Studland Bay Boating Ban

moondancer2 said:
My own view, and I know I am in the minority, is that we have to reduce our impact on the environment and that will mean reducing certain things. There are plenty of places besides studland.
Click to expand...
Studland is fairly unique in the fact that it is a good anchorage being protected from nearly the SE round to the NW. I've used a fair few times after a channel crossing or coming back from the west. I know that Poole harbour is nearby, but on raggy it is nearly another half hour and entering Poole in the dark when tired, etc isn't easy.
 
Boathook said:
Studland is fairly unique in the fact that it is a good anchorage being protected from nearly the SE round to the NW. I've used a fair few times after a channel crossing or coming back from the west. I know that Poole harbour is nearby, but on raggy it is nearly another half hour and entering Poole in the dark when tired, etc isn't easy.
Click to expand...

But mobo owners of which I am now one also, tend not to a) be about or caught out in bad weather b) be bothered by a mere 4 -6 kts of current sluicing out of a harbour entrance. c)consider anchoring only for a quick fish,or for lunch at the Bankes arms. There is a huge difference in mindset between 4/5kts and 20/25kts ?
 
Robin said:
But mobo owners of which I am now one also, tend not to a) be about or caught out in bad weather b) be bothered by a mere 4 -6 kts of current sluicing out of a harbour entrance. c)consider anchoring only for a quick fish,or for lunch at the Bankes arms. There is a huge difference in mindset between 4/5kts and 20/25kts ?
Click to expand...
Bang goes your lunch stop at the Bankes if anchoring is banned.
 
oldgit said:
DEFRA either do not appear to agree, or have chosen to ignore this.
Click to expand...

Have they though? A genuine question based upon the fact that the call for evidence has options from do nothing and monitor (which is the minimum the MMO are required to do) to a total ban so no decisions taken yet. If there is evidence it will/should be considered alongside all other evidence.
.
 
Last edited:
Greg2 said:
Have they though? A genuine question based upon the fact that the call for evidence has options from do nothing and monitor (which is the minimum the MMO are required to do) to a total ban so no decisions taken yet. If there is evidence it will/should be considered alongside all other evidence.
.
Click to expand...

The final decision will be as much driven by politics as science/evidence. Thus far NGM et al have very much made the running on the political front, helped by some pretty much uncritically one sided reporting from the BBC. Some really solid campaigning on the basis of economic loss to the area from a reduction in boating might reverse the tide. However, the removal of amenity and even safety from boaters who, whatever the reality, are all too easily presented as the idle rich is of peripheral interest the decisionmakers as can been seen by the progress to this point.
 
Blue Sunray said:
The final decision will be as much driven by politics as science/evidence. Thus far NGM et al have very much made the running on the political front, helped by some pretty much uncritically one sided reporting from the BBC. Some really solid campaigning on the basis of economic loss to the area from a reduction in boating might reverse the tide. However, the removal of amenity and even safety from boaters who, whatever the reality, are all too easily presented as the idle rich is of peripheral interest the decisionmakers as can been seen by the progress to this point.
Click to expand...

Certainly up here in Scotland eNGOs seem to have adopted the whipping up of mob hysteria mode of operandus.

Distant opinion holders whose narrative is at times quite frankly laughable - seem to assume as much if not more sway than genuine stakeholders whose positions are based on a genuine direct interest, fact and reality.

The era of pre-drafted multi thousand tick box eNGO generated consultation responses is well and truly with us.
 
Boat2016 said:
You too for yours. What is it with people having to be so obnoxious when hiding behind a keyboard, no wonder the forum is losing all its useful contributors.
Click to expand...
Because it is a curious feature observed since the 1990's that an Internet debate nearly always ends in argument. It has a name, but Google it for yourself.

For the record, I agree with Moondancer, there is a great deal that needs to be done to at least slow down the damage and loss of marine life and habitat. But Studland is a long way down the list. I could point out a range of far more important issues that need to be addressed.

Seahorses, although figuring prominently in the debate thanks to NGM and his Seahorse Trust are not particularly important in Studland. The feature under debate is the seagrass growing there, which not only benefits the general environment as part of the carbon sink - though to what extent is debatable. More importantly it provides an important breeding ground for a range of species, some more important than others in the conservation scale. What is confusing is the mish mash of poor or non existent scientific objectivty in the so called science of NGMs reporting. See references to Seahorses and Seahorse Trust on our website (URL below).

Oh, and by the way, the SHT claims 'there are no seahorses in the Bay' are based on a search of one small corner of the bay, around 1% of the total eelgrass area. Draw you own conclusions!

As has been demonstrated earlier in the thread, we can disturb the growth by not handling our anchors and our boats correctly when operating in seagrass aeas. You will not find it in any seamanship manual, and it is never included in any training course. The only literature you will find is endless detailed descriptions of its growth cycles and the marine life found in it. So if you have hauled clumps of it up, dont blame yourself! It does not cause serious damage, though NGM bursts a blood vessel and writes another scathing anti-boat report whenever he sees it happening! Working with RYA, the Wildlife Trusts, Natural England, local Residents, and the MMO, I chaired a working party to produce an educational leaflet in 2013 which provides the basic information. RYA funded the first issue, which was handed out to visitors in the Bay at the time. It can be downloaded here :https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/legal/Web Documents/Environment/AnchoringWithCare_Studland.pdf

There is a huge amount of detailed investigation on the Boat Owners Response Group site, and we are aware that this needs re-indexing, which is something we are working on. In the meantime, I point you to http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Evidence-overview-Sept14.pdf for a summary of the arguments.

Our current response to the MMO's Consultation covers a range of issues, and detailed reports, which we expect to publish later. One of our key points is that we look for objective, science based conservation management. Natural England instead of providing observation based data and conclusions has taken a short cut, and cites anonymous 'expert opinion' as the basis for their recommendations. Who are these 'experts? We are not told. On what do they base their opinions? We are not told. Natural England throughout this investigation has referred to 'seagrass', which worldwide research shows is a delicate and fragile plant, that can be easily and seriously damaged by minimal disturbance. from which it can take many years to recover, if at all. Mediterranean seagrass Posidona Oceanica for example, will not recover from a clump being torn out as described earlier, and even after 5 years, there will be little significant regrowth.

All the papers cited by Natural England refer to this Mediterranean P Oceanica as the model for predictions in Studland The 2010 research in Studland by Southampton Oceanographic Dept too, cited P Oceanica as the reference point for predicting the likely effect of anchoring. Yet all the research on Zostera Marina, eelgrass, shows it to be a robust, fast growing species which recovers from even serious destruction ina very short time. One bed was wiped out in Denmark, yet fully re-established 2 years later.

We argue this on 2 points: 1. Large numbers of small boats have anchored here since the 1950's. We suggest it is the most heavily used sea anchorage (i.e not controlled by a Harbour or Local Authority) in the UK. Any 'likely effect' of anchoring will have taken place decades ago! In that time the eelgrass has grown in extent from a few hundred square metres to at least 96 hectares. The holes in the eelgrass claimed to be caused by anchoring, only appear in around 20% of the anchorage, and are static. They are also a great deal larger than any anchor we use, being several metres across. Does anyone carry an anchor that big? Very similar holes are visible in eelgrass out by the Training Bank, where nobody anchors. Its seems far more likely this is some local condition unrelated to anchoring.

2. NGM blames boats for the disappearance of his beloved pets since 2012, 'because up to 350 boats anchor there every day'. Errrr no. On a fine Bank Holiday, and at the end of Lockdown last Summer, yes. Midweek in fine weather there are rarely more than 30 - 35 boats. , I have a Bank Holiday photo showing over 300+ boats in the Bay taken in the early 1990's . Locals tell me that was typical density for at least 20 years before that So what changed in 2012? There are several possible other causes, but as they do not involve boats. they are ignored.

I hope you get my drift. We are asking for objective, science based on observation of actual conditions in the Bay, coupled with background data referring to the specific eelgrass species present. Without it, Conservation Objectives cannot be set, and the expensive and intrusive measures proposed will not address the actual problems of the Bay, and so will be ineffective. There is nothing new happening with the visitors to the Bay, that hasnt been happening for at least 60 years! Yet the eelgrass keeps on growing, and our own investigations show acre after acre of healthy eelgrass across the most heavily used part of the anchorage , confirmed by using standard measurement methodology for density and shoot length.

Bear in mind too that MCZs were not intended to procure eden-like pristine results, but to mitigate any identified man-made pressures so that they and we can co-exist. without destroying the protected features. Also it is fundamental to the legislation that socio-economic factors are not compromised more than is required.

I don't apologise for such a lengthy post, but well done if you have stayed with me to this point!

Boat Owners Response Group

FINALLY(!) You do not have to complete all the MMO questionnaire! Dont waste time copy-pasting your thoughts! It doesn't help them either. Just a note 'as above' will do! Secondly you can write your own response if you have detail to add. MMO assure us they WILL read everything boaters send in.

SO PLEASE DO RESPOND!
 
Last edited:
Well said indeed Old Harry! One has to admire your patience for your timeless work with BORG and on here in re-stating multiple times over to yet more new kids on the block wanting to reinvent the wheel.

Studland has featured hugely in my life afloat, over 50 plus years under sail and now continuing under motor, and wanting such a beautiful place to be kept for future generations of boaters as well as all god's cute little creatures.
I am sorry if sometimes my comments are taken as sarcasm by some, certainly not deliberately intended, but I recognise my lack of patience may sometimes be seen differently.

I APOLOGISE sincerely to all such sensitive souls from the heart of my bottom. Survey completed.
 
Thanks oldharry, a helpful explanation.

Whilst I don’t have detailed knowledge of Studland Bay I am familiar with MPA/MCZ management. One of the tricky issues is getting agreement on what level of anthropogenic ‘damage‘ is acceptable and a key factor is what the conservation objectives are. Natural England are the conservation advisers and they provide the formal advice that the MMO are required to consider - you probably know all this. Another difficulty is that whilst the precautionary principle that applies to other Marine Protested Areas doesn’t directly apply to MCZs there is a provision in the legislation that has a similar effect.. It would be interesting to know what the NE advice is.

Environmental NGOs do tend to express their views strongly, as do other interested parties, and the important thing for the regulator is to take a balanced and objective view. Of course in so doing someone won’t be happy.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top