Seahorse spin rides again...

oldharry

oldharry

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
10,075
Location
North from the Nab about 10 miles
Visit site
Seahorse trust's latest ouput once again waves the anti - yottie flag. With the coldest spring in 60 years, they are blaming us for having frightened the Seahorses away by destroying their habitat. Even last year with a milder spring, they did not arrive until mid July anyway! Apparently 'rowdy boat owners broke up the last MMO Studland workshop, too. Funny that, I was there and I never saw any 'rowdy' behaviour, and in fact it was us Boat owners who made the one positive suggestion that came out of the whole meeting which could actually make a difference to Studland. Once again they raise the accusation of 'illegal' moorings. The moorings there are not illegal, Crown Estates having given permission for the existing moorings to remain on their land.

Accusations iof 'fragmentation' of the eelgrass extracted from the MAIA Studland report are deeply biased, and fail to mention the same pneomenon is observed right across the eelgrass meadows, muc of it in places no one would ever anchor!

50 EFMs were apparently 'promised for this year' in the bay. 50 was a compromise figure Isuggested two years ago after discussion with Natural England. EFMs ARE being trialled in at least two places I know of, but initial results are not promising. At several thousand pounds a go, with specialist hydraulic gear needed to set them, and frequent maintenance required, they do not seem to me to be very viable. But the Americans use them so they 'must be alright'.

What's the matter with these guys? They say they want a solution, then produce rubbish like this, which of course is swallowed hook line and sinker by the popuklar press and general public who can not know any better.

RYA in the meantime is conducting its own research on the impact of anchor chains on the seabed (Current RYA news), and is monitoring closely the EFM trials.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/106564446031865/permalink/575386482482990/
 
BORG made two submissions to the House of Commons Science Select Committee last autumn, one looking in detail at the scientific arguments behind in the eelgrass MCZ proposals, the other looking at the wider issues around the proposals. We highlighted, and complained strongly about the large sums of money being wasted on this project, and Natural Englands' repression of reports they had funded that contradicted their own views until they were too late to be included in their recommendations. We suggested that the MAIA report on Studland would suffer the same fate, and be delayed until after the DEFRA public consultation period. The report was completed in June last year, and publication was promised in early October, in good time fro the DEFRA public consultation,. Natural England, exactly as we predicted, failed to clear it for publication until April this year - after the Consultation had closed. Exactly as we had predicted they would.

Both our submissions were accepted by the Select Committee, and were included in the their report to the House of Commons.

Submissions become the property of the Select Committee, so we could not post them on the BORG website.
 
oldharry said:
Submissions become the property of the Select Committee, so we could not post them on the BORG website.
Click to expand...

Did you have to assign your copyright in order to have these accepted as evidence? Never heard of this, and seems a bit surprising.
 
oldharry said:
BORG made two submissions to the House of Commons Science Select Committee last autumn, one looking in detail at the scientific arguments behind in the eelgrass MCZ proposals, the other looking at the wider issues around the proposals. We highlighted, and complained strongly about the large sums of money being wasted on this project, and Natural Englands' repression of reports they had funded that contradicted their own views until they were too late to be included in their recommendations. We suggested that the MAIA report on Studland would suffer the same fate, and be delayed until after the DEFRA public consultation period. The report was completed in June last year, and publication was promised in early October, in good time fro the DEFRA public consultation,. Natural England, exactly as we predicted, failed to clear it for publication until April this year - after the Consultation had closed. Exactly as we had predicted they would.

Both our submissions were accepted by the Select Committee, and were included in the their report to the House of Commons.

Submissions become the property of the Select Committee, so we could not post them on the BORG website.
Click to expand...

Do you have any figures for the amount of money that "Natural England" & all these conservation bodies/seahorse charities have received from the public over this racket? I bet it makes interesting reading.
 
Now I am back at my main PC with the references:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/727/727.pdf

see P 76 for BORGs main report to the committee.

Copyright: it is specified in the questionnaire circulated by the Science and technology Committee, that submissions become their property, once transmitted to them.

Costs: Natural England is one of the Government's 'Conservation Advisory bodies, funded by them but operating independently as a Govt Quango. Their wages bill for 2011 was reported as £86m, so that the £12m+ spent so far on the MCZ process is a relatively small part of their budget. Bear in mind that they manage large areas of countryside within their remit, and this in itself is a costly process. I believe they devolved from the old Department of the Environment.

In Studland they oversaw setting up the now discredited Seastar Survey, which cost £125k, £100k of which came from Crown Estates. I do not have a figure for the MAIA report costs, but it too was sponsored by NE.

Seahorse Trust is a small independent Charity - basically a one-man band, with a lot of voluntary help, and some big names on it's board of Trustees. As the only body that has investigated UK Seahorses, it holds a pretty unique market 'niche'. Its Director, Neil Garrick-Maidment is clearly a master at fund raising and PR, and in addition to public donations, managed to persuade EBay to support it. He received a £45,000 grant for the Studland Seahorse Tagging project, which included £28k for a Project officer, who was - surprise, surprise, NGM. He has also received various other funding and donations from a range of sources. SHT accounts can be seen on the Charity Commissioners website. SHT has various offshoots including the British Seahorse Survey, so basically if its UK seahorses its SHT. NGM is the official Seahorse adviser to Natural England

Studland Bay Protection Association is the local residents group set up by the village to see to their interests. They receive no funding, as its members like us at BORG fund themselves.

Marine Management Organisation is another Government Quango , charged with Managing UK coastal waters.

Hope that answers some questions.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that Harry it is interesting.Have you complained to 'the Government' about the way "Natural England" has ignored the evidence from some of the surveys it has commissioned using tax payers money to sway the outcome of these consultations? It all seems very dodgy to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top