oldharry
Well-known member
MMO today launched their promised consultation with stakeholders seeking additional evidence before deciding on management protocols for the Studland Bay MCZ. The consultation document lists the various options they are considering:
Anchoring: Option 1: Voluntary anchoring controls. This is the BORG preferred option, but MMO do not believe it would provide ‘sufficient protection’
Option 2: Voluntary no anchor zones
Option 3: Compulsory No anchor zones
Option 4: Full ban on anchoring. This has serious safety implications, as well as closing a major tourism site
Speed limits: The purpose here is to reduce underwater noise from powered boats. The whole subject of underwater noise pollution and its effect on marine life is one Natural England have been researching genrally for a while.
Option 1 – None Speeding jetskis and power boats within the anchorage hves I am told been an issue particularly recently but as a safety issue unrelated to the MCZ
Option 2. Voluntary speed limit. Unpoliced who takes any notice? Its been an issue raised even here in the forums this year.
Option 3: Compulsory speed limits. As 2
Option 4. Ban on powered boats using the Bay Safety and tourism implications
Option 5. Total Ban on everything including sailing boats.
There is also a section on moorings, of which there are around 30. Again options range from do nothing, to a full ban on moorings. These are subject to direct MMO control anyway as there is no Harbour Authority so have to comply to MMO directives.
The MMO call for evidence can be found here:
https://consult.defra.gov.uk/mmo/call-for-evidence-mmo-mpa-assessments/
If you respond, please remember that the are seeking ‘evidence’, which is something conspicuously lacking over the Studland recommendations. Most of the NE recommendations for Studland are based on ‘expert opinion’, not on actual study, with a liberal sprinkling of contributions from NGM. The issue is that there is little or no recorded history of the Bay before around 1996. NE and the Science Sdvisory Committee chose to ignore entirely the not inconsiderable knowledge base about conditions in the Bay over the last 60 years, and dismissed it as ‘anecodotal’. Had they listened to locals, they would know how the eelgrass has continued to expand, its cyclical growth patterns over a period of years, the almost random appearance and disappearance of the non-existent ‘seahorse colony’, and would have a much better idea of the effect of generations of boats anchoring in the Bay. Instead they choose to compare it to a different and vastly more sensitive species of eelgrass, and attribute the non sightings of seahorses in one tiny patch of the Bay to boat anchoring which has gone on for a century before anyone took any notice!
Newcomers to the Studland Debate might like to refer to the work we have done examining the evidence, before responding. Boat Owners Response Group and from that page: http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Tr3-Consultation-Response.pdf
If anchoring prohibitions are used here there will be huge implications for safety, tourism, and for UK sailing in general as limitations like these are increased to the point where UK sailing will be reduced to marina hopping with potentially life changing fines for those who dare disobey
Anchoring: Option 1: Voluntary anchoring controls. This is the BORG preferred option, but MMO do not believe it would provide ‘sufficient protection’
Option 2: Voluntary no anchor zones
Option 3: Compulsory No anchor zones
Option 4: Full ban on anchoring. This has serious safety implications, as well as closing a major tourism site
Speed limits: The purpose here is to reduce underwater noise from powered boats. The whole subject of underwater noise pollution and its effect on marine life is one Natural England have been researching genrally for a while.
Option 1 – None Speeding jetskis and power boats within the anchorage hves I am told been an issue particularly recently but as a safety issue unrelated to the MCZ
Option 2. Voluntary speed limit. Unpoliced who takes any notice? Its been an issue raised even here in the forums this year.
Option 3: Compulsory speed limits. As 2
Option 4. Ban on powered boats using the Bay Safety and tourism implications
Option 5. Total Ban on everything including sailing boats.
There is also a section on moorings, of which there are around 30. Again options range from do nothing, to a full ban on moorings. These are subject to direct MMO control anyway as there is no Harbour Authority so have to comply to MMO directives.
The MMO call for evidence can be found here:
https://consult.defra.gov.uk/mmo/call-for-evidence-mmo-mpa-assessments/
If you respond, please remember that the are seeking ‘evidence’, which is something conspicuously lacking over the Studland recommendations. Most of the NE recommendations for Studland are based on ‘expert opinion’, not on actual study, with a liberal sprinkling of contributions from NGM. The issue is that there is little or no recorded history of the Bay before around 1996. NE and the Science Sdvisory Committee chose to ignore entirely the not inconsiderable knowledge base about conditions in the Bay over the last 60 years, and dismissed it as ‘anecodotal’. Had they listened to locals, they would know how the eelgrass has continued to expand, its cyclical growth patterns over a period of years, the almost random appearance and disappearance of the non-existent ‘seahorse colony’, and would have a much better idea of the effect of generations of boats anchoring in the Bay. Instead they choose to compare it to a different and vastly more sensitive species of eelgrass, and attribute the non sightings of seahorses in one tiny patch of the Bay to boat anchoring which has gone on for a century before anyone took any notice!
Newcomers to the Studland Debate might like to refer to the work we have done examining the evidence, before responding. Boat Owners Response Group and from that page: http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Tr3-Consultation-Response.pdf
If anchoring prohibitions are used here there will be huge implications for safety, tourism, and for UK sailing in general as limitations like these are increased to the point where UK sailing will be reduced to marina hopping with potentially life changing fines for those who dare disobey
