CondorAA5A
New member
has just opened: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/marine/consultation-on-the-third-tranche-of-marine-conser
Fact sheets for each of the areas at the above link
Fact sheets for each of the areas at the above link
Government's consultation on next Marine Conservation Zones
- Thread starter CondorAA5A
- Start date
Mark-1
Well-known member
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
oldharry
Well-known member
Well, I dont know if its my android phone, or the forum, but thats the second uncalled for deletion this morning on the forum .
Anyway, thanks for the links. The inevitable misleading message from Neil Garrick-Maidment of the Seahorse Trust suggests the Bay now has protection. IT has not. The ste is included in a list of recommendations put up for consultation befroe being passed to the Minister for approval. Thats not a rubber stamp process either.
For those new to the arguments, this is the latest step ina battle that has now been going for 8 years, and all the arguments, and 26 papers on the subject written by Marlynspyke of this Parish, which spell out exactly the weakness of the conservation argument, can be found on boatownersresponse.org.uk.
A good place to start is the 'Eelgrass overview' which examines the science behind the demand for restrictions and possible exclusion from this beautiful place. I wont go into the detail now, as I am in a MWay Service Area half way up the M1. Once I get home I can get my teeth into it all. But BORG website covers nearly all the arguments we have raised over the last 8 years, , particualrly against the wooly thinking 'fluffy conservation' brigade, who describe us as 'wealthy and uncaring yotties,' doing our thing regardless of the environment.
BORG and I will now be rolling up oursleeves for the next round of the battle, which I expect to be the Public Consultation. Here it wil be importantfor usto try to sticktothe facts as we see them. A) the bayhas been in use as a small boat anchorage for mant hundreds of years, b) the eelgrass has spriung up there unhindered by boating activity, c) the eelgrass beds continue to ex-nd at the rate of around a metre a year, and show no signs of the anchoring disruption they are claimed to be suffering. d) the issues for the eelgrass environment in Studland have recently been highlighted by experts as casued by nitrate pollution. e) there is no sch thing as a 'seahorse colony' in Studland. Locals know well they come and go over the yuears, and there can be quite long gaps when they are not around.
For me personally i feel a sense of relief, as the arguments of the fliuffy conservation brigade can now be brought out into the open, and seens for what they are.
More later when I have had time to study it all.
Anyway, thanks for the links. The inevitable misleading message from Neil Garrick-Maidment of the Seahorse Trust suggests the Bay now has protection. IT has not. The ste is included in a list of recommendations put up for consultation befroe being passed to the Minister for approval. Thats not a rubber stamp process either.
For those new to the arguments, this is the latest step ina battle that has now been going for 8 years, and all the arguments, and 26 papers on the subject written by Marlynspyke of this Parish, which spell out exactly the weakness of the conservation argument, can be found on boatownersresponse.org.uk.
A good place to start is the 'Eelgrass overview' which examines the science behind the demand for restrictions and possible exclusion from this beautiful place. I wont go into the detail now, as I am in a MWay Service Area half way up the M1. Once I get home I can get my teeth into it all. But BORG website covers nearly all the arguments we have raised over the last 8 years, , particualrly against the wooly thinking 'fluffy conservation' brigade, who describe us as 'wealthy and uncaring yotties,' doing our thing regardless of the environment.
BORG and I will now be rolling up oursleeves for the next round of the battle, which I expect to be the Public Consultation. Here it wil be importantfor usto try to sticktothe facts as we see them. A) the bayhas been in use as a small boat anchorage for mant hundreds of years, b) the eelgrass has spriung up there unhindered by boating activity, c) the eelgrass beds continue to ex-nd at the rate of around a metre a year, and show no signs of the anchoring disruption they are claimed to be suffering. d) the issues for the eelgrass environment in Studland have recently been highlighted by experts as casued by nitrate pollution. e) there is no sch thing as a 'seahorse colony' in Studland. Locals know well they come and go over the yuears, and there can be quite long gaps when they are not around.
For me personally i feel a sense of relief, as the arguments of the fliuffy conservation brigade can now be brought out into the open, and seens for what they are.
More later when I have had time to study it all.
Iain C
Active member
Thanks for the update OldHarry and for the continuing good work. I had a couple of years break from this forum and cruising in general doing grown-up stuff like having kids and building a house. I've said it before and I'll say it again...the BORG name still makes me wince every time I read it!
BOAT OWNERS-kinda confirms we're all rich yotties aren't we.
RESPONSE GROUP-go on, you eco types take the lead, and we'll "respond"...in short, "after you"
BORG-we're not taking this too seriously, we're just named after the evil nasty baddies on Star Trek
I still feel that if things are about to get more visible and more public BORG desperately needs to rebrand to be more inclusive and "spun" in a more positive light. Compared to "The Seahorse Trust" BORG's name conjours up terribly elitist overtones of evil rich yachties compared to that lovely man trying to singlehandedly save the cute sea horses. I genuinely wonder if the media would portray things in a different light to the incredibly biased twaddle coming out if the name was more palatable for them to get behind. An interview with a skipper of an Ellen Macarthur Cancer Trust boat proudly displaying "Safety Of Studland" stickers talking about how important it is to be able to anchor there for the kids etc (because guess what...it is) paints a very different picture. Or a story about how pointless it will be for a beach-using family to carry an anchor for safety in their blow up beach dinghy as it will now be ILLEGAL to use it in an emergency, and how much the resulting RNLI rescue might cost might also swing public opinion a bit.
In today's instant, connected, twittersphere where people form opinions in seconds based on appearances and popular opinion, image and perception is EVERYTHING.
But once again, thanks for all of you hard work, please keep it up!
BOAT OWNERS-kinda confirms we're all rich yotties aren't we.
RESPONSE GROUP-go on, you eco types take the lead, and we'll "respond"...in short, "after you"
BORG-we're not taking this too seriously, we're just named after the evil nasty baddies on Star Trek
I still feel that if things are about to get more visible and more public BORG desperately needs to rebrand to be more inclusive and "spun" in a more positive light. Compared to "The Seahorse Trust" BORG's name conjours up terribly elitist overtones of evil rich yachties compared to that lovely man trying to singlehandedly save the cute sea horses. I genuinely wonder if the media would portray things in a different light to the incredibly biased twaddle coming out if the name was more palatable for them to get behind. An interview with a skipper of an Ellen Macarthur Cancer Trust boat proudly displaying "Safety Of Studland" stickers talking about how important it is to be able to anchor there for the kids etc (because guess what...it is) paints a very different picture. Or a story about how pointless it will be for a beach-using family to carry an anchor for safety in their blow up beach dinghy as it will now be ILLEGAL to use it in an emergency, and how much the resulting RNLI rescue might cost might also swing public opinion a bit.
In today's instant, connected, twittersphere where people form opinions in seconds based on appearances and popular opinion, image and perception is EVERYTHING.
But once again, thanks for all of you hard work, please keep it up!
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
Ditto to everything in that post.
MarlynSpyke
Active member
There is good news and there is bad news in today’s announcements. A report on Defra’s Impact assessments for Tranche 3 MCZ’s (https://assets.publishing.service.g...e_Conservation_Zones__consultation_stage_.pdf ) states that the proposals for only 2 of the 41 sites going forward would impact recreational boating. These turn out to be Studland Bay and Bembridge. BORG is pleased to note this, because at one time there seemed a potential for much wider impacts on boating, which we have tried to counter at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/, as well as in conversations with Natural England personnel, adding our voice to the major advocacy put forward by the RYA.
Bembridge might face restrictions in anchoring over seagrass along the western edge of Priory Bay and over the maerl beds on Culver Spit.
Studland Bay faces a greater challenge for mooring and anchoring, and three scenarios are advanced at https://consult.defra.gov.uk/marine...pporting_documents/Studland Bay Factsheet.pdf :
“ Scenario 1, the cheapest option, would impose no management measures on anchoring but would require the replacement of the current ‘block-and-chain’ moorings with eco-moorings. Eco-moorings are designed to have very little impact on the seabed by lifting any rope or chain off the seabed at all times preventing the rotating and cutting action of standard moorings.
Scenario 2 would involve the introduction of no-anchoring zones in areas of seagrass, the replacement of the current moorings with eco-moorings and the installation of additional eco-moorings (totalling 100). Outside of the seagrass areas mooring restrictions would not be in place. The costs are associated with the replacement and installation of additional eco-moorings and impact on the economy with displacement of a number of vessels from the region.
Scenario 3 would involve the introduction of no-anchoring zones over the areas of mapped seagrass and the removal of all moorings from the seagrass areas. This scenario is estimated to have the highest cost at £171,000 per year with the majority of this cost associated with the impact on the economy with displacement of a number of vessels from the region.”
We note that Defra acknowledge the impact of the proposals on the local economy as a factor to be considered. I believe the £171k cost to be a gross underestimate – compared with our estimates at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Marine-economy-Poole.pdf , the Defra estimate appears to be an order of magnitude too low.
I urge anyone interested in keeping the Studland Bay anchorage open who has the appropriate economic and financial skills to take part in the public consultation and challenge Defra’s estimates. In BORG we do not have any particular financial background, help would be appreciated. Our estimates might prove a useful starting point.
If Ian C and Elecglitch want to do something useful rather than going on about BORG’s name, they could consider whether they could help make the economic case for keeping the Studland anchorage open. All efforts would be appreciated, and would best be made by responding directly to the consultation - the more people arguing the point the better!
Bembridge might face restrictions in anchoring over seagrass along the western edge of Priory Bay and over the maerl beds on Culver Spit.
Studland Bay faces a greater challenge for mooring and anchoring, and three scenarios are advanced at https://consult.defra.gov.uk/marine...pporting_documents/Studland Bay Factsheet.pdf :
“ Scenario 1, the cheapest option, would impose no management measures on anchoring but would require the replacement of the current ‘block-and-chain’ moorings with eco-moorings. Eco-moorings are designed to have very little impact on the seabed by lifting any rope or chain off the seabed at all times preventing the rotating and cutting action of standard moorings.
Scenario 2 would involve the introduction of no-anchoring zones in areas of seagrass, the replacement of the current moorings with eco-moorings and the installation of additional eco-moorings (totalling 100). Outside of the seagrass areas mooring restrictions would not be in place. The costs are associated with the replacement and installation of additional eco-moorings and impact on the economy with displacement of a number of vessels from the region.
Scenario 3 would involve the introduction of no-anchoring zones over the areas of mapped seagrass and the removal of all moorings from the seagrass areas. This scenario is estimated to have the highest cost at £171,000 per year with the majority of this cost associated with the impact on the economy with displacement of a number of vessels from the region.”
We note that Defra acknowledge the impact of the proposals on the local economy as a factor to be considered. I believe the £171k cost to be a gross underestimate – compared with our estimates at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Marine-economy-Poole.pdf , the Defra estimate appears to be an order of magnitude too low.
I urge anyone interested in keeping the Studland Bay anchorage open who has the appropriate economic and financial skills to take part in the public consultation and challenge Defra’s estimates. In BORG we do not have any particular financial background, help would be appreciated. Our estimates might prove a useful starting point.
If Ian C and Elecglitch want to do something useful rather than going on about BORG’s name, they could consider whether they could help make the economic case for keeping the Studland anchorage open. All efforts would be appreciated, and would best be made by responding directly to the consultation - the more people arguing the point the better!
Last edited:
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
That is uncalled for and frankly sticking your head in the sand on that matter is not going to help when the decision will ultimately be made by a politician who is going to have at the top his/her agenda the 'court of public opinion' alongside funding as the only other matter that will be really significant to him or her. Facts are great and I applaud your efforts on that front, but that you are loosing the PR battle is very evident from the Times article I posted on the other thread (and BBC pieces passim). If you don't turn this around your best hope, I'm afraid, is that there will be no funding for enforcement.
Last edited:
MarlynSpyke
Active member
Decisions on MCZ’s to date have been based on evidence assessed by professionals, not by public opinion. BORG has been putting evidence and science-based arguments before scientists in Defra and Natural England, and professionals in the Marine Management Organisation. I have written and published online around 20 technical articles and papers. We have been talking with the RYA, and had useful and productive discussions with a BBC TV producer. Our professional decision-making audience doesn’t really care what we are called, but they do pay attention to the arguments. Possibly those arguments have helped defer the decisions on the difficult case of Studland Bay until this last third tranche of MCZ’s.
Anyway, the names that will make the difference now are not what we call BORG, it is YOUR names, the names of all YBW forumites interested in keeping Studland Bay open for recreational vessel mooring and anchoring, and those names need to be entered into the ONLINE PUBLIC CONSULTATION available at https://consult.defra.gov.uk/marine/consultation-on-the-third-tranche-of-marine-conser/ .
THE CONSULTATION IS OPEN FOR JUST SIX WEEKS and CLOSES ON JULY 20TH.
The decision makers are well aware that there are very few active members within BORG itself, but as Old Harry has explained, BORG is backed by a substantial online community, the supportive members of this forum. Now is the time for that community to show its size and intent by responding to the consultation in serious numbers and making the case to retain anchoring and mooring at Studland. If there is not substantial support for this cause, it may be lost.
The decision makers are alert to organised campaigns, and discount them accordingly, so it is important for individuals to state their own cases. However, there is a wealth of material available on the BORG website, http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/ , and a good place to start is at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/evidence/ .
Key points are that while anchoring has carried on in Studland Bay for decades, the eelgrass (seagrass) has been healthy and expanding in extent, apart from under the fixed chain moorings, as shown by aerial photography and an underwater video survey. No definitive evidence has been produced of any long term damage. Eelgrass is resilient stuff as shown by studies in the scientific literature, if disturbed it is fully capable of re-growing, like so many plants. If anchoring and mooring are banned at Studland, the local boating economy will be hit, to a much greater extent than the Defra document claims, and any conservation gain is likely to be minimal as the eelgrass is flourishing anyway. Our coastline should be regarded as a shared resource, and is important for recreation as well as conservation, and ways are needed to satisfy both demands – as is generally acknowledged.
Old Harry has been travelling through remote locations with minimal internet access, but will be back online as soon as he can.
Meanwhile, thanks to all those who have thanked BORG for the work we have been doing, now is the time to put that thanks into practice by making your views known in the Public Consultation!
Anyway, the names that will make the difference now are not what we call BORG, it is YOUR names, the names of all YBW forumites interested in keeping Studland Bay open for recreational vessel mooring and anchoring, and those names need to be entered into the ONLINE PUBLIC CONSULTATION available at https://consult.defra.gov.uk/marine/consultation-on-the-third-tranche-of-marine-conser/ .
THE CONSULTATION IS OPEN FOR JUST SIX WEEKS and CLOSES ON JULY 20TH.
The decision makers are well aware that there are very few active members within BORG itself, but as Old Harry has explained, BORG is backed by a substantial online community, the supportive members of this forum. Now is the time for that community to show its size and intent by responding to the consultation in serious numbers and making the case to retain anchoring and mooring at Studland. If there is not substantial support for this cause, it may be lost.
The decision makers are alert to organised campaigns, and discount them accordingly, so it is important for individuals to state their own cases. However, there is a wealth of material available on the BORG website, http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/ , and a good place to start is at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/evidence/ .
Key points are that while anchoring has carried on in Studland Bay for decades, the eelgrass (seagrass) has been healthy and expanding in extent, apart from under the fixed chain moorings, as shown by aerial photography and an underwater video survey. No definitive evidence has been produced of any long term damage. Eelgrass is resilient stuff as shown by studies in the scientific literature, if disturbed it is fully capable of re-growing, like so many plants. If anchoring and mooring are banned at Studland, the local boating economy will be hit, to a much greater extent than the Defra document claims, and any conservation gain is likely to be minimal as the eelgrass is flourishing anyway. Our coastline should be regarded as a shared resource, and is important for recreation as well as conservation, and ways are needed to satisfy both demands – as is generally acknowledged.
Old Harry has been travelling through remote locations with minimal internet access, but will be back online as soon as he can.
Meanwhile, thanks to all those who have thanked BORG for the work we have been doing, now is the time to put that thanks into practice by making your views known in the Public Consultation!
RobbieW
Well-known member
Having looked at the current govt material, there are two areas to I feel able to comment on generally. One is the state of the eel grass, which has plenty of supporting evidence to counter the report, the other is the 'subtidal coarse sediment' that the report says needs to recover. How important is this second aspect and do we have any evidence on its condition from the work you've done over the last few years.
MarlynSpyke
Active member
On p 2 of the Studland factsheet it lists Intertidal coarse sediment, Maintain, Subtidal coarse sediment, Recover. Looking at the the chartlet on p. 3 , it only lists Intertidal coarse sediment, i.e. between the HW and LW lines, although the markings on the chartlet are confusing and unclear. On pp 4,5 in scenarios 2 and 3 it only mentions restrictions in seagrass areas, and makes no mention of sediment. I did ask a Natural England staff member at the open house consultation last year about the possibility of anchor bans because of possible disturbance to sediment, the (verbal) answer was no that won't happen.
My underwater videos showed areas of sandy seabed between eelgrass stands, there was no evidence of physical disturbance except by lugworms, which were clearly getting on with a bit of bio-engineering of there own, but they can't pass bye-laws on that! The Seastar Survey report did mention "coarse sedimentary channels to the east (devoid of seagrass)" , but I've not looked there. Because coarse sediment is presumably reasonably loose or mobile, it would get churned around by heavy seas and storm conditions far more than little boat anchors could do. It's not as if it has a fragile breakable structure like maerl, or fragile reefs, it's rather hard to imagine in what sense it could "recover". For these reasons I don't think we need worry about it.
Last edited:
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
Great through the detail is, the state of play and the prospects for a happy ending to this are very much summed up by the fact that yesterday the Times headline was
"Anchors away! Seahorses to get safe haven from sailors"
not
"Proposed government regulations will devastate Dorset leisure industry"
and the local news coverage was much in the same vein.
NGM may well be a self-important, parasitic little man, but at the moment he is winning where it matters.
"Anchors away! Seahorses to get safe haven from sailors"
not
"Proposed government regulations will devastate Dorset leisure industry"
and the local news coverage was much in the same vein.
NGM may well be a self-important, parasitic little man, but at the moment he is winning where it matters.
Tranona
Well-known member
He may be "winning" but not where it matters. He is exactly what you describe, but except for lazy journalists looking to fill space nobody that matters really takes much notice of him.
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
I beg to differ, this will in the end be a political decision, at the end of the day Gove or his successor will make that call and they will base this much much more on public opinion than scientific reports. I do hope I'm wrong but I don't believe that I am, not least as DEFRA in particular has a long record that supports this assertion from badgers to flood defences. Sadly all the hard work done by many will go to waste unless there is some serious waking up and smelling the coffee done and a real attempt made to turn around public perceptions and, much as I loath journalists, this means getting the right sort of headlines out there. Not least getting favorable press releases (backed up by the hard science) out before those of NGM and his ilk so those are the ones that they lazy journalists use when there are significant milestones like yesterday's announcement. I'm afraid that those who think that BORG is anything other than an unhelpful name just don't get it (that is how the non boating community can view us).
I do however hold out some hope due to the affordability issues of any real enforcement action.
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-known member
I expect the RYA who are deeply involved in this will swing into action when it as appropriate. Better than a self appointed unknown interest group however snappy the name or headlines. I disagree about the impact of NGM. He has been peddling this nonsense for years with very little real impact and as the others say, the people to influence are DEFRA staffers who will sift the evidence and take note of the feedback from the consultation.
oldharry
Well-known member
The BORG name has been in this debate now for 8 years, and has an established reputation as a source of good common-sense reporting, analysis and information, unlike some other players whose smokescreens are fully seen for what they are.
We know that our papers are taken seriously by DEFRA, and some have gone directly to the Minister’s desk. We are well known to MMO, Natural England , JNC and RYA, who know that we, and Marlynspyke in particular do know what we are talking about. A House of Commons technical Committee accepted submissions from us, establishing us as reputable contributors.
In other words, BORG has become associated with sound, common sense submissions that actually contribute to the topics under debate. For this reason we believe a Brand name change at this stage would be disastrous. BORG gets picked up and noticed. Any other name would just be lost in the paperwork.
NGM is dangerous because he has the press on his side: the ‘wealthy G_&T swilling yotties showing off their boats and wrecking the environment’ is news material for any day, and the Times is no less open to using it. Those charismatic cutie seahorses being bombarded with 50kg anchors in their happy homes is the kind of stuff news editors just love. (This was actually reported early on). Seahorses are not in fact the issue in Studland as far as MCZ’s go. The real issue NE and DEFRA are addressing is the preservation of the important eelgrass beds in Studland and the Solent. These are some of the biggest seagrass meadows in the UK, and I can see there are very good reasons why DEFRA had to include them in the current list.
From our side we start at a major disadvantage in that the threat to our traditional right to anchor where we wish is simply not news material. It’s only relevant to a small part of the community. Conservation’ is very much a keyword, and anything which hinders or opposes it automatically receives a bad press. The fact that we are pursuing a realistic and workable conservation policy rather than ‘Save our Seahorses’ (a campaign which actually exists!) is not headline material.
Now, following Marlynspykes plea, if some one amongst us here has the journalistic skills and time to put together something that would grab the headlines in the way the so called massacre of the poor little seahorses has, and can get our side of it across, then please, please get in touch, so that we can counter the cuddly seahorse tirade. Dealing with the press is something I have no knowledge or experience of, but is something we urgently need to do. Just as Marlynspyke put us on the map with his science, so we need a Press Officer able to respond to silly headlines. We could even start a PR Section with a new title! I’m wide open to ideas on this, but stick firmly to the view that in the corridors of power, the BORG acronym is too well established with the decision makers to change!
More when I have had time to study the recommendations more thoroughly.
We know that our papers are taken seriously by DEFRA, and some have gone directly to the Minister’s desk. We are well known to MMO, Natural England , JNC and RYA, who know that we, and Marlynspyke in particular do know what we are talking about. A House of Commons technical Committee accepted submissions from us, establishing us as reputable contributors.
In other words, BORG has become associated with sound, common sense submissions that actually contribute to the topics under debate. For this reason we believe a Brand name change at this stage would be disastrous. BORG gets picked up and noticed. Any other name would just be lost in the paperwork.
NGM is dangerous because he has the press on his side: the ‘wealthy G_&T swilling yotties showing off their boats and wrecking the environment’ is news material for any day, and the Times is no less open to using it. Those charismatic cutie seahorses being bombarded with 50kg anchors in their happy homes is the kind of stuff news editors just love. (This was actually reported early on). Seahorses are not in fact the issue in Studland as far as MCZ’s go. The real issue NE and DEFRA are addressing is the preservation of the important eelgrass beds in Studland and the Solent. These are some of the biggest seagrass meadows in the UK, and I can see there are very good reasons why DEFRA had to include them in the current list.
From our side we start at a major disadvantage in that the threat to our traditional right to anchor where we wish is simply not news material. It’s only relevant to a small part of the community. Conservation’ is very much a keyword, and anything which hinders or opposes it automatically receives a bad press. The fact that we are pursuing a realistic and workable conservation policy rather than ‘Save our Seahorses’ (a campaign which actually exists!) is not headline material.
Now, following Marlynspykes plea, if some one amongst us here has the journalistic skills and time to put together something that would grab the headlines in the way the so called massacre of the poor little seahorses has, and can get our side of it across, then please, please get in touch, so that we can counter the cuddly seahorse tirade. Dealing with the press is something I have no knowledge or experience of, but is something we urgently need to do. Just as Marlynspyke put us on the map with his science, so we need a Press Officer able to respond to silly headlines. We could even start a PR Section with a new title! I’m wide open to ideas on this, but stick firmly to the view that in the corridors of power, the BORG acronym is too well established with the decision makers to change!
More when I have had time to study the recommendations more thoroughly.
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
Let's hope so, but I do disagree. I hardly think that Studland going forward as as a proposed MCZ is 'very little impact' frankly we needed to influence the staffers to keep it off the list and he's won that very important battle. Now it's there and indeed headlining the whole tranche we are fundamentally at variance about the impact that DEFRA staffers vis a vis public opinion will have on Gove's call.
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...heresa-may-g7-plastic-pollution-a8388671.html
Remember Michael Gove, the environment secretary, claimed extending the UK’s so-called “blue belt” of protected sea zones would put it “at the forefront of marine protection”, that's the current mood music.
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-known member
I hope by now you have read OHs longer explanation. I have followed this since before it became news, and the central issue has always been about the seagrass beds with seahorses as a sort of excuse for the same reason as you say. Nobody gets excited about seagrass beds so seahorses become a proxy. Nobody serious in the scientific world is the least bit interested in seahorses because they are not an endangered species. They slipped into protection in the UK through ignorance. UK waters are a marginal habitat for seahorses and in reality they only thrive (or at least seen to thrive) in man made marine locations such as harbours and marinas. In fact this was the findings of NGMs early surveys, now hidden away because they don't support his narrative. Much more exciting to spend a few afternoons in the summer swimming around the warm shallow waters of Studland hoping to be one of the few people who has actually seen the rare seahorses that are there. And the coffee and burgers at Joes cafe are a bonus.
However, all the real study world wide by both practising and academic conservationists is focused on seagrass. You will find many of these studies and surveys etc on the BORG site. It is a very complex subject as there are many variations of the plant in different locations and a whole range of threats both natural and man made. As ever communicating these complexities to the public (especially if you want to relate it to the economic impact of both loss of the plant and methods to conserve it) is a challenge that cannot be advanced through headline journalism. Even the more heavyweight publications would find it difficult to get over the issues, and certainly not in the news pages.
Of course the same difficulty of dealing with complexity arises when it gets to ministerial level where the information provided has to be simple and unambiguous (even with an intelligent person like Gove in charge) so the place to influence is with the bodies charged with formulating policy choices.
MarlynSpyke
Active member
The really important thing right now is not the name of BORG, not the question of who gets what headlines, but the number of concerned boaters who respond to the consultation to demonstrate to Defra and to Ministers that anchoring and mooring are important to a significant number of people. Otherwise they will conclude that actually, it's no big deal, and they can take the easy populist "save our seahorses" route. Consultations do matter, and I trust that everyone reading this thread will play their part. Otherwise, "Scenario 3" looms ahead.
Iain C
Active member
Seems more than a little harsh. I was careful to frame my comments beginning and end with a "thank you" to those leading on this, and my comments are nothing more than constructive criticism backed up with positive examples of how things could, in my opinion, be improved, and obviously I'm not alone on this one.
I will add that I agree with Old Harry's later point that with the timescales we have, now is not to the time to be rebranding...although I'll still stand my point made years ago that this should have been done beforehand. He points out that NGM has the press on his side, and in the press a privately owned yacht is about the most indefensible thing that exists...and in a totally different league to a seahorse. But look, we are where we are here and the last thing I want to do is distract anyone in BORG from the main cause, so let's just leave it there for now.
I'm afraid that my skills (beyond wittering on) do not really stretch to building economic cases of this type, however I will be sure to contact DEFRA before the consultation ends with my views on this important matter.
Once again, thank you for your input on this campaign.
Last edited:
