Studland Eco moorings will cost you this year

[Lodestone]

No thoughts about the appalling state of nature in this country?

You might be surprised by the conservation efforts I am involved with, but I doubt you'd be satisfied up there in your lofty tower.

I disagree that nature is in an 'appalling' state in this country. As an aside some of the most biodiverse areas are on the fringes of industrial areas - most likely because post-lockdown fido doesn't go there.

Wise conservation is to be applauded.

Rabid environmental activities that actually give the field a bad name are counterproductive. You don't win people over (other than the gullible) by playing fast and loose. Ultimately a level of weariness is reached with a general loss of trust.

 

[Tranona]

I was going to give a flippant reply, but .....

Without arguing about Studland specifically AGAIN, I'm generally sad that nature takes such a back seat to human needs, desires and greed. Suggest holding up any "development" of any kind to protect nature is greeted with howls of protest, suggest inconveniencing humans in even the tiniest way and those same howls appear.

The odd experiment to improve nature won't work - but that is a drop compared to the destruction going on.

"Yesterday (28/9/23) saw the publication of the fourth State of Nature (SON) Report, the product of a collaboration of environmental NGOs, academic institutions and government agencies, including Natural England. The report provides the most comprehensive overview ever of species trends across the UK, including specific assessments for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and for the UK’s Overseas Territories. Its conclusions are based on millions of records collected by thousands of volunteer ‘citizen scientists’ spanning terrestrial, freshwater and marine species.

The report makes compelling reading. It lays bare the stark fact that nature is still seriously declining across the UK, a country that is already one of the most nature-depleted in the world. The data show that since 1970 UK species have declined by about 19% on average, and nearly 1 in 6 species (16.1%) are now threatened with extinction. This is a timely reminder, if we needed it, that the nature crisis isn’t restricted to far-off places like the Amazon or Great Barrier Reef. It is right here, on our doorstep. We are losing familiar wildlife that we cherish including the hazel dormouse and skylark."

There is little to disagree with here and it just reinforces that much of coastline has been spoiled by industrial development.

However for those of us who agree and support efforts to remedy this, what grates is that Studland does not fall into this category - or rather the man made negative factors such as the high nitrate run off and the dredging of the Swash channel are NOT even considered. The reasons for the NE interventions are based on a provable lie, It is just a big deceit driven by fanatics with an agenda that is little to do with preserving nature.

Edit Lodestone beat me to it.

 

[Bristolfashion]

Your trolling doesn't bother me, I'm just replying to ensure the misleading statements about Studland and the environment aren't left unanswered

I strongly resent the accusation of trolling. This is an open forum and I disagree with some of your statements and attitudes and can express those opinions - as you can express yours.

Notwithstanding your statements, there is substantial scientific and other support on my side as well. Discount that if you wish and bring other evidence to the table should you want.

If you simply don't like people disagreeing with you, hit the ignore button.

You are now starting to make wild accusations of trolling, vested interest and not expressing genuine opinions. I suggest that you take a very deep breath and reflect before posting again.

 

[doug748]

30 years of living and working in that environment. If the "research" has been commissioned by NE it will likely be worded in a way that leads to the answer it wants. This story is littered with sound independent research that goes against the prevailing beliefs and it is all firmly rejected. The best example is the Seven Stars project that compared the effects of anchoring in two test sites, one a no anchoring zone. Essentially no difference. That was very difficult for the believers that anchoring has a negative impact on seagrass health to accept so was ignored.

You are right about all the other things that have been done that genuinely have negative impacts which just demonstrates how much policy is influenced by small groups of focused people who use the press to pursue their cause in a way that drowns out all opposition.

Indeed. We have seen science abandoned in so many bizarre ways you start to expect it.

Do you have a link to a concise overview of the Seven Stars project or maybe the original research?

.

 

[Bristolfashion]

You might be surprised by the conservation efforts I am involved with, but I doubt you'd be satisfied up there in your lofty tower.

I disagree that 'nature' is in an appalling state in this country. As an aside some of the most biodiverse areas are on the fringes of industrial areas - most likely because post-lockdown fido doesn't go there.

Wise conservation is to be applauded.

Rabid environmental activities that actually give the field a bad name are counterproductive. You don't win people over (other than the gullible) by playing fast a loose. Ultimately a level of weariness is reached with a general loss of trust.

What "lofty tower" is that? I've spent time as a volunteer baking in remote desert camps carrying out exhausting work wildlife surveying ,I've been on a freezing, remote island for 7 months straight as one of a volunteer couple (and only inhabitants), I've lived for 6 months as Ranger in charge (volunteer) on a sub-desert nature reserve, sweating my cobbs off fencing amongst a myriad other tasks, I've coppiced, laid hedges, restored ponds, litter picked endlessly, removed invasive weeds, I've patrolled on one of the last reserves for an extremely rare mammal on a remote reserve as a volunteer, I've got cold & wet surveying in a rivers etc etc.

Go on, what about that "lofty tower"?

 

[Bristolfashion]

There is little to disagree with here and it just reinforces that much of coastline has been spoiled by industrial development.

However for those of us who agree and support efforts to remedy this, what grates is that Studland does not fall into this category - or rather the man made negative factors such as the high nitrate run off and the dredging of the Swash channel are NOT even considered. The reasons for the NE interventions are based on a provable lie, It is just a big deceit driven by fanatics with an agenda that is little to do with preserving nature.

Edit Lodestone beat me to it.

I respect your opinions and position.

Lustyd is just getting a bit wild in his accusations IMHO.

 

[Lodestone]

What "lofty tower" is that? I've spent time as a volunteer baking in remote desert camps carrying out exhausting work wildlife surveying ,I've been on a freezing, remote island for 7 months straight as one of a volunteer couple (and only inhabitants), I've lived for 6 months as Ranger in charge (volunteer) on a sub-desert nature reserve, sweating my cobbs off fencing amongst a myriad other tasks, I've coppiced, laid hedges, restored ponds, litter picked endlessly, removed invasive weeds, I've patrolled on one of the last reserves for an extremely rare mammal on a remote reserve as a volunteer, I've got cold & wet surveying in a rivers etc etc.

Go on, what about that "lofty tower"?

That lofty tower

 

[Bristolfashion]

That lofty tower

Sweating myself half to death digging survey traps or freezing whilst surveying seabirds doesn't sound like a very comfortable ivory tower.

 

[Bristolfashion]

Since I now appear to be under sustained, personal, unsupported, bullying, aggresive and, possibly, slanderous attacks from certain quarters on this thread, I reckon I'll unwatch it for a while. My position remains,

We are too keen to destroy nature for the benefit of humans, even when that benefit is rather minimal.

The UK has an awful record for managing its natural environment.

There are differing opinions on the Studland case. The sensible solution is good quality monitoring and research, carried out over a long enough period to give reliable results. This and other similar anchoring / mooring schemes can then be removed, retained, reduced or increased as the research indicates.

 

[Lodestone]

Sweating myself half to death digging survey traps or freezing whilst surveying seabirds doesn't sound like a very comfortable ivory tower.

Indeed. On another occasion there must be some interesting tales to tell. It's the flies that get me. It doesn't seem to matter whether the flying vampire of the day is a deer fly when pulling balsam or a tsetse when tracking 2 legged wildlife. They seem to be the crowning glory of misery in any day. Several strikes of the shoe later the little swine is still up for more...

 

[lustyd]

I strongly resent the accusation of trolling.

Then stop the obvious trolling.

substantial scientific and other support on my side as well

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the "substantial scientific support" is bought and paid for and deeply flawed. Calling it science is unhelpful.

This country has a real misinformation problem these days. Many of us are sick of letting those pedalling it get away with the lies and causing issues for the rest of the nation. We've already made multiple very bad decisions as a country as a result so no, I won't stop pushing back against this BS, and no I don't think it's acceptable for you to continue trying to sway people away from the truth, and yes, I will continue calling BS each and every time as I love this country and hate seeing it misled by those with vested interests.

 

[lustyd]

The sensible solution is good quality monitoring and research, carried out over a long enough period to give reliable results.

I do agree with this statement. Unfortunately, the research has not been good quality, and even when the obvious flaws were pointed out they were not taken into account. That's bad science and must not be allowed to continue, especially when it has such deep impact and implications.

 

[Tranona]

There are differing opinions on the Studland case. The sensible solution is good quality monitoring and research, carried out over a long enough period to give reliable results. This and other similar anchoring / mooring schemes can then be removed, retained, reduced or increased as the research indicates.

Hope you are still watching - these things have already been done and the evidence presented, but because in most cases it does not come from "approved" sources it is not accepted - even the comparative survey that was commissioned was trashed because it did not give the answer that was required.

There is zero chance of the restrictions being removed. They have been "won" and there is no way the winners are going to retreat, whatever the "evidence". The next stage is almost certainly a ban as any monitoring of either seagrass health or seahorse population will show either no change or deterioration from changes in the other factors that are currently ignored.

You have remember that in the public consciousness now anchors (particularly those used by yachts) kill seahorses and destroy seagrass. This message has been given continuously for nearly 20 years in the press and on the TV - even in serious nature programmes.

 

[Mudisox]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[oldharry]

The

Indeed. We have seen science abandoned in so many bizarre ways you start to expect it.

Do you have a link to a concise overview of the Seven Stars project or maybe the original research?

.

I think Tranona means the Seastar Survey published by Crown Estates in 2012. It was a thorough and comprehensive 2 year survey of conditions in the Bay, and concluded that they could find no difference between eelgrass in anchorage areas, and a control VNAZ area. It did not follow any party lines, nor did it confirm what NE wanted, so they immediately rubbished it as being 'unscientific'. However for many years it stood as the only available scientific data on eelgrass health drawn from the Bay.

Dr Collins also did a Survey in 2010, establishing that 'anchor damage' was harming the eelgrass growth. Sadly he fell at the first step, failing to even establish what the features he was examing were, or what had caused them. The same feature is found widely in eelgrass away from anchorages so is highly unlikely to be caused by anchoring. I have seen and photogrpahed identical feature in tidal eelgrass, well away from any anchorage area.

When NE finally got round to making its report some 8 years later, it contained none of the detailed ground truthed data Seastar had presented. It was all opinion and assumption supported by examples from very different sub tropical seagrasses, known to be delicate and fragile in comparison to eelgrass, particularly Posidona Oceanica. NONE of this appeared to have been ground truthed or even checked in the Bay.

In 2016 BORG conducted a brief series of runs across the main anchorage witha towed video camera. We then analysed what we found, using standard metrics for Seagrass health. We found it in good healthy condition, as did Seastar and presenting growth metrics generally above the norm for the Dorset Coast.

NE dismissed this as 'anecdotal' (really?) and refused to admit it as evidence.

The Seastar Survey is still available: https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/me...and-bay-second-seagrass-monitoring-report.pdf

 

[doug748]

Thank you oldharry. I think we may expect more hysteria based on chinese whispers
Here is a poster seen in Kingsand near Plymouth :



Regardless of Natural England's own studies showing the grass in "favourable condition" and despite the failure of attempts to seed seagrass in a large protected area of sea bed where our experts felt it ought to be growing.

.

 

[oldharry]

That was always a bone of contention at Studland. Just how many boats were/are anchoring there? Only a systematic system of recording can get the answer. 'Citizen science' will end up with a huge number of miscounts, multiple counts and missed counts.

One optomistic conservation observer reckoned he had seen 350 boats in the Bay on a Thursday in November. The same report claimed 90 boats counted between 28th and 30th February.... amazing!

 

[Boathook]

That was always a bone of contention at Studland. Just how many boats were/are anchoring there? Only a systematic system of recording can get the answer. 'Citizen science' will end up with a huge number of miscounts, multiple counts and missed counts.

One optomistic conservation observer reckoned he had seen 350 boats in the Bay on a Thursday in November. The same report claimed 90 boats counted between 28th and 30th February.... amazing!

I saw those figures and complained to mmo / ne at the time. I think one of the dates coincided with an easterly gale but it was a while back ....

 

[Mister E]

The problem now is that anchoring is now a big no no and you are supposed to use the mooring things.
Either people pay and hope that they are maintained or go somewhere else.
The only way to change this is to show that the objectives of the no anchoring are not working.
This will take time and effort with proper scientific research and probably a legal challenge.
Which will not come cheap, so who is prepared to put their hands in their pockets and pay?