Seahorse Trust in Financial trouble

Sure the guy is abrasive and cannot collaborate with key stakeholders but right now this forum is confirming the entrenched prejudice among conservationsists and the media. We look like a load of arrogant yachties laughing at a small charity that's failing. NGM doesn't work with boat owners but in his own way he's promoted the interests of a unquie and beautiful sea creature that we share our waters with. Frankly if the comments on this thread were made public his aim of making Studland an MCZ would be advanced. We don't own the waters we go boating in and the whole "us and them" language we're told is the preserve of the career conservationsists. Frankly it's a bit embarrassing isn't it?
 
Colvic Watson said:
Sure the guy is abrasive and cannot collaborate with key stakeholders but right now this forum is confirming the entrenched prejudice among conservationsists and the media. We look like a load of arrogant yachties laughing at a small charity that's failing. NGM doesn't work with boat owners but in his own way he's promoted the interests of a unquie and beautiful sea creature that we share our waters with. Frankly if the comments on this thread were made public his aim of making Studland an MCZ would be advanced. We don't own the waters we go boating in and the whole "us and them" language we're told is the preserve of the career conservationsists. Frankly it's a bit embarrassing isn't it?
Click to expand...

Shadenfreud is never attractive but I would point out that he has not been interested in actually saving seahorses. Where is the research he has done? Where is the database he claims to have developed? Why was he so obsessed with banning boats from Studland.

The facts as I see it are these.
He is interested in seahorses and has persuaded a lot of donors to fund his interest over the years.
He then attempted to turn one site into a specially preserved place, with him having a major say in what happened and drawing large chunks of money.
He fell foul of a a group who supported his aims if he could prove his claims.
He then descended into personal attacks on all yachties when he couldn't justify his claims scientifically as I think he realised he would lose.
Personally, he complained to my employers and threatened to sue them because of my support for SBPA. (fortunatly they threatened to join my claim for slander/ libel against him if he did and he backed down very fast)
I hope his so called charity does fail. hopefully he loses his house as well and ends his days in a grotty little damp bedsit far away from the sea and seahorses. He is an objectionable man and I have nothing good to say about him.
 
Sorry CV If the representative(s) of SHT had acted fairly, collaboratively and proportionately and not made spurious claims which are not supported by fact or established research then perhaps the comments reflected by members of this parish would be more understanding and dare I say.... charitable ! and just a thought but If I was a seahorse - I would possibly be wanting a refund from the SHT and reporting them (read him) to the charities commission for mis management of funds.
I am not an arrogant yachtie and I do not expect to be labelled such for having and voicing an opinion on an open forum to facilitate discussion and the expression of views ! nor am I embarrassed to do so and, nor should anyone else ! it is irrelevant whether or not or others I agree or disagree with the minority or majority.
 
That's all true and some conservationists are a pain, but we should maybe think before we gloat at the demise of a marine conservation charity that has lots of ordinary supporters? Schadenfreude is fun, but it's more what we'd expect from a career conservationsist, I thought we were the ones speaking from the high ground? Gloating at the demise of SHT does sort of prove them right in one way, we do come across a bit arrogant. But I'm clearly in a minority of one here so I'll back off and let the cheering go on unchecked.
 
I'm not sure it does have lots of supporters. It has raised £200 in several months. That doesn't suggest it had many backers. What it was good at was identifying sources of grant money that could pay for NGM to dive in nice places. iiRC it received about £25k to appoint someone to study seahorses at Studland. That ranger was (Drumroll) NGM!!!!

I'm sure the charity went through a transparent and honest recruitment selection before choosing it's director for the position and I'm sure if we looked we would find bold adverts for the job in several leading publications. As such in no way could this be construed as fraudulent or dishonest.

If austerity means an ending of the financing of such one man band hobby charities then bring it on. Let's spend the money that does exist on proper research and take decisions based on peer reviewed evidence and the make effective changes that will result in the biggest changes for minimal disruption to others.

Or we could take the SHT approach and launch class warfare based on spurious, discredited research then rely on PR spin to try and impose our nasty vindictive approach on people who don't want it and where it might do no good.

Genuine conservation is a good thing and should be supported. NGM is not.
 
Colvic Watson said:
That's all true and some conservationists are a pain, but we should maybe think before we gloat at the demise of a marine conservation charity that has lots of ordinary supporters? Schadenfreude is fun, but it's more what we'd expect from a career conservationsist, I thought we were the ones speaking from the high ground? Gloating at the demise of SHT does sort of prove them right in one way, we do come across a bit arrogant. But I'm clearly in a minority of one here so I'll back off and let the cheering go on unchecked.
Click to expand...

You have clearly never had dealings with him otherwise you might form a different view of the worth of his so called "charity". It is not gloating just relief that others now seem to see him for what he is rather than what he claims to be.

Arrogant would indeed be a good word to describe the way that he dismisses anything that does not fit his view of the world. He gives science and conservation a bad name.
 
There are basically two complaints against the Seahorse Trust:

  1. It appears overwhelmingly likely that scientific evidence has been fabricated to support an undisclosed vendetta against pleasure boaters. There is for example a vastly more important and more complex debate to be had about the fishing industry, but "The Trust" has steered well clear of this.
  2. It would seem that the charity's money has been misspent and more than likely in contravention of the guidelines set down by The Charity Commission.
By painstakingly revealing this sham for what it is OldHarry and others have put a brake on the inappropriate and wasteful extension of state bureaucracy into Studland and other areas. He has also helped overturn the lie that most of us sailors are anti-conservation, when in fact the exact opposite is true.

So tempting as it is in these circumstances, I would still second Colvic Watson's caution that the fat lady hasn't sung her final aria yet and that Yee Haa rounds of backslapping never look great from the outside.
 
I shed no tears for a single issue campaigner who used bad science to promote his ideas and has reaped his just reward but, as others have said, conservation is an important issue for us all. I would paraphrase John Donne's poem "Each species death diminishes me...send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for Man"

I'd like to add my thanks to OldHarry for exposing him and destroying his credibility. Maybe BORG can develop itself further as a serious conservation organisation that can work to preserve that bit of coast so many of us love for the benefit of all, not just boat owners.
 
Stemar said:
I shed no tears for a single issue campaigner who used bad science to promote his ideas and has reaped his just reward but, as others have said, conservation is an important issue for us all. I would paraphrase John Donne's poem "Each species death diminishes me...send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for Man"

I'd like to add my thanks to OldHarry for exposing him and destroying his credibility. Maybe BORG can develop itself further as a serious conservation organisation that can work to preserve that bit of coast so many of us love for the benefit of all, not just boat owners.
Click to expand...

I couldnt have put it better than that myself Stemar. There are two issues here: firstly the specific battle for Studland: I echo Colvic Watsons thoughts: we are not squeaky clean ourselves, and some of the behaviour I have seen in Studland and elsewhere from fellow boat owners has more than once made me wonder just who and what it is I am fighting for. As to BORG carrying on as a serious Conservation organisation, I fear that would have to be a second generation effort. Both Mike Simons and i are in our 70's - which is why we have time to spend chasing this around. I shall certainly see it through to Defra's designation decision later this year, but family health issues put a big question mark beyond that.

From day one I have always insisted that we Yachtsmen are deeply committed to Conservation practice: why should we not want to protect the environment we use and love? Why should beautiful Studland, loved by literally millions of visitors, be handed over to the likes of NGM as his personal pleasure ground? (and a fat personal profit! both financial and in reputation!). Studland Residents are solidly behind me on this score, whatever he may say. I can echo and confirm the comments made above about the rubbish science and theorising that has been presented as 'fact' here, and is this that i fight against.

At the first meeting I attended back in 2010 a representative of the local yacht Clubs said to me "If there was something out there worth protecting, we would be out there protecting it" And I would be the first to support them. But he was wrong: there IS something well worth protecting: that is the whole ambience and accessibility of this beautiful place and many like it. Part of that IS the amazing diversity of it's wildlife. The bay would be so much poorer without it. But it is its very accessibility to large numbers of ordinary people whether arriving by car or boat which makes it so special. THAT is why I have spent so much time, effort (and not a few tears, i have to admit), fighting to keep it open for us ALL to enjoy.

But there is a much wider issue than NGM. Sadly he is not the only conservationist using subversive non-science to gain credence for their own pet theories. It has already been said the objective seems to be to exclude human influence altogether as far as possible. This denies the fact that humankind IS a part of the planets ecology, and a very major part at that. Removing that influence has already proved disastrous to some species. There is a very strong case in Studland from the statistics which shows that the collapse of the Seahorse population is the DIRECT result of excessive and overzealous 'research' exposure. They got fed up with being chased by neoprene clad predators so have bu**ered off - EXACTLY as was predicted by Dr Harasti, an Australian Seahorse expert when he visited the Bay 5 - 6 years ago. Dr Harasti also discovered that Seahorses in his patch in Australia did much better AWAY from the conservation zones designed to protect them. His reports have been submitted (by me) to MMO and Defra as part of the evidence.

So what I fight for is clear evidence of conservation need: If it was actually shown for example that anchoring in Studland was causing serious harm to a unique environment, then i would be out there laying the VNAZ marker buoys, alongside those same Studland Residents who now so vocally oppose NGMs plans for the bay! There are places i believe where this is needed: one of them - The MCZ in The Fleet at Chesil Bank, I did a lot of work with Natural England, working out how the existing moorings above the road bridge could be retained without compromising the MCZ. The original proposal called for their removal. I have and am trying to do the same at Studland: Three years ago, I called a meeting of all the parties concerned. (RYA, MMO, SBPA, NE and the Wildife Trusts). NGM refused to attend. We reached a UNANIMOUS agreement on a voluntary code of conduct for boats in the Bay. Guess who opposes it, and continues to create such a stink that we cannot move forward?
 
Last edited:
Colvic Watson said:
That's all true and some conservationists are a pain, but we should maybe think before we gloat at the demise of a marine conservation charity that has lots of ordinary supporters? Scho adenfreude is fun, but it's more what we'd expect from a career conservationsist, I thought we were the ones speaking from the high ground? Gloating at the demise of SHT does sort of prove them right in one way, we do come across a bit arrogant. But I'm clearly in a minority of one here so I'll back off and let the cheering go on unchecked.
Click to expand...
+1 or should it be -1 so you are no longer in a minority of 1! In words, I agree with you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top