Natural Englandrespondsto freedom of information request about Studland.

[CLB]

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.

Not having read all 100 posts on this thread I admit that I missed post 17. Having now read it, I apologise to moomba for making light of his grammar and spelling.

 

[moomba]

Hey all I think it is time for me to put this one to bed , I have no problems with people critiquing my grammar , and I appreciated the offers of apologies but there is no need
I proof read these threads several times , but still get it wrong.
I stand by my research , my profession , and ecology in that it needs to be heard or the future will be bleak for this planet, this does not mean there cannot be a balance between humans and nature, just a balance , the whole argument regarding this bay is there seems to be no balance between both parties , both fighting like cat and dog but both not listening to each others arguments.

A simply solution of no anchor zones for certain parts of the year would enable the fauna to replenish
The other argument is the the seagrass is always there, it grows back, its healthier than before, these arguments have not be proven by BORG with good Science , this is not to say that a good effort was not tried but it its not scientific enough for even a balance of probability, it is also not about the seagrass per sei it is the fish fry and plankton that inhabit these zones , these are the base of the food web for other creatures they use these beds as their nurseries , if you keep destroying large swathes of grass you destroy their habit you destroy them, this cascades all the way up the food chain , scallop fishermen have no scallops , no fish for the fishermen , no lobsters . you get the picture.

I have been accused of not critical thinking , being a spy , being potential violent, asked to leave the forum been ADVISED to leave ( I see this as loose threat , but clearly some dont') I'm a troll , Cptn Stu also reported me to the administrators or mods, claiming I was a fraud and a troll also being told my Wife and I are not what we say we are , yet my Wife is a Dr of Fresh water Ecology 8 years of study the same as a Doctor of medicine 1st class honours Degree , straight to PHD now studying the effects of stressors on lochs in Scotland and also studies littorella uniflora (shore weed to us) and the effects of invertebrates losses due to sterssors (remember that word stressor , an anchor is a stressor) , she now writes scientific papers peer reviewed and helps with the UK wide freshwater group , I after my accident helped her with her field work and got interested in that field , by god I'm not an expert in ecology, but my wife is, more than anyone writing on this thread. Me I Gained my Marine Biology Degree from Glasgow University only 2:1 for me,and for 20 years I worked in the field of Cetaceans writing reports , using scientific methods proving through out the world as the norm , yet I have been shot down , told I know nothing, and to leave because it has nothing to do with me. If we all felt like that , then we should all pull our drawbridges up and hide in our castles until there is nothing left.
I will not be bullied nor shy away from a good discussion, I argue with my wife who is a true Environmentalist on many issues in regards to human interaction on the land I find it enlightening.she hits me

Now believe it or not I was an avid mountaineer all weather climber and sailing and surfing , I loved the outdoors and would argue vehemently if someone tried to stop me , but up here in Scotland we have the access code of 2003 which gave farmers and conservationists a small heart attack , but guess what we in Scotland have found a balance with nature and the vast majority of people living in Scotland live with harmony and respect of their natural environment , you could say were proud of it and would like to keep it that way for generations to come .
why when I anchor I make sure I do it with care and respect for the environment
Many people have read this thread some have taken part I valued all the opinions but there was a point were it seemed common sense was getting out of hand if I have offended anyone I apologies , some times my condition makes it difficult to clearly articulate my thoughts.
But I hope in this conversation we have been having, some people can now make a judgement based on the facts and not scaremongering from both parties.
best wishes to all.

 

[rotrax]

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

Been away sailing for a while and just got back to read your juvenile post.

YOU are like the Consulting Engineer of ill repute. You follow all the traits.

As I said, the job is done and you are telling the hardworking guys of BORG how to do it-or even worse, how they should have done it.

Where were you when your-alleged-expertise might have been useful?

Bully boy tactics-I think not.

I said exactly what I think and stand by.

If you see it another way you are very fragile........................................

 

[Blue Sunray]

Cptn Stu also reported me to the administrators or mods, claiming I was a fraud and a troll

To be fair though they gave him short shrift and pretty swiftly and unambiguously told him what to do with his accusations.

 

[bbg]

A simply solution of no anchor zones for certain parts of the year would enable the fauna to replenish
The other argument is the the seagrass is always there, it grows back, its healthier than before, these arguments have not be proven by BORG with good Science , this is not to say that a good effort was not tried but it its not scientific enough for even a balance of probability, it is also not about the seagrass per sei it is the fish fry and plankton that inhabit these zones , these are the base of the food web for other creatures they use these beds as their nurseries , if you keep destroying large swathes of grass you destroy their habit you destroy them, this cascades all the way up the food chain , scallop fishermen have no scallops , no fish for the fishermen , no lobsters . you get the picture.

It is not up to BORG (or anyone else) to prove that the seagrass is growing. If someone wants to restrict anchoring, it is up to them to prove that there is a need for it.

The starting point is determining whether the seagrass beds in Studland are threatened.
What is the coverage today?
What was it 10 years ago?
20 years ago?
50 years ago?

If the seagrass beds are stable, there is no need to take any action. No need to change the current usage.

No-one has shown that the seagrass beds are declining at Studland.

 

[oldharry]

It is not up to BORG (or anyone else) to prove that the seagrass is growing. If someone wants to restrict anchoring, it is up to them to prove that there is a need for it.

If the seagrass beds are stable, there is no need to take any action. No need to change the current usage.

No-one has shown that the seagrass beds are declining at Studland.

Those of us who have been involved since the early days need to remember that newcomers like Moomba may not be aware of the massive political content of this argument. Studland is as much about the politics of environmentalism as eelgrass.

Fundamentally the argument is whether environmentalists should be able to walk over the rest of us, and their refusal to compromise to accommodate the needs of our overcrowded Island. Yes , the environment is important. So too are places like Studland to give people a breathing space and to reconnect with the very nature the environmentalists are trying to protect. These two should not be mutually exclusive, but generally they are.

Those who have been here since the beginning in 2008 will remember the bitter arguments that raged in the early days as radical environmentalists waded in, battle flags flying, promising they would evict us from the Bay because of the damage we were supposed to be doing. Search Studland in the forum records about 10 years ago, and see how we fared at the hands of certain experts!

One or two of the ‘experts’ Moomba is so keen we should listen to, joined in with totally preposterous claims. Then they persuaded Soton Uni’s Ken Collins to support their claims, resulting in Collins 2010 report which even I as a layman could see was flawed.

MMO held a series of ‘Studland workshops’ to try to resolve the problem, which was where I got officially involved. Doc Collins presented his paper, but there was too much anger already for these workshops to achieveanything..

I proposed an Educational Leaflet for Studland. RYA picked up the idea and under my chairmanship took it forward and funded it. The ‘experts’ causing all the trouble refused to participate, but supported by the Wildlife Trusts and Natural England the leaflet was launched, and welcomed by boaters in the Bay.

Incredibly the anti boat experts later accused me publicly of disagreeing with my own leaflet!

Moomba will not have known that some of the papers he listed were authored by those same ‘experts’ who have caused us so much trouble and grief with their lies and attacks.

Unfortunately it has become clear that even NE was not squeaky clean in all this. They commissioned a report which you will not find in any of your libraries, though I still have a copy, and which apart from containing some major errors in calculation, which were spotted by Marlynspyke, was thrown out by Defra’s Geomatics Section because of the level of bias and inaccuracy. They too were trying to make evidence fit theory.

So if BORG is less than enthusiastic about accepting ‘expert opinion’ perhaps some of you will understand a little better now why, and why Moomba’s suggestions met with such a strong reaction.

.

 

[Giblets]

OH, you might want to edit your last post as it would appear you have typed the same thing three times over!

 

[nortada]

Those of us who have been involved since the early days need to remember that newcomers like Moomba may not be aware of the massive political content of this argument. Studland is as much about the politics of environmentalism as eelgrass. ‘.

And this is why interest and support extends way beyond those who sail and anchor in Studland Bay.

Many are with you because, as we know; TODAY STUDLAND, TOMORROW US

 

[oldharry]

OH, you might want to edit your last post as it would appear you have typed the same thing three times over!

Force of habit. been saying the same things for 10 years now...

 

[jordanbasset]

Force of habit. been saying the same things for 10 years now...

 

[moomba]

To old Harry, you are seeing assassins in every corner , and dark shadows at night , blatantly accusing EH, the scientific community and natural England , Defra of scullduggery , when it is pure science that they use, but you totally believe that your science is right although it any life sciences person will shoot cannonballs through it and has been proven I know my wife again, has looked through it and rightly so says the same , but you still maintain it is better than the experts.
Remember you are here but in a second of the life of this bay have some dignity for those ahead of you.
to those that still come onto this thread and use aggressive overtures and throw accusations my way , please be a little dignified in your responses , and act with a little decorum, were are all adults here.
Studland bay does not belong to the community in the vicinity nor does it belong to Poole yachting club it belongs to all to enjoy in its full glory.
stop being so selfish

 

[Blue Sunray]

To old Harry, you are seeing assassins in every corner , and dark shadows at night , blatantly accusing EH, the scientific community and natural England , Defra of scullduggery , when it is pure science that they use,

If afraid that your view of NE and DEFRA's scientific competence is one that would not be shared by a lot of people. As for EH (English Heritage?) when did they come into it?

 

[moomba]

Been away sailing for a while and just got back to read your juvenile post.

YOU are like the Consulting Engineer of ill repute. You follow all the traits.

As I said, the job is done and you are telling the hardworking guys of BORG how to do it-or even worse, how they should have done it.

Where were you when your-alleged-expertise might have been useful?

Bully boy tactics-I think not.

I said exactly what I think and stand by.

If you see it another way you are very fragile........................................

Thanks for this meaningful discussion you come across as an angry man with not a lot of sense , or you would have read all this thread and maybe come up with a different conclusion, and maybe you would see it another way. In your professional medical judgement I am fragile , this is good to know and I take on board what you are saying.
This hard working man of BORG has my every sympathy and admiration for standing up for what he believes in (just like I'm doing ) , without people like him there would be no great Britain , but again if you had read through the whole thread you would see that I was making suggestions were I could and advising were I say fit, As Old Harry posted on this private forum (a company owns this forum) , he opened it up for critique in a friendly positive manner ,that is why we live in a democracy , From beginning to end I have laid the data bare for those to make an open decision rather than a one sided approach, I am not telling anyone how to view this they will make their minds up and maybe they wont be as fragile as me

 

[moomba]

If afraid that your view of NE and DEFRA's scientific competence is one that would not be shared by a lot of people. As for EH (English Heritage?) when did they come into it?

The problem is that those people have not come back with better Scientific peer reviewed , accepted experimental designed surveys accept throughout the Biological sciences as the standard protocol for conducting, experiments and site surveys,
I appreciate that a subsea company was a good idea and if it was conducted with a trained ecologist or marine biologist it would have gravitas , but after reading the parliamentary report this subsea organisation were disappointed that EH did not look at he data , therefore conspiracy theorists came up with the conclusion that EH were up to something, The probable truth is that the data was not rugged enough to stand up to scientific protocols listed above, and therefore could not be used in a scientific report.
I know you are all going to laugh ,and many won't believe me. but my older brother is a sub sea pilot and engineer 25 years in the industry flying these mini submersibles , trust me he is no ecologist,
And just for the record if I have to mention this later, my younger brother is a naval architect and was one of the architects that designed the new RNLI boats, although he is now based in Aberdeen and works worldwide.
My father was royal navy for 20 years and before that an Atlantic fisherman, who trawled the sea bed to depth dredging it up , later in time he regretted this and saw the light.
EH was mentioned not for Studland bay, I was going over the parliamentary reviews and found it interesting that wrecks and marine graveyards are also incorporated into these MCZ zones including the geology of the proposed sites , many organisations coming together trying to work out a solution

 

[jordanbasset]

From beginning to end I have laid the data bare for those to make an open decision rather than a one sided approach, I am not telling anyone how to view this they will make their minds up and maybe they wont be as fragile as me

Thank you for your time and effort as I also thank Old Harry.
Not really had a view on this and am never likely to anchor at Studland so I think I can say I have no dog in this fight. Just as a personal opinion from reading the thread aNd the various links put forward by both sides. I do find the evidence that there is a problem with anchoring in Studland in term of the eel grass log term damage less than compelling. I fact I find little evidence at all for it in terms of the specifics of Studland, in view of that it seems people's enjoyment of that place should continue unless and until more concrete evidence is produced

 

[moomba]

Thank you for your time and effort as I also thank Old Harry.
Not really had a view on this and am never likely to anchor at Studland so I think I can say I have no dog in this fight. Just as a personal opinion from reading the thread aNd the various links put forward by both sides. I do find the evidence that there is a problem with anchoring in Studland in term of the eel grass log term damage less than compelling. I fact I find little evidence at all for it in terms of the specifics of Studland, in view of that it seems people's enjoyment of that place should continue unless and until more concrete evidence is produced

Hi J your are absolutely right both parties have negligted to delve into the real reasoning behind this
Now we now know through 100's of scientific papers and studies worldwide that eel grass is in decline through the planet due to stressors (pollution etc) we know that these grasses are the habitat for zoo plankton and fish fry for their nurseries, so if they decline this has a Hugh dramatic effect on the food web small things get eaten by big things , and ultimately we eat fish , now that might not be a problem to us as our diet does not consist of too much fish but in Asia, Japan and the pacific this is their stable diet.
So the argument is if the eelgrass is sustainable and even thriving in Studland bay, do we not have a duty to find out why , so this can be shared within the scientific community to enable an effective changeable plan of action.
If eel grass in Studland bay is not succumbing to the added pressures of anchoring, climate change , pollution and human interaction , then what is making this happen.
I would love to find out , therefore as discussed many times on this forum, get together and do a prolonged study of the bay and it flora and fauna over a PHD scholarship and lets find out once and for all. rather than telling each other we are wrong.

 

[Lucky Duck]

Now we now know through 100's of scientific papers and studies worldwide that eel grass is in decline through the planet due to stressors (pollution etc) we know that these grasses are the habitat for zoo plankton and fish fry for their nurseries, so if they decline this has a Hugh dramatic effect on the food web small things get eaten by big things , and ultimately we eat fish , now that might not be a problem to us as our diet does not consist of too much fish but in Asia, Japan and the pacific this is their stable diet.
So the argument is if the eelgrass is sustainable and even thriving in Studland bay, do we not have a duty to find out why , so this can be shared within the scientific community to enable an effective changeable plan of action.
If eel grass in Studland bay is not succumbing to the added pressures of anchoring, climate change , pollution and human interaction , then what is making this happen.

This looks like a good explanation from earlier in the thread;

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.
Read more at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...uest-about-Studland/page8#rCZK6LecZ0cOTPR0.99

 

[rotrax]

Thanks for this meaningful discussion you come across as an angry man with not a lot of sense , or you would have read all this thread and maybe come up with a different conclusion, and maybe you would see it another way. In your professional medical judgement I am fragile , this is good to know and I take on board what you are saying.
This hard working man of BORG has my every sympathy and admiration for standing up for what he believes in (just like I'm doing ) , without people like him there would be no great Britain , but again if you had read through the whole thread you would see that I was making suggestions were I could and advising were I say fit, As Old Harry posted on this private forum (a company owns this forum) , he opened it up for critique in a friendly positive manner ,that is why we live in a democracy , From beginning to end I have laid the data bare for those to make an open decision rather than a one sided approach, I am not telling anyone how to view this they will make their minds up and maybe they wont be as fragile as me

But, as you have been advised, it is all too late for you to come in and tell Borg how to do it.

So, the deal is done-for better or for worse-your suggestion and advice is of no use at this late stage.

Dont accuse posters of bullying when they hit you between the eyes with these hard facts.

The meaningful discussion is long over-you and your wife's input is of little use now.

I am a great one for democracy. As a philosopher once said:- " I disagree with what you are saying, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it! "

I have no professional medical judgement-I am not a Doctor- but to accuse me of keyboard bullying from the post you took exeption to means, as far as I am concerned, that you are fragile-unless you get your view accepted.

 

[Tranona]

Hi J your are absolutely right both parties have negligted to delve into the real reasoning behind this
Now we now know through 100's of scientific papers and studies worldwide that eel grass is in decline through the planet due to stressors (pollution etc) we know that these grasses are the habitat for zoo plankton and fish fry for their nurseries, so if they decline this has a Hugh dramatic effect on the food web small things get eaten by big things , and ultimately we eat fish , now that might not be a problem to us as our diet does not consist of too much fish but in Asia, Japan and the pacific this is their stable diet.
So the argument is if the eelgrass is sustainable and even thriving in Studland bay, do we not have a duty to find out why , so this can be shared within the scientific community to enable an effective changeable plan of action.
If eel grass in Studland bay is not succumbing to the added pressures of anchoring, climate change , pollution and human interaction , then what is making this happen.
I would love to find out , therefore as discussed many times on this forum, get together and do a prolonged study of the bay and it flora and fauna over a PHD scholarship and lets find out once and for all. rather than telling each other we are wrong.

At last you are beginning to get it.

How many times have I said that the arguments about Studland come about because there has been no serious study about the specific site. The literature about elsewhere offers little to help explain the peculiar happenings there.

While seagrasses are indeed under threat in most parts of the world, where there have been studies there is usually a good explanation as to why. It cannot be disputed that the beds in Studland are thriving (as are others around the UK). However because nobody was interested there is not recorded evidence of the changes over the years so one has to reconstruct what has happened in the way that MarlynSpyke has done.

If you were approaching the issue now, without all the past history then it would be as an example of a healthy environment and useful research would be asking the question Why? and what could be learned to help understand the decline elsewhere.

This is not how the issue came about. It first came into prominence because of the publicity around sighting and photographing seahorses which snowballed into a political attack on boats anchoring in the bay and "killing" seahorses. As OH suggested go back to the first thread here 10 years ago and marvel at the claims being made about what was supposed to be going on.

It was the MCZ process that changed the real focus even if the public view remained on the "rich yotties killing seahorses" scenario promoted by one person. The focus shifted to damage to the eel grass beds, specifically about the impact of small boat anchors. As I hope you can now see the claims made about this aspect are not based on your beloved "research". if they were the debate would likely be very different.

Your last paragraph is exactly right as it restates what I have suggested to you many times. The problem I see in achieving that is primarily because the interested parties in the research world don't want to see it as the findings are likely to not fit their predetermined view. (This is not just made up, but reflects discussions I had with two of them 10 years ago when I suggested exactly this approach). Secondly the chances of getting funding for such a project are very small as the holders of the purse strings believe they already have the information they need to make a decision.

Even without further research it is not difficult to understand why Studland eel grass is not in a distressed state as in other locations. Apart from small boat anchoring (which is largely unchanged in extent for the last 40 or 50 years) there is no human activity that exploits or damages the eel grass directly. There is a potential issue with nitrate run off which needs investigation, but other than that it is only natural phenomena such as the winter storms that affect its health.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

Qoting Old Harry, post 106:
Moomba will not have known that some of the papers he listed were authored by those same ‘experts’ who have caused us so much trouble and grief with their lies and attacks.

Unfortunately it has become clear that even NE was not squeaky clean in all this. They commissioned a report which you will not find in any of your libraries, though I still have a copy, and which apart from containing some major errors in calculation, which were spotted by Marlynspyke, was thrown out by Defra’s Geomatics Section because of the level of bias and inaccuracy. They too were trying to make evidence fit theory.

So if BORG is less than enthusiastic about accepting ‘expert opinion’ perhaps some of you will understand a little better now why, and why Moomba’s suggestions met with such a strong reaction.
]

Yes, Moomba’s posts were a bit like poking a hornet’s nest with a stick.

Even today, NE will not present actual evidence as to why they consider the Studland Bay eelgrass to be in “Unfavourable” condition. They use instead a desk-based “assessment”, a MarLIN-MarESA derived assessment which goes something like this:

Bottom fishing gear (eg scallop dredges) causes surface penetration of the seabed. Seagrass is badly damaged by bottom fishing gear and is very slow to recover. Leisure boat anchors cause penetration of the seabed. Therefore seagrass is badly damaged by leisure boat anchors and is very slow to recover. Leisure boats anchor in Studland Bay and so the seagrass is being badly damaged.

Work that one out if you can. Or if the absurdity is not obvious, substitute “child’s seaside spade” for leisure boat anchor.

NE did commission, in conjunction with the Crown estate, a proper dived survey of the eelgrass in Studland Bay, dated 2012, and we have used that in our technical submissions. It actually showed the seagrass to have similar characteristics to other seagrass beds in the region. Yet I discovered today that that report, which was at https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/me...and Bay second seagrass monitoring report.pdf
- BREAKING NEWS - has been taken down, and neither can it be found by Google search (FOI request on this has been submitted). So the one thorough formal survey, which happens to show the seagrass in the anchoring area in the Bay to be in reasonably good condition, has been removed from circulation! We wonder why …………

Neither NE nor Defra have commissioned a more recent survey of the seagrass condition at this controversial site – again, why? we ask.

Add to this the biased reporting and faulty measurement in the MAIAA report using aerial photos of the Bay, and the false claims by an ecologist that the seagrass was too sparse to support a seahorse, it is no wonder that we have no confidence in the “marine science” being used in the area, and I certainly would not wish to have been trained in the methods and practices they use.