Natural Englandrespondsto freedom of information request about Studland.

[Tranona]

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.

Word of advice.

I think it is time you stopped airing your prejudices here. You could not be more wrong in the insults you are directing at very experienced and mature people.

You have absolutely no idea of the situation at Studland. You have never been there and the statements you make about it are so far from reality

The two papers that are first on your list for example are poorly researched and based on false assumptions. The lead authors have been challenged many times on their findings and have no answers to the legitimate criticisms. Some of us here have engaged directly with them and therefore have been able to form their own opinions of the validity of their claims.

It is not a question of being unable to see the wood for the trees. It is about exactly the opposite. That is identifying what the issues are and working through them. The approach taken by many is to state there is a problem and then try (desperately at times) to find evidence that proves there is a problem. The main strategy in this case for those who see a problem where none exists is to just state it over and over again in the popular press - and NEVER answer questions. Helped in this case by the natural fascination with cute animals like seahorses.

Once again please consider my advice about being sceptical and don't believe your own hype but listen to the evidence.

The central issue is health of the eel grass beds and the claim that small boat anchoring damages it. As Marlynspyke has stated quite clearly there is not one scientific paper that provides any evidence of this. So even by your standard of relying on "peer reviewed papers" there is no case to answer.

The evidence is that the eel grass beds in Studland are in the best health they have been in living memory.

Sorry it is old white males coming to that conclusion but that is because it is that section of the population which has been around the site long enough to both see the changes and recognise the reasons for them.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

I'm not sure if moomba is a troll or is simply misguided and genuinely believes what he types but I'd suggest the wrestling with pigs saying applies here. That doesn't imply that I think there is anything porcine about anyone in case someone screams in outrage, faux or otherwise. It's a saying often attributed to George Bernard Shaw (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/43033-never-wrestle-with-pigs-you-both-get-dirty-and-the).

 

[MarlynSpyke]

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.

A most illuminating rant from Moomba, shining a revealing light on the quality of his argument and thinking. After this response I’ll follow Skipper_stu’s advice and not waste my time.

But the rant also shines a light on the question of just who “Moomba” is. His earlier posts claimed he was not biased in these matters:

Post 35: “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”

Post 45 “as I have already stated in several posts I am no biased in anyway ,”(sic)

Compare these with the last sentence of his last (I hope) post. The mask has slipped.

By the way, is it possible that declining fish stocks are due to widespread over-fishing, rather than small boats dropping anchor in Studland Bay?

 

[oldharry]

By the way, is it possible that declining fish stocks are due to widespread over-fishing, rather than small boats dropping anchor in Studland Bay?

No cant possibly be, thats far too logical, Marlynspyke. Anyway it doesnt fit the argument. Like the claim all the cliff falls round Western end of Poole bay in winter 2013 -14 were caused by boats anchoring and eroding the sand so the cliffs fell into the holes we had left. Nothing to do with the unprecedented series of storms that devastated so much of the country that winter. This was seriously promoted on the SHT FB site in spring that year.

And they wonder why we question what these 'experts' come up with.

But there you have it, that is the new religion of Environmentalism in the Post truth era. The arguments Moomba puts up to get us to conform to Mainstream environmantalism are all too familiar. Even the outburst at the end has all too familiar hallmarks: 1. Discredit anyone who disagrees. Point out they cannot possibly understand anything without the right training. 2. Mix in an accusation of intellectual or actual dishonesty (did you pay for these reports? clearly inferring we pirated them). 3 Throw in a hefty dose of prejudice against the victim. 4 Rubbish whatever is being said, as 'proof' you are right. 5. Yell the party line as loud as you can. In this case: "Anchoring is destroying the eelgrass!"

I have sat through countless meetings and interchanges where this exact ploy has been used against me. I have been accused so many times following this formula. Not, I hasten to add by Natural England, though even they can be every bit as dismissive when it suits them, but at least they never descend to personal animosity.

The difficulty is that in our post truth culture, anything goes, and he who shouts loudest creates truth. See Post 81 in the Studland sticky thread.

 

[Heckler]

A most illuminating rant from Moomba, shining a revealing light on the quality of his argument and thinking. After this response I’ll follow Skipper_stu’s advice and not waste my time.

But the rant also shines a light on the question of just who “Moomba” is. His earlier posts claimed he was not biased in these matters:

Post 35: “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”

Post 45 “as I have already stated in several posts I am no biased in anyway ,”(sic)

Compare these with the last sentence of his last (I hope) post. The mask has slipped.

By the way, is it possible that declining fish stocks are due to widespread over-fishing, rather than small boats dropping anchor in Studland Bay?

It is a great pity that TI doesnt do a lot more due diligence in its allowance of people to post on these forums! Even the mighty Facebook is stopping multiple and false identities to be set up and insisting on proof that you are who you are when identities are set up!
I, like Seajet. have a good idea of who this latest incarnation is!
As I, and others have said, it didnt take long for the mask to slip!

 

[moomba]

It is a great pity that TI doesnt do a lot more due diligence in its allowance of people to post on these forums! Even the mighty Facebook is stopping multiple and false identities to be set up and insisting on proof that you are who you are when identities are set up!
I, like Seajet. have a good idea of who this latest incarnation is!
As I, and others have said, it didnt take long for the mask to slip!

You are all disillusioned with your own arguments and cannot as stated before read and interpret what is acuta being said , Tranoma you know nothing about ecology or conservation do not judge those who are better than you in this field , Skipper Stu you need to stop looking for shadows in the closet this will drive you mad.
To the rest I stand by the science I did not want to list the multiple papers on this issue , there are hundreds of papers talking about the decline in seagrass and the effects on the environment. this habitat is a nursery for the pyramid of sea life in the area,
We are led to believe that a retired industrial chemistry Dr and a one off survey paid for in part from BORG and old German aircraft photos , and google earth are the basis of your argument , this is flawed and will not stand up to proper scientific scrutiny , when you have all studied and worked out the concept of ecology then a proper discussion can be achieved rather than this blatant one-sided blinkered approach
Please refrain from calling me a troll , someone's else's identity or using words like violence in quotes , it amazes me that the mafia on this thread allow this to happen and do not criticize their own , shame on you

 

[doug748]

I hate to blow my own trumpet but can I draw further attention to my post 20:



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

 

[moomba]

Word of advice.

I think it is time you stopped airing your prejudices here. You could not be more wrong in the insults you are directing at very experienced and mature people.

Please don't threaten me , I have not insulted anyone and I have with my wife more experience of Ecology and the seas than what is being challenged to me on these threads, my wife as stated before is a Dr of Ecology I was a marine biologist for over 20 years our combined scientific knowledge of the seas and scientific protocol is enough to sustain a debate on this thread , I am also a mature person hence the no insults.
And yes I am a white stale male who owns a boat and drops an anchor , but do so with care and acknowledge the damage that can be done therefore I do so with care.

'Trolling is defined as creating discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community'

nothing I said was inflammatory, and I have been on topic through the discussion , in fact if you look at the replies to me you could consider that trolling.

I will continue to post on this thread if there is something to comment on, I will stop posting if the discussion drops which seem the most sensible thing to do .

 

[bbg]

You are all disillusioned with your own arguments and cannot as stated before read and interpret what is acuta being said , Tranoma you know nothing about ecology or conservation do not judge those who are better than you in this field , Skipper Stu you need to stop looking for shadows in the closet this will drive you mad.
To the rest I stand by the science I did not want to list the multiple papers on this issue , there are hundreds of papers talking about the decline in seagrass and the effects on the environment. this habitat is a nursery for the pyramid of sea life in the area,
We are led to believe that a retired industrial chemistry Dr and a one off survey paid for in part from BORG and old German aircraft photos , and google earth are the basis of your argument , this is flawed and will not stand up to proper scientific scrutiny , when you have all studied and worked out the concept of ecology then a proper discussion can be achieved rather than this blatant one-sided blinkered approach
Please refrain from calling me a troll , someone's else's identity or using words like violence in quotes , it amazes me that the mafia on this thread allow this to happen and do not criticize their own , shame on you

Can you point to any peer-reviewed study showing that the eelgrass in Studland Bay is threatened, or even decreasing?

That is the starting point. If the eelgrass beds are healthy and stable, there is no reason to change anything.

 

[moomba]

Can you point to any peer-reviewed study showing that the eelgrass in Studland Bay is threatened, or even decreasing?

That is the starting point. If the eelgrass beds are healthy and stable, there is no reason to change anything.

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

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

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sut/unwt/2010/00000029/00000003/art00003?crawler=true

https://www.projectseagrass.org/Tranche 3 Response - Project Seagrass FINAL.pdf (not perr reviewed but has xome excellent refrences)

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

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/conl.12566

The papers have been peer reviewed and cross referenced , to write a scientific paper in Ecology or natural sciences you look at other papers from around the world and collaborate the data , so what is happening in Norwegian seagrass might also be happening in the UK so lots of very intelligent Drs of life sciences study the global effects of depleting or DAMAGING sea grass , the argument that people are not getting is that sea grass been torn up and damaged , no one is saying that potential it grows back!!! but you have destroyed an ecosystem were animal larva and plankton will have used it for their habitat , now 200+ anchors dropping in a bay every day over summer , in which it is the height of the production season , will have an accumulative effect of the biodiversity of the habitat , i.e less fish . less flora and fauna , this is basic equations and logic , it scares me that some on this forum can not see this.

A lot of the papers feature Dr Richard Unsworth

are we accusing him of silliness like my wife and myself as a Dr he is a respected person in the scientific community like my wife , yet there are people on this forum like Tranoma Dr Stu and BORG who thinks that they are more knowledgeable than these Doctors ,

Quote from Swansea University
Dr Richard Unsworth
Richard's expertise lie in the ecological structuring processes of marine systems and the implications of these systems for society. This focuses primarily on the interrelationships between foundation species, habitat, and associated productive fauna (mainly fish). He is particularly interested in the consequences of cross-scale environmental changes on seagrass meadows functioning and the implications of this for global food security and other ecosystem services.

all these papers will have been written by Dr's specialising in their field.

 

[Blue Sunray]

a Dr he is a respected person in the scientific community

I (obviously?) know neither your wife or Dr Unsworth. However possession of a PhD does not in and of itself confer respect, it just shows they got the postgraduate degree. I have over the years worked with holders of PhDs in a variety of disciplines some were very good, others were pretty average to say the least. Even more so nowadays with the proliferation of degree awarding institutions of pretty dubious standards.

 

[Tranona]

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

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

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sut/unwt/2010/00000029/00000003/art00003?crawler=true

https://www.projectseagrass.org/Tranche 3 Response - Project Seagrass FINAL.pdf (not perr reviewed but has xome excellent refrences)

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

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/conl.12566

The papers have been peer reviewed and cross referenced , to write a scientific paper in Ecology or natural sciences you look at other papers from around the world and collaborate the data , so what is happening in Norwegian seagrass might also be happening in the UK so lots of very intelligent Drs of life sciences study the global effects of depleting or DAMAGING sea grass , the argument that people are not getting is that sea grass been torn up and damaged , no one is saying that potential it grows back!!! but you have destroyed an ecosystem were animal larva and plankton will have used it for their habitat , now 200+ anchors dropping in a bay every day over summer , in which it is the height of the production season , will have an accumulative effect of the biodiversity of the habitat , i.e less fish . less flora and fauna , this is basic equations and logic , it scares me that some on this forum can not see this.

A lot of the papers feature Dr Richard Unsworth

are we accusing him of silliness like my wife and myself as a Dr he is a respected person in the scientific community like my wife , yet there are people on this forum like Tranoma Dr Stu and BORG who thinks that they are more knowledgeable than these Doctors ,

Quote from Swansea University
Dr Richard Unsworth
Richard's expertise lie in the ecological structuring processes of marine systems and the implications of these systems for society. This focuses primarily on the interrelationships between foundation species, habitat, and associated productive fauna (mainly fish). He is particularly interested in the consequences of cross-scale environmental changes on seagrass meadows functioning and the implications of this for global food security and other ecosystem services.

all these papers will have been written by Dr's specialising in their field.

You really need to be more discriminating.

NOT ONE of those articles with the possible exception of the Collins one SPECIFICALLY deals with damage caused by small boat anchors. The Collins one only ASSUMES that the area he studied was caused by boat anchors and this assumption is strongly challenged by those who know the area.

There is a big difference between permanent swinging moorings and anchoring and it is true that chains related to moorings can scour the seabed. However, as has already been pointed out the moorings in Studland were laid many years ago IN BARE SAND and the eel grass has grown around them.

You need to get away from the idea that just because an article is peer reviewed and published does not mean it, or its findings are either true, or in particular are generalisable to other settings. All it means is that the reviewers agree the methodology used is sound and the findings are supported by the data. That is all.

Of course existing studies have a purpose and inform future studies, but in this case, apart from the fundamentally flawed Collins study and the poorly constructed Sea Star project there have been no serious studies of the eel grass beds in the unique setting of Studland - only the BORG study which shows a completely different scenario from that "made up" by others.

BTW if you have read everything written here you will know that OH and Marlynspyke know Dr Unsworth and have engaged with him and his research which you summarise well - but note he has nothing to say about anchoring!

Nobody is belittling well qualified researchers nor accusing them of being silly. Rather the accusation (if there is one) is of the position taken by some that is NOT based on sound research. It would be really good if the time, effort and money that has been spent on promoting unproven positions was spent on serious well structured research on the issue. This would be well supported by all in the boating community.

However, this has all be covered in great detail both in the BORG material and in some cases earlier in this thread, so not a lot of point in repeating it yet again.

Nobody is threatening you - just offering advice which essentially is to use your critical faculties rather than blindly accepting what you read. The sign of a good academic researcher is critical thinking, and from what you have written here it seems you have either lost this or never had it in the first place.

Every time you post you just add to that impression, which is why I suggested you stop posting. The old saying - "When in a hole......."!

 

[moomba]

You really need to be more discriminating.

NOT ONE of those articles with the possible exception of the Collins one SPECIFICALLY deals with damage caused by small boat anchors. The Collins one only ASSUMES that the area he studied was caused by boat anchors and this assumption is strongly challenged by those who know the area.

There is a big difference between permanent swinging moorings and anchoring and it is true that chains related to moorings can scour the seabed. However, as has already been pointed out the moorings in Studland were laid many years ago IN BARE SAND and the eel grass has grown around them.

You need to get away from the idea that just because an article is peer reviewed and published does not mean it, or its findings are either true, or in particular are generalisable to other settings. All it means is that the reviewers agree the methodology used is sound and the findings are supported by the data. That is all.

Of course existing studies have a purpose and inform future studies, but in this case, apart from the fundamentally flawed Collins study and the poorly constructed Sea Star project there have been no serious studies of the eel grass beds in the unique setting of Studland - only the BORG study which shows a completely different scenario from that "made up" by others.

BTW if you have read everything written here you will know that OH and Marlynspyke know Dr Unsworth and have engaged with him and his research which you summarise well - but note he has nothing to say about anchoring!

Nobody is belittling well qualified researchers nor accusing them of being silly. Rather the accusation (if there is one) is of the position taken by some that is NOT based on sound research. It would be really good if the time, effort and money that has been spent on promoting unproven positions was spent on serious well structured research on the issue. This would be well supported by all in the boating community.

However, this has all be covered in great detail both in the BORG material and in some cases earlier in this thread, so not a lot of point in repeating it yet again.

Nobody is threatening you - just offering advice which essentially is to use your critical faculties rather than blindly accepting what you read. The sign of a good academic researcher is critical thinking, and from what you have written here it seems you have either lost this or never had it in the first place.

Every time you post you just add to that impression, which is why I suggested you stop posting. The old saying - "When in a hole......."!

Tranoma read the whole post , we can use intimidating language in many forms it is called bullying , sad but true , Why have you not asked any of the posters who were using abusive comments to me or ask people to stop , you seem to have some influence on these forums , is it because like most people YOU are afraid to stand up and say enough this is a forum for discussion, me I don't get intimidated by anyone. but You come across as a very angry man , who if no one listens to you you abuse them I have seem many of your posts on other forums were you are abusive , intimidating and down right rude , do you get a kick from this. I do believe you gave me a hard time on some of my first posts,when I started on YBW were I though it would be more polite and less attacking place, bloody newbie eh what do I know, telling me not to write so much information , you were rude then , are you stalking me,
Well Dear T there is a wealth of knowledge out there and people do know more than you and me but it is the one that listens and adapts will gain the most knowledge.

I love your quote of SMALL anchors , I would imagine if a 20kg anchor fell on your head it might do some damage.

Science is based on research conducted over many years and experiments done by qualified professionals , the research in a whole is saying that seagrass beds around the world are UNDER THREAT from habit loss, pollution and fishing these are called stressors , now I will try and make this simple if you add more stressors to THE MIX I.E 200+ anchors ,this may tip the balance against the habitat , not hard to contemplate , its like adding another stone to the pile and then it cascades, surly a man of your intelligence can work that out , but you sir are not qualified to contradict me in the manner you have , so in essence your opinion is null.

 

[Blue Sunray]

I love your quote of SMALL anchors , I would imagine if a 20kg anchor fell on your head it might do some damage.

If I was underwater at the time I think I'd survive.

By the way I notice SS and SJ have been notably absent from this thread recently, have you had any sort of apology from either?

 

[Boathook]

I love your quote of SMALL anchors , I would imagine if a 20kg anchor fell on your head it might do some damage.
.

Please define small. 20kg is large for a dinghy but for an average size yacht this is average size.
Also I have not noticed any 'science' in your comments so far as it might apply to Studland; so in my opinion your comments and even views in your opinion is null.
Also why didn't you joint the forum earlier. Most persons who seem to join in have been viewing the forum for a few years.

 

[bbg]

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

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

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sut/unwt/2010/00000029/00000003/art00003?crawler=true

https://www.projectseagrass.org/Tranche 3 Response - Project Seagrass FINAL.pdf (not perr reviewed but has xome excellent refrences)

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

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/conl.12566

The papers have been peer reviewed and cross referenced , to write a scientific paper in Ecology or natural sciences you look at other papers from around the world and collaborate the data , so what is happening in Norwegian seagrass might also be happening in the UK so lots of very intelligent Drs of life sciences study the global effects of depleting or DAMAGING sea grass , the argument that people are not getting is that sea grass been torn up and damaged , no one is saying that potential it grows back!!! but you have destroyed an ecosystem were animal larva and plankton will have used it for their habitat , now 200+ anchors dropping in a bay every day over summer , in which it is the height of the production season , will have an accumulative effect of the biodiversity of the habitat , i.e less fish . less flora and fauna , this is basic equations and logic , it scares me that some on this forum can not see this.

A lot of the papers feature Dr Richard Unsworth

are we accusing him of silliness like my wife and myself as a Dr he is a respected person in the scientific community like my wife , yet there are people on this forum like Tranoma Dr Stu and BORG who thinks that they are more knowledgeable than these Doctors ,

Quote from Swansea University
Dr Richard Unsworth
Richard's expertise lie in the ecological structuring processes of marine systems and the implications of these systems for society. This focuses primarily on the interrelationships between foundation species, habitat, and associated productive fauna (mainly fish). He is particularly interested in the consequences of cross-scale environmental changes on seagrass meadows functioning and the implications of this for global food security and other ecosystem services.

all these papers will have been written by Dr's specialising in their field.

Sorry but NONE of those papers attempts to measure the seagrass coverage at Studland.

How much area is covered by seagrass at Studland today?
10 years ago?
20 years ago?
50 years ago?

There is no evidence that the seagrass beds at Studland are unhealthy or threatened.

 

[CLB]

Tranoma read the whole post , we can use intimidating language in many forms it is called bullying , sad but true , Why have you not asked any of the posters who were using abusive comments to me or ask people to stop , you seem to have some influence on these forums , is it because like most people YOU are afraid to stand up and say enough this is a forum for discussion, me I don't get intimidated by anyone. but You come across as a very angry man , who if no one listens to you you abuse them I have seem many of your posts on other forums were you are abusive , intimidating and down right rude , do you get a kick from this. I do believe you gave me a hard time on some of my first posts,when I started on YBW were I though it would be more polite and less attacking place, bloody newbie eh what do I know, telling me not to write so much information , you were rude then , are you stalking me,
Well Dear T there is a wealth of knowledge out there and people do know more than you and me but it is the one that listens and adapts will gain the most knowledge.

I love your quote of SMALL anchors , I would imagine if a 20kg anchor fell on your head it might do some damage.

Science is based on research conducted over many years and experiments done by qualified professionals , the research in a whole is saying that seagrass beds around the world are UNDER THREAT from habit loss, pollution and fishing these are called stressors , now I will try and make this simple if you add more stressors to THE MIX I.E 200+ anchors ,this may tip the balance against the habitat , not hard to contemplate , its like adding another stone to the pile and then it cascades, surly a man of your intelligence can work that out , but you sir are not qualified to contradict me in the manner you have , so in essence your opinion is null.

For an academic, your standard of English and grammar in the above post is shocking. Now I know the first rule of criticising grammar is to be spot on yourself, but I only achieved an O level in English, at grade C, and left school at 16, so I have an excuse

 

[Giblets]

For an academic, your standard of English and grammar in the above post is shocking. Now I know the first rule of criticising grammar is to be spot on yourself, but I only achieved an O level in English, at grade C, and left school at 16, so I have an excuse

I think that moomba answered this point in post #17 above. However he does himself no favours by suggesting "200+ anchors dropping in a bay every day over summer". If this is referring to Studland Bay then I fancy this figure is wildly inaccurate and appears at odds with his mantra of detailed and accurate scientific research. He also seems rather reluctant to address the reason for the eelgrass proliferating in Studland as it would appear to be doing so based on actual observations ( which I understand to be the basis of detailed and accurate research).

 

[Tranona]

I love your quote of SMALL anchors , I would imagine if a 20kg anchor fell on your head it might do some damage.

Science is based on research conducted over many years and experiments done by qualified professionals , the research in a whole is saying that seagrass beds around the world are UNDER THREAT from habit loss, pollution and fishing these are called stressors , now I will try and make this simple if you add more stressors to THE MIX I.E 200+ anchors ,this may tip the balance against the habitat , not hard to contemplate , its like adding another stone to the pile and then it cascades, surly a man of your intelligence can work that out , but you sir are not qualified to contradict me in the manner you have , so in essence your opinion is null.

The point about the size of the anchors is to demonstrate that their effect on the seabed is also small. Not sure of the relevance of one dropping on a person's head given there are no people lying on the seabed in Studland. Another example of your wooly thinking!

There is no dispute about the general fact that seagrasses are under threat in many parts of the world for exactly the reasons you state - and confirmed by the many studies.

You, however seem to have difficulty with discriminating between a generality and a specific.

The specific is about a particular site and the "problems" of that site. In this case the claim has been made that small boat anchoring is harmful to the eel grass beds. As I (and others) have said to you many times, there is no credible evidence that this is the case - and every time we say that you come back with reference to other studies that simply do not deal with this issue.

It is not a case of "tipping the balance". The scale of anchoring has been largely unchanged for many years and the extent of the eel grass beds has grown in that period and NOT reduced. Add to that the eel grass itself, using the generally accepted criteria, is good. So your simplistic analogy is not relevant.

Your "simple" explanation is just nonsense - you have no idea what is happening in the site so you just guess. I don't need you to try and make things simple (and therefore meaningless). I am quite capable of understanding the issues and I will challenge you if I think you are wrong.

I do not approve of some of the comments others have made about you, but it is not my place to censure them. I have no more "influence" than any other poster here.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

If Moomba’s wild spraying of generalisations and off-the-point references, not to mention personal slurs, are examples of how ecologists operate, then heaven save us (and the ecosystems) from ecologists!

A couple of further points: an “ecologist” who specialises in seahorses claimed (without providing evidence) that the eelgrass in Studland Bay had been so depleted that there was not enough eelgrass habitat for the seahorses. I did not believe him, and in the course of an hour produced enough underwater video evidence to utterly debunk his false claims. No formal transects, but the GPS coordinates at the start and finish of each of the 5 runs are given. This retired chemist produced evidence which the conventional marine science “establishment” had utterly failed to. (http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/underwater-videos/ )

Moomba tries to mock the aerial photographs which we have published. The most useful set were pictures used by four established marine biologists who had tried to torture the imagery into proving “fragmentation” of the eelgrass beds. I forensically examined the paper in question, found computational errors and reporting bias, and lodged a formal complaint with Natural England. This was thoroughly examined, my complaint upheld, and the paper was withdrawn by Natural England. Full details at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/critique_of_NECR111.pdf . I thought it appropriate to publish the actual aerial pictures on which their paper was based, and obtained the images through an FOI request. See http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Aerial-1972-2011.pdf .

So Mr Moomba, if you have anything serious to say by all means say it, otherwise I suggest you withdraw from this thread. I intend to, it has wasted enough of my time already.