Studland Bay Boating Ban

[MBY editor]

Just a quick heads up that there is a genuine risk that all forms of boating, not just anchoring or mooring, could be banned from the whole of Studland Bay between the ferry and Old Harry Rocks if we don't so something about it.

The consultation process ends on 15 December and I strongly urge anyone who ever has or will visit the area in their boat to respond.

I am sorry to say that it is quite a long boring online form (almost as if it has been designed to put people off completing it) but if we don't put in the effort we risk losing one of the south coast's most popular cruising destinations.

Admittedly a total ban on all boating is the most draconian option in the survey but it is an option. Other options include a ban on all boats with engines, no anchoring, no moorings, speed restrictions etc while even the least bad ones include substantial no anchor zones etc.

Please follow this link to register your feedback.

Hugo

 

[bluetooth]

Completed last night. Agree questions and form is frustrating long. Took me about 15 mins copying and pasting some replies as there is repetition between the different questions.

 

[C08]

A very cumbersome and perverse survey clearly designed to provide a desired result?

 

[Hurricane]

I've done the survey.
If you word it carefully, you can cut/paste quite a lot of the answers.
Also that last option allows you to comment on the survey.
I do wish people that put this kind of thing together would get a REAL job.
I object to my taxes going of this kind of thing.

 

[[178529]]

I'm in the minority here but agree with restrictions.

 

[Seastoke]

I'm in the minority here but agree with restrictions.

What would like to see happen .

 

[john_morris_uk]

I suggested that the status quo should be the sensible and pragmatic solution. However, if they really feel there is a problem, then a voluntary no anchor zone and no mooring zone might (over a number of years) show what a complete waste of time barring anchoring and mooring would be. I indicated that I am extremely skeptical of some of the 'evidence an conclusions' that I have seen at various times and any bylaw introduction would be draconian and completely unecessary.

 

[Greg2]

We don’t boat in the area but visited on our new to us boat this year before bringing it home. We anchored for lunch in Studland Bay, in an area marked as an anchorage on the chart amongst several other boats at anchor, and it was a thoroughly pleasant experience. That is until we weighed anchor and brought up chunks of seagrass, something that I was not particularly comfortable with.

A quick bit of research indicates that the jury appears to be out on the impact of anchoring on sea grass (from what I scanned a study indicated no reduction in extent but a possible impact upon quality and more extensive studies required). I am sure that others will be far better informed than me on this but knowing this and having seen what our anchor did I would think twice before anchoring there again and definitely wouldn’t in the same spot.

On the questionnaire I see that it is a call for evidence on a range of management options as opposed to a consultation on formally proposed management measures so I guess that it is necessarily long in order to try to secure the best possible evidence in a format that can be collated and analysed.
.

 

[Boathook]

We don’t boat in the area but visited on our new to us boat this year before bringing it home. We anchored for lunch in Studland Bay, in an area marked as an anchorage on the chart amongst several other boats at anchor, and it was a thoroughly pleasant experience. That is until we weighed anchor and brought up chunks of seagrass, something that I was not particularly comfortable with.

A quick bit of research indicates that the jury appears to be out on the impact of anchoring on sea grass (from what I scanned a study indicated no reduction in extent but a possible impact upon quality and more extensive studies required). I am sure that others will be far better informed than me on this but knowing this and having seen what our anchor did I would think twice before anchoring there again and definitely wouldn’t in the same spot.

On the questionnaire I see that it is a call for evidence on a range of management options as opposed to a consultation on formally proposed management measures so I guess that it is necessarily long in order to try to secure the best possible evidence in a format that can be collated and analysed.
.

The Seagrass has expanded over the last 40 years I've been anchoring there and even since the second World War. The people at where ever though want scientific evidence so pictures taken by the nazis don't count nor the survey done by BP in the 80s when they were going to stick an oil rig in Poole Bay.
There is a lot more on scuttlebucket in the sticky section.

 

[Hurricane]

The Seagrass has expanded over the last 40 years I've been anchoring there and even since the second World War. The people at where ever though want scientific evidence so pictures taken by the nazis don't count nor the survey done by BP in the 80s when they were going to stick an oil rig in Poole Bay.
There is a lot more on scuttlebucket in the sticky section.

I think they were asking for evidence of this kind of thing in the web survey.
Maybe we should give them that evidence - again if necessary.
Surely evidence is evidence no matter how good it is.

 

[Farmer Piles]

We have a couple of swinging moorings here on the Fal and I use my scuba gear to check them. You can quite clearly see a wide arc all the way around the stones for some distance where the chain has swept the seabed bare. There is no doubt that mooring and anchor chains can decimate the seabed. That and the number/volume of boats and boating has rocketed since WW2.
I dive on the seagrass in the Fal and it is stunningly beautiful and full of life of all types from seahorses down to anenomes, juvenile fish, crabs, shrimp, starfish and scallops. Shame to ruin that with sweeping chains.
Disagree with a total ban though.

 

[[178529]]

My own view, and I know I am in the minority, is that we have to reduce our impact on the environment and that will mean reducing certain things. There are plenty of places besides studland.

 

[Robin]

Quite agree and you are of course free to enjoy them ALL until they become the next target area. The proposed ban area at it's worst option covers places of no seagrass whatsoever , might as well just ban anchoring and fishing anywhere in the whole English Channel, after all NGM/SHT 's little pet seahorses like to go offshore for their winter 'ski' break from pesky divers as evidenced by them regularly turning up in local fisherperson's nets. chewy little buggers mind... ?

 

[Boat2016]

Would it not be more sensible to have visitor buoys there so there’s less damage done by anchors ?

 

[Robin]

Would it not be more sensible to have visitor buoys there so there’s less damage done by anchors ?

keep up at the back please.

 

[Boat2016]

keep up at the back please.

please explain what I’m supposed to have seen ?

 

[Robin]

please explain what I’m supposed to have seen ?

multiple years of discussions including around the idea/practicalities of environmentally friendly moorings.

 

[oldgit]

Studland. reductio ad absurdum .
There has been some very sensible, balanced and reasoned comments in the debate over on Scuttlebutt about Studland .
Unfortunately it would appear to an outside observer that for every introduction of a sensible argument against the introduction of new regulations at Studland , there surfaced a plethora of semi hysterical personal attacks on those wishing to implement them.
It would have helped if some of the objectors, concentrated on playing the ball not the man/ organisation.

The argument against seemed to be "We have always done this in the past and we intend to carrying on doing it right or wrong." on matter what.
The objectors may have lost support because of this. ?

 

[Boat2016]

multiple years of discussions including around the idea/practicalities of environmentally friendly moorings.

not seen that...have no idea where that was posted.

 

[Boathook]

Studland. reductio ad absurdum .
There has been some very sensible, balanced and reasoned comments in the debate over on Scuttlebutt about Studland .
Unfortunately it would appear to an outside observer that for every introduction of a sensible argument against the introduction of new regulations at Studland , there surfaced a plethora of semi hysterical personal attacks on those wishing to implement them.
It would have helped if some of the objectors, concentrated on playing the ball not the man/ organisation.

The argument against seemed to be "We have always done this in the past and we intend to carrying on doing it right or wrong." on matter what.
The objectors lost support becuase of this. ?

But the scientists can't explain why the seagrass has expanded over the years despite all the boats anchoring there.