Studland Bay designated a MCZ

[robertj]

BORG.wzs never equipped nor funded to do our own research, other than to do precisely the same trawl through seagrass literature. It was in the process of doing this that I realised the fundamental flaw of the scientific papers, which were likening UK eelgrass to Mediterranean Oceanica Posidona,. Although a species of seagrass posidona is very fragile and slow growing and most certainly is seriously vulnerable to abrasion damage, taking many years to recover from even slight disturbance. Throughout NE literature it is taken as the model for Studland, as did Dr Colin's in his study of Studland. His whole argument was based on a comparison of the 2 species.


Marlynspyke did the same trawl independently and came to the same conclusions as I had. We have repeatedly asked for the evidence on which the advice is based. All we get are the same references to the papers relating to the weaker species.

We have repeatedly referred them to the many papers listed in our website which clearly indicate that Eelgrass is robust and with a quick recovery rate.' Some papers even suggest that disturbance actually stimulate growth.

This has all been submitted. And ignored. Seagrass is vulnerable to anchor damage appears to be government policy. In spite of over 2 dozen papers we found clearly contradicting this. I'm no conspiracy theorist. But it looks sadly like it in this case.

You’ve done a great job but it was always going to be included.
It’s nothing to do with conservation it’s to do with money. While people can anchor for free then there is no revenue for the tax man pure and simple.
You said they ignored all eelgrass data which is what the faceless money machine is all about.
People’s freedoms are being run over rough shod and people though Viago was mad!

 

[Tomahawk]

But the money is made from the boating industry... not the bunny huggers.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Why not proof read your submissions

I too suffer from mild dyslexia but serving as a staff officer, I was required to correct my errors or my work was thrown back as unacceptable and detracted from the overall argument.

:encouragement:

Me too (many times).

 

[oldharry]

You’ve done a great job but it was always going to be included.
It’s nothing to do with conservation it’s to do with money. While people can anchor for free then there is no revenue for the tax man pure and simple.
You said they ignored all eelgrass data which is what the faceless money machine is all about.
People’s freedoms are being run over rough shod and people though Viago was mad!

Of course it was, seagrass is to important worldwide for UK to ignore its largest eelgrass bed.

Money and reputations are being built here, to the detriment of the wildlife and the public use of the Bay and more than anywhere else in the MCZ programme. We have already succeeded in getting some of the more seriously bad science removed. But there is still a long way to go. At least now, the evidence (or more realistically guesswork and hype) can now be got out and hopefully seen for what it is.

 

[rotrax]

A very good National Geographic programe on the Med last night which spent a lot of time showing huge ships anchors and chains damaging the seagrass beds. A comment from the very well respected presenter said Posidonia seagrass could take up to three centuries to re-establish itself after a wipe out. So, pretty fragile compared to our Studland Zostera Marina type which re-established itself after being wiped out in WW2.

Typicaly though, it showed divers filming ships anchors and huge chains, and subsequently cut to leisure boats at anchor, suggesting that a two metre ships anchor was linked to a forty foot yachts!

As I understand it, designating Studland as a MCZ does not in itself deny anchoring. That will-or will not-come later.

The presenter on the NG programe made it very clear-and showed film of the damage-that inshore trawling was the major culprit in seabed damage.

We must now wait untill the proposals for Studland are made and take the appropriate action.

 

[oldharry]

A very good National Geographic programe on the Med last night which spent a lot of time showing huge ships anchors and chains damaging the seagrass beds. A comment from the very well respected presenter said Posidonia seagrass could take up to three centuries to re-establish itself after a wipe out. So, pretty fragile compared to our Studland Zostera Marina type which re-established itself after being wiped out in WW2.

Typicaly though, it showed divers filming ships anchors and huge chains, and subsequently cut to leisure boats at anchor, suggesting that a two metre ships anchor was linked to a forty foot yachts!

As I understand it, designating Studland as a MCZ does not in itself deny anchoring. That will-or will not-come later.

The presenter on the NG programe made it very clear-and showed film of the damage-that inshore trawling was the major culprit in seabed damage.

We must now wait untill the proposals for Studland are made and take the appropriate action.

It has been claimed (by conservationists) that a large ships anchor and chain can wipe out an area the size of football pitch. Figures, with the weight of big ship anchor tackle. I suspect this is where the destruction myth about our little hooks comes from....