Studland bay preservation association

Status
Not open for further replies.
webcraft said:
.
Well, I may have a reputation on here as a bit of a pinko treehugger with certain environmental obsessions, but 'conservationists' like ST44 make my blood boil. Utterly unwilling to examine any evidence that doesn't correspond with his point of view, he is prepared to inconvenience any number of people to push his insignificant single-issue views forward. He strikes me as the sort of unstable animal rights nutter who would happily sink your yacht to save a single seahorse.

It's not my fight because I don't use Studland, live hundreds of miles away and have only ever wandered vicariously along the nudist beach there once, but it is a lovely place. Good luck in the fight to keep it lovely and free for all to enjoy. Just remember that seahorses are cuddly and the public are easily fooled when cuddly creatures are involved.

My suggestion would be for as many of you as possible to go and make your own videos for presentation at any enquiry - and on youtube of course. get videos of boats actually anchoring and retrieving their anchors, draw up your own diagrams of where the eelgrass is versus moorings and anchoring areas, create your own powerpoint presentations and get some credible non-sailing locals on your side. The video of eelgrass growing all around the fixed mooring looked fairly convincing to me, but get more like that and add commentary - that is not so difficult surely.

Good luck in the fight against the seahorse-huggers :)

- W
Click to expand...

I think there might be a problem with that strategy as much as it appeals to me. The Seahorses are protected and interfering with them without a license such as Steve possesses could make you liable to prosecution. I suspect merely filming the eelgrass would be interpreted as interference by the likes of the Seahorse Trust.

This is the nub of why this all irritates me so much, Steve and others produce bits of evidence and hint at having a lot more, but despite many requests very little hard evidence is produced. In the meantime they get as much publicity for their campaign to ban anchoring, relying on the "cuddly" aspect of the seahorse to carry the argument, despite the lack of evidence of the seahorses being under threat. When we say lets wait for the survey commissioned by the Crown Estates they retort, there is no need it is all obvious and beyond doubt.

It is hard to counter the bits of evidence they produce since we cannot legally produce our own, they won't wait for the independent survey commissioned by the Crown estates and they don't believe the mass of anecdotal evidence that seahorses have always thrived in Studland.
 
Last edited:
ST44 said:
I think he is part of a very small group of locals who are fighting any conservation measures at Studland, for thier own selfish reasons.
Steve.
Click to expand...

The selfishness here seems to becoming entirely from you......all you want to do is manage your own little private zoo.Isolate it from all the surrounding ecology & keep it in aspic.
Sea horses are not unique to Studland Bay.They have been reported all along the coast.The other day they were reported by the BBC South Today team near that fancy surf reef thing they have installed off Bournemouth.Did you complain about that?No public opinion would pretty soon turn against you.
If you want to keep pets I suggest you buy a poodle.Many 'yachtsmen' are far more interested in real ecology than you.
 
Studland Bay

Yes ,some interesting statements coming out from the Conservation camp ...especially about my financial interests in keeping the bay as it is ...mmm .
I will gain nothing from this , I do not own or work in a business connected with Studland I just enjoy the beauty and freedom of the bay..but will gain a great deal of satisfaction in preventing certain individuals from spoiling this.
I will however be interested to learn what the Conservation camp have got to gain from a Studland Bay Conservation Zone..perhaps ... full time warden jobs ,control of the bay, lottery grants, Government agency funding, enhanced public profiles ,feel accommodation ..shop ,exhibition etc
Anyway,I have seen the two pictures of faeces alleged to have been taken on the sea bed at Studland ... luckily they bits of sea grass stalk by them so I can assure you they are no bigger than 3 inches long and look like bits of clay from the area of clay cliff at the south of the South beach .The alleged piece of toilet paper in the third photo is a treble layer of square paper which is obviously a knapkin ..looks like somone has had some spag bol and wiped there chops with it ! It could have blown off the boat in a swift breeze by accident and not chucked over .. which lets face it anyone would screw up into a ball and throw... not that I do that !
I suggest we all just keep enjoying the bay and wait for the results of the official data to come out of the Crown Estate Survey.
 
I would have thought that anyone championing a cause would come up with every shred of independent evidence they can lay their hands on. ST44 claims to be an underwater photographer - so where are his pictures backing what he says? I have looked through his websites and there is nothing there except pictures which show clear evidence that frogmen and photographers are themselves intruding on and distrubing the habitat!

Other interested and apparently knowledgeable parties are now coming up with a load of evidence backed by photos and apparently reasonmable research which entirely contradicts the invective we are subjected to by this guy.

When WILL he stop abusing us and produce ANY evidence to back his claims.

And saying the seabed is littered with human faeces: That is a load of - er, faeces in itself! Any boatowner knows that most modern boats have holding tanks so that sewage is not discharged OB, and old style Marine Toilets are designed to thoroughly break up any solids before discharge. If there is human waste present then it did not come showering down from the boats!

In any case Studland has its water quality regularly monitored. The Marine Conservation Society rates Studland water quality as safe. The Environment Agency, who check regularly, rate Studland bay water as an unqualified 'Excellent'. The claim that human faeces are present in quantity can therefore only be 'facetious'! :)


Wake up ST44 - making claims that can be so immediately disproved just makes you the fool.
 
As a person who has no interest in conservation or GW ( since I learned that most facts quoted by both sides were all based on supposition or misinterpretation of very few real facts)
I think st44 has shot himself in the foot as Toady and Glashen pointed out
Quote:
Originally Posted by ST44 View Post
What do people really think a large mooring chain does to eelgrass ?

From the fact that the eelgrass is thriving we can deduce that at worst it does nothing, at best it helps it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ST44 View Post
We have proof that seahorses are breeding on site.

Best not to change anything then.

Also how do these so called experts get to these sites to do their "deeds" ??
I suspect boats with anchors are used so it would appear from an outsiders point of view that they just want their playground all to themselves !!!:rolleyes:
 
Studland Bay

Well all this effort they are putting into their campaign would be better used on stopping the Japs hunting Dolphins and Whales... I think all on here are against that...
As for these photos of alleged faeces on the sea bed at Studland Bay ... you might find them published in a new Sunday tabloid... POOs OF THE WORLD .
I must say the lighting in these photos is very good ... must have been in very shallow water .
 
same old stuff

Same old comments from the same old people.
The excrement was real, we have other photo's and we will be asking for water tests this year, south beach is not tested at the moment.
I have posted many photo's of seabed damage on these threads over the last year, and yes the data will be avalible for all to see this summer.
I don't want to keep going over the same ground over and over again.
If you can all prove that your not doing any harm down there , then you have nothing to worry about.
I don't care what you think or say about me, it really is water off a ducks back.
I won't post any more comments , there really is no point talking to you.

If we are telling lies , the site will not become a marine reserve , what are you worried about ?
Only the data and science will help Studland gain this protection, we can't make it up as we go along, it will all be checked.
I'm glad mad frankie thinks raw sewage in the sea is so funny, I'm sure the public will also laugh when they see it, just before they cancel thier holiday in Dorset.
 
ST44 said:
Same old comments from the same old people.
The excrement was real, we have other photo's and we will be asking for water tests this year, south beach is not tested at the moment.
I have posted many photo's of seabed damage on these threads over the last year, and yes the data will be avalible for all to see this summer.
I don't want to keep going over the same ground over and over again.
If you can all prove that your not doing any harm down there , then you have nothing to worry about.
I don't care what you think or say about me, it really is water off a ducks back.
I won't post any more comments , there really is no point talking to you.

If we are telling lies , the site will not become a marine reserve , what are you worried about ?
Only the data and science will help Studland gain this protection, we can't make it up as we go along, it will all be checked.
I'm glad mad frankie thinks raw sewage in the sea is so funny, I'm sure the public will also laugh when they see it, just before they cancel thier holiday in Dorset.
Click to expand...

ST I am not one of the usual suspects or any other but many arguments and laws have been won through dodgy information/data/and lies so why do you think this will be any different ! It is a matter of who presents their case the best :- the fanatics who put it together well or the general public who just sound off but do not organize themselves to put a credible case together all be it the right one .
Basically all users have the right to use all of natures facilities including boaters and seahorses nature has the final decision come what may, this is how it has been decided for millions of years so who the hell do these small insignificant groups think they are dictating to others what should or should not take place, leave nature to it .
 
Credibility

ST44 said:
Please feel free to watch the you tube video, it looks like someone has tied a camera to a dog , and then thrown a stick into the sea, it proves nothing.
We have worked on many times with the BBC natural history unit at Studland , we also have footage of huge amounts of damage under the moorings.
What do people really think a large mooring chain does to eelgrass ?
Do they really think it is robust enough to have a heavy chain dragging across it every day ?
As for us being a handfull of frogmen ?
Our group is made up of some of the UK's leading experts on seahorses and eelgrass, data and scientific reports will be published soon to prove what we are saying.
This will be given to finding santuary , and used in the process of trying to make Studland an M.P.A. (marine protected area )
Eelgrass with breeding seahorses is a priority habitat under the new marine act, Studland will be hard to ignore.
We have a wave of public support over this site, they are also stakeholders and user's of Studland bay.
Its a shame mad frankie has to stay anonymous, although I now have a pretty good idea of who he may be, judging by some of the village gossip and nonsense being thrown around online.
At least you all know who I am.
As for the sewage photo's, I am happy to email them to mad frankie, I think he is part of a very small group of locals who are fighting any conservation measures at Studland, for thier own selfish reasons.
The same people who have put moorings in the bay without consent or planning permision from Crown or the M.F.A.
This is a problem that we hope is being delt with as we speak.
In december Crown and Natural england had a meeting to discuss the moorings at Studland.
Crown stated that no permision had ever been given to install moorings , and they had no plans to consent any new ones , I would be happy to email mad frankie the minutes that show that statement in black and white.
This explains why they want this problem to go away, it must be nice to have a free mooring at Studland .
I would love to see mad frankies proof that will back these statement up.
We have photographic and video evidence of sewage and large amounts of litter on the seabed.
We have proof that seahorses are breeding on site.
We have proof that anchors and mooring chains are damaging the habitat.
What do you have Frankie ?...at best you have ' a bloke in the pub told me ' who has lived in Studland for years..so it must be true ?
Its easy to say boats have been using the bay for hundreds of years , whats the problem .
I can't imagine the bay had 300 boats anchored in it 100 years ago , its a stupid thing to say.
There is no comparison.
By the way , I have been called much worse things than a frogman, it dosn't get up my nose.
Although ignorence does.
Steve.
Click to expand...

Very authoritative piece...
Unfortunately, stupid spelling and grammar mistakes just seem to undermine your credibility. Just so you know for the future:

1. 'Handfull' should be 'Handful'. It only has one 'L'.
2. 'Santuary' needs a 'c' in it or it doesn't mean anything. Should be 'Sanctuary'.
3. 'user's' and 'photo's' do not need an apostraphe, as they are just plural nouns. On the other hand, 'mad frankies proof' and 'whats' do need an apostraphe as they are not plurals.
4. 'frankie', 'december' and 'england ' should have capital letters.
5. 'thier' should be 'their'.
6. 'permision' has two 's' and should be 'permission'.
7. 'from Crown' should be 'from the Crown'.
8. 'back these statement up' should be 'back these statements up' as 'these' indicates a plural.
9. dosn't should be 'doesn't'.
10. And finally, 'ignorence' should be 'ignorance '.

Shame about the mistakes. It makes it very difficult to take people seriously.
 
More invective, and not a shred evidence from our good friend ST44 except he thinks he has seen something.

How does he expect us to take him seriously when he just raves on - and on and on, without even beginning to give us any quantifiable evidence. Then when he is challenged just running away -" I don't care what you think or say about me,... I won't post any more comments , there really is no point talking to you."

What sort of reasoned argument is that!

Doesnt he realise he is totally destroying both his credibility and his cause by behaving like this, putting everyones back up?

Oh and BTW, 1: according to the DoE website they do check water quality in the bay. and 2: Serious marine pollution researchers agree that identifying the original source of pollution in any form is at best difficult, and usually nearly impossible. If there really is poo down there, what evidence is there it came from boats , and hasnt been carried in from an outfall further up the coast, or carried in from the shipping lanes offshore? Easy and much better to blame us nasty yotties, even though most of us have holding tanks and take it home with us .
 
Sorry !

Having just gone through my posts I can see there are a few spelling mistakes and missed key strikes ...very sorry about this .. I did get GSE English so I must try harder.
Anyone know anything about salt water aquariums ? I always fancied one ,they're quite useful to have.
 
Fair Cop

Twister_Ken said:
"3. 'user's' and 'photo's' do not need an apostraphe,"

What's an apostraphe?

8. 'back these statement up' should be 'back these statements up' as 'these' indicates a plural.

I'd prefer 'back up these statements'.

So, 8 out of 10, then
Click to expand...

(3) Careless and a fair cop. But (8) I think it would be best to get the basics right before going on to more advanced techniques...
 
oldharry said:
More invective, and not a shred evidence from our good friend ST44 except he thinks he has seen something.

How does he expect us to take him seriously when he just raves on - and on and on, without even beginning to give us any quantifiable evidence. Then when he is challenged just running away -" I don't care what you think or say about me,... I won't post any more comments , there really is no point talking to you."

What sort of reasoned argument is that!

Doesnt he realise he is totally destroying both his credibility and his cause by behaving like this, putting everyones back up?

Oh and BTW, 1: according to the DoE website they do check water quality in the bay. and 2: Serious marine pollution researchers agree that identifying the original source of pollution in any form is at best difficult, and usually nearly impossible. If there really is poo down there, what evidence is there it came from boats , and hasnt been carried in from an outfall further up the coast, or carried in from the shipping lanes offshore? Easy and much better to blame us nasty yotties, even though most of us have holding tanks and take it home with us .
Click to expand...

Unfortunately we know from ST44's postings on here before (and a search through his posts is educational) that he has no interest in any reasonable rational discussion and his views are firmly fixed regardless of any scientific surveys, commonsense or plain logic. He has previously stated very clearly when put under any pressure to back up his claims that he wants boats banned from Studland and blames everything on rich boat owners and locals with vested interests like hoteliers, pub landlords and fishermen and so on.

The problem from our point of view is that the guy has got the cuddly seahorse image over to the BBC and local media and to be fair that is part of his actual job specification to do. We on the other hand are not so organised and (probably mistakenly) think that commonsense and logic will prevail. The Seahorse Trust are using the Marine Conservation Zones legislation as one of their prime weapons and I rather suspect they might succeed simply because there will only be their point of view put forward and it will go through unchallenged.

My own circumstances with an impending move to the USA, currently boatless and unlikely ever to anchor in Studland again after 40 years of doing so mean that I can only put my views forward and hope others will take up the fight for reason.
 
Robin said:
The problem from our point of view is that the guy has got the cuddly seahorse image over to the BBC and local media and to be fair that is part of his actual job specification to do. We on the other hand are not so organised and (probably mistakenly) think that commonsense and logic will prevail. The Seahorse Trust are using the Marine Conservation Zones legislation as one of their prime weapons and I rather suspect they might succeed simply because there will only be their point of view put forward and it will go through unchallenged.
Click to expand...

Precisely. It is very important that people who are going to be affected by this or who care strongly about it mobilise. Make your own films. organise polls, set up a website, create powerpoint presentations, speak to the media, write to your MP and to the RYA and go to meetings.

Whinging on here may be good for the soul but it is unlikely to achieve anything concrete unless it is translated into action in the real world.

- W
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that the Seahorse Trust / Steve Trewhella are looking at one potential environmental influence in isolation. That is anchoring, and how it affects seahorse habitat.

There may be other consequences of leisure boating in Studland that also influence seahorse numbers. If, as ST says, leisure boating results in fecal matter in the bay, is it not possible that such matter either encourages eel grass growth, or is a food source for the crustaceans that the seahorses feed on?

The "law of unintended consequences" might kick in. The greatest irony would be if ST managed to get the marine conservation zone it / he wants, and if seahorse numbers declined as a result.

The most sensible thing to do - as a first step - would be to survey the population over several (many) seasons. If it is stable, then nothing needs to be done. If it is not, the underlying reasons should be investigated.

But to come at it as ST does, with a preconceived notion of what is happening and then looking for "scientific" data to back it up will tarnish the results. It is one thing to have a theory and research to see if the theory is correct or not. It is something else to take a position and look for data to support it.
 
bbg said:
The "law of unintended consequences" might kick in. The greatest irony would be if ST managed to get the marine conservation zone it / he wants, and if seahorse numbers declined as a result.
Click to expand...

This is what has happened in Scotland when the RSPB have taken over tracts of land to 'encourage' corncrakes. The corncrake population on these reserves has declined.

- W
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top