Have you EVER seen 350 boats in Studland Bay?

[SimonFa]

Which means that the entire area of the bay and seagrass gets regularly trawled and swept by anchor chains.
How can that be anything but very bad news indeed for the seahorses?
As for the noise - almost all creatures rely on sound to some degree and scores of boat engines, let alone speedboats and bloody jetskis must make the audio environment there something like living on a roundabout between Heathrow and the M25. Of course it's going to affect them, how could it not?

Don't get me wrong, I detest Chris Packam et al and their imbecilic anthropomorphism but I do feel that the Studland Bay crowds are far, far more than the local area should have to bear and I hate the idea of anchoring bans but Studland is a special case.
My suggestion would be to ban anchoring and deploy two or three lines of trots to secure a reasonable number of boats 50 perhaps and a ban on jetskis (that should, imho, be National) within a half mile of the beach.

If Packham's keen enough to save the seahorses he'll be keen enough to afford the associated costs, won't he...?

We've been through this a few times, no matter how you do it:

Who pays for the work? Its a very expensive business installing pontoons and/or moorings.

Who maintains them?

How much will it cost to cover the cost of capital, repay the capital, pay for maintenance, collect payment and generally manage them?

We all think marinas are a rip off but in the end you don't hear about massive profits.

And then there's the issue of Studland being a safe haven, you can't really stop people anchoring there if there is a blow or they are in trouble.

 

[Babylon]

35 boats! have you been to Studland in school holiday periods?

I've been to Studland numerous times over the last decade (usually stopped overnight on a longer summer cruise etc), and have never seen it as busy as that - usually anything from one to two dozen anchored boats to maybe fifty, so my guesstimate of 35 was roughly right.

Nonetheless, I counted about 120 boats (anything bigger than an inflatable tender) in that photograph, clearly taken on an extremely busy day, but hardly 350.

 

[Babylon]

[...]

And then there's the issue of Studland being a safe haven, you can't really stop people anchoring there if there is a blow or they are in trouble.

That was me a couple or so years ago - arrived from a long passage from Dartmouth late in the dark, I was exhausted, with food-poisoning and seasick.

 

[cherod]

In the first instance, I was asking him, not you.

In the second instance, my observation was entirely with foundation: the figure quoted of 350 boats in Studland Bay is a colossal exaggeration, broadly by a factor of ten. That he said "up to" and I paraphrased "typically" doesn't detract from the fact that the true figure on any given busy sunny day is likely to be at most only roughly 10% of the fictitious press-release figure printed by The Times.

In the third instance, what is the point of all these distractions? First we have someone who is abusive about people with Aspergers, then we have people who just want to pick a fight with another forumite over his paraphrasing.

Well since you asked me , ( as Saltire said ) i was merely pointing out your inaccuracy , however if you dont understand the difference between “ up to “ which would infer of an occasional manner , and “ typically “ which would infer being of a regular manner then i would not be bothered to “ pick a fight “ , as you call it , with one so educationally challenged as it may not be a fair fight !!! You counted all those boats !!???? Wow !!

 

[Babylon]

I can't stop you being gratuitously insulting but it does you little credit, and what I do with my time is my business, as you with your's.

Notwithstanding all that, a quick tally of the anchored boats in that photo (taken on an unusually extremely busy day) still reveals a total of about 120, or roughly a third of the "up to" 350 claimed in the article.

Tell me, how many times have you (and Saltire can also answer the question) been to Studland Bay? And if either of you have been, what was your experience of the number of anchored boats?

 

[HissyFit]

I've reported the post to the moderators. Hopefully they will give @Long-John Saliva some shore leave.

Sandy, I think that's going a bit far. I don't subscribe to censorship and to me it makes more sense to leave a questionable post where it is for others to read and see the reaction.

Sea-Fever,
There is free speech and then there is hate speech. We need to be careful not confuse the two. What was published was undoubtedly hate speech, and was correctly removed as such.

 

[cherod]

I can't stop you being gratuitously insulting but it does you little credit, and what I do with my time is my business, as you with your's.

Notwithstanding all that, a quick tally of the anchored boats in that photo (taken on an unusually extremely busy day) still reveals a total of about 120, or roughly a third of the "up to" 350 claimed in the article.

Tell me, how many times have you (and Saltire can also answer the question) been to Studland Bay? And if either of you have been, what was your experience of the number of anchored boats?

When i was there it was empty ??

 

[HissyFit]

35 boats! have you been to Studland in school holiday periods?

View attachment 94960

Some of those boats are distinctly over bare sand, not seagrass.

 

[HissyFit]

The phrase "upto 350 boat" is designed to mislead. We know it's weazling about with English, and evidently the perpetrator knew and understood this. However it is still a lie, because (as previously pointed out) to fit 350 boats into the area would be dangerous, and we understand this, so you would never get "upto 350 boats" in the area.

 

[NealB]

Well since you asked me , ( as Saltire said ) i was merely pointing out your inaccuracy , however if you dont understand the difference between “ up to “ which would infer of an occasional manner , and “ typically “ which would infer being of a regular manner then i would not be bothered to “ pick a fight “ , as you call it , with one so educationally challenged as it may not be a fair fight !!! You counted all those boats !!???? Wow !!

Cherod, did your, undoubtedly fine, education not cover the difference between 'infer' and 'imply'?

Edit: I wouldn't usually bother with such pedantry on a sailing forum, but the irony in your post did make me chuckle.

 

[cherod]

Fraid not mate , should i sue the buggers ???

 

[Resolution]

Notwithstanding all that, a quick tally of the anchored boats in that photo (taken on an unusually extremely busy day) still reveals a total of about 120, or roughly a third of the "up to" 350 claimed in the article.

Tell me, how many times have you (and Saltire can also answer the question) been to Studland Bay? And if either of you have been, what was your experience of the number of anchored boats?

So on a busy day 120 boats means probably up to 500 people enjoying themselves in the open air. Should we not be measuring this amenity value against the possible?/probable? damage to the habitat of a creature which is common as chips in certain other locations?

 

[SimonFa]

35 boats! have you been to Studland in school holiday periods?

View attachment 94960

if they can survive that they can survive anything.

Most of those will be gone by sunset.

 

[SaltIre]

In the first instance, I was asking him, not you.

In the second instance, my observation was entirely with foundation: the figure quoted of 350 boats in Studland Bay is a colossal exaggeration, broadly by a factor of ten. That he said "up to" and I paraphrased "typically" doesn't detract from the fact that the true figure on any given busy sunny day is likely to be at most only roughly 10% of the fictitious press-release figure printed by The Times.

In the third instance, what is the point of all these distractions? First we have someone who is abusive about people with Aspergers, then we have people who just want to pick a fight with another forumite over his paraphrasing.

The distractions might be because your gripe is without foundation so, having accepted that, folk inevitably discuss other matters.

 

[SaltIre]

I can't stop you being gratuitously insulting but it does you little credit, and what I do with my time is my business, as you with your's.

Notwithstanding all that, a quick tally of the anchored boats in that photo (taken on an unusually extremely busy day) still reveals a total of about 120, or roughly a third of the "up to" 350 claimed in the article.

Tell me, how many times have you (and Saltire can also answer the question) been to Studland Bay? And if either of you have been, what was your experience of the number of anchored boats?

So I am allowed to answer now. How generous of you to grant me permission to do so.
I believe there were ~300 boats, yachts & mobos, when I visited many years ago. There were so many it was difficult to count them - there may have been more, but almost certainly not more then 350. There were up to 350.
I do hope you will find my answer acceptable.

 

[Sea-Fever]

So on a busy day 120 boats means probably up to 500 people enjoying themselves in the open air. Should we not be measuring this amenity value against the possible?/probable? damage to the habitat of a creature which is common as chips in certain other locations?

Yes, we absolutely should.

 

[Robin]

So I am allowed to answer now. How generous of you to grant me permission to do so.
I believe there were ~300 boats, yachts & mobos, when I visited many years ago. There were so many it was difficult to count them - there may have been more, but almost certainly not more then 350. There were up to 350.
I do hope you will find my answer acceptable.

Many of which would be way outside of the claimed seahorse playground. and BTW they turn up inside Poole Harbour too. as well as in fishing boat nets offshore.

 

[Stemar]

The phrase "upto 350 boat" is designed to mislead.

This is the issue. Any casual reader without knowledge of the situation is going to read that number and assume there will be close to that number of boats quite often. Sure, one boat is "up to 350", but if I'm paying for "up to 350Gb" internet speed, I'm going to pretty unhappy if it EVER drops below 200.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing like the truth, all to push an unjustified agenda. This is why it needs to be challenged.

 

[Seven Spades]

Which means that the entire area of the bay and seagrass gets regularly trawled and swept by anchor chains.
How can that be anything but very bad news indeed for the seahorses?
As for the noise - almost all creatures rely on sound to some degree and scores of boat engines, let alone speedboats and bloody jetskis must make the audio environment there something like living on a roundabout between Heathrow and the M25. Of course it's going to affect them, how could it not?

Don't get me wrong, I detest Chris Packam et al and their imbecilic anthropomorphism but I do feel that the Studland Bay crowds are far, far more than the local area should have to bear and I hate the idea of anchoring bans but Studland is a special case.
My suggestion would be to ban anchoring and deploy two or three lines of trots to secure a reasonable number of boats 50 perhaps and a ban on jetskis (that should, imho, be National) within a half mile of the beach.

If Packham's keen enough to save the seahorses he'll be keen enough to afford the associated costs, won't he...?

This has been done over many times. Firstly this Isn’t happening because the number of boats is exaggerated. Secondly there is clear evidence that the sea grass are has expanded year after year. Sea horses are no endangered they are all over the place and many are found in ... marinas. Try reading the information collated by BORG. The effects of anchoring are akin to sticking a pin in a football field.

 

[Concerto]

This has been done over many times. Firstly this Isn’t happening because the number of boats is exaggerated. Secondly there is clear evidence that the sea grass are has expanded year after year. Sea horses are no endangered they are all over the place and many are found in ... marinas. Try reading the information collated by BORG. The effects of anchoring are akin to sticking a pin in a football field.

I agree, but the majority of the ignorant public do not know this and believe the tales of woe about poor seahorses in the press.