oldharry
Well-known member
...and there never will be, unless the suggestion disturbance stimulates growth is correct!
Studland - MMO Management protocols for the MCZ in place from 17th December
- Thread starter oldharry
- Start date
Ian_Rob
Well-known member
….that the breaking off of seed bearing fronds actually aids the wider dissemination of the species is a key bit of research that needs further investigation. I can’t remember the typical distance that the negatively buoyant seeds travel from the parent plant but it is only a matter of metres, whereas a floating, seed ladened frond that has been broken off, can travel very much further. My guess is that the year on year spread of seagrass at Studland is attributable to this.
Last edited:
Lodestone
Active member
I came across an interesting quote in an older (2021) Countryside Alliance article and wondered, if there was anything concrete in it, whether it might have any relevance for the Studland argument.
The writer Tim Bonner said "The one serious impact that Wild Justice’s legal actions has had is to confirm the view of many within government that the legal structures that we have inherited from the EU, especially the Habitats Directive and its reliance on the ‘precautionary principle’, which legal activists increasingly use in an attempt to stop anyone from doing anything they disapprove of in the countryside, cannot remain in their current form."
Does anyone know who these 'many in Government' are? Any evidence of a wobble regarding the Environmental Principles?
The writer Tim Bonner said "The one serious impact that Wild Justice’s legal actions has had is to confirm the view of many within government that the legal structures that we have inherited from the EU, especially the Habitats Directive and its reliance on the ‘precautionary principle’, which legal activists increasingly use in an attempt to stop anyone from doing anything they disapprove of in the countryside, cannot remain in their current form."
Does anyone know who these 'many in Government' are? Any evidence of a wobble regarding the Environmental Principles?
Lodestone
Active member
The 5 Principles are outlined here:- Environmental principles policy statement
Including the 'precautionary principle'..."The purpose of these principles is to guide ministers and policymakers towards opportunities to prevent environmental damage and enhance the environment. However, the principles are not rules and they cannot dictate policy decisions by ministers."
As the policy statement is a statutory document the Environment Act requires ministers to have 'due regard'. Due regard does not compel.
Also "The precautionary principle is applicable where there is plausible evidence of a risk". That would seem key in Studland. A plausible argument is open to being challenged, picked apart... therefore so is the risk. Surely that means the Minister has to hear us in order to assess the plausibility of that risk? Without a fair voice and a demonstrable weighing up the Minister has surely failed in the application of the principle?
Including the 'precautionary principle'..."The purpose of these principles is to guide ministers and policymakers towards opportunities to prevent environmental damage and enhance the environment. However, the principles are not rules and they cannot dictate policy decisions by ministers."
As the policy statement is a statutory document the Environment Act requires ministers to have 'due regard'. Due regard does not compel.
Also "The precautionary principle is applicable where there is plausible evidence of a risk". That would seem key in Studland. A plausible argument is open to being challenged, picked apart... therefore so is the risk. Surely that means the Minister has to hear us in order to assess the plausibility of that risk? Without a fair voice and a demonstrable weighing up the Minister has surely failed in the application of the principle?
Last edited:
Lodestone
Active member
Oh and it appears that noise in Studland is the next itch to be scratched by a certain someone.
st599
Well-known member
As the UK decarbonisation plan is putting a lot of eggs in the blue carbon basket (storing CO2 in the subsoil under seagrass, in salt marshes etc.) which they believe will be released by anchoring, whether or not the plant growth is stimulated will probably never be tested.
This is why RYA, CA, BM et al are looking at eco moorings seriously.
stephen_h
Active member
Those pesky waves!
Lodestone
Active member
whats the point in monitoring wave noise - it's eternal.
unless of course it causes the rattling of eco-mooring shackles - the noise of which alarms and distresses the local critters.
Last edited:
oldharry
Well-known member
Yes, watch this space. I have talked to one or two of NE's 'experts' - the same ones who went against established science on eelgrass in order to establish the anchor damage myth. They are now hell bent on 'proving' that propeller noise is a major issue for marine life. They are building on the theory that just as sonar disrupts marine mammals such as whales and Dolphins, so propeller noise, which travels a long way in water is disruptive to other marine life. From what I gather fish generally cannot detect sound in the normal way. However there are some which use a sonar like method of detecting prey. i've little doubt that they will sooner or later come up with 'evidence' of the need to restrict the use of powered boats.
Boathook
Well-known member
That will then stop the ferry's in and out of Poole. And the noise of the chain ferry ....