Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Oh no it's not!
Seahorse Trust petition reaches 100,000
- Thread starter oldharry
- Start date
Oh no it's not!
oldharry
Well-Known Member
There I agree with you TK! But Studland IS as far as we can tell one of the most popular and heavily used open sea anchorages in the UK, if not THE most popular.
I frequently make the comment that Boat Owners DO want to look after the environment. That in no way suggests we are all tree huggers. How much care each of us takes not to damage the environment depends firstly on how much we know about environmental aspects of our sport / hobby.
Some environmentalists for example will deplore gas guzzling Mobos as intrinsically environmentally unfriendly. Would the owners see it the same way? I dobt it, yet they would take every bit as much care not to cause damage or poluttion as the rest of us. Conversely, Jo Soap out in his new BenJenBav for the first few times will be far less aware of the environmental aspects of operating his boat than my Bro and his Wife when they were long distance crusing his HR36. Its all a matter of degree.
I dont think we can define a cut off point which says this boat is eco-friendly, that one is not. Dropping litter or rubbish over the side is an example. I would hope most of us know by now that non bio degradable material needs to be taken ashore for disposal and not just chucked OB. 50 years ago, chucking the gash bucket OB was standard procedure. Nowadays we believe differently.
But Daydrea Beleiver hits the nail square on the head. BORG is actually in a no win situation: the 'creeping paralysis' he speaks of is very real. Just a couple of weeks ago National marine Aquarium announced its new "Citizen Seagrass project" for example. £475,000 funding for what? To pay two lasses to spend a few years convincing people of the 'rightness' of their particular take on Seagrass and seahorses. 'Public Education'? Harmless enough if it is done objectively and rationally, but pure propoganda if they go round peddling a political agenda. As NMA and NGM are in cahoots ( NMA's Director is also chairman of SHT Trustees) the chances are this will be another part of DBs creeping 'paralysis'
We are a fair way to winning the battle of the MCZs, though I suspect some compromise will be inevitable. But it wont stop there, and in 10 years time your truly will be in his wheelchair (with its Eco-Batteries, and biodegradable tyres) dreaming my way into oblivion! But just now we are in a quite exciting time of exploring just how we are going to 'manage' interaction with our seas: the battles we win now MAY just make a long term difference, as we attempt to learn to respect each others point of view sufficiently to be able to work together to the common good. Thats the ideal. It will never happen of course, eco terrorists are just as greedy as the less scrupulous commercial interests.
No I very much fear that short of some sort of major cultural revolution the NGMs of this world have the upper hand.
After all, which of us brought up under the spell of Walt Disney and his animistic animals would want to harm those charismatic cuties the seahorses? (Apart from orientals who prefer them with chips, and never heard of Bambi and friends!) . Our kids are so indoctrinated by the mass media to think that animals think, act and behave just as we do, that any attempt to portray Seahorses as the vicious stealth attack predators they actually are, is met with incredulous disbelief But they are soooo CUTE!
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
I value wildlife highly and all the sailors I know do, as well. Sailors are instinctively 100pc behind sane conservationists. Few, if any, sailors support an anchor ban in Studland Bay because five minutes of research shows the case for it is nonsense - not because we don't wish to minimise our impact on nature.
Last edited:
Seajet
...
I'll just remind any newcomers to this debate, the residents of Studland Bay - a rather expensive address, where one might have thought the locals would be NIMBY's and want to shoo away plebs in boats, has proven exactly the opposite.
The locals are very pro-visiting boats and BORG, and detest the Seahorse Trust as a PITA !
They have a facebook page, put ' Save Studland Bay ' into Facebook search.
The locals are very pro-visiting boats and BORG, and detest the Seahorse Trust as a PITA !
They have a facebook page, put ' Save Studland Bay ' into Facebook search.
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
Seem to be two FB pages worth following:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/SAVE-Studland-BAY/256006441109325
https://www.facebook.com/pages/SAVE-Studland-Beach/591991147613221
Also worth keeping an eye on the Seahorse Trusts case IMHO:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/theseahorsetrust/
Niffler
Well-Known Member
They seem to have got those 100,000 signatures becuse the wildlife trust sent the link to its 600,000 worldwide members. anyone can click a link to "sign" a petition but do they really support the cause? Their massive fundraising campaign has raised...
http://www.gofundme.com/l9e7js?fb_a...6186&fb_action_types=og.shares&fb_ref=fb_cr_n
oldgit
Well-Known Member
The other sides point of view.
Studland Bay in Dorset is the most important sites for Spiny Seahorses in the UK and yet it has been dropped from the Marine Conservation Zone process for the second time, depsite the seahorses being threatened on the site and their numbers dropping from 40 in 2008 to 1 in 2014. Even though they are legally protected !!
The Spiny Seahorses at Studland are under threat from the loss of their home, the seagrass bed because of unmanaged yachts and boats dropping anchors on the site destroying the seagrass and because of illegal moorings being put into the seagrass. The very seagrass that is home not only to the Spiny Seahorses but also a myriad of other rare and endangered species. It also helps to defend the beach and clifss by diffusing wave action, something that will cost the council millions to do if it were not there. The beach is already losing its sands and the cliffs had a number of rock falls last winter.
We have aksed for Environmentally friendly Moorings to be installed so the boats can still visit the area and the seagrass will be protected but DEFRA has dropped the formation of the MCZ because a small handful of yacht owners made an objection, even though they have no scientific evidnce to support their views, depsite the fact the seahorses (and the seagrass because of the seahorses) are legally protected. We want to raise £5,000 to fight this unjust decision and to get the bay back onto the proposed Marine Conservation Zone list. Please donate to the cause so we can lobby government and all the relevant authorities. This urgent we do not have long to achieve this, so please dig deep to help us to help them. Thank youAlthough The Seahorse Trust is pushing hard and is at the forefront to make Studland Bay an MCZ we are not alone in our desire to protect this site. The push to try and get Studland Bay made into a MCZ is fully supported by so many organisations, such as the Wildlife Trusts, National Trust, RSPB, Marine Life, Marine Conservation Society, the Sealife Centres, the National Marine Aquarium, SOS (Ireland, SOS (Malaysia), National Oceanography Centre, MCC, Southampton University, the Seahorse Alliance,two thirds of the villagers at Studland, a number of yachting and boating people and a host of other conservation and non-conservation organisations and individuals; this amounts to tens of millions of people who want this special site protected. We work very closely with Natural England (we wrote the seahorses advisory notes with them) and others to try and make this a reality and we have put forward proposals such as Environmentally Friendly Moorings so that yachts and boats can still visit the site (we have never wanted them banned why should we when there is an alternative). By using these systems it means that the boats do not destroy this legally protected site (because the seahorses are there) and it will get a chance to recover and the seahorse numbers can increase again. What is often forgotten in this discussion is that Seahorses have been protected in the UK since the 6th of April 2008 (this was put in place due to work by The Seahorse Trust and its volunteers) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (schedule 5, section 9) and so it is actually illegal to destroy their place of shelter or disturb them in their place of shelter; we just need the government to enforce this legally binding law!!
Studland Bay in Dorset is the most important sites for Spiny Seahorses in the UK and yet it has been dropped from the Marine Conservation Zone process for the second time, depsite the seahorses being threatened on the site and their numbers dropping from 40 in 2008 to 1 in 2014. Even though they are legally protected !!
The Spiny Seahorses at Studland are under threat from the loss of their home, the seagrass bed because of unmanaged yachts and boats dropping anchors on the site destroying the seagrass and because of illegal moorings being put into the seagrass. The very seagrass that is home not only to the Spiny Seahorses but also a myriad of other rare and endangered species. It also helps to defend the beach and clifss by diffusing wave action, something that will cost the council millions to do if it were not there. The beach is already losing its sands and the cliffs had a number of rock falls last winter.
We have aksed for Environmentally friendly Moorings to be installed so the boats can still visit the area and the seagrass will be protected but DEFRA has dropped the formation of the MCZ because a small handful of yacht owners made an objection, even though they have no scientific evidnce to support their views, depsite the fact the seahorses (and the seagrass because of the seahorses) are legally protected. We want to raise £5,000 to fight this unjust decision and to get the bay back onto the proposed Marine Conservation Zone list. Please donate to the cause so we can lobby government and all the relevant authorities. This urgent we do not have long to achieve this, so please dig deep to help us to help them. Thank youAlthough The Seahorse Trust is pushing hard and is at the forefront to make Studland Bay an MCZ we are not alone in our desire to protect this site. The push to try and get Studland Bay made into a MCZ is fully supported by so many organisations, such as the Wildlife Trusts, National Trust, RSPB, Marine Life, Marine Conservation Society, the Sealife Centres, the National Marine Aquarium, SOS (Ireland, SOS (Malaysia), National Oceanography Centre, MCC, Southampton University, the Seahorse Alliance,two thirds of the villagers at Studland, a number of yachting and boating people and a host of other conservation and non-conservation organisations and individuals; this amounts to tens of millions of people who want this special site protected. We work very closely with Natural England (we wrote the seahorses advisory notes with them) and others to try and make this a reality and we have put forward proposals such as Environmentally Friendly Moorings so that yachts and boats can still visit the site (we have never wanted them banned why should we when there is an alternative). By using these systems it means that the boats do not destroy this legally protected site (because the seahorses are there) and it will get a chance to recover and the seahorse numbers can increase again. What is often forgotten in this discussion is that Seahorses have been protected in the UK since the 6th of April 2008 (this was put in place due to work by The Seahorse Trust and its volunteers) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (schedule 5, section 9) and so it is actually illegal to destroy their place of shelter or disturb them in their place of shelter; we just need the government to enforce this legally binding law!!
Concerto
Well-Known Member
Studland Bay in Dorset is the most important sites for Spiny Seahorses in the UK and yet it has been dropped from the Marine Conservation Zone process for the second time, depsite the seahorses being threatened on the site and their numbers dropping from 40 in 2008 to 1 in 2014. Even though they are legally protected !!
The Spiny Seahorses at Studland are under threat from the loss of their home, the seagrass bed because of unmanaged yachts and boats dropping anchors on the site destroying the seagrass and because of illegal moorings being put into the seagrass. The very seagrass that is home not only to the Spiny Seahorses but also a myriad of other rare and endangered species. It also helps to defend the beach and clifss by diffusing wave action, something that will cost the council millions to do if it were not there. The beach is already losing its sands and the cliffs had a number of rock falls last winter.
We have aksed for Environmentally friendly Moorings to be installed so the boats can still visit the area and the seagrass will be protected but DEFRA has dropped the formation of the MCZ because a small handful of yacht owners made an objection, even though they have no scientific evidnce to support their views, depsite the fact the seahorses (and the seagrass because of the seahorses) are legally protected. We want to raise £5,000 to fight this unjust decision and to get the bay back onto the proposed Marine Conservation Zone list. Please donate to the cause so we can lobby government and all the relevant authorities. This urgent we do not have long to achieve this, so please dig deep to help us to help them. Thank youAlthough The Seahorse Trust is pushing hard and is at the forefront to make Studland Bay an MCZ we are not alone in our desire to protect this site. The push to try and get Studland Bay made into a MCZ is fully supported by so many organisations, such as the Wildlife Trusts, National Trust, RSPB, Marine Life, Marine Conservation Society, the Sealife Centres, the National Marine Aquarium, SOS (Ireland, SOS (Malaysia), National Oceanography Centre, MCC, Southampton University, the Seahorse Alliance,two thirds of the villagers at Studland, a number of yachting and boating people and a host of other conservation and non-conservation organisations and individuals; this amounts to tens of millions of people who want this special site protected. We work very closely with Natural England (we wrote the seahorses advisory notes with them) and others to try and make this a reality and we have put forward proposals such as Environmentally Friendly Moorings so that yachts and boats can still visit the site (we have never wanted them banned why should we when there is an alternative). By using these systems it means that the boats do not destroy this legally protected site (because the seahorses are there) and it will get a chance to recover and the seahorse numbers can increase again. What is often forgotten in this discussion is that Seahorses have been protected in the UK since the 6th of April 2008 (this was put in place due to work by The Seahorse Trust and its volunteers) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (schedule 5, section 9) and so it is actually illegal to destroy their place of shelter or disturb them in their place of shelter; we just need the government to enforce this legally binding law!!
Your statement shows you have not read any of the arguments showing the existance of seahorses has reduced during the period when the natural habitat has been expanding. The claims by the sehorse trust have not been independently verified to a scientific standard, yet now DEFRA has seen through the claims the area has been dropped as a MCZ. Quite rightly so.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
Err not my statement.
It was merely a reiteration of the story as told by the other side.Most folks like to hear both sides of story before coming to whatever conclusion they think best.
On the subject of DEFRA you may well like to catch up with the sort of chap who was responsible for much of its thinking in the recent past.
Worth a look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Benyon
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
That would presumably apply to organisation, including charities, selling "meet the seahorses" diving trips and to organisations, including charities, whose cack-handed and incompetent tagging operations led to the wholesale deaths of tagged seahorses. Would it not?
oldgit
Well-Known Member
Am always open to a good argument and few bits of evidence would be nice......just saying.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
Hello sweetheart..see you still got it in for the local fishermen ..are they still being horrid to you......
Heres another little map for you to have a hissy fit over.
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/MCZ/medway-estuary. Enjoy
Last edited:
Seajet
...
Hello sweetheart..see you still got it in for the local fishermen ..are they still being horrid to you......
Heres another little map for you to have a hissy fit over.
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/MCZ/medway-estuary. Enjoy
Who on earth mentioned fishermen, and your calling me ' sweetheart ' is downright pervy !
I'm calling from Earth in the Sol system; whereabouts are you then ?
And don't they teach punctuation on your planet ?
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
The push to try and get Studland Bay made into a MCZ is fully supported by so many organisations, such as the Wildlife Trusts, National Trust, RSPB, Marine Life, Marine Conservation Society, the Sealife Centres, the National Marine Aquarium, SOS (Ireland, SOS (Malaysia), National Oceanography Centre, MCC, Southampton University, the Seahorse Alliance,two thirds of the villagers at Studland, a number of yachting and boating people and a host of other conservation and non-conservation organisations and individuals; this amounts to tens of millions of people who want this special site protected.
Yeah, £150 from a grand total of four donations isn't consistent with 'fully supported' as described above.
Concerto
Well-Known Member
oldgit
Your post read as though you were agreeing with the protection of Studland. I missed your sub heading, but you should have added a statement either at the start or end of the text to clarify your position and placed the text in italics.
Your link to the wildlife trust was interesting. No mention of shipping, docks, fishing, leisure boating, as though it is an exclusive nature area. The mention of seals makes me laugh as they feed on fish, so does that work well with fish nurseries. In the late 1960's I can remember the last commercial fisherman based in Queenborough when he decided to move to Scotland as there were so few fish he could not make a living. Since then the water quality has been improved and life in the river has improved, far more than any conservation organisation will ever match. The creaping encroachment of "conservation" is now causing all river users a worry as it will most likely be the slim wedge that will be driven in further. When will they stop? Only when they have complete control of the area. Their objectives do not allow for others, so pressure on DEFRA must be firmly put to stop increasing regulations. How long will it be before they want to ban all boats from Stangate Creek?
Your post read as though you were agreeing with the protection of Studland. I missed your sub heading, but you should have added a statement either at the start or end of the text to clarify your position and placed the text in italics.
Your link to the wildlife trust was interesting. No mention of shipping, docks, fishing, leisure boating, as though it is an exclusive nature area. The mention of seals makes me laugh as they feed on fish, so does that work well with fish nurseries. In the late 1960's I can remember the last commercial fisherman based in Queenborough when he decided to move to Scotland as there were so few fish he could not make a living. Since then the water quality has been improved and life in the river has improved, far more than any conservation organisation will ever match. The creaping encroachment of "conservation" is now causing all river users a worry as it will most likely be the slim wedge that will be driven in further. When will they stop? Only when they have complete control of the area. Their objectives do not allow for others, so pressure on DEFRA must be firmly put to stop increasing regulations. How long will it be before they want to ban all boats from Stangate Creek?
duncan99210
Well-Known Member
Seajet, don't feed the troll.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Studland Bay in Dorset is the most important sites for Spiny Seahorses in the UK and yet it has been dropped from the Marine Conservation Zone process for the second time, depsite the seahorses being threatened on the site and their numbers dropping from 40 in 2008 to 1 in 2014. Even though they are legally protected !!
The Spiny Seahorses at Studland are under threat from the loss of their home, the seagrass bed because of unmanaged yachts and boats dropping anchors on the site destroying the seagrass and because of illegal moorings being put into the seagrass. The very seagrass that is home not only to the Spiny Seahorses but also a myriad of other rare and endangered species. It also helps to defend the beach and clifss by diffusing wave action, something that will cost the council millions to do if it were not there. The beach is already losing its sands and the cliffs had a number of rock falls last winter.
We have aksed for Environmentally friendly Moorings to be installed so the boats can still visit the area and the seagrass will be protected but DEFRA has dropped the formation of the MCZ because a small handful of yacht owners made an objection, even though they have no scientific evidnce to support their views, depsite the fact the seahorses (and the seagrass because of the seahorses) are legally protected. We want to raise £5,000 to fight this unjust decision and to get the bay back onto the proposed Marine Conservation Zone list. Please donate to the cause so we can lobby government and all the relevant authorities. This urgent we do not have long to achieve this, so please dig deep to help us to help them. Thank youAlthough The Seahorse Trust is pushing hard and is at the forefront to make Studland Bay an MCZ we are not alone in our desire to protect this site. The push to try and get Studland Bay made into a MCZ is fully supported by so many organisations, such as the Wildlife Trusts, National Trust, RSPB, Marine Life, Marine Conservation Society, the Sealife Centres, the National Marine Aquarium, SOS (Ireland, SOS (Malaysia), National Oceanography Centre, MCC, Southampton University, the Seahorse Alliance,two thirds of the villagers at Studland, a number of yachting and boating people and a host of other conservation and non-conservation organisations and individuals; this amounts to tens of millions of people who want this special site protected. We work very closely with Natural England (we wrote the seahorses advisory notes with them) and others to try and make this a reality and we have put forward proposals such as Environmentally Friendly Moorings so that yachts and boats can still visit the site (we have never wanted them banned why should we when there is an alternative). By using these systems it means that the boats do not destroy this legally protected site (because the seahorses are there) and it will get a chance to recover and the seahorse numbers can increase again. What is often forgotten in this discussion is that Seahorses have been protected in the UK since the 6th of April 2008 (this was put in place due to work by The Seahorse Trust and its volunteers) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (schedule 5, section 9) and so it is actually illegal to destroy their place of shelter or disturb them in their place of shelter; we just need the government to enforce this legally binding law!!
There are so many lies - not just misrepresentations, but provable untruths in that piece that it is difficult to take it seriously. Just like most things that come from that source.
Just as an example, the "council" is not responsible for the beach or the cliff face, it is the National Trust reponsibility and they have a deliberate policy of not defending the natural erosion. The erosion is not by wave action but by water from the land. Anybody who knows Studland understands this. The grass beds do not dampen the wave action - rather the opposite as easterly gales tear up the grass in the shallows and deposit it on the beach. There is more damage done to the grass by natural forces than any anchoring.
The reason, as old Harry has explained, why Studland is not included as an MCZ is because DEFRA has rejected all the claims made by SHT as lacking in any convincing evidence.
As you can imagine that upsets NGM and his only response is to spread more untruths.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
let's have some science, true research and accuracy - which describes eveything you fail to represent, I strongly suspect you are SHT under false pretences talking self serving nonsense ( which would describe SHT from the outset ) ...
He's from the Medway, where no living organism has been able to survive for more then fifteen minutes for the last hundred and fifty years or so. Also it was well after opening time when he posted.
oldharry
Well-Known Member
LETTER: Sent by me to NGM Yesterday. Note that while I can not predict how Defra will respond , I am speaking with some insight about what may happen next. The first paragraph refers to the fact that NGM was sending up to 4 emails a day to gloat over the increasing numbers of of signatories. This is going to dozens of MPs and other busy officials across the board. Nice bit of PR there NGM!
Dear Neil
I am quite sure few of us really want an hourly update on your petition. Can I ask you to keep that for your friends? We will be interested to know the final number when it closes. but not before. Being retired it is no more than a minor irritation to me but memory of working in a busy office suggests to me that many recipients will long since have pressed their autodelete spam buttons.
In any case what do you plan to do with the petition?
Take it to Defra? They already know that Studland is not the ‘only place in the UK where seahorse breed.’ Your own SHT website makes that clear. (Seahorse facts: British seahorses) Credibility failure number one.
Credibility failure 2. You told signatories “Defra has dropped Studland from the list of MCZs”
They didn’t. Defra said they wanted more information and discussion before designation. So why are you getting people to tell Defra to change its mind? (….Tell?)
Credibility failure 3. We all saw Michael Coyles clear statement that anchoring in Studland is NOT illegal. He is as you know responsible for Marine enforcement. So he should know.
Defra is probably better informed than any of us, and may be less than amused by what you have said. And done .
One problem for them will be that those 118,000 people signed up on the basis of what you actually told them. They can not know the true facts, and rely on you to tell them the truth. They can only know what they read. What you wrote.
The RYA leaflet is not just advice: it is effectively the official guide for boats entering Studland bay, to help ensure they cause no disturbance. It is endorsed by MMO, Natural England, and the local Wildlife trusts, all of whose logos appear on it. How then can MMO possibly prosecute anybody who is trying to follow these guidelines when they anchor in Studland?
So you see that the “irresponsible handful of boat owners” as you describe BORG, who have already taken active steps to protect the Bay by obtaining official advice from the authorities how we should handle our boats in this sensitive environment. You were present when I asked the MMO for advice 2 years ago, but although delegates from RYA, MMO, Wildife Trusts and Studland community all immediately supported my suggestion, you chose not to. Your choice, but had you done otherwise, a Studland MCZ might have been well under way by now.
Eco Friendly moorings are not by any means a simple solution: there are too many issues concerning them, not least that there are many different types, each developed for specific areas and use. Which is right for Studland? We do not know yet. What we DO know is that a) incorrectly installed EFMs can do MORE damage to the seabed than traditional equipment. b) EFMs require a minimum depth of water to function properly: Studland is too shallow for many types. C) The UK Marine Insurance market at present will not provide insurance cover for them without further extensive testing. And d) they are very unlikely to give any significant conservation gain in Studland.
Do you seriously expect the British Government to give in to pressure from a mere 100,000 + foreigners? Wouldn’t that be political suicide this close to an election? Even without an election Westminster would be in an uproar if Whitehall gave way to a small foreign pressure group. They are used to standing up to whole nations. 100,000 is nothing on the global perspective.
I have not responded previously, and I will not respond again for now because your petition will stand or fall on its own credibility, without any help from me.
Jon
Jon Reed
Boat Owners Response Group
(The ‘small handful of yachtsmen’ who apparently changed Defras mind!)
Dear Neil
I am quite sure few of us really want an hourly update on your petition. Can I ask you to keep that for your friends? We will be interested to know the final number when it closes. but not before. Being retired it is no more than a minor irritation to me but memory of working in a busy office suggests to me that many recipients will long since have pressed their autodelete spam buttons.
In any case what do you plan to do with the petition?
Take it to Defra? They already know that Studland is not the ‘only place in the UK where seahorse breed.’ Your own SHT website makes that clear. (Seahorse facts: British seahorses) Credibility failure number one.
Credibility failure 2. You told signatories “Defra has dropped Studland from the list of MCZs”
They didn’t. Defra said they wanted more information and discussion before designation. So why are you getting people to tell Defra to change its mind? (….Tell?)
Credibility failure 3. We all saw Michael Coyles clear statement that anchoring in Studland is NOT illegal. He is as you know responsible for Marine enforcement. So he should know.
Defra is probably better informed than any of us, and may be less than amused by what you have said. And done .
One problem for them will be that those 118,000 people signed up on the basis of what you actually told them. They can not know the true facts, and rely on you to tell them the truth. They can only know what they read. What you wrote.
The RYA leaflet is not just advice: it is effectively the official guide for boats entering Studland bay, to help ensure they cause no disturbance. It is endorsed by MMO, Natural England, and the local Wildlife trusts, all of whose logos appear on it. How then can MMO possibly prosecute anybody who is trying to follow these guidelines when they anchor in Studland?
So you see that the “irresponsible handful of boat owners” as you describe BORG, who have already taken active steps to protect the Bay by obtaining official advice from the authorities how we should handle our boats in this sensitive environment. You were present when I asked the MMO for advice 2 years ago, but although delegates from RYA, MMO, Wildife Trusts and Studland community all immediately supported my suggestion, you chose not to. Your choice, but had you done otherwise, a Studland MCZ might have been well under way by now.
Eco Friendly moorings are not by any means a simple solution: there are too many issues concerning them, not least that there are many different types, each developed for specific areas and use. Which is right for Studland? We do not know yet. What we DO know is that a) incorrectly installed EFMs can do MORE damage to the seabed than traditional equipment. b) EFMs require a minimum depth of water to function properly: Studland is too shallow for many types. C) The UK Marine Insurance market at present will not provide insurance cover for them without further extensive testing. And d) they are very unlikely to give any significant conservation gain in Studland.
Do you seriously expect the British Government to give in to pressure from a mere 100,000 + foreigners? Wouldn’t that be political suicide this close to an election? Even without an election Westminster would be in an uproar if Whitehall gave way to a small foreign pressure group. They are used to standing up to whole nations. 100,000 is nothing on the global perspective.
I have not responded previously, and I will not respond again for now because your petition will stand or fall on its own credibility, without any help from me.
Jon
Jon Reed
Boat Owners Response Group
(The ‘small handful of yachtsmen’ who apparently changed Defras mind!)
Last edited: