Studland bay preservation association

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a quote in that which requests boat owners "to move towards their anchors rather than drag the anchor to the boat".

Can anyone tell me how I can drag an anchor through sand & sea grass towards a free floating boat? I thought these people were divers, do they have no understanding of the sea & boats at all?

It is also clear from their guidance too divers, that there is significantly more disturbance & damage to the grass & wildlife from divers than there is from boats which will always seek clear sand in preference to a weedy bottom.

Unfortunately, decision making Civil Servants are likely to be just as badly informed - and their naturally cautious nature will encourage them to err on the safe side & therefore ban everything.
 
Major Catastrophe said:
That is quite damning and has never been mentioned by Neil and Steve.

So, why are they targeting Studland bay? Why haven't they tried to close down the Jersey marina and the other marinas? Why haven't they produced another smoking turd?

I hope someone is saving all these articles in case they suddenly disappear?
Click to expand...
I have the parts above saved, plus, of course, they are now on here. I should stress that everything below the dotted line was cut from http://www.theseahorsetrust.org/British_Seahorse_Survey_Report_2007.pdf A report by Neil Garrick-Maidment of the seahorse trust.
From all I have read the largest single group sighted is the one reported in Jersey marina. I believe Steve Trewhella reported 40 in Studland but they seem to have been the total, not a group. Of course Studland has been subject to thousands of hours of diving, there seems to have been little or no diving in the marina in Jersey although the report does not make it clear if Sue Daly dived to see the other small group of eight. Obviously the group of 30, seen by the children, who chose the marina as home, were seen from the pontoon.
I would recommend anyone to look at the seahorse trust website, as it shows that seahorses are to be seen from Kent, westwards and northwards to Shetland and as far away as the Dogger bank.
Allan
 
glashen said:
There is the Crown Estates sponsored survey in conjunction with Dorset Wildlife Trust Click Here but the Seahorse Trust have already rubbished this survey preferring their own reasearch which they won't publish yet.
Click to expand...
Are you sure they rubbished the report? I would be surprised at that as the copyright of the report is owned by the Dorset wildlife trust. The email address of Steve Trewhella's partner at the Dorset area of the seahorse trust is noted as having an email address at that company.
Allan
 
Robin said:
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.
Click to expand...

well done for quoting it and making it even wider on the page, page 3 of 3 in thread that have become unreadable. stunning!
 
Allan said:
Are you sure they rubbished the report? I would be surprised at that as the copyright of the report is owned by the Dorset wildlife trust. The email address of Steve Trewhella's partner at the Dorset area of the seahorse trust is noted as having an email address at that company.
Allan
Click to expand...

ST44 said:
I am not involved with the survey for this reason.
The VNZ should have been placed in an area which already has lots of anchor damage on it, how can you see if it grows back if there was none to start with ??
This is all part of crown estates token gesture of a survey.
We will be looking at this area today, if there is little or no anchor damage , questions will be asked.
This is nearly 50k of public money being spent.
Crown don't want there to be a problem down there, the knock on for other eelgrass beds with seahorses living on them could be huge.
This all comes down to politics and funding, hence the reason many conservation orgs who should be helping are lying low.
Click to expand...

TheSeahorseTrust said:
What we need is long term evidence and our survey tagging work will show this.
Where I think there has been a lot of confusion is because people lump us in with the VNAZ, as I have stated many times I think the VNAZ is a waste of public money which could be better spent in other ways.
Click to expand...

In general they do not like the Crown Estates Survey.
 
Picked out this form your ST44 quote:

Crown don't want there to be a problem down there, the knock on for other eelgrass beds with seahorses living on them could be huge.

So there are other seagrass beds providing board and lodging for seahorses.

I thought SSSG were claiming that Studland's situation is unique.
 
Twister_Ken said:
Picked out this form your ST44 quote:

Crown don't want there to be a problem down there, the knock on for other eelgrass beds with seahorses living on them could be huge.

So there are other seagrass beds providing board and lodging for seahorses.

I thought SSSG were claiming that Studland's situation is unique.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the SSSG have been claiming but the report to which I have refered to before (http://www.theseahorsetrust.org/British_Seahorse_Survey_Report_2007.pdf) by the seahorse trust, shows maps for each of the two species found in the UK. They clearly show them to be found from Kent to north Wales less the Bristol channel and large parts of the coasts of Scotland and Ireland.
Allan
 
MAD FRANKIE said:
.
However, below is a Survey Chart showing the location of the Sea Grass beds in 1991 which was part of an Enviromental Impact Study for BP in relation to their outlined HOOK ISLAND plans for extracting oil from Poole Bay.
Click to expand...

I hope Neil and Steve are still listening. This survey was carried out by Ken Collins who works with Neil and Steve. This confirms what he told me when I met him last summer - that the eel grass beds used too be less extensive. Just make a comparison with Google Earth today and you will see eel grass in areas showing as sand in 1991. But, of course everybody who has long experience of Studland knows that already.

So, Neil, you are always asking for evidence on this point, so now you have it - from an impeccable source.

Perhaps you can now start answering the fundamental questions.

1 Where is there any evidence that anchoring is reducing the habitat of seahorses? And I am not interested in your pictures of scouring - that is common knowledge. What you have to explain is how that scouring reduces the area of habitat. As you have been "working" in the Bay for many years, I am sure you will have such evidence - if it exists.

2 Where is your evidence that the population of seahorses is changing - indeed where is your evidence of the size of population. Again you need to provide more than the throwaway type statements that Steve usually issues.

3 Where is your evidence that anchoring has any direct effect on the seahorse population.

Over to you
 
Major problem

As I understand it the plans are to create Marine Conservation Zones. Any reasonable person would conclude that the impact of anchoring is either minimal or beneficial (I suspect that anchoring causes some damage that recovers, some that leads to the spread of the eel grass and adds some nutrients causing increased growth). The point is that whilst we can probably show that anchoring is not effecting the environment, MCZs are going to be established.

What we need is the RYA to propose alternative locations, if there are no other locations on the agenda then they will be implemented by default. All the proposed MCZs appeared to have been chosen because we anchor there. This is madness with all the miles of coastline there will be sea life everywhere. There is so much room that it would be entirely possible to establish MCZs outside of anchorages.

The purpose is to establish conservation zones - not to ban anchoring.

Does anyone know who we get Finding Sanctuary to consider other areas?
 
Last edited:
Seven Spades said:
As I understand it the plans are to create Marine Conservation Zones. Any reasonable person would conclude that the impact of anchoring is either minimal or beneficial (i suspect that anchoring causes some damage that recovers, some that leads to the spread of the eel grass and adds some nutrients causing increased growth). The point is that whilst we can probably show that anchoring is not effecting the environment, MCZs are going to be established.

What we need is the RYA to propose alternative locations, if there are no other locations on the agenda then they will be implemented by default. All the proposed MCZs appeared to have been chosen because we anchor there. This is madness with all the miles of coastline there will be sea life everywhere. There is so much room that it would be entirely possible to establish MCZs outside of anchorages.

The purpose is to establish conservation zones - not to ban anchoring.

Does anyone know who we get Finding Sanctuary to consider other areas?
Click to expand...

I think you may have misunderstood the intention of the MCZs, as I understand it they are to protect notable marine environments, therefore if you find more areas suitable to be MCZs they will be eligible for listing as well as the proposed ones. They were not I believe initially envisaged to exclude anchoring in large areas, this seems to have emerged particularly in relation to Studland. Personally I think there may be an argument for the area to be listed as an MCZ so that a management plan can be implemented, at present there is a problem on a few Summer weekends, I am however completely opposed to the proposed anchoring ban which is not evidence backed. Unfortunately the attitude of Steve and Neil make me very suspicious that we could ever reach a sensible compromise.
 
Seven Spades said:
All the proposed MCZs appeared to have been chosen because we anchor there. This is madness with all the miles of coastline there will be sea life everywhere. There is so much room that it would be entirely possible to establish MCZs outside of anchorages.
Click to expand...

QED anchoring actually encourages marine life. In fact somer of the proposed MCZs are open coastal sites that could never be anchorages, particulalrly on the Welsh Coast around Milford and St Davids as well as several further north, which will not affect the leisure boating population. They are there to protect sensitive sites from the damage caused indiscriminate trawling and commercial fishing intersts, and in some cases to regulate diving activities.

But the purpose is to protect specific locations which have rare or theatened colonies of marine organisms. You cant just move the Studland habitat a few miles out to sea, for example. Its because of what is there that they want to protect it. What people like SHT are trying to say is that the environment which has been shaped by human influence for the last 60 years and is almost certainly as it is because of it, is actually being damaged by that influence, and only they should be allowed in to play there any more. That of course will remove a major factor in the creating of that environment in the first place. The fact that Seahorses have clearly co-existed here happily enough to be thriving after 60 years doesnt come in to their thinking. Boats are anchoring there, therefore they must be doing damage as they 'drag their anchors across the sanmd and through the Grass beds'

It is clear elesewhere that removing the major influence of mans activities has sometimes caused severe damage to well established modfied ecology, to the detriment of the species it was supposed to protect. Removing sheep from Downland causes it to revert to scrub within a few years, destroying the open Downland habitat for example.

The evidence actually offered by SHT appears to show that Seahorses actually thrive where there are boats - main anchorages like Stuldand, and Marinas. They need to be very sure that excluding the boats will not actually cause the Seahorses to push off and find us somewhere else. Over simplification of course, but every bit as valid an interpretation of their 'eviodence' in my view.
 
Some recent political and scientific developments from the USA in relation to the management of littoral and oceanic 'zones"...

I note the emphasis in finding facts before making operational decisions.:)

http://www.rdmag.com/News/Feeds/2010/02/policy-marine-spatial-planning-a-more-balanced-approach-/

However (and I am sure that is is totally separate from the Global Warming email revelations) I also note the involvement of the University of East Anglia

"Jo Foden, a PhD candidate at the University of East Anglia, U.K. will summarize recent progress in Europe toward monitoring and assessing how marine spatial planning supports national and regional ocean management goals. She will review current assessment methods being used at local, national, international and global scales, and show how more explicit goals, greater consistency in terminology and a clearer approach to assessment could help consolidate these efforts and simplify future applications."

Unabated rapture, or is it one bad apple... ?
 
Just had an email from the Charity Commission Direct team:

" I note that you have corresponded with us in respects of this matter previously, my colleagues information provided still stands and having considered the BlogSpot I confirm there is no role for the Commission.

The Charity Commission cannot get involved in matters which are outside the scope of the Commission's responsibilities. The issues you have highlighted relate, in the main, to the interpretation of scientific data. That is outside the remit of the Commission.
...
In practical terms the limitations on our ability to intervene means we will not take forward complaints:

* where you disagree with decisions made by the trustees and those decisions have been properly made within the law and the provisions of the charity's governing document;
* to resolve internal disagreements over a charity's policy or strategy because those involved are responsible for settling the issues themselves;
* about incidents of poor service from a charity where there is no general risk to its services, its clients or its resources;
* where the complaint arises from a charity dispute and there are properly appointed trustees whose responsibility it is to deal with the issues reported;
* where the issue reported does not pose a serious risk to the charity, its assets or beneficiaries;
* where the issue is being dealt with by, or is the responsibility of, another statutory or supervisory body;
* where there is a disagreement about the terms or delivery of a contract;
...

It would appear that your concerns should be addressed in the first instance to the charity trustees or, if that has been tried, by raising your concerns with the bodies that use the evidence provided by the charity to inform their own policies (Natural England, Environmental Agency).



A reasonable and well-written letter, giving lots of directions in which one could take further action.

What is the next step ? Write formally to SHT ?
 
Last edited:
Storyteller

Well folks Steve Trewhella is now popping on the Studland Bay Preservation Associations Blog ..obviously trying to aim his nastiness at the locals.
I have had a go at him on there about taking reponsibility for this wild goose chase.
These expensive surveys are a total waste of Public Funds in the time of Great
Economic Downturn and major cutbacks in Public Services .
I have edited my idea of a Public Enquiry in to this whole affair .... because that would only lead to more Public Funds being spent on it !
However, as with the Public Outrage about MPs expenses ,once the press get hold of the truth behind this "Studland Bay Story" and how much it is costing the British Tax Payer .. this again will put several Conservation Charities under the Public Microscope.
 
Last edited:
yet another organisation concerned about Studland Bay. Especially the shoreline region.

http://www.twobays.net/poole_bay.htm

They do seem to recognise the value of tourism by water to the area, and have some views on what is important to the whole coastline in their remit. They do accept that there is an intrinsic relationship between what happens on the coast and out at sea, and vice versa

Their objectives include:

"Maintaining the supply of sediments around the coast to prevent erosion of eel grass beds off Hengistbury Head

Managing the erosion of cliffs below Warren Hill to maintain geological exposures and provide sediments to Christchurch Bay whilst protecting the valuable wildlife habitats they provide

Maintenance of sand dune and herbaceous vegetation habitats for the rare sand lizard and rare coastal plants

The potential impact of any coastal defence works on inshore fisheries and offshore wrecks

The potential impact of coastal defence at Sandbanks on the harbour entrance and channel."


The first one is IMO significant in that the extraction of sand and gravel along the South Coast over the last fifty years has radically changed the profile of beaches, and the distribution of onshore sand deposits.

The biggest extraction operation has moved to the Bristol Channel, though.
 
Dredging and Beach Recharge

We've noticed since the dredging of Poole Channel and subsequent beach recharge operations at Bournemouth ,Studland Bay has begun to shoal in several locations. Swanage Fishermen have also complained of shoaling there too after their beach was recharged especially in the South of Swanage Bay well away from the beach itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top