Studland Bay summary

[Twister_Ken]

Back Burner Beckons?

Looks like UK plc may be trying to kick MCZs into the long (eel)grass. Conservationists upset, according to the Guardian.

 

[oldharry]

Yes the conservationists are getting impatient: Richard Benyon issued a written statement today saying that there would be a further delay before the MCZs become law, very much as I predicted. It appears now that the JNCC and Natural England will not produce their esults until next July, and the 'Public Consultation' will not now take place until towards the end of 2012, 12 months later than originally promised. Benyon says there is insufficent information on a number of the sites, but that the frist MCZs should be crated early in 2013.

Conservationists argue that this delay is unacceptable, and further damage is being done. They are demanding that MCZ are implemented BEFORE the information is in place. Really?!

Ministerial statement here: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/11/15/wms-marine-conservation-zones/

 

[Sans Bateau]

And this is the sort of response by one 'conservation' type to the article in the Guardian:

"*******s. This is prevarication dressed up as benchmarking. What the f*** is the point of gathering evidence WHILST the ecosystem is being degraded/ destroyed?

Yet again, another career politician who doesn't know **** from clay when it comes to his department. I'm thoroughly sick of it. I want to hurt someone."

Ending up saying "I want to hurt someone", really? just shows that these conservation groups are infiltrated by nothing more than thugs who only want to get their own way.

 

[oldharry]

Yes, I've met people like that in some of the meetings I have been to...

 

[ARCO7]

6 month delay ?

I am disappointed to read this latest setback, no honestly I am .
It might signal the Government have got wise to the fact that lawyers like myself are preparing to accept hundreds of clients on the basis that these proposed MCZs restrict their movement and amenities.
There are already several major loop holes/cock ups in the legislation and without a watertight case and overwhelming evidence these protected areas don't stand up in a court of law.
For instance, how can you prove a master of a craft was not acting in an emergency when he dropped his anchor on a patch of seagrass in an area of conservation ?
Its the most flawed piece of legislation we've seen in a very long time and this delay could cost me thousands of pounds in loss legal fees .
At least they will make sure its not rushed through because the professional conservationists are getting hysterical because they re running short on cash and donations in this deep economic decline.
Theses conservation charitys should take heed "NEVER BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU".

 

[BlueSkyNick]

Its the most flawed piece of legislation we've seen in a very long time and this delay could cost me thousands of pounds in loss legal fees .

I think you are pushing your luck, putting that up as an argument !!!

 

[Searush]

I think you are pushing your luck, putting that up as an argument !!!

Can you not see the bulge formed by the tongue in his cheek?

His point is well made, and also entertaining. Good zest to him for it.

 

[Tranona]

Before everybody gets too excited, it is worth reading the statement and the Report. While there are many areas where the "scientific evidence" is judged to be poor, most of the contentious ones such as Studland and the South Coast/South West estuaries get high scores (4 and 5 with 5 highest) for the quality of the evidence against the benchmarks.

Just like the EU one can see proposals for a two speed implementation - discarding or delaying those with poor evidence and pressing ahead with the others.

 

[sea urchin]

Sea Horses - BBC

The Beeb gave more airtime to NGM last week - on radio 4 Saving Species. A feature on sea horses including Studland inhabitants.

Summary from the SHT here:http://www.theseahorsetrust.org/news.aspx

The Seahorses Trust was on Saving Species on Radio on Tuesday the 8th and repeated on Thursday the 10th of November where we were talking about the tagging project at Studland Bay in Dorset and about seahorses in general. There has been fantastic feedback from the public about the article including lots of boating organisations that want to know how they can alleviate the problems that anchors are causing in the sea.Etc

you can listen here :http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016wxv5#synopsis

 

[sea urchin]

Blurb ref MCZs

This lot came from the MCZ Science Advisory Panel, the day before the ministerial statement. http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/sap-mcz-final-report.pdf

It seems to be sayingsomething completely different to the minister, though well disguised in jargon. Rather too much emphasis on the precautionary principle for my liking. A lot about the scientists' disappointment that the evidence base is not more thorough, and more worrying, that the reference areas are too small, and the network not more joined up.

So who should we believe, who will win the day? The SAP or the politicians?

 

[Seajet]

The Beeb gave more airtime to NGM last week - on radio 4 Saving Species. A feature on sea horses including Studland inhabitants.

Summary from the SHT here:http://www.theseahorsetrust.org/news.aspx

The Seahorses Trust was on Saving Species on Radio on Tuesday the 8th and repeated on Thursday the 10th of November where we were talking about the tagging project at Studland Bay in Dorset and about seahorses in general. There has been fantastic feedback from the public about the article including lots of boating organisations that want to know how they can alleviate the problems that anchors are causing in the sea.Etc

you can listen here :http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016wxv5#synopsis

Yet more distortion by the SHT and spread by the BBC.

I think they'll find boating organisations 'want to know how to alleviate the problems' SHT and career conservationists are causing to their anchors !

 

[Nicholas123]

The Seahorses Trust was on Saving Species on Radio on Tuesday the 8th and repeated on Thursday the 10th of November where we were talking about the tagging project at Studland Bay in Dorset and about seahorses in general. There has been fantastic feedback from the public about the article including lots of boating organisations that want to know how they can alleviate the problems that anchors are causing in the sea.Etc

He's starting to sound like Lord Haw Haw.
Data on how many seahorses have been killed as a result of tagging & all the interference would be interesting.
The sooner we bring the blighter to Justice the better.

 

[Searush]

He's starting to sound like Lord Haw Haw.
Data on how many seahorses have been killed as a result of tagging & all the interference would be interesting.
The sooner we bring the blighter to Justice the better.

They'll probably have to kill a few Undulate Rays to get that evidence. Seahorses rely on cover to escape predators like Undulate Rays, I can't imagine that number tags will help them blend in the undergrowth. The missing seahorses have probably all been eaten. Yet another example of "Conservation" doing more harm than good.

 

[oldharry]

One tagged one was found last year - in the belly of a mullet.

 

[oldharry]

CROWN ESTATES report on EFMs published

Crown Estates published on Thursday a report they have comissioned on the viability of Eco Friendly moorings (EFMs) in Studland. This is the first formal report, and anyone who knows STudland will wonder if they actually went to look at it other than looking at charts and maps! A number of clear mistakes and assumptions as always, and CE point out this is purely a financial viability study, not a full report. It does not comment on the suitability of EFMs in this location, which will need a full survey.

The key thing is that Seajets figures were pretty well spot on. Their estimate for installing 200 moorings in the Bay is over £800,000. Their business assesment shows that it would have a poor and unstable return, so is unlikely to be saleable as a business opportunity for anyone, even given an highly optomistic scenario. They estimate that reducing the number of moorings to the 50 suggested, although reducing the capital investment results in an even less attractive return.

Read for yourself here: http://www.crownestate.co.uk/media/2..._appraisal.pdf

 

[oldharry]

SACs - The latest threat

SACs = Special Areas of Conservation are now being created under European Law. A number already exist, and have not affected us much, but the latest proposals may very directly affect us. In practice they are very similar to MCZs which are UK law. There are differences in how they are being set up - they are designed to protect specific features unlike MCZs which incorporate a number of different species - 4 in Studland for example. The proposed 'Studland to Portland SAC' proposed for Weymouth Bay, reaching from Old Harry rocks round to a point west of Lulworth and varying amounts offshore, and a separate area covering most of Portland Race is designed specifically to protect reef habitats. The other and much more threatening aspect is that while MCZs are required to take account of Social and Economic Impacts, and can be modified accordingly, SACs are designated purely on the feature they protect, and do not take account of any non-conservation consequences, like closing of fishing grounds, anchorages and so on. To be fair, impact assessments are being carried out, but they carry far less weight than in the MCZ process. RYA told us on friday they see these as a much more serious threat to our sport than MCZs now, as generally speaking we have been able to negotiate MCZs away from boat-sensitive areas (not everywhere - the jury is still out on Studland for example). Once an SAC order is confirnmed, there is little or nothing anyone affected by it can do.

Of greatest concern is the Studland to Portland propsed SAC (pSAC) . It appears that traditional anchorages at Chapmans Pool, Kimmeridge, Worbarrow and Mupes Bay, and possibly Lulworth and Swanage itself could become a no anchor zone, or even as the proposal stands now a no go zone altogether. RYA are well on the case, and I will put up more details as soon as I can collate them for us from the 100s of pages of detailed notes I have about them.

A little bit more information here, http://www.rya.org.uk/infoadvice/currentaffairs/Pages/pSACStudland-Portland.aspx and follow the links to the Natural England page from that article. The threat to our sport is not clear in either of these articles, but RYA's Head of Legal Affairs, and their Environmental and Planning chief are very clear that the threat outlined above exists in the proposals and are already working on it, and have shown us reports about it..

The really worrying thing is that the assessments for the pSAC identify 'boating' and 'anchoring' as top threats to the habitat, and come in the 'red list' of activities likely to cause damage to the SAC. I am still working my way through the notes to find out why, and to identify in what way 'boating' as distinct from 'anchoring' can affect the seabed 50 feet down! It looks as though may be a throwback to the assumption firmly squashed and removed by RYA pressure when MCAA2009 was being drafted (the original MCZ legislation) which said the mere presence of boats was damaging to the environment!

More as soon as I have had time to assimilate whats going on.

 

[Nicholas123]

I think your signature says it all Harry.

 

[Boathook]

Crown Estates published on Thursday a report they have comissioned on the viability of Eco Friendly moorings (EFMs) in Studland. This is the first formal report, and anyone who knows STudland will wonder if they actually went to look at it other than looking at charts and maps! A number of clear mistakes and assumptions as always, and CE point out this is purely a financial viability study, not a full report. It does not comment on the suitability of EFMs in this location, which will need a full survey.

The key thing is that Seajets figures were pretty well spot on. Their estimate for installing 200 moorings in the Bay is over £800,000. Their business assesment shows that it would have a poor and unstable return, so is unlikely to be saleable as a business opportunity for anyone, even given an highly optomistic scenario. They estimate that reducing the number of moorings to the 50 suggested, although reducing the capital investment results in an even less attractive return.

Read for yourself here: http://www.crownestate.co.uk/media/2..._appraisal.pdf

Your link did not work for some reason; but I found this on the Crown Estate web site - http://www.crownestate.co.uk/media/200353/studland_bay_visitor_mooring_viability_appraisal.pdf.
I assume that this is the article you refer to.

 

[Sans Bateau]

He's starting to sound like Lord Haw Haw.
Data on how many seahorses have been killed as a result of tagging & all the interference would be interesting.
The sooner we bring the blighter to Justice the better.

This doesnt tell us how many seahorse have been killed as a result of tagging, no one will ever know, but I'll let you draw your own conclusions what may have happened. You will observe here that the number of divers increases after the BBC and Chris Packham publicise yet again the location of this protected species. Can you hear the outcry if they did the same with the location of, say, a peregrine falcon nest!

The report is from the Studland bay group.


"The diver reports ran from 10/4/11 through until 30/9/11 and were limited to divers diving from the beach in Daylight.

The Total =278

and the break up for each month is :

April =14
May=38
June=49
July=68
August=75
September =34

Most of the dives took place on Fridays and Saturdays with the SHT coming down around 0830 hrs and diving for 2.0 hrs

The independent divers were normally spread over the Friday and Saturdays too but would be much later in arriving ,after lunch and dive for approx 1.5 hrs .

It is has been confirmed that these independent divers were hoping to catch sight of Seahorses .

Examples of reports are :

18/6/11 ..Saturday 12 Divers 9 SHT with 3 independent

29/8/11..Bank Holiday Monday 15 divers SHT

30/9/11 ...Friday late Sept heatwave 10 divers 6 of which were SHT and 4 independent .

Between 15/6/11 and 29/7/11 there were numerous reports of night time Polish divers diving off South Beach in groups of 12 -17 ,using spearguns , very bright lights and normally arriving in a minibus and van after midnight.
These divers were interviewed by Dorset Police on the night of the 29/7/11 and were warned about the noise and disturbance to villagers and sheltering boats , they said they were only fishing and did not return .
On the 31/7/11 the South Beach Cafe was broken into and a fire was started causing major damage ,nothing was stolen but all fridge doors were left open .

So together with these Polish divers and a couple of divers working from the Middle Beach the real total could be much higher around 350 in total.

There were 7 people submitting reports on Divers , their names are available ,but have been witheld by request .

Prior to 2007 the average divers seen throught the summer was normally less than 10 ."

The one observation I have made from this, is that on several occasions, there will have been far more diving activity than boating!

 

[Twister_Ken]

Interesting that the Marina Projects report often refers to the Eco-moorings as a business initiative and not a conservation one! And that its cost breakdown includes £50k for consultancy fees. I only skim read it but saw no reference to the unwillingness of boat owners to moor to a piece of rubber.