Seahorse Spin

[tom52]

The publicity machine of the seahorse botherers is spinning again............

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne..._patrol_Studland_in_bid_to_protect_seahorses/

 

[TradewindSailor]

Seems to be crazy logic. We've been anchoring in Studland Bay for decades and the seahorses are still there. I can't see how they are threatened. There must be many places along that part of the coast where we would be mad to anchor and seahorses thrive too.

It's a little like the drive towards less copper in antifouling, which either increases the amount of other biocides in the paint or increases the amount of fouling. If the latter, we get accused of spreading marine life beyond their natural boundaries, and our diesel bill goes through the roof.

In the Caribbean, we get accused of ruining the coral reefs, or rather global warming; and yet one good hurricane can turn the reefs to empty deserts.

 

[Alcyone]

Seems quite a balanced and fair article to me.

 

[Robin]

Seems quite a balanced and fair article to me.

That is because you haven't seen or don't remember the earlier Trewhella venom against the VNAZ. Trewhella (who speaks for the Sea Horse Trust yet apparently is not an official, especially when they wish to distance themselves from his wilder ravings) doesn't want the Voluntary No Anchoring Zone survey full stop, probably because he knows it will most likely disagree with their claims in the press and elsewhere, he takes every opportunity to discredit it.

This is a full colour full page piece of Sea Horse Trust PR again in the printed version of this Echo article, together with a picture of the anchored boats that says it shows boats inside the VNAZ and even moored to the VNAZ buoys. I have to say in the newsprint pictures it is not at all clear, and if Trewhella is a 'marine photographer' as the article describes him, maybe he should buy a tripod or a sharper lens. At least there are some sensible comments on the on-line article from others.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

If the VNAZ is voluntary, what are the 'wardens' supposed to do?

Advise and little else. They cannot threaten or force anyone to leave the VNAZ, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence would leave.

But, not everyone reads YBW, the Bournemouth Echo or has read any of Steve's mad rants, so four yellow buoys will mean nothing to them.

 

[Robin]

If the VNAZ is voluntary, what are the 'wardens' supposed to do?

Advise and little else. They cannot threaten or force anyone to leave the VNAZ, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence would leave.

But, not everyone reads YBW, the Bournemouth Echo or has read any of Steve's mad rants, so four yellow buoys will mean nothing to them.

As far as I understand it the wardens are only to patrol on the beach and not afloat, so they will need to be able to shout loud.

There have been yellow buoys in Studland for years, marking the 5mph speed limit so some will confuse the VNAZ buoys with them I guess as you could anchor inside those as long as you don't drag at more than 5mph. At the least the VNAZ buoys should have signs on to say what they are that are easy enough to read from a distance.

 

[Alcyone]

That is because you haven't seen or don't remember the earlier Trewhella venom against the VNAZ. Trewhella (who speaks for the Sea Horse Trust yet apparently is not an official, especially when they wish to distance themselves from his wilder ravings) doesn't want the Voluntary No Anchoring Zone survey full stop, probably because he knows it will most likely disagree with their claims in the press and elsewhere, he takes every opportunity to discredit it.

This is a full colour full page piece of Sea Horse Trust PR again in the printed version of this Echo article, together with a picture of the anchored boats that says it shows boats inside the VNAZ and even moored to the VNAZ buoys. I have to say in the newsprint pictures it is not at all clear, and if Trewhella is a 'marine photographer' as the article describes him, maybe he should buy a tripod or a sharper lens. At least there are some sensible comments on the on-line article from others.

I wasn't referring to earlier articles, I was referring to this article, and, imo, this article is balanced.

It states:

"Conservationists argue that this destroys the grass but others claim recreational anchoring may have helped increase it. "

which itself presents both sides of the argument and then goes on to quote two people, one of whom is in favour of, and appleals for support for the VNAZ and the other who is against it.

Balanced.

As for your second point,

"The navigational marker yellow buoys are to be changed to pillar-shaped ones to make them more distinguishable from mooring buoys. "

 

[Alcyone]

If the VNAZ is voluntary, what are the 'wardens' supposed to do?

Advise and little else. They cannot threaten or force anyone to leave the VNAZ, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence would leave.

But, not everyone reads YBW, the Bournemouth Echo or has read any of Steve's mad rants, so four yellow buoys will mean nothing to them.

Here's a link to a bit more, from Natural England.

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/south_west/press_releases/2010/280510.aspx

It does seem that Robin is correct when he mentions 'beach wardens', it's referenced here too.

As for 'Steve's mad rants', easily dealt with, surely? In fact, a little bit of thought on the matter and such outbursts could easily work against him........

 

[Robin]

I wasn't referring to earlier articles, I was referring to this article, and, imo, this article is balanced.

It states:

"Conservationists argue that this destroys the grass but others claim recreational anchoring may have helped increase it. "

which itself presents both sides of the argument and then goes on to quote two people, one of whom is in favour of, and appleals for support for the VNAZ and the other who is against it.

Balanced.

As for your second point,

"The navigational marker yellow buoys are to be changed to pillar-shaped ones to make them more distinguishable from mooring buoys. "

I referred to the earlier articles because it puts Trewhella's views (and the Echo article comes from him which is not obvious from the on-line version) into perspective. Trewhella has openly and frequently slated the VNAZ from day one as being in his view irrelevant and a total waste of time so any 'balanced view' is either accidental or merely designed to appear so.

In the printed version of the article there is a half page picture of boats anchored in Studland, this does not appear at all in the on-line version, oh and the seahorse is yellow in the paper too not greeny grey as in the on-line version. There is no way of telling when the Studland picture was taken and it is certainly not very clear as to whether a very small number of small power boats might be just inside the buoys.

Replacing the round buoys with pillar buoys is not enough. The boats most likely to anchor in the VNAZ are small, mostly powered day boats. I doubt if they will realise the significance of a different shape of buoy unless there is a sign on them to say what they are and there is also some publicity given to the buoys. I suspect some of the likely offenders are trailered boats from outside the area and therefore unaware of what the buoys mean, other than a continuation of the existing yellow buoys marking the 5mph speed limit, but which you can anchor inside of. It is no good just writing 'VNAZ' on a buoy either unless everyone knows what it means, I suspect most will not unless they are avid Echo readers or on Scuttlebutt. A pillar buoy may be different from normal mooring buoys but that will not deter some of the twits from treating them as a temporary mooring, just like you often see them tied up fishing to the main channel marker buoys, specifically against the local harbour bye-laws never mind commonsense.

 

[Tranona]

This is one aspect of the debate where I agree with ST - although probably for different reasons. The VNAZ is indeed irrelevant. It is an area where there is litttle anchoring anyway - because it is too shallow, poor holding and too far from the landing points. As Robin says most who use it are small power boats with small anchors.

For such an experiment to have any credibility it has to be in an area where there is heavy anchoring and known damage. Then anchoring would have to forcibly banned for a period of time to see if the eel grass recovers. Alternatively there needs to be two comparable areas, one where anchoring is permitted and one where it is not. Then a comparison made of the health of eel grass in each. All very basic science, but in practice very difficult to set up accurately because of all the other variables that might have an effect, and the difficulty of policing it.

However, setting up the experiment in the way it has been (and having a private company run it) is a good way of "spending" some of the allocated funds and showing that "something is being done". I could probably write the report now, which will almost certainly include the phrase "the results so far are inconclusive".

 

[Alcyone]

This is one aspect of the debate where I agree with ST - although probably for different reasons. The VNAZ is indeed irrelevant. It is an area where there is litttle anchoring anyway - because it is too shallow, poor holding and too far from the landing points. As Robin says most who use it are small power boats with small anchors.

For such an experiment to have any credibility it has to be in an area where there is heavy anchoring and known damage. Then anchoring would have to forcibly banned for a period of time to see if the eel grass recovers. Alternatively there needs to be two comparable areas, one where anchoring is permitted and one where it is not. Then a comparison made of the health of eel grass in each. All very basic science, but in practice very difficult to set up accurately because of all the other variables that might have an effect, and the difficulty of policing it.

However, setting up the experiment in the way it has been (and having a private company run it) is a good way of "spending" some of the allocated funds and showing that "something is being done". I could probably write the report now, which will almost certainly include the phrase "the results so far are inconclusive".

Yup, without control areas, in other parts of the bay, to compare anchoring and non anchoring areas, it's difficult to see how any results could be used. Indeed, how can one prove, in an anchoring area, how much anchoring has been done there, what type, for how long and with what frequency? Further, one must take into account other environmental factors. Is the area in question subject to greater/less current than the control area, and what effect, if any, does that have on eelgrass/sea horses? Is there land run off, sewage outlets and are nearby fields subject to fertilizer use? I could go on and on.......

Ultimately, though, this survey is, as far as I am aware, the first attempt to carry out any kind of scientific research into the subject. Now, one has to ask oneself, if the only argument against the survey that certain people can come up with is that boats are anchoring in the zone, one must wonder about said person's scientific credentials, and, indeed, said person's right to sepeak with any authority whatsoever on the subject.

In saying that, of course, one must restrict one's own claims to what is known for a fact, and what is anecdotal.




Edit: It seems that I was partially wrong, at least. The seagrass is being studied outside the VNAZ as well, although there seem to be few details. I stand by the rest of the above post.

http://www.dorsetwildlifetrust.org.uk/voluntary_no_anchor_zone_vnaz.html

 

[Bilgediver]

The publicity machine of the seahorse botherers is spinning again............

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne..._patrol_Studland_in_bid_to_protect_seahorses/

Unfortunately there are probably many boaters sailing out of Poole who are not members of this forum,do not live locally, do not read the Bournemouth Echo and never heard of no anchor zones marked with dubious buoys. I think maybe more effort could be done to fully inform the boating public at large that these poor wee fellas beneath the waves are being researched even if they have survived and mutiplied over the years. Maybe some locals could confirm if sufficient well placed Notices to Mariners exist.

There must be some good reason why so many seem to confuse the warning buoys with the provided mooring buoys and others just ignore them.

 

[tom52]

Unfortunately there are probably many boaters sailing out of Poole who are not members of this forum,do not live locally, do not read the Bournemouth Echo and never heard of no anchor zones marked with dubious buoys. I think maybe more effort could be done to fully inform the boating public at large that these poor wee fellas beneath the waves are being researched even if they have survived and mutiplied over the years. Maybe some locals could confirm if sufficient well placed Notices to Mariners exist.

There must be some good reason why so many seem to confuse the warning buoys with the provided mooring buoys and others just ignore them.

The VNAZ is in shallow water where mainly small motorboats are the likely users.
There are many such small boats in Poole.
The drivers ( I choose this word deliberately) of these small boats often have little or no knowledge of seamanship/buoys/tides and notices to mariners.

 

[Robin]

This is one aspect of the debate where I agree with ST - although probably for different reasons. The VNAZ is indeed irrelevant. It is an area where there is litttle anchoring anyway - because it is too shallow, poor holding and too far from the landing points. As Robin says most who use it are small power boats with small anchors.

For such an experiment to have any credibility it has to be in an area where there is heavy anchoring and known damage. Then anchoring would have to forcibly banned for a period of time to see if the eel grass recovers. Alternatively there needs to be two comparable areas, one where anchoring is permitted and one where it is not. Then a comparison made of the health of eel grass in each. All very basic science, but in practice very difficult to set up accurately because of all the other variables that might have an effect, and the difficulty of policing it.

However, setting up the experiment in the way it has been (and having a private company run it) is a good way of "spending" some of the allocated funds and showing that "something is being done". I could probably write the report now, which will almost certainly include the phrase "the results so far are inconclusive".

Actually looking at the VNAZ overlay on Google Earth from the link in Alcyone's post, it is shown in a prime area off the path to the village and the Google Earth pic shows one yacht and several powerboats anchored in this area (taken before the VNAZ obviously).

 

[ARCO7]

No anchor zone studland

What a lot of fuss about nothing !
It was blowing a strong South Westerly 7-8 over the weekend so Studland Bay provided a very sheltered anchorage for small boats.
It is a voluntary NO ANCHOR ZONE so boaters are not under any legal obligation not to anchor there,but it would help all Boaters ,Villagers and those of us who have no time for the SHT if they didn't .
As public money paid for these Yellow Buoys, then these 5 boat owners might have thought they were entitled to moor up to them ,who knows ?
I am a member of the National Trust and will writing to them, objecting to the placement of Dorset Wildlife Trust Wardens on the South Beach when they have no legal right to be there ,its a National Trust Beach .
The Seahorse Trust and "hangers on" have always objected and picked fault with the VNAZ because they were not involved . Its better that the public money is spent on this SEASTAR SURVEY rather than the Dorset Wildlife Trusts Public Engagement Surveys which cost £10k last year and look like they'll cost another £14k this year .
All we got for our money was a biased 28 page report of a survey that wasn't complete and involved 120 questionaires mainly from visitors on the beach , no local villagers and half a dozen boaters .
Now that is a total waste of Public Money, £10k for 10 weeks work it is shameful !
Such a peaceful ,beautiful place has been spoilt by a handful of so called conservationists trying to make a quick buck and a name for themselves.

 

[Tranona]

Actually looking at the VNAZ overlay on Google Earth from the link in Alcyone's post, it is shown in a prime area off the path to the village and the Google Earth pic shows one yacht and several powerboats anchored in this area (taken before the VNAZ obviously).

Yes, I had a look at that as well. Different place from the initial proposal which was further southeast. They also now talk about a control area as well, which is was not in the original proposal, but don't identify where it is. Maybe they listened to the criticisms of the original research design. Will be 2012 at the earliest before the results come in, although one hopes they will provide an interim report.

Big question is whether this area or the control area are homes to seahorses - but we don't know as that is a secret kept by certain people!

 

[Alcyone]

Yes, I had a look at that as well. Different place from the initial proposal which was further southeast. They also now talk about a control area as well, which is was not in the original proposal, but don't identify where it is. Maybe they listened to the criticisms of the original research design. Will be 2012 at the earliest before the results come in, although one hopes they will provide an interim report.

Big question is whether this area or the control area are homes to seahorses - but we don't know as that is a secret kept by certain people!

I noted the point about not saying where the control zone is. That may be by design, or I may be crediting them with too much nous. If I was setting this up, I'd not say where the control was either - in that way you ensure, in so far as it is possible, the randomness of the sample. If you tell people where the anchoring zone is being measured, it may alter the pattern of anchoring, and skew the results.

What is vitally important, of course, is that this information is disclosed at the end of the study, has been declared internally to referees and is relevant to the actions under suspicion.

Can anyone describe these no anchor zone buoys? Are they clearly marked? In the Cleddau river in Pembs, for example, there are large Orange buoys marked clearly with 'No planing zone, dead slow', visible from some distance. Are these similar?

 

[Angele]

Unfortunately there are probably many boaters sailing out of Poole who are not members of this forum,do not live locally, do not read the Bournemouth Echo and never heard of no anchor zones marked with dubious buoys. I think maybe more effort could be done to fully inform the boating public at large that these poor wee fellas beneath the waves are being researched even if they have survived and mutiplied over the years. Maybe some locals could confirm if sufficient well placed Notices to Mariners exist.

There must be some good reason why so many seem to confuse the warning buoys with the provided mooring buoys and others just ignore them.

The position of buoys is recorded in a NtoM issued by Poole Harbour Commissioners in October 2009. Here. However, just how many people bother to dig these out is a matter on which I cannot comment.

Perhaps of more relevance is that the VNAZ is now recorded in Reeds. It didn't quite make it into the 2010 edition, but its existence (and position) is noted in the January 2010 update. Presumably, therefore, it will be visible in the chartlet in the 2011 edition when it comes out later this year.

 

[Robin]

Can anyone describe these no anchor zone buoys? Are they clearly marked? In the Cleddau river in Pembs, for example, there are large Orange buoys marked clearly with 'No planing zone, dead slow', visible from some distance. Are these similar?

There is a line of 5mph speed limit buoys running along the beach which are small yellow ones with '5mph' on them. The ski and jetski plonkers often use them as a sort of slalom course, so the hope of those people, admitedly a minority, taking note of any VNAZ however marked is small. The buoys they do put down need to be clearly seen to mark an anchor free zone to boats approaching from all directions, so IMO 4 buoys 100m apart one on each corner is not going to work. If you are finding your way into a recognised anchorage, where there are already lots of anchored boats and you see just one buoy it is not really very informative and you may be anchored before realising what it means. Bear in mind many of the boats that use the anchorage will also not be locals and indeed may be foreign visitors as we get many Dutch, Belgian, German and French boats this time of year. Also boat movements are not just restricted to daylight hours as many use Studland as a stepping stone for departure across Channel or to/from the West Country to catch the tides right.

 

[Alcyone]

There is a line of 5mph speed limit buoys running along the beach which are small yellow ones with '5mph' on them. The ski and jetski plonkers often use them as a sort of slalom course, so the hope of those people, admitedly a minority, taking note of any VNAZ however marked is small. The buoys they do put down need to be clearly seen to mark an anchor free zone to boats approaching from all directions, so IMO 4 buoys 100m apart one on each corner is not going to work. If you are finding your way into a recognised anchorage, where there are already lots of anchored boats and you see just one buoy it is not really very informative and you may be anchored before realising what it means. Bear in mind many of the boats that use the anchorage will also not be locals and indeed may be foreign visitors as we get many Dutch, Belgian, German and French boats this time of year. Also boat movements are not just restricted to daylight hours as many use Studland as a stepping stone for departure across Channel or to/from the West Country to catch the tides right.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. My use of the no planing zone buoys was an example, I meant are the VNAZ buoys clearly marked in easy to see lettering.

I agree entierly about visibility, especially at night, and in poor visibility. And yes, we all know what some Jet ski folk are like - I've even had them try and use a diving surface marker buoy as a slalom, with potentially fatal consequences.

So is it the opinion of folk in the area that this zone is clearly marked, or does it need to be more visible?