Studland bay preservation association

[webcraft]

The data will be indepentently reviewed, you cannot produce a scientific paper and put it into the public domain without going through this process.
This is up to the less vocal members of our group.

And if the data show that boating activities are not harming the seahorse population will you be accept the results?

- W

 

[Phoenix of Hamble]

The data will be indepentently reviewed, you cannot produce a scientific paper and put it into the public domain without going through this process.
This is up to the less vocal members of our group.

Can I just clarify that point?

The independent review is by other members of your group? That doesn't sound very independent to me.

One other point...

"Data on Studland damage will be published, when the time is right."

No self respecting scientist I know would take on this research... they would look at 'impact', but not 'damage'... that is a conclusion prior to an analysis.

 

[MAD FRANKIE]

Studland

"Nasty Rich Business Man" .... don't think that applies to me ..
and as for being an "********"(back passage entrance) ..well I am most insulted by that !
I suggest you take that comment back as we've never met me old Furzebrook resident...that is being nasty

 

[Whiskey Bravo]

This is the first time I've bothered to read about seahorses etc but the weather's bad so time to spare. Having trawled through some 'strange' posts I'm left with one question for ST44 and one supplementary.

When you've saved the seahorses, where are you going to race them, as I'd like to get a bet on? Or are you going to use them and seadogs to hunt seafoxes?

The man's an obvious self-centered nutter.

 

[DownWest]

DogWatch. no offence taken here at your humour, but ST is just looking for such comments to use against anybody who disagrees with him.
As for 'releasing when the time is right' that will be along with the inside story on the holy grail, right?Or more likely when it suits his aims.
A

Obviously it doesn't affect me down here, but I really worry about the quality of life when people like him get the ear of the PC jobsworths.

 

[VictorII]

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?

 

[MAD FRANKIE]

Water Quality

Getting back to the two small faeces stools alleged to have been found and photographed on the seabed at Studland ...there seems to have been no problem with the water quality last year.
However at Kimmeridge Bay ,which is a marine nature reserve the water quality only just made the grade. Thats a bit strange considering that its open to the South West prevailing winds and seas and boats are not encouraged to anchor there.. you would have thought it would have got a Gold Star.
I have read that boats are being asked not to flush their loo s while in Studland Bay ... so if you find yourself weather bound there for a few days sheltering from a southerly gale ..remember if your health suffers because of your full loo ,its all in a good cause as you are protecting the marine enviroment which is much more important than human health and safety and life ..according to some people.
You could always risk your life and try to get ashore in your dinghy and use the Public Loo's at the top of the lane ..but with an offshore gale blowing I wouldn't recommend it .
Its all so very silly and dangerous ..lets hope common sense prevails..and as for having a piddle in the sea when you're swimming well theres another future restriction !
Brighton Marina is apparently over run with Seahorses in the Summer months ... what is this with their attraction to human activity ?

 

[Clammer]

Studland Bay Preservation Association

Thanks to Mad Frankie I have looked at this website and others and feel that we yacht owners should support SBPA. We don't want this safe and very popular anchorage to disappear just because Seahorses visit the Bay in the summer months. Thosands of Boatowners from Poole marinas/yacht clubs enjoy their visits to Studland especially South beach and why shouldn't they?

 

[glashen]

The data will be indepentently reviewed, you cannot produce a scientific paper and put it into the public domain without going through this process.
This is up to the less vocal members of our group.

But you can campaign before the process is finished on the basis of what you believe the date will prove. Again prejudging the data and using snippets of it to fuel a publicity campaign to achieve your aims, which you boast you are good at.

I take it from your post the Crown estates survey is not in your opinion a credible source.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

I am happy for science to be used as a means to good decision making.
So long as it done by a credible organization .
The marine reserves we talk about will be based on the scientific data collected on the species and the habitat.
This cannot be made up.
I am a conservationist ( unpaid ) not an activist, makes me sound like Osama bin laden, I am also not a scientist, and have never pretented to be.
Data on Studland damage will be published, when the time is right.

I pick up and highlight issues that are too contentious for the N.G.O.'s to take on.
With good success.
The data will be indepentently reviewed, you cannot produce a scientific paper and put it into the public domain without going through this process.
This is up to the less vocal members of our group.

Local members of your group are obviously biased.
Will you be carrying out a proper survey all along the South Coast to establish exactly where sea horses are located because at the moment we are getting reports of them in many different locations......There is obviously no justifications for isolated nature reserves to protect species that ar'nt at all threatened but are in fact thriving.
I have to return to my previous criticism you are really only interested in managing your own private zoo.

 

[DogWatch]

I will save his comments just in case he ever
turns up at Studland, I'm sure Natural england would take an interest
in what he would like to do to a protected species.

Ok stevieboy, parlé... I'm sorry for offending you and your children.

Next time you are diving the site, would you please catch me a decent
size Syngnathidae as I recently dropped my seahorse paper weight
smashing it. See, I can be friendly, can you?

I can come down and see you on Thursday, does that suit?

 

[DogWatch]

seahorse soup

While looking through eBay for a replacement seahorse paperweight I also found a
really tasty sounding recipe for seahorse soup. Is there anything to stop me turning
up with a hand net and catching a few seahorses if they are for personal consumption.

Luckily, mr fencing has given the location of a decent sized colony. I will bring my hand
net down on Thursday, I would think shrimp net should hold seahorses quite nicely.

 

[reginaldon]

Just looked in here - probably bored, but I see ST44, whoever he may be, accuses others of hiding behind anonymity - I note ST44 gives us no bio. unlike those he accuses.
I'm glad I'm a long way away from the fray - sea horses v. cross channel boats - no contest (or is there?)

NB I note Wiley does not mention any restiction on the anchorage at Studland..

 

[oldharry]

Oh dear.
You have been busy.
I'm honoured that you have all spent so much time scouring the internet looking for articles on Studland, there are so many.

Ever thought why, Steve? Maybe its because a lot of us ARE actually concerned there might be something special in the bay. And shouting your mouth off rather than showing us your research annoys a lot of people who actually would like to know the facts.

But then its much easier to shout than have a coherent and objective discussion.

But a lot of us wish you WOULD show us quantifiable and properly researched evidence of what you are getting so steamed up about.

Who knows? You might even gain a few supporters! One thing is for sure - behaving the way you do around here (and elsewhere by your own account) is certainly not going to help protect the Seahorses.

 

[glashen]

Ever thought why, Steve? Maybe its because a lot of us ARE actually concerned there might be something special in the bay. And shouting your mouth off rather than showing us your research annoys a lot of people who actually would like to know the facts.

But then its much easier to shout than have a coherent and objective discussion.

But a lot of us wish you WOULD show us quantifiable and properly researched evidence of what you are getting so steamed up about.

Who knows? You might even gain a few supporters! One thing is for sure - behaving the way you do around here (and elsewhere by your own account) is certainly not going to help protect the Seahorses.

I feel Steve does far more damage than just Studland and the Seahorses, he is discrediting the whole MCZ process before it has properly begun. Many of us do wish to see the sea and coastline protected and would put up with restrictions on our leisure where it could be shown that we are damaging the environment. However his desire to exclude boats from his diving area has blinded him to the need to properly justify such restrictions and manipulate the release of data for his own ends. This has certain parallels with the global warming debate and it can easily be seen from that the great dangers of his approach.

We should remain balanced in our views and not allow the likes of Steve to push us into opposition of the MCZs on principle. In the case of Studland I would still support the establishment of a MCZ providing that restrictions imposed would be based on evidence and the result of proper independent surveys not just one group.

 

[oldfatgit]

I understand that seahorses live in seagrass as a result of evolving from pipeworms to benefit from the unique habitat. Furthermore seagrass is in decline with the greatest problem stemming from dense floating algae blooms, created by Eutrophication, intercepting sunlight and leaving seagrass in the shade. Seagrass evolved to exploit large areas of shallow, clear waters which occurred, in the past as a result of tectonic activity.

Now for some scientific hypothisis which could be tested by sound experiments, I don't know if they are true or not, the only way to find out is to do research:

Hypothesis: seagrass benefits from the disturbance caused by anchors, anchor chains and mooring chains (you never know, it might be true, my lawn benefits from being mown, stops slower growing but larger species from getting a foothold).
Hypothesis: seagrass gains nutrients from human sewerage which, in low concentrations as found in popular anchorages, does not lead to Eutrophication.
Hypothesis: Seahorses eat shirmp, tiny fish and plankton which, in turn, feed on human sewerage.
Hypothesis: Seahorses eat human sewerage.
Hypothesis: Seahorses benefit from reduced predation caused by the close proximity of human activity with anchored craft discouraging predators from remaining in the area.
Hypothesis: Seagrass benefits from human activity in that grazing species are discouaged from remaining in the area in the face of anchored boats.

Of course these would need re-wording to constitute null hypothisis, but I couldn't be bothered this time of night. Anyway, if the hypothesis are refuted in peer reviewed papers published in respected scientific journals then, as far as I am concerned, that it evidence. Anything short of that is assertion motivated by selfinterest.

 

[DogWatch]

from dweebies facebook page

He wants one of us to quote it so it might as well be me

The selfish yotties that are wrecking the eelgrass at
Studland are monitoring my facebook page ! And have threatend to give them
to the newpapers. I'm honoured that they are so worried about the site being
protected , that they have the time to scour the internet to see what I've
been saying about them. What do they th...ink I'm going to get sacked or
something ?...if they tell....idiots !!

5 people liked this, Awoo-who

STEVIEBABY, SHOW US THE EVIDENCE OF WRECKED EELGRASS, YOU SEEM TO BE
CONTINUALLY DIVING THE AREA WITH YOUR CAMERA EQUIPMENT, SO LET US ALL
SEE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS RIDICULOUS CLAIM?

then he replies to himself to bump his news feed

They call me an activist...thank
you, its better than sitting on my arse doing nothing, but I'm not Osama bin
laden.
They say their anchors don't damage the eelgrass ...so what are they all so
worried about ?
They say they are allowed to have moorings ....they are not.
They all remain anonymous, while they slag me off...they all know my name.
Studland will be a marine resereve, thats all that matters.

We are then called nob-heads which is ironic considering it should be knob-heads..

Then this gem

Let em........I'll get the entire customer base of Just U Dive involved in the matter.......right behind you Steve!

So it is nothing to do with evidence Miss Wilkinson? You have already chosen
to ban the boats, otherwise why do you need to rally support before any of
this so called evidence is presented. This is why people are fed up of you and
the other fanatics, you are working to an agenda.

Okay Stevieboy, I would like answers to the following questions.

1. If the independant report produced by your mate down the pub states that
anchoring is not damaging the grass, will that be an end to you trying to ban
anchoring in the bay? Though I think we know this is not the case as we are
already seeing mission creep, now you are blaming any litter on those rich
yotties, of course with zero evidence (no change there then)

2. If the Report indicates that the boats and activity are affecting the weed,
will you and your club impose a full ban on diving in the area?

 

[DogWatch]

I feel Steve does far more damage than just Studland and the Seahorses, he is discrediting the whole MCZ process before it has properly begun.

For the last year I have stayed out of these discussions, to the point that I thought mr fence post was not being unreasonable.

Now, I think he can swing.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Rather than unfructified discussion here with someone who has only one opinion, it would be better if we found a way to engage with Finding Sanctuary.

I will try.

Can I encourage others to do the same?

 

[ST44]

abuse.

I have read the terms of use for this thread.
It states that threatening behaviour will not be tolerated.
Many of the posts contain abusive comments and veiled threats.
There are mentions of where I live , and my children.
Debate is one thing, we will never agree on anything to do with Studland.
I take these threats very seriously.
Comments like ' I can come down and see you next thursday '
' Mr fencing has given us the location of a decent sized colony, I will bring my hand net down on thursday '
Seahorse are a protected species, these comments will be passed on to Natural england.
Where my family live is of no consequence on this forum.
I will be reporting this to the police