MarlynSpyke
Active member
YESOD, thanks very much for pointing that out - I've done exactly as you suggest, and it certainly is easy enough to put your own message on the online form. Let's hope plenty of other folk do this too.
Studland Bay summary
- Thread starter oldharry
- Start date
YESOD, thanks very much for pointing that out - I've done exactly as you suggest, and it certainly is easy enough to put your own message on the online form. Let's hope plenty of other folk do this too.
Seajet
...
Thanks yesod,
I did just that and replaced their nonsense with a few torpedos below the waterline for NE !
Searush
New member
I've sent my complaint to my MP too. 
grumpy_o_g
Well-known member
Before I send it can you kind people just verify my facts if possible? Thanks
The Rt. Hon Tobias Ellwood, MP
The House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear Tobias Ellwood,
I have been encouraged to email a letter to you on behalf of the Marine Conversation Society, which they very kindly wrote for me, and then asked me to fill in a form with my name and address on so that they could append my name to the letter as if I wrote it. Personally I would condemn this behaviour but it is typical of tactics used and misinformation sent by this organisation and other so-called conservation groups. Conflicts of interest abound and charities spring up, presenting themselves as if they were official bodies. People and groups likely to oppose their viewpoint are excluded from discussions, even official discussions wherever possible.
As a keen sailor I am absolutely dedicated to preserving as much as possible of our land and seas and the flora and fauna within it so that it can be enjoyed by all. I'm also very aware that we all eventually, however remote the connection, live off the products of our land and seas. I find that the vast majority of my colleagues are like-minded. Unfortunately the MCS and similar groups seem to be totally closed to a holistic and realistic view and take the viewpoint that only they are interested in preserving our countryside and coastline and that all others should be excluded at all costs. Man is part of the fauna too, and has mostly co-existed with other species successfully for many years - our position as the dominant and (supposedly) most intelligent species on this planet gives us both privileges and responsibilities. Now however we are over-fishing our seas and are now plundering long-lived and slow reproducing species in ever increasing numbers. Trawling often scours the sea-beds leaving them barren and takes fish comparatively indiscriminately and in huge quantities. This has to stop and the appalling and farcical waste caused by the CFP quota should be unilaterally discarded and enforced by Britain if need be, as well as raised as a matter of urgency with the EU. Encouragement, assistance and even initial subsidies must be given to what's left of Britain's fishing fleet to redeploy them to either sustainable stocks or even alternative employment.
The creation of MCZ's will help little towards saving our fish stocks or most species - most MCZ's are the result of lobbying by an extreme group of self-proclaimed ecologists. In our own area we have the farce of Studland Bay to protect a few sea-horses (which actually seem to thrive in the presence of human activity, witness their sighting everywhere from the Thames to Brighton Marina) and some sea-grass which is actually growing better than ever desite, or perhaps because of the present quantity of boats anchoring there. In practice most boats avoid the eel-grass areas anyway as they provide poor holding so they probably have little impact. An extensive study which failed to prove any connection between anchoring and damage to sea-grass has now been disputed by Natural England (which should be a neutral body but is in fact composed almost entirely of "ecologists") - the dispute is largely based around the methodology used, something that was determined by Natural England themselves. The 70 page report of the study conducted over a period of two years under scientific control was totally ignored by Natural England, as was aerial photographic evidence that the sea-grass coverage had increased since the War. Further the results of the survey were available to them for several months before being made available to the public. Why? This was a publicly-funded scientific study with absolutely no confidential data in the results. The unavoidable assumption is that Natural England are trying to influence their submission (their "Final Advice to the Government") as it doesn't suit the message they want to give.
The impact of these MCZ's will be to drastically limit and in some cases eliminate the public's ability to enjoy the coast of what was and should be one of the greatest maritime nations in the world. It will damage the tourist and boat-building industries in our area beyond measure. Think of Poole Quay in summer - what will the tripper boats offer? A trip out to the middle of the English Channel and back? Where will the thousands of day sails that happen from Poole go if Studland Bay is closed? The weather, the cost of fuel (especially red diesel), the farce that is the Twin Sails bridge and the increasing squeeze on everyone's disposable income are already making it difficult for the £3BN industry that is leisure boating in the UK - for many this would be the straw that broke the camel's back - the boat would be sold, berthing fees saved and, instead of that money being spent locally, it would likely be spent on overseas holidays or in the home area of the former boat-owner. There are some very strong arguments against the majority of the MCZ's.
When you look at the arguments in favour of them you find that, in almost all cases they have completely missed the opportunity to actually be of any use. Scallop dredgers will still be able to scour the sea bed, once abundant species will still be fished to near extinction. There are a few cases that are valid but these are almost a coincidence rather than a result of due process and scientific study.
I absolutely and urgently ask you to oppose the wholesale creation of MCZ's around our coast and ask that proper and balanced consideration be given to the needs of the public and those who actually travel on our seas regularly.
I therefore wholeheartedly oppose the establishment of this network of MCZs and support an immediate review of and changes to the CFP and would ask that you represent this stance to the Environment Minister, Richard Benyon, MP, perhaps highlighting to him the inappropriate and dubious behaviour of some of the parties involved.
My thanks in anticipation of your time and attention on this matter, I look forward to hearing from you on this issue.
Yours faithfully
The Rt. Hon Tobias Ellwood, MP
The House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear Tobias Ellwood,
I have been encouraged to email a letter to you on behalf of the Marine Conversation Society, which they very kindly wrote for me, and then asked me to fill in a form with my name and address on so that they could append my name to the letter as if I wrote it. Personally I would condemn this behaviour but it is typical of tactics used and misinformation sent by this organisation and other so-called conservation groups. Conflicts of interest abound and charities spring up, presenting themselves as if they were official bodies. People and groups likely to oppose their viewpoint are excluded from discussions, even official discussions wherever possible.
As a keen sailor I am absolutely dedicated to preserving as much as possible of our land and seas and the flora and fauna within it so that it can be enjoyed by all. I'm also very aware that we all eventually, however remote the connection, live off the products of our land and seas. I find that the vast majority of my colleagues are like-minded. Unfortunately the MCS and similar groups seem to be totally closed to a holistic and realistic view and take the viewpoint that only they are interested in preserving our countryside and coastline and that all others should be excluded at all costs. Man is part of the fauna too, and has mostly co-existed with other species successfully for many years - our position as the dominant and (supposedly) most intelligent species on this planet gives us both privileges and responsibilities. Now however we are over-fishing our seas and are now plundering long-lived and slow reproducing species in ever increasing numbers. Trawling often scours the sea-beds leaving them barren and takes fish comparatively indiscriminately and in huge quantities. This has to stop and the appalling and farcical waste caused by the CFP quota should be unilaterally discarded and enforced by Britain if need be, as well as raised as a matter of urgency with the EU. Encouragement, assistance and even initial subsidies must be given to what's left of Britain's fishing fleet to redeploy them to either sustainable stocks or even alternative employment.
The creation of MCZ's will help little towards saving our fish stocks or most species - most MCZ's are the result of lobbying by an extreme group of self-proclaimed ecologists. In our own area we have the farce of Studland Bay to protect a few sea-horses (which actually seem to thrive in the presence of human activity, witness their sighting everywhere from the Thames to Brighton Marina) and some sea-grass which is actually growing better than ever desite, or perhaps because of the present quantity of boats anchoring there. In practice most boats avoid the eel-grass areas anyway as they provide poor holding so they probably have little impact. An extensive study which failed to prove any connection between anchoring and damage to sea-grass has now been disputed by Natural England (which should be a neutral body but is in fact composed almost entirely of "ecologists") - the dispute is largely based around the methodology used, something that was determined by Natural England themselves. The 70 page report of the study conducted over a period of two years under scientific control was totally ignored by Natural England, as was aerial photographic evidence that the sea-grass coverage had increased since the War. Further the results of the survey were available to them for several months before being made available to the public. Why? This was a publicly-funded scientific study with absolutely no confidential data in the results. The unavoidable assumption is that Natural England are trying to influence their submission (their "Final Advice to the Government") as it doesn't suit the message they want to give.
The impact of these MCZ's will be to drastically limit and in some cases eliminate the public's ability to enjoy the coast of what was and should be one of the greatest maritime nations in the world. It will damage the tourist and boat-building industries in our area beyond measure. Think of Poole Quay in summer - what will the tripper boats offer? A trip out to the middle of the English Channel and back? Where will the thousands of day sails that happen from Poole go if Studland Bay is closed? The weather, the cost of fuel (especially red diesel), the farce that is the Twin Sails bridge and the increasing squeeze on everyone's disposable income are already making it difficult for the £3BN industry that is leisure boating in the UK - for many this would be the straw that broke the camel's back - the boat would be sold, berthing fees saved and, instead of that money being spent locally, it would likely be spent on overseas holidays or in the home area of the former boat-owner. There are some very strong arguments against the majority of the MCZ's.
When you look at the arguments in favour of them you find that, in almost all cases they have completely missed the opportunity to actually be of any use. Scallop dredgers will still be able to scour the sea bed, once abundant species will still be fished to near extinction. There are a few cases that are valid but these are almost a coincidence rather than a result of due process and scientific study.
I absolutely and urgently ask you to oppose the wholesale creation of MCZ's around our coast and ask that proper and balanced consideration be given to the needs of the public and those who actually travel on our seas regularly.
I therefore wholeheartedly oppose the establishment of this network of MCZs and support an immediate review of and changes to the CFP and would ask that you represent this stance to the Environment Minister, Richard Benyon, MP, perhaps highlighting to him the inappropriate and dubious behaviour of some of the parties involved.
My thanks in anticipation of your time and attention on this matter, I look forward to hearing from you on this issue.
Yours faithfully
Tomahawk
Well-known member
i am writing sometning...
I suggest that we try and be brief... MP's are verey busy and a long letter may not get the attention of a short note?
I suggest that we try and be brief... MP's are verey busy and a long letter may not get the attention of a short note?
Studland Resident
New member
Grumpy o g
Your letter to Hon Elwood a couple of comments:-
I do not think Elwood is in the cabinet, in which case his title should be "Hon" not "Rt Hon". (Needs Checking) Also I think Richard Benyon Has moved from DEFRA
The sponsers of the MCZs are not just ecologicists, they are PROFESSIONAL conservationists, they do it for a living. ie no conservation, no job.
The Sea Star survey is the ONLY scientific Data available. The case for MCZs is based almost entirely on the OPINION of certain senior Professional conservationists.
Hope this helps
Your letter to Hon Elwood a couple of comments:-
I do not think Elwood is in the cabinet, in which case his title should be "Hon" not "Rt Hon". (Needs Checking) Also I think Richard Benyon Has moved from DEFRA
The sponsers of the MCZs are not just ecologicists, they are PROFESSIONAL conservationists, they do it for a living. ie no conservation, no job.
The Sea Star survey is the ONLY scientific Data available. The case for MCZs is based almost entirely on the OPINION of certain senior Professional conservationists.
Hope this helps
Tomahawk
Well-known member
A couple of questions come to mind.
Who paid for the Seastar survey? It seems that EN have caused a significant waste of public money in that they wrote a survey spec which they then discredited. That being so I feel it is pertinent to question the professional capability of the individual's who prepared the Seastar survey methodology.
Given the present strain on public sector finds, this is a significant failing by a public funded body. Can we get the Audit Comission to investigate such waste?
Who paid for the Seastar survey? It seems that EN have caused a significant waste of public money in that they wrote a survey spec which they then discredited. That being so I feel it is pertinent to question the professional capability of the individual's who prepared the Seastar survey methodology.
Given the present strain on public sector finds, this is a significant failing by a public funded body. Can we get the Audit Comission to investigate such waste?
Clammer
New member
Interesting point made by Tomahawk above. Somrpetime ago I asked for the cost of The Seastar Survey under FOI and received the following answer "You asked for the total cost of the Seastar Survey in Studland Bay, Dorset. I can confirm that the total cost of this survey was £119,074.45 over three years, of which The Crown Estate's contribution was £100,499.45."
So nearly £120,000 spent on the Survey which I don't think takes into account the cost of the marker buoys. There were 6 in situ and one was replaced. They were of the helix type and certainly were not cheap.
I think you could well ask for an enquiry into why NE who laid down the guidelines for this Survey are now saying it is invalid.
So nearly £120,000 spent on the Survey which I don't think takes into account the cost of the marker buoys. There were 6 in situ and one was replaced. They were of the helix type and certainly were not cheap.
I think you could well ask for an enquiry into why NE who laid down the guidelines for this Survey are now saying it is invalid.
Sybarite
Well-known member
GOG
I think you need to get to the object of your letter more quickly.
What is the issue and what do you want him to do about it?
I think you need to get to the object of your letter more quickly.
What is the issue and what do you want him to do about it?
Tranona
Well-known member
That is because it did not give the correct "answer". If it had, it would have been considered valid. The conclusion is helped by the fact that the original design of the study was heavily criticised, particularly by the parties that were unsuccessful in their bid for the contract. Post hoc rationalisation - and the professionals who write the report control the findings, which must, of course, fit their preconceived ideas.
Can you imagine them having to write something like ".. after an extensive study of the phenomenon we have now come to the conclusion that anchoring has minimal effect on the health of the seagrass beds in Studland", when they have spent the last x years warning of dire consequences?
Last edited:
oldharry
Well-known member
Clammers' answer above is spot onL nearly 120k spent, and NE now rubbishing it. They also sat on it for six months, which meant they did not have to explain it in their final 'Response...' report. BORG has asked the Govt Marine Science Coordination Committee why.
Tranona hits the nail on the head: reputations within NE stand on this.
Tranona hits the nail on the head: reputations within NE stand on this.
Tomahawk
Well-known member
Many thanks to Clammer and Old Harry.
As I said in my earlier post I had the Audit Commission in mind. I would also tend to think in terms of the Treasury Select Committee or the Office of Budget Responsibility on the simple grounds of waste of public finds..
Whist NE can probably wriggle out of the scientific advice.. They will have more difficulty arguing their corner on a purely financial case in front of a bunch of auditors..
As I said in my earlier post I had the Audit Commission in mind. I would also tend to think in terms of the Treasury Select Committee or the Office of Budget Responsibility on the simple grounds of waste of public finds..
Whist NE can probably wriggle out of the scientific advice.. They will have more difficulty arguing their corner on a purely financial case in front of a bunch of auditors..
Tomahawk
Well-known member
Something separate..
Looking at many south Coast harbours there a lot of day charter dive and fishing boats..
The owners of those boats may stand to loose their businesses if the bug huggers get their way. Are there any forums for the sea angling community and also the sports diving community.. If so are they being made aare of the threat they face?
Now I do know there is a lot of rivalry between MoBos and Raggies but we both of us think sea anglers are nuts (sitting there in the cold for hours getting seasick). AS to thise funny types who dress up in rubber suits?
The thing here is that we all face a common enemy. English Nature and their army of publicly paid commercial conservationists..
Looking at many south Coast harbours there a lot of day charter dive and fishing boats..
The owners of those boats may stand to loose their businesses if the bug huggers get their way. Are there any forums for the sea angling community and also the sports diving community.. If so are they being made aare of the threat they face?
Now I do know there is a lot of rivalry between MoBos and Raggies but we both of us think sea anglers are nuts (sitting there in the cold for hours getting seasick). AS to thise funny types who dress up in rubber suits?
The thing here is that we all face a common enemy. English Nature and their army of publicly paid commercial conservationists..
grumpy_o_g
Well-known member
Thanks for the corrections. In reply to the others, yes it is a bit long but it makes the points I want to make. In fact both Tobias Ellwood and John Butterworth are aware of my opinions and concerns having spoken with them in the past.
oldharry
Well-known member
Not sure how worried NE would be about a 20k hole in the budget: their wages bill alone last year was £86m. 20k is just petty cash. No wonder the Chancellor grumbles about conservation 'affordability'.
Tomahawk
Well-known member
Harry
I am not explaining myself very well.. NE will not worry about the cash..
However I am hoping the Audit commission or the Treasury Select Committee would take a different view.. this is an indication of a poorly run organisation that is inefficient and wasteful.. Just the sort of thing that a cash strapped treasury can target as an easy win.. After all we are just talking about a few nerds, not the same as cutting front line services.
Do we have any members in this Parish who has a contact with folks high up in the Treasury?
oldharry
Well-known member
I was about to ask the same. The Debate is moving towards the Public consultation which we expect will be a 'gloves off' affair, and we will need people who know what they are talking about with eg Treasury committees. BORG has a huge info resource which we can put at your disposal, but we are going to need one or two more people who know how to use it specifically and effectively at high levels.
MarlynSpyke
Active member
Following from the above discussion, putting Natural England (NE) under the spotlight could be useful in the coming stages of the MCZ process. For example, public bodies take their rules and regulations, guidances, frameworks, protocols and so on very seriously – they have to comply. And these things are in fact very well documented on NE’s website.
So, what joy to find Natural England's first listed priority is to “reconnect people with nature”!
Did some of us have the impression it was to keep people (especially those in boats) away from nature?
Natural England’s underlying remit, set out in the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, is
"To ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development."
Note it says “and managed for the benefit of present and future generations” – i.e. people - so it’s actually not, as some had mistakenly thought, “ … for the benefit of present and future conservationists”!
And on Science and Evidence it says “…..We will embed out knowledge and evidence to enable good local decision-making and adaptive management through further learning and innovation.” Not sure what “embed” means here, but I hope it doesn’t mean “bury” – as some have suggested. (Me? I couldn’t possibly comment).
Anyway, there’s lots more stuff on their website and it would be great if others could help mine into it so the various parties can be reminded of their duties and responsibilities before, during and after the public consultation process.
So, what joy to find Natural England's first listed priority is to “reconnect people with nature”!
Did some of us have the impression it was to keep people (especially those in boats) away from nature?
Natural England’s underlying remit, set out in the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, is
"To ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development."
Note it says “and managed for the benefit of present and future generations” – i.e. people - so it’s actually not, as some had mistakenly thought, “ … for the benefit of present and future conservationists”!
And on Science and Evidence it says “…..We will embed out knowledge and evidence to enable good local decision-making and adaptive management through further learning and innovation.” Not sure what “embed” means here, but I hope it doesn’t mean “bury” – as some have suggested. (Me? I couldn’t possibly comment).
Anyway, there’s lots more stuff on their website and it would be great if others could help mine into it so the various parties can be reminded of their duties and responsibilities before, during and after the public consultation process.
Tomahawk
Well-known member
A somewhat tonge in cheek observation, but with a "deadly" serious foundation... If EN say their priority is to reconnect people with nature, does that mean we should take EN staff out in a boat then directly reconnect them with nature by chucking them in the sea?
The point of this being to demonstrate that the environment is not something wonderful and fragile. Rather to demonstrate that the environment is leithal to humans to the extent that the first and overriding human need is to be protected from the environment.
felipe
N/A
I totally agree with you guys.Great discussion on Studland Bay summary.