Natural Englandrespondsto freedom of information request about Studland.

[Tranona]

Yes the argument will always continue but we have seen the effects of non dredging zone as and the cascade effect of habitat reforming your argument has flaws as, in regards to sea horses they are protected species and therefore need to be protected now dropping an anchor excessivelyy I would imagine causes signicat damage to habitat and natural England's so called experts will have more data available to them than what we read in papers or freedom of information requests, the statistical analysis alone will include large data sets which will have been put through R

I am afraid you are wrong, apart from perhaps the fact that seahorses are a protected species. However this argument has already been rejected as there is no wilful damage to habitat. The claim that anchors "damage" seahorses in any way is just not supported by any evidence.

You have come late into this discussion so are not aware of the enormous amount of work that has been done by BORG in debunking the myths that surround this subject. You are also probably not aware but the main seahorse man has no academic scientific qualifications at all unlike a number here including those directly involved in BORG. Despite gaining some support from other well known publicity seekers this has not resulted in any improvement in his arguments and this support has ebbed away.

Rather than repeat a description of all the work done over the past 10 years or so to present the case from a boating point of view, I suggest you read all the material on the BORG website.

BTW one of the reasons why many of us have kept close to this issue is because there has been so little REAL research into the subject - mainly because there has been virtually no funding. So far only 3 projects have been funded. The only reasonably rigorous one was a no anchoring zone to assess the impact of anchoring on the beds. Of the other two, one was a public attitude survey and the other a survey of seahorses in a limited area. Both used somewhat flawed methodology and neither produced much of interest in the way of new data - that is what was reported was generally known already.

 

[Seajet]

"....when and if you became a Dr in your chosen field or a professor then you can challenge these experts .... "



I am starting to think there is a niff of trollery about this thread.

Firstly I must emphasize I'm speaking for myself, not BORG.

Agreed, the only question is whether the majority of the Seahorse lobby do it deliberatly for personal gain or are just suckered in by the Seahorse Trust and deluded.

I'd be very surpised indeed if Moomba's wife -apparently not willing or able to speak for herself or say exactly what doctorate she holds - has managed a fraction of the research BORG has done; in my time with them I researched, among other things, EFM's - Environmentally Friendly Moorings - after a lot of research I and others were able to say these things would be a lot worse than useless at Studland.

 

[bedouin]

Yes the argument will always continue but we have seen the effects of non dredging zone as and the cascade effect of habitat reforming your argument has flaws as, in regards to sea horses they are protected species and therefore need to be protected now dropping an anchor excessivelyy I would imagine causes signicat damage to habitat and natural England's so called experts will have more data available to them than what we read in papers or freedom of information requests, the statistical analysis alone will include large data sets which will have been put through R

In general I would tend to agree with you but in this specific case there is a lot more to it than would appear from this thread.

The sea horses have been surviving happily in the environment alongside the boaters for years and the habitat is clearly not seriously damaged by the activity otherwise such damage would be visible.

Dropping an retrieving a small boat anchor is not equivalent to dredging and a year of such activity will do much less damage than a single winter storm.

To some extent you illustrate the attitude the OP is complaining about. You are clearly well intentioned but jump in with assumptions that are not in fact correct in these particular circumstances

 

[GrahamD]

Re: Natural Englandrespondsto freedom of information request about Stuneralgicodland.

Hi Graham sorry for the punctuation I suffer from a serious neurological disease which in fact labels me disabled, some time this affects the way I reply to these forums , not that I should justify this nor did you know but I dont believe anyone truly writes to not make sense , so please be aware of this as you type away on your computer and make either sarcastic comments or using a way to try and get one upman ship on some one , as the other person might not be as whole as you.
now if you rely read hard you will get what I am saying , in that A. seahorses are a protected species. there will be a large number data sets included in this study , other studies around the UK have shown that by not destroying habitat, species diversity flourish which has a Hugh cascade effect on the rest of the flora and fauna not just in the bay, but will diverge outside , now as I said before I own a boat and anchor but if there is an alternative way, or I am told I can no longer anchor somewhere but mooring buoys are provided them I think this is a very sensible solution.
I am no expert in Ecology but my wife is and before I Became ill I was a marine biologist, so have a little knowledge on the subject matter , but there must always be a way in which we work with nature for all to enjoy .
Now I have proof read this a few times so if there is still mistakes I apologies to Graham

I was in no way trying to be sarcastic or was trying for one upmanship. I asked for clarification because I am genuinely interested in your view about the existence of extensive datasets, as good research and reliable data seem to be a significant omissions in the whole debate.

It is common sense that by when we cease to damage the environment, species will recover. However the point at contention at Studland is whether anchoring does inflict such damage to the sea grass. Do the available datasets to which you refer shed any light on this?

 

[oldharry]

Thanks all for comments both critical and otherwise. To answer Moomba's critique:

We are well aware that experts are supposed to be just that, people who can make an informed assessment of what is likely to be found in their field of expertise. Firstly a number of 'experts' have very much muddled things by reports that DEFRA once described as "biased and full of mistakes and errors". Marlynspyke is by training a PhD chemist with a lifetimes experience with Kodak Eastman and a specialisation in aerial photographic interpretation and has been able to advise on an aerial study of Studland for NE. BORG unlike some of those involved in Studland, does not pretend to be a Scientific organisation: we represent the boating visitors to the Bay: we know what we see there and continue to ask the Experts at NE why it does not accord with what they are saying. Marlynpykes lifetime experience of evaluation and analysis means he is able to 'speak the language' and communicate with experts at their level.

Yes we are well aware of the Precautionary Principle, but NE are not at this stage applying it. They continue to maintain that anchoring is causing damage. We are asking them to be more specific so that if intrusive or expensive management is to be used, we can be assured it will give the bay's wildlife the best possible chance.

NE does not have boating experts. We have, and are willing to work with them to find the best possible solutions if problems exist. RYA IS doing the same and take the same view - that the experts at NE need to take another look because their experts do not believe anchoring is causing more than a mild disturbance which should be well within the limits of sustainability. If not, why not?

Turning to seahorses, press coverage suggests this is what it is all about, as NGMs cute cuddlies will always attract headlines if someone is treading on their tails. In reality they are quite a long way down the list. Seahorse decline in Studland has been blamed on over exposure to investigators and seahorse tourism. The real evidence comes from the inshore fishing fleet. Over 50 have been seen on fishing gear in one day a few miles offshore. Howeve generally sightings ate not reported as they know NGM will interfere with their livelihood just as he is trying to interfere with Studland. If fishermans talesxare to be believed theycate actually quite common, but vety very good at hiding from neoprene clad predators! SHT research area is quite a small part of the total 96hectares of the Studland eelgrass, yet we are confidently told They are not there anymore! How long would it take 1 or 2 divers to examine 96 hectares of mainly dense eelgrass to find a highly camouflaged seahorse a few cms long? It's nonsense of course, but this is one of the 'expert's we are contesting.

Seahorses are not disturbed by boats. Your best chance of seeing one is in the Channel Marinas notably Brighton and St Peterport. The 'expert' advice is that the habitat has been totally destroyed by boats anchoring in the last 10 years. So what has changed? Nothing that we can see. The eelgrass is still there and certainly appears untouched and undamaged, and covering significantly larger area than 10 years ago, so what has been destroyed? In any case locals who know The Bay well tell us that they are often absent for a while. They come. They go. They come back again. Boats have been anchoring here for centuries. The eelgrass was destroyed by disease in the 1930s. In spite of the post war boating boom it's back and spreading vigorously.

So again we ask the experts 'what are the issues?

I would hope we would all echo your final sentiment Moomba, and do our bit to orotect our oceans, 0but how can Studland be addressed when there does not appear to be a problem in the first place? I could rabbit on here about the experts not taking into account the specifics of the type of eelgrass (NE consistently refers to seagrasses which are generally very fragile) Anchoring: what is a 'safe level? Or are they saying that any disturbance however small will cause problems? Well, that's not what they told me. EFMs? Fine. But they are expensive to buy and install and require careful regular maintenance. Also they must be matched fairly closely to the boat using them. How is that to be managed in a public anchorage? There is serious doubt they will even work in Studlands shallow water. But the experts don't answer this.... Anyway who pays? Us? It would likely cost more than marina berth. Anyway who puts up the capital to start it? NGM says that boaters should. There's expertise at work for you again!

I have often asked if anyone has looked at what other factors may be at play in the bay either to cause the so called anchor damage ( and no one has ever demonstrated that the features they are concerned about IS actually the result of anchoring. Very similar features are present well away from the anchorage)

I have been both laughed at and shouted down for suggesting for example that Nitrates pollution may be significant here. Algal bloom stimulated by nitrates is regularly present , and around 2015 actually destroyed an area of eelgrass. Nobody took any notice. However Dr Unwin of Swansea Uni Oceanographic Dept ( with whom incidentally Marlynspykes has had very positive contact) and who is one of UKs leading experts on UK eelgrass recently published a paper which showed that Stuland has one of the highest Nitrate pollution figures in UK. He rarely includes anchoring as a threat to eelgrass and has perhaps wisely kept well clear of this debate! So what else may be happening to the eelgrass that nobody knows about yet?

And finally, Seajet no we haven't forgotten your role in kickstarting BORG, and I'm still looking forward to seeing how your Anderson 22 compares to my Trident24 One of these days!

 

[moomba]

Firstly I must emphasize I'm speaking for myself, not BORG.

Agreed, the only question is whether the majority of the Seahorse lobby do it deliberatly for personal gain or are just suckered in by the Seahorse Trust and deluded.

I'd be very surpised indeed if Moomba's wife -apparently not willing or able to speak for herself or say exactly what doctorate she holds - has managed a fraction of the research BORG has done; in my time with them I researched, among other things, EFM's - Environmentally Friendly Moorings - after a lot of research I and others were able to say these things would be a lot worse than useless at Studland.

Really don't understand this comment regards to Wife I was only saying that experts are usely Drs in their field , and the so called experts like my wife study hard for this , and I have also stated in previous posts that My wife is A Dr in fresh water ecology and in no way was I saying that she is interested in this post just gave me a pointer to some facts to list, as I was a marine biologist I aslo do know something , you really need to read the posts before commenting
But this is the norm for these forums let belly rumble before engaging in brain

 

[moomba]

Thanks all for comments both critical and otherwise. To answer Moomba's critique:

We are well aware that experts are supposed to be just that, people who can make an informed assessment of what is likely to be found in their field of expertise. Firstly a number of 'experts' have very much muddled things by reports that DEFRA once described as "biased and full of mistakes and errors". Marlynspyke is by training a PhD chemist with a lifetimes experience with Kodak Eastman and a specialisation in aerial photographic interpretation and has been able to advise on an aerial study of Studland for NE. BORG unlike some of those involved in Studland, does not pretend to be a Scientific organisation: we represent the boating visitors to the Bay: we know what we see there and continue to ask the Experts at NE why it does not accord with what they are saying. Marlynpykes lifetime experience of evaluation and analysis means he is able to 'speak the language' and communicate with experts at their level.

Yes we are well aware of the Precautionary Principle, but NE are not at this stage applying it. They continue to maintain that anchoring is causing damage. We are asking them to be more specific so that if intrusive or expensive management is to be used, we can be assured it will give the bay's wildlife the best possible chance.

NE does not have boating experts. We have, and are willing to work with them to find the best possible solutions if problems exist. RYA IS doing the same and take the same view - that the experts at NE need to take another look because their experts do not believe anchoring is causing more than a mild disturbance which should be well within the limits of sustainability. If not, why not?

Turning to seahorses, press coverage suggests this is what it is all about, as NGMs cute cuddlies will always attract headlines if someone is treading on their tails. In reality they are quite a long way down the list. Seahorse decline in Studland has been blamed on over exposure to investigators and seahorse tourism. The real evidence comes from the inshore fishing fleet. Over 50 have been seen on fishing gear in one day a few miles offshore. Howeve generally sightings ate not reported as they know NGM will interfere with their livelihood just as he is trying to interfere with Studland. If fishermans talesxare to be believed theycate actually quite common, but vety very good at hiding from neoprene clad predators! SHT research area is quite a small part of the total 96hectares of the Studland eelgrass, yet we are confidently told They are not there anymore! How long would it take 1 or 2 divers to examine 96 hectares of mainly dense eelgrass to find a highly camouflaged seahorse a few cms long? It's nonsense of course, but this is one of the 'expert's we are contesting.

Seahorses are not disturbed by boats. Your best chance of seeing one is in the Channel Marinas notably Brighton and St Peterport. The 'expert' advice is that the habitat has been totally destroyed by boats anchoring in the last 10 years. So what has changed? Nothing that we can see. The eelgrass is still there and certainly appears untouched and undamaged, and covering significantly larger area than 10 years ago, so what has been destroyed? In any case locals who know The Bay well tell us that they are often absent for a while. They come. They go. They come back again. Boats have been anchoring here for centuries. The eelgrass was destroyed by disease in the 1930s. In spite of the post war boating boom it's back and spreading vigorously.

So again we ask the experts 'what are the issues?

I would hope we would all echo your final sentiment Moomba, and do our bit to orotect our oceans, 0but how can Studland be addressed when there does not appear to be a problem in the first place? I could rabbit on here about the experts not taking into account the specifics of the type of eelgrass (NE consistently refers to seagrasses which are generally very fragile) Anchoring: what is a 'safe level? Or are they saying that any disturbance however small will cause problems? Well, that's not what they told me. EFMs? Fine. But they are expensive to buy and install and require careful regular maintenance. Also they must be matched fairly closely to the boat using them. How is that to be managed in a public anchorage? There is serious doubt they will even work in Studlands shallow water. But the experts don't answer this.... Anyway who pays? Us? It would likely cost more than marina berth. Anyway who puts up the capital to start it? NGM says that boaters should. There's expertise at work for you again!

I have often asked if anyone has looked at what other factors may be at play in the bay either to cause the so called anchor damage ( and no one has ever demonstrated that the features they are concerned about IS actually the result of anchoring. Very similar features are present well away from the anchorage)

I have been both laughed at and shouted down for suggesting for example that Nitrates pollution may be significant here. Algal bloom stimulated by nitrates is regularly present , and around 2015 actually destroyed an area of eelgrass. Nobody took any notice. However Dr Unwin of Swansea Uni Oceanographic Dept ( with whom incidentally Marlynspykes has had very positive contact) and who is one of UKs leading experts on UK eelgrass recently published a paper which showed that Stuland has one of the highest Nitrate pollution figures in UK. He rarely includes anchoring as a threat to eelgrass and has perhaps wisely kept well clear of this debate! So what else may be happening to the eelgrass that nobody knows about yet?

And finally, Seajet no we haven't forgotten your role in kickstarting BORG, and I'm still looking forward to seeing how your Anderson 22 compares to my Trident24 One of these days!

Thank you for a very comprhensive anser that no doubt will stil lchallenge the opinons of many I wholehearlty agree with the nitrate problem as discussing with my so called expert wife who rightr away called upon farm run off as a more potential problem to the grass as nitrate levels will effect the ph of water
The other question which everybody is getting anxed about is the seahorse poulation do not shoot hte messenger , these animals are protected under law , therefore their habitat is protected , now natural England have an obligation under the EU to protect endangered species and must comply with this regulation , now of course boaters are an easy target as no one wants to upset the fisherman , but to say there is no damage to seabeds with an anchor is not true especially if there is 50 of them , but I agree there are much bigger issues out there causing damage.
As I have previously posted with some knowledge the water PH balance and chemical composition will change with farm run of peoples heads waste and rubbish this can have an effect on a fragile ecosystem there has to be a balance for all and not just the boaters being picked on , I think I have already said this in previous posts there needs to be a balance and in that balance boaters need to be part of the equation

 

[moomba]

"....when and if you became a Dr in your chosen field or a professor then you can challenge these experts .... "



I am starting to think there is a niff of trollery about this thread.

then stop trolling

 

[moomba]

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/JNCC_Report_505_web.pdf
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/080041
https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v291/p81-91/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aqc.2238
Just a number of studies by peer reviewed scientific papers on the decline of the sea horse , which again I will say if you remove a species from the food web this has a drastic effect on the rest of the ecosystem
so to say they are thriving in the south coast but no one wants to say is a little of the mark
Anchors rip up sea bed a few no issues, but if you have a bay which is saturated with boaters pulling anchors up dragging anchors and re anchoring through the year I do not believe this has no effect on the seabed , I am not saying its the full problem but IT adds to the bigger problem 2 wrongs do not make a right ,

 

[moomba]

Just one notice on the BORG website if I may comment, if you are going to critique scientific papers it is prudent to have the link to those papers so that they can be validated , this will give better clarity to your argument, as for a researcher I found it hard to find the papers in question.
This does not in any way disregard those comments though.
and devils advocate
I did find this

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com...481&checksum=09A45657EA3A231843974F633131BDB7

 

[doug748]

then stop trolling

One last one.









You don't have a steel boat, do you?

 

[Tranona]

The other question which everybody is getting anxed about is the seahorse poulation do not shoot hte messenger , these animals are protected under law , therefore their habitat is protected , now natural England have an obligation under the EU to protect endangered species and must comply with this regulation , now of course boaters are an easy target as no one wants to upset the fisherman , but to say there is no damage to seabeds with an anchor is not true especially if there is 50 of them , but I agree there are much bigger issues out there causing damage.

You still need to read the background material because you are again jumping to conclusions which are wrong. It has already been established that anchoring has no effect on seahorses under the terms of the Act - which requires evidence of deliberate damage. The SHT have tried this route and failed.

You also need to read the BORG work on the impact of anchoring on the eelgrass beds which has been submitted as evidence to the consultation.

Would emphasise once again what OH says - seahorses are not a major concern. It is maintaining the eelgrass beds that is the objective for a whole range of reasons apart from seahorses.

The best move so far (and long before any of this MCZ stuff started) was the cessation of trawling and scallop dredging in the bay. Those of us who have known and used the bay for a very long time believe that this was the start of the expansion of the eelgrass beds to what they are today.

 

[oldharry]

You still need to read the background material because you are again jumping to conclusions which are wrong. It has already been established that anchoring has no effect on seahorses under the terms of the Act - which requires evidence of deliberate damage. The SHT have tried this route and failed.

You also need to read the BORG work on the impact of anchoring on the eelgrass beds which has been submitted as evidence to the consultation.

Would emphasise once again what OH says - seahorses are not a major concern. It is maintaining the eelgrass beds that is the objective for a whole range of reasons apart from seahorses.

The best move so far (and long before any of this MCZ stuff started) was the cessation of trawling and scallop dredging in the bay. Those of us who have known and used the bay for a very long time believe that this was the start of the expansion of the eelgrass beds to what they are today.

Thanks Tranona, spot on. To save having to read through to find it, Marlynspyke analysed the likely area of seabed that would be disturbed in any one year. He found less than 1% of the 96 hectares would be affected in any one year. Given the rapid recovery rate of eelgrass which is widely documented as between 3 and 18 months, it seems unlikely that disturbance comes anywhere near an unsustainable level. We asked the experts their views. So far they simply say anchoring can be " quite intensive" which is far too subjective to have any real meaning. It also indicates a quite worrying bias against boats which we keep coming up against with them. It is exactly this biased lack of objectivity we are moving towards challenging.

Re protection of habitat, MMO who are the enforcers have stated categorically that anchoring in Studland is not illegal. Only if there is evidence of deliberate intent to damage the wildlife does it become illegal. RYA's legal Department also confirm that anchoring is a legal and normal activity which does not come within the scope of Wilife protection legislation.

 

[rotrax]

It is an undisputed fact that, long before any enviromental concerns or species conservation concerns, Studland Bay and dozens of other similar areas were used by HUNDREDS of sailing ships to avoid bad weather, or more often to wait out a foul tide. Imagine the amount of anchors that hit the bottom in those days!

Before engines were a normal part of a sailing vessels equipment it could-and did-take weeks to exit the English Channel against the prevailing winds.

Pity we dont know how much eelgrass was in Studland then-purely for comparison, of course.......................

The above is about as scientific as the SHT's and NE's evidence.

BORG's evidence appears to be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny.

With the RYA and BORG's hard work we must hope for a fair hearing and a good result.

 

[moomba]

No this is not the case T Im afraid you seem to miss the point I am not against this proposal or BORG but as I quote from their website

'Although our papers have not themselves been peer-reviewed, they draw largely on peer-reviewed papers in the scientific literature.'

The evidence stated by BORG is worthless when coming up against Peer reviewed publications by those so called experts this is the way of science , now I know a thing or to about writing scientific papers and so does my wife and unless it gets peer reviewed or published its not worth anything ,you would need a large study , with statistical analysis to provide the answers to the dilemma that is faced here, so no I did not read to much of BORGS website as it is only based on their findings, by people they ask (this in itself causes conflict of interest and potetial for biased which does not go down well in a court room) not peer revived not open to the scientific world to scrutinise and no statistical bases but for some photographs , now we are talking photographs here, so heres an example when were these done was it the same time every year , were there changes in boat movements through the years , what was the weather patterns for those years , how much run off is happening , has any rivers been diverted damned over the years , you get the point !! you cannot come to any conclusions until a proper study which has been number crunched to come up with a statistical point
What would I know. A little of the good lady ., she analyses water fluctuation over Scottish lochs and reservoirs to see the impact on plant life along the banks and invertebrate population (that means she gets wet a lot , not sitting in an office) within the water , know she does this for SEPA and the water companies as she needs to be impartial , not so dissimilar to what is happening at the bay , now she has to take into consideration multiple factors and usees some serious R coding to come up and test the hypotheses. So do you not think that every stressor on this habit, and anchoring and boat waste water are one ,a small one granted but still a stressor does not have a statistical impact on that environment, then you my friend are deluded
A fluctuation of around 2 metres on a loch has a negative effect on the life of the loch and as these are the start of the food web has a large cascade effect upwards to the birds, fish and bats that eat such insects.and plants
Now this is not just about seahorses this is a fragile ecosystem and rightly so EH are using a cute seahorse to get the public on side , as the WWF use a cute panda for their logo this is good propaganda if you don't like it complain to the advertisement standards , as as for it getting to parliament just shows that money can buy you a lot
Now if you know how scientific world works especially ecology and environmental biology , this is the way it is done
I offer these opinions on good faith and have no positive or negative views on the matte r, but I like good honest science not bad science which gives false hope, and I do for once know what im talking about.

 

[doug748]

Here is some good science:

Before and after wasting disease in common
eelgrass Zostera marina along the French Atlantic
coasts: a general overview and first accurate mapping:

http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00093/20392/

The Iles Glenan are a busy and popular anchorage with a large number of fixed moorings.



Nb:

"At this site, sailing school activities
and tourism are well developed and the anchoring of sail
boats is important but localized in time and place....
Ail these different disturbances are estimated to be
of little importance in comparison with the
obvious climate-mediated decline and
sudden recovery of the seagrass beds."

 

[oldharry]

As I said before we do not pretend to be a Scientific group. We try to represent the views of visitors to the Bay, which was what I was asked to do by the Marine Management Organisation 8 years ago. My work was with Adults with Learning Difficulty with West Sussex County Council. I have worked professionally in the Leisure boating industry, so have some expertise to bring to work out a safe strategy for leisure boats that can be matched to conservation needs. But to do this I need to know what the issues are. I do not know of any yacht anchor capable of creating the damage attributed to anchoring,so what mechanism do they believe is working here? They can not tell me. Sadly some have chosen to be quite seriously abusive to me personally to try to shut me up. Theres no place for that, but don't ask me to respect an expert who cannot justify what he says. If what I am being told doesn't match up to what I see, I want to know why.

 

[rotrax]

You cannot come to any conclusions until a proper study which has been number crunched to come up with a statistitical point.

Do you believe the SHT and NE has the above in their armoury?

From Old Harry's info posted here over the last few years it does not seem likely, whereas the only scientific study, recorded and carried out to rigourous scientific standards to map the current extent of eelgrass beds has been carried out by BORG.

In many cases peer review is no more than having a paper published in a scientific or medical journal, for members of the body the journal belongs to.

My wife worked for the largest Academic Publishing Co. in the UK that produced such journals.

It sounds like your scientific experience might be of help to Borg-unless you are coming from the other side of the fence.................................

 

[grumpy_o_g]

...Now this is not just about seahorses this is a fragile ecosystem and rightly so EH are using a cute seahorse to get the public on side , as the WWF use a cute panda for their logo this is good propaganda if you don't like it complain to the advertisement standards , as as for it getting to parliament just shows that money can buy you a lot
Now if you know how scientific world works especially ecology and environmental biology , this is the way it is done
I offer these opinions on good faith and have no positive or negative views on the matte r, but I like good honest science not bad science which gives false hope, and I do for once know what im talking about.

I'm sorry, you completely lost it at this point. Pandas are under a very real threat and we have a very good idea of how many there in captivity and in the wild not to mention a relatively large amount of scientific study of their situation - there is no parallel with sea-horses at all (where basically have a couple of blokes in wetsuits swimming around Studland Bay every so often).

This is science we are talking about, not marketing or propaganda. Basically you are saying it's fine to misrepresent the facts as long as it achieves the results you want. That's pretty much the exact opposite of science. Science is proving that there is damage to eel-grass, sea-horses, whatever and then identify the cause - at the moment the only evidence available doesn't stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny so there is no conclusion to be drawn - in fact there isn't even reliable correlation data available never mind working out what's causing whatever it is that might or might not be happening. Having said what evidence is available seems to suggest that the eel grass is not at risk - whilst not up to full full scientific rigour it is reliable and not anecdotal. IN fact one of BORG's members actually had to introduce some scientific rigour over the analysis of the available data as this was not being done by other parties. If you want to go further the "evidence" that sea-horses are at risk has been shown to be unreliable -not just not standing up to rigorous scrutiny but actually as being completely unreliable.

To suggest that it's not only acceptable but desirable to pretend that issue is other than it is really in order to sway people's opinions and behaviour is the actions of an untrustworthy politician (is there any other kind) and that's being polite - google Charlatan and Wiki will tell you that it's "a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick or deception in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretence or deception."

 

[oldharry]

Rotrax hits the nail on the head. The problem with Studland is that there are no records as such to provide a bench mark. The only evidence available is anecdotal, and the Science Advisory panel with whose chairman I have met ( and argued the case!) will not allow anecdotal evidence. This sets the whole thing back,because that's all there is. Nick Warner representing Studland Residents, who also do not want their bay turned into some sort of freak show to the exclusion of visitors, has actually fished the bay for a great many years, probably knows it better than any of us! Nick has worked very closely with us, and is a mine of firsthand info. However his view is rejected as anecdotal.

Knowledgeable amateurs are well respected as having a contribution to make generally. But here vitalevidence is being lost in favour of expert opinion rather than observed evidence.