Studland Consultation Consultation - we need to get proposals amended this Thursday

[lustyd]

No point in contributing to this thread about this and that

I'd respectfully disagree. Those who are able to make the call are everyone's representitive. Those who can not make the call due to prior commitments might have something useful to contribute, and this thread would seem a useful place to do that. I agree that attending in person is far more useful, but that doesn't mean there isn't any use posting here.

 

[doug748]

I have signed up and sent a question.

BTW, I guess the Cruising Association been stirred up on this one? It seems to me the cruising yachtsman will be the ones really put on the spot.
In the popular mind this is about the vision of millionaires from Poole going for a day out in 50ft power boats.

We all know that boating is more about trying to get into some sort of shelter at night, tired, in cold, windy conditions, in the peeing rain.


.

 

[laika]

I'd respectfully disagree.

+1. As well as lustyd's point, pre-meeting discussion might give boaters time to consider the thoughts of other boaters

fwiw I don't think a no-anchoring zone being unenforced helps a bit: The good citizen in me will obey an unenforced rule and the good seaman in me wouldn't care about fines if safety were genuinely at stake so an unenforced NAZ is the same problem for me as an enforced one.

 

[FairweatherDave]

No problem disagreeing. I just feel the priority is to attend the meeting and not allow the thread to drift away from that...there has been so much discussion here. Its not convenient for me to attend but it will be very inconvenient if I can't anchor with reasonable shelter and access to the beach at Studland. So I will attend and hope plenty of others do too.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

Those who can't "attend" tonight's Zoom meeting (details in posts below) can take part in an online survey during the next few weeks, details apparently will be given tonight. It is important that as many as possible register their views where it matters, i.e. their survey. Too few objections could be viewed by the MMO as consent by default. Or "that's alright then, they don't really care".

 

[NDG]

I have signed up and sent a question.

BTW, I guess the Cruising Association been stirred up on this one? It seems to me the cruising yachtsman will be the ones really put on the spot.
In the popular mind this is about the vision of millionaires from Poole going for a day out in 50ft power boats.

We all know that boating is more about trying to get into some sort of shelter at night, tired, in cold, windy conditions, in the peeing rain.


.

Out of interest, does anyone know what position the RYA is taking about this? I assume it is opposed to an anchoring ban.

 

[dunedin]

I have signed up and sent a question.

BTW, I guess the Cruising Association been stirred up on this one? It seems to me the cruising yachtsman will be the ones really put on the spot. .

Yes I understand that the Cruising Association are involved, attended previous meetings and attending this and any future ones. Like everybody else, seem to be saying the proposals are unrealistic and don’t reflect where need to anchor for shelter (at least something like that - as a northerner I am not an expert on Studland, having never been there).

 

[dunedin]

Out of interest, does anyone know what position the RYA is taking about this? I assume it is opposed to an anchoring ban.

They talked about this briefly at the RYA Cruising Conference - from what I recall (again I am not an expert) I think thy said

• MMO proposing voluntary no anchoring zone across whole area, which is not the right answer
• Experts proposing other solutions - eg eco moorings

 

[KevinT1]

Those who can't "attend" tonight's Zoom meeting (details in posts below) can take part in an online survey during the next few weeks, details apparently will be given tonight. It is important that as many as possible register their views where it matters, i.e. their survey. Too few objections could be viewed by the MMO as consent by default. Or "that's alright then, they don't really care".

i plan to attend, but what are your and old Harry’s suggestions that we do - raise questions in advance or ?

just trying to make sure we focus on the most effective way of derailing this bonkers plan.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

I imagine there will be far more questions than time available, but it would be a good idea to have a question ready just in case. There will then be an online "survey" for a few weeks, we don't know what the questions would be. Anyone who lives in the South Dorset constituency (Portland, Weymouth, eastwards along the coast through Studland, to the west side of Poole Harbour bur not Poole itself, extending 6 - 8 miles inland but excluding Wareham and Dorchester) could write (or email) to their local MP, Richard Drax, who is very aware of the issue. We might - or might not - learn more tonight.

 

[Channel Sailor]

I've put the MMO's map of their proposed smallest No Anchor Zone up on the BORG website. It's at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/MMO-NAZ-Option3.pdf

I suggest anyone interested takes a look, to see just how much of the sheltered part of the Bay (most of it) they propose to exclude from anchoring.

My observation from this diagram is eel grass only grows where boats anchor. It does not grow where boats do not anchor. I know the Bay quite well, so have experience of where boats anchor.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

My observation from this diagram is eel grass only grows where boats anchor. It does not grow where boats do not anchor. I know the Bay quite well, so have experience of where boats anchor.

There's a fundamental reason for that: eelgrass (the seagrass in Studland Bay) is easily uprooted by breaking waves or heavy seas. So it only survives in the more sheltered areas - which is exactly where we need to anchor. The inshore strip of sand is in shallow water where small waves break and the undertow and turbulence uproot any eelgrass that tries to grow there. So it might be that other sheltered anchorages have eelgrass present, and this conflict may arise in other places. But the truth is that anchoring does little damage, the actual area impacted is quite small (http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/anchoring-density.pdf ) and in addition, because the eelgrass in the Bay does get affected by rough seas when there are strong easterlies, it has probably evolved to be more robust to, and recover quicker from, physical disturbance (one of the more sensible seagrass experts told me that).

 

[KevinT1]

My conclusion after tonight’s meeting is that “no Anchoring” is already decided, there was no option to say that you disagree and Natural England and The Seahorse trust are considered safe and reliable sources.

Amusingly, when asked what evidence there was for historical evidence of sea grass - the only male presenter answered that they had only been monitoring it for 2 years .

 

[RivalRedwing]

seemed like rabbits in headlights peddling the party lines for the sake of their career

 

[Blue Sunray]

My conclusion after tonight’s meeting is that “no Anchoring” is already decided, there was no option to say that you disagree and Natural England and The Seahorse trust are considered safe and reliable sources.

Amusingly, when asked what evidence there was for historical evidence of sea grass - the only male presenter answered that they had only been monitoring it for 2 years .

That was also obvious from the polls. Look forward to the headline "68% support a voluntary anchoring ban in Studland."

 

[united]

Felt that way. The amount of time spent on possible enforcement measures, together with the lack of evidence, spoke volumes.

 

[chrishscorp]

I submitted a question to the panel on whether or not they have done any research on the Nitrate levels in the water from the River Frome as its catchment area is not insignificant. If the levels are raised, i would expect that to impact on water quality both in the harbour and Studland causing algal growth. Sadly it was not seen as a sexy question, hopefully it will be answered in the report. Its probably not even been looked at....

 

[doug748]

Apparatchiks.

They clearly had no confidence in the "science" - and knew that we knew it. Reminded me why I was so happy to retire.


.

 

[pen2413]

So they acknowledged the fact that the eelgrass beds are expanding but "this doesn't mean they are healthy". Clearly they're just visiting this planet.

 

[Boathook]

My conclusion after tonight’s meeting is that “no Anchoring” is already decided, there was no option to say that you disagree and Natural England and The Seahorse trust are considered safe and reliable sources.

Amusingly, when asked what evidence there was for historical evidence of sea grass - the only male presenter answered that they had only been monitoring it for 2 years .

I did a chat question that the MMO have already made a decision. At least one person liked it ! Conservationists protecting their jobs comes to mind along with them watching the repeats of Yes Minister for 'ideas'.