Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Good luck with that. Do let us know the crime number they give you.
Studland bay preservation association
- Thread starter MAD FRANKIE
- Start date
- Status
Good luck with that. Do let us know the crime number they give you.
Squeaky
Well-Known Member
Good morning:
It seems that what we are seeing here is the result of Mrs Thatchers
program of "care in the community".
Years ago this man would be a guest in a closed hospital without
contact with the outside world.
There are just too many people around with self serving
agendas who use modern means of communication to whip
up interest in their pet project.
I'll bet that his sense of persecution really goes into overdrive
when he reads some of the comments on this forum. Keep up
the good work, guys.
Cheers
Squeaky
It seems that what we are seeing here is the result of Mrs Thatchers
program of "care in the community".
Years ago this man would be a guest in a closed hospital without
contact with the outside world.
There are just too many people around with self serving
agendas who use modern means of communication to whip
up interest in their pet project.
I'll bet that his sense of persecution really goes into overdrive
when he reads some of the comments on this forum. Keep up
the good work, guys.
Cheers
Squeaky
sighmoon
Well-Known Member
This has become a personal scuffle, which helps nobody's cause.
Other than some of the personalities involved, I don't see why this has to be so contentious. There are other no-anchor zones around the coast to preserve sea life, and nobody complains. In fact, the sea life is often the reason people make the trip in the first place.
In the end, if anything changes at all, both parties will have to accept a compromise.
If people can't anchor there, there need to be moorings provided and maintained, and despite a few zealots on here claiming otherwise, people won't mind using them.
Steve claims (reasonably) that the chains from the moorings may damage the seagrass, but the area of damage on the video looked to be about a meter squared, so providing moorings for a hundred boats would only affect about 0.003% of the area of Studland Bay.
A cynic (of which there are plenty hereabouts) may suppose that ST44's agenda is getting all boats removed from the bay, to make his diving hobby safer and more enjoyable. I can sympathise, but maybe a buoyed diving zone could be a more realistic solution.
The compromise is about getting Steve what he wants and the boaters what they want. As others have said, what the seahorses want might be something entirely different (regular ploughing of the sea bed perhaps), but the Seahorse Trust does not seem keen to find out what they want.
I think though, folk should go easy on Steve as he's clearly getting upset. So what if he can't see how the turd couldn't have come from a boat toilet? So long as the eventual decision makers are open to reason, there is no harm in him believing whatever he wants.
Other than some of the personalities involved, I don't see why this has to be so contentious. There are other no-anchor zones around the coast to preserve sea life, and nobody complains. In fact, the sea life is often the reason people make the trip in the first place.
In the end, if anything changes at all, both parties will have to accept a compromise.
If people can't anchor there, there need to be moorings provided and maintained, and despite a few zealots on here claiming otherwise, people won't mind using them.
Steve claims (reasonably) that the chains from the moorings may damage the seagrass, but the area of damage on the video looked to be about a meter squared, so providing moorings for a hundred boats would only affect about 0.003% of the area of Studland Bay.
A cynic (of which there are plenty hereabouts) may suppose that ST44's agenda is getting all boats removed from the bay, to make his diving hobby safer and more enjoyable. I can sympathise, but maybe a buoyed diving zone could be a more realistic solution.
The compromise is about getting Steve what he wants and the boaters what they want. As others have said, what the seahorses want might be something entirely different (regular ploughing of the sea bed perhaps), but the Seahorse Trust does not seem keen to find out what they want.
I think though, folk should go easy on Steve as he's clearly getting upset. So what if he can't see how the turd couldn't have come from a boat toilet? So long as the eventual decision makers are open to reason, there is no harm in him believing whatever he wants.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
.
If Steve doesn't want to get upset then staying off this forum would help him a lot.
He's done a good job in alerting those who haven't come across a mad single issue environmental crusader before to the dangers. However, we have now also alerted him to the fact that modern networking technologies are a two-edged sword. Unfortunately over the last few posts some people seem determined to give him ammunition in his fight against the evil yachties. That is a shame; I would say that overall it is now a draw at best.
Best let it drop, there is nothing more to be said. Mad Frankie and those on the ground will be conducting their campaign in the media spotlight, and I am not sure that this thread is helping. Whimsical references to bandy nets, visits etc are likely to be used either formally or informally in Steve's media campaign at the earliest opportunity, and there is an audience out there that doesn't share our sense of humour that will lap them up.
- W
If Steve doesn't want to get upset then staying off this forum would help him a lot.
He's done a good job in alerting those who haven't come across a mad single issue environmental crusader before to the dangers. However, we have now also alerted him to the fact that modern networking technologies are a two-edged sword. Unfortunately over the last few posts some people seem determined to give him ammunition in his fight against the evil yachties. That is a shame; I would say that overall it is now a draw at best.
Best let it drop, there is nothing more to be said. Mad Frankie and those on the ground will be conducting their campaign in the media spotlight, and I am not sure that this thread is helping. Whimsical references to bandy nets, visits etc are likely to be used either formally or informally in Steve's media campaign at the earliest opportunity, and there is an audience out there that doesn't share our sense of humour that will lap them up.
- W
Last edited:
jhr
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid I am even more cynical than that. Amongst his other business interests, Steve owns a photography business, making money from selling pictures of - you guessed it - seahorses. Now why would he want to exclude people from entering the area where he takes all his pix?
MAD FRANKIE
N/A
Finding sanctuary
Oh Dear ,
Well if you really care about keeping Studland as it is now for all to enjoy, get off this Forum and get onto the Finding Sanctuary site and register your interest and use of the area . You can also comment on the blog of the Studland Bay Preservation Association details of which are at the start of this thread. They need all the positive comments they can get and registered followers as well . There are only three so far and please don't get too personal just keep to the subject.
Oh Dear ,
Well if you really care about keeping Studland as it is now for all to enjoy, get off this Forum and get onto the Finding Sanctuary site and register your interest and use of the area . You can also comment on the blog of the Studland Bay Preservation Association details of which are at the start of this thread. They need all the positive comments they can get and registered followers as well . There are only three so far and please don't get too personal just keep to the subject.
TheSeahorseTrust
Member
Seahorse species
At least if you show the species get it right and get the size right. We are dealing with two species Hippocampus guttulatus (the Spiny Seahorse) and Hippocampus hippocampus (The Short Snouted Seahorses both of reach up to 7 to 8 inches from the top of the coronet down the end of the tail which the maximum size recorded of a H.guttulatus which was found in Poole Harbour 3 years agao which meausred 11 inches form the top of the coronet to the end of the tail; I know this as I measured it. They are both visually different form the continental species and through recent DNA by one of my colleagues they also vary DNA wise!
As for knowledge on counting species you should know better than others that there are ways of identifying indivdual animals, in this case we used the unique profile of the spines to show differing animals, we also know form our research work that seahorses hold small territories in breeding seasons (same as some species of bird) and they do not share these territories with any others apart from their partners.
So if you gogint o start quoting information please at least get your facts right !!
Neil Garrick-Maidment
Director
The Seahorse Trust.
At least if you show the species get it right and get the size right. We are dealing with two species Hippocampus guttulatus (the Spiny Seahorse) and Hippocampus hippocampus (The Short Snouted Seahorses both of reach up to 7 to 8 inches from the top of the coronet down the end of the tail which the maximum size recorded of a H.guttulatus which was found in Poole Harbour 3 years agao which meausred 11 inches form the top of the coronet to the end of the tail; I know this as I measured it. They are both visually different form the continental species and through recent DNA by one of my colleagues they also vary DNA wise!
As for knowledge on counting species you should know better than others that there are ways of identifying indivdual animals, in this case we used the unique profile of the spines to show differing animals, we also know form our research work that seahorses hold small territories in breeding seasons (same as some species of bird) and they do not share these territories with any others apart from their partners.
So if you gogint o start quoting information please at least get your facts right !!
Neil Garrick-Maidment
Director
The Seahorse Trust.
Just to add to the confusion, this is the little rascal:
It is smaller than my index finger. I saw one recently in France. Personally, I wouldn't call it cute, unless you call T-Rex cute as well.
How Steve can claim to have counted 40 in Studland is beyond me. When we do our annual bird count, for instance, only the maximum simultaneous counted amount is valid. Did all the divers count the animals at the same time? Since they swim (both divers and horses), I can't imagine counting anything in a bay that big with any accuracy.
So Steve, please let us know what your scientifically valid method of counting is and how you compare data over time?
Mariner69
Well-Known Member
Please educate us with a photograph or two. In my experience most yachties, be they motor or sail, have a great affinity for the creatures that share their water.
I am sure that a sensible solution will be reached in time with less acid in the exchanges.
TheSeahorseTrust
Member
Hi Major Catastrophe, (the name and the sexist picture sum it up !!)
I was wondering could you tell me who the Seahorse Protection Society are, is Steve Trewhella the founder of it? If so I would like to contact him as I am the director of The Seahorse Trust and we have never heard of this socety before, perhaps we could work with them.
Many thanks
Neil Garrick-Maidment
Director
The Seahorse trust
I was wondering could you tell me who the Seahorse Protection Society are, is Steve Trewhella the founder of it? If so I would like to contact him as I am the director of The Seahorse Trust and we have never heard of this socety before, perhaps we could work with them.
Many thanks
Neil Garrick-Maidment
Director
The Seahorse trust
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
OK, here's another:
The presence of divers is interfering with the breeding of the seahorses. The close approach of a large potential predator may be causing stress and reducing breeding.
This scenario is plausible but no one here is suggesting that, without research, diving be banned.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Hi Neil,
Welcome to the madhouse. I've just had a look at your very informative website - lots of nice pictures. One question though, to view the website (which is all in Flash) comfortably I had to increase the zoom level in my browser to 400%, which doesn't seem very sensible and may cause issues for people using older browsers.
Re. getting in touch with Steve Trewhella - I think you will find a link to his Facebook page further up the thread. Otherwise you can Google him.
I have just looked at a PDF document published by your organisation and it would seem that you have also already decided that anchoring is putting the seahorses at risk - you state on page 3 para1 of this document:
If you have already pre-judged the outcome of the research involving the no-achoring zone then I guess you and Steve Trewhella will get on just fine. It seems a shame - yachties make fine allies and amateur observers for conservation groups if they are approached in the right way.
- W
Last edited:
jhr
Well-Known Member
It'll cost yer.....
glashen
Well-Known Member
Rubbish
Regarding the claims that a large amount of rubbish is being dumped by Boats in Studland Bay. It is illegal to dump rubbish overboard and has been for many years anyone found doing so should be prosecuted. This is a red herring, certainly in my experience most yachtsman are extremely careful how they dispose of rubbish ashore. I think the beaches and possibly channel traffic are a far more likely source.
Regarding the claims that a large amount of rubbish is being dumped by Boats in Studland Bay. It is illegal to dump rubbish overboard and has been for many years anyone found doing so should be prosecuted. This is a red herring, certainly in my experience most yachtsman are extremely careful how they dispose of rubbish ashore. I think the beaches and possibly channel traffic are a far more likely source.
DavenHelen
Well-Known Member
pessimist
Well-Known Member
Neil, welcome to the forum. Now you are here perhaps you could enlighten me as to how one joins the Seahorse trust. I contacted you several times last year through your website but received no reply
TIA.
Colin
Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
I agree with Glashen.
We, as are our friends and pretty much everyone we have sailed with over the years, hugely careful to dispose of our rubbish carefully... even to the extent that many yotties will be well aware of the potential damage of things like milk into water, something that many other interest groups aren't aware of in my experience...
We are not an ill informed bunch of vandals... we are deeply concerned that our precious marine environment is cared for and looked after..
My main dissappointment with this thread is that genuine, intelligent discussion has been replaced with invective and bile.
As has been pointed out already, we, as a group, are not closed to debate, and will gladly lend time and support to proper well thought out research that furthers the protection of our much loved seas... we will accept changes and restrictions in our freedoms when there is good scientific support to justify it.
What we will not do is being bullied into any such action... and we are also savvy enough to understand the ways of the modern world, and how support is gained and lost by campaigning.
I would ask any reasonable special interests group to work with us as community rather than vilify us... its a lot more pleasant for both sides of the debate.
We, as are our friends and pretty much everyone we have sailed with over the years, hugely careful to dispose of our rubbish carefully... even to the extent that many yotties will be well aware of the potential damage of things like milk into water, something that many other interest groups aren't aware of in my experience...
We are not an ill informed bunch of vandals... we are deeply concerned that our precious marine environment is cared for and looked after..
My main dissappointment with this thread is that genuine, intelligent discussion has been replaced with invective and bile.
As has been pointed out already, we, as a group, are not closed to debate, and will gladly lend time and support to proper well thought out research that furthers the protection of our much loved seas... we will accept changes and restrictions in our freedoms when there is good scientific support to justify it.
What we will not do is being bullied into any such action... and we are also savvy enough to understand the ways of the modern world, and how support is gained and lost by campaigning.
I would ask any reasonable special interests group to work with us as community rather than vilify us... its a lot more pleasant for both sides of the debate.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
I completely support you in this approach. Threats of action of any kind should of course be reported to the police.
I assume you will be also providing them with copies of your Facebook comments
which read to me to fit well within the description of incitement to commit criminal damage, or incitement to commit an offence contrary to S5 Public Order Act.
I know which would interest me more were it to come across my desk....
late-night-lochin
Well-Known Member
Here we go, the politically correct slant again
I've never met Major Catastrophe but I always thought his avatar was a very good picture indeed.
Can you tell me exactly why people with a "cause" such as devout conservationists, the anti-fox hunting bregade and climate change believers etc all think it's OK to insult anybody who may not agree with them?
Can you also tell me how you have proved that flash photography causes no damage to seahorses eyesight?
I've never met Major Catastrophe but I always thought his avatar was a very good picture indeed.
Can you tell me exactly why people with a "cause" such as devout conservationists, the anti-fox hunting bregade and climate change believers etc all think it's OK to insult anybody who may not agree with them?
Can you also tell me how you have proved that flash photography causes no damage to seahorses eyesight?
S
SkerryMerry
Guest
I believe that they are tagging them. What's interesting is that in 1998 he said that "their numbers have been snowballing. We're into the 40s now, and still finding more. At least half have been pregnant males. They're not that common in the world and definitely unique here."
He went on to say "We've watched them courting - things we've never seen before. Each male can give birth to up to 300 young and be pregnant again within 24 hours." - The Guardianhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/09/endangeredspecies.wildlife
While I am impressed by Steve's photographs of marine wildlife, and admire his dogged determination, he does make some claims that undermine his stance and suggest a not-so-hidden agenda of making Studland Bay a recreation zone for divers.
"Imagine a 50kg anchor in a six-feet depth of water and times that by hundreds of boats." Blimey!
It is interesting that the Natural England regional team leader pointed out that "Seahorses have definitely become more common in the last five years, but it's happened with the boating community already there. Boating pressure has been static over the period when numbers have been increasing." (My emphasis).
Last edited:
TheSeahorseTrust
Member
Replies
Dear All,
many thanks for your replies. applogies for the problems with the website, my IT guy is looking into it.
I will try to upload some pictures of both the species but if not you can visit either of our sites at www.theseahorsetrust.org or www.britishseahorsesurvey.org to get infomration on both the species.
In answer to the damage caused by anchors the reason why we state it in our documentation is because we have seen it and documented it. The information is about to be peer reviewed and will be released in papers published by our colleagues at the National Oceanogrpahy Centre in Southampton.
Having said that there is still time to put management protocols into place to alleviate the damage and the implementation of enivironmentall friendly moorings would solve the problem.
I have to say I was being a bit flippant about Steve as I know him very well and work closley with him and for those that dont know the real Steve trewhella he is a passioante man about the environment. I was just trying to make the point that there is no such thing as the Seahorse Protection Society but there is The Seahorse trust.
With regard to the rubbish, I would agree that most of the sea users are probably responsible but having dived in British waters and done over 3000 dives to date (nearer 4000 now) I have seen the endless amount of rubbish, detritus and sewage with my own eyes and sadly in areas like Studland where there is such a concentration of boat users at anyone time the amount of rubbish and sewage is indescribeable. After a busy bank holiday we counted 6 disposable barbques, hundreds of bottles and cans, plastic of all sorts (which is dangerous for water intakes and marine creatures alike) and even a frying pan and that was only in an area the width of South Beach and about 100 feet into the seagrass. We photographed a lot of it including the human sewage and endless amounts of toilet paper floating around; so I am sorry to disagree with you Glashen but it is not a red herring but a provable fact.
I have offered before and I will offer again, if any of you wish to come down diving with us to take a look we would be more than happy to show you especially after a Bank holiday weekend.
Neil Garrick-Maidment
Director
The Seahorse trust.
Dear All,
many thanks for your replies. applogies for the problems with the website, my IT guy is looking into it.
I will try to upload some pictures of both the species but if not you can visit either of our sites at www.theseahorsetrust.org or www.britishseahorsesurvey.org to get infomration on both the species.
In answer to the damage caused by anchors the reason why we state it in our documentation is because we have seen it and documented it. The information is about to be peer reviewed and will be released in papers published by our colleagues at the National Oceanogrpahy Centre in Southampton.
Having said that there is still time to put management protocols into place to alleviate the damage and the implementation of enivironmentall friendly moorings would solve the problem.
I have to say I was being a bit flippant about Steve as I know him very well and work closley with him and for those that dont know the real Steve trewhella he is a passioante man about the environment. I was just trying to make the point that there is no such thing as the Seahorse Protection Society but there is The Seahorse trust.
With regard to the rubbish, I would agree that most of the sea users are probably responsible but having dived in British waters and done over 3000 dives to date (nearer 4000 now) I have seen the endless amount of rubbish, detritus and sewage with my own eyes and sadly in areas like Studland where there is such a concentration of boat users at anyone time the amount of rubbish and sewage is indescribeable. After a busy bank holiday we counted 6 disposable barbques, hundreds of bottles and cans, plastic of all sorts (which is dangerous for water intakes and marine creatures alike) and even a frying pan and that was only in an area the width of South Beach and about 100 feet into the seagrass. We photographed a lot of it including the human sewage and endless amounts of toilet paper floating around; so I am sorry to disagree with you Glashen but it is not a red herring but a provable fact.
I have offered before and I will offer again, if any of you wish to come down diving with us to take a look we would be more than happy to show you especially after a Bank holiday weekend.
Neil Garrick-Maidment
Director
The Seahorse trust.
- Status