In peace

[Robin]

I'm just suggesting that although there is no published evidence yet it must be obvious to one and all that the evironment in Studland must be damaged by too much anchoring so it must be worth introducing some restrictions. I'm sure no one wants to see this unique environment destroed.

Aha the unmistakable spelling of Neil Garrick-Maidment!

As usual, no evidence from SHT but 'it must be obvious that Studland must be damaged by too much anchoring'. WHY!!!!? Boats have anchored here for centuries, it is a passage anchorage. Leisure boats have anchored here in very significant numbers for over 40 years that I can PERSONALLY verify, and the seagrass has INCREASED in that time, again personal verification from swimming and snorkelling the area as well as from anchoring.

We see that 1000s of divers are involved, SHT statement. We see active encouragement for ever more people to come visit swimand dive to see the Studland seahorses. Why not leave them in peace? I suspect if anything is threatening the seahorses it is the SHT through programmes like Countryfile and Springwatch etc. Have you not noticed that when rare nesting sites are found for birds the location is always kept a closely guarded secret?

BTW did that cute little baby seahorse really appear conveniently or was it a home grown one planted to have it's picture taken?

Nobody wants a complete ban on anchoring but remeber that we aretalking about protected species and so far nobody from the boating side seems very interested in protecting them.

I am sure we would all like to behave exactly as we please but in todays overcrowdrd world tahts just not possible, especially where a delicate eviroment and protected species are involved. A littel restraint now may avoid much more serious measures later.

Nobody from the boating side is doing anything to harm the seahorses, I wish the same could be said of the SHT let alone the more and more divers you are attracting. Seahorses and boats have existed quite well together it seems since the population is not only increasing in Studland but is breeding, again SHT stated facts.

Anyway, no point in going over these questions again is there, because you don't see or accept any view other than your own and usually cut and run when asked awkward questions.

 

[tinkicker0]

So the starting point of the debate is:

Anchoring in Studland is dragging up the seagrass that the seahorses need to survive (maybe).

The seafarer's have had a right to anchor where they see fit for 100s of years. There is also vessel safety to be considered.

Boater's are not irresponsible, two headed monsters (even raggies ) and usually will look to solve problems and avoid damaging the environment if they can; after all why would they want to destroy the very element that they love and they spend many thousands per year to enjoy?

I am also sure sure that the Seahorse trust have no real axe to grind against boaters whose money helps keep many coastal regions going, and in the case of many, donate much money to the Environment agency and British Waterways for conservation work via licencing schemes.
They may even be members of the RSPB!

The solution.

So what is required is fixed moorings with buoys that are large enough to hold the mooring chains off the seabed.


So the main factor is how can these be provided and paid for, what type is best for purpose and the numbers required .

Now you have something to talk constructively about.

Over to you.

 

[Robin]

The solution.

So what is required is fixed moorings with buoys that are large enough to hold the mooring chains off the seabed.


So the main factor is how can these be provided and paid for, what type is best for purpose and the numbers required .

Now you have something to talk constructively about.

Over to you.

Not anything like as simple as that I'm afraid. By all means install eco-friendly moorings to replace the existing all year local resident ones, provided they really are strong enough for all weather use, because that is apparently in doubt. However for visitor and transient use each mooring would need to be suitable for ALL sizes of boat from tiddler to huge, lightweight to heavyweight and there would have to enough of them to cover the busiest of days, yet for 95% of the year they would remain vacant. Do not just assume they can be provided and maintained and fees collected to cover these costs (plus the cost of collection), because much of the time there will be nobody to collect from yet the collector will still need to be paid. Besides which IMO a huge area of empty moorings would be pretty unsightly.

 

[tinkicker0]

Not anything like as simple as that I'm afraid. By all means install eco-friendly moorings to replace the existing all year local resident ones, provided they really are strong enough for all weather use, because that is apparently in doubt. However for visitor and transient use each mooring would need to be suitable for ALL sizes of boat from tiddler to huge, lightweight to heavyweight and there would have to enough of them to cover the busiest of days, yet for 95% of the year they would remain vacant. Do not just assume they can be provided and maintained and fees collected to cover these costs (plus the cost of collection), because much of the time there will be nobody to collect from yet the collector will still need to be paid. Besides which IMO a huge area of empty moorings would be pretty unsightly.

Good input. So how can the moorings be made suitable for all sizes of boat as a start?

And I'm not looking at fee collectors, anchoring costs nothing, so how can funding be provided?

 

[Rustyknight]

Aha the unmistakable spelling of Neil Garrick-Maidment!

A quote from Neil posted on the SBPA website a few days ago.

Just in case you think I am ignoring your blogs, I will not be online for the next couple of weeks, so dont think I dont care anymore, missing you already!!

If "SHT" really is speaking on behalf of the Seahorse Trust, it might be beneficial to give a bit more detail in respect of which capacity they speak out using their name.

It would be terrible to think they could be a troll....... especially in light of their statement that "there is no published evidence yet it must be obvious to one and all that the evironment in Studland must be damaged by too much anchoring"

 

[imsodepressed]

So now we have to hope, that they do not discover oil or gas there.
Because then, Seahorses and Boaters, will both get short shrift.

 

[chanelyacht]

I'm just suggesting that although there is no published evidence yet it must be obvious to one and all that the evironment in Studland must be damaged by too much anchoring so it must be worth introducing some restrictions. I'm sure no one wants to see this unique environment destroed.

Replace "anchoring" with "diving"

Nobody wants a complete ban on anchoring but remeber that we aretalking about protected species and so far nobody from the boating side seems very interested in protecting them.

Fortunately the sea horses have the SHT to look after them, tag them, dive on them, film them, handle them, publicise them, raise money using them, create jobs and income for themselves using them, allow unlicensed television presenters to molest them...

I am sure we would all like to behave exactly as we please but in todays overcrowdrd world tahts just not possible, especially where a delicate eviroment and protected species are involved. A littel restraint now may avoid much more serious measures later.

Think about it

Absolutely agree. A little restraint in diving should be able to prevent a MCZ being introduced to ban all diving.

How about this for a plan for a way forward :

1. The VNAZ becomes subject to a 12 month byelaw making it legally enforceable.
2. A no-dive zone is introduced covering the same area with the same legal standing.
3. The SHT withdraw totally from all tagging operations.
4. Species monitoring is carried out under contract by Plymouth Uni Marine Bio or similar organisation of standing completely unconnected to any existing SHT personnel
5. Both sides accept the evidence gathered by the outside organisation.

 

[Madhatter]

"
Quote:
I am sure we would all like to behave exactly as we please but in todays overcrowdrd world tahts just not possible, especially where a delicate eviroment and protected species are involved. A littel restraint now may avoid much more serious measures later.

Think about it
Absolutely agree. A little restraint in diving should be able to prevent a MCZ being introduced to ban all diving.

How about this for a plan for a way forward :

1. The VNAZ becomes subject to a 12 month byelaw making it legally enforceable.
2. A no-dive zone is introduced covering the same area with the same legal standing.
3. The SHT withdraw totally from all tagging operations.
4. Species monitoring is carried out under contract by Plymouth Uni Marine Bio or similar organisation of standing completely unconnected to any existing SHT personnel
5. Both sides accept the evidence gathered by the outside organisation. "

Bravo

And one forgets there are a lot of divers who are boaters !
And where do the peeps doing the so called "research" dive from ,how do the camera crews get to the filming site WADE !??
I just wish that honesty would prevail on this subject without any hidden agenda (fat chance me-thinks )

 

[Tranona]

Hi folks.

Its a TROLL.

Ignore it

 

[fergie_mac66]

Hi folks.

Its a TROLL.

Ignore it

dont you mean its a seahorse

Ignore it !

 

[Tranona]

dont you mean its a seahorse

Ignore it !

No, a seahorse would not be able to cope with the gaps on the clickety-clackety bridge!

 

[pessimist]

Hi folks.

Its a TROLL.

Ignore it

Hair on its feet and palms of its hands doesn't necessarily indicate it's a troll. There are other explanations.

 

[Robin]

Good input. So how can the moorings be made suitable for all sizes of boat as a start?

And I'm not looking at fee collectors, anchoring costs nothing, so how can funding be provided?

There is a very simple method of providing a temporary mooring for boats of all weights and sizes already. It is called anchoring and uses equipment that comes with every boat!

Why scatter say 300 permanent moorings across the bay when the requirement is a temporary one and ideally suited to anchoring.

Relocating a few seahorses might be easier.

 

[tinkicker0]

I have been waiting for the OP to post back with something constructive other than CONTROL which is what it's really all about with "activists". They may be concerned with the wildlife, but they really enjoy the potential to control others. Lies, half truths, self publicity, veiled threats of unspecified action are all tools in the fat controller's toolbox.

So instead of calls of troll and stuff em, take the control away and come up with some constructive answers.

and get away from the english notion that if something has to be done to right a wrong, someone will charge you for it.

Anchoring costs nothing, the acitivists say their prime concern is the seahorses, the technology exists to protect the habitat, they are a trust, trusts do fundraising, the fundraising is targeted at the seahorses, therefore why should mr Westerly owner have to pay a charge?

Do your bit and they have no control other than to specify the colour and placement of the buoys (with input from the maritime agencies).


It would certainly make life easier and more relaxing if you have a nice buoy to tie up to, so you're happy.....and the seahorses are happy, which is a good thing.

As to the OP, it may not be the man himself, he never claimed to be AFAIK, but it may be another activist. Disarm him.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I guess that what most upsets us Mr SHT, is the way in which one subject obsessives , and your group are far from being unique in that respect, try to regulate out of existance practises that have been going on for years with no serious scientific evidence to warrant doing so. In most cases they are simply elevating their hobby / pastime /interest above those of others in a very selfish way.

You are not seen as reasonable and open minded but as part of that range of militant pressure groups from the ALF to the RSPB who put the "welfare" of their particular creature above that of any human interest. You need to ask yourselves why your campaign has drawn vastly more opposition than the no anchor zones that have been implemented successfully elsewhere.

Meantime, maybe we should mount a campaign to preserve the environment at Studland by restricting access to just wind powered devices - no powerboats, no divers, no pedestrians, etc. I reckon the sea horse would prefer that.

 

[Lakesailor]

If someone is waging a successful campaign to get their own way, why do they suddenly ask for a peaceful resolution and a discussion?
Because they are losing the battle.

If you are winning you don't capitulate.

 

[tinkicker0]

If someone is waging a successful campaign to get their own way, why do they suddenly ask for a peaceful resolution and a discussion?
Because they want the public behind them after they drop a bombshell. Controllers never want the public to know they have been manipulated.

If you are winning you don't capitulate.

They are not capitulating, they are trying to show they have given the nasty boaters a fair chance, but they got spat in the eye.

Multiquote button will not work, the bits in red are mine.
I have never anchored in Studland and probably never will. You that do had better wake up before you lose all access to the place. Mr and Mrs smith watching Countryfile don't care one way or the other about boats, but they do tut tut about the poor seahorses. I've never seen a prog on telly telling the boaters view about the dodgy science.

 

[2nd_apprentice]

<°)))o><

 

[mandlmaunder]

Why not leave the untrained , unscientific , licensed divers of the Sea Horse Trust to continue the way they are and in the not very far future there will be no more cuddly sea horses for them to tag and handle while pregnant, due to the over stress of human intervention even if well intended, and the death by taggings that have been published recently.

If they carry on we will have the bay back as it will have nothing for them (SHT) to try to conserve.

Just a thought, its not a fact but that doesn't stop it being obvious.


Mark

PS- Lakey for Presedent of the united states of europe!!!

 

[Ubergeekian]

I'm just suggesting that although there is no published evidence yet it must be obvious to one and all that the evironment in Studland must be damaged by too much anchoring so it must be worth introducing some restrictions. I'm sure no one wants to see this unique environment destroed.

Ah. We either have an old friend back, or or old friend's argument.

According to the Seahorse Trust, the seahorse population at Studland is thriving. Since there has been no significant change in boating use there for years, what, precisely, is the problem? Why would you want to upset an ecosystem which is supporting a thriving population of seahorses?