Joint management of Studland Bay?

[Mark-1]

www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/536551/armistice-called-over-studland-bay#LRlcq7oCp5Iql2HY.99

My initial thought is "no way".

This is a question of fact, the truth isn't half way between two extreme opinions. If anchoring is harming sea horses in Studland Bay, and if those sea horses are rare or unique to Studland Bay then clearly anchoring should not be allowed on Sea Horse habitat in Studland Bay. If, on the other hand, the evidence shows anchoring does no harm to Sea Horse habitat and/or Sea Horses have enough habitat elsewhere and are not especially rare then there is no need for an anchor ban. Whatever the truth a wooly compromise will not be the right action.

This offer suggests Borg have won the argument and the facts do not favour an anchor ban.

 

[Grumpybear]

He knows he's on a loser, methinks. This way, he could do his own thing while an oversized committee holds interminable meetings wrangling over the small print of the minutes and voting on trivial points of order.....

 

[glashen]

www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/536551/armistice-called-over-studland-bay#LRlcq7oCp5Iql2HY.99

My initial thought is "no way".

My initial thought, they lost and are looking to get something, anything out of the process. But truth is if the government do propose Studland as a MCZ it will happen whatever the seahorse trust say, they aren't losing anything saying this.

I hope though it does show that the writing is on the wall and Barmy ideas like Studland being a no anchor zone will soon be a bad memory.

 

[jac]

I think no.

They have still not proved why any change to the status quo is needed. This looks to me like a desperate man clutching at straws. If he has had enough, then let him give up and realise that the truth will eventually out.

Agreeing to this proposal would be like almost eliminating a disease then keeping some people infected in order to protect diversity.

The parasite of the SHT has been roundly beaten, thanks to the work of Old Harry, BORG, The RYA, the SBPA and probably many others. Now is not the time to let up, in case they try to repeat the battle.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Oooh, someone's rattled, isn't he? I wonder if there is any outside evidence to support the claim that as a diver in Studland Bay [he] has been buzzed by motor-boats, had beer cans thrown at him, been threatened with boothooks and had verbal abuse thrown at him ... ?

 

[Robin]

I think no.

They have still not proved why any change to the status quo is needed. This looks to me like a desperate man clutching at straws. If he has had enough, then let him give up and realise that the truth will eventually out.

Agreeing to this proposal would be like almost eliminating a disease then keeping some people infected in order to protect diversity.

The parasite of the SHT has been roundly beaten, thanks to the work of Old Harry, BORG, The RYA, the SBPA and probably many others. Now is not the time to let up, in case they try to repeat the battle.

+10, I wouldn't trust the SHT as far as I could chuck a seahorse into a gale, :disgust:

 

[Daydream believer]

+10, I wouldn't trust the SHT as far as I could chuck a seahorse into a gale, :disgust:

So it is not loss of eelgrass causing the demise of the seahorse -- it is you chucking them away

 

[oldgit]

At some point in the future, wether you like it or not, you probably will be picking up a telephone to book a spot in Studland.

 

[Nicholas123]

I read an article recently saying that they were still babelling on about environmentally friendly moorings.I just think the blokes a menace & should be isolated.

 

[Keith 66]

His website states that the RYA have accepted anchoring damages eelgrass & harms seahorses. Therfore the sheeple will believe it.

 

[prv]

His website states that the RYA have accepted anchoring damages eelgrass & harms seahorses. Therfore the sheeple will believe it.

I'm not generally a fan of libel lawsuits, but in this case...

Pete

 

[Tranona]

I'm not generally a fan of libel lawsuits, but in this case...

Pete

Suggest you read the RYA paper on the subject. They do say that anchoring can damage seagrass and suggest ways of minimising damage.

However, the issue is not about localised damage, but about the effect (or not) that it has on the health of the seagrass - and by association the seahorse population. It is those links that are unproven and the evidence suggests that the seagrass easily recovers and more importantly is healthier and more extensive than in the past.

The SHT website also says the seahorse population has "crashed" over the last 5 years, but forgets to say that is primarily because the number of dives looking for seahorses has also crashed since our friend Steve gave up looking and redirected his efforts to other parts of the Dorset coast.

 

[Birdseye]

www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/536551/armistice-called-over-studland-bay#LRlcq7oCp5Iql2HY.99

My initial thought is "no way".

This is a question of fact, the truth isn't half way between two extreme opinions. If anchoring is harming sea horses in Studland Bay, and if those sea horses are rare or unique to Studland Bay then clearly anchoring should not be allowed on Sea Horse habitat in Studland Bay.

.

Why? You cant eat them. You cant use them in your engine. You cant take them for a walk. Why do seahorses matter at all? Like lots of other things that dont matter from bluebottles to whelks to ants to Ed Balls. In short sailing is more important than sea horses.

 

[Robin]

So it is not loss of eelgrass causing the demise of the seahorse -- it is you chucking them away

We used to eat them on toast with garlic butter when we lived and kept our boat in Poole, but now we live in the USA and the darn things don't keep long enough unrefrigerated to ship or get someone to bring over. We are currently investigating preserved ones however.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

We used to eat them on toast with garlic butter when we lived and kept our boat in Poole, but now we live in the USA and the darn things don't keep long enough unrefrigerated to ship or get someone to bring over. We are currently investigating preserved ones however.

The Americans must have their own seahorses. They'll be bigger, noisier and lack taste though.

 

[Robin]

The Americans must have their own seahorses. They'll be bigger, noisier and lack taste though.

Ain't dat da troof!

 

[Seajet]

I can't help wondering if divers bothering the seahorses is the reason for them clearing off elsewhere; if flash photography is out of the rules, one would have thought catching, manhandling and tagging them would be a definite ' no - no ', as would hosting paying diving parties...