Kilter
Well-Known Member
Hi y'all anyone fancy takin' up seahorse rustlin'?
He's at it again - Steve Trewhella- Seahorses
- Thread starter glashen
- Start date
We had a lot of that eel grass stuff in Portsmouth Harbour until the local clam dredgers scoured the bottom making it look like the surface of the moon all furrowed.
Is there any evidence that sea horses don't live in all the remote parts of our coast that no yacht would dare to venture into let alone anchor in?
Maybe the seahorses just like a bit of company
Is there any evidence that sea horses don't live in all the remote parts of our coast that no yacht would dare to venture into let alone anchor in?
Maybe the seahorses just like a bit of company
flyingscampi
Well-Known Member
Seahorses are the tip of the iceberg
"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so" - Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...lief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...iners-psychic-belief-amounts-to-religion.html
"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so" - Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...lief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...iners-psychic-belief-amounts-to-religion.html
glashen
Well-Known Member
My reason for the original reply on the Echo site was to highlight Steve's agenda, knowing that he has previously stated he does want a anchoring ban. He does know how to manipulate the media and certainly doesn't like being taken to task over his claims does he. I found it noticeable how his and Neil's initial replies all evoked the emotional, Japanese Whaling etc.,
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Just had a few words with this little fella, he says they dont mind the anchoring, they can soon get out of the way when one is on its way down and it tends to help the eel grass grow. What does p i$$ them off though is nosey parker types coming down into their world with masks and rubber suits blowing bubbles, watching them having sex as they try to breed...perverts!!
glashen
Well-Known Member
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Your response was not dissimilar to mine when he was last "in the news" last summer. I followed it up with a series of exchanges with both Steve and Neil and a visit to the Oceanographic Centre in Southampton to find out about eel grass.
Regrettably what you have experienced is just a mild form of there vindictive rhetoric. I came to the conclusion that they had such closed minds it is actually pointless using any kind of reasoning and logic - they just reject anything that does not accord with their view of the world. They are of course helped by a general level of ignorance amongst other parties involved in the debate and the gullible nature of the public - particularly armchair nature lovers when exposed to "exotic" and cuddly creatures. Which are, of course not really exotic, nor cuddly - but wait until Hollywood discovers them and we get Nemo's Horsey friends in a cinema near you!
David_Jersey
Well-Known Member
What about setting up your own Charitable Trust? - and come up with the conclusion that the disturbance of the seabeds by anchors actually helps sustain the underwater eco system and therefore Studland Boy is actually an eco-criminal 
Alternatively a bit of forensic digging will probably show that not all costs paid by his Charity are above and beyond reproach.
Alternatively a bit of forensic digging will probably show that not all costs paid by his Charity are above and beyond reproach.
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
What about setting up your own Charitable Trust? - and come up with the conclusion that the disturbance of the seabeds by anchors actually helps sustain the underwater eco system and therefore Studland Boy is actually an eco-criminal
Alternatively a bit of forensic digging will probably show that not all costs paid by his Charity are above and beyond reproach.
You think there's a possibility he may have paid himself a 'bankers bonus' then?
David_Jersey
Well-Known Member
I was thinking more MP's expenses - after all, even a Saint would be tempted from their "own" charity to self justify / be a bit freer with the expenses........or simply lazy on records.........and just because "within the rules" don't mean someone can't be nailed to a cross, or at least splattered with mud - useful if you can identify the source of funding.
lenseman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2006
- Messages
- 7,077
- Location
- South East Coast - United Kingdom
Try writing to him via this link:
http://www.123people.co.uk/s/steve+trewhella
or here (if you want to be his friend):
http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Trewhella/1069272958
ST44
Active Member
broken records
You people sound like broken records.
I do not get funding for this....I wish.
I am not the only person who wants the site protected...I am part of a much larger group.
I am not going to dicuss the fact that anchors damage eelgrass..again and again.
Your minds are all made up...may the best man win.
I cannot be bothered to argue with a tiny handfull of men who are scared of change.
We will be fighting for studland to become a marine protected area, and for the eelgrass to be given the protection it needs, live with it.
As for facebook friends...I think I'm ok thanks.
You people sound like broken records.
I do not get funding for this....I wish.
I am not the only person who wants the site protected...I am part of a much larger group.
I am not going to dicuss the fact that anchors damage eelgrass..again and again.
Your minds are all made up...may the best man win.
I cannot be bothered to argue with a tiny handfull of men who are scared of change.
We will be fighting for studland to become a marine protected area, and for the eelgrass to be given the protection it needs, live with it.
As for facebook friends...I think I'm ok thanks.
xxyyzz
Well-Known Member
The solution is clearly to eliminate as many seahorses as possible from the study area so that the study shows them to be in decline in the no-anchor zone.
It's a shame that he's created an environment where it's in our interests to wipe out the seahorses.
It's a shame that he's created an environment where it's in our interests to wipe out the seahorses.
bbg
Well-Known Member
Steve,
Welcome back. I think people would like to engage with you and discuss your concerns. Don't think that everyone's mind is made up.
I, for one, am interested in your statement
I have never anchored in Studland and almost certainly never will, so I have no personal investment in this. My mind is open, but to date all I have seen is broad assertions without any supporting evidence. If you do have any evidence to support your assertions, it will strengthen your case and I daresay you will win some support.
If you run away without supporting your argument, you will be seen to have been making claims that are untrue, or at least not based on any underlying evidence.
Welcome back. I think people would like to engage with you and discuss your concerns. Don't think that everyone's mind is made up.
I, for one, am interested in your statement
You state something as a "fact". My question, and I think the question of others is - do you have any scientific evidence to support this "fact"? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that the eelgrass has increased in Studland bay over the last 20 to 40 years. How can you explain the anecdotal evidence in light of your asserted "fact"?
I have never anchored in Studland and almost certainly never will, so I have no personal investment in this. My mind is open, but to date all I have seen is broad assertions without any supporting evidence. If you do have any evidence to support your assertions, it will strengthen your case and I daresay you will win some support.
If you run away without supporting your argument, you will be seen to have been making claims that are untrue, or at least not based on any underlying evidence.
DavenHelen
Well-Known Member
Brings to mind a section of Autumnwatch where Kate Humble stated a fact about the small percentage of the sea around Britain having protected status and it should be a much greater percent. The obvious question is why. Is this a Landsmans view of the sea?
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
I am new to this debate.
I have never anchored in Studland bay. In fact I deliberatly did not do so this summer at a time when I would dearly have loved to have done, in one of the few times I had the opportunity to escape from the Solent this year.
I didn't due to the ongoing concerns for seahorses about which I must confess I am not well read.
However, if I cannot see that sensible answers have been given to what are very reasonable questions related to proof of damage to the seahorse environment, I may just ignore those who have the concern.
It is true in some forms of horticulture, that to stir up the growth a little with a fork or spade often strengthens, rejuvinates plant growth.
Why could this not be so, regarding the seahorse environment related to anchors?
If concern for seahorses is to be maintained, then go careful, be a liitle more distant from the mudslinging and answer the questions in a factual and scientific way.
If the less sympathetic boaters have their voices heard more clearly due to it becoming apparent that there is little or no proof of your findings, then people like me may just begin to use the Studland anchorage.
Please also be reminded that 'newbies' like me need to have the facts put out again or be referred to where you have placed your theories/facts initially, so that we may catch up and then perhaps give you support if it's warrented. Indeed, if you are right I will be with you all the way.
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
As you will discover if Steve does respond, he is not in the least bit interested in any "facts" that don't correspond with his view of the world - as you see from this recent post.
He has been challenged time and time again to present evidence of the "threat" and his only concrete piece of evidence is that anchors damage eel grass - therefore in his simplistic view of the world that must be bad for seahorses. However, while the damage is well documented on both this site and others there is no evidence of any effect on the seahorse population.
Based on what "evidence" there is available, the eel grass covers a much greater area of the bay than previously and it seems that seahorses are thriving. However, the latter piece of "evidence" comes from only one source (guess who) who reports increasing sightings and breeding activity, which some might suggest indicates a thriving population rather than one "under threat". There is a publically funded project to try and monitor the seahorse population (to run by - guess who) which might produce some evidence of the extent and health of the seahorse population. However, for obvious reasons the outcome of this attempt to collect evidence will take 2 years. In the meantime the vacuum is filled by speculation.
Wunja
Well-Known Member
I'd like to discuss this fact.
When I take a hoe out into my garden and attack the weeds I do a lot of damage to them. However it is also a fact that a few weeks later the weeds will have grown back in greater numbers and over a larger area than before.
It could well be the case that it is the damage that anchors are causing to the eel grass that is spreading it and giving a larger habitat for the seahorses.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
You could also add to the pot anecdotal evidence that there has been a seahorse population in Studland for many decades.
Until consecutive, scientifically and statistically valid censuses are conducted over a significant time period, assertions that a population is in decline, stable or increasing are utterly meaningless.
Until consecutive, scientifically and statistically valid censuses are conducted over a significant time period, assertions that a population is in decline, stable or increasing are utterly meaningless.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Vince and Scotty
Suggest you Google Eel Grass for the "facts". Tearing up roots does NOT stimulate growth. Eel grass is a flowering plant and propogates by both seed and vegatative growth. When an anchor pulls out the roots it leaves bare sand which may or may not be filled by new plants. Eeel grass is a very complex plant and it is affected by all sorts of environmental factors. So that argument is both wrong and counterproductive.
While the factors that affect growth are fairly well known, there is very little detailed work that monitors the impact of changes on specific sites over time. As I noted in an earlier post there have been many changes in Studland Bay over the last 30 years that could have affected the eel grass beds. However, none of this has been monitored properly - which is why for example there is only "anecdotal" evidence on the extent of the beds. That is, no proper annual surveys, only memories of individuals, some of them from observations peripheral to other studies in the area. The general consensus however, is that the beds have grown significantly in size.
If, as the Pro-seahorse camp claim anchor damage is harming the habitat one needs to look at anchoring activity - or rather any changes over time. This is almost impossible to measure, so again speculation takes over. People who know the area and anchor there regularly will argue that there is a limit to the number of boats that can anchor there at any one time and the number of days when it is possible to anchor. For these reasons they say that the number of anchoring "events" has not increased to the same extent as the increase in general boating activity. In some ways, however this is irrelevant unless we know simple facts like whether seahorses are found in areas where boats anchor. As you would expect only a small number of people know where the seahorses are and are not prepared to share this information with others. I wonder why!
Suggest you Google Eel Grass for the "facts". Tearing up roots does NOT stimulate growth. Eel grass is a flowering plant and propogates by both seed and vegatative growth. When an anchor pulls out the roots it leaves bare sand which may or may not be filled by new plants. Eeel grass is a very complex plant and it is affected by all sorts of environmental factors. So that argument is both wrong and counterproductive.
While the factors that affect growth are fairly well known, there is very little detailed work that monitors the impact of changes on specific sites over time. As I noted in an earlier post there have been many changes in Studland Bay over the last 30 years that could have affected the eel grass beds. However, none of this has been monitored properly - which is why for example there is only "anecdotal" evidence on the extent of the beds. That is, no proper annual surveys, only memories of individuals, some of them from observations peripheral to other studies in the area. The general consensus however, is that the beds have grown significantly in size.
If, as the Pro-seahorse camp claim anchor damage is harming the habitat one needs to look at anchoring activity - or rather any changes over time. This is almost impossible to measure, so again speculation takes over. People who know the area and anchor there regularly will argue that there is a limit to the number of boats that can anchor there at any one time and the number of days when it is possible to anchor. For these reasons they say that the number of anchoring "events" has not increased to the same extent as the increase in general boating activity. In some ways, however this is irrelevant unless we know simple facts like whether seahorses are found in areas where boats anchor. As you would expect only a small number of people know where the seahorses are and are not prepared to share this information with others. I wonder why!
