Seahorses AGAIN

Robin

Robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
18,088
Location
high and dry on north island
Visit site
See Bournemouth Echo again today (Sat 4/7)

He is at it again! This is a full page article in todays Echo.

Is he the ONLY member of the Seahorse Trust or do the others just cringe into the shadows when this guy gets on his hobby horse.

How can you argue logically in the same breath that anchoring is destroying the seagrass and damaging the seahorses as a result yet claim this is the largest colony of seahorses in the world! He said earlier there were 40, later 50 now it is the largest colony in the world - WOW, we'd better get out there anchoring, because it really is making these things multiply fast!

Trouble is he is getting easy publicity to drum up support for the cuddly creatures versus the nasty rich boaties he so obviously hates.

He is described as a conservationist. In my view he gives conservationists a bad name.

I'm afraid this does any case no good at all.
 
This is what I have been trying to point out. It is easy for Steve Trewhella to categorize us all as uncaring rich boaters. The Crown estates are stuck in the middle and in my view doing a reasonable job of trying not to over react there are others, such as the Dorset Wildlife Trust who also support the survey. But Steve can easily get publicity for his cuddly sea horses and by opposing the survey we become the enemy.

The survey should at least provide a point of reference and if we support it we are on the side of reason. I know some doubt the truth of that but a lot of this argument will I'm afraid come down to public perception, and simply saying the public are idiots won't get us anywhere.
 
"The Crown Estate owns the seabed in Studland Bay and SeaStar Survey Ltd has been appointed to carry out a survey of the seabed to establish how much damage is being caused. Six large buoys will mark out the no anchor zone with flags on top of the 100m by 100m area."

It's still only 100m x 100m, a piddling small area, so what is all the curfuffle about, let them get on with it. I think a lot on these forums are getting worked up over nothing at the moment.

Or is it just the very idea that somebody should be telling posh yotties what to do that is getting you all fired up?

As I understand it, the 100mx100m is unsuitable for most boats to anchor in anyway, being fairly shallow. and to be honest, some of the posts on this subject in other threads, have been well out of order, and do the yotties no favours.

How many that are shouting the odds actually go to Studland and anchor there more than say two or three times a year? Somehow I think a lot are just making noise for it's own sake. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
What these people don’t take into consideration is that Studland bay in particular the bit by the banks arms, has for years been one of the busiest anchorages on the south coast, sometimes there’s hardly room to anchor, yet these sea horses have established themselves there, doesn’t that tell these dip sticks anything, they are not supported by the local residents either, who are opposed to their proposed photo name and shame policy. I have just been involved in maintaining landing rights on Long Islands foreshore and now these do gooders are trying to stop us from another local area, where next.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Studland bay in particular the bit by the banks arms, has for years been one of the busiest anchorages on the south coast, sometimes there’s hardly room to anchor

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like exactly the kind of place I would NOT wish to anchor.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Trouble is he is getting easy publicity to drum up support for the cuddly creatures versus the nasty rich boaties he so obviously hates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and after the nasty rich boaties on this forum were all so pleasant and reasonable to him. What possible reason could he have for prejudice?

If, as so many here suppose, regular seagrass ploughing is beneficial, a proper survey ought to confirm that view. Like him, we need to make sure the survey produces fair results.

If we are wrong in that assumption, a hostile attitude now may scupper any chance of compromise later.
 
If by being nasty to him you mean we dared question his credentials and facts then you are correct. I merely published a reply from the Studland Parish Council who I think it is fair should have a view. He responded with some very nasty accusations about their motives for disagreeing with him.

Beware of this because if you look at the Seahorse Trust website you will see that they have lottery funding now to amongst other things provide a Seahorse Warden? They certainly have the means to get full page publicity in the local papers and to attract the TV people, whereas the other side of the discussion gets no hearing at all.

Be very aware that whatever this guy says, his real motive will be a total ban for boats in the bay.

It actually will not affect me, I've enjoyed anchoring there for 35 or more years but am moving to the USA before he closes Studland. I would hate to see others excluded.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Beware of this because if you look at the Seahorse Trust website you will see that they have lottery funding now to amongst other things provide a Seahorse Warden?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder who will apply for the job?

I'm beginning to understand his motivations a lot more clearly /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Actually to be correct the job is Project Officer, but I'm sure when I last read it (maybe elsewhere) it said Warden.

Anyway, Google Seahorse Trust and look at all the links other than their site and you will see what busy little bees their publicity machine has been. There are references that apparently link them in favourably to other agencies like Dorset Wildlife Trust, Natural England etc whereas some of these have actually backed away from some of the wilder claims in favour of some PROPER research.

Oh and they have plans to expand their activities and even into mainland Europe.
 
The problem is that he and his ilk have no interest in any sort of compromise.

He is a fanatic

No other solution but his will be acceptable - and as a fanatic he have no regard for any other point of view or for any other peoples priorities.

He most certainly will not be satisfied with 100M I can virtually guarantee that he will produce "evidence" that he is right and all the seahorses are prancing about there like fawns in Arcady so he must have the rest of it - and of course get his hands on the Lottery money and the rest.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that he and his ilk have no interest in any sort of compromise.

He is a fanatic

No other solution but his will be acceptable - and as a fanatic he have no regard for any other point of view or for any other peoples priorities.

He most certainly will not be satisfied with 100M I can virtually guarantee that he will produce "evidence" that he is right and all the seahorses are prancing about there like fawns in Arcady so he must have the rest of it - and of course get his hands on the Lottery money and the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]


Trouble is Beadle Chops! you have no evidence to support that claim, you are only surmising.

Anyway, whatever a bunch of forumites whinge and bang on about, carries no weight in the real world, so what will be will be.

The provision of the restricted zone will go ahead, and the survey by Seastar Survey Ltd will go ahead, and then they will report back and I am quite sure that the right decisions will be made. Whether or not "rich yotties" will like or agree with them seems to me to be pretty irrelevant really. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
I have just looked at the site, and in particular the proposed tagging survey. the document is full of inaccuracies and unsupported statements - not a surprise given who has written it.

I shall be writing to the director of the Trust to ask for his comments and will report back.
 
"Anyway, whatever a bunch of forumites whinge and bang on about, carries no weight in the real world, so what will be will be."

Ha Trusty Chrusty.

How I wish the local trout would rise as readily.

That is the whole point.

1 person and his smelly dog - neither of whom contribute so much as a brass farthing to society can spoil the pleasure of hundreds of other people simply by making a damned nuisnace of himself and producing a fancy web site.

Whats even worse the rest of us, whose pleasure he is trying to destroy, have to pay the damned fool for doing it.

But then why should I worry - I'm 300 miles from Studland - so leave the place to the flora and fauna for me.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Fascinating website - you can donate but you can't join so far as I can see. Are new members of the trust not welcome? And if not, why not? Wonder what the total membership is


[/ QUOTE ]

I wondered that too and find it quite strange if not suspicious!
 
Hi Beadle Chops! Just one question..................


















How do you know his dog is smelly?







You haven't been getting up close and personal have you? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top