Studland Eco moorings will cost you this year

[Bristolfashion]

Well that's interesting that they've wormed their way in. It was supposed to go to the Seahorse Trust who do nothing but restrict freedom in the name of nature. I won't comment on the national trust, but I still won't be funding this nonsense. I'm happy to anchor but will use their moorings if they've made it unsafe to do so.

The question of freedom is an interesting one - the freedom of one party often infringes upon the freedom of another. In the case of the natural world, particular species and individual living things, do they have a "freedom" to exist?

I guess that I accept the relatively few restrictions that are imposed on us to protect the little that is left of our natural environment.

There are a few different examples here - I was talking about the Newtown moorings with my comment re the National Trust - however, I also accept the Studland eco-moorings.

It's interesting that many of the country's finest anchoring spots have been made unusable or are highly restricted by the enormous proliferation of private moorings - a good proportion of which are for hardly used boats or are empty - and this garners no discussion - but one tiny area made less accessible to protect nature generates so much anger.

 

[oldharry]

It's interesting that many of the country's finest anchoring spots have been made unusable or are highly restricted by the enormous proliferation of private moorings - a good proportion of which are for hardly used boats or are empty - and this garners no discussion - but one tiny area made less accessible to protect nature generates so much anger.

The anger is about the arguments for putting them there in the first place. The whole exercise is a total waste of time and resources ruining the appearance of a very beautiful Bay to no purpose. And its not about money - business models created by Crown Estates who own the seabed there have shown that it can never be profitable.

The anger is about the politics of environmentalism and control. Studland is very much a test case. Unopposed Natural England and co would already have closed large areas of our coastal waters. The firsts drafts for Marine Conservation back in 2008 were much more radical, and boating would have been banned altogether from many favourite and key areas had NE had its way.

 

[lustyd]

but one tiny area made less accessible to protect nature generates so much anger.

It's nothing to do with protecting nature. The proliferation of seagrass protections are about our net zero targets and doing anything we can to avoid taking real action. As a country we're counting those as carbon sinks despite them not actually contributing anything new (and them being a net producer of methane, 1000x worse than the carbon they take in).
It's also about extending grants for university projects, the same ones who did the bad science in the first place, but now they have the full support of government thanks to carbon emmissions projects so the money is increasing.
The seahorses were never in any danger and were thriving despite the anchoring, as evidenced by almost every dive recording a sighting. We're "seeing more" now because we're looking more, not because there are more, the science is extremely weak.

If there was a real genuine need, I'd be absolutely on board. If there were some genuinely robust science suggesting this was helpful I'd be on side. I'm actually very much on board with saving the planet, but this is not that, this is financially driven corruption at the highest levels and the public are being duped into playing along and destroying the planet in the process.

 

[Bristolfashion]

The anger is about the arguments for putting them there in the first place. The whole exercise is a total waste of time and resources ruining the appearance of a very beautiful Bay to no purpose. And its not about money - business models created by Crown Estates who own the seabed there have shown that it can never be profitable.

The anger is about the politics of environmentalism and control. Studland is very much a test case. Unopposed Natural England and co would already have closed large areas of our coastal waters. The firsts drafts for Marine Conservation back in 2008 were much more radical, and boating would have been banned altogether from many favourite and key areas had NE had its way.

I never thought it was about money - isn't it about protecting an endangered habitat (90% has been destroyed) and the creatures that depend on it - that does seem to be quite a worthy purpose.

Why isn't there any outcry about the huge areas of moorings spoiling other beautiful areas?

Why is there more fuss about one tiny area of seagrass than all of the off shore wind farms?

I think that you are wildly exaggerating both the extent and effect of planned protection zones.

 

[Bristolfashion]

It's nothing to do with protecting nature. The proliferation of seagrass protections are about our net zero targets and doing anything we can to avoid taking real action. As a country we're counting those as carbon sinks despite them not actually contributing anything new (and them being a net producer of methane, 1000x worse than the carbon they take in).
It's also about extending grants for university projects, the same ones who did the bad science in the first place, but now they have the full support of government thanks to carbon emmissions projects so the money is increasing.
The seahorses were never in any danger and were thriving despite the anchoring, as evidenced by almost every dive recording a sighting. We're "seeing more" now because we're looking more, not because there are more, the science is extremely weak.

If there was a real genuine need, I'd be absolutely on board. If there were some genuinely robust science suggesting this was helpful I'd be on side. I'm actually very much on board with saving the planet, but this is not that, this is financially driven corruption at the highest levels and the public are being duped into playing along and destroying the planet in the process.

We've destroyed 90% of our seagrass habitats - we must protect the rest. If that means not normally anchoring on one tiny area, I'm ok with that.

Poor old nature - for our own greed we are happy to pour in ridiculous amounts of sewage, destroy habitats with development & fragmentation, dose it with chemicals. However, should anyone suggest banning dogs from a beach to protect nesting birds, reducing agricultural run off, restricting access to a site of the last few examples of a species or similar, all hell breaks loose.

My father, as a gardener, had an expression "a corner for nature". There's no corner for nature now.

 

[lustyd]

We've destroyed 90% of our seagrass habitats

No, we haven't. Have you not been following the conversation at all?

Yes, the sewage is a problem, as are a number of other things. Anchoring isn't one of them.

 

[Bristolfashion]

If there was a real genuine need, I'd be absolutely on board. If there were some genuinely robust science suggesting this was helpful I'd be on side. I'm actually very much on board with saving the planet, but this is not that, this is financially driven corruption at the highest levels and the public are being duped into playing along and destroying the planet in the process.

And I don't really see how protecting one tiny fragment of habitat could either fund corruption OR destroy the planet?

 

[Bristolfashion]

No, we haven't. Have you not been following the conversation at all?

You're right - it's probably 92%.

 

[Boathook]

I never thought it was about money - isn't it about protecting an endangered habitat (90% has been destroyed) and the creatures that depend on it - that does seem to be quite a worthy purpose.

Why isn't there any outcry about the huge areas of moorings spoiling other beautiful areas?

Why is there more fuss about one tiny area of seagrass than all of the off shore wind farms?

I think that you are wildly exaggerating both the extent and effect of planned protection zones.

Studland didn't requires protection. Seagrass, seahorses, etc were all very happy together. The seahorses disappeared when all the divers appeared.

Since the 1970's seagrass at Studland has expanded even with all the boats anchoring So what is the relationship between seagrass and anchors at Studland.

If NE and MMO were really concerned about the environment surely they would be doing more to sort out the polluted waterways that feed into the sea.

 

[Bristolfashion]

To be frank, even if we've only lost, say, 50%, 75% or 80% of our seagrass, the remaining amount needs protecting. We seem to like arguements along the lines of "no, there aren't only 10 polar bears left, it's 20 - you're arguements for protection are all wrong".

As the Environment Agency says,

"England is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world due to its long history of industrialisation and land use changes over millennia. Large areas of habitats have been lost with 99.7% of fens, 97% of species-rich grasslands, 80% of lowland heathlands, up to 70% of ancient woodlands and up to 85% of saltmarshes destroyed or degraded.

The impacts on species have also been severe, with a quarter of mammals in England and almost a fifth of UK plants threatened with extinction."

We really can't afford to loose any more.

I once studied with an expert botanist who had identified over 200 species in a 1m² sample patch of herb rich chalk Downland - and that can be irrevocablely destroyed with one application of fertiliser.

 

[Sandy]

The example I like from Scotland is where the career conservationists errected a very nice, expensive fence to protect ground nesting birds from cattle on the coast (they had previously got on well, without interference) .... the cattle just waited for low tide and walked around it....

The RSPB has erected a huge fence at their 'reserve' at Topsham, 'to stop disturbance' but the Exmouth branch line is on the other side of the reserve and is far noisier than anybody walking past.

 

[Bristolfashion]

Studland didn't requires protection. Seagrass, seahorses, etc were all very happy together. The seahorses disappeared when all the divers appeared.

Since the 1970's seagrass at Studland has expanded even with all the boats anchoring So what is the relationship between seagrass and anchors at Studland.

If NE and MMO were really concerned about the environment surely they would be doing more to sort out the polluted waterways that feed into the sea.

So it DID require protection from divers?

 

[Bristolfashion]

The RSPB has erected a huge fence at their 'reserve' at Topsham, 'to stop disturbance' but the Exmouth branch line is on the other side of the reserve and is far noisier than anybody walking past.

Well, nature is highly tolerant of trains - but thoughtless dog owners ......!

You may be confusing "disturbance" and "noise".

I'm getting a sense that there is quite a lot of anger, a willingness to make off the cuff criticism but very little knowledge about nature / an unwillingness to inconvenience people, however damaging the outcome.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

So it DID require protection from divers?

The seahorses, it seems, ate quite shy, and dislike being watched whilst going about their business. Especially by huge black monsters.

 

[Mark-1]

"England is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world due to its long history of industrialisation and land use changes over millennia. Large areas of habitats have been lost with 99.7% of fens, 97% of species-rich grasslands, 80% of lowland heathlands, up to 70% of ancient woodlands and up to 85% of saltmarshes destroyed or degraded.

So stop building houses, stop concreting over nature. They do measurable damage. In contrast occasional anchoring, as we see at Studland, leaves no trace and the Eel Grass has thrived there.

 

[Boathook]

Well, nature is highly tolerant of trains - but thoughtless dog owners ......!

You may be confusing "disturbance" and "noise".

I'm getting a sense that there is quite a lot of anger, a willingness to make off the cuff criticism but very little knowledge about nature / an unwillingness to inconvenience people, however damaging the outcome.

I can only comment about Studland that seemed very happy to co-exist. Seahorse trust and packham then wrecked it imho. A nice bay is now littered with lots of moorings, only fully used for a few weeks of the year.

 

[lustyd]

And I don't really see how protecting one tiny fragment of habitat could either fund corruption OR destroy the planet?

Then you should do some research rather than argue it's not happening.

You're right - it's probably 92%.

It's actually highly likely we've protected the seagrass, given that it flourishes in clear loose sandy bottoms. Had we allowed weed to build up the seagrass would have been choked out so ploughing the bottom is a good thing. Seahorses prefer thick weed though, so they might be happier once the seaweed builds up. We don't have any real evidence either way, since the science being done was demonstrated to be biased and flawed.

 

[Lucky Duck]

Not long picked one up, my chart suggests a good number of them are in little more than 1m at CD.

Perhaps I should have investigated rather than stopping at the first convenient one.

 

[oldharry]

I am quite simply disgusted by anyone who claim we destroyed 90% of seagrass stock. It is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. It is one of the two major deceptions which leave the whole Studland conservation science in tatters right at the starting post

WE DID NOT DESTROY IT. It was destroyed by disease in the space of about 3 years in the 1930's. Nothing to do with human activity. This disease swept through every seagrass bed in Europe, even in the most remote regions where seagrass had been growing undisturbed.

Virtually the ENTIRE UK stock of eelgrass has developed since the 1950's alongside anchoring, pollution, developement and commercial interests.

In 1954 there was one small bed of eelgrass, perhaps 100sqM in Studland. There is now over 100 hectares, possibly a lot more. This in spite of 65 years uncontrolled visitor anchoring in this, one of the most popular sea anchorages in the UK

This story is repeated in every seagrass location in UK

The same recovery is to be found in many many locations round our coast. Unprotected, Anchored in. Polluted.

The other deception is the fact that the species Zostera marina present in Studland behaves very differently to generic seagrass. NE scientists and other consevation groups insist on referring to seagrass generically. Seagrass is typically a fragile slow growing plant, highky susceptible to damage.

Studlands variety if seagrass, Zostera Marina, is well known and docmented as a tough fast growing variety, with several uncomfirmed reports that growth is actually stimulated by disturbance. This is born out across UK in places like Studland
.

 

[Boathook]

I must admit I get confused by seagrass and eelgrass, but all my comments are based upon the stuff growing at Studland and persumably in other parts of the UK.

The number of people who says it needs protecting in Studland but have never visited seem to believe everything that NE and MMO; say but NE / MMO don’t seemed to have done any proper research at Studland as to what the relationship is between the grass and anchors, etc.