, The Guardian is next to it so that's close enough.


[–]Jim_Nills_Mustache 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Yea honestly they didn't need to include his name so prevalently given that he wasn't even there, seemed like a big enough story without it.

[–]Theemuts 347 points348 points  (45 children)


I don't think it was deliberate.

[–]Jim_Nills_Mustache 84 points85 points  (32 children)

I know it just seems like that would be hard to accidentally do, but apparently he wasn't even onboard at the time anyway it's just his boat.

[–]Mackin-N-Cheese 164 points165 points  (28 children)

Paul Allen and Vulcan, Inc's official response.



Through his longtime philanthropic and scientific endeavors, Paul G. Allen is a global leader in supporting ocean health. Last year, he announced support for cutting-edge research designed to stabilize and restore coral reefs.

I have no idea what Paul Allen is really like, only what I read in the Portland media because he is the owner of the NBA's Trail Blazers. But from what I have read he seems to be a pretty decent guy, not your stereotypical rich douchebag.

[–]AdvocateForTulkas 68 points69 points  (15 children)

Most rich guy are actually charismatic bastards, the "shitty rich guy" thing is mostly just that, a stereotype. Compared to how many rich people there are in the world anyway. Most stay out of the media.


Confirmation bias. For the most part, we only hear about the doucebag rich people. Ergo, rich people are douche bags to many.

[–]itsallminenow 23 points24 points  (1 child)

Most truly, truly, rich people, like most truly upper class people, in my experience are genuine, polite, don't patronise and care about other people's feelings because they have nothing to prove, their egos don't need massaging or inflating.

I worked for a Duke, he always addressed people by their first names and his wife was the first one to make tea and sandwiches for the workmen when they came by.

[–]seimungbing 9 points10 points  (3 children)

you wont meet a polite billionaire because they never express how much they are worth; you will meet plenty of rude millionaires thou because they constantly remind you how rich they are.

[–]APsWhoopinRoom 37 points38 points  (8 children)

One of the best owners in the NFL too.

Also, fuck the Thunder, Clay Bennett, and David Stern with a rake

[–]safetyguaranteed 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Chino XL, Howard Schultz, FUCK YOU TOO

[–]ScottAtOSU 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Do you say that second part much? Cause I'll just follow you around and upvote you all day.

[–]theycallmedelicious 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Every Supersonic fan says that at least every Monday morning, myself included.

[–]BigBassBone 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I saw Tatoosh docked in the Caribbean a couple years ago while I was on a cruise. It's insanely big.

[–]SnarkusRazzmore 4 points5 points  (1 child)



14,000 feet is about 1/3 of a football field FYI


I'm just going to assume all these removed comments said "try getting a reservation at Dorsia now, you stupid fucking bastard!"

[–]blacklab77 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As a frequent visitor to the island with family there going back generations I can say that the chances the marine police messed up is extremely high. They continually let this happen and do nothing about it, having continually rejected calls for deep water moorings to support these yachts. Many locals believe they are turning a blind eye to garner support for a dock that cruise ships and large boats can directly tie up to but whose construction would decimate a large area of the harbor. The island is greedy and the boats will keep coming whether there are reefs or not. Most of the coral close to shore is heavily damaged, bleached, or dead already.

[–]leontes 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Sadly, the only way to grow more coral is over decades of growth.

We need to encourage those coral developers. Perhaps his friend Balmer can chant to them.

[–]McHanna8 57 points58 points  (29 children)

The diver in me is crying. Reefs are disappearing rapidly and they house some of the most amazing things I've ever seen

[–]zoomer296 40 points41 points  (18 children)

<Insert *totally* reasonable Microsoft hate comment here.>

Also, the guy wasn't on the boat, and the people that were on the boat were told to drop the anchor there.

I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy (and even more so, since I'm an open-source fanatic), but you still have to get your facts straight.