Studland Consultation Consultation - we need to get proposals amended this Thursday

[Blue Sunray]

I am thinking that safety is the Trojan horse. We need to get through the outer wall of their defence on this problem and work the leisure in later! Leisure concerns will not cut it on their own.

Doesn't work I'm afraid, they've made it clear that anchoring for safety is exempt from any restrictions (safety to be defined). It's therefore a diversion that, if anything, works the other way as boaters efforts and attention are put into defining safety etc rather tackling the actual issue.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

I am thinking that safety is the Trojan horse. We need to get through the outer wall of their defence on this problem and work the leisure in later! Leisure concerns will not cut it on their own.

Not so. If it is a voluntary no anchor zone, which most sides are aiming for, there will be no penalty in law for anchoring there, for safety or any other reason. The existing anchoring area will still be available. If it ends up as compulsory NAZ, through a bye-law or whatever, MMO still insist that it will be permissible to anchor for reasons of safety. So the safety argument is a weak one.

 

[oldharry]

Correction! Gove is the greeny I was thinking of in post 73, Not Eustice. Thanks BORG team for correcting me on that one. More haste less speed!

 

[MarlynSpyke]

I don't know if this file attachment has worked. It should show the MMO option 3 chart staightened our and superimposed on a Navionics chart of the Bay. I have traced the 2m depth contour in red. Sailing yachts generally need around 2 metres or more of water for safe anchoring, although shoal draft boats may need 1.2 or 1.4 m. So the anchorable area is much much less than MMO's diagonal blue lines suggest.

Answer, no, it doesn't seem to like pdf, and the jpeg file was too large. I'll put it on the BORG website later.

Or go to Facebook Groups - Facebook accepted the jpeg ok.

UPDATE: I've just made the image smaller, see below

 

[MarlynSpyke]

 

[MarlynSpyke]

 

[MarlynSpyke]

In the above, moving the NAZ boundary south to the edge of the mapped bed gives an extra band of anchorable water averaging about 100 metres wide, a significant increase. We should lobby MMO to reduce the size of the NAZ - they did say they were considering a smaller NAZ for this season, but we would want it to be permanent.

 

[penfold]

Similar butting heads with statutory bodies was encountered by the cruising hovercraft club when they attempted to overturn the disproportionate and unfair blanket ban on hovercraft within Langstone Harbour; Natural England were involved there as advisors although they did seem amenable to reason compared to Langstone Harbour Board and the harbourmaster in particular who were quite happy to ignore the legal rights of hovercraft users in the face of quite reasonable requests for compromise. Nothing short of the legal equivalent of dynamite is required to get past the 'computer says no' attitude, but judicial reviews are wildly expensive.

 

[Sea-Fever]

Motor boats with a fast cruising speed may rely less on Studland for passage making. Sailing yachts with a max speed of say 6-7kts depend on it for E-W passages.

If we've lost the leisure amenity argument (and it appears we have) then simply ruling that sailing craft may anchor in the South of the bay whilst motor boats can anchor in the North would substantially reduce the amount of anchoring in the sensitive area and also give a natural safe area for eelgrass because boats with keels dont anchor in shallower water.

One line of buoys needed. No complicated maps. Happy seahorses. Sailors can relax because anchoring will still be allowed....and motorboats can use the shoal area in the North without fear of hitting the deck as they generally have a much shallower draught.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Motor boats with a fast cruising speed may rely less on Studland for passage making. Sailing yachts with a max speed of say 6-7kts depend on it for E-W passages.

If we've lost the leisure amenity argument (and it appears we have) then simply ruling that sailing craft may anchor in the South of the bay whilst motor boats can anchor in the North would substantially reduce the amount of anchoring in the sensitive area and also give a natural safe area for eelgrass because boats with keels dont anchor in shallower water.

One line of buoys needed. No complicated maps. Happy seahorses. Sailors can relax because anchoring will still be allowed....and motorboats can use the shoal area in the North without fear of hitting the deck as they generally have a much shallower draught.

Just what we need, a rag and stick snob who for some bizarre reason thinks those with motor boats aren't 'sailors'. Whilst you're at it you might like to note that full displacement motor boats are often 6-7 kts cruising speed and a fair number of boats with masts travel to and from Studland without raising their sails.

Speaking as someone who spent his summer holidays there in his father's Hunter 19 through the 1980s, do get stuffed.

 

[oldharry]

Motor boats with a fast cruising speed may rely less on Studland for passage making. Sailing yachts with a max speed of say 6-7kts depend on it for E-W passages.

If we've lost the leisure amenity argument (and it appears we have) then simply ruling that sailing craft may anchor in the South of the bay whilst motor boats can anchor in the North would substantially reduce the amount of anchoring in the sensitive area and also give a natural safe area for eelgrass because boats with keels dont anchor in shallower water.

One line of buoys needed. No complicated maps. Happy seahorses. Sailors can relax because anchoring will still be allowed....and motorboats can use the shoal area in the North without fear of hitting the deck as they generally have a much shallower draught.

Arent most yachts just Mobos with a mast and sails.... (dives for cover!) Seriously though, that is how it would appear to those who dont know better: niceties about different underwater shapes - well you cant see that bit can you? Conservation at MMO dont seem to know much about boats either.

 

[Sea-Fever]

Just what we need, a rag and stick snob who for some bizarre reason thinks those with motor boats aren't 'sailors'. Whilst you're at it you might like to note that full displacement motor boats are often 6-7 kts cruising speed and a fair number of boats with masts travel to and from Studland without raising their sails.

Speaking as someone who spent his summer holidays there in his father's Hunter 19 through the 1980s, do get stuffed.

And your solution is what?

 

[dom]

Two very bad options are open to leisure boaters:

First, boaty apartheid is a divide and conquer trap, easily set, and even more easily avoided.

Second, decoys. as Blue Sunray says, there's not a cats chance in hell that legislators will for a moment consider forcing a yacht onwards into the Needles or St Alban's races in adverse conditions, thereby endangering its potentially tired, elderly, seasick, or infant crew; not a chance. Fighting this small consolation corner is poor tactics.

The substantive question here is is the lawful basis of the 'conservation trumps leisure' mantra; one which gives eco/social warriors a license to curtail leisure activity at will. And this is plain to see, for almost every one of these so called new conservation areas "happens" to be plonked on areas of high leisure activity, with few designated in more remote areas plundered by bottom-trawling, etc.

The question we have to ask is why fishermen, mining companies, oil/gas drillers, power stations, water utilities et al. are relatively unaffected. The answer is a combination of lobbying clout, organisation, and hard cash.

Lacking a sufficient quantum of such firepower BORG has sadly been left fighting an impossible fight.

The only practical solution IMHO is clear message to the RYA; if you won't fight our corner, then leisure sailors will stop funding you. Period.

 

[chubby]

I think we should try to get "Anchoring in a genuine emergency" changed to "Anchoring for the safety of the vessel". As noted above we may need to anchor to reduce the risk of an emergency developing later due to fatigue on a long passage.

We should try to lobby for the safe prudent practice of good seamanship as practiced for centuries rather than restrict the arguemnt to true emergencies: yes the MMO would not stop vessels seeking shelter in a gale but for a light yacht a force 4 wind over tide as may be experienced in both the Needles and off St Albans and the strong ebb in Poole entrance may all make it prudent to go to anchor in Studland and reduce the chance of a developing emergency so we should lobby for a realistic definition of the need to anchor: the MMO staff on the zoom did not strike me as sailors who would appreciate thew difference between a gale and the "yachtsmans gale" and how bumpy wind over tide is. In such cases studland offers better shelter than Swanage with the option to nip into poole when tide allows.

 

[RobbieW]

Two very bad options are open to leisure boaters:

First, boaty apartheid is a divide and conquer trap, easily set, and even more easily avoided.

Second, decoys. as Blue Sunray says, there's not a cats chance in hell that legislators will for a moment consider forcing a yacht onwards into the Needles or St Alban's races in adverse conditions, thereby endangering its potentially tired, elderly, seasick, or infant crew; not a chance. Fighting this small consolation corner is poor tactics.

The substantive question here is is the lawful basis of the 'conservation trumps leisure' mantra; one which gives eco/social warriors a license to curtail leisure activity at will. And this is plain to see, for almost every one of these so called new conservation areas "happens" to be plonked on areas of high leisure activity, with few designated in more remote areas plundered by bottom-trawling, etc.

The question we have to ask is why fishermen, mining companies, oil/gas drillers, power stations, water utilities et al. are relatively unaffected. The answer is a combination of lobbying clout, organisation, and hard cash.

Lacking a sufficient quantum of such firepower BORG has sadly been left fighting an impossible fight.

The only practical solution IMHO is clear message to the RYA; if you won't fight our corner, then leisure sailors will stop funding you. Period.

I'm inclined to agree with you and have been mentally composing a letter to Sarah Treseder, RYA CEO, over the last couple of days

 

[doug748]

I'm inclined to agree with you and have been mentally composing a letter to Sarah Treseder, RYA CEO, over the last couple of days

I'm brewing one up for my MP, who does know about maritime things and may not view it in the same light as some sort of suburban parking problem.

.

 

[chubby]

Correction! Gove is the greeny I was thinking of in post 73, Not Eustice. Thanks BORG team for correcting me on that one. More haste less speed!

I think we should have a concerted letter writting campaign to show the strength of feeling: own MP, Richard Drax, George Eustice, does anyone know the best person at the MMO to write to? CEO or someone else? to the individuals identified on the zoom, especially their manager, to NE<perhaps a FOI enquiry regarding evidence? Are written letters in the post more likely to reach attention than emails? Do emails just get deleted by a PA? does anyone know how best to actually get to the people that matter. letters to the RYA and CA if members, they must be on it but any support by weight of numbers?

I am a solent yachtsman who visits Studland once or twice a year but how about all the boats in the several Poole marinas and clubs ? Sutland must be their go to local spot just as I use Priory bay and Osborn bay?

If all the above wrote we could flood intrays and in boxes.

Several have said that the MMO staff on the zoom seemed surprised by the depth of feeling.

realistically we may stand more chance of supporting a modified NAZ such a option 3 with the boundaries adjusted a little: even 100 metres will let many more boats anchor.

Perhaps an inner compulsory NAZ and outer voluntary zone with the hope folk would only use it if needed? a percentage observation of a VNAZ would reduce any impact by that percentage

lets get writing, any guidance as to who to welcome

 

[dunedin]

The only practical solution IMHO is clear message to the RYA; if you won't fight our corner, then leisure sailors will stop funding you. Period.

It’s amazing how everybody on here seems to leap in and blame the RYA for everything. I am not local, but as far as I am aware the RYA are fighting the case, along with CA, BORG and other parties. But they can’t magically solve the entrenched issues identified clearly by some of the informed posters on here.

And meanwhile the RYA needs to, and does, represent interests wider than just the South Coast - so been lobbying (with some success recently) on things like the Brexit VAT return to UK date, red diesel (and now on the case regarding white diesel of Northern Ireland) etc.
They are not perfect, but those of also involved with other sports know that no national authority is perfect, as comprised of human beings,

But it is very easy to lob criticism from the sidelines, and assert loudly that somebody else should do things, whereas the best thing is to put your own hand up and offer to help out personally - like many are doing on this.
As the post above suggests, a concerted action of multiple individuals writing to key MPs can often achieve more than any single organisation, plus with the MP mailboxes getting filled this can then give the leverage for organisations like RYA then to be heard.

 

[Tomahawk]

The RYA re very silent on a lot of things that they should be making a fuss about.
Some Essex councils are now charging for Recreational Amelioration Management Strategies for new house building on the excuse that people who buy new houses may get a boat which may disturb a bird on the mud. The RYA should have been fighting the boating corner with everything it had but they didnt bother to make a representation on behalf of boat owners.

 

[dom]

But it is very easy to lob criticism from the sidelines, and assert loudly that somebody else should do things, whereas the best thing is to put your own hand up and offer to help out personally - like many are doing on this.

The problem with decentralised lobbying is that, without focus, it is terribly easy to dismiss as a self-interested rabble. As we see in this case, where the other side is more focused under a more central command.

The RYA by comparison is there to represent our interests in an organised way and represent them it should. Even if this means a few less 'quiet word to the minister' opportunities over canapes and G&T in Westminster. The fishermen, oil & gas, and mining lobbyists would never fall into that trap, or they'd be replaced PDQ.