Studland and BORG needs your support right now....

oldharry

oldharry

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
10,074
Location
North from the Nab about 10 miles
Visit site
I commented on NGMs latest outburst, directly to MMO's Head of Conservation who was clearly pleased to receive 'addional context' and information to balance communications he has 'received recently'

NGM has been asking his supporters to complain to MMO to try to persuade them there is an issue in Studland. MMO has full legal power to set an emergency Prohibition Order on activities deemed to be damaging. They have already done so with eelgrass in Portsmouth harbour after a complaint that some idiot was trawling it all to pieces a few years ago. I discussed this with the previous Head of Conservation at MMO at the time, and his advice was that they can do this if necessary aT a few days notice. If such and Order is subsequently confirmed, it becoes virtually impossible to lift it again, he warned.

We certainly do not want them to be pushed in to putting such an Order on Studland, which may be what NGM is after, simply because nobody put things in to context. Its important to try to keep things factual - he will be getting a great deal of hot air from the other side! 'Facts' are in short supply!

I pointed out two key facts:

1. Its too early in the season for enough boats to turn up to cause the damage NGM claims (NGM claims up to 375 boats visit the Bay, without the level of damage he now claims.

2. The recent spell of easterly weather has made the bay untenable as an anchorage anyway, so even if 400 boats wanted to go to Studland, they wouldnt have stayed.

There is plenty else to be said, so lets go for it as there is a distinct possibility that MMO may decide a precautionary Prohibition Order may be needed to prevent further damage.

Email: conservation@marinemanagement.org.uk


Thanks
 
OK< OH< you want 'facts'.


What are the most important ones in your view please ?

Inaccurate psuedo-scientific claims from SHT
Grants beneficial directly to NGM's life style and personal income
Mis-interpretation of sea-horse data
Quantum effect of SHT investigations into seahorses (i.e. their work impacts adversely on the animals they claim are at risk)
NMN censors adverse comment on his Facebook - hence gives false impression to general public who have, legitimately, the interests of British marine wildlife close to their hearts
SHT is in breach of charitable status (misrepresentation of facts to induce funding)

what else

Oh yes, the little sea horses are flourishing, and Studland is not at risk for the foreseeable future.



Happy to work something together but it needs to be rational and develop an argument fairly.
 
Is there any mileage in someone who understands all the data, and so can write a persuasive response doing so and then asking forum users to sign.

I know it's generally better to get people to write their own individual responses but people being people, we tend not to get around to writing these things ourselves, unless it's easy! Very grateful to Borg for the tremendous amount of work you do on this.
 
sarabande said:
OK< OH< you want 'facts'.


What are the most important ones in your view please ?

Inaccurate psuedo-scientific claims from SHT
Grants beneficial directly to NGM's life style and personal income
Mis-interpretation of sea-horse data
Quantum effect of SHT investigations into seahorses (i.e. their work impacts adversely on the animals they claim are at risk)
NMN censors adverse comment on his Facebook - hence gives false impression to general public who have, legitimately, the interests of British marine wildlife close to their hearts
SHT is in breach of charitable status (misrepresentation of facts to induce funding)

what else

Oh yes, the little sea horses are flourishing, and Studland is not at risk for the foreseeable future.



Happy to work something together but it needs to be rational and develop an argument fairly.
Click to expand...

The immediate issue is to ensure MMO has enough facts to justify not putting in a prohibition order following a number of complaints from SHT and its supporters.

From your list: the pseudo-scientific claim, misinterpretation of data (misrepresentation too?). Quantum effect, follows up an earlier complaint I put in based on work by Australian Dr Harasti who evidenced the effect of overexposure on this species. Censoring of comments, not giving his followers a fair picture.

MMO is not concerned with how NGM funds himself, and arguments on that front will have little bearing on any perceived immediate threat to wildlife.

I have asked people on the spot to submit photographic evidence that all is normal in the Bay if possible.

I already commented on the fact even NGMs sole supporting Poole fisherman (how many others are working in this industry in Poole Bay alone - and regularly seeing the little beasties on their gear?) says seahorses are present in their 10s of thousands', and it will do no harm to enlarge on that aspect too. 'Studlands seahorse population pales into insignificance' alongside these reports, was my comment to the Head honcho at MMO.

Hope that helps.

'Sustainability' is the keyword - the simple historical evidence of 70 years + anchoring demonstrates that the area could not possibly be 'devastated' by boats anchoring over a matter of two or three weeks in early spring. cf previous fine Bank holidays when visitor numbers have approached NGMs magical 350 boats in the Bay, for example and which have not resulted in the devastation he claims is now apparent.
 
Last edited:
Vanilla: Im sitting in a field in a heavy rainstorm in W ireland at present, and about to lose my internet connection: (OK - I'm in my campervan!) so I passed your suggestion to Dr Simons, who probably has a clearer understanding of the issues than any of us.
 
oldharry said:
I commented on NGMs latest outburst, directly to MMO's Head of Conservation who was clearly pleased to receive 'addional context' and information to balance communications he has 'received recently'

NGM has been asking his supporters to complain to MMO to try to persuade them there is an issue in Studland. MMO has full legal power to set an emergency Prohibition Order on activities deemed to be damaging. They have already done so with eelgrass in Portsmouth harbour after a complaint that some idiot was trawling it all to pieces a few years ago. I discussed this with the previous Head of Conservation at MMO at the time, and his advice was that they can do this if necessary aT a few days notice. If such and Order is subsequently confirmed, it becoes virtually impossible to lift it again, he warned.

We certainly do not want them to be pushed in to putting such an Order on Studland, which may be what NGM is after, simply because nobody put things in to context. Its important to try to keep things factual - he will be getting a great deal of hot air from the other side! 'Facts' are in short supply!

I pointed out two key facts:

1. Its too early in the season for enough boats to turn up to cause the damage NGM claims (NGM claims up to 375 boats visit the Bay, without the level of damage he now claims.

2. The recent spell of easterly weather has made the bay untenable as an anchorage anyway, so even if 400 boats wanted to go to Studland, they wouldnt have stayed.

There is plenty else to be said, so lets go for it as there is a distinct possibility that MMO may decide a precautionary Prohibition Order may be needed to prevent further damage.

Email: conservation@marinemanagement.org.uk


Thanks
Click to expand...

Surely they have got the sense to realise NGM is bonkers?
 
Perhaps Pete of Halcyon Yachts could be persueded to do a couple of drone flights of the bay to show what the current situation is.
 
E mail sent asking them to base decisions on real facts and not be persuaded by those that shout the loudest.

Pete
 
Nicholas123 said:
Surely they have got the sense to realise NGM is bonkers?
Click to expand...

The head Of Conservation is under no illusions about this, but being a govt quango has to be seen to be acting properly. That's why I asked for facts that they can use, not opinions. He can hardly tell ngm he won't act because he thinks he is an idiot - even if that is the truth!
 
Last edited:
Aerial photographs of Studland appear to show a year on year, decade on decade increase in weed growth in the bay over amost 50 years. This despite (presumably) a year on year increase in boating and anchoring in the bay over the same period.
Is there any evidence that anchoring is actually damaging the Eel Grass?
 
does anyone have any figures for the numbers of boats based, say in Poole, over the last fifty years ?


And then do a correlation between that and our claimed growth on eel-grass area ? If it comes out - , then :)
 
sarabande said:
does anyone have any figures for the numbers of boats based, say in Poole, over the last fifty years ?


And then do a correlation between that and our claimed growth on eel-grass area ? If it comes out - , then :)
Click to expand...

Poole based boats might possibly be on the PHC website, but one of our biggest problems is that nobody ever bothered to check and record anything about Studland until NGM started creating a fuss around 2008. What evidence there is is purely anecdotal, and is therefore disregarded by the authorities. Both SPBA and we tried to make a case for including a very considerable body of anecdotal evidence that we have. We were told very firmly at a meeting with the Govt Science Advisory Panel around four years ago that anecdotal evidence was not to be used, and would not be accepted. Amongst that evidence is the well established fact, known to long term local residents that the seahorses disappear sometimes for several years. Try telling that to NGM or for that matter, to Natural England, though!
 
The oft quoted figure for Poole Harbour is 8000 boats. PHC would have the figures based on the number of harbour due stickers issued for permanently moored boats.

Of course, few of these boats will actually anchor in Studland - even on the most crowded day the number is in the low hundreds. It is worth remembering that the number of boats that anchor in the area that NGM dives in is very small because of both lack of space and at springs lack of water in the middle of the day.

Not really representative, but the photo taken a couple of weeks ago at low water show most of the boats inshore are on the buoys but there were a similar number of boats anchored further out where there is less eel grass and more water. Many of the boats using Studland only anchor for short periods, waiting for the tide or stopping overnight prior to perhaps crossing the channel. Probably mostly these are not Poole based boats and for obvious reasons tend not to anchor close inshore.

IMG_20160504_143827.jpg
 
I have sent a hopefully useful e-mail, but it's worth remembering the bottom line to the SHT is ' I rather fancy continuing to ' work ' on one of the best beaches in the UK, funded handsomely by charitable donations from well meaning people to whom I have given false information '...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top