Studland Anchoring

LinTeal

Member
Joined
21 Dec 2003
Messages
115
Visit site
To save me wading through the Studland MMO numerous postings ,I am looking for confirmation that there is still plenty of room outside the voluntary no anchoring MCZ area to anchor safely at Studland assuming winds not from East or North.Considering overnighting at Studland prior to heading for Dartmouth early June.
 

R.Ems

Active member
Joined
1 Apr 2022
Messages
354
Visit site
According to the chart there is, but be careful of the 'men in black'.
Men in black? What are they going to do, whine at you in a threatening manner? They have zero powers.
This is a voluntary scheme organised by a bunch of pathetic interfering busybodies, who care more about common seaweed than the safety of seafarers.
 

Sandy

Well-known member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
21,938
Location
On the Celtic Fringe
duckduckgo.com
Men in black? What are they going to do, whine at you in a threatening manner? They have zero powers.
This is a voluntary scheme organised by a bunch of pathetic interfering busybodies, who care more about common seaweed than the safety of seafarers.
I would not argue with a members of the Special Boat Service. ?

Sorry, this was a rather obtuse comment. If you were unaware that the SBS spent a lot of time doing stuff in Studland Bay then the comment was lost.
 

Ian_Rob

Well-known member
Joined
31 Jan 2008
Messages
1,161
Visit site
This is a voluntary scheme organised by a bunch of pathetic interfering busybodies, who care more about common seaweed than the safety of seafarers.

Whilst agreeing with much of your sentiment, make no mistake that these ‘busybodies’ will make the scheme mandatory if they see the voluntary option is not working. Flout it and we will loose it.
 
Last edited:

R.Ems

Active member
Joined
1 Apr 2022
Messages
354
Visit site
I would not argue with a members of the Special Boat Service. ?

Sorry, this was a rather obtuse comment. If you were unaware that the SBS spent a lot of time doing stuff in Studland Bay then the comment was lost.
No I didn't know that! I'm sure they confine their activities to military training though, rather than making a nuisance of themselves yapping about seaweed...
 

nortada

Well-known member
Joined
24 May 2012
Messages
15,476
Location
Walton-on-the-Naze.
Visit site
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, orcas on summer hols from Iberia started playing with local yachts?

Well at least the RYA May start to play a more significant role??
 

oldharry

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
9,957
Location
North from the Nab about 10 miles
Visit site
The Voluntary No Anchor Zone is defined in this leaflet from MMO: https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/1063955/Studland_Leaflet__1_.pdf

It IS voluntary at present, and MMO are reported actively monitoring for compliance. There are also reports that at busy times MMO are out there ensuring people are aware of the need for and location of the VNAZ.

VNAZ is the best option not only for us, but for MMO, as the costs of policing any compulsory arrangements are prohibitive. So we have the choice of voluntarily complying with an unnecessary and unwelcome VNAZ and keeping it voluntary, or of disregarding it, and at some point down the line forcing the MMO to give in to the already considerable pressure from the Conservationists because the 'selfish G&T swilling sunday afternoon yachstmen' (thats us) are not interested in saving the environment (Packham, BBCTv various occasions). Packham and co have had a field day persuading the viewing public that we are evil monsters set on putting our own interests over that of the environment.

And as we all know, if its on the telly, it must be true... so there is a widely held public view that we have already destroyed Studland and have no care for the natural environment.

More realistically, if you shout loud enough and long enough, what you are saying becomes the truth. Media have played thsat one fro all its worth because it raises viewing figures!
Its down to us to prove otherwise. the damage is already done - and not to the eelgrass and its denizens!
 

Seven Spades

Well-known member
Joined
30 Aug 2003
Messages
4,814
Location
Surrey
Visit site
The Voluntary No Anchor Zone is defined in this leaflet from MMO: https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/1063955/Studland_Leaflet__1_.pdf

It IS voluntary at present, and MMO are reported actively monitoring for compliance. There are also reports that at busy times MMO are out there ensuring people are aware of the need for and location of the VNAZ.

VNAZ is the best option not only for us, but for MMO, as the costs of policing any compulsory arrangements are prohibitive. So we have the choice of voluntarily complying with an unnecessary and unwelcome VNAZ and keeping it voluntary, or of disregarding it, and at some point down the line forcing the MMO to give in to the already considerable pressure from the Conservationists because the 'selfish G&T swilling sunday afternoon yachstmen' (thats us) are not interested in saving the environment (Packham, BBCTv various occasions). Packham and co have had a field day persuading the viewing public that we are evil monsters set on putting our own interests over that of the environment.

And as we all know, if its on the telly, it must be true... so there is a widely held public view that we have already destroyed Studland and have no care for the natural environment.

More realistically, if you shout loud enough and long enough, what you are saying becomes the truth. Media have played thsat one fro all its worth because it raises viewing figures!
Its down to us to prove otherwise. the damage is already done - and not to the eelgrass and its denizens!
Hmm so what have we to lose by ignoring it. If the MMO finds the costs of policing it prohibitive perhaps they won't impose any more restrictions.
 

Chiara’s slave

Well-known member
Joined
14 Apr 2022
Messages
7,790
Location
Western Solent
Visit site
Hmm so what have we to lose by ignoring it. If the MMO finds the costs of policing it prohibitive perhaps they won't impose any more restrictions.
On the other hand, how hard is it to avoid anchoring in the zone? Maybe it is best for those dear little seahorses after all. I’m pretty sure its best not to antagonise the eco warriors, especially if it’s no particular effort.
 

Stemar

Well-known member
Joined
12 Sep 2001
Messages
24,024
Location
Home - Southampton, Boat - Gosport
Visit site
Hmm so what have we to lose by ignoring it. If the MMO finds the costs of policing it prohibitive perhaps they won't impose any more restrictions.
One thing we have to gain, if that's the right word, is headlines like "Selfish yachtsmen killing seahorses".

ISTM that our best plan is to comply and show willing. That way, maybe they'll listen when we argue against more draconian rules. In this case, at least, we've still got plenty of room to anchor elsewhere in the bay
 

IanCC

Active member
Joined
14 Oct 2019
Messages
602
Visit site
They will make it mandatory no matter what we do.
Hmm, maybe not. I tend to think it will depend on how the voluntary scheme works out.

I come from the climbing world where it is birds that are the conflict zone. So there are voluntary bans on climbing on lots of crags in the uk between variable dates depending on bird behaviour, and there is a national database continually updated of the situation on every crag in the uk. It works and has worked for a long time. There are idiots but they are a small minority, there can be disagreement but the big stick is that because of the difficulty of enforcing no-climbing dates the result of repeated infringement of the voluntary ban is a total ban on climbing in the area.

I tend to think, over time, that what happens at Studland will happen everwhere.

The advantage climbing has is an effective national representative body, the BMC, to which pretty much every climber belongs and which really engages professionally on these issues at every level.
 

Ian_Rob

Well-known member
Joined
31 Jan 2008
Messages
1,161
Visit site
On the other hand, how hard is it to avoid anchoring in the zone?…..
Depends on the conditions and how busy it is but generally Studland becomes less and less viable as place to anchor as one moves away from the south and west shores and completely untenable in certain wind directions.
 
Last edited:

oldharry

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
9,957
Location
North from the Nab about 10 miles
Visit site
What happens at Studland WILL be the pattern for what happens elsewhere. It' s seen very much as a test case, and our response and cooperation or lack of it will be noted when setting up MCZs in other conflict zones such as the Solent In other words if we blow it here, they wont give us the choice elsewhere. IanCC is absolutelyt right. Non observance will lead to outright bans. The Wildlife Trusts always oppose voluntary agreements on principle, as they cannot be enforced if people choose to ignore them.

MMO came in for a lot of flack, and are still under heavy pressure for some quarters because they went with us, and insisted on trying a voluntary arrangement first.
 

dunedin

Well-known member
Joined
3 Feb 2004
Messages
14,144
Location
Boat (over winters in) the Clyde
Visit site
Hmm so what have we to lose by ignoring it. If the MMO finds the costs of policing it prohibitive perhaps they won't impose any more restrictions.
I think that is a very naive and unrealistic view. If “selfish rich boat owners” ignore the voluntary ban, there will be more and more legal restrictions put in place, plus charges to cover their costs.
Very quickly there will be a call for mandatory boat registration (as in many other places already), with more costs and regulations for that.
And if skippers anchor in the wrong places, the call will come for mandatory licensing of skippers.

I suggest you need to pause and look at these things from the perspective of a non sailor - such as a local newspaper, or an environmental campaigner - and how they might perceive this.
 

doug748

Well-known member
Joined
1 Oct 2002
Messages
13,378
Location
UK. South West.
Visit site
What happens at Studland WILL be the pattern for what happens elsewhere. It' s seen very much as a test case, and our response and cooperation or lack of it will be noted when setting up MCZs in other conflict zones such as the Solent In other words if we blow it here, they wont give us the choice elsewhere. IanCC is absolutelyt right. Non observance will lead to outright bans. The Wildlife Trusts always oppose voluntary agreements on principle, as they cannot be enforced if people choose to ignore them.

MMO came in for a lot of flack, and are still under heavy pressure for some quarters because they went with us, and insisted on trying a voluntary arrangement first.



The alternative view is that legislation will prove to be unenforceable cul de sac. Not perhaps at Studland ( where they would have their work cut out I'm sure ) but in other places where chasing potential offenders in expensive Ribs, 24/7, would be difficult, expensive and ultimately not viable.

This is were people like Dr Unsworth should be supported 100%. In his work at Dale he has gone out of his way to promote unity, involvement and ownership. He is a bright bloke and knows it is better to lead people than drive them. Had the RYA grasped a useful role at Studland, there could have be an inclusive solution that belonged to all of us. Everyone likes to be asked not told, even if the outcome is not always radically different.


.
 

oldharry

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
9,957
Location
North from the Nab about 10 miles
Visit site
.... and that just about sums up the whole mess. If the conservation heros had come in saying look guys, we havea bit of a problem here. How can we sort it? None of this mess would have happened. Instead a couple of neoprene clad heros saw a chance to build themselves a 'name' as the heros who saved Studland from the vile yotties. Made them feel good. wasted everyones time for nearly 10 years and cost the Tax payer well over £1m possibly twice that in investgations and enquiries.

This could all have been done and dusted, with the agreement of the Wildlife Trusts in 2014, in a deal i brokered with them and RYA. But it wouldnt have included the eco warriors, backed by packham and Humble, so they sank it with a concerted press and media hate campaign because it wasnt their idea.
 

oldharry

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
9,957
Location
North from the Nab about 10 miles
Visit site
Don't forget that the fines for breaching MCZs can go up to £20k. Rather than regular and expensive patrolling, the more likely means of enforcement is a scattering of exemplary fines to convince the rest of us it's not worth the risk. Even £10k could be pretty damaging to many of us!
 
Top