Studland bay preservation association

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trewhella said: "You've got moorings scouring the grass, which is as diverse as any reef and in the bank holidays there are more of them. Some people have said 'well they must be doing ok with the boats there' but we need a closed area to see if it regenerates. Is it in decline? We have no idea."

The above is another quote from the Guardian article it is dated September 2008, the voluntary no anchoring zone is now in place, but it seems within one summer the Seahorse trust knows the answers it did not know at that time. In the post by Neil he states they have evidence of anchor damage and goes on to state that if this level of damage continues it will cause irreparable damage to the eelgrass. (I para phrase) See what he has done there, takes a piece evidence and extrapolates it to make the case. Then goes on to warn of the disastrous consequences that will result including the end of the human race.

I would still be happy to see a proper management plan for the bay based on all the science and I shall be interested to see the research when it is published, I shall however continue to question emotive statements that quote only incomplete scientific evidence.
 
This is getting a bit out of hand.

Neil, if rubbish is a problem, why not get existing laws enforced? A few flyers dropped in cockpits explaining the problem and suggesting that people take more care. Plus a bit of the stick of by laws mentioned. That is if you really think that boats are a major problem, which I doubt.
I await the survey results.
BTW, iF Steve is such a nice bloke. Why is he posting such rubbish? Certainly no help to your outfit.
 
Last edited:
"Working with others we have logged the fluidity of the seabed in the seagrass around the edge and in the damaged areas and this clearly shows that areas damaged by anchors and moorings have a higher than accepatble amount of seabed fluidity which stops the seagrass re-establishing."

If this is the case then why, by long term observation, are the areas of clear sand for anchoring diminishing, and the areas of sea grass increasing?

I wonder whether there is not some mechanism at work where anchoring in some way encourages vegetative spread. Is any work being done to assess this?

A high density of anchored vessels is confined to summer weekends when the weather is suitable. Is a survey being conducted to establish anchoring density and frequency, and the number of 'anchor hours' Studland provides in a year? If damage is established then this would give a baseline for anchoring reduction.

Questions like these would seem to be at least as apposite as assessing seagrass damage and the dynamic of the seahorse population, which is - in any case - migratory and might well be affected by climatic conditions as well as seagrass conditions.
 
Last edited:
Ubergeekian - I totally agree. And it is a point I have repeatedly asked Steve T in the past. I am still waiting for a non abusive reasoned reply.

Studland has been one of the most significant short stay small boat anchorages on the South Coast - probably in the country and has been for 50 or 60 years. I have used it regularly for 35 years.

The Studland Bay Preservation Group say: "The Eelgrass beds in the Bay have expanded considerably in the last few years and now spread across parts of the Bay where a few years ago there was just a sandy seabed." This accords entirely with my own experience of trying to find a weed free spot in which to anchor. In the mid 70s there was little difficulty in finding clean sand between the grass beds. My last few visits I have had the greatest difficulty finding a clear spot to anchor.

What I see with my own eyes tells me the Eel Grass is thriving - vigorously! So the claim by Seahorse Trust that it is being damaged puzzles me greatly.

Secondly, like Ubergeekian and others, I am puzzled why the Seahorse habitat is claimed to be being put under pressure. Almost every other living species I know of will, when its habitat comes under threat, retreat, stop breeding, and numbers will decline.

Steve Trewhella himself claims a 'thriving colony' with many breeding Seahorses having been observed. That is great. But it is happening alongside the long term continued use of the bay by holidaymakers afloat and ashore, whose numbers are not increasing significantly. So what is the perceived threat to the species and habitat?

Either the Seahorse population IS under threat of decline and extinction, or it is co-existing happily enough to 'thrive' alongside the boating population.

Someone further up this thread claims Brighton Marina to be full of Seahorses - which if true suggests to me 2 things: 1: the presence of a lot of boats is actually beneficial to them in some way, and 2: If 1 is not the case, then the boats had better move out of the Marina sharpish too to avoid damaging the protected species that have taken up residence there.

At least at Brighton there can be no doubt that the boats got there before the Seahorses!

Others who know more about this report Seahorse colonies in various places up the Solent too. If so, why is there such a fuss about Studland? If these pretty little creatures are proliferating elsewhere why is Studland - which is also one of the most significant safe coastal anchorages for small boats in the UK, being singled out?

Neil and Steve: I am not and have not been asking these questions just to be 'difficult', but because I - like many here - am genuinely puzzled, and are at present from personal observation unconvinced that there is actually a significant problem.

As to the 'turd' picture: here I can claim some expertise from my former employment: I worked for 15 years with incontinent people. In 15 years of daily dealings with 'poo', I never saw anything passed remotely like that by a human. As Emsworthy commented - if it was passed by a human they would be dead by now!

Edit: my interest is more with birds. 15 or so years ago a strange small white heron at Dell Quay was identified as a breeding pair of Little Egrets. twitchers flocked from all over. There was talk of closing off the whole top end of the Fishbourne end of the harbour because these things were so rare. Now 15 years later breeding pairs are so commmon that they pass without comment. The result of climate change? Could the same not apply to Hippocampus?
 
Last edited:
Hi Neil

Welcome to the forum. You'll surely get a lot of heckling, but I personally think you're right that cooperation is the way forward, and some of us at least are potential allies.

There is actually little here that is devisive; if mooring buoys are provided, nobody can rightly complain about not being allowed to anchor. Perpetrators of the other issues (poo in the water, litter) are already breaking the law.

By the way, discussing global warming has been banned here by moderator decree. It got too heated (boom boom). But seriously:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228252

Unrelated to all of this, can I ask why the seahorses are tagged? My understanding is that they are uniquely identifiable by their coronets. Surely if the numbers are threatened, you'd want to leave them alone as much as possible? It certainly looks like the tag, placed on the sea horse like a necklace is likely to snag and trap the poor creature. I also gather that the seahorses rely on camouflage to ambush their prey, and the tag is very visible.

I realise it must save a bit of time identfying them, but there are only 40, and if you're photgraphing them anyway, the tag seems unecessary, and perhaps dangerous for the individual.
 
TheSeahorseTrust said:
where do you get the evidence that Seahorses are thriving ?, we are studying them and we dont know that, there is no evidence to back that up, if you know something that we dont know please let us know.
Click to expand...

Mr Trewhella's postings here. That aside, are you saying that you don;t know whether the population is growing, shrinking or staying steady?

What is highly evident from our research dives is that the seagrass is being damaged, it has large holes in it, the moorings bouy chains are creating large areas void of seagrass and there is anchor damage that is not self repairing.
Click to expand...

I gather, though, that here has been no significant increase in marine activity, anchoring or mooring, over the years. That surely suggests that the seagrass is in a steady state - if anchoring and mooring damaged it significantly, it wouldn;t be there, would it.

IF the seagrass disappears it will mean the loss not only of the seahorses but the undulate Ray breeding popualtions and other unique marine species (the list at Studland is endless) and ultimately it will mean migration of the sand and silt on the seabed, this in turn will mean beach erosion through wave and current action but also because naturally dead seagrass fronds help to hold the beach together it will mean a loss of the beach.
Click to expand...

Why would that happen now if it hasn't happened so far?

I ask the question do you want to live in a world with fewer species, less diversity of habitats and <we don't talk about that>?
Click to expand...

Certainly not. One way to avoid that dreary outcome is to avoid as far as possible meddling with established and stable ecosystems. From all I read, Studland Bay is an established and stable ecosystem - and that includes the effects of anchors and moorings.
 
Hi Neil,
I have been reading this and other threads on the same subject for some time, most of my friends think of me as an aged hippy. I have been disappointed with the posts from some of the forums "old hands", although inexcusable, it always seems to be whilst answering posts from ST44 who seems intent on damaging the reputation of people like yourself. It is great to see that you are willing to accept the help of boaters to ensure that all sides are involved.
I would like to point out that, if you were more familiar with the rules of the forum, you would know that all discussion of global warming has been banned. To ensure this thread is not locked please refrain from any further mention, as it would be such a shame now that the two sides are starting to come together.
Allan
 
oldharry said:
Ubergeekian - I totally agree. And it is a point I have repeatedly asked Steve T in the past. I am still waiting for a non abusive reasoned reply.

Studland has been one of the most significant short stay small boat anchorages on the South Coast - probably in the country and has been for 50 or 60 years. I have used it regularly for 35 years.

The Studland Bay Preservation Group say: "The Eelgrass beds in the Bay have expanded considerably in the last few years and now spread across parts of the Bay where a few years ago there was just a sandy seabed." This accords entirely with my own experience of trying to find a weed free spot in which to anchor. In the mid 70s there was little difficulty in finding clean sand between the grass beds. My last few visits I have had the greatest difficulty finding a clear spot to anchor.

What I see with my own eyes tells me the Eel Grass is thriving - vigorously! So the claim by Seahorse Trust that it is being damaged puzzles me greatly.

Secondly, like Ubergeekian and others, I am puzzled why the Seahorse habitat is claimed to be being put under pressure. Almost every other living species I know of will, when its habitat comes under threat, retreat, stop breeding, and numbers will decline.

Steve Trewhella himself claims a 'thriving colony' with many breeding Seahorses having been observed. That is great. But it is happening alongside the long term continued use of the bay by holidaymakers afloat and ashore, whose numbers are not increasing significantly. So what is the perceived threat to the species and habitat?

Either the Seahorse population IS under threat of decline and extinction, or it is co-existing happily enough to 'thrive' alongside the boating population.

Someone further up this thread claims Brighton Marina to be full of Seahorses - which if true suggests to me 2 things: 1: the presence of a lot of boats is actually beneficial to them in some way, and 2: If 1 is not the case, then the boats had better move out of the Marina sharpish too to avoid damaging the protected species that have taken up residence there.

At least at Brighton there can be no doubt that the boats got there before the Seahorses!

Others who know more about this report Seahorse colonies in various places up the Solent too. If so, why is there such a fuss about Studland? If these pretty little creatures are proliferating elsewhere why is Studland - which is also one of the most significant safe coastal anchorages for small boats in the UK, being singled out?

Neil and Steve: I am not and have not been asking these questions just to be 'difficult', but because I - like many here - am genuinely puzzled, and are at present from personal observation unconvinced that there is actually a significant problem.

As to the 'turd' picture: here I can claim some expertise from my former employment: I worked for 15 years with incontinent people. In 15 years of daily dealings with 'poo', I never saw anything passed remotely like that by a human. As Emsworthy commented - if it was passed by a human they would be dead by now!

Edit: my interest is more with birds. 15 or so years ago a strange small white heron at Dell Quay was identified as a breeding pair of Little Egrets. twitchers flocked from all over. There was talk of closing off the whole top end of the Fishbourne end of the harbour because these things were so rare. Now 15 years later breeding pairs are so commmon that they pass without comment. The result of climate change? Could the same not apply to Hippocampus?
Click to expand...

Spot on mate.
 
Studland bay tagging project

Excuse me but how much is this project costing ? I see it is going to take three years ..How many have you tagged so far ?
I also note that you advertised for a Studland Bay Tagging Project Manager last Spring, Did you manage to get someone ? If so why haven't we heard from them on these various threads? I have also noted the Seahorse Trusts request for funding on the Middle East Wildlife Site back in 2007 ..it states a request for £90k to run the Studland Bay Project and in the costing's accounts clearly states Project Manager salary £28000 ,is that over the three years or yearly ? If its yearly how much does that work out per Seahorse if there are 40 ?
 
Studland bay seahorse project

Just had a look on the website where I got this information... sorry got it wrong ! The website belongs to WILDLIFE MIDDLE EAST NEWS and can be found at www.wmenews.com Volume 3 Issue 2 Sept 2008
The total project costings are listed at the bottom of the page and it clearly states the Project Managers Annual Salary is £28k with the total yearly cost £37,756 So whats that times 3 divided by 40 ?
 
Last edited:
sighmoon said:
if mooring buoys are provided, nobody can rightly complain about not being allowed to anchor. Unrelated to all of this, can I ask why the seahorses are tagged? My understanding is that they are uniquely identifiable by their coronets. Surely if the numbers are threatened, you'd want to leave them alone as much as possible? It certainly looks like the tag, placed on the sea horse like a necklace is likely to snag and trap the poor creature. I also gather that the seahorses rely on camouflage to ambush their prey, and the tag is very visible.
Click to expand...

It's a farce isn't it.

Everyone agrees the habitat is expanding.
Everyone agrees the seahorse population is expanding.

So it would seem to be undisputed that there is no problem...

The solution of these people to the non-problem is to put moorings on the elgrass in the bay! They will be empty 99 per cent of the time. People currently avoid anchoring on eelgrass where possible so the effect is to move boats onto the seahorse habitat and instead of a handful of weekends of significant disturbances over summer there will be year round disturbance.

Meanwhile divers are tagging them which must be 100 times more disruptive than a few summer weekends of crowded anchorage.

Also I'm totally unconvinced that Eelgras is harmed by anchoring - it seems to grow like stink in a large number of anchorages. (Loads of busy Med anchorages have tons of the stuff.)

I feel like the guy at the end of Bridge over the River Kwai - "Madness, madness."

My question: Who will make the decision to fill the bay with moorings and ban anchoring. When will the decision be made. What's their address? They are the only people worth talking to about this.

PS: Sailors do not discard rubbish off boats. Never.
 
Allan said:
Hi Neil,
I have been disappointed with the posts from some of the forums "old hands", although inexcusable, it always seems to be whilst answering posts from ST44 who seems intent on damaging the reputation of people like yourself.
Allan
Click to expand...

Allan I am sure you are referring to me here, I have always stayed away from these threads... Last night after reading the garden Trellis' postings I lost my rag.

He showed on here and his facebook page that, as far as he is concerned, the debate is now over. He is totally motivated by a personal agenda and has made boat owners his nemesis.

Then we have these jokers fiddling about with the wildlife with an intrusive tagging program, how dare they.

I put it to them, attaching tags to Seahorses is doing far more damage than 100 boats at anchor every weekend. STOP IT!

Okay, my posts were a little silly at times, but if the garden furniture is going to rise to it each time and patronise and lie I will continue. It now seems his boss has had to slap him down a bit, maybe it is Mr Trellis who should be tagged.

Is he any relation to Mrs Trellis from North Wales?
 
I too am increasingly concerned at the impact of tagging the Seahorses. Disturb most creatures when with their young, they will abandon them if they can not protect them, I have always been told. Are Seahorses so very different?
 
DogWatch said:
Allan I am sure you are referring to me here, I have always stayed away from these threads... Last night after reading the garden Trellis' postings I lost my rag.

He showed on here and his facebook page that, as far as he is concerned, the debate is now over. He is totally motivated by a personal agenda and has made boat owners his nemesis.

Then we have these jokers fiddling about with the wildlife with an intrusive tagging program, how dare they.

I put it to them, attaching tags to Seahorses is doing far more damage than 100 boats at anchor every weekend. STOP IT!

Okay, my posts were a little silly at times, but if the garden furniture is going to rise to it each time and patronise and lie I will continue. It now seems his boss has had to slap him down a bit, maybe it is Mr Trellis who should be tagged.

Is he any relation to Mrs Trellis from North Wales?
Click to expand...
My post was aimed at nobody in particular and not very well written. My point was, ST44 seems to have come onto the forum with a terrible attitude, even at the start. I deplore some of the things said against him but, unfortunately, find myself agreeing with them. As I stated, I am an aged hippy, I would add that I am only happy when on the sea. If a ban on anchoring in Studland or even one of the many places I use in the west country would save a species, I would back it 100%. Due to some of the things I have read on this and other threads, written by ST44, it seems more harm would be done by changing the status quo but I will wait for some true research to be done and published.
One comment I would like to make and I am being careful with my wording. ST44 seems to have problems communicating with people, (not meant as a an insult, but a personal opinion formed from here, other websites and Facebook) does not make him wrong. Adding some of the vast knowledge base on Scuttlebutt to the debate and research can only be a good thing.
Allan
 
Last edited:
[. ST44 seems to have problems communicating with people,
Well , his judgement does seem to be clouded by a big chip on his shoulder about 'rich yachtys'.
Dealing with criticism without aggression might be a help. His self imposed martyrdom might be reduced if he replied to some of the (reasonable) questions asked on here. Rather than treating everybody as an 'enemy of the cause'
A
 
I've not seen any comments directly about rich yachties but I do see your point. I can't help but smile when I see myself thought of as a rich yachty, I am poor! My 1995 Ford Escort has just died and I have no money for repairs! I save up all year for my £600 mooring fees and have nothing but my boat!
Allan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top