Joint management proposal for Studland Bay: BORG's reply

[oldharry]

BORG has turned down the Sea Horse Trust suggestion to form a 'Joint Management Group' for Studland Bay.

Firstly, such a group would be self appointed, and would have no mandate or authority whatsoever over what actually happens in the Bay.

Secondly, DEFRA is shortly to make decisions about the Bay anyway. They are not open to further public submissions at this stage. These decisions will, once approved by the Minister, be legally binding on all of us anyway.

Thirdly, DEFRA has spent five years gathering information from all of us about the Bay. They do not need yet another stakeholder group coming in at this late stage. It is hard to see what contribution it would have anyway.W e all know where each other stands!

MMO likewise has spent four years discussing with all the people listed as possible members of the proposed Management Group and quite a few others already. Are we really not going to fight if we meet under a different heading?

MMO will have the information, the funding and the legal right to make final decisions about the Bay, and to enforce them - they know what we all think. It will be for them to decide how the Bay is managed. I would add that they have behaved impeccably and with total impartiality throughout, so that any decision they make is unlikely to be biased in anybody's favour.

What is there to discuss? Anchoring does not damage the Bay. Period. It doesn't need Eco friendly moorings if no damage is being done in the first place. Our evidence? 1996 - 2008 the eelgrass front encroached inshore by an average of ten metres - fully documented evidence of this. Seagrass shoot counts are the standard means of assessing seagrass health: Studland shoot counts are well within the normal range for eelgrass beds on the South Coast, and are in fact slightly better than beds in Weymouth Bay which are NOT anchored in! Anchoring has taken place since time immemorial - what has changed now? Such a group could only work if there was a common ground to work from. There is not unless we admit to damaging the eelgrass.

 

[prv]

All very sound.

If it's an official reply, though, be careful of the word "admit" in the last sentence. You "admit" to something you have actually done, with connotations of having previously lied about not doing it. That is obviously not applicable here!

Pete

 

[jdc]

I think your arguments are logical, but nonetheless olive branches have been few and far between so far and it might be worth exploring if there is any common ground. There should be since yachtsmen are concerned with the environment and the environmentalists are energetic and motivated to protect, even if we frequently disagree on detail and a-priori assumptions.

Furthermore, let's suppose for a moment that those hitherto in favour of banning anchoring have all had a 'Damascus Road' moment and are now persuaded by BORG's logic and research; what would be a good faith and logical response be? Very likely to contact BORG and say "let's join forces and work together to protect this area we both love". There may be other threats, and I'm sure we would find common cause quick enough were Studland to be proposed as a site for dumping nuclear waste (ok, this is a ludicrous example, but you get the idea).

 

[JumbleDuck]

I think your arguments are logical, but nonetheless olive branches have been few and far between so far and it might be worth exploring if there is any common ground. There should be since yachtsmen are concerned with the environment and the environmentalists are energetic and motivated to protect, even if we frequently disagree on detail and a-priori assumptions.

Olive branches are nice, but I can't see any reason why pressure groups like SHT - or BORG - should be allowed to manage a public resource.

 

[oldharry]

A Damascus road experience - if only! What is not obvious from Neil Garrick-Maidments offer, and our response is that it comes at the end of a long exchange of emails with him over the Anchoring and Eelgrass issue. The fundamental issue is whether anchoring is threatening the wildlife in the Bay. To us, to the Studlanders who know their Bay better than anybody, and the environmental experts at RYA the evidence is abundantly clear that anchoring is a very minor issue.

To compromise on that issue would not only be to betray the Villagers and the RYA, but would be to 'admit' and I use that word advisedly both here and in my first post as PRV highlighted, that we are in the wrong and know it. The first post was not the official reply BTW, but a summary of our position written for the forum. The word 'admit' does not appear in the official reply!

The 'official' email interchange is the public side of the debate in which we respond formally to each other I have spent a lot of time 'networking' to build channels of private communications with various key figures like Neil G-M, so that we are able to discuss things 'off the record' in some depth. and this has on more than once helped in defusing a difficult situation. I would hear about it soon enough off the record if there was any change of heart. I also have a pretty good idea of what was behind this particular appeal.

There are two fundamental issues on which we can not compromise: anchoring, and agenda based science. If we DO compromise, then any conservation plans for the bay will be also compromised, would be less effective, as they would address the wrong issues, and we risk being excluded unnecessarily from this and other important and beautiful locations around the coast. It would set a very dangerous precedent, and I am aware of a number of other conservation suggestions which could affect our sport far more widely and profoundly.

Although things have been pretty quiet here on the forum this year, there has been a great deal of behind the scenes activity as we prepare for the next round, make contact with the key people in the debate, and work to get our points of view established and included.

Perhaps one day I will write a book about it all! But lets wait to see the outcome first.

 

[oldharry]

Olive branches are nice, but I can't see any reason why pressure groups like SHT - or BORG - should be allowed to manage a public resource.

++1