Another major blow for the Seahorse Trust i Studland

oldharry

oldharry

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
10,075
Location
North from the Nab about 10 miles
Visit site
For some time, Seahorse trust has tried to suggest that anchoring in Studland is in fact illegal under the terms of the Wlidlife and Countryside Act. The Act makes the willful disturbance of a protected species or its habitat an offence. Neil Garrick- Maidment has claimed that this means that ANY disturbance of the eelgrass habitat of his pets is therefore illegal. Anchoring, we have always said, is not 'willful disturbance', a view confirmed by RYAs legal department.

Since DEFRA's decision two weeks ago, NGM has majored on this aspect of his campaign to oust us from the Bay, insisting that he will now report any yacht anchoring in the bay for prosecution.

He also demanded the resignation of the Head of Conservation and Enforcement at MMO (as well as several senior people in DEFRA and Natural England) for failing in their duty under this legislation to protect the bay and his seahorses. This has done wonders for his popularity and credibility where it matters, I would imagine!.

His campaign was sunk by a single shot yesterday from the MMO (who would be responsible for bringing any prosecution): They responded formally to his complaint saying " the use of an anchor in Studland Bay, or other areas containing seagrass, is not an illegal activity in itself."

NGM frequently claims he has produced conclusive scientific evidence that anchoring causes damage to eelgrass. MMOs letter concludes by inviting him to produce 'any further evidence' he may have to show otherwise.

Another victory for common sense!
 
oldharry said:
For some time, Seahorse trust has tried to suggest that anchoring in Studland is in fact illegal under the terms of the Wlidlife and Countryside Act. The Act makes the willful disturbance of a protected species or its habitat an offence.
Click to expand...

Where does that leave an organisation which raises money by running commercial diving trips to allow members of the public to see - I'm picking an example out of the air here - seahorses?
 
Or threatens their existence by the presence of divers harassing them & tagging them generally?
All the publicity the bloke has generated must have had a detrimental effect on the seahorses survival.It's time he was given an ASBO to offer them some protection.
 
Last edited:
Nicholas123 said:
Or threatens their existence by the presence of divers harassing them & tagging them generally?
Click to expand...

It does seem to be a curious coincidence that after decades of use of Studland by recreational boaters, observed seahorse numbers should be reported as falling after the SHT set up its diving and tagging operations.
 
JumbleDuck said:
It does seem to be a curious coincidence that after decades of use of Studland by recreational boaters, observed seahorse numbers should be reported as falling after the SHT set up its diving and tagging operations.
Click to expand...

Personal view is its no coincidence at all, but we have to be able to produce more evidence than just the disappearance of the seahorses to get their MMO licence withdrawn - I tried that some years ago. MMO were very helpful, but without data or tangible proof, they could not act on speculation, any more than they accept NGMs speculation that 'the boats dunnit'.

It is however something I have very much in mind.
 
I wonder if he actually has any care for seahorses at all. I am sure his agenda is just anti "rich" and anti yacht. I firmly believes he want to see no boats at all in Studland regardless of any sea life. If you look at his public press releases they are seldom about the scientific issues they are nearly always personal attacks on "rich yacht owners". I think it is quite sad that there is no balance in the press on this issue.

I am also convinced that the SHT is just a front and not a real charity, I am convinced that the SHT is just a way of obtaining funding for his hobby or is he now a full time employee of the SHT? I think the charitable status of the SHT should be removed.
 
oldharry said:
Personal view is its no coincidence at all, but we have to be able to produce more evidence than just the disappearance of the seahorses to get their MMO licence withdrawn
Click to expand...

Of course. Is there any actual evidence for a reduction in seahorse numbers or are the claims all based on the SHT's observations?
 
Last edited:
Seven Spades said:
I wonder if he actually has any care for seahorses at all. I am sure his agenda is just anti "rich" and anti yacht. I firmly believes he want to see no boats at all in Studland regardless of any sea life. If you look at his public press releases they are seldom about the scientific issues they are nearly always personal attacks on "rich yacht owners". I think it is quite sad that there is no balance in the press on this issue.

I am also convinced that the SHT is just a front and not a real charity, I am convinced that the SHT is just a way of obtaining funding for his hobby or is he now a full time employee of the SHT? I think the charitable status of the SHT should be removed.
Click to expand...

+1

It seems to me it's just a man's hobby, that keeps him reasonably well paid. Everything I've seen him involved him, he wants to remain involved in long term. ie. Permanent "eco-friendly" moorings in Studland Bay. I wonder who would be in charge of their maintenance and fare collection? Within the seahorse community itself, he's been trying to set up a "Studbook" for a number of years, essentially a licensing system where NGM himself would act as arbiter for whom should be allowed to keep seahorses and he would be in charge of allocation. No doubt paying himself a decent living for this service.

Of course, the most telling aspect is that as soon as someone disagrees with his views, be they boaters, fellow seahorse lovers, other conservationists, etc., he writes them off as "trouble makers".

It's just a pity the papers pay him any attention and don't let the whole thing die a death.
 
JumbleDuck said:
Of course. Is there any actual evidence for a reduction in seahorse numbers or are the claims all based on the SHT's observations?
Click to expand...

The problem is that all evidence of seahorses in Studland come from personal accounts prior to Steve spending most of his waking hours looking for them. The majority of the recent observations are his. If you followed his earlier contributions here you realise that he would not make a credible witness. The subsequent publicly funded and much more structured tagging project failed find anywhere near the same numbers.

Begs some serious questions does it not?
 
...and even the 'official' numbers are highly dubious. 2008 x 58, 2010 x 32 . Thats what all the reports say. Actually 2008 was 58 sightings if 40 claimed individuals. But they were recorded by a large team of amateurs working with NGM. So how many duplications?

We get a better insight in 2010: 32 seahorses. Widely quoted. But wait a moment: the small print admits it was just 5 individuals seen 32 times. So lets apply that to 2008: more realistic - just 7 individuals seen 6 times each. OR maybe just 6 seen 7 times. or could there be just 4 seen 10 times. You can go on playing with this one without getting anywhere near the truth.

Oh dear, what a muddle! So if we try to quote SHTs published figures, the smokescreen just goes up again and makes nonsense of any attempt to rationalise it all. And they wonder why do not believe them!

Even the one sighting last summer is questionable. How can you get in a muddle over just 1? Well who saw it? NGM was reporting no sightings when Steve was claiming a sighting. OK Steve isnt talking to NGM nowadays. But then NGM appears to claim one for his own team. so is it 1 or 2! Now we are down to 2 seen once... or one seen twice... or... help!

It really is like fighting cotton wool.
 
Last edited:
oldharry said:
Problem no 1. They have the figures. We dont, and can not get them.
Click to expand...

Then they are rumour, not science. So much for the SHT's peer-reviewed research, eh?

Tranona said:
The problem is that all evidence of seahorses in Studland come from personal accounts prior to Steve spending most of his waking hours looking for them. The majority of the recent observations are his. If you followed his earlier contributions here you realise that he would not make a credible witness. The subsequent publicly funded and much more structured tagging project failed find anywhere near the same numbers.

Begs some serious questions does it not?
Click to expand...

Oh, I remember his postings very well. Not the conciliatory type, Steve.
 
Adminstrator's expenses, which might be someone's pay packet, was £33600 for 2013-14, and also with travel over £800 and vehicle running costs over £600.

Seahorse costs (what they?) are just about £50.

Interesting to look at. It's charity No. 1086027 if you're interested on the Charity Commissioner's website.
 
JumbleDuck said:
Then they are rumour, not science. So much for the SHT's peer-reviewed research, eh?


e.
Click to expand...

Virtually none. Leaving aside the difficulties of observing the almost unobservable, any undergraduate student of mine would have had his research proposal rejected!
 
oldharry said:
His campaign was sunk by a single shot yesterday from the MMO (who would be responsible for bringing any prosecution): They responded formally to his complaint saying " the use of an anchor in Studland Bay, or other areas containing seagrass, is not an illegal activity in itself."
Click to expand...

Clearly the MMO have actually read the Act, which it seems (to me) that NGM has not.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) (Amendments) Regulations 2007) section 9(4)(a) states:
"Subject to the provisions of this Part, a person is guilty of an offence if intentionally or recklessly - he damages or destroys any structure or place which any wild animal specified in Schedule 5 uses for shelter or protection."

However, section 10(3)(c) of the Act goes on to state:
"Notwithstanding anything in section 9, a person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of - any act made unlawful by that section if he shows that the act was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided."
 
It should be remembered that SHT's much trumpeted ( in fundraising among the gullible ) ' Internationally recognised database ' turned out to either not to have existed at all, ever, or was a set of private jottings no-one else has seen; when challenged NGM could or would not produce it...
 
Seajet said:
It should be remembered that SHT's much trumpeted ( in fundraising among the gullible ) ' Internationally recognised database ' turned out to either not to have existed at all, ever, or was a set of private jottings no-one else has seen; when challenged NGM could or would not produce it...
Click to expand...

I imagine that even if it does exist that it will not be much of a database and more likely to be text in a spread sheet. It will lack organisation and allow (even encourage) duplication of data. So seahorses 1 to 3 spotted by D. Smith, Dave Smith and D.R.Smith might or might not be the same event. Dates are often entered incorrectly and so 2/3/12 and 3/2/12 turn out to be the same day. The errors go on and on, making it difficult to perform any useful queries.

So even if it exists and he does share it, I wouldn't hold out much hope of getting useful information easily. Of course he might have paid a professional to design it properly (flying pigs spotted).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top