Natural Englandrespondsto freedom of information request about Studland.

[moomba]

Great points and it is good to see constructive arguments, although I feel like one of those Ducks in a shooting gallery.
1. EH have used available data , this implies that they have done a peer reviewed study of the impacts on sea grass and their habitat (challenge them by asking for this full report)
2. Science is based on peer reviewed papers and contrary to one comment,' does not mean much' , the whole of the scientific world is based on robust experiments and hypotheses that can be peer revived and re done over and over to get the same results.
3. private firms employed by one party does not stand up to scientific scrutiny it will be disregarded especially in the scientific world , now I have been in this world and my wife is still in it , I'm not saying it is right but this is the way of things.
4. The RYA do not fully support Rutland Bay I quote . The RYA is broadly supportive of the UK Government’s plans to establish a coherent network of Marine
Protected Areas to achieve their goal of “clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas”.
The RYA’s primary objectives of engaging in the consultation process regarding the development of MCZs are to protect the public right of navigation and to ensure, as far as possible, that recreational boating interests are not adversely affected by the designation of such MCZs. (A Balanced opion)

Having read the parliamentary report and as a previous scientist and living with a conservationist I have to defend the scientific community.

Written evidence submitted by Captain Alex Gibbons these are direct quotes , it is not my intention to be disparaging but to have an opposing argument .
'
Several Conservationists and Marine Scientists were opposed to the Seastar Survey
(this is because it is not scientific it has no parameters , it has no data over a large period of time and is only a snap shot in time , therefore will be dismissed as scientific evidence )

But again conservationists have denied the seagrass expansion witnessed by locals even though it is quite evident by comparing images on Google Earth with Historical Aerial Photographs taken over the last 12 years which are available online at the Dorset Explorer Website. These images also counter claims that there are 20 metre bare sand scare circular areas around the fixed chain moorings within the bay . If you zoom in close on Google Earth you can spot the mooring buoys in the sea grass areas(off the South Beach) and see that there is hardly any bare patches of sand.
(Again not scientific , Google earth is not real time some of those images can be from years back you would need collaborated imagery over a set period to distinguish seagrass abundance , not local witnesses or Google earth, Sea grass by its nature will move around due to currents and tidal flows and therefore potentially obscure bottom imagery )

by keeping everyone in the dark which is more indicative of a government department in the former USSR.
(Statements like this will not help your cause , if you keep calm and produce robust evidence this will greatly help you cause)

'in summary, the whole MCZ selection process needs to be investigated and overhauled because there certainly seems to be lack of basic Nautical Science missing particularly by not involving the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the RNLI,'

( The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is an executive agency of the United Kingdom working to prevent the loss of lives at sea and is responsible for implementing British and international maritime law and safety policy. nothing to do with conservation or the sea bed)

(RNLI are a voluntary group based purely on rescue at sea , again nothing to do with conservation)

'For this reason it is quite obvious that conservationists have become far too powerful in the UK and seem to have an ever increasing and unhealthy influence and control on our ordinary lives'

The reality is global warming , an ever increasing population growth , food shortages and fresh water issues in the future will all put pressures on the planet , there has to be a balance between enjoying the planet and keeping it healthy for future generations.
I am a boater I DROP my anchor but if I was told it was doing harm then I would ask for an anchor zone to be set up and a conservation zone so their is harmony
I have included the link to the parliamentary report
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#i...pGMThqkZBXdkZdB?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1

 

[rotrax]

I am a boater I DROP my anchor but if I was told it was doing harm then I would ask for an anchor zone to be set up and a conservation zone so their is harmony

As would most responsible boaters.

So, are YOU satified with the evidence from NE and SHT?

If you are not, which means it does not satisfy your interpretation of sound science, where do we go from here?

Why does the use of available data by NE-I assume you mistook NE with EH- imply peer review? Little Old Harry and Marlynspike have posted here as coming from them meets this requirement.

Lets see what the FOI request brings, and act accordingly.

 

[moomba]

As would most responsible boaters.

So, are YOU satified with the evidence from NE and SHT?

If you are not, which means it does not satisfy your interpretation of sound science, where do we go from here?

Why does the use of available data by NE-I assume you mistook NE with EH- imply peer review? Little Old Harry and Marlynspike have posted here as coming from them meets this requirement.

Lets see what the FOI request brings, and act accordingly.

EH yes sorry
Agreed , make sure that you get all their data and the full literatural review report and how this was collaborated , if sound scientific research was not done there is an argument , I will reiterate , the caveat is that they are basing it on the literature available , to compete against this you would need to look at there references and argue against this is a scientific manner , its the only way to compete with this level of organisation.
I must add that I personnel think organisation like EH and SNH have far to much power and sweeping remits and sometime they do need to be pegged and challenged , but sound data and peer revived information is important or they will use their might to steam roller you .

 

[bedouin]

Great points and it is good to see constructive arguments, although I feel like one of those Ducks in a shooting gallery.
1. EH have used available data , this implies that they have done a peer reviewed study of the impacts on sea grass and their habitat (challenge them by asking for this full report)]

And there you have the problem. I don't believe any such report exists yet you make an assumption that it does just because of how others are reacting.

I am sure you are well intentioned but you appear to be very strongly conditioned to believe one side of the argument without bothering about minor details like fact and good science. That is the whole problem - too many people are predisposed to believe a certain viewpoint without there actually being any support for it.

 

[moomba]

And there you have the problem. I don't believe any such report exists yet you make an assumption that it does just because of how others are reacting.

I am sure you are well intentioned but you appear to be very strongly conditioned to believe one side of the argument without bothering about minor details like fact and good science. That is the whole problem - too many people are predisposed to believe a certain viewpoint without there actually being any support for it.

No if you have read all my posts I will reiterate the BORG website and how you are going about it is poor science, There is a process in the ecological and conservation science that will be needed just like in medicine , each scientific sector talks and writes their own language , I have first hand knowledge of these procedures and as my wife is A Dr of ecology and writes these reports and papers for a living I have some insight in how it works ,( who would a judge believe in a civil court which is based on balance of probability , my Wife who is a Dr of Fresh water Ecology and has studied for over 10 years now the lochs of Scotland with thousands of data points and statistical analysis or a private company brought in by the water company with their mini submarine for the day (this is an example only)) Now my wife and I both agree on something and that is BORGS science is flawed and will not stand up to scrutiny against the experts this is not to flay BORG this is to give you pointers and help you understand the process (cant stop repeating myself , but I do sail and I don't have to agree with my Wife) , my last post was trying to help them understand this and give them a few pointers , as I have already stated in several posts I am no biased in anyway , Also EH will have done a peer review study of the relevant scientific papers the only way to combat this is with proper science, if you are not an environmental scientist or an ecologist or even an oceanographer then I sorry your wrong.

 

[Malish]

Re: Natural England responds to freedom of information request about Studland.

Many research scientists suffer from unconscious bias, occasionally associated with the thought ... 'where is my next grant going to come from'. As one who works in academia I can also assure you that the peer review process is not perfect - papers can get through based on the reputation of the author and sometimes on who the author recommnds to review the paper...

 

[moomba]

Again for the record I have said that I do not think the system is right but it is the system, now as we British created a paper bureaucracy for the world to envoy this is the way it is done in the ecological sciences , it is this way all over the world , it will always be that way until some one changes it , right or wrong , easily fudged or not , who you know , does not mean a poo in high heaven, if it is published and peer reviewed going against non peer reviewed papers you really have an uphill struggle , we can go no like this for months , but it is the way of things stop trying to beat the system, fight along its extreme borders and play them at their own game find a bloody good ecologist or a proper ecological consultancy group willing to do site surveys , although not published data you will find that the managers of these are Drs in their own write and will carry some weight. as it will be site specific , against EH's papers

 

[Tranona]

Again for the record I have said that I do not think the system is right but it is the system, now as we British created a paper bureaucracy for the world to envoy this is the way it is done in the ecological sciences , it is this way all over the world , it will always be that way until some one changes it , right or wrong , easily fudged or not , who you know , does not mean a poo in high heaven, if it is published and peer reviewed going against non peer reviewed papers you really have an uphill struggle , we can go no like this for months , but it is the way of things stop trying to beat the system, fight along its extreme borders and play them at their own game find a bloody good ecologist or a proper ecological consultancy group willing to do site surveys , although not published data you will find that the managers of these are Drs in their own write and will carry some weight. as it will be site specific , against EH's papers

I admire your dogged defence of the "academic" system. However as someone who spent 25 years in a senior position in a major UK university I learned not to take things at face value. At best the peer reviewed academic process of disseminating new knowledge has resulted in much of our advance over the years, but at its worst (and becoming more common in recent years) it is a self serving merry-go-round where agreement about what you write becomes more important than whether the outcomes of your research are "true".

The real laziness in research is to start from the wrong end - that is identify a desired outcome and then look for data to support it. Nowhere is this more obvious as in this case where everything that challenges the preconceived ideas is discarded or findings from other work in other contexts is used to make a case for Studland. (The use of studies on seagrass in other environments and the proposal to use EFMs are two examples)

This explains the basic issue underlying this thread - that is the use of "experts" in the absence of any real rigorous research starting from scratch - that is posing a basic set of questions about the factors that affect Studland eel grass beds and the seahorses that live there. Just as examples, nobody has investigated the influence of the tidal flows in the bay, nor the changes that resulted from the dredging and re-aligning of the deep water channel; no data has been collected about the damage to the eel grass during the easterly storms that occur every late winter/early spring; no research has been carried out on the movements of the seahorse population, particularly where they go in the winter.

My dog knows more about the storm issue as the uprooted fronds pile up above the high water mark so deep that she can lose her legs in it. Wild claims are made that Studland is a major breeding site for seahorses with absolutely no evidence of why or how they get from Studland to the sites where they are numerous - that is the man made harbours that OH referred to earlier.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Charlatans (some of them actual university academics) can adopt positions and make claims because there is a vacuum. BORG has tried to fill that vacuum concentrating on the health of the beds and countering the claim that anchoring causes damage - because that is the issue. Nobody else, least of all the academic who has the most "experience" of the eel grass beds has made any attempt to carry out even the most basic analysis of the problem, rather relying on a few staged photos to "support" their predetermined stance.

I hope in your academic endeavours you develop a healthy scepticism as that is where the true advances come from - not from those who go through the motions of ticking the right boxes to get "peer reviewed" articles published in some obscure journal. Appreciate this will get your sponsoring university brownie points for its research assessments, and if a member of staff will contribute to your performance related pay, but in my experience little of this makes any difference to the real world.

 

[oldharry]

A fascinating discussion thenks.

I rather thought the point of the FOI request was to find out what reports they are using to justify claims of ànchor damage. I think Marlynspyke and I have found most of the relevant literature about eelgrass, and the request is to see whether they have something we missed.

I don't know why you think RYA are not fully supportive of Studland. Their aims quoted by Moomba, are exactly the same as ours. What else is BORG for other to act as a focal point for the views of the boating community. We are not a research group. We do not seek to produce original work. But we do seek to ensure that where conservation needs affect our sport the measures introduced will be as effective as they can be, while causing minimum disruption.. RYA in fact sponsored our iniative in 2014 to produce an 'anchoring in eelgrass educational leaflet.

Please remember that when all this started conservationists were all for simply closing off places like Studland and preventing any public access. To some extent that hope is still present. DEFRA still list this an MCZ option.

Google earth photographs are all dated. Where we have used them we have been careful to ensure the dates are included.

Marlynspyke is an expert in aerial photographic interpretation, which was part of his life's work with Kodak Eastman. I doubt if NE has anyone of his calibre in this speciality. He and we are well aware that there is often a lot of loose material in eelgrass. We have ground truthed the extent of eelgrass growth inshore.

Again I repeat BORGs interest is primarily focussed on achieving a balance between sound conservation and ensuring minimal disruption of our enjoyment of this beautiful place.

Capt Gibbons who is known to.me personally is a Studland Resident who completely opposes the MCZ plan. His comments does not appear on the BORG website. If it is attributed to BORG elsewhere please let me know.

 

[bedouin]

No if you have read all my posts I will reiterate the BORG website and how you are going about it is poor science, There is a process in the ecological and conservation science that will be needed just like in medicine , each scientific sector talks and writes their own language

The BORG site is not a scientific site and it does not need to be except to the extent that in needs to point out the failings in other people's science.

The onus is on NE etc to provide good science to justify their actions and at present no good science (in the sense of proper studies) exist and what scientific conclusions can legitimately be drawn from known data would seem to contradict them.

 

[rotrax]

And there, moomba, you have it.......................................

I respect your interest and obvious knowlege of correct scientific procedure, plus your knowlege of your wife's current work which I, as a lifelong angler, consider very important.

You are late to this debate, and with all due respect, please dont come over as one of Blaster Bates Consulting Engineers.

You know-the jobs three parts done and a Consulting Engineer turns up to tell us how to do it.................................

 

[oldharry]

And there, moomba, you have it.......................................

I respect your interest and obvious knowlege of correct scientific procedure, plus your knowlege of your wife's current work which I, as a lifelong angler, consider very important.

You are late to this debate, and with all due respect, please dont come over as one of Blaster Bates Consulting Engineers.

You know-the jobs three parts done and a Consulting Engineer turns up to tell us how to do it.................................

yes, 8 years too late, with respect, Moomba. Our papers are already lodged with DEFRA for better or for worse. We have had discussions at both House of Commons Committee level, and with the various Ministers, as well as members of various Govt Advisory committees. Our reports are even in Hansard.

Even if we have got some of it wrong it is far too late to change anything now - even the rather unfortunate choice of name with its Star Trekking overtones! We are known for what we are, now we wait for the Ministers decisions, but in the meantime we continue to keep things on the boil by further challenging the lousy science which I spotted on day one, nearly 9 years ago, so that if the Minister does decide to go ahead, we still have a chance of making a big difference to the way the Bay will be managed. As a Stakeholder, bringing BORG with me, I will continue to have a full say in the practicalities of the Management protocols.

 

[Heckler]

Utter nonsense my wife studyed for 8 years to become a so called expert there is so much more to understanding a habitat that just simply observation when and if you became a Dr in your chosen field or a professor then you can challenge these experts , but statements like the eel grass was a lot less know means nothing , what about its nutritional value , does it display the right chemical analysis before pollution got worse , come on people the world is not one big conspiracy,

OK so lets see evidence that you and your wife are who you say you are and that you have the qualifications claimed etc etc

 

[Heckler]

And there you have the problem. I don't believe any such report exists yet you make an assumption that it does just because of how others are reacting.

I am sure you are well intentioned but you appear to be very strongly conditioned to believe one side of the argument without bothering about minor details like fact and good science. That is the whole problem - too many people are predisposed to believe a certain viewpoint without there actually being any support for it.

Nail on head and how do we know moomba and his wife are what they say they are. Their argument used can be just as easily used against them!

 

[moomba]

And there, moomba, you have it.......................................

I respect your interest and obvious knowlege of correct scientific procedure, plus your knowlege of your wife's current work which I, as a lifelong angler, consider very important.

You are late to this debate, and with all due respect, please dont come over as one of Blaster Bates Consulting Engineers.

You know-the jobs three parts done and a Consulting Engineer turns up to tell us how to do it.................................

Like you have already stated a debate , if no one was to debate then there would be no moving forward
it is the simplistic approach to your thread that makes it sound silly , this is an open forum were discussion is encouraged so please do not attempt bully boy tactics on your kepad
thank you

 

[moomba]

Nail on head and how do we know moomba and his wife are what they say they are. Their argument used can be just as easily used against them!

And how do we know who you are, a silly statment at best you should be an adult in these conversations not some child playing guess who.
No one states their name or profession or were they work on forums this would be daft and not intelligent as I tell my 8 year old , but clearly you havn,t got that memo yet.

 

[moomba]

OK so lets see evidence that you and your wife are who you say you are and that you have the qualifications claimed etc etc

I tell you what Skipper stu please give me your name and address and I can post them for you or best I can send mine to you and you can come visit
now doesn't that sound silly

 

[Tranona]

Like you have already stated a debate , if no one was to debate then there would be no moving forward
it is the simplistic approach to your thread that makes it sound silly , this is an open forum were discussion is encouraged so please do not attempt bully boy tactics on your kepad
thank you

With respect you have not been "debating" but picking holes in work that has been done already.

Remember as OH has pointed out there is getting on for 10 years work behind this involving a number of people who know all about what you are trying to say about academic research processes. Some of us have lost count of the number of research papers we have looked at that might shed light on what is happening in Studland.

The central issue, and the reasoning behind the FOI was the distinct lack of evidence of any serious scientific research underpinning the case for management of the eel grass beds and in particular no research related to the specifics of Studland. This together with (personal view) misuse of research conducted in different environments calls into question the validity of the opinions of the so-called "experts".

That is what I was referring to earlier about a healthy scepticism. Advances in understanding come from questioning, not accepting opinion which cannot be substantiated.

 

[moomba]

I admire your dogged defence of the "academic" system. However as someone who spent 25 years in a senior position in a major UK university I learned not to take things at face value. At best the peer reviewed academic process of disseminating new knowledge has resulted in much of our advance over the years, but at its worst (and becoming more common in recent years) it is a self serving merry-go-round where agreement about what you write becomes more important than whether the outcomes of your research are "true".

The real laziness in research is to start from the wrong end - that is identify a desired outcome and then look for data to support it. Nowhere is this more obvious as in this case where everything that challenges the preconceived ideas is discarded or findings from other work in other contexts is used to make a case for Studland. (The use of studies on seagrass in other environments and the proposal to use EFMs are two examples)

This explains the basic issue underlying this thread - that is the use of "experts" in the absence of any real rigorous research starting from scratch - that is posing a basic set of questions about the factors that affect Studland eel grass beds and the seahorses that live there. Just as examples, nobody has investigated the influence of the tidal flows in the bay, nor the changes that resulted from the dredging and re-aligning of the deep water channel; no data has been collected about the damage to the eel grass during the easterly storms that occur every late winter/early spring; no research has been carried out on the movements of the seahorse population, particularly where they go in the winter.

My dog knows more about the storm issue as the uprooted fronds pile up above the high water mark so deep that she can lose her legs in it. Wild claims are made that Studland is a major breeding site for seahorses with absolutely no evidence of why or how they get from Studland to the sites where they are numerous - that is the man made harbours that OH referred to earlier.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Charlatans (some of them actual university academics) can adopt positions and make claims because there is a vacuum. BORG has tried to fill that vacuum concentrating on the health of the beds and countering the claim that anchoring causes damage - because that is the issue. Nobody else, least of all the academic who has the most "experience" of the eel grass beds has made any attempt to carry out even the most basic analysis of the problem, rather relying on a few staged photos to "support" their predetermined stance.

I hope in your academic endeavours you develop a healthy scepticism as that is where the true advances come from - not from those who go through the motions of ticking the right boxes to get "peer reviewed" articles published in some obscure journal. Appreciate this will get your sponsoring university brownie points for its research assessments, and if a member of staff will contribute to your performance related pay, but in my experience little of this makes any difference to the real world.

Nice to hear a proper debate , no there has been no scientific evidence of the beds , as I said in previous posts EH have used a data trawl through the scientfic literature to come up with an argument , this is based on pure scientific evidence based on the data written, it is AND I QUOTE very loose evidence but evidence in its favour , now you would need evidence to counter that argument, and I am afraid what BORG has done, in the Ecological world will not stand up as their is to many variables ,
I appreciate their is a lot of wise minds on these forums but no one seems to be an ecologist or has worked for an environmental agency or consultancy group .my wife has and still is , I was a marine biologist before my accident, I am not trying to upset your group , but it you read carefully I am trying to help , by pointing out your failures.
It does not matter what academic you are or if your a chemist Dr with good photo drone skills and map manipulation , this on only one piece of the jigsaw, you are dealing with European directives , EH agendas and DEFRA ,they will have sough out ecologists to do their work for them , and OFC their are bad ones and ones that will tow the department line , that is why you would need to employ your own survey based on science , I have no agenda on this matter I live hundreds of miles away , but the land and the sea around our island belong to the people to enjoy, and their must be a balance between enjoying that and the habitat in which life exists in it .
Now my wife is a fresh water ecologist that deals in flora and fauna of lochs in Scotland , she also deals with freshwater grass and habit , and any stressor can have an impact on life . what needs to be addressed is can that impact be lessened , new ideas approached , or can the loss be absorbed,
EH In my opinon and although I don't work in my field any more I still do a lot of scientific research,
EH are on thin ground with the so called report, but will have the backing of ecologists , the only way to argue with these people is to have a sound basis in ecology and what is really happening at he bottom of bay

I have been field testing with my wife for 2 years on over 30 lochs in Scotland, now she needed 4 sample sites per loch , one with no real wave action, one with large fetch, one in shade , one in sun,
4 samples sizes were taken 4 times a year in accordance with the seasons , the water levels were obtained from land owners , Scottish Water, Scottish Power, SEPA for these 4 points, sample sizes include 1000 sq metres of shore line and shore survey, underwater survey and net drag, all water samples had to be lab identified , (were talking thousands of invertebrates , over 20 species hand picked under microscope) ,now all this data had to be put into 'R ' which is a statistical programme which she had to write the code for as none existed for this experiment, and the conclusion is coming out that a drop in water of 2 metres is affecting populations dramatically. Now this data goes to the Water companies and SEPA and then they will decide what to do, impartial scientific work done.

Water companies know that they can draw 2 metres without much destruction and SEPA can look at the data and make legislation if they wanted to stoping water being drawn below 2 metres . this is how ecology works.

Why tell you this , because it shows how much proper research must go into making a decision. now EH has it a lot wrong but BORG has it lots and lots wrong in you data, it means nothing unless their is proper scrutiny and proper scientific protocols used.

 

[Seajet]

moomba,

I hope you are not the troll with a violent history I suspect.

Plenty of scientific evidence has been presented showing boat anchors have had no significant effect on Studland Bays' ecology for the last few thousand years.

It is interesting to note this whole debate has only come about since the advent of ' career conservationists ' trying to justify a living on one of the best sandy beaches in Britain - and that is the root of all this, taking public money without a shred of evidence.