He's at it again - Steve Trewhella- Seahorses

[Tranona]

No, I think you are misunderstanding the process. My original post said it propogates by seed and vegatative growth- this is what you are describing. It does not mean that tearing the roots out of the sand stimulates growth.

There is plenty of evidence that the bare patches where anchors have pulled it out or where mooring chains scour the bottom remain bare for some time. However, the growth in the size of the meadows in Studland seem to be the result of a long term absence of regular bottom scouring activity from trawling and scallop dredging which allows propogation by both methods. Changes in tidal flows resulting from dredging the ship channel may also have an influence, as may changes in nutrient levels.

The main issue in relation to Studland is lack of information, as the Crown Estate recognises hence the attempts to find out more about both eel grass and seahorses. So far most of the "theories" and relationships derive from anecdote and personal belief. Of course there are some who prefer it this way and are resistant to establishing and sharing facts, but hopefully the two projects under way now will move the debate on.

 

[Nico]

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.

Well that all sounds like reason to me, but as you say most people see things from their point of view and on this forum it is mostly from the point of "I want to anchor here". In these cases the sensible thing is to undertake a study and it sounds as if it would be better if it were done by somebody such as English Nature. Not that they'll get much credit from the single-interest boaters.

Having been on both sides of the fence before I've seen it all. I once worked on a study on heather growth on Cannock Chase. If we fenced off a plot (to stop rabbits and deer affecting our results) the chavs from the estates would cut the wire to put their lurchers in and the toffs from the villages would moan about access for their horseys. People are selfish and stupid. And they never want to pay for anything. You can have the results of that study for nothing.

 

[maxi77]

No, I think you are misunderstanding the process. My original post said it propogates by seed and vegatative growth- this is what you are describing. It does not mean that tearing the roots out of the sand stimulates growth.

There is plenty of evidence that the bare patches where anchors have pulled it out or where mooring chains scour the bottom remain bare for some time. However, the growth in the size of the meadows in Studland seem to be the result of a long term absence of regular bottom scouring activity from trawling and scallop dredging which allows propogation by both methods. Changes in tidal flows resulting from dredging the ship channel may also have an influence, as may changes in nutrient levels.

The main issue in relation to Studland is lack of information, as the Crown Estate recognises hence the attempts to find out more about both eel grass and seahorses. So far most of the "theories" and relationships derive from anecdote and personal belief. Of course there are some who prefer it this way and are resistant to establishing and sharing facts, but hopefully the two projects under way now will move the debate on.

Indeed finding out what is actually happening is perhaps the best answer though it would seem that there is already some evidence that the present range of activity in Studland has led to an increase in both ell grass and seahorses, The trick is now to see if the presence of the eel grass and seahorses can be maintained without impacting on the other users.

On the eel grass one minor thought is many planys thrive best when they are pruned or otherwise damaged. Many plants need quite vigourous pruning to give a healthy crop and thrive, on grouse moors they even burn the heather in sections to maintain a healthy level of new growth as food for the grouse and other animals.

One of the other considerations too is would signifcant increases in eel grass and the species that survive on it impact on other species other than yotties. It is not uncommon for conservation for one species to harm another.

 

[sarabande]

Tranona

i am a bit peeved. I said "disturbance", which you modified into "tearing the roots out of the sand".

If a chunk of eel grass (with its rhizome at the ripe stage for expansion) - let's agree on the non-emotive "removed" - is removed and then transplanted by any one of a number of mechanisms into another part of the seabed which it finds amenable to growth, it will have a damned good try at growing.

Until and unless we get some objective, verifiable, and reproducible data on eel grass distribution and growth patterns in Studland Bay over several decades, then all the passion and expertise in the world about Saving the Seahorse is brought to be of little scientific avail because it lacks proper rigour, and is based on a mixture of intuitive feeling and guesswork.

The government agencies and public bodies concerned with this area have a duty to spend their money on "proper" research projects which openly comply with and adhere to normal scientific standards.

 

[Tranona]

For those of you not familiar with the background. The seabed in Studland is the responsibility of Crown Estate and their position on the subject is on their website. The investigations are being carried out under the auspices of the Studland Seahorse Steering Group, which has (almost) more organisational members (RYA, English Nature, Councils, Conservation bodies etc) than there are seahorses.

The eel grass survey is being conducted by a commercial firm specialising in marine activities and commissioned by English Nature and the seahorse survey by the seahorse trust. Both are 2-3 year projects. In the meantime some are arguing for permanent moorings to replaced by a design that does not scour the seabed and perhaps some similar moorings laid for visitors. However, nobody is prepared to fund this and the legal position on the moorings is not clearcut.

So, some bodies prefer to keep quiet pending the outcome of studies (probably secretly hoping they are inconclusive so that no decisions will be taken), whilst others see the vacuum as an opportunity to press their own case - often using the media which like nothing better than things to fill their empty spaces!

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

I've also just noticed they wish to keep Warbarrow Bay anchor free too :-(

In the meantime some are arguing for permanent moorings to replaced by a design that does not scour the seabed and perhaps some similar moorings laid for visitors. However, nobody is prepared to fund this and the legal position on the moorings is not clearcut.

There goes another free anchoring/mooring place then ??

 

[Tranona]

Tranona

i am a bit peeved. I said "disturbance", which you modified into "tearing the roots out of the sand".

If a chunk of eel grass (with its rhizome at the ripe stage for expansion) - let's agree on the non-emotive "removed" - is removed and then transplanted by any one of a number of mechanisms into another part of the seabed which it finds amenable to growth, it will have a damned good try at growing.


.

No need to be peeved. Anchors tear the roots out of the sand. Fact. If I could remember how to post piccies I have some good shots of my (genuine) CQR covered with eel grass, roots and all from an abortive attempt to anchor in Studland this summer.

It is wrong to compare the behaviour of eel grass with other plants. It will not "have a damn good try at growing". It dies when pulled out and the sand remains bare for some time afterwards. These are facts which you can get from the various publications freely available - but I have it also directly from one of the authorities on the subject. Who, by the way recognises that the meadows have grown over the years, but does not have any more specific explanation than the various ones given here.

The eel grass project is an attempt to monitor an area of the seabed where anchoring will not take place in order to monitor the health of the eel grass. However many people, including me and some "experts" think the study is badly designed, not least because it is an area where there is historically very little anchoring (not least because it is too shallow, too close to rocks and a long row from the pub!).

To me the argument is not about whether anchoring damages eel grass, nor really whether such damage affects the overall size of the meadows, but whether there is any connection with the health of the seahorse population. Other than a general case that seahorses thrive in eel grass there is no verifiable evidence of such a link.

 

[sarabande]

I'm in complete agreement about the need for a suitable control zone(s) to test the hypothesis that anchoring destroys/does not destroy eel grass growth, and corollary-wise, to identify any correlation between eel grass habitat (density, age, proximity to edge of bed, exposure to wave action, modal depth below surface, any number of factors, and the seahorse population.

What I cannot fathom is the absence of scientific justification for the proposal to blanket ban anchoring from the Trust people, when a steady-state history of anchoring in that area (with modifications from the absence of beam trawling in certain parts) appears to have resulted in the last few decades in a growth in seahorse population. There are many many variables in the process, and it really does need a more rigorous approach to identify directly contributing factors as opposed to incidental ones.

It has the makings of a really attractive study, but is being contaminated by subjectivity and emotion.

 

[Alcyone]

Couple of points that spring to mind reading this thread

1. The issue seems to be as much a dislike of Mr T as it is about restricting anchoring in this bay.

2. The views seem equally 'entrenched' on both sides. If the onus was on the anchorer to prove he/she did no damage to seahorse populations, would you provide evidence? If not, surely 'you' are as 'bad' as he?

3. In the absence of evidence proving that this environment is so common around our shores as to not need protecting, does it not make sense to protect it first, erring on the side of caution, then do the study? If we do it the other way around, we may lose it before we've studied it.

 

[ninky]

i think we should all consider protecting our environment and endangered species more. however i have the following concerns about marine parks.

anchoring allows the less wealthy access to boating and the environment. i'm not rich. my boat cost less than 2k and i'm on an inexpensive swing mooring.

i'd like access to nature and worry that unless i'm part of the wealthy conservation elite or the super-rich the absence of right to roam i experience daily on the land will be extended to the sea.

i'd be more than happy to follow a sort of marine code along the lines of a countryside code.

steve t states on another forum he has a licence to swim around and photograph the seahorses. how do you get one of these licences? who decides who can access nature for conservation purposes and who can only enjoy it by watching autumnwatch from a sofa in their pokey city flat?

 

[WayneS]

Have to say that I am going to keep watching this one. I have heard and read little about the Studland Seahorses but I am lucky enough to have been quite closely involved in other fishy subjects in the past.

I do not know how trustworthy this Trust are but in my experience you often find that these so called "scientists" have other agendas.

In another Ichthyological issue, which I was lucky enough to grow up involved in, some scientists were very happy to distort the facts about a certain pre-historic fish find in the Indian Ocean so taht they could ensure their future funding. Little to do with the actual protection of said fish, but more to do with the promotion of ego's and air miles.

I have many fond memories of "helping" my father collect Seahorses (No No, not in this country) for his research. Fascinating little creatures.

 

[Tranona]

I'm in complete agreement about the need for a suitable control zone(s) to test the hypothesis that anchoring destroys/does not destroy eel grass growth, and corollary-wise, to identify any correlation between eel grass habitat (density, age, proximity to edge of bed, exposure to wave action, modal depth below surface, any number of factors, and the seahorse population.

What I cannot fathom is the absence of scientific justification for the proposal to blanket ban anchoring from the Trust people, when a steady-state history of anchoring in that area (with modifications from the absence of beam trawling in certain parts) appears to have resulted in the last few decades in a growth in seahorse population. There are many many variables in the process, and it really does need a more rigorous approach to identify directly contributing factors as opposed to incidental ones.

It has the makings of a really attractive study, but is being contaminated by subjectivity and emotion.

You are right. However as one who has tried to engage with the Seahorse Trust and Steve I can assure you they are not in favour of any "rigorous" approach such as you would find amongst "true" researchers who are interested in the "truth". They are only interested in what they think and spend their time dismissing any questions - not with answers but by rhetoric.

As I said before recognising complexity is beyond them.

 

[Robin]

Couple of points that spring to mind reading this thread

1. The issue seems to be as much a dislike of Mr T as it is about restricting anchoring in this bay.

2. The views seem equally 'entrenched' on both sides. If the onus was on the anchorer to prove he/she did no damage to seahorse populations, would you provide evidence? If not, surely 'you' are as 'bad' as he?

3. In the absence of evidence proving that this environment is so common around our shores as to not need protecting, does it not make sense to protect it first, erring on the side of caution, then do the study? If we do it the other way around, we may lose it before we've studied it.

Anyone from outside the area as I assume you are may well not understand. Studland has been a safe anchorage since Noah took up boatbuilding. I first went there in about 1970 and it was a busy anchorage even then. It's big advantage is excellent protection from the prevailing winds as well as being out of any strong tides. It has been a starting point for many thousands of cross Channel cruises. Boats often leave the harbour which has strong tides in the entrance, on the ebb and anchor up overnight ready for an early start next day. Bigger boats and bigger engines that can beat the tide have reduced that pattern of usage somewhat but it is still a safe haven after a rough crossing home or for boats going to and from the West country waiting to time the tidal gates of the Needle, St Albans or Portland Bill. People often see it just as a simple stopover for a weekend or day trip, which it also is, but it is nevertheless more than that.

Why should we have to prove anything? 40 seahorses have not only set up home there but are thriving, that against our certain knowledge that eel grass beds have increased significantly over the years nearly 40 of them in my case.

Act first just in case? So in the vague offchance that a one man crusade is correct and against the multitude of local information that the eel grass is increasing and the Seahorse Trust's own statement that the seahorses are thriving there should be a ban whilst research is done?

Crown Estates and English Heitage in my opinion are by no means convinced by the claims of the Seahorse two either, hence their involvement in the no anchor zone and survey.

Make no mistake these people want anchoring banned full stop. Next will be all the other little bays along the coast, many if not most of which also have eel grass. I can tell you there is eel grass in Swanage and Lulworth amongst others - are they going to be next on the hit list?

Local paper tonight has another headline too about lizards holding up the roadworks on the main A338 into Bournemouth, so the traffic sits there burning fuel and delaying hundreds every day whilst this little problem is resolved. This country has gone bonkers.

 

[oldharry]

As an occasional user of Studland, I have on various occasions asked both Mr T and the seahorse Trust for infromation. The unfortunate Mr T just howls down any sensible questions as 'stupid, arrogant and uncaring'. The Trust is a little more forthcoming if you can get any reply from them, but unfortunately tend to shoot themselves in the feet: for example, they say the have spent many hundreds of hours studying 'other sites' round the country. Hang on a mo: I thought these things were endangered, and Studland was 'Unique'? After all this time they seems unable to determine the health of the Studland Seahorse colony: Steve T claims that of the 40 Seahorses he has seen, 20 were pregnant. The Seahorse Trust is unable to say whether that is above, below or normal for a Seahorse colony. But just a minute, I thought they had spent hundreds of hours studying them? Dont they know what the average colony growth rate is? Then they compare it with a Colony in... Portugal. Portugal? Thats a really good comparison is it not! A Portugese colony averages 1 seahorse per 5 sq M according to the Trust. They have only seen 40 at Studland. And....?

ON this forum, and in the media, Mr T claimed earlier this year to have 'discovered' this colony in the last couple of years. Yet local fishermen were coming across them 50 years ago, and have been ever since. Yet instead of going out and following up a potential source of historical evidence, they sit back and ask people to 'get in touch with them'. Indeed Mr T dismisses this as anecdotal evidence.

And the Eelgrass? I first went to Studland in 1974. I soon (the first night!) discovered that it is not a good idea to anchor in the stuff. But I had no difficulty finding an open spot between the beds off the South Beach. Since then it has become progressively more difficult to find open sand to anchor in, and on recent visits, it is virtually impossible to find anywhere to drop the hook safely without fouling the stuff close inshore. That does not really support the view that the Seagrass beds are struggling. Seahorse Trust does not seem to want to accept my observation, and simply replies that the many boats that anchor there are 'causing damage' - by, Mr T adds, 'dropping 50kg anchors in 6 feet of water'. Really?!

Seahorse Trust appears to be three self appointed people, who having given themselves resounding titles to make the media sit up and listen, and are busy following their own agenda. They withold any real information about their work, they appear to publish no results (its in the hands of the media so we cannot say when it will be published). They are unable to affirm their own qualifications to research this except that English Nature is 'supporting them' and they are 'licenced' study these exotic creatures.

I certainly would want a rare or unique habitat to be protected, but the more I see of the Seahorse Trust and its activities the more I feel the creatures need protecting from the Trusts actiivities!

 

[Twister_Ken]

Right to anchor

From a very recently updated RYA guidance note:

"The right to anchor is an ordinary incident of the public right of navigation in tidal waters and is usually free; it is of such antiquity and importance that it is may only be restricted by statute or local bye-laws."

Studland is an important passage and refuge anchorage that has been used as such for centuries. Seems to me that any restriction on the right to anchor there could be legally challenged all the way.

 

[DownWest]

In Portugal, huh. I frequently saw the little guys on the south coast while diving. Curiously, I didn't notice much resembling eelgrass. Should have looked harder perhaps.
A

 

[ST44]

seahorses

At last there are people on this forum who can be bothered to find out about eelgrass.
No its not a garden weed that spreads like wildfire every time an anchor is hauled....I wish.
It dies and washes up on the beach leaving a hole on the seabed.
We have NEVER said seahorses are thriving in the bay, this is nonsense that others have assumed, including crown estate.
40 animals is not a thriving population.
If you saw 40 seagulls would you say they are thriving ?
We have never said we discovered seahorses in the bay.
I did record and photograph the first pregnant one ever seen in the UK proving once and for all that they are an indigenous species.
Anchor and mooring damage is well documented all over the world.
In some countries it is an offence even to have your engine running on an eelgrass bed, because sediment can be stirred up smothering the leaves.
There is no scientific evidence to say the bed at studland is growing, if it is, that is no excuse not to protect the site.
Many boat users tell me that there is no anchor damage because it always looks green when they look over the side of the boat.
This is because mobile algae's fall into the holes created by anchors , feel free to snorkel the site if you don't think that is true.
Many eelgrass beds in the uk where wiped out in the 1930's by a wasting disease, what is left has to be protected against damaging activities.
It is a co2 sink aborbing huge amounts of green house gases.
It is a vital nursery area for many species of fish.
It stops coastal errosion , absorbing the energy of the waves.
The seahorses are a bonus, and I say again they are a protected species.
Although no protection is given to them.
I am not on a personal mission to spoil peoples fun, there are many other less vocal people involved with this project, they have been doing the study on anchor and mooring damage , and we hope a scientific paper will be completed soon.
Proving the habitat is being damaged.
We have little or no faith in the other study, it is all about politics and little to do with conservation.
I think crown and natural england would like this problem to go away, as would many of you.
It will not go away, its to late for that.
There are ways of managing the site without BANNING everything.
But as a conservationist (seahorse hugger) ect ect, my one and only concern is protecting the wildlife and habitat.
Its a great shame that an animal like a seahorse should become such a problem, is an afternoon at studland really that important ?
Our sea's are under massive amounts of pressure,its a great shame if even the slightest sacrifice cannot be made .
steve.

 

[sailaboutvic]

mermaids seen in studland bay

If only other had as strong view as the ones on this forum maybe then we would be able to hold on to the freedom all us sea going sailors have had for 1000s of years to sail ,where we want ,when we want , for how ever long we want , what is the UK coming to???? … UKBA , marina with mafia high charges , paying for anchoring using your own gear and now WHAT sea horses , next we wont be able to anchor at all in case accidentally we hit a fish as we drop our anchor . Come on guys isn’t it time some one stood up for our right to live in a free country.

 

[ST44]

Ye har.

Ye har boyz.
Yeah to hell with everyone ...lets go and git us a 5 litre range rover...lets bring back fox hunting and slavery...oh and whaling...what did whales ever do for us ?.. how dare these city boyz tell us what to do...we have been doing it for years.
Come on all you need to do is prove anchors and moorings don't damage eelgrass....how hard can that be ????...and you call me an idiot ????

 

[Robin]

I am not on a personal mission to spoil peoples fun, there are many other less vocal people involved with this project, they have been doing the study on anchor and mooring damage , and we hope a scientific paper will be completed soon.
Proving the habitat is being damaged.[/QUOTE]

So a scientific paper with pre-conceived results then.

We have little or no faith in the other study, it is all about politics and little to do with conservation.
I think crown and natural england would like this problem to go away, as would many of you.
It will not go away, its to late for that

So reputable bodies like Crown Estates and Natural England and their now ongoing scientific survey are to be ignored because they are expected perhaps to prove your case wrong.

There is no scientific evidence to say the bed at studland is growing, if it is, that is no excuse not to protect the site

So there we have it, ignore whatever scientific evidence is found and go ahead anyway.

is an afternoon at studland really that important

.

There is a lot more to this than it being just an afternoon anchorage. It is an important passage anchorage and has been for centuries.


As for your real views and your previous extreme statements on this issue, these are well enough documented either in forum archives here or in the local paper. I think you will find most people on here are intelligent enough to investigate the spin a bit deeper than your latest PR statement.