• Forum Contest

    Enter here, for a chance to win an Ultimate Boat Bar from Carabarlife!

  • UPDATED INFORMATION & ADVICE - PLEASE READ NOW

    'I didn't know/I wasn't told' will not be a valid defence if you fail to comply and lose your access to the off-topic area, core topic areas, or the entire YBW forum as a result. Full details can be found here, please read before you proceed.

Studland Bay - what you need to do

Tranona

Well-known member
Joined
10 Nov 2007
Messages
33,264
Well as Lt Colonel Jack O' Neil of Stargate SG1 would say, ' Spank Me Rosey ! ' Tranona seems to agree with something I said ! :)
Not difficult when facts are involved. Another story when it is about opinions and garbled secondhand memories, though!
 

Blue Sunray

Well-known member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
2,366
Meanwhile (this doesn't look good for boaters):

Dear all we had an amazing and very positive meeting with Michael Gove MP (Minister for the Environment) and Sir Hugo Swire MP (who kindly organised it with his amazing team, thanks Sue and Stewart) yesterday at the DEFRA HQ in London. We went to talk about the curio trade and making Studland Bay a Marine Conservation Zone and Michael Gove is very supportive of taking positive action on both which is amazing news.

He fully understands and is supportive of making Studland an MCZ as the most imnportant site for Spiny Seahorses and seagrass in the UK and as well as being a seahorse lover he sees it as a nationally important species. I was very impressed with his understanding of seahorses and their ecological position in our seas. We came away with a number of crucial action plans and we hope to get on with them asap.

Without all of your support none of this would happen so thank you (and especially to our Illegal trade team)

In the picture from left to right is Sir Hugo Swires MP, Teresa Sinclair (illegal trade team member), Michael Gove MP and myself

temp.jpg.jpg
 

oldharry

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
9,289
Location
North from the Nab about 10 miles
That's good, he's had his turn. Swires is not the only MP involved, by a long way.

Better still, we were all so focused on Studland we missed the fact that the Norris to Ryde MCZ proposal has NOT been included in T3. This is a major eelgrass bed in the Solent which includes the important Osborne Bay anchorage which services Cowes. One of the main reasons given is because of it's importance as an overspill area to Cowes - something BORG has always majored on. This leaves Bembridge, which includes the anchorage at Priory Bay, and Studland.
 

MarlynSpyke

Member
Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
115
Location
Ruislip
Meanwhile (this doesn't look good for boaters):

...... He fully understands and is supportive of making Studland an MCZ as the most imnportant site for Spiny Seahorses and seagrass in the UK .....

/QUOTE]

The numbers of seahorses seen recently in Studland Bay are 2014, one; 2015, two; 2016, zero; 2017, one. Perhaps it’s pushing it a bit to call it the most important seahorse site in the UK?

Actually Studland Bay does host one of the largest (I think) eelgrass beds in the UK – and the beds are still expanding. Strange how it is also one of the busiest coastal anchorages as well. That does rather suggest that claims that anchoring destroys the eelgrass are a load of BS.

It is good news that the Osborne to Ryde MCZ is not being designated, although I’ve found no commentary about that. When, like Studland Bay, it was not put forward in the second tranche, Defra gave this explanation:
This site would affect a range of sectors if designated. The greatest costs would be to
recreational boating (anchoring) with approximately 36 yachting, sailing clubs and
recreational organisations using the site. This sector has raised concerns regarding safety
issues over potential anchorage restrictions in the sheltered bay which is one of few places
around the island offering protection from the strong tidal currents.
This site also includes the passenger ferry terminal which overlaps with the sheltered
muddy gravel and is immediately adjacent to the seagrass beds…….
……… We consider that further work is needed to explore the scope for developing local solutions
on this site before it can be proposed for designation.


Perhaps good sense has prevailed.

Good sense has also been applied to the Yarmouth to Cowes site: the boundaries were changed to exclude Yarmouth Harbour and the coast to the west of it, where there are eelgrass beds. This means that there should be no anchoring restrictions in the whole of the Solent proper, which is a good outcome for common sense.

So it seems that socio-economic costs are being considered, and it might be that there is all to play for in the Public Consultation over Studland Bay, and perhaps the eelgrass beds in Priory Bay. All contributions to the Public Consultation must be in by 20th July!
 
Last edited:

nortada

Well-known member
Joined
24 May 2012
Messages
13,363
Location
Gone away.
Nortada,

would you care to suggest another safe anchorage protected from the prevailing SW gales between the Solent and Brixham ?
I was referring to safe havens, if you are seeking refuge in a gale, stipulating anchorages only, immediately leaves you open to all sorts of questions and diversions, which is the last thing you want if you are trying making an argument.

I made my initial observations in the hope that the safe havens/anchorages suggestion would not detract from the thrust to keep the status quo in Studant. I would suggest this continuing debate on safe havens is doing just that❗
 
Last edited:
Joined
23 Sep 2010
Messages
29,185
Location
West Sussex / Hants
I didn't' think a ' safe haven ' term required any arguing about for a soaked, tired skipper - rather a job for an insurance accountantant safely tucked in ashore :rolleyes:
 

nortada

Well-known member
Joined
24 May 2012
Messages
13,363
Location
Gone away.
I didn't' think a ' safe haven ' term required any arguing about for a soaked, tired skipper - rather a job for an insurance accountantant safely tucked in ashore :rolleyes:
Think you and I are in different debates. I am offering thoughts on making a strong, water-tight argument.

You are just trying to score points.

My tactic if my brief was to challenge an argument.
 

Blue Sunray

Well-known member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
2,366
Think you and I are in different debates. I am offering thoughts on making a strong, water-tight argument.

You are just trying to score points.

My tactic if my brief was to challenge an argument.
:encouragement: Too many seem to think that they really don't have to persuade anyone and that the world will come round to see it all from their point of view as if by magic.
 
Joined
23 Sep 2010
Messages
29,185
Location
West Sussex / Hants
Think you and I are in different debates. I am offering thoughts on making a strong, water-tight argument.

You are just trying to score points.

My tactic if my brief was to challenge an argument.
My only ' tactic ' here is to show the SHT for the misleading selfish shambles that it is - BORG are offering the ' watertight argument ' without any help from me ! :)
 

doug748

Well-known member
Joined
1 Oct 2002
Messages
10,723
Location
UK. South West.
Great initiative; thank you.

Can you please be clearer about what action can be taken? Is an email sufficient? - you say to email and complete the consultation. Yet the consultation appears to be for industrial interested parties only. BTW, your link doesn't work.

Has this question been answered?

I do not mind at all firing off a missive about Studland but would hate to fumble this questionnaire which might be interpreted as not caring at all about daft plans for the other sites.
 

MarlynSpyke

Member
Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
115
Location
Ruislip
Here's the link, you need to click the survey button on the page.

https://consult.defra.gov.uk/marine/consultation-on-the-third-tranche-of-marine-conser/

It's probably best to go with the survey if possible. It's designed for a variety of contributors I think, and with a bit of ingenuity it's possible to work what you want into the answers. But if you simply want to make the point that you value the Studland Bay anchorage, it's a recreational amenity which should not be lost for no valid reason, and that the eelgrass is flourishing anyway, the email route is probably appropriate. A large number of emails from different people would help.

I will be using the questionnaire route, and here is the first part of my draft to date. Do note the point about the definition of Favourable Condition, anyone can use that, by email or questionnaire. (If the seagrass beds are in "Favourable Condition" then no management measures, aka restrictions, will be required).

1. Do you agree that this site and specified features should be designated? Please explain and provide evidence to support your views.
No: I do not agree with designation of the site as described in the Studland Bay Factsheet because

A. It is implied that the seagrass beds are in Unfavourable Condition and
B. The management scenarios imply that recreational craft anchoring may be causing significant damage to the seagrass beds

Neither of these conclusions are supported by evidence, while substantial evidence does exist that neither is the case. There is a real risk that if designation proceeds on the basis described, that the local recreational boating amenity and navigational freedoms will be seriously compromised, significant public expenditure incurred, and the local recreational marine industries suffer significant loss of business and jobs, all on the bases of a false premise and of insufficient supporting evidence.

There is ample evidence that during recent decades the eelgrass beds have been steadily consolidating and expanding, and are in healthy condition, and that the seagrass beds satisfy the definition of Favourable Condition as defined in existing MCZ Designation Orders:

“ ―favourable condition”—
(a) with respect to a broadscale marine habitat within the Zone, means that—
(i) its extent is stable or increasing; and
(ii) its structures and functions, its quality, and the composition of its characteristic
biological communities are such as to ensure that it remains in a condition which is
healthy and not deteriorating;”

Evidence substantiating this view, and evidence relating to the effects of recreational anchoring on the seagrass Zostera marina both within the proposed Zone and as described in the worldwide scientific literature, will be outlined below. .....


I will be adding lots of detail to these points, and adding more.

If anyone has a good estimate of the costs to the local marine economy in the event of anchoring restrictions, there's a box for that in the questionnaire, and it could be submitted as "evidence", but an email is still better than nothing.
 
Last edited:

robertj

Active member
Joined
13 May 2007
Messages
7,269
Why is this a sticky - ‘Cos it’s only 20 miles from the Solent?

Possibly http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?501847-New-environmental-rules-in-the-Blackwatershould become a sticky in the East Coast Forum?

Possibly The South Coast or Just The Solent should have their own sub Forums and leave Scuttlebutt for topics of greater universal interest?

Problem is too meany stickies clutter up a forum. A regular cull of dormant stickies can help.

Just asking.
As the old saying goes ‘United we stand, divided we fall’ if all boaters fail to stand up to this the authorities will accomplish what they are pursuing, the driving of boaters from free anchorages into pay as you park areas like we have for cars. Then it’s tax payable again and again ......
 

MarlynSpyke

Member
Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
115
Location
Ruislip
"Why is this a sticky - ‘Cos it’s only 20 miles from the Solent?"

Many MCZ's have already been designated, some contain seagrass (eelgrass), and bye-laws to "manage" anchoring could be passed in the future, although I'm not aware of any yet. The Studland arguments might be a more generally applicable test case which could influence existing MCZ's. Designated MCZ's with seagrass beds include

Isles of Scilly
Whitsand & Looe Bay (Cornwall)
Mounts Bay (Cornwall)
Torbay
Needles
Skomer (Wales, near Milford Haven))
Waterfoot (Northern Ireland)

- and there are probably several more. It's not a Solent-only issue.
 

oldharry

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
9,289
Location
North from the Nab about 10 miles
"Why is this a sticky - ‘Cos it’s only 20 miles from the Solent?"

Many MCZ's have already been designated, some contain seagrass (eelgrass), and bye-laws to "manage" anchoring could be passed in the future, although I'm not aware of any yet. The Studland arguments might be a more generally applicable test case which could influence existing MCZ's. Designated MCZ's with seagrass beds include

Isles of Scilly
Whitsand & Looe Bay (Cornwall)
Mounts Bay (Cornwall)
Torbay
Needles
Skomer (Wales, near Milford Haven))
Waterfoot (Northern Ireland)

- and there are probably several more. It's not a Solent-only issue.
I can add Porth Dinllaen on the Lleyn Peninsular, vital holding point for essential weather and tidal windows to traverse the tortuous and dangerous Caernarfon Bar at the West end of Menai Straights. Ive used it many times myself for just this. There is also eelgrass in the Medway, though apparently not in areas we use at present. At present, non seagrass MCZs do not directly affect us, but its too easy to add features to an existing MCZ without consultation, and for MMO to create new rules, limitations and bylaws out of the blue if somone decides we are damaging their favourite lugworms or whatever. Studland tops the list because Seahorses are more interesting than Lugworms, sea slugs or whatever. But it only takes some enthusiast like NGM to decide that boats are disturbing something to make a case for imposing further bans and limits, and there will be little opportunity for us to object.

Marlynspyke spells out the 'favourable condition' argument about Studland's eelgrass: even this week I have been told quite seriously by a conservationist that the eelgrass there is detriorating, and not expanding. I simply produced three photos over the last 20 years.... The problem is there is no actual data measuring the growth over the last 70 years: its all 'anecdotal' so is conveniently discounted by the experts. The fact is that since befroe most of us bought our first boats, people have been anchoring in large numbers in the bay. During that time, aerial photography shows how the eelgrass beds have expanded from a couple of hundred square metres in 1953, to the present nearly 100 hectares (some recently suggest nearer 150 hectares). In recent time the eelgrass front has continued to spread inshore by around a metre a year. So arguably it is thriving even with people anchoring in it year after year. Marlynspyke spells out above the criteria Natural England use to assess health of a feature. In what way then does it not meet these criteria? Its stable, its expanding, its in good health.

Studland is very much a test case for almost any MCZ area we operate in. Eastcoasters have MCZs in many of your estuaries. It only takes some enthusiast to identify something that they think MAY be being disturbed, for you to suddenly find you cant go there any more. There is little scope or chance of further discussion about who can do what if some NGM type claims 'damage' to whichever wriggly or flippy thing they think we might upset. Already in the wings is serious research in to the impact on wildlife of noise from Mobo and Yacht engines, which carries a long way underwater. I predict that will be the next battle once the silt settles in the MCZs and there is lots of scope for banning powered boats from an existing MCZ area. Only recently has it been 'discovered' that Seahorses are thriving in the N Sea - something many of your fisherfolk have known for many years. Are they using some of your MCZs as breeeding grounds? if so watch the sparks fly when that is 'discovered' too!
 
Last edited:

grumpy_o_g

Well-known member
Joined
9 Jan 2005
Messages
14,992
Location
South Coast
I have used Weymouth and Poole on a number of occasions, they have always provided a safe haven.

I never challenge the experiences of others but during my time with Joint Services, I frequently used Gosport out round the island and direct Dartmouth as a Yachmaster qualifying leg.

As most of my passages were between October and March (hate The Solent in the summer), I had my share of adverse weather so with a doubtful forecast, Gosport - Dartmouth at night, provided a number of safe havens so was a better option then Gosport - Cherbourg another Yachmaster qualifying leg.

This is why I offer that, to claim Studland as the only safe haven in the area, could be refuted so is not a good argument to counter a ban on anchoring and possibly other sanctions.

In another life part of my job was to look for weaknesses in argument and it is from this background I offer this advice.

Oh yes, a Plymouth man, my father knew HMS Exeter well but I don’t think he ever anchored in Studland Bay.;)
If you are on your way into Poole from the CI or Cherbourg and find you can't get through the entrance for any reason (which isn't that uncommon for a small boat) then you are faced with either Christchurch (and good luck trying to get in there if you can't make it into Poole) or Weymouth/Portland - a 25 mile slog mostly along a lee shore in the prevailing wind and quite possibly a close fetch for some of it - St Aldhem's isn't to be trifled with when it's in a bad mood either. Alternatively you can run/reach for the Solent and maybe get some shelter in Lymington (not too bad) or perhaps Beaulieu (not an easy entrance if you don't know it and it's late and you're tired). Either that or keep going for something inside the Solent proper.

And you're doing that after at least 10 hours sailing, possibly more like 18 hours...
 

nortada

Well-known member
Joined
24 May 2012
Messages
13,363
Location
Gone away.
If you are on your way into Poole from the CI or Cherbourg and find you can't get through the entrance for any reason (which isn't that uncommon for a small boat) then you are faced with either Christchurch (and good luck trying to get in there if you can't make it into Poole) or Weymouth/Portland - a 25 mile slog mostly along a lee shore in the prevailing wind and quite possibly a close fetch for some of it - St Aldhem's isn't to be trifled with when it's in a bad mood either. Alternatively you can run/reach for the Solent and maybe get some shelter in Lymington (not too bad) or perhaps Beaulieu (not an easy entrance if you don't know it and it's late and you're tired). Either that or keep going for something inside the Solent proper.

And you're doing that after at least 10 hours sailing, possibly more like 18 hours...
Far too many ifs and buts.

For one, Poole was a regular stop off and I have never been barred from entering in a south westerly, often in a 27footer.

In a thread trying to retain anchoring rights in Studland Bay, this debate is a red-herring, which rather makes the case for not using the ‘safe haven’ argument - far too much room for diversions from the main thrust.
 
Last edited:
Joined
23 Sep 2010
Messages
29,185
Location
West Sussex / Hants
Gales are usually from the south west, and the ebb at Poole entrance is very strong, as a youngster I've been at a standstill there dodging the ferry when I mistimed the tide and should have anchored at Studland, fortunately in good weather; there are NO other handy diversions so I'd say the ' safe haven ' argument is very pertinent.

I've had several occasions sheltering anchored at Studland when there was a line of white water not far offshore by Poole entrance channel, once we saw a chap drifting helplessly that way after his tender outboard failed and though ' Oh ********* we're going to have to go and get him ' and were pulling up the anchor when thankfully a big mobo grabbed him.

A boat with a tired soaked crew, may well be a husband with seasick children and inexperienced wife ( not being sexist that's just how it often is ) could well have their lives saved by anchoring for a sheltered rest at Studland - Fatigue Is The Killer.
 

nortada

Well-known member
Joined
24 May 2012
Messages
13,363
Location
Gone away.
Far too many ifs and buts.

For one, Poole was regular stop off and have never been barred from entering in a south westerly, often in a 27footer.

In a thread trying to retain anchoring rights in Studland Bay, this debate is a red-herring, which rather makes the case for not using the ‘safe haven’ argument - far too much room for diversions from the main thrust.
Gales are usually from the south west, and the ebb at Poole entrance is very strong, as a youngster I've been at a standstill there dodging the ferry when I mistimed the tide and should have anchored at Studland, fortunately in good weather; there are NO other handy diversions so I'd say the ' safe haven ' argument is very pertinent.

I've had several occasions sheltering anchored at Studland when there was a line of white water not far offshore by Poole entrance channel, once we saw a chap drifting helplessly that way after his tender outboard failed and though ' Oh ********* we're going to have to go and get him ' and were pulling up the anchor when thankfully a big mobo grabbed him.

A boat with a tired soaked crew, may well be a husband with seasick children and inexperienced wife ( not being sexist that's just how it often is ) could well have their lives saved by anchoring for a sheltered rest at Studland - Fatigue Is The Killer.
Answer- don’t attempt to enter against the ebb. Called Seamanship

Plan ahead to use that large window of the flood - similar situations exist worldwide. More seamanship.

If the original plan goes to rats; change the plan early and with it the planned land fall. Even more seamanship.

These 3 lines completely refute any suggestion that Studland Bay should be treated as a haven of last resort and this line of argument weakens the whole argument for continuing to permit anchoring in Studland.

A much stronger argument is to refute the statement that current usage of Studland has a major impact on the environment and demonstrate that there are many other sites around the UK that have the same environment as Studland so no natural life is facing extinction as a result of anchoring in a Studland.

In a stroke this turns the debate from the defensive to the offensive and places the opposition on the back foot.
 
Last edited:
Joined
23 Sep 2010
Messages
29,185
Location
West Sussex / Hants
Answer- don’t attempt to enter against the ebb.

Plan ahead to use that that large window of the flood.

If the original plan goes to rats. Change the plan early and with it the planned land fall.

These 3 lines completely refute any suggestion that Studland Bay should be treated as a haven of last resort and this line of argument weakens the whole argument for continuing to permit anchoring in Studland.

A much stronger argument is to refute the statement that current usage of Studland has a major impact on the environment and demonstrate that there are many other sites around the UK that have the same environment as Studland so no natural life is facing extinction as a result of anchoring in a Studland.

In a stroke this turns the debate from the defencive to the offencive and places the opposition on the back foot.
In your remarkably spelled opinion only, not the real world - nobody thinks Lulworth Cove is a safe refuge as you've previously suggested - I will not bother replying to your strange posts any more.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top