Dear MMO Conservation Team.....

[Boathook]

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.

My small boat goes further inshore! To far out by my standards.

 

[oldharry]

From what. I know of eco mooring systems, they will not work in shallower water: the submerged buoy holding the riser off the seabed has to be high enough to prevent the pennant from trailing on the seabed at low water. So with a tidal range of 2m I would guess without calculating it they will not work in much less than 4m. This is why I have always maintained this type of EFM cannot be deployed successfully here.

Marlynslyke, the last 'consultation' did allow a limited time for Q&As, but it was a bit of a lottery whether you got a slot! They had not allowed long enough. maybe better this time.

 

[Tranona]

That makes sense. What struck me about the whole exercise is Why? Is this a serious piece of research, and if so what are the objectives and expected outcomes? Is it being monitored by an independent body - university or research organisation? What is the involvement of Boatfolk and the manufacturer - is there a commercial interest here? Get the feeling that this is just a bit of "puff" and of no practical value in increasing understanding of managing the seagrass beds. The tidal range over the beds is less than 2m and most of it has a charted depth of less than 1.5m and of course some of it actually dries for a short period at LWS. The PR stuff claims they will protect the seahorses - how? when they are placed in a position that does not have seahorse habitat?

Have not seen anything about who actually owns the buoys and is responsible for maintenance. Assume that the owners have a plan in place and third party insurance to protect the users.

Hopefully these questions can be raised at the consultation meeting.

 

[oldharry]

It's a PR exercise by NGM who has persuaded Boatfolk, who profess 'green' business credentials to fund it. No science anywhere near as far as I can see. "Saving the seahorses' is even worse. Consider that NGM always cites the 2008 sightings of 40 seahorses as the norm,. Where were the boats leading up to that event? Anchored up in the bay as usual, of course, as they had been for the last 50 years. Same applies to the eelgrass. Why did boats suddenly start damaging it so severely that year?

This why it is so fundamental that a baseline condition survey of Studland is made now, before any more money is wasted on this pointless exercise. More to the point, also before any more restrictions on visitors are imposed. We have checked very briefly on eelgrass condition, and according to normal measurement standards, it's in good health. Our sampling rate was too small to be able to draw firm conclusions , but we were unable to find ANY evidence of the so called anchor damage NGM and NE claim exists, on several video transits across the centre of the anchorage area. Neither could the Seastar Survey published 2012. But NE experts say it ought to be happening, therefore it is.

 

[laika]

What struck me about the whole exercise is Why? Is this a serious piece of research, and if so what are the objectives and expected outcomes? Is it being monitored by an independent body - university or research organisation?

Exactly. I fall into the category of people who are generally supportive of conservation efforts even if they grossly inconvenience me (aka treehugging hippie who would probably be on the other side of this fight if the evidence were there) but despite extensive reading have found nothing to suggest significant benefit from the measures proposed. If measures are to be introduced to see if there *is* benefit, the effort is a completely missed opportunity if no baseline study is undertaken with which to measure outcome. If that simple element has not been built into the plan, it's just gross incompetence.

Consider that NGM always cites the 2008 sightings of 40 seahorses as the norm,. Where were the boats leading up to that event?

When this issue first came up I did read NGM's paper. Only one thing noted in it seemed to change between the baseline year and the dramatic population drop. That wasn't anchoring, it was the fact that a bunch of divers had skewered the seahorses with floy tags. They justified this by one study which failed to show a significant impact in the lifespan of captive seahorses in an aquarium when they had the tags attached but hey, stick a bell round a pet cat's neck and it won't affect its lifespan. A wild cat on the other hand...
..but of course there was no scientific structure in what was being done *at all* and I understand from info posted here (possibly by old harry iirc?) that actually they just had fewer people out spotting them in the second year.

A baseline *in conjunction with* the 2012 study is significant because from the info oldharry and marlynspyke have posted the seagrass is already regenerating (*with* anchoring) so to register effectiveness the *rate* of improvement needs to increase, not just the coverage.

 

[oldharry]

Precisely my point laika. They propose to massively disrupt ani. Important leisure area, without any means of measuring the impact it will have on the protected species either short or long term, or more importantly for better or worse! What if the eelgrass starts to die back as a result of not being raked over? Unlikely, but we would not know until its too late.

The drop in Seahorse population was apparently predicted by Aussie Dr Harasti, a leading expert on Seahorses when he visited the site in 2011 and saw the level of diving activity. I have tried to contact him, without success.

 

[st599]

Aren't the seahorses a side issue? The published UK government plan is to sequester a lot of the UK's carbon emissions in wetlands and shallow sea grasses and the science is showing that to safely keep the carbon captured in the sub-surface matter, it has to be undisturbed.

So we need to find a way of doing that and still being able to moor in these bays, or we give up mooring in these bays. And looking at the plan, the sequestration scheme seems to require most shallow areas around the UK and North sea.

 

[Ian_Rob]

[QUOTE="oldharry, post: 7784834, member: 103"

The drop in Seahorse population was apparently predicted by Aussie Dr Harasti, a leading expert on Seahorses when he visited the site in 2011 and saw the level of diving activity. I have tried to contact him, without success.
[/QUOTE]

It may or may not be of help but he posted on Twitter 10 hours ago.

 

[lustyd]

From what. I know of eco mooring systems, they will not work in shallower water: the submerged buoy holding the riser off the seabed has to be high enough to prevent the pennant from trailing on the seabed at low water. So with a tidal range of 2m I would guess without calculating it they will not work in much less than 4m. This is why I have always maintained this type of EFM cannot be deployed successfully here.

Marlynslyke, the last 'consultation' did allow a limited time for Q&As, but it was a bit of a lottery whether you got a slot! They had not allowed long enough. maybe better this time.

You've raised something I had not thought of previously. Presumably that stick/post needs to be avoided? If it's 2m and the depth is 4m then everyone with a draft over 2m could hit it. I'd never considered that there might be danger from a mooring other than the chain itself.

 

[Tranona]

Unlikely to hit it as it is vertically under the mooring buoy. There is no conventional chain. You would effectively hit the buoy before your keel got anywhere near the fixed riser.

If they work and are reliable in the current location then there should not be any objection to them being there. However they are of no relevance to the management of seagrass - just a red herring that gets Boatfolk some publicity and NGM time on tv which he craves.