Natural Englandrespondsto freedom of information request about Studland.

[moomba]

moomba,

I hope you are not the troll 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.

Why use the word Troll if this is posted on a forum why do you shy away from scrutiny , this is a democracy, I have listed and talked about proper scientific evidence and argued my case without being rude or accusing of anyone , but I have been subjected to been accused of trolling, not being the person I say , my wife's qualifications being questioned and my integrity , why is this !!
there is no evidence scientifically going back thousands of years ,this is ridiculous, when an anchor hits sea grass and pulls it up or scrapes it out at the roots , I hear this argument that it grows back OFC it does with all the pollutants in the sea its a good environment for it no problem , yes no problem but you have just annihilated a micro habit and ecosystem living in that patch (shall the inhabitants just wait for new grass to grow) , the argument is how much damage can be achieved without upsetting the balance , seems a reasonable argument to me.
the more boats that anchor the worse it becomes when their is a tipping point were the ecosystem in the seagrass can no longer cope with depletion on a rapid scale (like my wife's study in previous post)
Like I keep saying their would need to be an intensive study to work it out , it may be that 200 boats are ok 250 tips the balance , thats a sensible approach
May I suggest that you contact a University that runs ecology courses or marine biology and put together a proposal and a funding package for a PHD student to undertake a study of the bay , this will allow a better understanding ,it will also give you the argument to EH to pospone any regulations until the study has been completed.
Then aerial drones historical data and everything BORG has done could form a part of that research.

 

[Tranona]

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.

Therein lies the fault line. The obsession with following so called protocols leads to a lack of common sense. One of the first things we teach in research methods is to use sound methodology primarily because that is what is acceptable - tick the boxes and you are halfway there. The downside of this is that you can perpetuate the errors of the past and the result is something that does not reflect reality.

That is what has happened in Studland - made worse by the lack of any serious investigation. There are many REAL experts - that is people who have lived, worked and played in the bay for decades who simply do not recognise the picture that is painted by these "experts". Some of the reasons I have outlined earlier. The work of BORG, particularly the survey of the overall site over time, the calculations of the impact of anchoring, the process of repair of the eel grass and the survey of the health of the area used by others in formulating their claims, tell it like it is. There has been no "tick box" research done by others into any of this, which is all directly related to the management proposals.

Sorry if this offends what you (or your wife) practise in your work, but it reflects reality. It is not a case of our research is better than yours - but this shows what it is like and there is no valid alternative that shows any different story.

 

[moomba]

Therein lies the fault line. The obsession with following so called protocols leads to a lack of common sense. One of the first things we teach in research methods is to use sound methodology primarily because that is what is acceptable - tick the boxes and you are halfway there. The downside of this is that you can perpetuate the errors of the past and the result is something that does not reflect reality.

That is what has happened in Studland - made worse by the lack of any serious investigation. There are many REAL experts - that is people who have lived, worked and played in the bay for decades who simply do not recognise the picture that is painted by these "experts". Some of the reasons I have outlined earlier. The work of BORG, particularly the survey of the overall site over time, the calculations of the impact of anchoring, the process of repair of the eel grass and the survey of the health of the area used by others in formulating their claims, tell it like it is. There has been no "tick box" research done by others into any of this, which is all directly related to the management proposals.

Sorry if this offends what you (or your wife) practise in your work, but it reflects reality. It is not a case of our research is better than yours - but this shows what it is like and there is no valid alternative that shows any different story.

I agree that local population and what people are seeing on the ground makes up a large part of what is going on around them in the environment , but this can be seen as prejudice and I will keep saying it in the world of ecology were are dealing in the world of heavy statistical data using intensive field studies in which the local community do not have.
that is why Ecology came into play to better understand these habitats sometimes in the micro level
In life sciences the protocol is to prove or discredit the null hypotheses

With further testing, a hypothesis can usually be proven true or false. A null hypothesis is a hypothesis that says there is no statistical significance between the two variables. It is usually the hypothesis a researcher or experimenter will try to disprove or discredit.

So the experimental example is does Anchoring have a detrimental effect on Sea Grass and the fauna living in it.
a good researcher will take the data and come up with a conclusion , the point to BORGS data it does not take in all the data it does not include fauna surveys , surveys were not carried out in a proper scientific way in which the world of life sciences use (this is not my wife's or my way this is the scientific way taught to us as undergraduates of science and post graduates , this is the way of science in this sector , you can argue all you like but it is the standard set throughout every university in the land ), i.e transect lines transect squares , fauna counting, over a number of months and even a year to allow for variation, this is why it is flawed not wrong only flawed.

 

[Tranona]

Why use the word Troll if this is posted on a forum why do you shy away from scrutiny , this is a democracy, I have listed and talked about proper scientific evidence and argued my case without being rude or accusing of anyone , but I have been subjected to been accused of trolling, not being the person I say , my wife's qualifications being questioned and my integrity , why is this !!
there is no evidence scientifically going back thousands of years ,this is ridiculous, when an anchor hits sea grass and pulls it up or scrapes it out at the roots , I hear this argument that it grows back OFC it does with all the pollutants in the sea its a good environment for it no problem , yes no problem but you have just annihilated a micro habit and ecosystem living in that patch (shall the inhabitants just wait for new grass to grow) , the argument is how much damage can be achieved without upsetting the balance , seems a reasonable argument to me.
the more boats that anchor the worse it becomes when their is a tipping point were the ecosystem in the seagrass can no longer cope with depletion on a rapid scale (like my wife's study in previous post)
Like I keep saying their would need to be an intensive study to work it out , it may be that 200 boats are ok 250 tips the balance , thats a sensible approach
May I suggest that you contact a University that runs ecology courses or marine biology and put together a proposal and a funding package for a PHD student to undertake a study of the bay , this will allow a better understanding ,it will also give you the argument to EH to pospone any regulations until the study has been completed.
Then aerial drones historical data and everything BORG has done could form a part of that research.

You really are making a meal of this. The University of Southampton has been studying this area for years but has failed to produce anything significant that shows any damage by anchoring.

You really do need to know the area to understand it. Boats have been anchoring there in similar densities and frequencies for at least 50 years - during which time the extent and density of the bed has increased dramatically. The main area in question 40 years ago when I first went there with my boat was bare sand and i have photos of my boat just afloat (very shallow draft) with my children playing on the sand. You could not do that now as it is the dense eel grass shown in the videos.

As I pointed out earlier a winter easterly storm will cause far more damage than any boat anchor but nobody ever looks at that, because the bay is an inhospitable place in winter and the cafe is shut.

It is not the number of boats at any one time that is the issue, but the number of anchoring events, which is what Marlynspike has used as representing reality. It is impossible to measure how many events there are a year because of the wide variations in type of anchoring and particularly the weather at weekends. BTW i assume you have read the results of the Sea Star no anchoring zone, which, flawed though it was did not support the no anchoring proposition.

As I said earlier the biggest impact on the eel grass beds over the years has been the cessation of trawling and scallop dredging in the bay. That is the underlying reason for the dramatic increase in the extent of the beds. Unfortunately nobody monitored this so you are reliant of photographic evidence from the past and memories of people who lived there.

Anyway, this is all of no consequence as far as the consultation is concerned as the evidence has been submitted and it is now a case of waiting to see if commonsense (backed by real evidence) wins over flawed science and biased "experts".

 

[Seajet]

Moomba,

if you are not the person with a violent background I suspect, I'll happily apologise for confusing you with them.

In summary, the Luftwaffe discreetly carried out photo-reconnaissance over southern England in the 1930's prior to WWII and invasion plans - the eelgrass was just recovering then from a natural disease.

Since then, despite the 1970's boom in recreational sailing - and anchoring in Studland Bay - current aerial photographs show the eelgrass has expanded remarkably.

When career conservationist Chris Packham insultingly called boat owners ' gin swilling wreckers of the environment ' he was clearly misled and talking out of the other end from his snorkel, no-one cares more about the sea and environment than sailors.

Andy,

lifelong sailor & Aerial Photographer.

 

[moomba]

You really are making a meal of this. The University of Southampton has been studying this area for years but has failed to produce anything significant that shows any damage by anchoring.

You really do need to know the area to understand it. Boats have been anchoring there in similar densities and frequencies for at least 50 years - during which time the extent and density of the bed has increased dramatically. The main area in question 40 years ago when I first went there with my boat was bare sand and i have photos of my boat just afloat (very shallow draft) with my children playing on the sand. You could not do that now as it is the dense eel grass shown in the videos.

As I pointed out earlier a winter easterly storm will cause far more damage than any boat anchor but nobody ever looks at that, because the bay is an inhospitable place in winter and the cafe is shut.

It is not the number of boats at any one time that is the issue, but the number of anchoring events, which is what Marlynspike has used as representing reality. It is impossible to measure how many events there are a year because of the wide variations in type of anchoring and particularly the weather at weekends. BTW i assume you have read the results of the Sea Star no anchoring zone, which, flawed though it was did not support the no anchoring proposition.

As I said earlier the biggest impact on the eel grass beds over the years has been the cessation of trawling and scallop dredging in the bay. That is the underlying reason for the dramatic increase in the extent of the beds. Unfortunately nobody monitored this so you are reliant of photographic evidence from the past and memories of people who lived there.

Anyway, this is all of no consequence as far as the consultation is concerned as the evidence has been submitted and it is now a case of waiting to see if commonsense (backed by real evidence) wins over flawed science and biased "experts".

May the best evidence win .

But the world of ecology will only get stronger and more powerful as more people get concerned with the environment on local issues .
I personally think it can be wrong and it interferes with the public enjoying the outdoors , but I see it first hand and I argue intensely with my wife on many a point .I never change her mind. but she never changes mine either. But its a good debate , like this thread

Good luck all in your fight.

 

[moomba]

Moomba,

if you are not the person with a violent background I suspect, I'll happily apologise for confusing you with them.

In summary, the Luftwaffe discreetly carried out photo-reconnaissance over southern England in the 1930's prior to WWII and invasion plans - the eelgrass was just recovering then from a natural disease.

Since then, despite the 1970's boom in recreational sailing - and anchoring in Studland Bay - current aerial photographs show the eelgrass has expanded remarkably.

When career conservationist Chris Packham insultingly called boat owners ' gin swilling wreckers of the environment ' he was clearly misled and talking out of the other end from his snorkel, no-one cares more about the sea and environment than sailors.

Andy,

lifelong sailor & Aerial Photographer.

I think you have gone to far accusing me of violence . this is a slur on me with no evidence to base this on shame on you. if you had any intelligence you would be able to handle constructive criticism
I ask you politely not to accuse me of such things again please

 

[moomba]

Tranoma I am not making a meal of anything no doubt your are distinguished in your profession and there fore I will not tell you how your profession works nor the ins and out of it, as I am humble to admit I dont know everything
so please do not tell me about ecology and life sciences and marine biology a subject matter I had a lifetime in.
As for Southampton U university research , it is mainly based on the sediment and the earth crust at , so no they have not done any published work on the matter of anchoring in seagrass,
Apart from this study from 2006
https://phc.co.uk/downloads/environment/env_harbourmon_appen10_0807.pdf
but was slightly biased to poole harbour authority this is were you must have non interfering paying costumers for your data

so why do we believe Southampton scientific papers (not peer reviewed) but not the ones I listed below


I have access to most scientific journals through my wife's computer and her University were she works
but its interesting that I have found scientific published papers using good scientific evidence saying anchoring does affect seagrass
What do scientists know I expect they know as much about their job as the people on this forum know about theirs. these papers are a few I have looked up all from different scientific papers all published in different Journals all independently reviewed.
I think it is a cheap shot telling people who have spent half their life in either conservation biology or ecology that they know nothing, to some one that does not work in the field .show some respect. we all live on the planet.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ay-dorset-uk/1AADE1DDC01B5FC4FC0D1B04D70112E4

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sut/unwt/2010/00000029/00000003/art00003

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/1/150596

https://www.frontiersin.org/article...rnalName=Frontiers_in_Plant_Science&id=262774

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17451000.2016.1225959

 

[dgadee]

Moomba, your accessing of journals through your wife's university account will be against the TOS which the University has agreed with the publishers. That could be a sackable matter for her.

It would be better (of course) if science was published in open access journals.

 

[bbg]

moomba

none of the studies that you have cited address the question of whether the eelgrass in Studland is declining, or specifically what effect anchoring in Studland might have had on the extent of eelgrass.

If the eelgrass cover is healthy, why should anything be changed?

 

[Heckler]

My view? A troll who has been on here before under other names.

 

[oldharry]

So the experimental example is does Anchoring have a detrimental effect on Sea Grass and the fauna living in it.
a good researcher will take the data and come up with a conclusion , the point to BORGS data it does not take in all the data it does not include fauna surveys , surveys were not carried out in a proper scientific way in which the world of life sciences use (this is not my wife's or my way this is the scientific way taught to us as undergraduates of science and post graduates , this is the way of science in this sector , you can argue all you like but it is the standard set throughout every university in the land ), i.e transect lines transect squares , fauna counting, over a number of months and even a year to allow for variation, this is why it is flawed not wrong only flawed.

I am not a scientist, and have neither the skills, training or funding to do any such research. I am a Yachtsmen who has been asked by the authorities to represent our interests. I am doing just that. Marlynspyke uses his skills as a PhD level scientist to pose these questions in the right language drawing on peer reviewed data and statistics which indicate there should not be a problem in Studland.

What i can do is to examine the evidence: a few reports say their 'might, or ought to' be a problem in the Bay. Numerous other peer reviewed reports say there should not be a problem. None of the problem reports hold water: Unwin for example doesnt allow for the fact the moorings in Studland were laid in bare sand, and the eelgrass grew up to them. They didnt damage it. They simply stopped its expansion in their immediate locality. Thats fundamentally different to laying a mooring in eelgrass and destroying it. Collins in 2010 examined in close detail the erosion of the edges of a gap he found in eelgrass. But he never demonstrated that that hole was caused by an anchor. I have seen the exact mechanism of undercutting that he describes, but AWAY from anywhere anyone would anchor, but not in the anchorage itself. Bare patches exist in most eelgrass beds whether or not they are anchored in. Other reports claim the complete destruction and fragmentation of the eelgrass in Studland. Well, that strange, because I can only find hectare after hectare of healthy eelgrass even in the anchorage. Healthy when measured by shoot length and density that is.

The boats and moorings were here before the eelgrass. It appears to have been thriving and growing quite vigorously here for 70 years, and has certainly expanded right across the Bay in that time. It might have developed further without the boats, but it is clearly an entirely sustainable position, and history shows very clearly anchoring has not hindered it's growth and development into a large and healthy eelgrass meadow which now extends way beyond the area we use for anchoring

A little way down the coast is Priory Bay, another popular anchorage. Unwin reports some of the healthiest eelgrass in the country there, alongside all the boats!

It is very easy to use statistics and data to prove almost anything. That is the strength, and at the same time the weakness of depending on it. I, and many thousands like me can see what is happening in the Bay. so I ask those experts who claim we are damaging the Bay's ecology, what data do they base that opinion on? Because I have a whole ream of reports, with data and and statistics, all properly peer reviewed, and a proven 70 year record of growth all of which say there should not be a problem. Experts have picked a small library which suggests there 'might' be issues, none of which is born out by what is actually happening in the Bay, and all of which have fundamental flaws. But statistics and data can be used to prove black is white, and for every report you find saying eelgrass is damaged by abrasion, I produce 3 or 4 demonstrating rapid and complete recovery from even quite major abrasion.

So I wont go away, because Studland is important to us. If we ARE in fact damaging it, then we need to do something about it. And urgently. But tell us why you think there is a problem,; show us what you think is going wrong.

I'm not in this for intellectual debate. I'm here to ask questions so that we can get something that works for the environment, and for people wanting to visit or live here. .

 

[MarlynSpyke]

I have access to most scientific journals through my wife's computer and her University were she works
but its interesting that I have found scientific published papers using good scientific evidence saying anchoring does affect seagrass
What do scientists know I expect they know as much about their job as the people on this forum know about theirs. these papers are a few I have looked up all from different scientific papers all published in different Journals all independently reviewed.
I think it is a cheap shot telling people who have spent half their life in either conservation biology or ecology that they know nothing, to some one that does not work in the field .show some respect. we all live on the planet.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ay-dorset-uk/1AADE1DDC01B5FC4FC0D1B04D70112E4

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sut/unwt/2010/00000029/00000003/art00003

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/1/150596

https://www.frontiersin.org/article...rnalName=Frontiers_in_Plant_Science&id=262774

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17451000.2016.1225959

I think it is Moonba taking cheap and ill-prepared shots, at the work we have done on behalf of BORG. He has produced reams of words, but has clearly not troubled to actually read what I have published, much of which is review and comment based on the published literature. He is too quick to offer generalised criticism of that which he has not even bothered to read. That is not good science, it does not deserve the name of science at all. I am pleased to hear that he has access to a computer and through it to scientific papers, but it should be no surprise to learn that he is actually not alone in this. I have trawled through countless papers in the course of examining the claims of over-enthusiatic conservationists, and Google has searched the worldwide database for me many many times.

The papers he cites as if they are new discoveries on his part are well known to us, and the first two I discussed, and published online, several years ago: I deal with them below.
I would have entered this thread earlier, but for various reasons was not aware of it until today. My thanks to those who responded against Moonba’s sweeping generalisations, made, if I read correctly, from somewhere in Scotland.
I will respond to some other points another day. But meanwhile:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...0D1B04D70112E4
This is one of the two peer-reviewed papers on seahorses published by NGM. It is is referenced in http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Studland-evidence.pdf (2011), also in http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Studland-Seahorse-Population.pdf The latter actually cites 8 papers on seahorse distribution, including studies in Ria Formosa, Portugal and in Greece. My article at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Poole-Seahorses.pdf , which is more essay than paper, also makes comparison with the seahorse habitats in Mar Piccolo di Taranto, Puglia, Italy, and draws distinctions between the common seahorse, Hippocampus hippocampus, which is indeed fairly common, but does not favour a seagrass habitat, and the spiny seahorse, Hippocampus guttulatus, the one sometimes found in eelgrass. Reports suggest that only 14 sightings of the spiny seahorse were made in the whole UK last year, it appears to be rare and sporadic and lack of sightings in a given location carry no significance, statistical or otherwise. It is not clear that Moonba has considered this distinction, nor the statistical consequences (high fluctuations) of very small populations.

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...00003/art00003
This paper is on eelgrass in Studland Bay, by Collins et al, and is referenced and discussed in http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Studland-evidence.pdf (2011) and thoroughly critiqued in http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Eelgrass-recolonisation.pdf (2012) It is the only paper I have found in the worldwide literature which reports anchor damage to the seagrass Zostera marina, however it failed to demonstrate that the bare areas studied were in fact due to anchor impact.
It is worth pointing out that in the first-mentioned BORG paper we report that “a Google scholar search reveals that 1780 papers have been published with Zostera marina in the title. It appears that none, other than Collins et al 2010, provides evidence of anchor damage to Zostera marina beds”. I am still not aware of any published paper, other than the Collins one, reporting anchor damage to Zostera marina. Posidonia oceanica yes, but that is an entirely different matter.

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.o...ent/3/1/150596
We are well aware of this paper, it focuses on water quality and while it mentions boating-based disturbances it produces no evidence about them.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...ence&id=262774
This is specifically about damaged caused by the ground chains of swinging moorings, nobody denies that this happens, but it is a very different effect from anchoring. We point this out in several articles, and also that there has been a concerted campaign to conflate the two.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...0.2016.1225959
This paper studies the effect of removing entire plants, rhizomes and all, from 4 m2 (2m x 2m) patches of seabed. It is nonsensical to suggests this replicates the effect of a leisure boat anchor. My papers, those mentioned above and others, discuss at length studies in the literature of the recovery of eelgrass from physical damage, and its dependence on the dimensions of the disturbed area. Moonba would do well to study those papers which I reference, and others on the BORG website, if he wishes to be taken seriously in future.

 

[Heckler]

I think it is Moonba taking cheap and ill-prepared shots, at the work we have done on behalf of BORG. He has produced reams of words, but has clearly not troubled to actually read what I have published, much of which is review and comment based on the published literature. He is too quick to offer generalised criticism of that which he has not even bothered to read. That is not good science, it does not deserve the name of science at all. I am pleased to hear that he has access to a computer and through it to scientific papers, but it should be no surprise to learn that he is actually not alone in this. I have trawled through countless papers in the course of examining the claims of over-enthusiatic conservationists, and Google has searched the worldwide database for me many many times.

The papers he cites as if they are new discoveries on his part are well known to us, and the first two I discussed, and published online, several years ago: I deal with them below.
I would have entered this thread earlier, but for various reasons was not aware of it until today. My thanks to those who responded against Moonba’s sweeping generalisations, made, if I read correctly, from somewhere in Scotland.
I will respond to some other points another day. But meanwhile:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...0D1B04D70112E4
This is one of the two peer-reviewed papers on seahorses published by NGM. It is is referenced in http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Studland-evidence.pdf (2011), also in http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Studland-Seahorse-Population.pdf The latter actually cites 8 papers on seahorse distribution, including studies in Ria Formosa, Portugal and in Greece. My article at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Poole-Seahorses.pdf , which is more essay than paper, also makes comparison with the seahorse habitats in Mar Piccolo di Taranto, Puglia, Italy, and draws distinctions between the common seahorse, Hippocampus hippocampus, which is indeed fairly common, but does not favour a seagrass habitat, and the spiny seahorse, Hippocampus guttulatus, the one sometimes found in eelgrass. Reports suggest that only 14 sightings of the spiny seahorse were made in the whole UK last year, it appears to be rare and sporadic and lack of sightings in a given location carry no significance, statistical or otherwise. It is not clear that Moonba has considered this distinction, nor the statistical consequences (high fluctuations) of very small populations.

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...00003/art00003
This paper is on eelgrass in Studland Bay, by Collins et al, and is referenced and discussed in http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Studland-evidence.pdf (2011) and thoroughly critiqued in http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Eelgrass-recolonisation.pdf (2012) It is the only paper I have found in the worldwide literature which reports anchor damage to the seagrass Zostera marina, however it failed to demonstrate that the bare areas studied were in fact due to anchor impact.
It is worth pointing out that in the first-mentioned BORG paper we report that “a Google scholar search reveals that 1780 papers have been published with Zostera marina in the title. It appears that none, other than Collins et al 2010, provides evidence of anchor damage to Zostera marina beds”. I am still not aware of any published paper, other than the Collins one, reporting anchor damage to Zostera marina. Posidonia oceanica yes, but that is an entirely different matter.

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.o...ent/3/1/150596
We are well aware of this paper, it focuses on water quality and while it mentions boating-based disturbances it produces no evidence about them.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...ence&id=262774
This is specifically about damaged caused by the ground chains of swinging moorings, nobody denies that this happens, but it is a very different effect from anchoring. We point this out in several articles, and also that there has been a concerted campaign to conflate the two.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...0.2016.1225959
This paper studies the effect of removing entire plants, rhizomes and all, from 4 m2 (2m x 2m) patches of seabed. It is nonsensical to suggests this replicates the effect of a leisure boat anchor. My papers, those mentioned above and others, discuss at length studies in the literature of the recovery of eelgrass from physical damage, and its dependence on the dimensions of the disturbed area. Moonba would do well to study those papers which I reference, and others on the BORG website, if he wishes to be taken seriously in future.

I wouldnt even go so far as to waste your time typing all that stuff, he/she is quite obviously someone looking for an argument!
As I said if he/she wants to go down the route of using fully researched evidence than where is the evidence that they are who they say they are/ Pot calling kettle black!

 

[MarlynSpyke]

I wouldnt even go so far as to waste your time typing all that stuff, he/she is quite obviously someone looking for an argument!
As I said if he/she wants to go down the route of using fully researched evidence than where is the evidence that they are who they say they are/ Pot calling kettle black!

Thanks, good point, it probably was just a waste of time.

 

[Seajet]

I think you have gone to far accusing me of violence . this is a slur on me with no evidence to base this on shame on you. if you had any intelligence you would be able to handle constructive criticism
I ask you politely not to accuse me of such things again please

Moomba,

I have not accused you of anything, merely voiced my personal suspicions re your identity - as I said if you're not the person I suspect with a violent past I happily apologise.

That doesn't make your argument any more valid though - what part of ' the eelgrass has expanded massively even during the boating boom ' don't you get ?

 

[moomba]

Arguments from a chemistry retired Dr are not the skills for deciphering Ecology papers , some of the papers I have listed are protected by payment plans so did you buy them to read!! it still amazes me that you cant see the forest for all the trees around , you are in denial to the facts that extreme anchoring which happens in this bay causes habitat loss .
This is not your personnel forums for you to list and speak out without being constructively challenged , the problem is, we are dealing with retired , or an older generation of white male , who has not the reasoning nor the will power to accept change or difference to their world , this is the type of person that takes offence to some one parking outside their house and they twitch their curtains , BORGs work though admirable to go ahead and defend what is in your opinion is right , it is flawed with poor science and poor data collection which in the world of ecology will be laughed at.
It surprises me that you will defend this argument but not allow others to come onto a forum and criticises ,
For it to get to parliamentary debate is a joke in its self , it shows you how poor this part of the country is run with influence and old boy networks working from within , let true science win who ever shows this to be the case,
Trolls should be reported , people using violent comments should be reported , people logging in with other users names should be reported , stop talking on forums and act if this is what you feel is happening , a sad bunch this is , shame on you all what will you tell you Grandchildren oh look we still have sea grass it grew back ,'but Granpa were has all the fish gone !!! who cares about that look at the seagrass
good luck.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Arguments from a chemistry retired Dr are not the skills for deciphering Ecology papers , some of the papers I have listed are protected by payment plans so did you buy them to read!! it still amazes me that you cant see the forest for all the trees around , you are in denial to the facts that extreme anchoring which happens in this bay causes habitat loss .
This is not your personnel forums for you to list and speak out without being constructively challenged , the problem is, we are dealing with retired , or an older generation of white male , who has not the reasoning nor the will power to accept change or difference to their world , this is the type of person that takes offence to some one parking outside their house and they twitch their curtains , BORGs work though admirable to go ahead and defend what is in your opinion is right , it is flawed with poor science and poor data collection which in the world of ecology will be laughed at.
It surprises me that you will defend this argument but not allow others to come onto a forum and criticises ,
For it to get to parliamentary debate is a joke in its self , it shows you how poor this part of the country is run with influence and old boy networks working from within , let true science win who ever shows this to be the case,
Trolls should be reported , people using violent comments should be reported , people logging in with other users names should be reported , stop talking on forums and act if this is what you feel is happening , a sad bunch this is , shame on you all what will you tell you Grandchildren oh look we still have sea grass it grew back ,'but Granpa were has all the fish gone !!! who cares about that look at the seagrass
good luck.

Any chance you could raise your punctuation to something approaching GCSE standard? It would make your posts so much easier to read and might even improve your credibility a smidgen.

 

[Heckler]

Arguments from a chemistry retired Dr are not the skills for deciphering Ecology papers , some of the papers I have listed are protected by payment plans so did you buy them to read!! it still amazes me that you cant see the forest for all the trees around , you are in denial to the facts that extreme anchoring which happens in this bay causes habitat loss .
This is not your personnel forums for you to list and speak out without being constructively challenged , the problem is, we are dealing with retired , or an older generation of white male , who has not the reasoning nor the will power to accept change or difference to their world , this is the type of person that takes offence to some one parking outside their house and they twitch their curtains , BORGs work though admirable to go ahead and defend what is in your opinion is right , it is flawed with poor science and poor data collection which in the world of ecology will be laughed at.
It surprises me that you will defend this argument but not allow others to come onto a forum and criticises ,
For it to get to parliamentary debate is a joke in its self , it shows you how poor this part of the country is run with influence and old boy networks working from within , let true science win who ever shows this to be the case,
Trolls should be reported , people using violent comments should be reported , people logging in with other users names should be reported , stop talking on forums and act if this is what you feel is happening , a sad bunch this is , shame on you all what will you tell you Grandchildren oh look we still have sea grass it grew back ,'but Granpa were has all the fish gone !!! who cares about that look at the seagrass
good luck.

Didnt take long did it?

 

[Boathook]

Originally Posted by moomba

Arguments from a chemistry retired Dr are not the skills for deciphering Ecology papers , some of the papers I have listed are protected by payment plans so did you buy them to read!! it still amazes me that you cant see the forest for all the trees around , you are in denial to the facts that extreme anchoring which happens in this bay causes habitat loss .

I'm wondering where the habitat loss in Studland is. The eel grass seems to be thriving and expanding each time I visit. Maybe Moomba should visit and see ?