In peace

[Sans Bateau]

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!!!

Now there lies a danger, who do you think would get the blame on national television for that? Its up to us to save the sea horses from SHT and all those 1000's of divers, to allow them to live in peace as they have for hundreds of years.

 

[snowleopard]

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.....

.. A littel restraint now may avoid much more serious measures later.

Is that peace as in 'Let's examine the scientific evidence and reach a reasoned conclusion' or peace as in 'we win, you surrender'?

Sounds like the latter then.

What is obvious to some of us is that the eel grass beds have grown substantially despite, maybe even because of, anchoring. Most of us would be happy to avoid anchoring there if it were shown to be causing harm. Irrational unsupported accusations accompanied by threats are not the way to achieve that.

 

[sht]

I said I came in peace. It is difficult to remain paeceful in the faceof such hostility. I notice that some would like to ban diving. No one has suggested banningboats - just restricting anchoring.

Just ask yourselves which causes more damage. Boats anchoring or divers swimming through the area. Not too hard is it?

Ive had a hard day at work. Im off to elax now.

 

[Coaster]

Just ask yourselves which causes more damage. Boats anchoring or divers swimming through the area.

I don't know the answer to your question. Rather than guessing or making assumptions, can you direct me to some independent research?

I'd like to ignore opinions from those with vested interests in boating or diving.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Just ask yourselves which causes more damage. Boats anchoring or divers swimming through the area. Not too hard is it?

It's impossible. Mr Trewhella of the Seahorse Trust claimed here that the seahorse population was thriving. That would seem to suggest that nothing is doing much damage at the moment, though these recent unconfirmed reports of tagged seahorses dying as a result of getting caught by the tags are a little concerning, no?

How do divers get out to Studland, by the way? What are the typical sanitary arrangements on a RIB?

 

[Tintin]

I said I came in peace. It is difficult to remain paeceful in the faceof such hostility.

I think you are confusing hostility with disagreement with your unproven claims and conjecture.

Calling that "hostility" is a bit like the employee who is always late calling their manager a "bully" - over the top and a poor attempt at emotive terrorism.

You say you come in peace. Do you? Really?

Do you really want to hear the opposing viewpoint? Or do you just want to find a reason to get all upset? If the latter then you seem to have succeeded.

BTW I have never been to Studland, I hadn't read much of the stuff about seahorses and studland prior to this post, and (as some on here will atest) I am probably one of the few on here who might agree with your views, being at heart left of centre and caring about animals and people.

But you have succeeded in alienating me.

So here's a tip, if you really want to save the seahorses I suggest you personally stop campaigning because it is having a huge negative impact.

As many have found over the centuries, most recently in Ireland and lets hope in Israel / Palestine, diplomacy and concilliation with a huge dose of compromise tends to bring long lasting results. Not emotive mud slinging and unsubtantiated demands.

Here's that tip again - if you want to save the sea horses you need to personally give up because your efforts are blowing up in your face.

Hope that's all helpful, and please PM me if you want any further advice on how to help the seahorses.

chris

 

[Searush]

I said I came in peace. It is difficult to remain paeceful in the faceof such hostility. I notice that some would like to ban diving. No one has suggested banningboats - just restricting anchoring.

Just ask yourselves which causes more damage. Boats anchoring or divers swimming through the area. Not too hard is it?

Ive had a hard day at work. Im off to elax now.

Clearly its the divers bothering & manhandling the poor creatures. I doubt if there is a seahorse there that knows waht a boat is - but they will knoww all about intrusive divers.

And HOSTILITY? From us? You are the one that started the thread by threatening to ban anchoring - which is effectively banning the majority of boats. Just like your colleagues, Trewhella & Neill double-barrel you have set out to blame us for perceived & unproven problems.

 

[jac]

I said I came in peace. It is difficult to remain paeceful in the faceof such hostility. I notice that some would like to ban diving. No one has suggested banningboats - just restricting anchoring.

Just ask yourselves which causes more damage. Boats anchoring or divers swimming through the area. Not too hard is it?

Ive had a hard day at work. Im off to elax now.

Well obviously we'll need a peer reviewed piece of scientific research to establish that. i.e. just what we have been saying all along - Find some evidence then lets work out what is the best approach based on THE EVIDENCE. ( ps dictionaries are available on line if you need to check the meaning of that word)

However - lets play along and look your question.

Most boats like to anchor in sand - not weed - Anchors don't hold that well in weed. Most of the divers that we are concerned about are chasing the little creatures down, stretching them out, handling them.

So what does most damage - someone dropping an anchor a couple of meters ( minimum) away from the poor creature or some diver ripping it away from its weed, stretching it out - photographing it.

In the absence of any evidence to the conrary i have to say the Diver.

However - as a fair compromise how about this. You say that there are about 1000 divers who use the site so why not have say 400 SHT provided divers on site the whole year round. Then when an "outsider" comes in - they can metaphorically attach themselves to the SHT approved Eco Diver and explore the site without any danger to the sea horses.

I appreciate 400 divers on the beach in winter may be overkill but you'll need to cater for the peak days in summer when you might get 300 - 400 divers turn up and need escorting. obviously you'll need to maintain the divers - food, water, shelter, air. Some may need paying but i'm sure the other divers will be only too happy to pay a few quid to use a professionally maintained diver and save the seahorses.

It need only be say £10 a head - that seems to be the going rate for "donations" to the SHT when they have taken people swimming before and as a % of the total cost that an expensive hobby like diving must cost then it seems churlish for you to refuse.

So SHT - prepared to accept my proposal?

 

[Sans Bateau]

originally posted by sht Just ask yourselves which causes more damage. Boats anchoring or divers swimming through the area. Not too hard is it?
[/QUOTE]

Now I have to admit I have no more scientific evidence than you have, but applying a little logic based on what I have viewed on Countryfile. Your right, its not too hard to decide which is more damaging, boats have been anchored in Studland for 100's of years, the ecology has thrived. I suspect if you could ask a seahorse, he would be happier to be left to enjoy the environment to which he has been accustomed than to have 1000's (SHT's numbers dont forget) of divers 'visiting' him with some of them dragging him about and stretching him to see how long he is.

Your right, its not hard to decide, is it?

 

[mandlmaunder]

I said I came in peace. It is difficult to remain paeceful in the faceof such hostility. I notice that some would like to ban diving. No one has suggested banningboats - just restricting anchoring.

Just ask yourselves which causes more damage. Boats anchoring or divers swimming through the area. Not too hard is it?

Ive had a hard day at work. Im off to elax now.

Ok I asked myself who is causing more harm to the seahorses and it has to be some one coming along and handling them.

Of course no one here is going to want to ban boating in Studland Bay this is after all a sailing forum run by sailors for sailors where other interested parties are welcome to come and share their views, but don't confuse not wanting to ban sailing on a particular site with hostility, there is a huge difference.

The last time the SHT came on to these pages to enlist the help of boaters to ban boating that didn't go down to well then either.

Addendum - these are my views and nothing to do with the forum, but my views are tainted by 24 years as a diving professional and 14 as a sailing professional, so maybe not unbiased but at least based on my personal observation of the human condition in many and varied circumstances.

Mark
PADI instructor and RYA YM com end