Dear MMO Conservation Team.....

[oldharry]

Dear MMO,

As a registered Stakeholder, representing people who use the Studland anchorage we welcome the convenience of being provided free moorings at Studland even though we do not expect them to make any significant difference to eelgrass health.

No recent measurement has been taken of eelgrass health apart from our own very limited investigation, and the Seastar Survey of 2012, so there is no data benchmark from which to start. Without this data, there can be no evidence of the effectiveness or otherwise of this expensive operation.

We fully expect to be told by the Seahorse Trust, how much ‘difference’ it has made!

Before any further moorings are laid, local people who actually use the Bay need to be consulted. These first ones are very badly placed, placing users at significant risk.

The issues are well summed up a by someone who visited the Bay recently:

“Was anchored in Studland the other day. The new buoys are in deep water (4m) by my standards and quite a distance out even from the existing buoys. They are neat and compact and well spaced out but in the zone where boats speed up so creating wash. Whilst the wind was a westerly the sea was quite choppy compared with a lot closer in. Also if you want to go ashore you need an outboard on the dinghy, where my preferred anchor spots are a short row ashore. Was interesting that quite a few of them weren't used as boats preferred to be closer in. Also a few of the Bankes buoys not in use, presumably due to the dodgy chains. Will be interesting to see how it all pans out this year and whether they will survive the winter.”

Further out where the new moorings have been laid there is a significant funnelling effect of offshore winds which have caught many visitors unawares, sadly with fatalities in the past.

The skipper of Musketeer was drowned when his inflatable dinghy was flipped by the wind in May 2012. It was anchored near where the new moorings now are. There have been other similar accidents since some involving the Rescue Services, thankfully none fatal.

Can I urge you not to approve any more moorings so far offshore until these safety issues are addressed, preferably by involving local people who will actually use them?

The buoys are marked 10 tons. Is that 10 tons TM, displacement or rating? They are 3 very different figures

A correspondent pointed out that his boat has a displacement of 14 Tons. However it is rated at 10 Tons on his Registration Documents, and a racing rating as a ‘One tonner’. Most owners know the registered Tonnage shown on Registration documents. By no means all will know the displacement. My own boat is registered as being 3.8 tons. Actual displacement is just over 2!

It does nothing for relations between users and conservation bodies when costly projects are undertaken without user consultation, and we urge you not to approve any more installations in Studland until these issues have been addressed through local boating organisations.

Much better AMS solutions are know to exist: Dr Richard Unsworth of Swansea University and founder of British Seagrass Survey has worked with the Sailing Club in Dale, Pembs, with a result acceptable to all, at a fraction of the cost of the Studland installation, and protecting both eelgrass, and boaters!


Kind Regards

Jon Reed

Founder Boat Owners Response Group

 

[DJE]

Copy to Boatfolk perhaps?

 

[Tranona]

Sums it up well. As a regular long term user of Studland I would never have anchored in that location through choice. It is OK if you are just doing a lunch stop or waiting for the tide, but even then there are better places further north and clear of the eel grass beds. If you want to go ashore then closer in is far more convenient and safer. In my view the only thing of consequence arising from laying those buoys is puff for Boatfolk and a misleading 10 minute item on TV.

 

[Boathook]

Nicely worded oldharry.

 

[Sea-Fever]

Dear MMO,

As a registered Stakeholder, representing people who use the Studland anchorage we welcome the convenience of being provided free moorings at Studland even though we do not expect them to make any significant difference to eelgrass health.

No recent measurement has been taken of eelgrass health apart from our own very limited investigation, and the Seastar Survey of 2012, so there is no data benchmark from which to start. Without this data, there can be no evidence of the effectiveness or otherwise of this expensive operation.

We fully expect to be told by the Seahorse Trust, how much ‘difference’ it has made!

Before any further moorings are laid, local people who actually use the Bay need to be consulted. These first ones are very badly placed, placing users at significant risk.

The issues are well summed up a by someone who visited the Bay recently:

“Was anchored in Studland the other day. The new buoys are in deep water (4m) by my standards and quite a distance out even from the existing buoys. They are neat and compact and well spaced out but in the zone where boats speed up so creating wash. Whilst the wind was a westerly the sea was quite choppy compared with a lot closer in. Also if you want to go ashore you need an outboard on the dinghy, where my preferred anchor spots are a short row ashore. Was interesting that quite a few of them weren't used as boats preferred to be closer in. Also a few of the Bankes buoys not in use, presumably due to the dodgy chains. Will be interesting to see how it all pans out this year and whether they will survive the winter.”

Further out where the new moorings have been laid there is a significant funnelling effect of offshore winds which have caught many visitors unawares, sadly with fatalities in the past.

The skipper of Musketeer was drowned when his inflatable dinghy was flipped by the wind in May 2012. It was anchored near where the new moorings now are. There have been other similar accidents since some involving the Rescue Services, thankfully none fatal.

Can I urge you not to approve any more moorings so far offshore until these safety issues are addressed, preferably by involving local people who will actually use them?

The buoys are marked 10 tons. Is that 10 tons TM, displacement or rating? They are 3 very different figures

A correspondent pointed out that his boat has a displacement of 14 Tons. However it is rated at 10 Tons on his Registration Documents, and a racing rating as a ‘One tonner’. Most owners know the registered Tonnage shown on Registration documents. By no means all will know the displacement. My own boat is registered as being 3.8 tons. Actual displacement is just over 2!

It does nothing for relations between users and conservation bodies when costly projects are undertaken without user consultation, and we urge you not to approve any more installations in Studland until these issues have been addressed through local boating organisations.

Much better AMS solutions are know to exist: Dr Richard Unsworth of Swansea University and founder of British Seagrass Survey has worked with the Sailing Club in Dale, Pembs, with a result acceptable to all, at a fraction of the cost of the Studland installation, and protecting both eelgrass, and boaters!


Kind Regards

Jon Reed

Founder Boat Owners Response Group

Thanks so much yet again for representing us. Top job.

 

[laika]

The buoys are marked 10 tons. Is that 10 tons TM, displacement or rating?

Without wishing to detract from your excellent work, is there a danger that by raising trivia you give them the opportunity to say they're addressing your concerns by changing trivial stuff without addressing the big issue which is the gathering of baseline data? As you rightly point out, without this, improvements over the past 9 years will be bundled in with any changes over the next couple of years making it inevitable that restrictions will seem like a roaring success. A decent baseline means improvement has to be reflected in a significant increase in the rate of change. This *should* be a no-brainer for the MMO: A project with no key performance indicators is spaffing taxpayers' money up the wall in wasted effort: it's demonstrably irresponsible. Moreover without proof measures are effective those negatively impacted (ie us) are never going to accept permanent restrictions.

I may be misunderstanding the point but surely no-one thinks a restriction on a buoy relates to RT (and it's only people with boats in the part 1 who know their RT) and changing the signage is neither here nor there.

 

[oldharry]

Without wishing to detract from your excellent work, is there a danger that by raising trivia you give them the opportunity to say they're addressing your concerns by changing trivial stuff without addressing the big issue which is the gathering of baseline data?

I may be misunderstanding the point but surely no-one thinks a restriction on a buoy relates to RT (and it's only people with boats in the part 1 who know their RT) and changing the signage is neither here nor there.

It's an issue that has been raised here, so I included it, but I tend to agree with you. It is a minor issue, and not one I would follow through with any enthusiasm.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

There's an MMO online consultation meeting next Friday 10th Sept on the next steps in the Studland Bay MCZ management process. It's for stakeholder groups who have signed up with MMO, and one person only from each group. I'll represent BORG as Old Harry is away on holiday. In case we get a chance to comment on the new visitor mooring buoys, it would be helpful to have more info on their exact location - can anyone provide lat and long coordinates so we can mark their position on a chart? (Not for each buoy, just somewhere in the middle, or each end). Or give distance from shore and perhaps a bearing to something? I understand from the above that they are quite a long way out, not well sheltered, and probably in the wash and slop from motor boats, but an actual position would help. Thanks.

 

[laika]

In case we get a chance to comment on the new visitor mooring buoys, it would be helpful to have more info on their exact location - can anyone provide lat and long coordinates so we can mark their position on a chart?

They’re marked on the latest navionics ( “6 buoys”) 50° 38.667' N 1° 56.258' W (at least I think that’s them: roughly right place but perhaps others can confirm?). I used the outer one for mooring under sail practice recently but won’t get to the boat to check the log for exact coordinates before Friday night which will be too late if the meeting is Friday (sorry).

As above I don’t think criticising these is going to be productive. What we *dont* want is studland to be full of (chargeable) buoys no matter how close in they are. Regarding wash, little motorboats just charge in to the “preferred” anchoring area so the buoys further out aren’t any more negatively affected by wash than further in.

It’s just crazy irresponsible for a government initiative *not* to have a baseline to measure success and that really needs to be driven home.

 

[Tranona]

Going out there shortly. Will get positions and report back

 

[MarlynSpyke]

They’re marked on the latest navionics ( “6 buoys”) 50° 38.667' N 1° 56.258' W (at least I think that’s them: roughly right place but perhaps others can confirm?). I used the outer one for mooring under sail practice recently but won’t get to the boat to check the log for exact coordinates before Friday night which will be too late if the meeting is Friday (sorry).

As above I don’t think criticising these is going to be productive. What we *dont* want is studland to be full of (chargeable) buoys no matter how close in they are. Regarding wash, little motorboats just charge in to the “preferred” anchoring area so the buoys further out aren’t any more negatively affected by wash than further in.

It’s just crazy irresponsible for a government initiative *not* to have a baseline to measure success and that really needs to be driven home.

Those are the Bankes Arms buoys, been there for decades. They are fairly close in, and in water much shallower than the 4 m reported for the new NGM buoys. My experience of the Bay is that the water further out, near the Swash Channel, is more distured than closer in as motor vessels speed along the channel to and from a wide variety of destinations - it is after all the main route to and from Poole Harbour for the great majority of vessels, from jet skis to ships. The alternative, the East Looe channel, is shallow.

 

[laika]

Those are the Bankes Arms buoys, been there for decades

Doh. Sorry yes. The eco moorings are marked on navionics at 50° 38.759' N 1° 56.083' W as “eco moorings”

 

[MarlynSpyke]

Doh. Sorry yes. The eco moorings are marked on navionics at 50° 38.759' N 1° 56.083' W as “eco moorings”

OK, thanks, just spotted that, with a little blue and white symbol. Quick work by Navionics, they were laid quite recently. If that really is their actual position, then that doesn't look too bad.

 

[laika]

If that really is their actual position, then that doesn't look too bad.

That looks roughly right. They're in an approximately NW-SE line. The annoying little motorboats that come screaming past anchored boats often seem to leave the boat channel after the end of the training bank and make a beeline fo south beach so would be passing reasonably inshore of those moorings.

 

[Boathook]

OK, thanks, just spotted that, with a little blue and white symbol. Quick work by Navionics, they were laid quite recently. If that really is their actual position, then that doesn't look too bad.

Looks bad when you actually see them. As I mentioned on another thread I wouldn't row my dinghy to shore and back out to them and I wouldn't stay the out that far out at night. The fact that boats were ignoring them and anchoring closer in says it all in my view. Be interesting as to the position Tranona gives when he reports back.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

Looks bad when you actually see them. As I mentioned on another thread I wouldn't row my dinghy to shore and back out to them and I wouldn't stay the out that far out at night. The fact that boats were ignoring them and anchoring closer in says it all in my view. Be interesting as to the position Tranona gives when he reports back.

Yes, using the Navionics distance measuring pins, it's 0.4 nm from the position they mark to South Beach. And that is a fair row in an inflatable dinghy, especially if wind and wave are against you, even more so if there are two people in the dinghy. I guess my comment was more directed to the aspect of shelter from the SW - but again, what looks ok on a chart can be different in real life.

 

[penfold]

It’s just crazy irresponsible for a government initiative *not* to have a baseline to measure success and that really needs to be driven home.

Where once CS would opt for waiting and seeing on the basis that they'd be moved on to another job before anyone noticed, today's govt is all too happy to act impulsively and without information; there's a lot to be said for bureaucratic inertia.

 

[Tranona]

The position above is right - just about the same as the waypoint I put in between the 3rd and 4th buoy from the NE end. 4m water at 1 hour before LW this afternoon. 8 were occupited, but only relatively small number of boats in the bay perhaps because of the forecast easterlies, although it was light and quite settled.

No idea why they put them there. There is no seagrass there - all bare sand. Normally that area is an excellent place for deep draft boats to do a lunch stop or wait out a tide, but no good for going ashore. If you do have deep draft and don't want to anchor in seagrass but do want to go ashore there are plenty of better locations further north closer in, which is where I normally anchor.

I have a lot of questions about this eco mooring project that might help with the consultation meeting.

Grand Prix time coming up, so will post my thoughts later or tomorrow morning.

 

[Seven Spades]

The buoys need to be rated to at least 25 or 50 tins just like they are in Salcombe. That way they can accommodate larger yachts like mine or rafting up in settled conditions. 10 tons is wholly inadequate and will only support small boats.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

Thanks Iaika and Tranona - we now do know where the buoys are. The depth info is useful too. I'll be interested to hear your questions, Tranona, although I do not know whether the MMO will take questions, or just tell stakeholders what they propose to do.