glashen
Well-Known Member
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/4736120.Marine_Bill_will_protect_sea_life/
I really do try to stay reasonable and balanced but some people!
I really do try to stay reasonable and balanced but some people!
He's at it again - Steve Trewhella- Seahorses
- Thread starter glashen
- Start date
rickp
Well-Known Member
His mind is made up, don't confuse him with facts!
pessimist
Well-Known Member
Still haven't had a reply to my email back in June (I think) from the "Seahorse Trust". I asked for details on joining but they don't seem to want members, only donors.............
Far be it from me to suggest anything untoward but it does seem a trifle unusual for organisations such as this to be uninterested in new members. Ho Hum.
Far be it from me to suggest anything untoward but it does seem a trifle unusual for organisations such as this to be uninterested in new members. Ho Hum.
KINGFISHER 9
Well-Known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't seahorses always lived here? ... how have they managed over the centuries? ... or maybe they've just moved in? ... if this is the case I jolly well hope they're British sea horses! .... can't be doing with foreign sea horses, and if they are why weren't they caught by the UKBA? Not good enough I say. Besides, which type of anchor upsets their habitat? .... I'll bet it CQRs .... or maybe I'm wrong ... probably needs discussion! What does everyone think ... CQR, Delta, Rocna (very bad for sea horses), maybe Fortress?
rickp
Well-Known Member
I think the main fact is that no-one knows how long seahorses have been there, or if they're increasing or decreasing. Thriving or on the verge of being wiped out.
So rather than study this and come to a consider approach - the first thing they've done is announce they want to ban anchoring. Unsuprisingly this hasn't gone down well - and they've really ****ed up any chance of co-operation.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/4736120.Marine_Bill_will_protect_sea_life/
I really do try to stay reasonable and balanced but some people!
Glad you are taking up the cudgels. Unfortunately as you have quickly discovered Steve and Neil like many single issue people are intellectually incapable of coping with complexity - or even simple well accepted facts which do not accord with their view of the world.
I tried to engage with them last summer following a similar biased report in the Echo and it is impossible. They do not, for example, accept the fact (which all other parties do) that the eel grass beds have expanded substantially in the last few years. They will not say where the seahorses are (must keep it secret in case others disturb them). They do not say if there are no observations of seahorses in areas where yachts anchor. All they rely on is the accepted fact that andhors can cause local damage to eel grass. As the official reports have stated there is no evidence that seahorses are being adversely affected by anchor damage to their habitat.
When you really look at the seahorse issue you find that they are not an "endangered" species. They exist in many other parts of the UK. The only "special" thing about Studland is that both species are in the same location. Does not mean that it is unique - just that Steve has found them. Studland is "Special" to many people for all sorts of reasons some of which offend others. And of course it gets on the TV which allows Steve to claim "overwhelming public support" as if this is the basis for making serious decisions! I think he likes the public support because he has so far failed to attract any serious support from knowledgeable people.
Suspect that commonsense will prevail, not necessarily for positive reasons, but because so many parties are now involved that even consensus never mind agreement to a "management" plan is unlikely.
KenMcCulloch
Well-Known Member
Isn't what's being suggested the management of the area rather than a blanket ban on anchoring? It is not an area I know well but I do know there has been a massive increase in the number of yachts on the S coast in the last couple of decades, many of which are looking for a nice place to anchor on a regular basis. It's not unreasonable to argue that the seabed ecology is consequently under increasing stress in popular areas and that sensible measures in response to that are required.
rickp
Well-Known Member
In the linked article from the original poster, 'seahorse_steve' says:
Think its pretty clear what he wants.
fireball
Well-Known Member
So if we all go there this weekend and drag up all the eel grass there'll be no more to protect? 
Anyway - we should all be made to use CQR copies, as we all know they're much lighter than their counterparts and the seahorses will love to swim between the welded plates ...
Anyway - we should all be made to use CQR copies, as we all know they're much lighter than their counterparts and the seahorses will love to swim between the welded plates ...
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
'Tis a problem. The media are so desperately understaffed nowadays that - apart from very major stories - they take what ever a PR pokes at them and run it pretty much as-is. On this story, if the Echo had had the resources to look for and talk to a few dissenters (not hard to find) they'd have written a very different piece and the Seahorse One would look very foolish.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
They will publish letters in response without editing. However they have little impact other than result in me being deluged with emails from Steve and Neil - particularly as I quoted some of their own propoganda - didn't like that!
"They" (journalists) of course don't write the material - they just publish what others tell them to - beats having to do the work yourself!
Tranona
Well-Known Member
The increase in boats is one of their arguments supporting increase in activity. However, most people who know the place believe that the overall level of anchoring activity has remained much the same over the last 20 or 30 years. This is because the number of days that it can be used is limited by weather and weekends and the physical size of the bay limits overall numbers. You do, of course see photos of up to 300 boats there at any one time on a Summer Sunday - but there could be 3 or 4 times as many actually anchor during the day. However next day, even if it is good weather could be less than 20 at any one time!
There is no scallop dredging or trawling activity in the bay now - held to be one of the factors in the spread of the eel grass beds. It is also suggested that dredging the channel for ferries has changed the tidal flows across the bay. Areas, particularly closer to the shore off South Beach which were bare sand when I first anchored there 30 years ago are covered with eel grass. And, yes a CQR, even a genuine one (same one as I used 30 years ago) has difficulty in setting through the grass.
Robin
Well-Known Member
Reading through the Echo letters it seems that the guy who runs the Seahorse Trust from his Devon cottage writes in as if he is one of the public and doesn't know Steve Trewhella.
Look hard at the Seahorse Trust and as Pessimist says, there is no membership on offer, merely an invitation to hand over money to the cause. I would very much like some proper investigative journalism to look at this one man charity money pot because frankly to me it smells.
This one will run though, because Joe Public will back cuddly creature versus rich yottie anytime and the more we shout the more the public will support the little creature.
Look hard at the Seahorse Trust and as Pessimist says, there is no membership on offer, merely an invitation to hand over money to the cause. I would very much like some proper investigative journalism to look at this one man charity money pot because frankly to me it smells.
This one will run though, because Joe Public will back cuddly creature versus rich yottie anytime and the more we shout the more the public will support the little creature.
sarabande
Well-Known Member
I had a quick ferret through the Charity Commission.
The Seahorse Trust's objectives are (apols for the capitals)
1. TO PROMOTE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC THE PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION OF RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA AND IN PARTICULAR BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY, SEAHORSES AND RELATED SPECIES.
2. TO ADVANCE THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC GENERALLY ABOUT WILD FLORA AND FAUNA.
3. TO CONDUCT RESEARCH AND ENQUIRY INTO ENDANGERED SPECIES OF MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA AND, IN PARTICULAR BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY SEAHORSES AND RELATED SPECIES, AND TO PUBLISH THE RESULTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
The trustees include
MR STEWART MUIR - there is a Stewart Muir apparently involved in other wildlife charities and zoos. A shy and retiring person who has lost his contact details from the site of another Trust which he runs from his home address, breeding capuchins and lemurs.
MRS JENNY PATON
There is a Jenny Paton in Poole involved in a RIPA case about cheating the school catchment system last year. She admits that she and her partner have two homes, and played the system by moving from one address to another. Shurely a trustee of a reputable charity would not stoop so low, so it cannot be the same person.
The trust manages its accounts very well, having an income of £55474 and an expenditure of £40397 for the last three financial years.
It seems to me that if the Trust is failing to fulfil its charitable objectives (i.e. if seahorses are not endangered species) and they are not publishing the results of their research and enquiry for the benefit of the general public, then they are in breach of the Charities Act 2006, et seq
If you go into any pet shop with a reasonably large marine section, you can see and buy seahorses. It may be that the good burgesses of Swanage, Wareham and Poole have from time to time outgrown their hippocampus pets, and have released them into the sea. We could even be seeing the spread of a species alien to Britain, even endangering the proud lineage of our native seahorses dating back to the noble time of King Alfred of Wessex. Perhaps another charity, the British National Party for the Preservation of British Seahorses should be set up to conserve the rightful inheritors of our island kingdom.
(/rant over)
The Seahorse Trust's objectives are (apols for the capitals)
1. TO PROMOTE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC THE PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION OF RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA AND IN PARTICULAR BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY, SEAHORSES AND RELATED SPECIES.
2. TO ADVANCE THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC GENERALLY ABOUT WILD FLORA AND FAUNA.
3. TO CONDUCT RESEARCH AND ENQUIRY INTO ENDANGERED SPECIES OF MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA AND, IN PARTICULAR BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY SEAHORSES AND RELATED SPECIES, AND TO PUBLISH THE RESULTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
The trustees include
MR STEWART MUIR - there is a Stewart Muir apparently involved in other wildlife charities and zoos. A shy and retiring person who has lost his contact details from the site of another Trust which he runs from his home address, breeding capuchins and lemurs.
MRS JENNY PATON
There is a Jenny Paton in Poole involved in a RIPA case about cheating the school catchment system last year. She admits that she and her partner have two homes, and played the system by moving from one address to another. Shurely a trustee of a reputable charity would not stoop so low, so it cannot be the same person.
The trust manages its accounts very well, having an income of £55474 and an expenditure of £40397 for the last three financial years.
It seems to me that if the Trust is failing to fulfil its charitable objectives (i.e. if seahorses are not endangered species) and they are not publishing the results of their research and enquiry for the benefit of the general public, then they are in breach of the Charities Act 2006, et seq
If you go into any pet shop with a reasonably large marine section, you can see and buy seahorses. It may be that the good burgesses of Swanage, Wareham and Poole have from time to time outgrown their hippocampus pets, and have released them into the sea. We could even be seeing the spread of a species alien to Britain, even endangering the proud lineage of our native seahorses dating back to the noble time of King Alfred of Wessex. Perhaps another charity, the British National Party for the Preservation of British Seahorses should be set up to conserve the rightful inheritors of our island kingdom.
(/rant over)
Moodyjim
Well-Known Member
"British seahorses for British bays" so it should be GB??
Robin
Well-Known Member
Does that include the money they got from the lottery?
Boat44
Well-Known Member
Haven't read the whole post, but what nobody seems to speculate is that the increase in eel grass might be as a result of yachts anchoring?
As people say, the problem is a single issue individual who clealry has PR training/background and is quite happy to manipulate it to their own ends without taking or waiting for a considered view.
Shame realy I feel sorry for people like that.
As people say, the problem is a single issue individual who clealry has PR training/background and is quite happy to manipulate it to their own ends without taking or waiting for a considered view.
Shame realy I feel sorry for people like that.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
That has been speculated - but the science is against it. As already stated the consensus is that the increase is due to the decline in bottom scouring fishing activity. However, just as in the "anchoring damages seahorses" hypothesis there is only an association, not evidence of any causal relationship.
That is the underlying problem with this issue. There is so little serious data available that people can propose whatever theories they like - in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Steve and Neil are the only people who have any clear data, and that is limited to the number of seahorses they have observed and they exploit this in the absence of anything else by claiming that anchoring threatens the habitat. Easy really when you have legislation now in place that not only protects the species but the habitat. Why bother then with proving that harm to the habitat affects the species when the law implies that it does!
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Interesting new bit of evidence from a local man claiming his Dad was regularly catching seahorses in 1945, as was he in the 60's. Steve Trewhella claims they have only been there a few years, Another 'fact' invented to support his claims!
I suggest that if 20 of the 40 Seahorses Steve T has seen are reported (by him) to be breeding they are probably pretty happy with their habitat. It is well known that animals (OK I know) whose habitat is under pressure tend not to breed. A change in the environment as Mr Trewhella wants may actually be a backward step and do more harm than good.
A bit like releasing all those Mink from the Mink farms to ravage the local countryside and decimate the indigenous population of small mammals. One has to ask whether the Marine Bill will also protect the habitat from well meaning ill informed do-good conservationists?
I suggest that if 20 of the 40 Seahorses Steve T has seen are reported (by him) to be breeding they are probably pretty happy with their habitat. It is well known that animals (OK I know) whose habitat is under pressure tend not to breed. A change in the environment as Mr Trewhella wants may actually be a backward step and do more harm than good.
A bit like releasing all those Mink from the Mink farms to ravage the local countryside and decimate the indigenous population of small mammals. One has to ask whether the Marine Bill will also protect the habitat from well meaning ill informed do-good conservationists?
webcraft
Well-Known Member
.
