Studland Bay summary

[oldharry]

The Studland thread has become so long that many people (myself included) find it impossible to keep track of it, so I have asked Natalie to 'unsticky' it, and archive it. It can still be accessed at: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2730014&postcount=1 The 'sticky' thread re-starts here with a summary of the situation to date

I have split it in to three posts to make it a bit clearer.

1 BACKGROUND

Rio Conference on Biodiversity 1992 calls for participant nations to implement conservation of the Oceans

European Legislation produces requirement for maritime states to set up Marine Conservation schemes. The main parts come from Brussels (SAC, SAP, etc under 'Natura 2000'

2008 UK passes its own Marine and Coastal Access Act, (MCAA) with declared intent of UK becoming 'flagship state' for Marine Conservation. (Camerons 'greenest government ever'). This adds to European legislation and provides for a coherent network of Marine Conservation Zones in British waters. RYA has significant input in shaping this legislation.

DEFRA implements the Act creating the Marine Management Organisation, and hands the JNCC and Natural England the responsibility for identifying and defining MCZs.

Four organisations created to do the groundwork. Net Gain for the North East, Balanced Seas for the South East, Finding Sanctuary for the South West, and Irish Sea Conservation Zones for the Irish Sea. Scotland and Wales Assemblies to make their own arrangements.

2 IMPLEMENTATATION
2008 - 2011
The four regional groups form 'stakeholder' groups to represent the interests of all parties. These group work at regional and local level to establish location of proposed MCZs, identify species of interest, and gather all available info in support of the proposals.

September 2011
Regional Groups submitted their 'Final Reports' to DEFRA, detailing all areas they consider suitable for MCZ status, together with a mass of supporting evidence.

Reports go to the statutory Conservation Organisations for comment and to prepare them to go before the Minister of Sate for Nature and Fisheries, Richard Benyon (Natural England, JNCC, Science Advisory panel etc). Regional Groups disband.

This is where we are at now, October 2011.

Around April - May next year the reports will go before the Minister for examination prior to the publication of a White Paper, and a 12 week Public Consultation period. The Minister and DEFRA have made it clear that not all recommended sites will be approved. John Benyon said in the House last week that he would be examining each area individually before approving it for Public Consultation.

Autumn 2012 (on current timetables, but further delay very likely) the first MCZs will be approved. These will be those where there are no issues attached. DEFRA is 'committed to further public consultation' where there are issues or clashes of interest.

 

[oldharry]

Studland and mcz summary - 2 studland itself

STUDLAND

2008 Sea Horse Trust announces it has 'discovered' Seahorses at Studland - known to generations of local residents. SHT claim it is the 'only known breeding ground' for either UK species. Seahorses become a protected species under the Wildlife Act.

SHT starts working to have Studland designated as an MCZ to protect the Seahorses under the new Coastal and Access Act 2008. Stephen Price of BORG (Galadriel on the forum) spots this and raises the potential disruption of this well known anchorage on the forums.

Oct 2008
Steve Trewhella (ST44 on the forum) marine photographer working in Studland with SHT joins in, and declares 'anchoring WILL stop'

Local Residents do not want to see the Bay disrupted or closed for general use, and form the Studland Bay Protection Association, fully supported by Studland Parish Council. Many very hostile meetings take place between them and local conservation groups.

2008 - 2010
Dr Ken Collins of Soton Uni conducts a survey of 'anchor damage' in Studland eelgrass. He concludes there is 'a potential for long term damage' from the high numbers of boats anchoring there. He advises Finding Sanctuary to apply the 'Precautionary Principle' to Studland.

Autumn 2010
Marine management Organisation, concerned at the heated argments over Studland form a 'Studland Bay Workshop group meeting Nov 2010 , to which I (Jon reed - Old Harry) am invited to represent 'visiting yachtsmen'. Following on that meeting Galadriel, Seajet, Sailbobsquarepants and I form the Boat Owners Representation Group, to give anyone concerned a platform to speak from, and to enable us to formally participate in meetings about Studland

Dec 2010, BORG is formally recognised by Finding Sanctuary and joins their Dorset Local Working Group studying the Purbeck coast with a view to defining MCZs in the area.

February 2011. BORG recognised and supported by RYA, and now working with their Conservation and Planning Advisors, and legal department

Mar 2011
The FS DWG defines Studland Bay as a possible MCZ to preserve the eelgrass beds and associated species, including seahorses, undulate Rays and Native British Oyster.

April 2011 MMO holds another workshop, attended by BORG

May 2011, the now notorious Packham Programme is broadcast, condemning anyone who anchors in Studland as 'G&T swilling sunday sailors'

July 2011 Daily Telegraph Magazine publishes an article on Studland, generally coming down in favour of the boating and local resident communities

Sept 2011
Final Report from Finding Sanctuary recommends an MCZ in Studland Bay with an objective of 'recovery' of the eelgrass. This means they believe steps should be taken to allow the eelgrass to recover to a better condition than it is now.

 

[oldharry]

Studland and mcz summary - 2 arguments and solutions

THE ARGUMENTS

1.Dr Collins says there is potential for long term damage to the Eelgrass beds, and is 'advocating caution'. He advocates the 'Precautionary Principle' which means action should be taken now to ensure that damage does not occur. His study claims that when anchors damage or tear up an area of eelgrass this does not recover quickly. He therefore regards anchoring as an 'unsustainable activity' within the term of Rio Treaty

Response:
Yes, if there is evidence of damage measures should be taken to prevent it. But the anchorage has been in use by small boats since the first world war, and has recovered from significant destruction by disease in the 1930s. The anchorage is not significantly more heavily used that it was in the mid/late 1970s, and there is no significant deterioration apparent over the 40 year period. Local observers (and many visitors) claim the eelgrass bed is expanding.

2. Conservationist divers in the Bay claim there is wholesale destruction of the eelgrass, highlighted by the Packham TV programme, and boat owners are wilfully destroying the habitat.

Response: that is not what either we or local residents can see for ourselves happening. The beds appear to be spreading - it is significantly more difficult to find a clear spot to drop anchor than it was 20 years ago. There is no evidence of 'wholesale destruction' of habitat. Even Dr Collins agrees the eelgrass is in 'pretty good condition' at present. (local radio interview, Dec 2010)

THE SOLUTIONS

1. Close the bay as anchorage. The conservationists preferred solution, to allow the eelgrass to develop 'normally' and recover to its best state.

2. Lay a number of moorings in the Bay, so that we can secure our boats there, and not drop anchors. This is what most main line conservation groups are saying. Advantages - our boats are securely moored .
Disadvantages: laying sufficient moorings for a Bank holiday would need around 200 buoys. This would destroy the appearance of the Bay, and for most of the year the moorings would be unused anyway. fewer buoys would mean some visitors would be turned away. By whom?

3. Lay between 30 and 50 visitor buoys, and then allow anchoring when they are full. Advantages Local residents would accept this aesthetically. Owners can choose whether to lie to a mooring or anchor. Conservationists agree this would take enough pressure off the eelgrass to allow it to recover.

Disadvantages: Cost: 50 moorings could cost around £150k to lay, then someone would have to maintain, manage and insure them.

4 Extend the VNAZ areas, and mark where the 'safe anchorage' areas are, and ask visitors to respect these arrangements. Advantages: cheap, easily managed, and helps visiting boating community to anchor/moor responsibly. Anchoring and VNAZ areas could be shifted periodically to help the eelgrass.

Disadvantages. Relies on visitors to act responsibly. What to do about the inevitable 'idiots' and the 'Birmingham Navy ' who do not know a tide table from a port hand marker.'

5. Leave it alone - its Ok, its surviving as it is. Don't interfere.
Advantages: easy!
Disadvantages: anchoring does actually do some damage when anchors are allowed to drag for example. Will not satisy conservationists or meet government conservation objective targets.

This is a brief summary of the possible ways forward, and the end result could be a combination. The bottom line is that IF and MCZ is placed on Studland, then almost certainly some sort of restriction is almost certain to be needed.


EFMs

Environmentally friendly moorings:

These are in use in other parts of the world and are claimed to work safely and efficiently. Conservationists want them to be used exclusively in Studland. BORG has investigated, and there are a number fo question marks over their suitability, and insurability for Studland. They are also costly. Would you want to leave your boat on a mooring made of a bungee? Some say yes, others no.

SEAHORSES

And finally: There is no evidence that the presence of boats in any way disturbs Seahorses. Their presence in many South Coast tidal marinas tends to confirm this. The real concern is that anchoring in Studlands Eelgrass is damaging/ destroying the habitat of what is claimed to be the only known Breeding ground in the UK. Many question this claim, as there are reports of pregnant specimens being observed elsewhere on the S Coast, including Southampton Water

 

[grumpy_o_g]

Perhaps for reasons of tact and diplomacy you missed out the bit where the number of divers in Studland appears to have increased significantly and the sea-horses disappeared....

 

[Seajet]

Perhaps for reasons of tact and diplomacy you missed out the bit where the number of divers in Studland appears to have increased significantly and the sea-horses disappeared....

We didn't miss that one, and have asked some awkward questions !

If a member of 'Facebook' the 'Save Studland Bay' site is well worth a look - set up by residents who are keen on visiting boats, furious at idiot divers ( some of whom have e-mailed threats to women residents ! ) - in the hands of the police; after that, what can I say ?!

 

[Boathook]

THE ARGUMENTS

1.Dr Collins says there is potential for long term damage to the Eelgrass beds, and is 'advocating caution'. He advocates the 'Precautionary Principle' which means action should be taken now to ensure that damage does not occur. His study claims that when anchors damage or tear up an area of eelgrass this does not recover quickly. He therefore regards anchoring as an 'unsustainable activity' within the term of Rio Treaty

Response:
Yes, if there is evidence of damage measures should be taken to prevent it. But the anchorage has been in use by small boats since the first world war, and has recovered from significant destruction by disease in the 1930s. The anchorage is not significantly more heavily used that it was in the 1970s, yet there is no significant deterioration over th 40 year period.

2. Conservationist divers in the Bay claim there is wholesale destruction of the eelgrass, highlighted by the Packham TV programme, and boat owners are wilfully destroying the habitat.

Response: that is not what either we or local residents can see for ourselves happening. The beds appear to be spreading - it is significantly more difficult to find a clear spot to drop anchor than it was 20 years ago. There is no evidence of 'wholesale destruction' of habitat. Even Dr Collins agrees the eelgrass is in 'pretty good condition' at present. (local radio interview, Dec 2011)

THE SOLUTIONS

1. Close the bay as anchorage. The conservationists preferred solution, to allow the eelgrass to develop 'normally' and recover to its best state.

2. Lay a number of moorings in the Bay, so that we can secure our boats there, and not drop anchors. This is what most main line conservation groups are saying. Advantages - our boats are securely moored .
Disadvantages: laying sufficient moorings for a Bank holiday would need around 200 buoys. This would destroy the appearance of the Bay, and for most of the year the moorings would be unused anyway. fewer buoys would mean some visitors would be turned away. By whom?

3. Lay between 30 and 50 visitor buoys, and then allow anchoring when they are full. Advantages Local residents would accept this aesthetically. Owners can choose whether to lie to a mooring or anchor. Conservationists agree this would take enough pressure off the eelgrass to allow it to recover.

Disadvantages: Cost: 50 moorings could cost around £150k to lay, then someone would have to maintain, manage and insure them.

4 Extend the VNAZ areas, and mark where the 'safe anchorage' areas are, and ask visitors to respect these arrangements. Advantages: cheap, easily managed, and helps visiting boating community to anchor/moor responsibly. Anchoring and VNAZ areas could be shifted periodically to help the eelgrass.

Disadvantages. Relies on visitors to act responsibly. What to do about the inevitable 'idiots' and the 'Birmingham Navy ' who do not know a tide table from a port hand marker.'

5. Leave it alone - its Ok, its surviving as it is. Don't interfere.
Advantages: easy!
Disadvantages: anchoring does actually do some damage when anchors are allowed to drag for example. Will not satisy conservationists or meet government conservation objective targets.

This is a brief summary of the possible ways forward, and the end result could be a combination. The bottom line is that IF and MCZ is placed on Studland, then almost certainly some sort of restriction is almost certain to be needed.


EFMs

Environmentally friendly moorings:

These are in use in other parts of the world and are claimed to work safely and efficiently. Conservationists want them to be used exclusively in Studland. BORG has investigated, and there are a number fo question marks over their suitability, and insurability for Studland. They are also costly. Would you want to leave your boat on a mooring made of a bungee? Some say yes, others no.

A quick glance at the options listed, number 3 seems the best, assuming that number 5 is a non starter. If there is a spare mooring I tend to go for that now days due to the problem of anchoring. If I do anchor, it is in close as possible to get the shelter assuming a SW wind.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

We didn't miss that one, and have asked some awkward questions !

Thanks Seajet....

 

[ARCO7]

Save Studland Bay Community

I have found the new public debating site Save Studland Bay Community on facebook and the exchanges are still as heated as ever !
If you feel tempted to have your say, and who wouldn't, you will need to become part of facebook.
The Seahorse Trust are very quiet ,but Mr T is very active on this community by the sound of things.
I still think this country will run out of cash before these new MCZ's are created and enforced so perhaps the best option for everyone (sealife included) would be to rubber stamp every approved zone as voluntary .
This will keep any further costs to HM Government down to virtually zero and we can have a fully operational Naval Fleet with two state of the art aircraft carriers , because by god I think we're going to need them .

 

[oldharry]

We don't have the option of approving of things voluntarily do we?
I should keep your powder dry for the real battle.

I agree. The real battle comes next year when the White Paper appears - currently scheduled for next spring. Theres a danger if we fire everything off now, the campaign will have burnt out before the real battle starts. Papers will only run this sort of thing once - they dont like long protracted arguments - it doesnt make good 'snappy' headlines!

But yes, voluntary arrangements fro MCZs are allowed within the legislation, but not liked by conservationists because they cant be enforced.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Sorry I removed my original post Harry.I admire your patience.

 

[platypus]

We are all conservationists. The application of the term exclusively to Trewella and the Seahorse Trust (Membership 1 as far as anyone can ascertain) by Finding Sanctuary is invidious, dishonest and just plain incompetent. We should object on these grounds and have the thing rewritten so that the it reads the boating conservations and the divers with a financial interest.
Otherwise it reads as Conservationists versus everyone else - and of course the conservationists get the Bambi vote.

- We are all conservationists and will object in the strongest terms if we are labelled as anything else. In fact it can be argued that our claim is the greater as at least we are not garotting seahorses with tags or interfering with their habitat and quiet life with cameras and torches at all hours of the day and night.

So from now on we should refer to ourselves as the leisure boating conservationists.

 

[Seajet]

We are all conservationists. The application of the term exclusively to Trewella and the Seahorse Trust (Membership 1 as far as anyone can ascertain) by Finding Sanctuary is invidious, dishonest and just plain incompetent. We should object on these grounds and have the thing rewritten so that the it reads the boating conservations and the divers with a financial interest.
Otherwise it reads as Conservationists versus everyone else - and of course the conservationists get the Bambi vote.

- We are all conservationists and will object in the strongest terms if we are labelled as anything else. In fact it can be argued that our claim is the greater as at least we are not garotting seahorses with tags or interfering with their habitat and quiet life with cameras and torches at all hours of the day and night.

So from now on we should refer to ourselves as the leisure boating conservationists.

Platypus,

well that's put it even stronger than I would have, but you're on the right lines, well said !

 

[Sans Bateau]

Platypus,

well that's put it even stronger than I would have, but you're on the right lines, well said !

+ 1 Spot on!

 

[oldharry]

another +1.

Kc he says 'admires my patience'. It gets mighty thin sometimes.... VERY thin in fact when I get branded yet again in the press and elsewhere, as a toffee nosed gin swilling .... er, sorry Natalie!

 

[peterb]

If this is to be a sticky, it needs to be right. I suspect a few typos:

Studland and mcz summary - 2 studland itself
________________________________________

Dec 2012, BORG is formally recognised by Finding Sanctuary and joins their Dorset Local Working Group studying the Purbeck coast with a view to defining MCZs in the area.

February 2012. BORG recognised and supported by RYA, and now working with their Conservation and Planning Advisors, and legal department

Are these dates right, or should they be 2010 and 2011?



Studland and mcz summary - 2 arguments and solutions
________________________________________
THE ARGUMENTS

1. Yes, if there is evidence of damage measures should be taken to prevent it. But the anchorage has been in use by small boats since the first World War, and has recovered from significant destruction by disease in the 1930s. The anchorage is not significantly more heavily used that it was in the 1970s, yet there is no significant deterioration over th 40 year period.


I suspect that it should read: "The anchorage is now significantly more heavily used that it was in the 1970s, yet there is no significant deterioration over the 40 year period. "

 

[oldharry]

Typos

If this is to be a sticky, it needs to be right. I suspect a few typos:

Studland and mcz summary - 2 studland itself
________________________________________

Dec 2012, BORG is formally recognised by Finding Sanctuary and joins their Dorset Local Working Group studying the Purbeck coast with a view to defining MCZs in the area.

February 2012. BORG recognised and supported by RYA, and now working with their Conservation and Planning Advisors, and legal department

Are these dates right, or should they be 2010 and 2011?



Studland and mcz summary - 2 arguments and solutions
________________________________________
THE ARGUMENTS

1. Yes, if there is evidence of damage measures should be taken to prevent it. But the anchorage has been in use by small boats since the first World War, and has recovered from significant destruction by disease in the 1930s. The anchorage is not significantly more heavily used that it was in the 1970s, yet there is no significant deterioration over th 40 year period.


I suspect that it should read: "The anchorage is now significantly more heavily used that it was in the 1970s, yet there is no significant deterioration over the 40 year period. "

Oops gone into Back to the future mode there. Dates corrected. Thanks.

The usage of the bay is a vexed question, as no one until the last few years bothered to count boats, and there are no clear answers.

Neil Garrick Maindoment Director of SHT reckons he has known the Bay since the late 1980's, and says there 'has been no significant increase' in that time.

I visited the Bay in the mid 70s regularly and remember seeing 150 + boats. Studlanders have photos from that time which appear to confirm that. I have a photo from around ten years ago showing 200 in the picture on a fine Bank Holiday saturday.

Recent records show the number of vistors are decreasing - due no doubt to the poor summers in recent years, recession, and fuel prices, and this year has shown a marked decline with around 120 at peak holiday times. So the 'not' stands.

EDIT: 1/11. I have toothcombed the summary, and made one or two minor changes and additions, and have also included a brief note about Seahorses, as many reports make them the main issue at Studland.

 

[fireball]

EDIT: 1/11. I have toothcombed the summary, and made one or two minor changes and additions, and have also included a brief note about Seahorses, as many reports make them the main issue at Studland.

Just another vote of thanks ... I look at the reports (not yours - the others) and the way they're written just sends me to sleep ... just why they have to make it so flipping complex is beyond me ...
I would suggest that is why there is so little "uproar" from the sailing majority who will be affected by all this ...

 

[oldharry]

Just another vote of thanks ... I look at the reports (not yours - the others) and the way they're written just sends me to sleep ... just why they have to make it so flipping complex is beyond me ...
I would suggest that is why there is so little "uproar" from the sailing majority who will be affected by all this ...

The tactic works well... send the opposition to sleep

the art is identifying the two sentences per page that actually SAY aomething!

 

[prv]

just why they have to make it so flipping complex is beyond me ...

It's a defence mechanism. Standard Civil Service technique - IIRC even Plain Words admitted that sometimes the purpose of a document is to communicate nothing while appearing to say a lot. (The advice there was to make sure you only do this when you mean to, and not slip into it by mistake!)

Pete

 

[ARCO7]

Seahorse Tails

Borg, SBPA,Save Studland Bay Group and Community on Facebook etc etc.
Well I am very grateful for all their efforts and had it not been for these individuals our boating freedoms would by now be well on the way to being truly scuppered .
Following this thread ,Borg and the Studland Bay Groups I have had my eyes opened to the modus operndi of conservation groups and persons connected with said industry.
If all else fails and Studland Bay and other vital small craft anchorages become NO ANCHOR ZONES at least these guys and dolls can say they did their best to prevent it.
I never get bored of this subject and support their stand in any way I can when time allows in my busy schedule.