Seahorse Trust petition reaches 100,000

I have only read the first post - life is too short. But surely the best response to the petition is a counter petition. There have to be more than 100k yotties around. Obviously you dont have to confine yourself to the UK.
 
laika said:
I think I must disagree. Do we read the same forum? If it isn't "the majority" then there's certainly a vocal bunch keen to use puerile derogatory terms for anyone active in any form of environmental protection. Recent threads have advocated use of TBT antifoul and spoken negatively of "tree huggers" seeking to restrict the poisons yachties put into the water. During the study with the buoyed-off area in Studland people were advocating ignoring it and deliberately anchoring there to disrupt it. There are certainly a non-trivial number of members of this forum who *exactly* fit the SHT stereotype.
Click to expand...

Although there are certainly are people who say some very silly things about environmentalists, I stick by my point: even those people will, i am pretty sure, prefer nice, unpolluted places to sail to. You are absolutely right that their rantings feed the poor perceptions of others (just one of many reasons I would like to see The Lounge nuked from orbit[1]) but I think of it as a symptom of the damage which has already been done.

[1] With low-fallout weapons, natch.
 
I have to agree with Jumbleduck. I have no axe to grind with properly researched robust and objective measures put in place to ensure we dont just bulldoze everything on the planet. What I cant abide - and I have had a bellyfull of them during the BORG project is people using environmental issues to further their own ends.

The difference was highlighted frpo me in a report I read this morning from Australia, by a genuine Seahorse expert. He had set out to show that MPAs would be beneficial to seahorses. He discovered much to his surprise that they are not. The increase in predator survival in an MPA meant the seahorses got eaten. I found myself wishing we could have the same sort of objectivity in Studland. Another report from Swansea Uni of a study of the Lundy MCZ warned that some the species it was designed to protect were getting out of control, becoming cannibalistic and diseased, and the population would likely collapse before long. That to my mind is the mark of genuine environmentalists at work. What I see far too much of is people with their own agendas - like NGM wanting to build a seahorse sanctuary in an entriely inappropriate place, and publishing quasi scientific studies which actually say very little, and ignore a great deal to attempt to prove their pet theories. Its not difficult to twist data round to make it say what you want.
 
Laika,

who on earth recommended the use of TBT antifouling ? None on any thread I remember; alright there might be jokes about how ineffective modern antifouling is, but that banter has been going on for many years and apart from obligatory grumbles about paying more for stuff which does less - from a yotties point of view - I don't know a boat owner who isn't all for modern friendlier stuff.

What does upset a lot of boat owners is seeing all the benefits from our hard earned cash spent on friendly stuff wiped out in an instant several times over when big ships trundle up, still as far as I and my chums know allowed to use high strength TBT antifoul, that's certainly the perception.

Not sure about the Royal Navy, one would think they have a good excuse for ' efficiency above the environment ' especially as they have so few ships now, but I suspect they are quite ' green ' - that needs checking though.

The fact is, 99% of boat owners really care about the environment inc wee underwater beasties; but we don't try to tag them, advertise their presence to human predators like Chinese fishermen looking for delicacies, don't take paying dive parties to see them as a business, in short leave them alone as they like to be, though they do seem to be gregarious enough to like gathering around anchor & mooring chains, if not bothered by divers.

Simple test for you Laika,

who has set out to exploit the presence of seahorses - which are everywhere if one looks, being and breeding only at Studland is such obvious nonsense given the rate the critters swim at and sightings all around the southern UK as to be laughable -'

Who has tried to make money and a living out of seahorses while presenting incorrect misleading information alluding to an ' internationally respected database ' which when challenged doesn't even exist?

That's just one example of the B.S. NGM comes up with when trying to be funded to live on a nice beach.

Doesn't that ring your alarm bells ?
 
Seajet said:
who on earth recommended the use of TBT antifouling ? None on any thread I remember
Click to expand...
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?423733-Micron-Extra-(3-years-)-Really&p=5194526#post5194526

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?422628-Do-Hemple-and-international-spend-fortunes-making-anti-fouls-that-don-t-work&p=5177566#post5177566

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?422628-Do-Hemple-and-international-spend-fortunes-making-anti-fouls-that-don-t-work&p=5178321#post5178321

You seem to think I support the SHT. My point was exactly the opposite. It lacks science and from my reading (in the absence of a properly controlled study) I suspect that diving and tagging activities have had more of a negative effect on seahorse populations than anchoring. Such dodgy data just bolsters the confidence of those wanting to rubbish any pro-environment studies

However I also question the assertion that 99% of boaters place conservation above self-interest and "convenience" if the denizens of this forum are anything to go by. If the SHT's data *had* effectively demonstrated that anchoring in Studland was destroying a unique and fragile habitat would "99%" of (vocal) forumites have said "Yeah, ok, fair call. Let's go with the eco-moorings then"?

Once again...are we reading the same forums or are you not noticing the ubiquitous *hugger/"beardy leftie" comments whenever conservation is mentioned?
 
Seajet said:
Not sure about the Royal Navy, one would think they have a good excuse for ' efficiency above the environment ' especially as they have so few ships now, but I suspect they are quite ' green ' - that needs checking though.
Click to expand...

My last ship (HMS Scott) uses Hempasil X3, which is a biocide-free antifouling. Its a hydrogel silicon, which is interesting stuff: at speeds over 8 knots, the gel content forms a semi-liquid layer that the little grobblies don't even try to hold on to. It even comes with a guarantee that the fuel consumption will be reduced by 4-8%. Unfortunately, no use for the leisure market, as we spend too much of our time stationary.

As for commercial ships, the ban on using TBT and other organotin compounds on small craft since 1998 was only the first tranche of legislation. Under the IMO's afs/conf/26, antifouling for commercial ships has also been TBT-free since 2008. Some of the new paints are seriously impressive, and are far better than the old TBT - lasting up to 7-8 years before re-coating.
 
Laika,

I was one of the 4 founder members of BORG; we later parted our ways amicably as I feel more strident protests ought to be made against ' Career conservationists ' who will do or say anything to acquire and sustain a career on TV, with apparent disregard to the veracity of their claims.

I can assure you that any sailors I know - 600+ at my club alone are concerned about the marine environment in degrees ranging from ' a bit ' to ' massively ' with the great proportion being the latter, we don't want to operate in either a primordial soup or a sterile clear view to the bottom - which BTW is dredged flat and lifeless around here by small trawlers in Chichester harbour and big ones outside.

When with BORG I went to some considerable time and effort researching EFM's - Environmentally Friendly Moorings as this seemed a possible anwser at the time; BORG were all for it if it proved viable.

However I and others since have found that EFM's are unsuitable in many ways;

Expensive fully fledged real deal survey required of the seabed and geology required at proposed site

Charter of also rather expensive special boat / small ship with the kit to bore into the seabed and establish the corkscrew moorings

EFM's not used before in such a shallow area with such strong tides

Huge insurance problems when - not if - a boat has a problem after an EFM lets go

If a public mooring in a place like Studland, how does one know it is trustworthy ? The last user may have been a huge Sunseeker in a gale leaving the spiral seabed screw hanging on by its' last mm of thread

The water would be too shallow to use the elasticity of EFM ribbons

The EFM buoys would be an utter blot on the seascape, destroying what most people come to see visually

If it was attempted to fund such moorings via a bloke with a RIB or Landrover, Natural England did their sums and realised paying for said bloke / blokess, along with maintaining the moorings would not just fail to balance the books, it would be financial suicide.

Studland Bay works fine as is, the eelgrass is happy and expanding as proven by generations of aerial photographs - I think BORG have these to show.

Seahorse numbers are shown to vary historically, and people tagging & bothering them hardly helps, let alone alerting Chinese delicacy hunters to a source.

So nothing new and no problem for the bay, except one bloke - and note, the ' Seahorse Trust ' is one bloke taking misguided donations - who fancies a lifestyle on the best beach in Britain, funded by people who don't look too hard at the non-issue he raises and problems he alone has generated.

I will be very interested to hear the response Jumbleduck gets on his request for info' as to whether people and institutions realise they are being quoted as supporters of SHT !
 
Last edited:
laika said:
I think I must disagree. Do we read the same forum? If it isn't "the majority" then there's certainly a vocal bunch keen to use puerile derogatory terms for anyone active in any form of environmental protection. Recent threads have advocated use of TBT antifoul and spoken negatively of "tree huggers" seeking to restrict the poisons yachties put into the water. During the study with the buoyed-off area in Studland people were advocating ignoring it and deliberately anchoring there to disrupt it. There are certainly a non-trivial number of members of this forum who *exactly* fit the SHT stereotype.

Part of the reason why the junk "research" from these people is so damaging is that it's going to give ammunition to the stereotypes to disregard any future environmental impact studies as the work of fanatics.
Click to expand...

I work in the chemical industry and have scant regard for the zero tolerance tree huggers, I don't think they can do a good risk benefit analysis.

No risk is worth it, isn't a good analysis. Chuff me, if sailors thought like that they would never set off.

I am environmentally aware and would like to leave the earth at least as good as I found it, fat chance. Failing that, as good as I can.

I also think that most sailors are green, but some may not be.
 
Laika,

'
However I also question the assertion that 99% of boaters place conservation above self-interest and "convenience" if the denizens of this forum are anything to go by. If the SHT's data *had* effectively demonstrated that anchoring in Studland was destroying a unique and fragile habitat would "99%" of (vocal) forumites have said "Yeah, ok, fair call. Let's go with the eco-moorings then"?

Once again...are we reading the same forums or are you not noticing the ubiquitous *hugger/"beardy leftie" comments whenever conservation is mentioned? '

------------------

I was responding with the fact that BORG - and the residents of Studland in the splendid SBPA - did seriously consider EFM's, and would have gone with them if they had seemed a sensible choice.

One has to label the opposition with something or other, personally I find ' tree hugger ' etc too kind, in the case of Studland it's more like ' Wallet and Career with TV appearances hugger ' ...
 
Seajet said:
One has to label the opposition with something or other, personally I find ' tree hugger ' etc too kind, in the case of Studland it's more like ' Wallet and Career with TV appearances hugger ' ...
Click to expand...

No you don't. Then it becomes a puerile ad hominem attack which weakens the attacker's credibility. The SHT "evidence" doesn't support an anchoring ban, eco moorings etc. even before we've introduced social mitigation into the equation.
 
Seajet said:
With all due respect, and we seem to be speaking from the same side, if I don't or not is up to me to decide. :)
Click to expand...

You *may* use derogatory terminology. You don't *have to*. I tend to find it more constructive to attack arguments than people and there's sufficient scope for the former here.
 
That would be spiffing and I'd agree if we weren't facing down a one-man ' charity ' with misguided support; I thought I did rather well to restrict myself to calling them ( accurately & correctly ) ' Career conservationists ', believe me that wasn't what it said in the first draft ! :)

Goodnight all.
 
laika said:
You *may* use derogatory terminology. You don't *have to*. I tend to find it more constructive to attack arguments than people and there's sufficient scope for the former here.
Click to expand...

Maybe not accuse boaters en masse of environmental irresponsibility then? Just a thought.
 
The SHT is made it abundantly clear to all concerned that its agenda is anti-yacht rather than pro seahorse. They are stupid because it is possible that the loss of seahorses is due to excessive handling or tagging. They have exposed themselves to scrutiny and it is obvious that the the charity is funding leisure activity and may loose funding as a result.
 
I do not know enough to really comment objectively on the apparent French proposals to have a mooring tax in conservation areas.However, the though alone does concern me. If the seahorse trust tried suggesting that as a way of breaking the deadlock ( for want of a better word) on the grounds it would fund better research ( by them of course!!!) we could be in trouble, could we not?
A small charge managed by these pests could then become a larger charge over time. Claims that mooring rights have been a right of shipping for centuries could easily be discounted by a coalition with a "green" bias. i think that in spite of claimed success the members of BORG have a really uphill struggle against what is something akin to a creeping paralysis. But if the problem is a lack of funding then I for one would be happy to lob a tenner into the pot, just because I know that even though I do not have a clue where Studland is, the after affects will get to my area one day soon & the last thing I want is a mooring tax. It will be like the Dartford Bridge all over again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top