Studland Bay summary

[oldharry]

Update from the RYA this week, MMO have agreed with our request to streamline the licensing procedure for Private uncontrolled moorings, final details to be worked out.

The website carries the new details:
http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Private moorings.pdf

 

[ARCO7]

Removal of Studland Bay No Anchor Zone

How long ago was this news released ?
10 days ago and yet there has been nothing in the Bournemouth Daily Echo or on their website that even mentions this important turn of the tide.
Yet they have covered every single story in support of the career conservationists since this all started back in 2008 .
Doesn't seem right that a local paper doesn't support the general views and opinions of its readership fairly.
Some might even call it financial suicide ! But they do seem to have to keep the career conservationists happy at any cost .
PCC will have to have a letter if this continues.
As for the new open sea mooring charges ,I do hope that their 1000s of owners around the UK are made fully aware of the two larger than life conservationists who were responsible for kicking up the sand and ultimately creating these new charges.

 

[Seajet]

The Echo has behaved disgustingly throughout this sorry debacle, no doubt if a correction with the reality is printed, it will be on page 99 in tiny print.

Serious journalists ? They should be ashamed.

 

[oldharry]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-18719619

Studland suddenly has become one of the 'most important marine sites in the UK' apparently. Julie Hatcher should know better - as Marine Awareness Officer for DWT, she ought to know that the Fleet has many more rare and unique species and habitats and richly deserves the high level of MCZ protection recommended, and agreed by all concerned.

And the slant that this is somehow a retrograde step. Really! The licence to set up the VNAZ was issued by MMO in consultation with the Local Authority. They agreed and the license was issued for the duration of the Seastar Survey only, and as soon as CE and NE announced that they would not fund any further research, under the terms of the licence it had to be removed.

 

[Tranona]

Julie and Steve have turned their attentions west. Featured in a recent TV programme about sealife in the rock pools at Kimmeridge. Used to be such a lovely peaceful place.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

Arco7 points out the Bournemouth Echo has not reported the Seastar Survey results.

I suggest people write in to the Echo and tell them about it. There's a page on their website for sending in "letters to the editor". Here's the one I just sent, I'm sure others can improve on it:

"Good news for Studland seahorses!

Great news – a 2-year thorough scientific survey of the eelgrass beds in Studland Bay by Seastar Surveys has found “There is no consistent evidence of boat anchoring impacting the seagrass habitat at Studland Bay”. Full results are published on the website of the Crown Estates, who commissioned the survey.

So the conservationists will be absolutely delighted that boats anchoring in the Bay are not harming the eelgrass and seahorses after all, and that it all turns out to have been a big unfounded scare story.

And I can drop an anchor with a clear conscience.

“Studland Visitor”

 

[Boathook]

Julie and Steve have turned their attentions west. Featured in a recent TV programme about sealife in the rock pools at Kimmeridge. Used to be such a lovely peaceful place.

I feel sorry for all the sealife that lives in these pools. Nothing but disturbance and being netted, tagged, etc. Give it a few months and persons will be night fishing in the pools .........

 

[Tranona]

The focus of Steve's interest was a tiny snail, so small you could hardly see it. May well be food for the bass that run into the bay with the tide to feed. Wonder if he approves of bass feeding on other creatures?

 

[oldharry]

Natural England will today be submitting to DEFRA the final report, which will contain their statutory recommendations for MCZs in English waters (NOT Wales or Scotland).

From this DEFRA will draft the Government White Paper, which will form the basis for the Public Discussion in December.

As soon as links are available,we will post them here and on the BORG website, and when we have had time to study it properly, we will post a summary of those which are likely to affect us up in the BORG 'Latest News' section.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Thanks for all the effort you guys have put in.

You deserve a very big forum-funded p*ss-up!

 

[oldharry]

NATURAL ENGLAND REPORT published today

The final reports from Natural England and the JNCC with their recommendations for the English MCZs is now available:

An Executive Summary is here: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/2104196

and the Main report: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/2097275

Be warned! the main report is 1450+ pages, a lot of it not relevant to our activities.

A first quick skim through (nearly 2 hours!) has not shown any major surprises, and most of it seems to confirm the recommendations in the Regional reports a year ago.

A summary by species /location of 'Conservation Objectives' can be found in Annex 11 which starts on P1105. Run down the list until you find the location you are interested in - it runs round the coast from Newcastle anticlockwise, more or less in geographical sequence.

The report continues to use the three primary 'Conservation Objective ' gradings of Reference, Recover and Maintain. Maintain means that it is protected, but no action is needed; Recover means that the feature is under pressure from human interference, and some form of Management will be needed to protect it; Reference means that the feature should have all human influence removed as far as possible.

It does not discuss how these Objectives could be acheived, and DEFRA have decided that designation can proceed without defining Management protocols. i.e. we still will not know how it will actually affect us.

All the main Eelgrass anchorages are designated 'recover' including Norris, Bembridge, and Yarmouth in the Solent, with Studland, Torbay and Falmouth.

For Studland fans, see p1126 of the main report, and importantly, p342 of the Executive report. It appears they had not received the Seastar report on anchor damage, so predictably, the report continues to recommend that anchor damage IS an issue, but that further reports are awaited. There is no discussion in the report of the issues surrounding these recommendations.

After the weekend we will get more details onto the BORG website.

See you out there!

 

[ARCO7]

Twist of News at Studland

Highly delighted that the No Anchor Area Survey found no concrete evidence of any damage being done to seagrass by anchoring boats within Studland Bay .
However this week saw an article published on line by Boating Business which says that Natural England want 100 ecomoorings to be put in the bay and the anchorage area reduced ???????
Something isn't right here is it ! and having read more about how Studland Bay was selected as a MCZ , the penny drops that someone isn't doing their homework and checking out all available information both from the locals and indeed from the Admiralty Chart .
Anyway, the Save Studland Bay Group have put up an online petition at

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/savestudlandbay

Where you can sign to save the area from becoming a fully fledged Restricted Marine Conservation Zone .
I hope the VNAZ Yellow Buoys have gone by the time we visit next week .

 

[oldharry]

BORG contacted Crown Estates and MMO about the VNAZ on Monday, asking for its urgent removal now the better weather has arrived (80 boats in the Bay on saturday). SBPA too have been asking for some time for the VNAZ to be removed.

Buoys were removed on Wednesday, and anchoring is permitted throughout the bay again.

As far as the reports are concerned, we have asked Natural England how they justify the continued claim that anchoring is causing damage in the face of the reports we have submitted, the many scientific papers we have found, and the Seastar Survey. We have asked why these reports appear to have been ignored. We have also asked what evidence is available to support their claim, as we have tried and found nothing to support it.

We suggested that without that evidence, the argument becomes little more than an urban myth circulating the corridors of Natural England.

We have been promised a reply next week. How can they justify the 'recover' objective? What is damaging it so much that Studland is included in the 'high risk of damage' list? It will be interesting to see. We should then know more specifically how we can move forward, as the main report is so completely out of date.

 

[Searush]

I think you rather stunned them with your response to their report. I have a suspicion that having worked on it so long with a specific objective in mind that they have got caught up by their own perceptions & have not seen the report as it appears to a critical outsider.

It comes over as a highly complex bubble attempting to demonstrate something that is evidently not true - I reckon you burst their bubble & they do not yet know how to react. They simply hadn't expected the little boy to point & shout "The King is naked!"

 

[oldharry]

Well it does seem extraordinary that after six months of debate, all the material that we - and particularly Dr Simons excellent papers - have submitted, followed by a major 2 year study of the specific problem of anchor damage, they appear to simply ignore the lot, and in a totally blinkered fashion just gone on mumbling about anchor damage. How on earth they think they will get away with it, i can not imagine, and wait with real interest to see how they justify such a fundamental error in a major government sponsored report.

I know having discussed it individually and in meetings with several senior NE people, that this is a widely held belief around the corridors of NE. But they have yet to produce a shred of actual evidence to support it.

Unsurprisingly the Seastar Survey has been thoroughly rubbished by the Diving/Seahorse fraternity. They were invited to participate in the survey, and to bring their knowledge, skills (!) and expertise (!!) to the survey team. They refused from day one, which speaks volumes in itself.

 

[Seajet]

Old Harry, Arco 7 & others,

the notion of professionally paid pressure groups hanging onto flawed ideas seems to be a constant theme of the Studland debate.

The 'environmentally friendly' moorings still cause the hairs to rise in horror on engineers, sailors and insurance brokers, and the generally agreed figure - even before the Government accountants mentioned " you are joking, aren't you ?! " was 30 moorings.

Why am I not surprised that tiny details like geography and physical dimensions get sidelined ?

It has always been rather clear that divers - who have only been around since Mr Cousteau - can't come up with a decent argument - my favourite was " we've discovered the rare delightful Undulate Ray there ! " - while not spotting the fact that these things eat the supposedly equally rare & delightful Seahorses !

While no-one except nocturnal Chinese divers - apparently attracted by all the fuss from Career Conservationists - wouldn't want the wee beasties eaten, Seahorses aren't rare anyway, there are plenty of sightings all around the South Coast, often at working ports which reinforces the idea that Seahorses like activity & moorings.

However these working harbours keep very quiet about Seahorse sightings, as they've seen the Career Conservationists close businesses down; the one laudable exception was the Port Of London Authority, when Seahorses were spotted in the Thames and a move was made by the eco-nutters to set up an exclusion zone, the PLA replied " you and whose army ?! "

Divers would rather have Studland Bay as a private paddling pool to pose around in their ribs, ignoring the safety and indeed eco - friendly quiet pleasure of boat owners - who were there well before the Romans and aren't out to make money out of it.

I have asked the Bournemouth Echo why they have published the discredited propaganda of the Career Conservationists for the last couple of years but have so far failed to report the findings of the SeaStar Survey; I will let you know if I get any reply, but as the days go by I'm not holding my breath !

 

[Tranona]

Well known strategy to rubbish something in advance because you know that it will not give you the answer you want. Even more so when you would have liked to carry out the work (which would of course have given the "right" answer).

 

[oldharry]

Well known strategy to rubbish something in advance because you know that it will not give you the answer you want. Even more so when you would have liked to carry out the work (which would of course have given the "right" answer).

Exactly: it was obvious very early the divers knew the survey wouldn't come up with the answers they wanted - and were rubbishing it almost immediately.

MMO are waiting to see what the recommendations are for Studland, and as far as I am aware the proposal is actually for betwen 30 and 50 EFMs - of a suitable type. They have formed a small study group to trial a small number of EFMs in Studland, which I have been invited to join, along with NicK Warner who leads the SBPA group. However, the latest round of cutbacks may have put something of a question mark on funding this project. The Welsh are also proposing a similar project.

 

[Seajet]

However, the latest round of cutbacks may have put something of a question mark on funding this project. The Welsh are also proposing a similar project.

Old Harry,

it comes back to the same old question doesn't it; in a country which can only fund bankers and their chums, not the Ark Royal, Harriers ( which could have done recent sorties at a fraction of the cost of Tornado's, if it was a good idea at all ), hospital wings, schools or care for the elderly, who would be willing to sign for pointless exclusion zones let alone the new force of Land Rovers, RIBS and berks with big illuminated hats to police them ?!

 

[Tomahawk]

Old Harry,

it comes back to the same old question doesn't it; in a country which can only fund bankers and their chums, not the Ark Royal, Harriers ( which could have done recent sorties at a fraction of the cost of Tornado's, if it was a good idea at all ), hospital wings, schools or care for the elderly, who would be willing to sign for pointless exclusion zones let alone the new force of Land Rovers, RIBS and berks with big illuminated hats to police them ?!

Whilst you have a very good point.. you entirely miss the issue..

Studland Bay is important. It has important species and important eel grass. the importance is distraction from all the real cr*p going on in the world which you allude to. If you film a pretty picture of a seahorse in the eelgrass the morons will not notice inflation, unemployment, poverty Etc..