Studland bay preservation association

[jac]

Emsworthy I like your sense of humour good to see.

Ubergeeken we have tried and many of our colleagues have tried to bring the yachting groups in on this and we have had some success, maybe you should join the SSSSG and help to sort out this situation, the link below is for DWT but it explains about the SSSG

http://www.dorsetwildlifetrust.org.uk/ssssg.html

What is certain is that due to the amount of media coverage generated by all parties including the anti brigade and the amazig public support from all over the country Studland bay will ultimately be protected by law by sheer weight of numbers and scientific evidence which is being processed and peer reviewed as we speak, this is a given. So surely it would be better to work together to make sure all parties are catered for and a workable solution is worked out by all before this happens??


Many thanks
Neil

Neil

I have to say that I was all for eliminating all seahorses in the UK following Steves rabid outbursts - anything to make him go away.

You seem to be a voice of sanity and reason. It is about the first time that anyone from the conservation side hasn't immediately juimped to the ban all boats position that Steve has been advocating and that has put everyones backs up.

Most boats would prefer to avoid the grass - the holding is shocking - boats wants clear mud / sand to anchor in so no conflict there.

Most sailors want to swim in clear water - so will use holding tanks - no conflict there.

Most sailors would probably enjoy the wildlife - no conflict there.

Most sailors will want to be able to anchor where it is safe ( i.e. sheltered from prevailing winds) but deep enough to stay afloat at low water. That means minimum of say 6 feet minimum at low water. Can see some conflict here but there is surely no need to ban boats from the entire bay for that!

 

[Rigger Mortice]

when somebody puts in false information with the intention of defaming one of my trustees THATS when I draw a line. I have been in discussions with my solicitor over the above quote and action is to be taken. .

Grow up man.

Any fool, following that link, will see that the "outrage" has been perpetrated by the Council. The woman has clearly done nothing wrong.

...and now you are saying that somebody is defaming your people by hinting that they have done nothing wrong!!!

Waste your money on solicitors if you want.

 

[sarabande]

while you are here , Neil, your post-nomial qualifications of Fellow of the British Naturalists Association. You won't mind sharing what you did in order gain the right to wear the rather fetching gown, will you ?

Is it the honoris causa one, or the one you just have to lead at least 10 field walks for BNA or field clubs, and pay £50 or so for ?

Very pretty gown. Have you got one ?

"Fellows may use the title Fellow of The
British Naturalists’ Association and are
entitled to use the post nominative letters
FBNA and to wear the Fellowship robes of
a master’s black gown, and a simple hood
in the colours of the Fellowship (Honoris
Causa) of darker green with paler green
lining (excepting that there shall be no gold
edging, but a silver edging to the hood).
The headwear shall be a black cloth
bonnet. These entitlements are retained for
as long as their name remains on the
Register"

At least you have David Bellamy and Attenborough as professional colleagues. I am much re-assured.


Oh, yes, just a little passing thought.

Studland appears to be, according to your esteemed colleague "Seahorse Steve", the densest populated seahorse colony in the world. My, my, and I thought they were just a tropical phenomenon, but then 40 in one patch could be very dense if they just stayed there while being bombarded with turds and anchors, and having sweet little numbers put round their necks, thus negating the purpose of their wonderful camouflage system. Very dense.

 

[Seven Spades]

Hi Again ,
I have also been forwarded some of the "flack" coming back from the CONSERVATION side ... from the four skin divers...and they are now stating that there is a lot of rubbish created in the summer by the boats in the bay and some extra ordinary large human faeces on the sea bed ...and even a frying pan .
So bearing this in mind I think we all ought to eat a high fibre diet so we produce Floaters instead of Sinkers ...lol

Well heck what do you think is causing all that sea grass to grow, could it be the manure?

 

[DogWatch]

I have been dragged back into this discussion as I have been alerted to something one of your members have said and I quote:-

A Jenny Paton of Poole - I have no idea if this is the same person - is the woman against whom the local council carried out a notorious surveillance operation to determine if she had lied about her place of residence on a school place application. Full outrage at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...laces-cheat-takes-snooping-council-court.html

Now I dont mind personally being had a go at, that is the nature of my business, it is taken many of you will not agree with my views, that is the beauty of a democracy BUT when somebody puts in false information with the intention of defaming one of my trustees THATS when I draw a line. I have been in discussions with my solicitor over the above quote and action is to be taken. I dont know who the Jenny Paton is that this person is referring to and I certainly dont know what she has done but I can catergorically assure you it is not our Jenny Paton. The degree of action we take depends on the persons reaction in the form of an appology. The intention of the posting was to defame my trustees and this not acceptable.
I await your appology.

That is the third time The Seahorse Trust have threatened us with legal action in this thread, are we seeing their strategy falling apart here?

Should we correct the Trust's spelling mistakes in the quotes to stop them looking more stupid than they are?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

You still here, Dogwatch?

I thought that they had reported you to the police. Or are you posting from the confines of a cell?

 

[Seven Spades]

Thank you for your detailed posting. However, if seahorses are breeding successfully, and, it seems, with increasing numbers, what's the problem?

The truth is that there isn't a problem and they know it. If there was a problem numbers would be in decline.

What ST44 and The Seahorse Trust won't admit is that they know that there isn't a problem; but I they believe that they think that without the presence of yachts number would increase. I also suspect that they are just want to have vista of the bay sans boats.

THE MCS wants to ban anchoring in three bays:-

Alum, Studland and Worbarrow, it then proceeds to show photos of creatures living in those areas. Well there are going to be creatures all along the coastline and they could have out forward protection in say Durlston or Kimmerage areas not used by yachtsmen. Have the collected data from those areas to see if they are worth protecting? The idea of the MCB was to establish protection areas, the intent was not an enabling bill to ban recreation. Has The Seahorse Trust conducted a study all along the south coast to investigate the presence of seahorses anywhere else?

There is clearly an agenda to have a go at yachtsmen, I am sure that these people are seeking some kind os Socialist Utopia. They are against any thing and anyone who has money, power or position. We have already read ST44's thoughts about local businessmen; local yachtsmen and anyone local that does not roll over and accept his views.

 

[DogWatch]

I'm getting bored of this

blah blah sue you blah blah lawyers blah blah legal action blah blah

"we have the evidence that this habitat is being damaged."

show us this evidence!

 

[snowleopard]

... somebody puts in false information with the intention of defaming one of my trustees ...

Well how misinformed can you get? You can make all the legal threats you like but any lawyer will tell you that for a libel action to succeed the plaintiff needs to show that the statements in question had a damaging effect on them. To say she has the same name as someone who was subject to surveillance but shown not to have committed an offence would fall short of that criterion by a country mile.

Furthermore you should also realise that courts take a dim view of dodging questions and presenting flimsy and uncorroborated evidence. You may get away with it in your propaganda but not in a court of law.

 

[MAD FRANKIE]

Seahorse Supper

Not much research went into those white Seahorse Tags did they ?...I mean "Baz the Bass" swims round into Studland Bay one night feeling a bit peckish ...see's something moving in the depths of the Seagrass ... white and shiny in the moonlight ...poww...one pregnant male seahorse supper.." Very tasty thinks Baz I'll keep a lookout for another "
Why couldn't the tags have been a khaki green to give the Seahorses a chance to keep hiden ...after all they're not built for speed are they ?
I think its cruel and very unsporting ...change the colour please asap .

 

[strakeryrius]

Here's a shot of Studland on a "busy" day in the off season - a lot of boaters causing damage and chucking rubbish around on that day - NOT!

Its not just sailors who wouldn't dream of throwing rubbish overboard, neither would any self-respecting Moboer either. I've had to fish something nasty out of my raw water intakes too many times to even dream of putting more cr4p into the water!

 

[Major Catastrophe]

I have been dragged back into this discussion as I have been alerted to something one of your members have said and I quote:-

A Jenny Paton of Poole - I have no idea if this is the same person - is the woman against whom the local council carried out a notorious surveillance operation to determine if she had lied about her place of residence on a school place application. Full outrage at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...laces-cheat-takes-snooping-council-court.html

Now I dont mind personally being had a go at, that is the nature of my business, it is taken many of you will not agree with my views, that is the beauty of a democracy BUT when somebody puts in false information with the intention of defaming one of my trustees THATS when I draw a line. I have been in discussions with my solicitor over the above quote and action is to be taken. I dont know who the Jenny Paton is that this person is referring to and I certainly dont know what she has done but I can catergorically assure you it is not our Jenny Paton. The degree of action we take depends on the persons reaction in the form of an appology. The intention of the posting was to defame my trustees and this not acceptable.
I await your appology.

I don't think it is against the law to wonder if someone is the same person as someone mentioned in the press.

Maybe I should consult a solicitor about your assertion that my avatar is sexist, which means you think I am sexist. Yes, it is stupid isn't it?

But at least yours and Steve's writings here are beginning to make people ask the Heritage Lottery and the Charity Commissioners about your organisation. Your apparent dismissal of eyewitness, vintage newspaper reports and local anecdotal evidence appears arrogant to me.

 

[webcraft]

.
Quite a job the Seahorse Trust has done here - I have never seen so many forumites so solidly united against another poster before. Now we have delivered our verdict, what is the sentence?

I think they should be given community service with Sea Shepherd in Antarctica.

- W

 

[Madhatter]

Just figured it out

They don't want anchoring because they are frightened of getting hit on the head by a big CQR while they are down there "interfering" with the poor unsuspecting seahorses !!!
ALSO
have any of you tried making love while a crowd of people are looking on (with the exception of Lakesailor who does it all the time ) then putting big colored labels on you ----- put you off for life .
SO I think divers with an unnatural interest in the sexual habits of all thing marine could cause the decline of seahorses world wide , I think all studies of marine life should be banned in the interest of conservation,
Anybody want to join a group banning all studies ???

 

[Robin]

Here's a shot of Studland on a "busy" day in the off season - a lot of boaters causing damage and chucking rubbish around on that day - NOT!

Its not just sailors who wouldn't dream of throwing rubbish overboard, neither would any self-respecting Moboer either. I've had to fish something nasty out of my raw water intakes too many times to even dream of putting more cr4p into the water!

For those who might think all those buoys seen here are the ones they say belong to locals, most of the ones in that picture are the ones marking the 5mph zone off the beach. So IF there is damage being done that day it is by those 'official' markers not by anchored boats.

Not that facts should be allowed to cloud the issue of course.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

For those who might think all those buoys seen here are the ones they say belong to locals, most of the ones in that picture are the ones marking the 5mph zone off the beach. So IF there is damage being done that day it is by those 'official' markers not by anchored boats. Not that facts should be allowed to cloud the issue of course.

True, but lets not just keep telling each other that, the people who need to be told this are AFAICT here:

Finding Sanctuary:
http://www.finding-sanctuary.org/page/contact-us.html

Studland Bay:
http://www.yourseasyourvoice.com/mpa/?region=3&site=14

Worbarrow Bay:
http://www.yourseasyourvoice.com/mpa/?region=3&site=15

 

[Allan]

From an aged hippy.

When I first started reading about the Seahorses in Studland, I thought it was a typical fight between the arrogant boaters and and some well meaning ecologist. I did think that maybe the ecologist were slightly over reacting but my natural instinct was to come down on their side. After reading the many treads on here, the Seahorse trust website, ST44's facebook page and a few other things on the internet, I am now completely anti the Seahorse trust ect. I have already been in contact with Bournemouth echo and will soon contact the Charity commission, Prince Charles and anyone else that channels funds to these, at best, misguided people.
If anyone wishes to look back at my posts on this subject they will see I have, in my opinion, been the voice of compromise, no longer, I am now with the boaters, arrogant or otherwise.
I would now like to urge all those on here who see reason not to waste time arguing with these idiots but use their efforts to stop their funding, it could be spent in much better ways to protect our fragile coast.
If anyone would like my personal details to sue me, discuss the matter or find REAL ways to help save our coasts, please feel free to PM me. The only reason I don't put my details on here is to avoid spam etc.
Allan
PS Please don't critisis my spelling and grammer, I'm not good at this.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

After reading the many treads on here, the Seahorse trust website, ST44's facebook page and a few other things on the internet, I am now completely anti the Seahorse trust ect.

Agree. I think most (all?) sailors would support any group wishing to preserve the marine habitat. The fact these guys can't get us on side shows how useless they are.

Can you imagine the response if they'd started on these forums with a friendly presentation of compelling evidence that the Eelgrass and Sea Horse Population in Studland were a) unique and b) were being harmed by anchoring boats? The sympathy to the cause would have been overwhelming. Instead they've put a load of people's backs up and failed to produce any evidence.

After all this time and money either they don't have any evidence, or they have it but haven't the wit to use it. Either way they are p155-poor advocates for Sea Horses and shouldn't be doing the job.

As for the tagging process, it looks unspeakably cruel to me. Having said that I know nothing about this - maybe it does no harm at all. Anyone able to say if it's worth bringing to the attention of the RSPCA?

 

[Geoffs]

For those who might think all those buoys seen here are the ones they say belong to locals, most of the ones in that picture are the ones marking the 5mph zone off the beach. So IF there is damage being done that day it is by those 'official' markers not by anchored boats.

Not that facts should be allowed to cloud the issue of course.

Actually, I think those yellow buoys are the markers for the VNAZ. I think the speed limit markers are removed during the winter months. As a matter of interest I wonder what peoples attitude towards the VNAZ is?

1) I will respect the VNAZ and not anchor in the area.
2) I will anchor in the VNAZ to show my contempt towards those imposing it.
3) I will anchor in the VNAZ to try and distort the 'Scientific' data.


I will tend towards 1), if only because I look for weed free sand, as, like most, I know holding is better. This usually means keeping as close to beach as, draught, tide and swimmers will permit.

 

[Robin]

I wouldn't anchor in the VNAZ for the same reasons as you but we are now boatless until we buy our new one in the USA, well outside of it!

The VNAZ is no problem to avoid but the proposed limits shown in the other plans effectively rule Studland out as any kind of safe overnight anchorage.

However the boat we have just sold had a draft of almost 7ft so 'near the beach' was never really an option. Our preferred spot was usually off Redend Rocks nearer the cafe as the SW corner had shallowed markedly in recent years.