Jennycliff Bay anchoring restrictions

[oldmanofthehills]

The thing is that you are overlooking the fact that anchoring is not damaging to the type of eelgrass that grows here.

Anchoring and banging in spiky things is bound to be damaging to the plant cover and to claim otherwise displays some ignorance of ecology. We have the same issue winter climbing in Scotland. Now whether the damage is so slight as to be tolerable is another question.

The BMC line on banging picks into frozen turf, is basically "Dont unless there is no other reasonable way of preserving life" and as an responsible sailor I will take the same line if plausible authority tells me not to throw a hefty plough into certain sea grass beds

 

[Seven Spades]

It is like sticking a pin in a football field and you clearly have not been keeping up. Have you see the situation at Studland where the eel grass has expanded and expanded to cover acres of the bay whilst hosting boat. Boats have had no detrimental effect on the bay, it is ignorance to claim otherwise.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

It is like sticking a pin in a football field and you clearly have not been keeping up. Have you see the situation at Studland where the eel grass has expanded and expanded to cover acres of the bay whilst hosting boat. Boats have had no detrimental effect on the bay, it is ignorance to claim otherwise.

If I come into s end of jennycliff or studland seeking shelter in raging storm but with no engine or reasonable way to go elsewhere I will anchor there whatever and I doubt the authorities would tell me off in the circumstances.

To claim that boats have no impact at all on eelgrass is implausible. I cannot for the life of me think why you would believe otherwise, and wonder where on earth you have got that information from. It simply flies in the face of science or our understanding of plants.

 

[Seven Spades]

Have you not read any of the posts by Old Harry or Marlinspike? Studland is the perfect example. The eel grass has spread all over the bay. There is lots of photographic evidence to show the extent of the cover and its increase over the years. Anchoring has done nothing to stem this increase. To say that this is implausible is to completely ignore the evidence.
I doubt that you will find anyone here that does not support conservation, but all the evidence is that anchoring is not harming any eelgrass beds. It is even possible that it is helping. As I say it is like sticking a pin in a football field.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

Have you not read any of the posts by Old Harry or Marlinspike? Studland is the perfect example. The eel grass has spread all over the bay. There is lots of photographic evidence to show the extent of the cover and its increase over the years. Anchoring has done nothing to stem this increase. To say that this is implausible is to completely ignore the evidence.
I doubt that you will find anyone here that does not support conservation, but all the evidence is that anchoring is not harming any eelgrass beds. It is even possible that it is helping. As I say it is like sticking a pin in a football field.

I have most certainly have been keeping up, why on earth would you think otherwise? As a boater and a restituter of derelict land / gardener/botanist I have very considerable interest.

Studland restrictions are indeed a problem. Your claim that despite anchoring, the seagrass is expanding is hardly logical proof that anchoring has no impact. Maybe without anchoring it would expand faster and that would be great. I hope indeed some compromise is made at Studland and if it can flourish in some areas then we can anchor in other areas or eco mooring buoys can be added. I dont know if the Bankes Arms still have their moorings - insurance liability might have stopped that - but they were very handy on my last transit a few years ago.

Jennycliff is literally another kettle of fish. The heavy boating and navy traffic in Plymouth sound must play havoc with the ecosystem, and the seas off Devon and Cornwall are of vital ecological importance, and of great significance to Plymouth and S Cornish fishing fleets, and breeding grounds for the fry are vital. The eelgrass in sheltered waters performs a vital function as a nursery and its about time that more fish usage moved from resource depleting hunter-gather mode to something more like farming

You cant make an omelette without breaking eggs, and loss of anchoring rights in S Jennycliff sadly might be that egg.

We live in a world where eco collapse and mass extinctions are an ongoing issue and the survival of human civilisations is actually at risk, so refraining from anchoring at one end of one small bay is an irritation not a major sacrifice considering all things

 

[oldharry]

1. MMO have stated categorically that safety at sea takes priority over any conservation management regulations. The issue is, what constitutes an emergency. I have worked for many years on this with the various authorities, and am still asking where the 'cut off' point is between an emergency and a minor inconvenience. The current issue I am addressing with them is the fact that 90% of emergencies can be prevented by appropriate action, which may involve anchoring. How do you identify something that has not happened yet? We all know the 'domino effect' of a minor mishap escalating rapidly into a major issue. We also know, and MMO now understand that the skills, equipment and experience, and more importantly the perceptions of the people involved dictate whether a scenario should be regarded as a developing emergency

2. Nobody with any understanding of the issues suggests that anchors do not cause disturbance to the seabed. MCZ legislation demands a regime which maintains 'sustainable use' of the environment. We have gathered numerous research papers which demonstrate that the specific species of seagrass present in UK waters, Zostera marina, popular name eelgrass, is well able to withstand and recover rapidly from far greater disturbance than Studland ever suffers. Natural England, instead of checking Studland out, have borrowed evidence from other entirely dissimilar areas, involving other species of seagrass, and without checking the facts, applied it to Studland. The same species of seagrass is present in the other anchorages now being discussed.

3. The claim that 92% of UK seagrass has been lost is spurious. It was nearly all destroyed by disease in the early 1930's, right across Europe. It has been recovering ever since: Studland had a couple of hundred square metres in 1960. Since then it has spread to 96 hectares of apparently healthy eelgrass. We have done limited video drop ground truthing to verify its condition. We then took random frames and checked the standard parameters for eelgrass health, described throughout the research literature, and found Studland to be well up the table for good health. We were also unable to find any evidence of anchor damage that is supposed to be present, even in the most popular part of the anchorage. Another team of seagrass experts rated Studland as the 2nd best eelgrass site in the country. (Unwin and Jones 2016)

As to the seahorses. There is ample evidence they disappear for years at a time. It is fatuous to suggest there is an 'established colony'. Locals know they are occasional visitors, but their 1st hand testimony doesnt suit certain agendas, so is dismissed as 'anecdotal'.

It remains one of the most heavily used anchorages in UK. We therefore argue that anchoring in Studland is an entirely sustainable activity as defined by MCZ legislation. Yes, there might be minor improvement if people didnt anchor all over it, but the evidence of the rate of growth, expansion, and condition show there is no need at this stage to reduce or control anchoring, and that Nat Eng's 'recovery' designation is incorrect. This wouldn't matter except that stopping people anchoring will prevent many thousands of people from enjoying the beauty of this place - an invaluable asset in the overcrowded south of UK, and specially post lockdown! Studland is estimated to receive 1.25m visitors each year (National Trust figures), many arriving in their boats.

 

[oldharry]

I have most certainly have been keeping up, why on earth would you think otherwise? As a boater and a restituter of derelict land / gardener/botanist I have very considerable interest.

Studland restrictions are indeed a problem. Your claim that despite anchoring, the seagrass is expanding is hardly logical proof that anchoring has no impact. Maybe without anchoring it would expand faster and that would be great. I hope indeed some compromise is made at Studland and if it can flourish in some areas then we can anchor in other areas or eco mooring buoys can be added. I dont know if the Bankes Arms still have their moorings - insurance liability might have stopped that - but they were very handy on my last transit a few years ago.

Jennycliff is literally another kettle of fish. The heavy boating and navy traffic in Plymouth sound must play havoc with the ecosystem, and the seas off Devon and Cornwall are of vital ecological importance, and of great significance to Plymouth and S Cornish fishing fleets, and breeding grounds for the fry are vital. The eelgrass in sheltered waters performs a vital function as a nursery and its about time that more fish usage moved from resource depleting hunter-gather mode to something more like farming

You cant make an omelette without breaking eggs, and loss of anchoring rights in S Jennycliff sadly might be that egg.

We live in a world where eco collapse and mass extinctions are an ongoing issue and the survival of human civilisations is actually at risk, so refraining from anchoring at one end of one small bay is an irritation not a major sacrifice considering all things

Studland is the first case where consumer use conflicts with conservation need in UK waters. It is vital for future proposals that we develop an agenda that maintains a sustainable natural environment, while as far as possible meeting the social and economic needs of the people who use it.

Blanket bans 'just in case' (the precautionary principle) are all very well, but in our overcrowded world we must establish a workable balance. Its no good just writing human populations out of the equation. we are a large part of the problem, and as we see in S American rainforests, if what we set up cannot be maintained because people do not understand what is needed, then they will just take the law into their own hands. The same will happen in marine conservation. Unless we can AGREE together to act, it just becomes a paper exercise. A criticism already levelled at the MCZ process because it is largely unenforceable. Education, not legislation.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

Studland is the first case where consumer use conflicts with conservation need in UK waters. It is vital for future proposals that we develop an agenda that maintains a sustainable natural environment, while as far as possible meeting the social and economic needs of the people who use it.

Blanket bans 'just in case' (the precautionary principle) are all very well, but in our overcrowded world we must establish a workable balance. Its no good just writing human populations out of the equation. we are a large part of the problem, and as we see in S American rainforests, if what we set up cannot be maintained because people do not understand what is needed, then they will just take the law into their own hands. The same will happen in marine conservation. Unless we can AGREE together to act, it just becomes a paper exercise. A criticism already levelled at the MCZ process because it is largely unenforceable. Education, not legislation.

I quite agree concerning Studland priority as a place of refuge and passage anchorage, where there are large areas of seagrass. The other significant conflict area is Dale Bay in Milford sound where the club moorings and visitors moorings already possibly overlap nursery areas, though it can be reasonably argued that moorings and outer pontoon are not inherently damaging to the ecosystem as much as anchoring. Achieving balance needs give and take.

 

[doug748]

Studland is the first case where consumer use conflicts with conservation need in UK waters. It is vital for future proposals that we develop an agenda that maintains a sustainable natural environment, while as far as possible meeting the social and economic needs of the people who use it.

Blanket bans 'just in case' (the precautionary principle) are all very well, but in our overcrowded world we must establish a workable balance. Its no good just writing human populations out of the equation. we are a large part of the problem, and as we see in S American rainforests, if what we set up cannot be maintained because people do not understand what is needed, then they will just take the law into their own hands. The same will happen in marine conservation. Unless we can AGREE together to act, it just becomes a paper exercise. A criticism already levelled at the MCZ process because it is largely unenforceable. Education, not legislation.

Excellent. Tough work getting those points across to the green fundamentalists though

However a chink of light....................

Some of the publicity put out in the media over the seagrass planting has been absurd. The viewer is invited to consider two "facts":
1) 90 plus percent of seagrass has been lost.
2) Seagrass is damaged by small boats.
Three of the four organisations principally involved are, individually, not much better in their publicity. But, there is one ray of sunshine on the Marine Conservation Society website:

Seagrass planting programme gets underway

Dr Jean Luc Solandt says:

“We’ve also sought funding to support installation of moorings that avoid ‘chain scrape’ on the seabed in Plymouth, allowing boating and seagrass to live side by side. Our networks of volunteers and educators are informing the wider public of these solutions.”
He added: “There are many positive solutions to the environmental and climate crisis that don’t have to involve blanket bans...."


Now it may be that Dr Solandt has an enlightened stance, he has done much work in the Plymouth Fishery, or it may be that the consortium has rumbled that bans are unlikely to wash in the orbit of the Queens Harbourmaster Plymouth. Either way it is good to see that partnership is on the agenda given the divisive fiasco at Studland.


If you like the MCS stance, it would help if as many people as possible gave them an Email to tell them so.
If you are in the RYA you might ask them why this stunning idea has had to come from a third party

.

 

[oldharry]

Yes, there is a growing awreness of the fact that conservation dirven roughshod over 'the rest' is just not going to work. Dr Unwin was one fo the few people on the 1st MMO Webinar to speak sense, taking the same line as Dr Solandt. Unwin has already pioneered work at Dale with significant success. Where was the RYA? - out planting seagrass.....

 

[DJE]

On your last point, if our boats ever go electric with diesel banned, our powered craft will be doomed to recharge in marinas anyway. Sailors on moorings will have to learn to do without engines when making passage.

Hydrogen, biodiesel, direct air capture of CO2 are all possible sustainable alternatives for powered craft.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

Hydrogen, biodiesel, direct air capture of CO2 are all possible sustainable alternatives for powered craft.

Indeed I hope some solution is found but I doubt your suggestions will benefit yachters

Biodiesel merely shifts the problem and is a eco disaster if applied widely. More rainforests and wilderness with their CO2 absorbing capacity depleted to produce crops for fuel which produces CO2. Probably not be enough capacity from existing food waste to supply the yachting market as trucks for our food and other goods must take priority.

I do not know why folks are so obsessed with batteries as despite over 120 years of research we have little more than doubled the capacity. I wish we went for fuel cells as then potential slightly inefficient but fairly extensive solar power converters could make quite a lot. Hower that is not how the auto industry is going and yachting will remain a niche market. Further, having just spent nearly £7000 re-engining our craft I doubt I could afford an even more complex unit in ten years time. Fuel cells and a hydrogen tanks are more expensive than the humble ICE supplied from basically a tin bucket.

CO2 capture is expensive and difficult to manage on large powerstation chimneys let alone in small yachts, and might even be fairly irrelevant once we run out of oil.

I fear we will simply have electric outboards or oars to shift us to and off our mooring, and then will have to sail with the tides as in the old days. The whole world faces an energy crisis, us sailors are not first priority.

 

[DJE]

Indeed I hope some solution is found but I doubt your suggestions will benefit yachters

Nobody said it was going to be easy. Lots of technology needs to develop very quickly. We need net zero solutions for aviation and commercial shipping. The leisure boating solution will be a spin off from these.

 

[Sandy]

I fear we will simply have electric outboards or oars to shift us to and off our mooring, and then will have to sail with the tides as in the old days. The whole world faces an energy crisis, us sailors are not first priority.

You might be interested to look at

Login • Instagram

They are not the first to go to an electric motor on a boat, for me the return on capital is too long.

 

[penfold]

I do not know why folks are so obsessed with batteries as despite over 120 years of research we have little more than doubled the capacity. I wish we went for fuel cells as then potential slightly inefficient but fairly extensive solar power converters could make quite a lot. Hower that is not how the auto industry is going and yachting will remain a niche market. Further, having just spent nearly £7000 re-engining our craft I doubt I could afford an even more complex unit in ten years time. Fuel cells and a hydrogen tanks are more expensive than the humble ICE supplied from basically a tin bucket.

A good lead acid battery has 40Wh/kg, lithium iron phosphate cells have 160Wh/kg and they were new tech 15 years ago, there are better performing battery chemistries available off the shelf now. The energy density doesn't tell the whole story though as SLA can't be discharged much past 50% without incurring damage and are done by a few hundred cycles, LiFePo can be cycled between ~20% and ~80% up to 2000 times. Cost per Wh is falling steadily.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

A good lead acid battery has 40Wh/kg, lithium iron phosphate cells have 160Wh/kg and they were new tech 15 years ago, there are better performing battery chemistries available off the shelf now. The energy density doesn't tell the whole story though as SLA can't be discharged much past 50% without incurring damage and are done by a few hundred cycles, LiFePo can be cycled between ~20% and ~80% up to 2000 times. Cost per Wh is falling steadily.

In a few decades size of electronics has diminished over a thousand fold and that is the primary driver of mobile phone capability, the power of computers has probably increased way more orders of magnitude. A four or five fold increase in battery capability is not even an order of magnitude though better cycling does help as you say. Some technologies can only go so far. A better stone axe is still only a stone axe.

Hydrogen or hydrazine fuel cells could achieve better power densities than diesel or gasoline, batteries so far can not. Hydrogen or hydrazine could be transported to craft. Craft need to go to charging point if they have batteries. However as I said the UK government and the car industry seem obsessed with batteries

 

[penfold]

That's a real world power density increase of over 20-fold.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

That's a real world power density increase of over 20-fold.

So fairly trivial compared with any other electrical technology developed over the same period, if starting from a fairly low baseline.

The ICE has only doubled or tripled in power since 1945, but the power/weight rato of the WW2 era engines was pretty good.

You leave me unconvinced.

 

[penfold]

That's in the last 25 years. You are a luddite.

 

[DJE]

I do not know why folks are so obsessed with batteries as despite over 120 years of research we have little more than doubled the capacity.

That's a real world power density increase of over 20-fold.

So fairly trivial compared with any other electrical technology developed over the same period, if starting from a fairly low baseline.

Goalposts moving at alarming speed.