MMO Report on Studland

[SaltyC]

At the risk of invoking anarchy. I have now received the MMO report for Studland bay No Anchor Zone. Hmmmm, for those of a certain age who did 'New Mathematics' at school there was a section on lies, Damn lies and Statistics. This definitely falls into the latter (In my opinion). My cynical view is a Quango trying to justify its existence. There is no increase in Seahorses (the prime objective??) but, there is an increase in evidence of Seagrass recovery where people can no longer anchor - stating the obvious? More people are using eco moorings - there weren't any previously so numbers would increase. A statement of the obvious, the paper shufflers claiming credit for an obvious result. Costs are going up - Quelle surprise! My thoughts are, we now have an MMO report which cost thousands (of our money) stating the obvious but has made no difference to the Seahorses? I am obviously missing something so will retire to my Anderson shelter.

 

[st599]

Seahorses?

The renewal is part of the UK Governments blue carbon initiative to get to net zero by rewilding the sea bed (which reduces the need to do things on land).
Seabed mapping crucial to protecting our oceans

"Re-align and restore 20% of the UK’s saltmarsh and seagrass habitats by 2030. The UK has lost more than 90% of its seagrass meadows since the 1930s, making those remaining saltmarsh and seagrass habitats an essential blue carbon habitat on UK coasts."

 

[SaltyC]

My understanding of the initial campaign was for the seahorses.
Mission drift!

Sorry but we now gave MMO attempting a no anchor zone in our area. May stop 12 boats a year anchoring. Easy win and big headline.

Apologies but very cynical.

 

[Boathook]

Seahorses?

The renewal is part of the UK Governments blue carbon initiative to get to net zero by rewilding the sea bed (which reduces the need to do things on land).
Seabed mapping crucial to protecting our oceans

"Re-align and restore 20% of the UK’s saltmarsh and seagrass habitats by 2030. The UK has lost more than 90% of its seagrass meadows since the 1930s, making those remaining saltmarsh and seagrass habitats an essential blue carbon habitat on UK coasts."

Studland seagrass has been expanding since the mid 1970's when I first started to visit, without the so called help of government or other bodies.

 

[st599]

Studland seagrass has been expanding since the mid 1970's when I first started to visit, without the so called help of government or other bodies.

But that's only part of the issue if you read the Seabed Mapping docs - the trapped carbon is released if the seabed is disturbed.

So healthy seagrass growth isn't enough to meet the carbon levels the government have signed up for - they need to stop activities that disturb the bed too.

 

[Boathook]

But that's only part of the issue if you read the Seabed Mapping docs - the trapped carbon is released if the seabed is disturbed.

So healthy seagrass growth isn't enough to meet the carbon levels the government have signed up for - they need to stop activities that disturb the bed too.

It's a miniscule amount compared so what the government(s) cause.

I could go on, but the thread will be pulled !

 

[Chiara’s slave]

It's a miniscule amount compared so what the government(s) cause.

I could go on, but the thread will be pulled !

I’m not sure that whitehall and an excess of hot air is a new issue or a political one.

 

[oldharry]

The Studland debate iitially centered on the claimed destruction of seahorse habitat by anchors. However the emphasis shifted over the ensuing years to the preservation of the seagrass beds along with the wide range of species habitats it provides. The carbon seqestration argument came in relatively late in the argument.

And the cost? Nobody knows, but I would say with the insight of many years direct involvement, the overall costs since the seahorse people first started shouting around 2007 probably runs in to many millions of tax payers money. At the height of the debate circa 2015-16 I estimated the cost to be in excess of £2m. A huge amount of time and work has been invested since on studies, reports and surveys which must by now have accrued a total cost well in to 8 figures. Numerous agencies have been involved apart from NE and MMO, including DEFRA, the House of Commons Science Committee, Dorset County Council, Poole Harbour Commissioners, Southampton University Oceanic Dept, Fisheries, Crown Estates, to name but a few.

It all seems an awful lot of money and effort for a small patch of seagrass which really was doing pretty well left to its own devices, and as far as we could see was never really under threat in the first place! It is inevitable the MMO will justify themselves by reporting the seagrass to be growing, but it was anyway!

Thrughout the period 1996 - 2020 records show that the seagrass bed was proliferating and expanding. Oh look! its growing back over that bare patch - proves we were right! No. It proves nothing: its been spreading itself across the bay wherever there is bare sand consistentlay over the last 75 years! So its doing nothing new.

Since then it has grown from a patch of a few square metres to possibly as much as 150 hectares. Appearance of new growth is simply not evidence of 'recovery'. Its been doing it for 75 years! And throughout that time boats have been anchoring in it. Everywhere in the Bay new shoots appear by the hundred thousands each year! The Studland species Z marina is well nown as a hardy, faast growing plant.

The fault really lies with the Seahorse fans who from day one antagonised local residents and the boatig community by making what most of us saw as totally unreasonable claims and demands.

And before anyone jumps down my throat, Swansea University achieved an entirely satisfactory outcome protecting the eelgrass beds simply by going to the local boating community and saying 'look guys, we have a problem - lets sit down together and see how we can resolve it" Within a very short time a solution was found which was entirely acceptable to the boating community, while allowing conservation objectives to be met almost in their entirety.