Niffler
Well-Known Member
We owe a lot to you Jon, whether we sail in Studland or elsewhere, you seem to have been able to square up to the career conversationalists and talk the sense that gets good decisions made.
Seahorse Trust petition reaches 100,000
- Thread starter oldharry
- Start date
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
+1
I'm also impressed by Defra's handling of this. They seem to favour fact over emotive hysteria.
Daydream believer
Well-Known Member
Seajet ( & possibly others)
Being a regular contributor to this forum I am well aware of your outrageous rants.
Sometimes I find them quite amusing & have no real objection to you or your opinions. I admire your ability to keep going against all odds
However, in this instance I do wish you would stop & think first.
Borg has done its best to deal with the situation on behalf of the boating fraternity . But people get miss quoted & rants like yours are the sort of things that we should not be producing for these Sea Horse whallas to use as an example of the sort of people we are.
I fully understand your frustration & I have already formed my opinion on the matter but please calm it down.
But by all means do not think for one minute that i would want you to stop on other threads. Just do not give the idiots any more amunition
Grumpybear
Well-Known Member
Absolutely right!
sighmoon
Well-Known Member
130,000 now.
Could we start a petition to stop the tagging of seahorses?
For once, I'm not being facetious, but from what I understand, when they had their temporary no anchor zone, the numbers continued to decline rapidly. The population was healthy before they started tagging them. I'm no expert, but I'd have thought putting a shiny thing around the neck of a camouflaged animal is likely to attract predators. Seahorses can be identified by their crowns, so it is in any case unnecessary.
Proof that you can always find science to back up any claim, from http://seahorse.fisheries.ubc.ca/si.../documents/news/uploads/Tagging_Seahorses.pdf
Could we start a petition to stop the tagging of seahorses?
For once, I'm not being facetious, but from what I understand, when they had their temporary no anchor zone, the numbers continued to decline rapidly. The population was healthy before they started tagging them. I'm no expert, but I'd have thought putting a shiny thing around the neck of a camouflaged animal is likely to attract predators. Seahorses can be identified by their crowns, so it is in any case unnecessary.
Proof that you can always find science to back up any claim, from http://seahorse.fisheries.ubc.ca/si.../documents/news/uploads/Tagging_Seahorses.pdf
Last edited:
oldharry
Well-Known Member
People are far more concerned about the extinction of Clarkson - 300,000 in 3 days! Proves that 'clickit' technology means people will just tick the box without thinking about it.
Interesting around 7 out of ten people who have left comments on NGMs position are specifically asking for 'the only breeding place in the UK' to be protected. Defra knows as well as we do that it is not.
Wonder how they will deal with that?
Interesting around 7 out of ten people who have left comments on NGMs position are specifically asking for 'the only breeding place in the UK' to be protected. Defra knows as well as we do that it is not.
Wonder how they will deal with that?
Horace
N/A
Well if it's not the only breeding site in the UK & they know that ar'nt they committing a fraud pure & simple? Certainly a petition should be set up to stop the seahorse molesters
laika
Well-Known Member
I recall looking at the studland data and thinking that it supported a hypothesis that tagging seahorses was leading to a decline in their population more than it did the hypothesis that anchoring was damaging the population: Over the course of the study the seahorse population declined. They had no measures for anchoring behaviour and no evidence that it changed throughout the course of the study. What *did* measurably change was the tagging behaviour of divers. Seahorses are supposedly sensitive to handling yet they were tagged and handled. The method of tagging used for the first 4 years was deemed safe by the SHT because it had not proved detrimental in an aquarium. Putting a bell round a house cat's neck might have no effect. It could mean a lack of hunting success in the wild. One wonders whether the tagging method was also secretly a concern for the SHT given that they changed it in the last year of their study.
Having seen some recent outrageous (non-seahorse-related) examples of clicktivism where people have deemed a "protest" worthy but not taken the time to actually look into the facts I have very little doubt that launching a petition to ban diving in studland due to the damage divers have wrought on the seahorse population would easily get thousands of signatures.
EDIT...on my dislike of clicktivism...I wonder how many people raving *against* the SHT have bothered to go and read their report and how many just take it on trust that they're a bunch of eco-nutters, just like the people signing *their* petition take on trust the carnage being wrought by evil boat owners.
Last edited:
Concerto
Well-Known Member
It is one thing to click on a petition, but so very few actually are putting their hands in their pockets to fund the SHT. Perhaps we should be grateful as I hate to think what they would get up to with lots of money.
oldharry
Well-Known Member
"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."
So said NGM on a major fundraising site 27 days ago: http://www.gofundme.com/l9e7js?fb_a...6186&fb_action_types=og.shares&fb_ref=fb_cr_n
Total raised £150 most of it one of the 4 donations.
Clikitism rules OK!
alahol2
Well-Known Member
It is a shame that most of the SHT supporters don't take enough interest in the actual running of the charity to have a look at the accounts for the last several years. I'm sure if they did that they would be astonished at how such a relatively large amount of money is disposed of each year. Without specific details it is difficult to be sure but it would appear that the vast majority goes as 'Administrator fees', Rent, Travel Cost and Vehicle Running Costs. It seems the only employee to be mentioned is the Director and an occasional web designer. Within the expenses category 'Seahorse Costs' gets exactly nil for Y/E 2014.
Nicholas123
N/A
I have followed this business for years & read most of the linked stuff that has been posted relating to the seahorse trust/NGM & I don't need to swallow that bilge to know that after sixty years my main interest being Nature/the natural world that most wildlife stays well clear of human activity (even the sparrows in my hedge out the back fly off/are very edgy at my appearance) & that therefore seahorses & the like will be very adverse at being manhandled tagged & have swarms of divers trying to get a good look at them.
It is no wonder to me that seahorses have diminished as a result of these activities & I believe the spotlight should be turned on these self serving conservationists.
Get up the petition I'll be the first to sign! If these "conservationists"had the best interests of Nature at heart I believe they would have denounced NGM & his self serving activities long ago!
dgadee
Well-Known Member
But conservationists love to touch the animals. Same with birds. There is supposed to be a sub group of spotters called 'bird fondlers'. I was surprised to hear that only 1% of birds cleaned after an oil spill will live. Cleaning them just seems like cruelty to me. But the cleaners get to touch, which I suppose is what it is all about.
Seajet
...
dgadee,
in that case we ought to set about creating a real Jurassic Park, and see how they get on touching and tagging T-Rex's !
in that case we ought to set about creating a real Jurassic Park, and see how they get on touching and tagging T-Rex's !
laika
Well-Known Member
I was going to return to my contention regarding general insults towards people involved in conservation not helping the image of boaters. But I do confess to now adding "fauna fondling pervert" to my list of useful insults for unusual situations....
Nicholas123
N/A
There is a place that I love that was thoroughly trashed by conservationists so I hav'nt got much time for them.They seem to come from a breed of individual that likes to see nature regimented to conform to their narrow view of how everything should be.Not unlike gardeners who plant everything in a strait line,ar'nt happy unless grass is mowed to within an inch of it's life & the whole rosy scene supplemented by plastic gnomes. :disgust:
Last edited:
oldharry
Well-Known Member
A lot of truth in that Nicholas 123. There is frequently a real fear that nature might break out and reveal itself as 'red in tooth and claw'. So they work really hard to create a sort of comfy 'Walt Disney' version. Doesnt matter what you are saving really as long as it behaves itself and is duly grateful, and allows you to cuddle it. Makes me sick the way the degrade so many species to a sort of private zoo regime. The charismatic seahorse? Soooo cute! Actually they are at their level a deadly stealth predator, which would guve most kids nightmares of they knew its true ways! But no, the public 'image ' is these charismatic gentle peace loving and peaceful little curios drifting gently around - killing and eating anything that gets in range!
And of course they have 'right' on their side. 'Save the Planet' is a very hard one to respond to. If I happen to disagree with the particular perversion then suddenly I become publicly labelled a rich gin-swilling yottie, for example.
The petition is about to top 140,000. Sounds a lot - until you consider Jeremy Clarkson got 800,000 votes in 3 days. Helps put it in perspective. 140,000 out of 62 million UK residents also hardly represents a majority either?
And of course they have 'right' on their side. 'Save the Planet' is a very hard one to respond to. If I happen to disagree with the particular perversion then suddenly I become publicly labelled a rich gin-swilling yottie, for example.
The petition is about to top 140,000. Sounds a lot - until you consider Jeremy Clarkson got 800,000 votes in 3 days. Helps put it in perspective. 140,000 out of 62 million UK residents also hardly represents a majority either?
Last edited:
dgadee
Well-Known Member
The RSPB has a definite view of what nature should be. They have been cutting down trees in Caithness which they consider "not appropriate". A p-t cleaner was sacked by them for opposing the appalling looking building they intended to put up. Sold to the funders (don't they have enough money themselves?) as a means of increasing tourist income. I would like to see independent assessment of that claim.
What Caithness could certainly do with - for bird life, too? - might be more trees.
What Caithness could certainly do with - for bird life, too? - might be more trees.
Morven
Well-Known Member
Using SHT's own scientific methods, that would seem to indicate that 660,000 people prefer Clarkston to seahorses!
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I used to fly gliders over one of their reserves, and we regularly heard shots. They really, really don't like some species of birds, you see, and make money selling licences to kill them. Rather tough if you are the wrong sort of feathered friend.