Studland Bay NOT going to be an MCZ

Rivers & creeks

Rivers & creeks

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 Nov 2004
Messages
10,925
Location
Norfolk
Visit site
Well I hope I've got this right, news on the BBC website that Studland is not going to be an MCZ. There are 23 new sites meaning that 20% of the coastline is now designated. But no management plans, no enforcement so what does that actually mean in practice?

If I'm right then Old Harry and the team have shown that logic, science and sound argument can win over emotion and misinformation.

The 23 new Marine Conservation Zones
North Sea
Fulmar
Farnes East
Coquet to St Mary's
Runswick Bay
Holderness Inshore
Cromer Shoal Chalk Beds
South East
The Swale Estuary
Dover to Deal
Dover to Folkestone
Offshore Brighton
Offshore Overfalls (SE of the Isle of Wight)
Utopia (SW of Selsey Bill)
The Needles
South West
Western Channel
Mounts Bay
Land's End
Newquay and The Gannel
Hartland Point to Tintagel
Bideford to Foreland Point
North-West of Jones Bank
Greater Haig Fras
Irish Sea
West of Walney co-location zone
Allonby Bay
 
Colvic Watson said:
Well I hope I've got this right, news on the BBC website that Studland is not going to be an MCZ. There are 23 new sites meaning that 20% of the coastline is now designated. But no management plans, no enforcement so what does that actually mean in practice?

If I'm right then Old Harry and the team have shown that logic, science and sound argument can win over emotion and misinformation.

The 23 new Marine Conservation Zones
North Sea
Fulmar
Farnes East
Coquet to St Mary's
Runswick Bay
Holderness Inshore
Cromer Shoal Chalk Beds
South East
The Swale Estuary
Dover to Deal
Dover to Folkestone
Offshore Brighton
Offshore Overfalls (SE of the Isle of Wight)
Utopia (SW of Selsey Bill)
The Needles
South West
Western Channel
Mounts Bay
Land's End
Newquay and The Gannel
Hartland Point to Tintagel
Bideford to Foreland Point
North-West of Jones Bank
Greater Haig Fras
Irish Sea
West of Walney co-location zone
Allonby Bay
Click to expand...

Some of those, seem to have little merit to a layman, I wonder why they were chosen?
 
alant said:
Some of those, seem to have little merit to a layman, I wonder why they were chosen?
Click to expand...

See the other thread on this which has a link to an interactive map, where, after you spend a few minutes head scratching and tooth sucking, you'll be able to find out why the areas were chosen and what exactly is being protected.

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?448012-New-Marine-Conservation-Zones

As to Studland, I don't believe the seahorse abusers have yet given up, and they will try to get Studland included in round two of the MCZ exercise.
 
Youve got up earlier today than me Colvic!

This list is all the Tranche 2 sites that were put forward, and have now been designated as MCZs. The only one that could affect us is the Needles MCZ, and Borg has spent quitea lot of time alongside RYA examining carefully this first MCZ that could affect us. We have also been in discussion with Natural England and Defra about possible management plans - particualrly where they could affect Needles channel anchorages like Alum Bay. It seems unlikely that any restrictions will be called for.

The big question now is what Management Plan will be put in place in this MCZ? We just do not know.

Studland is not mentioned in this round at all. We still do not know whether it will be included in the third and final round, although Defra are suggesting T3 will be designated in 2017, and everything in place by 2018. So it goes on... and on! We very much hope that if Defra do include Studland in T3 they will stick to their promise that there will be further discussion amongst stakeholders before any decision is taken. This last year they have been concentrating on the sites announced today, so there has been no movement.
 
Beware, today's Telegraph not only has a general blurb about the new MCZs, it also has a separate column about the 'loss of sea grass habitat' and mentions Studland, and anchoring. Someone is in there stirring.
 
oldharry said:
Youve got up earlier today than me Colvic
Click to expand...

tis the youngsters see, they rise at 6am :disgust:

No mention on their website of this latest setback for a private empire at Studland Bay, a week ago it was all fingers crossed etc that they'd be announcing Studland Bay and it would all be enforcement RIBs and Landrover's with loud speakers telling boaters to naff off whilst divers ran tourist trips to the Seahorse meadows.
 
RYA account and explanation here which guives a very full summary of where we are at. Very definitely one up to the RYA who have pulled their finger out in no uncertain terms over T2, and particularly the Needles anchorage issue. From their report:
"“The RYA submitted detailed information on recreational boating and anchoring at the Needles site, indicating that overlap of the seagrass with the main anchoring and mooring activity in the area is minimal. As a result, the Government has confirmed that any management required in this site may also be minimal, is unlikely to significantly affect use of the area, and can potentially be done on a voluntary basis.”

This hopefully sets a precedent for other eelgrass areas. We already have in place an interim protocol for continued anchoring at Studland, fully supported by MMO, Natural England, RYA, and the Dorset Wildlife Trust. Because this was initated by me on behalf of Borg, and I chaired the work group that put it together NGM refused to take part. The immediate outcome was the production of the RYA 'Anchoring in Studland' leaflet which has been widely distributed to visiting boats. So much for the 'selfish and uncaring wealthy yotties' press releases.

I dont doubt there will now be further howls when NGM realises his precious petition has been ignored, and Defra has not chnaged its mind!
 
The impression I have gleaned is that the govt is more concerned about stopping commercial fishing and heavy tackle shell fish dredging in the MCZ, recreational boaters are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and the seahorse huggers are never going to win the day.
 
It certainly loooks as though you may be right, Bathdave. Seahorses - which have figured so large in this debate are a very tiny corner on the wider scale of things. it really is only one mans obsession that has pushed them in to the headlines. One wonders if a title like 'Ocean Quahog Trust' or even perhaps the 'Jellyfish trust' would attract quite the same level of attention. But those cute little seahorses ar so Disney-like, and himself is on to a good thing with them! I thik if the public knew that they are one of natures most perfect stealth killers at their level whether they would seem quite so cuddly!

Far more important is the seagrass debate. Seahorses dont actually need seagrass in spite of what NGM says. it provides convenient cover for them, but is not essential. But seagras provides a key species habitat and nursery area for inshore species so has importance in inshore ecosystems in its own right.

Studland was recommended as an MCZ for its seagrass, not for its seahorses. The same plant is found elsewhere, and in meetings with the Wildife Trusts it has always been the preservation of seagrass beds that has been the issue, not of any specific species living in it. It now seems that the major threat to UK seagrass is nitrate pollution, not the odd accident with an anchor.
 
Just read the Telegraph piece. What a masterpiece in misinformation. Headline is

"Seahorses face extinction as their grazing is wiped out"

Then picks bits out of the Welsh survey, which as we all know barely mentions seahorses or anchoring. Then ends with a quote from Simon Cripps of Dorset Wildlife Trust:

"The health of the marine environment depends on protection of the seabed, mainly from dredging and trawling. All it takes is one dredger and years of conservation work is lost. It's like taking a plough to your garden"

No wonder conservationists and the journalists who report on them are held in such low esteem.
 
Tranona said:
Just read the Telegraph piece. What a masterpiece in misinformation. Headline is

"Seahorses face extinction as their grazing is wiped out"

Then picks bits out of the Welsh survey, which as we all know barely mentions seahorses or anchoring. Then ends with a quote from Simon Cripps of Dorset Wildlife Trust:

"The health of the marine environment depends on protection of the seabed, mainly from dredging and trawling. All it takes is one dredger and years of conservation work is lost. It's like taking a plough to your garden"

No wonder conservationists and the journalists who report on them are held in such low esteem.
Click to expand...

Actually I thought what Mr Cripps said was very very true. I've been diving for over 30 years and have dived many areas off the Devon and Dorset coasts that have been spectacular with fish life, corals and scallops, and literally the next day, after a trawler, or more to the point, a scallop dredger has been through, is just like a ploughed field devoid of any life. For me it's very upsetting and sad that this has been allowed to continue for so long. I have been told by several divers that there was a coral reef off Budleigh Salterton that was about 20' high, unfortunately before I dived there scallops, or rather very large scallops were found in significant numbers, and now the seabed consists of broken coral which extends for about 0.5 mile, along with layer upon layer of dead shells. Even though there are now almost no scallops to be had there it is not unusual to see half a dozen or more scallop dredgers in this one small area. The seabed stands no chance of recovery.

However there has been a ban on all dredging in an area between Beer and West Bay that came into force about 5 years ago and some of the life, both fish and coral, is truly spectacular. Reading these various reports mentioned above, anchoring seems very small fry compared to the damage caused by dredgers and trawlers, especially the larger high powered boats that can destroy ledges and move huge boulders across the seabed. A small pleasure boat anchor is not even a pin prick compared to that.
 
Tranona said:
Just read the Telegraph piece. What a masterpiece in misinformation. Headline is

"Seahorses face extinction as their grazing is wiped out"

Then picks bits out of the Welsh survey, which as we all know barely mentions seahorses or anchoring. Then ends with a quote from Simon Cripps of Dorset Wildlife Trust:

"The health of the marine environment depends on protection of the seabed, mainly from dredging and trawling. All it takes is one dredger and years of conservation work is lost. It's like taking a plough to your garden"

No wonder conservationists and the journalists who report on them are held in such low esteem.
Click to expand...

longjohnsilver said:
Actually I thought what Mr Cripps said was very very true. I've been diving for over 30 years and have dived many areas off the Devon and Dorset coasts that have been spectacular with fish life, corals and scallops, and literally the next day, after a trawler, or more to the point, a scallop dredger has been through, is just like a ploughed field devoid of any life. For me it's very upsetting and sad that this has been allowed to continue for so long. I have been told by several divers that there was a coral reef off Budleigh Salterton that was about 20' high, unfortunately before I dived there scallops, or rather very large scallops were found in significant numbers, and now the seabed consists of broken coral which extends for about 0.5 mile, along with layer upon layer of dead shells. Even though there are now almost no scallops to be had there it is not unusual to see half a dozen or more scallop dredgers in this one small area. The seabed stands no chance of recovery.

However there has been a ban on all dredging in an area between Beer and West Bay that came into force about 5 years ago and some of the life, both fish and coral, is truly spectacular. Reading these various reports mentioned above, anchoring seems very small fry compared to the damage caused by dredgers and trawlers, especially the larger high powered boats that can destroy ledges and move huge boulders across the seabed. A small pleasure boat anchor is not even a pin prick compared to that.
Click to expand...

Both brilliant posts highlighting the real problem :encouragement:
 
I don't disagree with the comment about dredging and trawlers either. The point I was trying to make is the disconnect between the sensational headline and the contents of the report. The research that is the core of the report says nothing substantive about seahorses, or claims the seagrass is being destroyed. Seahorses do not "graze" on seagrass - just that a small minority find it a pleasant place to live. As oldharry suggests on SHTs own figures (which it now hides) the majority of seahorse observations are not in sea grass meadows.

As it happens one of the main reasons cited for the growth in size and health of the seagrass meadows in Studland is the cessation of scallop dredging. The threats to the plant, as clearly identified in the research, are related to water conditions and "natural" causes such as storm damage that pulls out the shallow roots. This is evident in Studland where the seagrass has spread to the shallow waters close to the beach and every winter when there is an easterly gale much of it gets ripped up and deposited on the beach. I am hoping to get photos of this if we get a strong easterly gale this spring.
 
I wholeheartedly endorse what Longjohnsilver is saying, and it is one of my greatest personal frustrations representing Borg as we continue to argue about Studland, that just a mile or so beyond Old Harry rocks a couple of years ago, a beam trawler (Mary Anne of Newhaven) was systematically working her way up and down Poole Bay towing 4 tons of bottom trawl which would have been destroying everything in site with all the finesses of a motorway construction bulldozer. (Why DID I choose that particular headland name when I signed up for YBW, 10 years before this blew up?)

NGM often says boaters cannot tell what is happening on the seabed below our keels, and he is right. If farmers behaved as has the diesel powered fishing fleet over the last 20 years or so, there would have been a massive public outcry. But we cant see the damage that is being done, so nobody says realises what is happening. Off Littlehampton and Worthing there used to be an incredible submarine system of chalk canyons, stacks and caves on the seabed out near the Winter Bank. Local fishermen spoke of it in superlatives, and not just as a fishing ground.

By 1995 the whole area had been razed, flattened and completely destroyed by the heavy beam trawler fleet.

I once asked NGM whether he was concerned about the damage these behemoths do to offshore Seahorse habitats. He makes much of the seahorses retreating to deep water in the winter in to the Beam trawling grounds. His response still leaves me open mouthed every time I recall it: "Oh it doesnt affect them. They are small enough just to go straight through the chain mesh, so it does no harm". So while my 7.5kg anchor destroys their habitat, a 5 ton beam trawler a mile away does no harm! I have seen these trawls ashore. Anything that could pass through them would be mincemeat.

So while there is this huge fuss about anchors possibly disturbing a few shoots of eelgrass. A couple of miles away total carnage is taking place. Legally, legitimately, and unchallenged. Its this sort of thing that makes my blood boil. even writing about it here has my adrenalin and blood pressure up!

The original Natural England MCZ proposal for Poole bay, originally known as 'area 11', had boundaries extending some 5 miles south of Hengistbury head, intersecting a line drawn East from Anvil Point. I was part of the group that was tasked with deciding what was needed in that area. Studland Bay was always the prime candidate because of the eelgrass, but it was representatives of the fishing community inshore and offshore who argued so vehemently that the rest of area 11 should be excluded. The Poole inshore fleet had a point: they would have lost their traditional fishing grounds, but leaving them open, also leaves them open to the bigger beam trawlers. 'They never come here' was the fishermens argument. Maybe they didnt, but they do now!

Rant over!
 
It's a sad fact that there's probably nowhere within 6 miles of our coast that has not yet been dredged by scallop fishermen, so any of the stacks, canyons, coral reefs that may have been there 30 years or so back have now gone forever, and with their destruction goes the natural habitat and breeding grounds for many species of fish. And then these same fishermen complain about there not being enough fish to catch, it's all so very sad to see and hear. Unfortunately they appear to be in denial as to what's happening day after day, most seem incapable of looking into the future and acting as farmers rather than destroyers.

I guess that for many their train of thought is that if they don't catch what they can while they can, someone else certainly will, and that's exactly what happens. The small boats of the inshore fishing fleet that only fish locally have effectively been pushed out by the huge trawlers from Brixham, Plymouth, Newlyn etc etc. Trawling/dredging needed some sort of restriction, but for most places that is all now too late, the damage has been done and is irreversible.

Yes, it gets my blood pressure up too, has been a hobby horse of mine for years, it's all so frustrating. And all this fuss about eelgrass, it's only because it's visible with dubious evidence concluding that anchoring is harming it, whilst the real problem 100,000 times worse continues unabated, hour after hour, day after day by hundreds and hundreds of large commercial trawlers. Self regulation will never work, but then neither will other forms of regulation that is impossible to enforce. It's a real conundrum with no obvious answer, education maybe?
 
With RYA support (and funding) Borg set up a protocol for anchoring in Studland, which lead to the RYA Anchoring leaflet. MMO, Natural England, Studland residents and The Dorset and Hants Wildlife trusts all agreed on an interim protocol for boats using Studland. I personally chaired the project.

Guess who was invited, but refused to have anything to do with it?

Guess who is saying that Borg opposes it and will not cooperate with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top