Seahorses are thriving at Haslar marina in their purpose built habitats under the pontoons. It was never about seahorses.
Have the caulkheads been thrown out of the UK again?
Light Blue boat with red rowing tender and "Bahari" in big letters either side! Fairly distinctive.
Hate to be picky, but that last post didn't say it was about the seahorses, it said "maybe those seahorses are happier". Seahorses live on sea grass and it's quite possible (hence "maybe") that the eco moorings make life a bit better for them than anchoring.
Yes I can see that. A bit of reading into the subject would sort that.
Er, I've done a lot of reading around this subject and I'm happy for the experiment to continue - from memory, the University of Southampton is doing some research and their conclusions will be interesting.
Then you should, as if you had followed the Studland debate in depth as I have since 2008, working with MMO for some years on Studland , you would know that the NE reports are over 95% assumption, theory and opinion, and not on scientific data and facts. Worse, they ignore other far more serious threats such as nitrate pollution which I have repeatedly tried to draw their attention to - confirmed in 2016 by researchers from Swansea Uni, and the near loss of a large area of eelgrass in 2015. Swansea found one of the worst nitrate pollution levels in the country in Studland. You wont find any of that mentioned anywhere though in Studland literature. it doesnt fit the PC Conservation objectives laid down by NE.
The birthday girl is already there, but she's not an early riser. If we’ve a bit of time to kill, we’ll take a small detour up your way. Wind is light, tide against us, but we have our new code 0 to play with.Light Blue boat with red rowing tender and "Bahari" in big letters either side! Fairly distinctive.
We're on the moorings up towards Shalfleet quay.
Although, waving stupidly is one of my few skills!
Pleased you enjoyed your overnight on the buoy in Studland. They are well placed for a stop on passage. However, those of us who have known and used the bay for more years than we care to think about regret the loss of amenity based of a lie - I can use this word as it is common now particularly in political dialogue. That is what it is as oldharry explains. I would not place too much credence on anything that comes out of the university you mention as it was a primary source of the original "lie" about seagrass.
That's kind of a reverse fallacy of expertise - surely the correct approach is to examine the research in detail, rather than assuming based on past experience.
Presumably the National Trust grabbed the anchoring in Newtown Creek at some time, installed their moorings and now fleece visitors £24 a pop. There seems to be no reason to have done this other than commerce - but no widespread wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Well it isn't because the weight limit on the moorings is too low for many boats and quite a few have been pulled out of the sea bed. They should have installed traditional moorings like those in Salcombe that can take multiple boats rafted.
Also their "research" is bought and paid for by parties with vested interests, and the continuation of that funding is contingent upon the desired outcomes. As a manager of mine used to say, if you hire a witch hunter they will find you a witch.
Yes, that was also unfortunate. It was different though in that they weren't hiding behind bogus research to capture a public resource. Studland isn't a harbour, and the bogus research didn't even have a clear and transparent aim, it was just whatever was necessary to secure the area. The fact that we're interchangeably talking about seahorses, sea grass and carbon capture demonstrates how flexible the approach has been despite seahorses not being endangered, sea grass having expanded over the years, and sea grass having a net negative impact on climate change through anaerobic processes which create methane when it's buried in the seabed and decays. Literally none of the stated goals are genuine, nor are they helped by closing off the bay.
Who needs a boat over 10 tonnes anyway?
Clearly not us, as you may shortly see. But we are pretty careful about what we pick up, as despite being just 2 tons, we are high windage and dance around a mooring buoy in a quite alarming fashion. Whilst I see nothing wrong with TPTB kindly saving me the trouble of anchoring in Studland, the hanging implication that sooner or later they will patrol them and extort money is another thing. It’s the open sea, do we not have a right to navigate it as we see fit? Newtown is owned by the NT, just as Beaulieu river is owned by Lord Montague. They are therefore at liberty to charge. The NT still permit anchoring, so their charge is a non issue. If you want a mooring, and are willing to pay, no prob.Who needs a boat over 10 tonnes anyway?
I know that I bang on about this to the point of extreme tedium, but in comparison to Studland, a huge area of prime anchoring around these shores has been removed for moorings, pipes, cables, pontoons, seafood production etc and no-one cares.
Although they may ask you to leave, they will stop firing until you're clear so this is a poor example since it is entirely possible and legal to navigate through ranges.
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.
So, if you call MOD Pendine (as is required)and they strongly request you not to enter, you'd bash on through to assert your "freedom of navigation"?