Studland Bay designated a MCZ
- Thread starter EugeneR
- Start date
Pirx
Well-Known Member
Govt announce Marine Conservation zones
Details here:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...of-marine-protected-areas-twice-englands-size
Details here:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...of-marine-protected-areas-twice-englands-size
dpb
Well-Known Member
The link works now it would seem.
Having looked through the documents it seems that designation is one thing, can't see any rules or restrictions at this stage though.
Is it that now designated, other parties, as listed in the designation order get to apply rules as they see fit to comply?
This has been bubbling for some time with talk of anchoring restrictions being the main fear for boat owners, however, I wonder who by and how any such restriction, if it happens, would get enforced considering that boats are not registered and the people on board don't have to carry ID.
100's turn up there on a good summer weekend.
Having looked through the documents it seems that designation is one thing, can't see any rules or restrictions at this stage though.
Is it that now designated, other parties, as listed in the designation order get to apply rules as they see fit to comply?
This has been bubbling for some time with talk of anchoring restrictions being the main fear for boat owners, however, I wonder who by and how any such restriction, if it happens, would get enforced considering that boats are not registered and the people on board don't have to carry ID.
100's turn up there on a good summer weekend.
robertj
Well-Known Member
Anchoring is going to be restricted there it’s a foregone conclusion.
It’s about people having something for free. You don’t pay tax on free anchoring do you. What with big brother governments taking is into 1984.
Follow the money.
Sport fishermen have been restricted in catching Bass for conservation purposes only to increase the quota allowable to commercial fisherman by I believe 1/2ton a day.
You don’t pay tax on free activities.
Follow the money
It’s about people having something for free. You don’t pay tax on free anchoring do you. What with big brother governments taking is into 1984.
Follow the money.
Sport fishermen have been restricted in catching Bass for conservation purposes only to increase the quota allowable to commercial fisherman by I believe 1/2ton a day.
You don’t pay tax on free activities.
Follow the money
GrahamD
Well-Known Member
I think the failure of the arguments against designation of Studland as an MCZ has been another unintended consequence of Brexit:
Firstly, 2700 civil servants (2/3 of the DEFRA staff) have been transferred to Brexit related duties, meaning that the latest tranche of MCZs have probably been nodded through by the work experience lad; and secondly Michael Gove’s is now in a leadership challenge so he is only interested in his legacy as Secretary of State. He would not want to pick a fight with conservationists, no matter how poor the science backing the proposals.
It now will be interesting to see how quickly a local management group will be set up, who becomes the dominant voice on this and how any control measures will be decided upon.
Firstly, 2700 civil servants (2/3 of the DEFRA staff) have been transferred to Brexit related duties, meaning that the latest tranche of MCZs have probably been nodded through by the work experience lad; and secondly Michael Gove’s is now in a leadership challenge so he is only interested in his legacy as Secretary of State. He would not want to pick a fight with conservationists, no matter how poor the science backing the proposals.
It now will be interesting to see how quickly a local management group will be set up, who becomes the dominant voice on this and how any control measures will be decided upon.
Last edited:
colhel
Well-Known Member
Just on case you haven't spotted it, there's a link at the bottom of the 3 rd PDF to a 136 page document. Possible scenarios but nothing concrete that I can see, but Ive only skimmed through it.... at work
MarlynSpyke
Well-Known Member
There’s a useful outline on which organisation applies management measures (including controls and restrictions) at https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/805584/mcz-studland-bay-2019.pdf
For controls on inshore fisheries, eg banning scallop dredging or beam trawling, it’s the local IFCA (Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority). For offshore fisheries, it’s the Marine Management Organisation, MMO.
We have always understood that management measures for recreational boating will be implemented by the MMO, with whom BORG, the Boat Owners’ Response Group, have had useful discussions in the past. They have the power to impose local bye laws. However the list of regulators at the above link does not mention recreational boating at all – but I presume it will remain the MMO who will be the regulator.
The document states “Regulators will manage each site according to the features and activities in, or near, a specific area. Management measures will be implemented at sites most at risk of damage first, regulating only those activities which have a detrimental impact on the designated features. Any management measures that are required for MCZs will be applied on a case-by-case basis.” My view is that any damage arising from recreational boating is slight compared with devastation of the seabed caused by scallop dredging and other heavy bottom fishing gear, and hopefully the effects of our little (in the scale of things) anchors will figure low down on the list of priorities. I am not aware of any restrictions being imposed on recreational boating in any MCZ yet, but please correct me if this is wrong.
Management measures could range from simply monitoring the health and extent of the eelgrass in Studland Bay, with the possibility of intervening if it is deteriorating, to prohibiting anchoring in part or all of the eelgrass areas. Extra (environmentally friendly) mooring buoys have been suggested, but there are questions to be answered and also cost issues with that.
Might I suggest a possible way of reducing the disturbance caused by an anchor – this is speculation and would require verifying – which is to change the way we retrieve anchors in sensitive areas. The setting of an anchor in the seabed probably only causes slight disturbance as the anchor blade slides down into the sediment. Provided the anchor does not drag, the main disturbance is caused by conventional retrieval, when the blade is pivoted upwards by a vertical pull on the end of the shank. This will push the sediment upward and sideways. If instead the anchor is broken out by pulling on a tripping line attached to the crown of the anchor, it should slide out almost in the reverse of the way in which it was dug in, with much less lifting and moving of the sediment, leaving a substantially smaller “scar”.
If anyone with an underwater camera, a GoPro or whatever, could photograph or film the effects on a sandy seabed of the two methods of retrieval, this could be really useful to the boating community. Since I am normally sailing single handed, it is difficult to do this myself – ideally you want three people, one on the anchor, one steering the boat, and one in the water or a dinghy with the camera.
colhel
Well-Known Member
These are the documents I referred to earlier. Still lots of maybe's and possibles in the language.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...n-zones-third-tranche-of-designations#history
https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...n-zones-third-tranche-of-designations#history
FlyingGoose
Well-Known Member
A very concise post and very helpful to all that use this Bay , If I can be so bold before I get the usual grief , the policy of MCZ s in Scotland is not to prohibit anchoring , but to look at no take zones and the wider use of Dredging the sea bed killing of everything on that trawl
I would presume this would also be implemented in SB which would allow monitoring and real science to take presedence
Anchoring will always do some damage ot the seafloor it is as always trying to minimise our impact of the sea bed , we all stick to paths when walking , pick up our litter , recycle were we can , try not to pollute rivers and fresh water lakes , but when it comes to our oceans I feel we still do not do enough , including myself a boat owner , so if there is more ways to minimise our foot print the better I say .
lw395
Well-Known Member
I have long thought of Studland as some kind of reserved habitat for unpleasant people from Bournemouth.
It's not even particularly nice when it's empty.
It's not even particularly nice when it's empty.
FlyingGoose
Well-Known Member
You can borrow my Tin Hat , well used
Boathook
Well-Known Member
From an anchorage point of view it is very good, sheltered from the NW going W to nearly the SE.
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
This decision sounds like a disaster, I just hope that the effect of designation does not mean any actual restrictions on anchoring. Borg and the RYA have made the scientific case well that anchoring has not made any environmental impact and that the bay is flourishing. So restricting anchoring isn't going to fix a problem that does not exist.
lw395
Well-Known Member
It's only really sheltered from anything with a faint hint of East in it if you have shallow draft and get to pick your spot with no other boats. There are equally good anchorages in nicer places most of the time. With many fewer jetskis, RIBs and other idiots.
rgarside
Well-Known Member
While your comments are entirely rational, I found the following document:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/804659/mcz-tranche3-consult-sum-resp.pdf
Studland is covered on pages 54 and 55, and the "Government Response" paragraphs seem to envisage restrictions on anchoring.
It is interesting that re-submission of the Seahorse Trust petition is mentioned on page 2, while I could not find any mention of the excellent documents resulting from Old Harry's efforts.
The Government Response includes the comment
"Expert scientific advice confirms the vulnerability of Studland Bay seagrass beds to anchoring activity. Seagrass beds at this site are underrepresented across the ecological network and provide important habitat for a longstanding population of seahorses."
I hope a sensible conclusion is reached ultimately, but it is likely to be a continuing story.
Good luck!
laika
Well-Known Member
Just for reference: Christmas: good thing or bad thing?
Studland is tenable most of the time: there's a huge shallow area and gales from the east aren't common. The anchoring area is massive so if your objective is not "be within a cable of the beach nearest the path to the bankes arms" you always get to pick your spot. Anchoring on the south side when getting in late of a friday or saturday evening is a mistake you only make once when you learn when the jetskis play. And where in the area is a passage anchorage which is so convenient and with such great holding?
Studland is wonderful. An anchoring ban would be a tragedy.
Last edited:
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Ok, catching up as Im on holiday at present, and Marlynspyke has given an excellent summary of the proposal already:
Studland is now an MCZ, and the Designation order spells out in Para 5-1 the Conservation objectives attached to that order. I was largely expecting this, as Seagrasses are such a vital part of inshore marine ecology, and are under threat worldwide. There would have to be very strong reasons for not putting it under some degree of monitoring and protection. MCZ status if nothing else provides the funding to do this. The question for us is not so much should the eelgrass be protected, as whether our continued use is sustainable in terms of its health and the named species it supports, including the seahorses. There is strong evidence that it is sustainable, and that being the case, they can have their MCZ and we can go on enjoying the Bay.
Designation Orders define areas and species to be protected, and Section 5 of the order gives that definition. It does not tell us how that is to be achieved. What happens now is that the various groups involved sit down and work out Management Measures needed to achieve those objectives for Studland. MMO then make and enforce the agreed rules. This can be quite a lengthy process, and it is where all the hard work done by Marlynspyke analysing our arguments could come in to their own:
Assuming that BORG continues to be recognised as a Stakeholder (and I do not see any reason why we should not be, as it was MMO who pulled me in to represent our interests in the first place), we can continue to present our case that the eelgrass is already in ‘stable condition’as required under the Order. Its extent is stable and increasing, and it remains in a healthy state. Witness the fact that there are now 96 hectares of eelgrass, where 50 years ago there was just a few hundred square metres, and that extensive anchoring has taken place every year throughout that time. Arguments will arise around that, but the fact remains the beds are stable and are increasing.
The anchoring issue is the key point as far as we are concerned: firstly, Studland is an open sea site, and at this time is not subject to controls by any Harbour authority. In UK we enjoy a constitutional right of free navigation round our coasts. Only in certain clearly defined circumstances can that right be over-ridden: defence of the realm, safety, and so on. It is currently generally accepted that anchoring at will is a necessary and normal part of that right, but this is not actually defined in law. (summary of a conversation with Gus Lewis, late of RYA) It is generally accepted, and when Seahorse Trust tried to complain to MMO that anchoring was breaching the Wildlife Act by disturbing the seahorse habitat, MMO responded very firmly stating that ‘anchoring is a normal and legal practice’ and unless there is deliberate intent to disturb seahorse habitats,it was not illegal. (Section 9 Wildlife Act) In other words there has to be evidence that someone was deliberately looking for seahorses to drop their anchors on!
So there is a basic point of law whether anchoring can actually be limited or controlled in an MCZ under current legislation.
In the meantime DEFRA are on record saying that they prefer education rather than legislation. Apart from anything else its a whole loot cheaper and easier to adminstrate. This ties in very much with my own efforts in 2014 when I initiated a leaflet for Visitors to Studland supported (and paid for) by the RYA, the Wildlife Trusts, MMO and Nat England. This gave simple clear advice on the does and donts of handling boats in eelgrass areas. Significantly the Seahorse Trust refused to take part, and later accused BORG of rejecting the advice the leaflet gave! It is to be hoped that in the first instance a similar scheme will be tried in Studland.
In some ways designation is a good thing: it now means, as Nat England pointed out to me, that all the wild ideas flying around will have to be pinned down to a Management Protocol that would stand up to legal scrutiny in a Court of Law. It also opens up funding for further research, because at the end of the day we need to know whether we are actually destabilising the eelgrass by excessive numbers of people anchoring.
Studland is now an MCZ, and the Designation order spells out in Para 5-1 the Conservation objectives attached to that order. I was largely expecting this, as Seagrasses are such a vital part of inshore marine ecology, and are under threat worldwide. There would have to be very strong reasons for not putting it under some degree of monitoring and protection. MCZ status if nothing else provides the funding to do this. The question for us is not so much should the eelgrass be protected, as whether our continued use is sustainable in terms of its health and the named species it supports, including the seahorses. There is strong evidence that it is sustainable, and that being the case, they can have their MCZ and we can go on enjoying the Bay.
Designation Orders define areas and species to be protected, and Section 5 of the order gives that definition. It does not tell us how that is to be achieved. What happens now is that the various groups involved sit down and work out Management Measures needed to achieve those objectives for Studland. MMO then make and enforce the agreed rules. This can be quite a lengthy process, and it is where all the hard work done by Marlynspyke analysing our arguments could come in to their own:
Assuming that BORG continues to be recognised as a Stakeholder (and I do not see any reason why we should not be, as it was MMO who pulled me in to represent our interests in the first place), we can continue to present our case that the eelgrass is already in ‘stable condition’as required under the Order. Its extent is stable and increasing, and it remains in a healthy state. Witness the fact that there are now 96 hectares of eelgrass, where 50 years ago there was just a few hundred square metres, and that extensive anchoring has taken place every year throughout that time. Arguments will arise around that, but the fact remains the beds are stable and are increasing.
The anchoring issue is the key point as far as we are concerned: firstly, Studland is an open sea site, and at this time is not subject to controls by any Harbour authority. In UK we enjoy a constitutional right of free navigation round our coasts. Only in certain clearly defined circumstances can that right be over-ridden: defence of the realm, safety, and so on. It is currently generally accepted that anchoring at will is a necessary and normal part of that right, but this is not actually defined in law. (summary of a conversation with Gus Lewis, late of RYA) It is generally accepted, and when Seahorse Trust tried to complain to MMO that anchoring was breaching the Wildlife Act by disturbing the seahorse habitat, MMO responded very firmly stating that ‘anchoring is a normal and legal practice’ and unless there is deliberate intent to disturb seahorse habitats,it was not illegal. (Section 9 Wildlife Act) In other words there has to be evidence that someone was deliberately looking for seahorses to drop their anchors on!
So there is a basic point of law whether anchoring can actually be limited or controlled in an MCZ under current legislation.
In the meantime DEFRA are on record saying that they prefer education rather than legislation. Apart from anything else its a whole loot cheaper and easier to adminstrate. This ties in very much with my own efforts in 2014 when I initiated a leaflet for Visitors to Studland supported (and paid for) by the RYA, the Wildlife Trusts, MMO and Nat England. This gave simple clear advice on the does and donts of handling boats in eelgrass areas. Significantly the Seahorse Trust refused to take part, and later accused BORG of rejecting the advice the leaflet gave! It is to be hoped that in the first instance a similar scheme will be tried in Studland.
In some ways designation is a good thing: it now means, as Nat England pointed out to me, that all the wild ideas flying around will have to be pinned down to a Management Protocol that would stand up to legal scrutiny in a Court of Law. It also opens up funding for further research, because at the end of the day we need to know whether we are actually destabilising the eelgrass by excessive numbers of people anchoring.
Last edited:
TopBanana
Well-Known Member
If they want to ban anchoring, why not lay down 100+ visitors' moorings?
FlyingGoose
Well-Known Member
Well summariesd and a balanced approach ,and you should be thanked for your efforts on this , I do belive as a vocal enviromentalist that the habitat should be shared and experienced by all as long as we are respectful to to the enviroment and try as best we can to minimise or impact, sailing is a given right in our Island nation and the right to anchor is a ;legal right , if we can educate more people on a better way then it can never be a bad thing , the problem always arises when enforcment is laid down rather that a volutary code of practice
I hope a balanced solution is found and all are happy :encouragement:
oldharry
Well-Known Member
They would have to be EFMs which a) cost more than conventional moorings. Who puts up the cash? B) Need frequent maintenance by divers. Again who pays? C) current designs need greater depth than inshore Studpand to avoid doing damage.
Crown Estates did a full business study. They found that it would never be economically viable on 300 moorings. Given 25 years good summers it might just break even. Fewer moorings the costs rose dramatically in their business model.
