Robin
Well-Known Member
We don't have to call you anything at all. Your comments above do that quite clearly enough.
He's at it again - Steve Trewhella- Seahorses
- Thread starter glashen
- Start date
We don't have to call you anything at all. Your comments above do that quite clearly enough.
jhr
Well-Known Member
I am sorry, but this post says more about you than anything I could possibly add.
There are people on here with considerable, long-term knowledge of the Studland area, whose natural instinct is to offer their help to arrive at some truthful facts, and all you can do is antagonise them with childish insults.
Pathetic.
glashen
Well-Known Member
This quote is from The Seahorse Trust Site, Further I have read that the Studland site is second only to the site in Portugal in the numbers recorded, so if not thriving what?
sarabande
Well-Known Member
Steve
you will be well advised to consider that corrosive posts and over-emotional replies are not in keeping with the position of a trustee of a registered charity, and someone earning money from this research.
Scientific research is far more open nowadays than it has ever been. Why do you and the Survey not put your current research into the public domain and share it with people on this forum who have a scientific background and an interest in and commitment to conservation ?
You have nothing to lose but your credibility as a serious research organisation worthy of public support.
you will be well advised to consider that corrosive posts and over-emotional replies are not in keeping with the position of a trustee of a registered charity, and someone earning money from this research.
Scientific research is far more open nowadays than it has ever been. Why do you and the Survey not put your current research into the public domain and share it with people on this forum who have a scientific background and an interest in and commitment to conservation ?
You have nothing to lose but your credibility as a serious research organisation worthy of public support.
ST44
Active Member
I have come under a barrage of insults and name calling for over a year now.
I have had to listen to all of your stupid sellfish comments.
I have tried to reason and explain what we are trying to do , and all I get is some ignorent person saying we should be able to do whatever we want.
How dare these people tell us what we can do, ect.
Times are changing , the marine act is here.
There will be a network of marine protected area's in the UK.
We hope studland will be one of them.
I will not be putting anymore posts onto these stupid threads..I expect there will be another new one next week , all about studland, or me.
If the boats are not doing any damage what are you all worried about ??
You won't be stopped from anchoring if the science dosn't add up.
But I think you all know it will.
I am always amazed how brave people are when sat behind a keyboard.
At least I'm not afraid to stand up for what I believe.
I have had to listen to all of your stupid sellfish comments.
I have tried to reason and explain what we are trying to do , and all I get is some ignorent person saying we should be able to do whatever we want.
How dare these people tell us what we can do, ect.
Times are changing , the marine act is here.
There will be a network of marine protected area's in the UK.
We hope studland will be one of them.
I will not be putting anymore posts onto these stupid threads..I expect there will be another new one next week , all about studland, or me.
If the boats are not doing any damage what are you all worried about ??
You won't be stopped from anchoring if the science dosn't add up.
But I think you all know it will.
I am always amazed how brave people are when sat behind a keyboard.
At least I'm not afraid to stand up for what I believe.
ST44
Active Member
I'm not a trustee !!
I don't get paid !!
And the survey hasn't finished yet.
I do all of this in my own time, studland is my local beach.
Get your facts straight.
I DON'T WORK FOR ANYBODY .
I don't get paid !!
And the survey hasn't finished yet.
I do all of this in my own time, studland is my local beach.
Get your facts straight.
I DON'T WORK FOR ANYBODY .
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
"and all I get is some ignorent person saying we should be able to do whatever we want.
How dare these people tell us what we can do, ect."
You know, Steve, sometimes we feel exactly the same.
Ignorant, by the way, not ignorent. And etc, not ect.
How dare these people tell us what we can do, ect."
You know, Steve, sometimes we feel exactly the same.
Ignorant, by the way, not ignorent. And etc, not ect.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Trying to explain the sailors viewpoint, rationally.
1. Studland has been a passage and refuge anchorage for centuries.
2. Anecdotal evidence, from long time residents of the area, is that seahorses have been living in Studland for decades.
3. Anecdotal evidence, from those who have fished and anchored in the area over decades, is that eel grass coverage is increasing. From ST's statement, earlier, eel grass was badly affected by disease in the 1930s. It has recovered despite (or perhaps because of) anchoring.
4. ST reports seeing 40 seahorses in the area. Good odds there are more that he has not yet seen. At least one was pregnant, suggesting it is a breeding - thus self-sustaining - population.
5. The Seahorse Trust - quoted elsewhere in this thread - states that seahorses are established in areas with high levels of human activity, and are not confined to eelgrass beds.
Initial conclusions:
That eelgrass, seahorses and sailors are successfully co-exisiting in Studland.
That there is no immediate danger of seahorses or eelgrass being wiped-out by continued anchoring in the area.
Action required:
A long-term census of seahorse population and a long-term survey of eelgrass coverage, to determine the dynamics of both. These to be conducted under existing conditions (eg continued anchoring) because there is no immediate threat to the flora or fauna in question. This would determine whether further action is required, and will provide a control for monitoring the effect of such actions should they been deemed necessary.
What's wrong with that?
1. Studland has been a passage and refuge anchorage for centuries.
2. Anecdotal evidence, from long time residents of the area, is that seahorses have been living in Studland for decades.
3. Anecdotal evidence, from those who have fished and anchored in the area over decades, is that eel grass coverage is increasing. From ST's statement, earlier, eel grass was badly affected by disease in the 1930s. It has recovered despite (or perhaps because of) anchoring.
4. ST reports seeing 40 seahorses in the area. Good odds there are more that he has not yet seen. At least one was pregnant, suggesting it is a breeding - thus self-sustaining - population.
5. The Seahorse Trust - quoted elsewhere in this thread - states that seahorses are established in areas with high levels of human activity, and are not confined to eelgrass beds.
Initial conclusions:
That eelgrass, seahorses and sailors are successfully co-exisiting in Studland.
That there is no immediate danger of seahorses or eelgrass being wiped-out by continued anchoring in the area.
Action required:
A long-term census of seahorse population and a long-term survey of eelgrass coverage, to determine the dynamics of both. These to be conducted under existing conditions (eg continued anchoring) because there is no immediate threat to the flora or fauna in question. This would determine whether further action is required, and will provide a control for monitoring the effect of such actions should they been deemed necessary.
What's wrong with that?
sarabande
Well-Known Member
sorry, I may have got names muddled up somewhere. If so, I apologise and will be more rigorous in future.
Let's try and clarify some basic facts please.
Will you define
1 your relationship with the Seahorse Trust and the Seahorse Survey,
2 your qualifications and experience in the (unpaid ) work you so generously undertake
3 any interim conclusions and working papers that are in the public domain, i.e. not directly subject to contractual or confidentiality agreements.
If you do that we can have a better idea of how seriously we can take the proposals that you put forward. It's a tough life going open, but it's about time you did it.
Let's try and clarify some basic facts please.
Will you define
1 your relationship with the Seahorse Trust and the Seahorse Survey,
2 your qualifications and experience in the (unpaid ) work you so generously undertake
3 any interim conclusions and working papers that are in the public domain, i.e. not directly subject to contractual or confidentiality agreements.
If you do that we can have a better idea of how seriously we can take the proposals that you put forward. It's a tough life going open, but it's about time you did it.
flaming
Well-Known Member
Steve.
There are many people on these forums - most in fact that do not wish to do any harm to any species.
Most yachtsmen would be appaled to learn that they are damaging the enviroment in such a tangiable way.
It is therefore impressive, and downright tragic, that your statements on this board have done so much to draw the battle lines as Yachtsmen Vs Seahorses.
This has nothing to do with the evidence, nothing to do with the attitude of "rich yachties" but everything to do with your own attitude to people you don't know, lecturing and preaching. This has done so much damage to the seahorse trust's image in the eyes of yachtsmen, that I struggle to see any way for the two "sides" to work together.
Of course there are no "sides", or there weren't until you started appearing here.
Congratulations.
xxyyzz
Well-Known Member
Photo's of seahorses aren't as valuable if they aren't a special population.
Incidentally, shouldn't diving be restricted as well? It's very hard to tell whether divers are capturing seahorses or not.
The plethora of divers observing this special population may well be affecting these shy creatures, certainly chasing them around will stress them.
rickp
Well-Known Member
Hmm, usefully thats far after the timescale for setting up the MCZs.
Have you tried engaging with the Finding Sanctuary body that covers the area of Studland? They seem to be using the RYA to publicise their existance and carring out 'ad-hoc' interviews so we all feel fully consulted:
They seem to be holding 'drop-in' days down in the SW, so perhaps someone can go along and find out how leisure boaters can get more representation?
glashen
Well-Known Member
It was you called me on the Bournemouth Echo Thread "Rude and Ignorant", whilst much of this thread has been a request for the scientific you claim to have. My concern has always been that the scientific evidence is properly examined and not misrepresented, something I should hope you support. However you have already clouded any evidence you have by making it clear that your mind is made up prior to publication and peer review. You reject the Crown Estates survey which I for one believe is a good starting point for a proper management plan. Again in an emotional response you evoke Whaling and whatever else comes to mind. You have certainly not provided any evidence that the Studland Seahorses are under threat if you have that please Publish it.
xxyyzz
Well-Known Member
http://www.britishseahorsesurvey.org/Seahorse_Tagging_Project_at_Studland_Bay_in-Dorset.doc
"Our coordinators for Dorset Steve Trewhella and Julie Hatcher discovered Seahorses on the site in 2005 and since then we have made a number of amazing discoveries about British Seahorses and particularly this site."
Is "coordinating" not "working" then?
I really find this insulting,you do not have a monopoly on the love of Nature steve.It seems that though it is readily acknowledged that both sea horses & eel grass are flourishing in Studland Bay & it is not a unique environment you want to turn it into a zoo for personal reasons
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
I would like Steve Trewhella to tell us what scientific qualifications he has. All I can find he is a photographer with a Scuba kit and a bit of backing from a one man charity.
About a year ago, when this subject was hot on here, I asked if he had applied to the public record office for any air photographs taken of the area during and since the war, so that he could support his claim that the eel grass is in decline.
I am sure that there must be lots of German air photographs of the area as the South coast was extensively photographed in the hunt for invasion landing beaches.
A proper scientific study would leave no stone unturned and use every available resource to prove a case.
I am of the opinion that so far the scientific evidence is confined to emotive press releases to a gullible press, which is happy to publish them as fact without further investigation.
Until then, he resorts to hissy fits even when anecdotal evidence is offered that the eel grass beds are considerably larger now than thirty or forty years ago. A true scientist would have take this into account and made it his business to research it more and speak to more people who were using the bay years ago. After all, a living person's memory is like gold dust to anyone researching a trend and Steve's eagerness to ignore these memories says a lot about the true validity of his findings. And let's face it, properly conducted interviews of people who have been using the bay since the war, may even prove that the eel grass beds have actually shrunk.
If, as I suspect, he is an amateur unqualified scientist, every time he puts his name to a press article his qualifications should be challenged.
So Steve, tell us where you got your qualifications from.
About a year ago, when this subject was hot on here, I asked if he had applied to the public record office for any air photographs taken of the area during and since the war, so that he could support his claim that the eel grass is in decline.
I am sure that there must be lots of German air photographs of the area as the South coast was extensively photographed in the hunt for invasion landing beaches.
A proper scientific study would leave no stone unturned and use every available resource to prove a case.
I am of the opinion that so far the scientific evidence is confined to emotive press releases to a gullible press, which is happy to publish them as fact without further investigation.
Until then, he resorts to hissy fits even when anecdotal evidence is offered that the eel grass beds are considerably larger now than thirty or forty years ago. A true scientist would have take this into account and made it his business to research it more and speak to more people who were using the bay years ago. After all, a living person's memory is like gold dust to anyone researching a trend and Steve's eagerness to ignore these memories says a lot about the true validity of his findings. And let's face it, properly conducted interviews of people who have been using the bay since the war, may even prove that the eel grass beds have actually shrunk.
If, as I suspect, he is an amateur unqualified scientist, every time he puts his name to a press article his qualifications should be challenged.
So Steve, tell us where you got your qualifications from.
Boathook
Well-Known Member
You can come and meet us all at Studland then one weekend in the spring / summer. Your views are biased as your comments above show.
A
Alcyone
Guest
Yes, I am from outside the area. I sail and I anchor, I have also dived all over the world for the past 20 years.
What I see are two sides engaged in name calling to protect their own interests. I see no real evidence that the Seahorse/eelgrass populations are being damaged by anchoring, nor do I see any evidence that they are not being harmed. Both sides are accusing the other of not having any evidence.
Come on, both sides, provide proof of what you claim, real scientific proof.
That's fair isn't it?
BTW, if I am impartial, and I think I am, can I speak for the general public when I say the attitudes of both sides could turn people against your viewpoint?
What I see are two sides engaged in name calling to protect their own interests. I see no real evidence that the Seahorse/eelgrass populations are being damaged by anchoring, nor do I see any evidence that they are not being harmed. Both sides are accusing the other of not having any evidence.
Come on, both sides, provide proof of what you claim, real scientific proof.
That's fair isn't it?
BTW, if I am impartial, and I think I am, can I speak for the general public when I say the attitudes of both sides could turn people against your viewpoint?
harryb1
Active Member
Yes-very important. (Though as others have said Studland is much moor than an afternoon anchorage)
Yachtsmen are interacting with the environment in the same way as many activities that take place in the countryside. Would you ban walkers from the Lake District? They are having an adverse impact on the environment that effects many species and ecosystems, but the fact the people use the countryside at all, is why they are aware and care about the animals and plants that are there, the species that conservationists are protecting.
It is the same with the sea.
Apart from scientists and you guys, there is no other group that cares more about the sea environment than leisure users, and it is great to know there are Seahorses in Studland. But as in most things using an environment, has an impact on it.
I have no doubt that anchoring can damage eelgrass, what is not clear, is if enough damage is done on the few hot weekends of the year, and the rest of the time when there are occasionally a couple of well placed yachts (i.e. on sand, as is their preference), to actually put the eelgrass into decline, or threaten the Seahorses habitat.
As with every activity a balance has to be struck so that use does not detrimentally damage the environment it is using, and this is what most conservationists strive for.
You should be looking for a way for Yachtsmen to coexist with the Seahorses- it could be that we already are just fine, because we could be your greatest alies.
Of course it is right that scientific research investigates, for the sake of the Seahorse. But the question should be "Can Anchoring/Mooring coexist with Seahorses" not "Is Anchoring destroying the Seahorse habitat"
xxyyzz
Well-Known Member
Actually, I'm claiming that the existence of seahorses is now threatening the use of Studland as an anchorage, as such, the seahorses can't be tolerated any more.
If there's only 40 it shouldn't take too long.
It's a shame that the seahorses have started this trouble after centuries of peaceful cohabiting.
