Nat Eng Updates it's advice on Studland to answer criticisms

[oldharry]

Clearly worried by a growing feeling that the things we and others have been saying about the science being unsupported and unsupportable, NE have published an update, quoting sources and their justification for making the recommendations:

https://designatedsites.naturalengl...son=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea=&NumMarineSeasonality=

To access the data tick a box on the features list, then click on 'Show attributes and targets for selected features'

One could almost say that they have gone through the BORG critiques and tried to answer each point in turn. They admit that some of what they say is based on experience elsewhere, and each point concludes that this target has been set using "expert judgment based on the knowledge and sensitivity of the feature to activities are occuring / have occurred on the site" which is not the way they described it previously.

The tables conclude: "These tables bring together the findings of the best available scientific evidence which may be updated or supplemented in further publications from Natural England and other sources. You may decide to use other additional sources of information" In declaring this, they specifically tie it to the wording of the MCZ legislation which calls for the 'best available scientific evidence' to be used in detrmining management options.

This advice they say is updatable. The invitation 'to use other sources of information' carries the implication that it may not BE the best available scientific information. It does seem pretty wooly when you look closely at the possible effects of long term use as an anchorage.



Marlynspyke commented in passing it to me that answering it will be 'a bit like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling'!

 

[penfold]

Nice of them to contradict themselves; an open goal is always welcome.

 

[PhillM]

"answering it will be 'a bit like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling'!

I suspect that is the whole point. From their perspective its trying to say "argument over".

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Have you and MarlynSpyke tried to publish your results of observations of the seagrass at Studland Bay in a recognized journal? From what I've seen, your existing studies are eminently publishable, and MartlynSpyke has (I understand) the requisite academic background. If it were to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (ideally one of good standing), then NE wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[lustyd]

then NE wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

That would depend on who is judging the "best available scientific evidence". Best isn't particularly specific and could mean best for proving seagrass is endangered.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

That would depend on who is judging the "best available scientific evidence". Best isn't particularly specific and could mean best for proving seagrass is endangered.

To do that would undermine NE's credibility in the very community they depend on.

 

[PhillM]

To do that would undermine NE's credibility in the very community they depend on.

Agreed. That’s a great idea.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

Have you and MarlynSpyke tried to publish your results of observations of the seagrass at Studland Bay in a recognized journal? From what I've seen, your existing studies are eminently publishable, and MartlynSpyke has (I understand) the requisite academic background. If it were to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (ideally one of good standing), then NE wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I have considered publishing in a recognised journal, but much of what I’ve published online is in the form of literature reviews, drawing attention to already published work which supports our case. I believe it to be more effective to submit our arguments directly, which I have been doing for the last 9 or 10 years, to Natural England, the MMO, and Defra on one occasion. They usually (but not always) find a way to wriggle around the argument – eg with the aerial pictures, “how can we know that it is actually seagrass we are looking at? Some of it might be algae” (i.e. seaweed). However they do read and consider the submissions, and I believe we have made real progress in weakening the establishment’s certainty on the central anchoring issue – but not yet enough.

To keep these arguments out in the open, I set up and maintain the BORG website so the documents are there on the internet, and they duly pop up in Google searches around the issue. The establishment cannot just ignore the points and hope they will go away. In all there are about 30 papers, submissions, summaries, etc. which I have written up on the BORG website. (boat owners response group )

I am not a marine scientist, my professional scientific life was in chemistry and photographic / imaging science. That required flexibility, and that flexibility was extended to the marine biological world when I became involved in the anchoring issues. I’ve been anchoring in Studland Bay when visiting since the mid 1990’s and am aware of the eelgrass situation. What these desk-jockey marine scientists don’t understand is that on a clear water day we can look over the side of the boat and see the eelgrass there beneath us, and it has been and remains there over decades.

If any reader out there can help in the scientific side of this please get in touch. The ongoing battle is a bit one-sided!

 

[Lodestone]

I have considered publishing in a recognised journal, but much of what I’ve published online is in the form of literature reviews, drawing attention to already published work which supports our case. I believe it to be more effective to submit our arguments directly, which I have been doing for the last 9 or 10 years, to Natural England, the MMO, and Defra on one occasion. They usually (but not always) find a way to wriggle around the argument – eg with the aerial pictures, “how can we know that it is actually seagrass we are looking at? Some of it might be algae” (i.e. seaweed). However they do read and consider the submissions, and I believe we have made real progress in weakening the establishment’s certainty on the central anchoring issue – but not yet enough.

To keep these arguments out in the open, I set up and maintain the BORG website so the documents are there on the internet, and they duly pop up in Google searches around the issue. The establishment cannot just ignore the points and hope they will go away. In all there are about 30 papers, submissions, summaries, etc. which I have written up on the BORG website. (boat owners response group )

I am not a marine scientist, my professional scientific life was in chemistry and photographic / imaging science. That required flexibility, and that flexibility was extended to the marine biological world when I became involved in the anchoring issues. I’ve been anchoring in Studland Bay when visiting since the mid 1990’s and am aware of the eelgrass situation. What these desk-jockey marine scientists don’t understand is that on a clear water day we can look over the side of the boat and see the eelgrass there beneath us, and it has been and remains there over decades.

If any reader out there can help in the scientific side of this please get in touch. The ongoing battle is a bit one-sided!

I would say that an aerial picture - as a form of remote sensing - requires a ground truth. Would sampling over the area of concern be of assistance? Aware of the MMO implications the word 'sampling' can mean many things. The Marine Licensing Interactive Assistance Tool implies that an agreed method needs to be reached with NE in order to physically sample the site as it is a MCZ. So how about bouncing the 'truth' onto NE and get them to demonstrate whether it is or isn't seagrass. A kind of 'put up or shut up' but to their purse?

 

[MarlynSpyke]

Thanks for the suggestion. The aerial images, now covering 1972 – 2020, are intended to show that the eelgrass coverage was not decreasing – in fact from 1972 – 2011 it was increasing, and from then to 2020 it seems to be holding steady. Obviously we cannot ground-truth the earlier years. However if we could ground-truth this year and if it was in agreement with the 2020 image, we could compare it with the 2005 image and prove an area increase, because the 2005 image clearly shows areas of unvegetated seabed – bare sand. No need to ground-truth that – there is clearly no vegetation whether it be eelgrass or algae in those areas. (See https://boatownersresponse.org.uk/aerials-2005-2020.pdf ).

There should be no need to physically contact the eelgrass, I did a limited (350 linear metres) video survey of the eelgrass in 2016 to prove that Garrick-Maidment was, shall we say, not describing the reality when he declared that area was “like an underwater desert” because of anchoring. I used a waterproof camera on a pole and obtained good images. No need for a licence or permission to photograph the stuff. (Underwater Videos )

However NE have resolutely avoided actually surveying the eelgrass beds because what would they do if their survey showed increasing area? Best for them to avoid looking, then. It seems that there was a Defra survey in 2018, showing 82 ha of eelgrass bed, but it does not seem to have been published. So, thanks again for raising the point, I suddenly feel a Freedom of Information request coming on!

 

[JumbleDuck]

I am not a marine scientist, my professional scientific life was in chemistry and photographic / imaging science. That required flexibility, and that flexibility was extended to the marine biological world when I became involved in the anchoring issues. I’ve been anchoring in Studland Bay when visiting since the mid 1990’s and am aware of the eelgrass situation. What these desk-jockey marine scientists don’t understand is that on a clear water day we can look over the side of the boat and see the eelgrass there beneath us, and it has been and remains there over decades.

Maybe a paper or technical note on the use of aerial photography to assess seagrass coverage rather than something on the coverage directly?

 

[alahol2]

I noticed the following in that document...

Improvements in water quality are starting to counteract negative pressures (Jackson et al., 2013) but seagrass beds have not recovered to the extent reported before the large-scale die-offs from wasting disease in the 1920s and 1990s (Den Hartog, 1994). The aim in Marine Protected Areas should be to recover its extent to known historical levels.

I've also seen it stated that 'anecdotal' evidence is unacceptable.
Is there actual evidence that the current extent of the eel grass is less than 'historical levels' because they quote no source to support that statement of aims?

 

[penfold]

Someone would need to read "Suffocation of a littoral Zostera bed by Enteromorpha radiata" to find out; sounds riveting.

 

[DJE]

I noticed the following in that document...

Improvements in water quality are starting to counteract negative pressures (Jackson et al., 2013) but seagrass beds have not recovered to the extent reported before the large-scale die-offs from wasting disease in the 1920s and 1990s (Den Hartog, 1994). The aim in Marine Protected Areas should be to recover its extent to known historical levels.

I've also seen it stated that 'anecdotal' evidence is unacceptable.
Is there actual evidence that the current extent of the eel grass is less than 'historical levels' because they quote no source to support that statement of aims?

No you've missed the point. It's only anecdotal if it refutes their position. If it supports their position it's expert opinion.

 

[oldharry]

No you've missed the point. It's only anecdotal if it refutes their position. If it supports their position it's expert opinion.

.... And that sums up the whole problem we have had from day 1! The highly selective use of 'evidence'

 

[doug748]

No you've missed the point. It's only anecdotal if it refutes their position. If it supports their position it's expert opinion.

In one piece I saw anecdotal knowledge transformed into : "quantitative anecdotal data"

Because it suited the particular case



.

 

[Tranona]

That brings back happy (and not so happy) memories of what constitutes good data in research in the social sciences and particularly management. There were those who longed for data to be in numerical form as it was then deemed "hard" and "impartial" because it could be analysed and tested statistically. The difficulty with much of the research that NE prefers is that reliable hard data is difficult or impossible to obtain so is reliant on softer kinds of data which by their very nature are difficult to validate and therefore much more open to selectivity.

So NGM's crap observations of both anchor damage and seahorse activity are accepted but Marlyspyke's photographic evidence (supported observations from many knowledgeable individuals) even though supported by some "hard" numerical data is not. Why? because it does not support the preferred narrative.

 

[dgadee]

That brings back happy (and not so happy) memories of what constitutes good data in research in the social sciences and particularly management. There were those who longed for data to be in numerical form as it was then deemed "hard" and "impartial" because it could be analysed and tested statistically. The difficulty with much of the research that NE prefers is that reliable hard data is difficult or impossible to obtain so is reliant on softer kinds of data which by their very nature are difficult to validate and therefore much more open to selectivity.

So NGM's crap observations of both anchor damage and seahorse activity are accepted but Marlyspyke's photographic evidence (supported observations from many knowledgeable individuals) even though supported by some "hard" numerical data is not. Why? because it does not support the preferred narrative.

I have been there several times in my past career - often vicious debates. Never stopped me publishing my own narratives. If you don't you are letting science (of whatever nature) down.

 

[DJE]

Science in general has some serious problems at the moment. seems to me that funding arrangements are leading to huge pressures to publish and get citations at any cost.
Is science in trouble? An insight into the reproducibility crisis

 

[dgadee]

Science in general has some serious problems at the moment. seems to me that funding arrangements are leading to huge pressures to publish and get citations at any cost.
Is science in trouble? An insight into the reproducibility crisis

Science has always been in trouble. But it's a process, so you keep hammering away at it. And hope you are on the right side of the argument (eventually).