He's at it again - Steve Trewhella- Seahorses

Alcyone said:
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?
Click to expand...

From my POV the problem lies in that those who are prepared to wait for the Crown Estates Survey (Independent/Scientific) are finding Steve Trewhella making statements to the press to promote a precipitative ban on anchoring which we do not believe is supported by any published evidence, he seems to see himself on a crusade to protect Studland. He has also already rejected the Crown Estates Survey. When challenged for evidence he reacts as can be seen in this thread.

You say we should prove that anchoring does no damage, I would accept that it does do localized damage, and it would be best to avoid the Eel grass for this reason. However many users of Studland believe that Seahorses have been present for at least 50 years with no evidence of decline, it is also generally felt that Eel grass despite anchoring is more extensive than it was.

I hope the Crown estates survey will show that the area has not suffered serious damage through anchoring and that a sensible management plan can be implemented.

I can understand you feeling this argument shows both sides in a bad light, however frankly my reasonableness as been tested by Steve Trewhella to breaking point, I feel he tries to influence Public and Official opinion using emotive arguments without the supporting evidence.
 
Major Catastrophe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dear Major,

As it's lunchtime, I've had a quick Google or two. I have discovered the following:

- his employment consists of running photography and rug cleaning businesses, hence his expertise in things that carpet the seabed (OK, cheap jibe: I retract it)

- he gets lots of photos published in the press and I guess owns the photographic business in order to make money from them. Nothing wrong with that, but he clearly has a commercial interest in being able to limit the number of people who are allowed to access and photograph the Studland seabed

- he has been interested in the sea since he was a child and has been diving for more than 25 years. So, in fairness, he must have acquired relevant knowledge and expertise in that time

- he's evidently in a number of journalists' phone books because he's a regular source of quotes in the press, which are normally presented as uncontrovertible fact, without any dissenting view being added, (or even sought, maybe?) This is more a comment on sloppy journalism than on ST's willingness to publicise his cause

- he is not employed by the Wildlife Trust, although his partner, Julie Hatcher, is a Marine Officer working for them

- whatever we may think of his communication skills and personal charm, he plainly feels passionately about the subject, hence - perhaps - his abrasiveness

- judging from Google Images, he hasn't got much hair left :)

Of his education I can find no details at all. That doesn't mean he's not qualified by experience to do and say what he does, but I suspect it means that he'll get - maybe is getting - short shrift from the scientific community who tend to require things like valid academic qualifications and peer review of research findings. A first degree in a related subject would help a bit, but a Doctorate is normally the entry level for credible expertise in specialised scientific research.

Of course; he may have such degrees and doctorates but, if so, why be shy of telling us?

Hope this helps,

Yours sincerely, jhr (mostly unqualified, except in the University of Life)
 
glashen said:
From my POV the problem lies in that those who are prepared to wait for the Crown Estates Survey (Independent/Scientific) are finding Steve Trewhella making statements to the press to promote a precipitative ban on anchoring which we do not believe is supported by any published evidence, he seems to see himself on a crusade to protect Studland. He has also already rejected the Crown Estates Survey. When challenged for evidence he reacts as can be seen in this thread.

You say we should prove that anchoring does no damage, I would accept that it does do localized damage, and it would be best to avoid the Eel grass for this reason. However many users of Studland believe that Seahorses have been present for at least 50 years with no evidence of decline, it is also generally felt that Eel grass despite anchoring is more extensive than it was.

I hope the Crown estates survey will show that the area has not suffered serious damage through anchoring and that a sensible management plan can be implemented.

I can understand you feeling this argument shows both sides in a bad light, however frankly my reasonableness as been tested by Steve Trewhella to breaking point, I feel he tries to influence Public and Official opinion using emotive arguments without the supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

No, GH, I don't really feel that yotties should need to prove that, just that it's not really fair for us to say (as some seem to) that the seahorses are thriving, and eelgrass is spreading, if there is no evidence to support it. If ST is making claims which he cannot back up, then that makes one side as bad as the other.

I can also understand you getting frustrated. To me though, the anger and name calling evident in this, and other threads on the same topic, could be doing serious damage to your cause.

The answer, to me is straightforward. Fund a proper scientific study and find the truth out once and for all. That will probably mean no anchoring and anchoriing areas being defined, managed and studied over a period of years, making allowances for extreme weather and other factors which might affect the populations.

I have to say though, some of the very public slanging that seems to be going on does nobody any justice.

That's not aimed at anyone in particular, btw, just a general comment.
 
Alcyone said:
The answer, to me is straightforward. Fund a proper scientific study and find the truth out once and for all. That will probably mean no anchoring and anchoriing areas being defined, managed and studied over a period of years, making allowances for extreme weather and other factors which might affect the populations.
Click to expand...

Given that the Marine Conservation Zone recommendations are to be provided to the Government in June 2011 and they will require dicsussion at the regional meetings (every 4 to 6 months) - I doubt we have time for that sort of indepth study. This is playing into the hands of the likes of ST44 who are already getting their message across (well in advance of the scientific evidence to back them up).

If we want to ensure our views are heard, we need to be contacting the relevant regional group - in this case Finding Sanctuary who say that:

If the outcomes of Finding Sanctuary could affect you, or you have an interest in the future of the marine environment in South West England, you are a stakeholder and we would like to hear from you.
Click to expand...

We are all stakeholders and they want to hear from us!

However, in discussion with them, they seem to want to limit that input to the RYA as they don't want too many voices on their groups. The RYA person concerned is Peter Bartlett. They do have an extra liason person to talk to boaters though.

They have added the YBW forums to their list (though not sure what that means) and may well be at the London Boatshow - if so I intend to go and chat to them.

One point I have made to them is that they are focussing on the boaters in the area - without considering that many of us come from outside that particular area. I visit parts of the area covered by 'Finding Sanctuary' (where do they get these names from, reminds me of Logan's Run!) quite a lot - but holding open days in Devon doesn't help me in Berkshire!
 
Alcyone said:
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?
Click to expand...

There IS a project in place to examine the effect on the eel grass at Studland. However ST has already pre-judged the results, slagged off Crown Estates and English Nature who are doing it and said the results don't matter anyway. To me that suggests that He is concerned that a proper study will not agree with his ultra-extreme views, and compromise doesn't exist in his mind. Read all off his posts, not just the polite ones, go back through the archives too and see some of the real ravings when people dared question his views.

BTW, I have been anchoring, fishing, swimming and snorkelling in all parts of Studland Bay for almost 40 years so like others I feel I do know the bay quite well. I do know the difference between eel grass and algae too and don't just comment having had an occasional look from the decks.

The only reason I mentioned that you are from outside the area is in the context of understanding the variety of reasons Studland is an important anchorage, because it isn't just a hot Sunday lunch stop. I have several times run into Studland after a very rough cross Channel and dropped the hook there in perfect shelter because it was too rough to go back on my mooring inside the harbour. I have anchored many times in Studland in gales when I wouldn't consider staying on my then mooring in Poole above F4 from the same direction. Studland is an important anchorage. I'm not asking the seahorses to move so why should their stalkers want me to?
 
rickp.Thats excellent.

For me I want to know the truth. If seahorses ARE in danger through anchoring in Studland then we should stop. But then if anchoring is endangering the species, then will be people diving and prodding the little creatures, that certainly is not natural and must be stopped as well. But if there is no evidence and by that I mean real scientific evidence then the activities of a single issue person should be stopped.

What greatly disturbs me, and clearly others, is that someone like ST can become a one man eccowarrior and have what seems so much power, or at least have so many people listening to him. If he is being so shy about his qualifications, the results of his research and his inability to engage with others can only mean that he is a fraud. But which authority controls the likes of ST?

So its down to ST, share your research, make public your qualifications, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear and everything to gain.
 
Personally - I consider two facts about man :

1) He is the most destructive animal on the planet. Despite incredible advances in technology and knowledge, he fails to solve the basic destructional charatcteristic of the species.

2) Various groups, trusts, societies, collections of man attempt to correct for 1), but in doing so often unbalance nature and it's own mechanism ... interfering with evolution, rise and fall of species that in normal run of life would survive or not.

Taking the above 2 traits of man ... I wonder just how much damage can be done to the balance of nature in areas such as Studland ? Man is part of nature and nature strangely enough often has a mechanism to react to mans stupidity, except when man decides to overpower the mechanism !

We can look at Dustbowl of America .... man nicely changed the environment and soil condition such that one of the worlds best grain growing areas became a waste-land. That is mans stupidity. Surely it would be better for effort to be directed to farming methods and other far larger matters - that actually affect right down to the Seahorses in Studland ? Woweeee ... how's that then ? Man is stupoid enough to ignore nature and it's age-old solutions. man thinks he can intervene by use of chemicals, legislations etc. about use etc. - results usually end up in the sea ... whether by flowing down river or washed by rains etc. via shorelines.

I am amazed that such "obviously educated" persons concentrate on banning anchoring ..... wonder if they consider the possibility of chemicals washing off the land to sea and that effect ? Oh OK - ban farmers from their fields ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ok - the above is far of the mark - but for good reason. Much of above is reasonable 'fact' ... but I've used it to show how stupid the whole argument can be. The SHT and "Steve" have fallen into trap # 2) .... with big booted feet ...

I'm sure the Seahorses really appreciate SHT efforts. Pity that the information requested by many is not forthcoming. I for one would happily donate if :

a) Membership was open
b) Full information and results of studies open for scrutiny
c) Less beligerent and war-like stance taken by SHT staff ie Steve
d) Proper studies, historical and present underway and results promulgated during.

.......

yawn .... waiting .............. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... still waiting .........
 
Alcyone said:
http://www.yourseasyourvoice.com/mpa/?region=3&site=14

This is the place, yes?

And we are talking about limiting anchoring/mooring to the North of the dotted area, according to the key?

Anyone voted?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have voted (against the studland site for lack of evidence, and against some others for being less than clear about what they are proposing).

I suggest everyone votes.

However, this is just one input into the process and not in anyway binding. The only thing that counts is the recommendation from the relevant regional group. In this case, that is Finding Sanctuary as I've pointed out.
 
Alcyone

Thanks for the link. I have voted and made the following comment.

"Anecdotal evidence is that sea horses, eel grass and anchors have coexisted at this site for decades, if not centuries. Thee is no scientific evidence of any immediate danger to the seahorse population or the eel grass beds. What is needed is not an unconsidered ban on anchoring, but long term research into the sea horse population, the extent of the eel grass beds, the effects of anchoring, and the dynamics of the local ecosystem. Only then will it be possible to say whether there is a problem needing a solution.

Further the area delineated is an important refuge anchorage protected from S, SSW and SW gales by the high ground of the cliffs. In such conditions, entry to Poole harbour and the Solent can be very dangerous in small craft. To deny this anchorage to sailors is to put seafaring lives at hazard."

Others may care to do likewise.

Meanwhile, I notice that the Marine Conservation Society has HRH Prince Charles as patron. I shall write to him. Others may care to do likewise.
 
Voted ....

In comment - asked for proper independent study and information to be made public for free open debate.

Anyone noticed anything about the photos top right in the MCS page ? Lovely cuddly shots of seahorses ... then dastardly anchor shots thrown in ... mmmmmmmmmmm just so happened to be some anchoring going on to be photo'd ? How convenient.
 
Last edited:
article-1083787-02625788000005DC-617_306x423.jpg


And when I sez - wait for it - shave, yer whips yer shaver up and whops off yer whiskers, sir.
 
Last edited:
ST44 said:
, is an afternoon at studland really that important ?
Click to expand...

yes it is.

would you agree not to go to studland ever again in exchange for a ban on anchoring if a rival seahorse trust suggested diving was harming the seahorses.

recreational diving has damaged many marine habitats around the world.

i'm a conservationist myself. i support the green party and have done for many years. but i worry about limiting access rights to land and marine environments. the more you cut people off from the natural environment the less they will care about it. is someone who is having a peaceful sail and anchors up really harming the environment any more than someone tearing around in a 4x4? if you stop people doing one activity they will have to do another. sailors are perhaps more in touch with the elements than average. they are not necessarily rich (btw i suspect your personal wealth is considerably more than mine). i agree with a possible ban on engines (other than electric).

to look at the problem of seahorse future as just a case of stopping anchoring seems very narrow. surely the entire health of the planet is what is important. the sea and what finds its way into it knows no borders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

lustyd
VHF course help
4 5 6
Replies
113
Views
2K
billskip
billskip
Roberto
Herbal teas at night
2
Replies
21
Views
831
Roberto
Roberto
cyberkryten
We finally bought a boat - Merry Fisher 895s2
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
Cathy*
C

Share this page

Top