Studland Anchoring

[SaltyC]

OK, I'm now being naive, but surely we ( the intelligent, multi billionaires with 25 foot 40 year old yachts, not eco warriors) should be looking for evidence that the no anchoring that has happened for 300 years has resulted in xxx???? an increase / no difference / decrease in Sea Horses and sea grass. Give evidence not a desired outcome ( a certain Mr C Packham)
Then an informed and intelligent decision can be made.
Is this toooooo much logical engineering thinking?

 

[oldharry]

Marlynspyke and I, armed with numerous published research papers from sites across the world demonstrating that eelgrass Z Marina is unaffected by abrasion and anchor damage fought our corner for 12 years. But no. Expert Opinion at NE is that anchoring does harm eelgrass and must therefore be curtailed or stopped.

Who are these 'experts'? Nobody knows. We went looking for this so called damage. We could only find acre after acre of eelgrass which, when measured by internationally accepted standards puts it well within the parameters regarded across the world as healthy. Compared to other eelgrass beds in Dorset it is above the general standard.

But no.... Expert opinion is that it is on need of restoration, and is 'at risk'.

End of.

 

[Seven Spades]

The thing is good behaviour at Studland is only going to encourage them to roll it out elsewhere as they can now say what a sucess it has been. What would happen in France is civil disobedience. This ban is unfair, un just and has not scientific backing what so ever. It has been imposed by eco-zealots who have no interest in facts they have their own communist agendas. We are sleepwalking into a Communist state where we are loosing all our freedoms, speech has been the first thing to go, booiks have been re-written, historic events are being fabricated and this is just part of it.

If we are banned or "voluntarily" avoid the area what is the difference? If we ignore the VNAZ we at least get a couple more years use before they can formalise a compulsory ban. It would also show the strength of feeling. There is almost no where else to go, this is such an important place for us to go.

 

[st599]

As I've said on previous threads, the owrld has moved on from seahorses.

The UK climate plan is to sequestre huge amount of CO2 in seagrass, salt marshes etc. Anchoring has been shown to release the CO2 stored in subsurface mud.

The days of anchoring in coves are coming to an end - the alternative would be to massively infringe on other areas of life. Luckily, the RYA have seen this coming and have started work on finding mooring solutions that can be used in such places.

 

[Seven Spades]

Evidence? I don’t believe a word of what you have just written.

Anchoring in Studland is like putting a pin in a football field. The place of covered in eel grass and banning anchoring isn’t going to somehow miraculously lead to more coverage, it is already covered. The amount of co2 captured by a few acres of sea bed and we are only talking about extra growth here will be tiny If there is even any additional growth at all which I doubt. If anything I suspect that the growth is a result of anchoring. There is lots of evidence that moving animals off land leads to an increase in desertification. I suspect the same effect here.

Then when boats are banned and the eel grass the Numptys at NE will say that it proves that they needed protection whereas it will have been their intervention in the first place that has lead to its degradatio.

 

[Boathook]

The days of anchoring in coves are coming to an end - the alternative would be to massively infringe on other areas of life. Luckily, the RYA have seen this coming and have started work on finding mooring solutions that can be used in such places.

Just imagine; every single cove and bay covered in moorings to stop anchoring.

 

[st599]

Evidence? I don’t believe a word of what you have just written.

Doesn't matter if you do or don't, matters what Parliament believe:

Defra, UK - Science Search
https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0651/
The Blue Carbon Initiative
BLUE releases targeted report into a UK voluntary blue carbon market - Blue Marine Foundation
Blue Carbon
Blue carbon
Blue carbon: the hidden CO2 sink that pioneers say could save the planet
Environment Minister visits blue carbon habitat
https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/media/1707/blue_carbon_brief.pdf

Here's the RYA's work on carbon sequestration and advanced moorings:
advanced-mooring-systems
https://www.rya.org.uk/news/seagrass-planting-programme-underway

 

[Seven Spades]

Are you deliberatly not understanding? If an area is already covered with eel grass stopping anchoring isn't going to increase the coverage is it.

The so called evidence cited in the above documents comes from "Cullen-Unsworth et al., 2014" which is a study of Sea Grass in the Mediterranean not the EEL grass we have in Studland but I guess you know that anyway it is just does suit your agenda. the fact is there are p[robably no locations anywhere in the UK where anchoring is doing any damage at all. The most heavily anchored area is Studland and we can all see that the eel grass is flourishing there.

One thing I am convinced of is that we are almost certainly unable to change the coverage of sea grass around the UK. You might able able to get the odd patch to take root in an estuary somewhere but there is nothing you can do that will really make any difference.

 

[Tranona]

Are you deliberatly not understanding? If an area is already covered with eel grass stopping anchoring isn't going to increase the coverage is it.

The so called evidence cited in the above documents comes from "Cullen-Unsworth et al., 2014" which is a study of Sea Grass in the Mediterranean not the EEL grass we have in Studland but I guess you know that anyway it is just does suit your agenda. the fact is there are p[robably no locations anywhere in the UK where anchoring is doing any damage at all. The most heavily anchored area is Studland and we can all see that the eel grass is flourishing there.

One thing I am convinced of is that we are almost certainly unable to change the coverage of sea grass around the UK. You might able able to get the odd patch to take root in an estuary somewhere but there is nothing you can do that will really make any difference.

This has all been covered at great length by oldharry and BORG and submitted to NE. Suggest you look at post#22 and maybe even do oldharry the courtesy of reading all the material he has posted.

It is irrelevant whether the ban will be effective in helping the eel grass grow or be maintained - it was never about that, but about a dedicated handful of people determined to have a go at a group of people (yachtsmen) they disapprove of through the use of legislation and a pliable media. Their efforts coincided with a political need to do "something" and the setting up of a government department to do it. They have to justify their existence and satisfy their political masters so this was "easy meat" for them as they do not have the political clout to deal with the real causes of damage to the marine environment because those who cause the damage have more political clout.

This all started because one individual managed to get seahorses legally protected - all the stuff about eel grass as a threatened habitat and later carbon capture, little of which has any serious scientific support just added to their cause. The reality is that we now live in a world that is dominated by people charged with "doing something" which has become almost a religion - you have to "believe". Evidence that challenges these beliefs does not get a hearing, and as a result research to advance knowledge does not get done because nobody wants to do it (because their is no reward) nor fund it.

So we have to learn to live with it and if necessary "fake" our beliefs to minimise the negative impacts on us. Protestants and Catholics from the 16th and 17th century will tell you all about it!

 

[lustyd]

I think I agree with the previous post, if they won't listen to science we should not listen to rules, especially voluntary ones. civil disobedience is the right course of action when sanity and respect have failed. If we've already lost the war we may as well enjoy ourselves while we can.

 

[st599]

Are you deliberatly not understanding? If an area is already covered with eel grass stopping anchoring isn't going to increase the coverage is it.

The sequestered carbon that the UK government is hoping to exploit is stored in the mud under the grass, not the grass itself. It's the anchoring disturbing the surface that the RYA are working to avoid.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

The sequestered carbon that the UK government is hoping to exploit is stored in the mud under the grass, not the grass itself. It's the anchoring disturbing the surface that the RYA are working to avoid.

Presumably much like what happens if you wade though a bog. Bubbles of methane appear.

 

[Yealm]

As a both sailor and a tree-hugger I’m conflicted.
But from first principles, anchoring can’t be helping eelgrass so if being a little flexible helps the environment and our own public image, then seems like the right thing to do…

 

[Tranona]

As a both sailor and a tree-hugger I’m conflicted.
But from first principles, anchoring can’t be helping eelgrass so if being a little flexible helps the environment and our own public image, then seems like the right thing to do…

Actually there is some evidence that disturbing the plants does help propagation and expansion. The destruction caused by the spring easterlies does far more damage every year than anchoring could ever possibly do - and yet the eel grass has been growing back and expanding for the last 40 years.

The major problem is that nobody has ever done any serious research with the basic question "What are the factors that affect the health of the eel grass meadows in Studland Bay". Why? Because peoples' minds are already made up - it is boats mooring and anchoring in the Bay. If you use that simple cause/effect model then anchoring and mooring has had a positive effect because the greater the amount of anchoring the greater growth of the eel grass beds.

The depletion before the 1980s was caused by 3 things. First the use of the Bay for training and experimentation during WW2, second disease, and third scallop dredging, and expansion started when bottom trawling was banned. There is also the possibility that dredging the Swash Channel in the 1990s may have had an effect, and currently there is concern about run off from farming activities. None of these things appear in the debate because the people who know about it (local residents, fishermen etc) are drowned out by eco warriors who have zero scientific training, have done no serious research, but given their profile are considered "experts".

Actually the NE position does not rely on any "evidence" but on the precautionary principle that it "might" cause damage so lets put in controls anyway. Gives a victory to the campaigners, shows they have done their job and being voluntary puts the onus on those directly affected (us) to show our respect for the environment. What's not to like?

 

[Ian_Rob]

post deleted

 

[Ian_Rob]

Actually there is some evidence that disturbing the plants does help propagation and expansion.

‘Zostera marina
Zostera marina has intermediate rates of growth and spread compared to other European seagrasses. Besides the potential for spread derived from the horizontal growth rates of the rhizomes, Zostera marina is able to release large numbers of seeds. At the time of reproduction, eelgrass shoots produce inflorescences which can each develop large numbers of seeds. Reproductive shoots die off following seed set, so that flowering represents a terminal event for eelgrass shoots. Seed production rates in Zostera marina beds reach several thousand per square meter. However, they do not travel far – a few meters at best - from the mother plant after being released, as they are negatively buoyant and sink to the bottom. However, flowering shoots may detach, because of disturbance, and float away, releasing the seeds at considerable distances from the stand where they were produced, which is the mechanism for long-term dispersal available to this species. ‘

QUOTED FROM : How do Seagrasses Grow and Spread? : Núria Marbà (IMEDEA), Carlos M. Duarte (IMEDEA), Ana Alexandra (CCMAR) and Susana Cabaço (CCMAR)

I understand that there is another reference to seed dispersal due to disturbance. Does anybody have that reference?

 

[Seven Spades]

Actually the NE position does not rely on any "evidence" but on the precautionary principle that it "might" cause damage so lets put in controls anyway. Gives a victory to the campaigners, shows they have done their job and being voluntary puts the onus on those directly affected (us) to show our respect for the environment. What's not to like?

If you operate on the "Precautionary Principle" then the risk is change. Stopping anchoring might have adverse effects if you obey the "Precautionary Principle" then you should not change activity because you risk unexpected results.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

If you operate on the "Precautionary Principle" then the risk is change. Stopping anchoring might have adverse effects if you obey the "Precautionary Principle" then you should not change activity because you risk unexpected results.

The only thing you can realistically expect is the unexpected. Messing with complex systems you don’t fully understand always ends that way.

 

[lustyd]

As a both sailor and a tree-hugger I’m conflicted.
But from first principles, anchoring can’t be helping eelgrass so if being a little flexible helps the environment and our own public image, then seems like the right thing to do…

That’s just the thing it does seem good on the surface but real science suggests it’s not. Eelgrass does capture carbon but the full lifecycle sees this turned into methane which is orders of magnitude worse for the environment. If global warming is what we’re fixing then actually removing eelgrass and rainforests is a better way to go. Of course that causes other issues in other systems so we shouldn’t do that. The only real conclusion I can draw is we should do nothing other than reduce population size. At the very least we should stop paying people to have kids.

 

[Hedgehog2]

Just noticed, on my iPhone, Navionics plasters the words ‘Marine Conservation Zone’ over the whole of Studland Bay- but there’s no zone or areas marked. Jennycliffe and Cawsand have nothing marked.

Have I not got the correct settings?