Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
Slightly OT but have any other popular anchorages been designated? I have not heard about bays on the IOW for example.
Studland Bay designated a MCZ
- Thread starter EugeneR
- Start date
MarlynSpyke
Well-Known Member
Colwell, Totland and Alum Bays were designated in Tranche 2 in 2016, in The Needles MCZ. In the present latest tranche, Bembridge has been designated, includes Pryory Bay. Interestingly, the Norris to Ryde proposed MCZ, which includes the popular anchorage Osborne Bay, is not listed in this latest 3rd Tranche, but I've not yet found an explanation for this.
There's a good simple map at https://www.countypress.co.uk/news/...vation-zones-in-national-blue-belt-expansion/
KINGFISHER 9
Well-Known Member
I trust divers will be banned from disturbing seahorse habitats as well?
oldharry
Well-Known Member
I think the reason Studand to Ryde was dropped was because of anchoring. Because Osborne is a more or less 'essential' overflow to Cowes, it was dropped. I had made this point quite early on, and RYA took it forward fully supported by the Cowes heavies! Pity there were not any round Studland, too!
MarlynSpyke
Well-Known Member
A balanced approach is of course what all rational people would wish for, and should be quite possible. We all value the natural life around us, and to many, including me, it is part of what draws us onto the water. There are also indications in the Defra documents linked to the designations that the Government intends to take a sensible approach, I’ll give more detail on that on the BORG website in future.
First, a very simple and basic point to bear in mind. Studland Bay has one of the largest, if not the largest, area of eelgrass beds in mainland England and Wales, apart from the enclosed waters of The Fleet (the long lagoon behind Chesil Beach). Studland Bay is at the same time one of the most-used anchorages. It follows inescapably that leisure boat anchoring really cannot really be very damaging to the eelgrass. Biggest in-use anchorage, biggest eelgrass beds, apart from the exceptional case of The Fleet. Eelgrass and anchors side by side – for decades.
People might assume that anchors being repeatedly deployed in the seabed would be harmful to the eelgrass, so how come it is flourishing? The answer lies in two factors: first, when you work it out, the actual area disturbed by anchors in a season is small, less than 1% of the seabed, and second, eelgrass, like many plants, has high powers of regrowth and recovery if it is damaged. Remember, all plants are subject to damage in their life, they get eaten, infested, and damaged by wind and storm, and recovery from damage is part and parcel of being a plant. These points are explained at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Evidence-overview-Sept14.pdf and that overview article has links to more detailed papers.
Natural England report that “Expert scientific advice confirms the vulnerability of Studland Bay seagrass beds to anchoring activity”, but there is no number put to this, no estimate of the extent of the vulnerability. The advice is desk-top based, and is not backed by survey. (But see "Seastar Survey concludes no consistent evidence of boat anchoring impacting the seagrass habitat at Studland Bay” at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/latest-news/)
Yes, in the total absence of anchoring there might be a small percentage increase in eelgrass cover – but given that the eelgrass beds have been increasing over decades, BORG believes that the beds still satisfy the requirements of “Favourable Condition” set out in the official Designation Order:
“ with respect to a habitat within the Zone,
(i) its extent is stable or increasing, and
(ii) its structure and functions, its quality, and the composition of its characteristic
biological communities are such as to ensure that it remains in a condition which is
healthy and not deteriorating;”
This is a sensible requirement which, if met, means that the habitat is in a sustainable situation. Total perfection might be the ecologist’s (and Natural England’s) dream, but if recovery and regrowth match or outstrip any damage, so that the habitat is indeed sustainable, as it appears to be, that seems a pretty good compromise on our crowded island, and also fulfils the legal requirement without imposing restrictions.
However if this sustainability can be further improved by an enhanced voluntary code, that would be all to the good. That is, perhaps, for another posting.
These arguments will all need to be made (again!) and supported if and when "management" proposals are put forward for our anchorages.
eddystone
Well-Known Member
I don't wish to get involved in the arguments about anchoring in Studland Bay (because I don't know enough really) but I am interested in how an anchoring ban might be enforced. I have only anchored there a couple of times on passage and can envisage a scenario where it might be the only option because; a) Poole Harbour is too far a diversion, b) IMHO Swanage is less sheltered./comfortable. So I'm on passage and I make a decision that in the interests of safety, lack of sleep etc., I have to drop anchor in Studland Bay, looking for an area where there is less eelgrass, because it's bad for holding. Is this going to be like the Dart crossing where CCTV cameras on the shore or MCA drones have recorded my number, or a rib rushes out from the shore and tells me to move on, even though considering the condition of the crew (tired) there is no safe alternative.
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Eddystone, you hit both nails on the head. These are points I have raised repeatedly with the MMO and the various conservation parties involved. To date they have no answer. Modern boats have few unique identifying marks for CCTV or Drones, apart from sail numbers. Mobos even less. As we know there is no DVLA type computer of individual boats, so identification would have to be a jobsworth in a RHIB actually coming alongside, with the same authority as a Police officer to require you to give your name and address. I suspect Border Force have enough to do already without protecting seahorses from people throwing anchors at them!
The safety angle is one I have played for all its worth. 'Of course anchoring would be allowed in an emergency' is the stock reply An Army yacht with a crew of fit squaddies coming across Lyme Bay will be perfectly safe to carry on in poor weather, while a middle aged, seasick, and over tired couple in an identical boat is not. The real danger here is that safety decisions of this sort get taken out of the skippers hands, and will be influenced by the possibility of being prosecuted if they do stop. That will inevitably sonner rather than later lead to fatalities. The Poole Inshore Fishermen have already placed their objection on record that if the Bay is unavailable for them to shelter, people WILL die.
Its a fundamental part of the BORG case for no anchoring restrictions.
The safety angle is one I have played for all its worth. 'Of course anchoring would be allowed in an emergency' is the stock reply An Army yacht with a crew of fit squaddies coming across Lyme Bay will be perfectly safe to carry on in poor weather, while a middle aged, seasick, and over tired couple in an identical boat is not. The real danger here is that safety decisions of this sort get taken out of the skippers hands, and will be influenced by the possibility of being prosecuted if they do stop. That will inevitably sonner rather than later lead to fatalities. The Poole Inshore Fishermen have already placed their objection on record that if the Bay is unavailable for them to shelter, people WILL die.
Its a fundamental part of the BORG case for no anchoring restrictions.
FlyingGoose
Well-Known Member
Your points and argument is a fair assessment, but if I may be so cbold to answer so of your science , my Wife is a Dr of Science currently finishing of three papers for scientific research which then goes off and is peer reviewed , I know there are those on this forum that will argue this, but peer reviewed scientific papers have been the stalwart of modern Science and medicine for centuries.
the Problem with the Studland bay research by Borg was it was not peer reviewed nor was it scientifically done, as in protocols were not put in place to allow proper Data analysis , now I know there are esteemed people on here that know best but I don't tell a Shepard how to tend their sheep. therefore I don't tell my wife how to do proper Scientific research that gets her published and is recognised worldwide , this is the way of research , if you can pick holes in it and the research done was poorly done in a research way then you will loose your argument.
Natural England did what is common in research and they did what is called a literature review, in which they trawled through the scientific world of papers written all around the world in regards to Seagrass and came to a conclusion that if it is happening in other places it is happening in Studland Bay , this is sound scientific research it is of something happening they can look at this research and come to some conclusion this is potentially happing here.
(Caveat)They are sometimes wrong.
The Problem with Natural England's approach was their Review took in no place around the UK as no studies have every been done , and this is a failing on their behalf and is poor science , I do not no Studland Bay nor the Area nor the outcomes but living with a scientist you pick up stuff and she argrees it is lazy research or more common money issues.
Like I have written, in Scotland all our Marine Zones allows anchoringand I feel this is the best approach, and to educate rather thanforced appliance
Last edited:
Concerto
Well-Known Member
This does not surprise me as recently I have been fighting a Kent County Council backed conservation group and how it was being interpreted in their country parks. Basically an organisation called Old Chalk New Downs and funded by £1.4M of heritage lottery funding claimed over the past 60 years 80% of the chalk grasslands have been lost. There objective is to return the escarpement of the North Downs in Kent back to the traditional grazing. My local country park is using goats to do a lot of the clearing, but ignoring the fact that most visitors do not like the goats and will not enter the fields they occupy. It now transpires that most of the information provided, including aeriel photos going back to 1946, failed to prove the 80% on the North Downs. It now transpires this 80% covers all of the UK. It was determined by a land usage survey of the UK in 100 metre square boxes, Kent was surveyed in 2008. In this survey the escarpement of the Downs in the country park is shown as completely woodland, yet 11 years later there are still massive areas larger than 100 m². The inaccuracy of the survey is irrelevant as there is nothing else available. The strange thing is when I looked back 600 years to written texts, the whole area is quoted as being woodland and forest - including all the arible field. So conservations are now defending man's maximum influence over nature in the name of conservation. The goats should never be in the country park and despite massive public support, I was just told they were going to extend their use in to the most popular field in the park. The extension of the clearance of the Downs was not a problem for me, in fact I even offered to raise working parties to do this, it was the use of goats in a popular public open space that I objected to.
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
The answer for Studlane and indeed everywhere is for the conservos to pay for the installation of so called "EFM's". After all they have campaigned for the designation. They should bear the costs imposed by their activity.
Last edited:
oldharry
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
MarlynSpyke
Well-Known Member
Most of the papers I published on the BORG website are actually literature reviews. Some are critiques of Natural England and other Conservo papers, which frequently showed a careless and/or biased scientific approach – see for instance http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Studland-evidence.pdf which points out that they tried to conflate damage done by fixed mooring chains with damage done by anchoring, and to (wrongly) assert that vulnerabilities of the Mediterranean seagrass Posidonia oceanica were shared by the local eelgrass Zostera marina – which they are not.
I do have a PhD in Natural Sciences, and spent 40 years as a professional scientist working in R&D in photographic and imaging science, so I do rather know about scientific protocols and publications.
I decided not to go down the peer reviewed route in challenging the bad “science” which has plagued the MCZ process because that takes time and, in many cases, money. Instead, it was more efficient to make challenges direct to the institutions concerned, and at the same time publish the work on the BORG website – that I can do from my desktop, and the site cost originally just £18 a year, now £28 a year because it takes more space because of the volume of material on it. Incidentally, I can thoroughly recommend WebhostUK for website hosting, good value and excellent service. I would also acknowledge the courtesy of the bodies involved, Natural England, Defra and the MMO, who would take note of various critiques and take action if they deemed it justified. At the end of the day, it is in everyone’s interest that decisions and action are taken on properly established grounds, rather than wasting resources on issues that make little or no difference, like a doctor busily trying to cure the wrong disease. (Cue: the big actors in degrading the marine environment are pollution, heavy towed bottom fishing gear, and over-fishing; in comparison, recreational boating issues are mere pinpricks).
This approach has often worked: the MAIA paper alleging that the Studland Bay eelgrass was “fragmented” was withdrawn after being challenged, the moorings/anchoring conflation and the “wrong” seagrass issues no longer happen, an earlier eelgrass vulnerability assessment has been replaced by a better (but still flawed) one, our pressure led Defra to commission a proper report (525 pages, I’ve not reviewed all that yet) on Anchoring and Mooring Impacts in English and Welsh Marine Protected Areas, the historical aerial photo imagery of the eelgrass beds is firmly established, the Sea Horse Trust’s claim that the eelgrass was “destroyed” in the moorings area was shown to be utterly false by underwater video footage, and so on and so on. We also note that the Norris to Ryde proposed MCZ along the Isle of Wight coast has not been designated, although as Old Harry points out the Solent yachting interests and the RYA are believed to have been players in that.
So a lot has been achieved, but the voice of the boating community will need to be heard again if unwelcome management issues are proposed. And this does not apply just to Studland Bay – Studland is a test case, many anchorages have eelgrass, because eelgrass also likes sheltered and reasonably shallow waters.
On the question of shelter in an emergency, the Defra publication at https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/804659/mcz-tranche3-consult-sum-resp.pdf states
“• The protected right to anchor within any MCZ under emergency conditions is
provided for within the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009).”
– there could be questions about what is an emergency, but this is unlikely to arise unless the right is clearly being abused. But the best outcome would be minimal restrictions on anchoring anyway. I am actually a bit more optimistic than Old Harry on the final outcomes.
For anyone interested, the papers and articles mentioned are at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/ , there's a lot there, I suggest starting points would be http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/evidence/ and http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/technical-summaries/.
FlyingGoose
Well-Known Member
I do belive we are saying the same thing , :encouragement:
Without rubbing the wrong way , there are varying ways for scientific papers to be published and you should know this , as we are dealing with ecology and Marine Biology there will be protocol to follow for scientific evidence to be submitted , if your field is petrochemicals or natural sciences , they will also have a different protocol , this is the way of science, not the best way but the wayit is
The studies done by Borg and yourself did not fit into the protocol ofthe science needed to be heard , it is the system that might be wrong but that is the system
Ihave watched over 10 years + my wife writing scientific papers of ecology and climate issues , her research takes years and is painstakingly done , over many places and a large amount of data taken then she has to right her own code on R the statistical package used by most scientists in this field it can take up to 3years to get this and publish the results .This needs to be peer revied !! to be published to have any Impact if not then the data is worthless in Ecology .
The problem with the Borg survey was it never took other data from varying times of the year, different times of anchoring , weather ,sample sites . repeated observation , etc . basic protocols to determine an outcome in ecology ,. which I do not thing your PHD is in so I stand by my comments, that I do not teach a Shepard to look after their sheep as I look after Trees.
The aerial photos of the area and the observations of the eel grass is good data but needs to be backed up by data from under water , the growth rate at the time different times of the year was a survey done after the summer when all the boats have anchored , and compared to the site say in Spring , over a few seasons , good science is based on repetitive observations
A good scientist would allow those that is their field to lead the way and not critique their work based on the fact they might have a PHDin some other discipline and not truly understand ecology , but then thank goodness I'm not one of them just a poor forester with a very intelligent wife
But I hope anchoring is not taken away , just education on how and where to anchor and common sense , but hey I dont live there I live in Scotland what do we know of Conservation
Last edited:
MarlynSpyke
Well-Known Member
Flying Goose, there are those who criticise, and those who do. Have you actually read the material used by Natural England to justify their conclusions about anchoring and eelgrass? If so, you would have noticed a complete lack of statistical treatment on their part - but please tell me if you have found any. So I answer like with like, no statistics with no statistics. The only relevant statistically validated study I am aware of is the report by Seastar Survey at https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/me...and-bay-second-seagrass-monitoring-report.pdf which concludes that "Currently, based on the quantitative data collected over two years, there is no consistent evidence of differences in seagrass health between the VNAZ and CTZ - the null hypothesis can therefore not be rejected." - the VNAZ being the voluntary no-anchor zone and the CTZ the control zone in which anchoring continued. I found no reason to challenge that, just as NE have found no reason to draw attention to it. It is in fact remarkable how little actual evidence NE have produced, and I, and anyone else, am quite entitled to criticize that fact without having to produce evidence of my own. If you were to actually look at the various papers I have written you would see that I use results reported in a large number of peer reviewed papers to show how several of the opinions expressed by NE are not supported in the wider literature. That does not require statistical analysis. In future, if you wish to criticise someone's work, I suggest you read around the subject properly, then you might give the impression you know what you're talking about. Meanwhile, I consider this discussion closed, I have better and more constructive things to do.
rotrax
Well-Known Member
Flying Goose / moomba cannot have read the NE stuff otherwise he would know it refers to a totally different species of eelgrass.
Before eldest son and his partner went to her country-NZ-to breed, we wintered in Spain, usually Torrevieja. The shallow seawater lagoon the Mar Menor is nearby.
When there was a good storm out of the SE, eelgrass would be driven up the beach by the hundredweight-so much you struggled to walk through it. Over half a metre high in 3 metre wide bundles.
When it had all calmed down and the sea was clear again, the eelgrass was still there-and lots of it. I suspect the old weaker growth was removed by the winter storms, allowing new growth. Just like trees dropping their leaves in the Autumn.
Scientificaly, that observation proves nothing.
Practically however, it shows its pretty resilient stuff.
And it gets very smelly and allows flies to breed in the dead stuff on the beach when its hot!
But, as it is a species totaly different to what we have in Studland Bay, no amount of peer reviewed papers-or practical observation- on that particular eelgrass can possibly have any relevance in Science when used as a comparison to the variety in Studland..
Before eldest son and his partner went to her country-NZ-to breed, we wintered in Spain, usually Torrevieja. The shallow seawater lagoon the Mar Menor is nearby.
When there was a good storm out of the SE, eelgrass would be driven up the beach by the hundredweight-so much you struggled to walk through it. Over half a metre high in 3 metre wide bundles.
When it had all calmed down and the sea was clear again, the eelgrass was still there-and lots of it. I suspect the old weaker growth was removed by the winter storms, allowing new growth. Just like trees dropping their leaves in the Autumn.
Scientificaly, that observation proves nothing.
Practically however, it shows its pretty resilient stuff.
And it gets very smelly and allows flies to breed in the dead stuff on the beach when its hot!
But, as it is a species totaly different to what we have in Studland Bay, no amount of peer reviewed papers-or practical observation- on that particular eelgrass can possibly have any relevance in Science when used as a comparison to the variety in Studland..
FlyingGoose
Well-Known Member
Your are an old Goat are you not specsavers will help with your eyesight at 72 I expect you need it I am the Goose man come and see me fly
Your poor assesment of science shows your lack of knowledge of the Subject to many on these forums proclaim themselfs experts even though they have retired and moved on to new pastures and actually get their Knowledge from Wiki , life and science moves on practices and observations move on, and the last time I was doing my Degree they warned us if any one refreneced Wiki in a science paper we would fail automatically.
My wife has been is still in and is highly regarded in the field of Enviromental Sciences but oh no Rotrax is right , god help us all
She is in the middle of publishing some ground breaking science in Water which will change the way we deal with it and knows here stuff so when she looks at Studland Bay and the data from Borg and the argument thats present. and tells me its flawed I belive her not some one out of the loop for 30 years .!! (She is American and lives in Scotland I truly dont think she knows were Studland is )
When you loose your argument anfd it becomes a MZ you got to ask yourself why !!
When you get a pertro chemical retired Dr to do your data and not an Ecolgist that would tell you it needs years to find out this data you wonder why you lost !!
When you compare a certain eelgrass to other eel grasses around the world and studies done you can come up with a reasonably conclusion that this might be happening in Studland this is called Littrature review and is commonly used in all scientfic papers , this is fact and if you knew this you would be prepared to argue the point in your fight for Studland but you lost !!
Those people that put better evidence before the commitee knew how to do it they knew the procedures and what was needed that is why you lost!!
The law has a way of doing procedures for all those that have been lawyers judges, or been the other side So does Enviromental sciences , Ecology , Marine Biology Zoology, etc will all have the same principals and no matter if a Spanish person wrote a paper for a Spansih Univeristy , this will be the exact same as an English person writting for a Englsih University for Science must be mirrored around the world so that all scientists can understand each other and re create their data and experiments .
It is difficult to admit you do not know everything espically as we get older and the younger generation come up with dynamic ways and approaches but if you do not embrace it then you will be left behind to shout those down, because you are envious of their hard work and dedication .
Rotrax you are constanly harrasing me I again offer the invitation for you to meet me so that you can finally put a face to this mysterieous person you think I am , I do not bite and make a lovely cup of tea
Your poor assesment of science shows your lack of knowledge of the Subject to many on these forums proclaim themselfs experts even though they have retired and moved on to new pastures and actually get their Knowledge from Wiki , life and science moves on practices and observations move on, and the last time I was doing my Degree they warned us if any one refreneced Wiki in a science paper we would fail automatically.
My wife has been is still in and is highly regarded in the field of Enviromental Sciences but oh no Rotrax is right , god help us all
She is in the middle of publishing some ground breaking science in Water which will change the way we deal with it and knows here stuff so when she looks at Studland Bay and the data from Borg and the argument thats present. and tells me its flawed I belive her not some one out of the loop for 30 years .!! (She is American and lives in Scotland I truly dont think she knows were Studland is )
When you loose your argument anfd it becomes a MZ you got to ask yourself why !!
When you get a pertro chemical retired Dr to do your data and not an Ecolgist that would tell you it needs years to find out this data you wonder why you lost !!
When you compare a certain eelgrass to other eel grasses around the world and studies done you can come up with a reasonably conclusion that this might be happening in Studland this is called Littrature review and is commonly used in all scientfic papers , this is fact and if you knew this you would be prepared to argue the point in your fight for Studland but you lost !!
Those people that put better evidence before the commitee knew how to do it they knew the procedures and what was needed that is why you lost!!
The law has a way of doing procedures for all those that have been lawyers judges, or been the other side
So does Enviromental sciences , Ecology , Marine Biology Zoology, etc will all have the same principals and no matter if a Spanish person wrote a paper for a Spansih Univeristy , this will be the exact same as an English person writting for a Englsih University for Science must be mirrored around the world so that all scientists can understand each other and re create their data and experiments .It is difficult to admit you do not know everything espically as we get older and the younger generation come up with dynamic ways and approaches but if you do not embrace it then you will be left behind to shout those down, because you are envious of their hard work and dedication .
Rotrax you are constanly harrasing me I again offer the invitation for you to meet me so that you can finally put a face to this mysterieous person you think I am , I do not bite and make a lovely cup of tea
Last edited:
rotrax
Well-Known Member
Your are an old Goat are you not specsavers will help with your eyesight at 72 I expect you need it I am the Goose man come and see me fly
Your poor assesment of science shows your lack of knowledge of the Subject to many on these forums proclaim themselfs experts even though they have retired and moved on to new pastures and actually get their Knowledge from Wiki , life and science moves on practices and observations move on, and the last time I was doing my Degree they warned us if any one refreneced Wiki in a science paper we would fail automatically.
My wife has been is still in and is highly regarded in the field of Enviromental Sciences but oh no Rotrax is right , god help us all
She is in the middle of publishing some ground breaking science in Water which will change the way we deal with it and knows here stuff so when she looks at Studland Bay and the data from Borg and the argument thats present. and tells me its flawed I belive her not some one out of the loop for 30 years .!! (She is American and lives in Scotland I truly dont think she knows were Studland is )
When you loose your argument anfd it becomes a MZ you got to ask yourself why !!
When you get a pertro chemical retired Dr to do your data and not an Ecolgist that would tell you it needs years to find out this data you wonder why you lost !!
When you compare a certain eelgrass to other eel grasses around the world and studies done you can come up with a reasonably conclusion that this might be happening in Studland this is called Littrature review and is commonly used in all scientfic papers , this is fact and if you knew this you would be prepared to argue the point in your fight for Studland but you lost !!
Those people that put better evidence before the commitee knew how to do it they knew the procedures and what was needed that is why you lost!!
The law has a way of doing procedures for all those that have been lawyers judges, or been the other side
It is difficult to admit you do not know everything espically as we get older and the younger generation come up with dynamic ways and approaches but if you do not embrace it then you will be left behind to shout those down, because you are envious of their hard work and dedication .
Rotrax you are constanly harrasing me I again offer the invitation for you to meet me so that you can finally put a face to this mysterieous person you think I am , I do not bite and make a lovely cup of tea
So-lets get back to basics.
1. Have you read the peer reviewed papers refered to by Marlin Spyke?
Yes or no will do.
2. I know for a fact that comparing the behavior of Lions and comparing their behaviour to to that of Tigers is funamently flawed. Do you-or your wife who is perhaps pulling your strings-agree that to compare the behavior of two distinctly different types of eelgrass is fundamently flawed?
Yes or no will do.
Thanks for the offer of tea. Most unusually for an Englishman-and a Cockney to boot-I have never had a cup of tea in my life.
Cerna Kava, Cafe Noir, Cafe Solo, or plain black coffee well sweetened is my prefered drink.
Despite not drinking tea, I have got the reputation of making a really good cup.
During the first three months of my apprenticeship that was one of my major functions-sweeping the workshop, making tea, mending punctures.
Last edited:
oldharry
Well-Known Member
A 'Literature Review' is precisely what we have done. Every study of Zostera Marina we could find. All the peer reviewed papers we could find are listed on our website.
All without exception describe the hardiness of zostera marina compared to most seagrasses.
Studland eelgrass was destroyed by disease in 1935. The Army pumped thousands of gallons of oil into the bay and set fire to it during the war as an experimental invasion defence. I doubt much of the marine life survived that (Operation Fougasse it was called) . They also did a range of other secret experiments there. I doubt that environmental impacts were even considered. Within 10 years a healthy eelgrass bed had re-established itself. Small boats have anchored there in large numbers every summer since, yet we now have one of, if not the, largest eelgrass bed in UK. That says to me, indeed to all of us here, that the scientific papers we have read are broadly right.
They are all listed on the BORG website. Please go and read them and tell us what we have missed. The 'literature review' you tell us is the way NE have drawn their conclusions is also precisely what we did, except we concentrated on the species we are dealing with - Zostera marina. We came across numerous other papers about seagrass, all of which said what NE are saying: Seagrass is fragile, and easily destroyed. We have this sheaf of peer reviewed studies which says otherwise as far as the species in studland goes.
And I agree entirely, a retired petro-chemical engineer would not at all be the right person to check this out for us!
All without exception describe the hardiness of zostera marina compared to most seagrasses.
Studland eelgrass was destroyed by disease in 1935. The Army pumped thousands of gallons of oil into the bay and set fire to it during the war as an experimental invasion defence. I doubt much of the marine life survived that (Operation Fougasse it was called) . They also did a range of other secret experiments there. I doubt that environmental impacts were even considered. Within 10 years a healthy eelgrass bed had re-established itself. Small boats have anchored there in large numbers every summer since, yet we now have one of, if not the, largest eelgrass bed in UK. That says to me, indeed to all of us here, that the scientific papers we have read are broadly right.
They are all listed on the BORG website. Please go and read them and tell us what we have missed. The 'literature review' you tell us is the way NE have drawn their conclusions is also precisely what we did, except we concentrated on the species we are dealing with - Zostera marina. We came across numerous other papers about seagrass, all of which said what NE are saying: Seagrass is fragile, and easily destroyed. We have this sheaf of peer reviewed studies which says otherwise as far as the species in studland goes.
And I agree entirely, a retired petro-chemical engineer would not at all be the right person to check this out for us!
colhel
Well-Known Member
Probably worth mentioning.
If anyone dared to criticise the "evidence" written by NGM and SHT that person would be banned from the group. Here, you can criticise and remain in the discussion. For me that speaks volumes.
If anyone dared to criticise the "evidence" written by NGM and SHT that person would be banned from the group. Here, you can criticise and remain in the discussion. For me that speaks volumes.
nortada
Well-Known Member
Your are an old Goat are you not specsavers will help with your eyesight at 72 I expect you need it I am the Goose man come and see me fly
Your poor assesment of science shows your lack of knowledge of the Subject to many on these forums proclaim themselfs experts even though they have retired and moved on to new pastures and actually get their Knowledge from Wiki , life and science moves on practices and observations move on, and the last time I was doing my Degree they warned us if any one refreneced Wiki in a science paper we would fail automatically.
My wife has been is still in and is highly regarded in the field of Enviromental Sciences but oh no Rotrax is right , god help us all
She is in the middle of publishing some ground breaking science in Water which will change the way we deal with it and knows here stuff so when she looks at Studland Bay and the data from Borg and the argument thats present. and tells me its flawed I belive her not some one out of the loop for 30 years .!! (She is American and lives in Scotland I truly dont think she knows were Studland is )
When you loose your argument anfd it becomes a MZ you got to ask yourself why !!
When you get a pertro chemical retired Dr to do your data and not an Ecolgist that would tell you it needs years to find out this data you wonder why you lost !!
When you compare a certain eelgrass to other eel grasses around the world and studies done you can come up with a reasonably conclusion that this might be happening in Studland this is called Littrature review and is commonly used in all scientfic papers , this is fact and if you knew this you would be prepared to argue the point in your fight for Studland but you lost !!
Those people that put better evidence before the commitee knew how to do it they knew the procedures and what was needed that is why you lost!!
The law has a way of doing procedures for all those that have been lawyers judges, or been the other side
It is difficult to admit you do not know everything espically as we get older and the younger generation come up with dynamic ways and approaches but if you do not embrace it then you will be left behind to shout those down, because you are envious of their hard work and dedication .
Rotrax you are constanly harrasing me I again offer the invitation for you to meet me so that you can finally put a face to this mysterieous person you think I am , I do not bite and make a lovely cup of tea
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.
