Conservation is the priority at Studland warns MMO.

[Boathook]

I can see that it’s not necessary to have part 1 at all for uk waters, but the additional info that came with mine said it was an offence, with no mention of where you were. I think, if you’re registered, you must display it. Of course, if its not on there nobody would know you were registered…

SSR is part 3 I belive. If you are registered you should display it, but there is no reason to be registered if you don't leave UK waters. As far as I'm aware, you aren't required to show any name, number, etc on your boat. Marinas and harbours may have local bylaws that state differently if berthed or visiting.

 

[Tranona]

The important thing is that the SSR is not used in the same way as car registration, that is as a means to locate the "keeper" that is the person responsible in law for the car. The SSR is solely issued so that the boat complies with the international maritime law requirement of indicating the flag state.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

SSR is part 3 I belive. If you are registered you should display it, but there is no reason to be registered if you don't leave UK waters. As far as I'm aware, you aren't required to show any name, number, etc on your boat. Marinas and harbours may have local bylaws that state differently if berthed or visiting.

No more than 12 miles offshore with no registration. Even without touching a foreign port, we do that fairly frequently. Plus, it’s needed to apply for a blue ensign. Almost every boat over 25ft has an SSR number round here. You’re right theres no other obligation to have any marks on your boat at all, but you’d be nuts to have nothing. No name, sail number etc, you could lose your boat in the marina, never mind the ocean.

 

[Robin]

No more than 12 miles offshore with no registration. Even without touching a foreign port, we do that fairly frequently. Plus, it’s needed to apply for a blue ensign. Almost every boat over 25ft has an SSR number round here. You’re right theres no other obligation to have any marks on your boat at all, but you’d be nuts to have nothing. No name, sail number etc, you could lose your boat in the marina, never mind the ocean.

IIRC you need to be part 1 registered to claim a warrant (like from a YC) to legally fly a (usually defaced )blue ensign SSR/part 3 is not enough., plus the boat needs to be longer than 21ft registered Length. Irrelevant to this discussion which relates to the fact that full part 1 registered vessels do not display the registered number externally but on an official 'tonnage board ' below decks. In pre B****t days the boats displaying SSR numbers were more likely to attract passing officialdom overseas as lack of such on display usually indicated a fully registered vessel.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

IIRC you need to be part 1 registered to claim a warrant (like from a YC) to legally fly a (usually defaced )blue ensign SSR/part 3 is not enough., plus the boat needs to be longer than 21ft registered Length. Irrelevant to this discussion which relates to the fact that full part 1 registered vessels do not display the registered number externally but on an official 'tonnage board ' below decks. In pre B****t days the boats displaying SSR numbers were more likely to attract passing officialdom overseas as lack of such on display usually indicated a fully registered vessel.

Just FYI, SSR is enough. It's specifically what the form asks for. Part 1 is for vessels operating commercially as well as larger stuff, you can’t fly a blue ensign on a charter boat. I don‘t personally know anyone who can’t use SSR because their boat is too big? 24 metres, my mates just arent that rich.

 

[Robin]

Just FYI, SSR is enough. It's specifically what the form asks for. Part 1 is for vessels operating commercially as well as larger stuff, you can’t fly a blue ensign on a charter boat. I don‘t personally know anyone who can’t use SSR because their boat is too big? 24 metres, my mates just arent that rich.

SSR historically was set up as a quick/cheaper compromise to appease the French mostly who used OUR own UK beyond 12 mile rules to insist onall visiting UK boats being registered or be fined, which they did enthusiastically. All my boats since 1970 have been full part 1 registered not by me in the first instance but were kept on it by me. Back then it was a requirement to obtain a marine mortgage (better rates) as opposed to hire purchase. My first Part 1 registered boat was a Halcyon 23 (that's feet not metres BTW). Since then I have owned 5 more, all Part1 registered, none commercial nor chartered. including our current steed, but not 2 others owned in the USA jointly with my American wife (Only yanks can be majority owners)which were full USA registered as opposed to THEIR simpler State registration .

Our current boat is full Part 1 registered with me being majority share owner as non brits not allowed full ownership . I believe however non -brits CAN register a boat on Part 3 (SSR) as long as they are bona fide UK residents

 

[Yealm]

Has a controlled study been done ie buoying off half a bed and seeing the impact ?

 

[SaltyC]

Very doubtful! Cynically those who made the most noise and demands have achieved their outcome. For both them and the MMO a scientific study which would produce factual evidence which may prove their arguments were incorrect will not wish to risk losing credibility.

 

[oldharry]

Has a controlled study been done ie buoying off half a bed and seeing the impact ?

Yes: The Seastar Survey 2010 -12 created a temporary VNAZ in the southern part of the anchorage. After 2 years they found no signficant diffeence in eelgrass quality. Crowne Estates commissioned this report, using an independent survey company who did a thorough job. However as it was not under NE control it was rejected, although their Local Rep assisted in it. Rather proves the point that any report that doesnt tow the party line is rejected out of hand. The local rep by the way was promoted soon after....

Every other species specific report we can find - all 26 of them - on Zostera Marina confirms that it is a tough, resilient growth, with capacity for rapid recovery, often within months. A 1m square was deliberetely raked out and cleared in one test. It had recovered by the end of the season, and by the end of the following year was indistinguishable from the surrounding bed. Other tests confirm this rapid recovery, often within one season. Even complete destruction of a Z Marina bed by a red tide, will recover within 3 years. See the BORG website for the reading list.

So what is going on? You will note throughout the literature reference is to 'Seagrass', not the specific species widely present in UK waters. Afaik no other seagrass recovers like Z Marina: the Mediterranean variety Oceanica Posidona for example ishighly susceptible to scouring and damage, and takes many years to recover. So this attribute is applied generically to 'seagrass', and this is what NE and others are talking about.

 

[Yealm]

Yes: The Seastar Survey 2010 -12 created a temporary VNAZ in the southern part of the anchorage. After 2 years they found no signficant diffeence in eelgrass quality. Crowne Estates commissioned this report, using an independent survey company who did a thorough job. However as it was not under NE control it was rejected, although their Local Rep assisted in it. Rather proves the point that any report that doesnt tow the party line is rejected out of hand. The local rep by the way was promoted soon after....

Every other species specific report we can find - all 26 of them - on Zostera Marina confirms that it is a tough, resilient growth, with capacity for rapid recovery, often within months. A 1m square was deliberetely raked out and cleared in one test. It had recovered by the end of the season, and by the end of the following year was indistinguishable from the surrounding bed. Other tests confirm this rapid recovery, often within one season. Even complete destruction of a Z Marina bed by a red tide, will recover within 3 years. See the BORG website for the reading list.

So what is going on? You will note throughout the literature reference is to 'Seagrass', not the specific species widely present in UK waters. Afaik no other seagrass recovers like Z Marina: the Mediterranean variety Oceanica Posidona for example ishighly susceptible to scouring and damage, and takes many years to recover. So this attribute is applied generically to 'seagrass', and this is what NE and others are talking about.

Knowing nothing about the subject, I’m probably talking out of turn..

But …I’d have thought before any widespread anchoring restrictions are imposed around the UK, it’d be good to do a proper study - comparing cordoned off areas with adjacent un-restricted access- over 5-10years (2 years sounds hopelessly short term!).

But reality is probably a lot of stuff we do is horrible for the natural world - eg the toxic antifouling we splash on each year, fuel spills etc

 

[Tranona]

Knowing nothing about the subject, I’m probably talking out of turn..

But …I’d have thought before any widespread anchoring restrictions are imposed around the UK, it’d be good to do a proper study - comparing cordoned off areas with adjacent un-restricted access- over 5-10years (2 years sounds hopelessly short term!).

But reality is probably a lot of stuff we do is horrible for the natural world - eg the toxic antifouling we splash on each year, fuel spills etc

You might think that, but then you have probably not met any of the protagonists. The main 2 who started this (and then it was about cuddly seahorses that one had managed to get designated protected species) have no qualifications and are completely adverse to any "proper" scientific enquiry because they don't understand it and fear that it would not give them confirmation of their beliefs. The Seastar survey OH refers to is a good example. A third person who is one of the "experts" that advise NE is treated as a bit of a joke at the university he worked for at the time. His "research" that gives him the claim to be expert is of the type OH refers to, that is not on Zoster Marina. Despite conducting fieldwork in Studland for many years, never carried out any real research simply because no funding was available as at the time it was considered a non issue. Into this vacuum comes people who just repeat the same line over and over again, getting airtime and press time until what they say becomes "the truth" and anything that goes against it is heretic.

 

[savageseadog]

Something to bear in mind with regards to Porthdinllaen is that it's the only shelter available for many miles in every direction. It's between the multiple hazards, South and North Stack races, Caernarfon Bar and Bardsey.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

Talk about a blinkered view. No regard for centuries of use by ships of all sizes and the photographic evidence showing the expanded area covered by the precious sea grass has expanded in Studland Bay since WWII, shortly after the marine event that nearly wiped the sea grass out in the 1930's. There has been no control of fertilizer run off, which is a major problem that is not being tackled. The reports of no seahorses in Studland Bay, but ignore that specimens up to 12", sorry 30cm, long by are being caught by fishermen nearby. In my opinion the MMO is a political pressure group, but with government backing and funding.

Old Harry's quote
"It has to be appreciated by all parties, that since the designation of Studland
Bay as a Marine Conservation Zone in 2019, the ability of vessels to use the area in
the same way that they may have done so in the past prior to designation, will have to
change and that ultimately conservation of the marine environment has to be the
priority. ..."

- was from a report by the Dorset Coastal Forum (no, I don't know who they are either). I've not seen that sort of statement from the MMO. The MMO have said that if the voluntary no-anchor-zone (VNAZ) is not observed then compulsory measures might be necessary, but I genuinely believe that the MMO are trying to realise the established legal objectives with a light touch, and achieve a sensible balance between boating and consevation interests. It is other parties who are pressing for wider and more draconian restrictions, and these have come to the attention of BORG, although we are not free to disclose these at present. Although I still do not agree with the justification for the restrictions, and along with Old Harry have campaigned hard against them, the legal need to avoid anchoring in the eelgrass, except in an emergency, is now a fact, and my advice is to observe the VNAZ to avoid harsher compulsory restrictions later. Believe me, there are conservationists seeking much wider restrictive powers, let us not pave the way for these by making compulsory anchoring restrictions necessary.

To observe the VNAZ, bearing in mind there are no marker buoys, simply avoid anchoring over the seagrass - you can usually see where it is, it is darker than the sandy (no seagrass) parts of the Bay. There is in fact a large area available north of the eelgrass (seagrass) beds with an unvegetated sandy bottom. Yes, it is less sheltered than the northern part of the Bay, but the high demand for anchoring is usually on relatively calm warm days when shelter from waves is not really an issue.

 

[Concerto]

Old Harry's quote
"It has to be appreciated by all parties, that since the designation of Studland
Bay as a Marine Conservation Zone in 2019, the ability of vessels to use the area in
the same way that they may have done so in the past prior to designation, will have to
change and that ultimately conservation of the marine environment has to be the
priority. ..."

- was from a report by the Dorset Coastal Forum (no, I don't know who they are either). I've not seen that sort of statement from the MMO. The MMO have said that if the voluntary no-anchor-zone (VNAZ) is not observed then compulsory measures might be necessary, but I genuinely believe that the MMO are trying to realise the established legal objectives with a light touch, and achieve a sensible balance between boating and consevation interests. It is other parties who are pressing for wider and more draconian restrictions, and these have come to the attention of BORG, although we are not free to disclose these at present. Although I still do not agree with the justification for the restrictions, and along with Old Harry have campaigned hard against them, the legal need to avoid anchoring in the eelgrass, except in an emergency, is now a fact, and my advice is to observe the VNAZ to avoid harsher compulsory restrictions later. Believe me, there are conservationists seeking much wider restrictive powers, let us not pave the way for these by making compulsory anchoring restrictions necessary.

To observe the VNAZ, bearing in mind there are no marker buoys, simply avoid anchoring over the seagrass - you can usually see where it is, it is darker than the sandy (no seagrass) parts of the Bay. There is in fact a large area available north of the eelgrass (seagrass) beds with an unvegetated sandy bottom. Yes, it is less sheltered than the northern part of the Bay, but the high demand for anchoring is usually on relatively calm warm days when shelter from waves is not really an issue.

Very interesting reply. I have to admit I have never anchored in Swanage Bay, but fully support BORG in trying to stop unproven "scientific" conservation regulations ruining some highly useful anchorages. Not just for today, but for future generations of sailors.

Back in the 1960's, Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, stated the greatest threat to democracy were single issue pressure groups. That is how I see all these conservation pressures that cannot prove scientifically what they are forcing on the rest of the population..

 

[Jonny A]

One problem I can see is that the best spot to anchor in the whole bay, just in front of Fort Henry and very clearly on a large patch of sand, is within the designated zone. I intend to keep anchoring there, but expect to get some abuse for doing so.

 

[oldharry]

Yes they have appropriated several areas where there is no eelgrass. However it would be far more difficult to define accurately, particualrly as there is no on site buoyage, if they did follow the edge of the eelgrass.

In any case, they have to leave room for it to grow back and expand. Which it has been doing quite happily since the early 1950's anyway....

 

[st599]

A 1m square was deliberetely raked out and cleared in one test. It had recovered by the end of the season, and by the end of the following year was indistinguishable from the surrounding bed.

That would be a worthwhile finding if the VNAZs being put in were to solely protect seagrass, but it's missing the far bigger picture. The UK intends to meet some of its climate targets by sequestering carbon in seagrass meadows, salt marshes etc. These are known to re-release carbon if disturbed - the fact the seagrass regrows is not relevant. They currently sink about 2% of UK carbon emissions and much larger, undisturbed areas are needed. Expect Seagrasses to be planted in a lot more areas.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0651/POST-PN-0651.pdf
https://constellation.uqac.ca/4803/1/Rohr_et_al_2018_Global_Biogeochemical_Cycles.pdf
https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/...tate-of-science-coastal-blue-carbon-paper.pdf

To observe the VNAZ, bearing in mind there are no marker buoys, simply avoid anchoring over the seagrass - you can usually see where it is, it is darker than the sandy (no seagrass) parts of the Bay. There is in fact a large area available north of the eelgrass (seagrass) beds with an unvegetated sandy bottom. Yes, it is less sheltered than the northern part of the Bay, but the high demand for anchoring is usually on relatively calm warm days when shelter from waves is not really an issue.

Anchoring in many places will be a thing of the past - the UK govt won't be changing their sequestration plans to suit a handful of the population. The alternative is to cut emissions much, much harder and that will affect many more people.

Luckily, the RYA saw the writing on the wall and realised they needed to work on solutions, hence the advanced mooring tests.

 

[oldharry]

I agree, st599, I am well aware of all that, and that almost certainly sailing as we know it is a thing of the past. See my post 25 above. final para.

I just wish that they would be honest about it! All this cobblers about cuddly seahorses, and totally unfounded claims of anchors doing irretrievable damage etc just cloud a much more serious and basic issue. They need to tackle these fundamental issues, not the peripherals. Nero fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind.

Within a few miles of Studland whole areas of seabed have been totally devastated by spoil dumping and beam trawling. Seabed features and habitats that took millenia to develop of have been totally destroyed in the last 20 years (thats reality, not just rhetoric - ask local fishermen about what happened to the Canyons area near the Winter Bank, off Shoreham) . Yet all they do is faff around with the easy non commercial targets like the leisure boating community.

There is a fundamental difference between the cowboy conservationist movement using schoolboy level quasi science to generate smoke and spin to suit their agenda and make names for themselves, and the hard fact we have to change the way we live if the planet is to survive.

A few more years it wont matter to me one way or the other - dust to dust, and all that. But it DOES matter what kind of a life I leave behind me.

 

[penfold]

The idea seagrass is a viable or scalable means of offsetting CO2 output is one of the stupider ideas I've read about this year, closely followed by the idea that leisure craft anchors are having a measurable effect on that offset.

 

[lustyd]

Agreed, the research on carbon capture is very shaky. When it breaks down it also releases methane which is orders of magnitude worse than carbon. Unfortunately the studies on that measured very little methane output but acknowledge it was hard to measure in open ocean. I feel like a proper methane study would be time well spent if we’re to avoid sleepwalking into a methane crisis by “fixing” the carbon crisis. The sad reality is that most genuinely captured carbon on the planet was created before there were things capable of eating it and producing other products such as methane. If we bury wood now we will never manufacture coal because nature has moved on.