jac
Well-Known Member
Maybe we should all join.
Challenge them in their own backyard. Why does NGM get the funding to do observations, what are his professional quals etc.
Studland - how much do our anchors affect the seabed? New BORG report out.
- Thread starter oldharry
- Start date
Challenge them in their own backyard. Why does NGM get the funding to do observations, what are his professional quals etc.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I don't think you can "join" in the sense of "have an influence on what the trust does". See also: "joining" the RNLI.
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Good question. Its a Registered Charity, so is legally entitled to collect Public funds, and to apply for Lottery Funding. The only letters he uses are FBNA Fellow of the British naturalist Association. This is a recognition any active naturalist can apply for who can provide evidence of knowledge and competence in their subject. It is not an award, or qualification. Membership of Seahorse Trust is purely a find raising exercise, same as 'joining' RNLI and all you get is the Newsletter you can see on line anyway.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Yes, like any single interest pressure group he operates as a charity so has income from donations and sponsorship, but the real money is grants or funded projects such as the Tagging project. Most of his "labour" is voluntary for the unfunded activities and often students such as those from Southampton Uni who have been doing fieldwork in the bay for years.
His accounts will be scrutinised by the Charity Commission.
His accounts will be scrutinised by the Charity Commission.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I don't think they do much active examination: they tend to wait for problems or complaints to arise before investigating Still, anyone interested can visit the Charity Commission website and read the annual reports and accounts. Those for 2013 are at
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends27/0001086027_AC_20130331_E_C.pdf
I was particularly taken by this bit:
Seagrass report. (MAIA means Marine Protected Areas in the Atlantic Arc) which was
put together by Dr Emma Jackson and Dr Ken Collins. It is a 261 page comprehensive
report on seagrass habitats and the effects on them and highlights Studland bay as an
example. It was a well-attended meeting but sadly disrupted by some very rowdy boat
owners who do not want Studland protected.
put together by Dr Emma Jackson and Dr Ken Collins. It is a 261 page comprehensive
report on seagrass habitats and the effects on them and highlights Studland bay as an
example. It was a well-attended meeting but sadly disrupted by some very rowdy boat
owners who do not want Studland protected.
Seajet
...
Jumbleduck,
clearly you have not been to these meetings, and heard what really happens from Old Harry !
I think the ' rowdy ' event you mention was years ago when some people were angry at being excluded from a meeting whose deliberations affected them.
You will have to re-read the BORG website, but I think you'll find Dr Collins findings have been disproved and he has gone back on them, thanks to BORG having a skilled photo-interpreter who proves that the eelgrass at Studland has flourished since the 1930's, when a natural disease damaged it.
The expansion of the eelgrass coincided with the increase in recreational boating, so by that token more boats equates to a healthier environment !
clearly you have not been to these meetings, and heard what really happens from Old Harry !
I think the ' rowdy ' event you mention was years ago when some people were angry at being excluded from a meeting whose deliberations affected them.
You will have to re-read the BORG website, but I think you'll find Dr Collins findings have been disproved and he has gone back on them, thanks to BORG having a skilled photo-interpreter who proves that the eelgrass at Studland has flourished since the 1930's, when a natural disease damaged it.
The expansion of the eelgrass coincided with the increase in recreational boating, so by that token more boats equates to a healthier environment !
Last edited:
Administrators costs seem rather high overall.A bit like the charity where I work,you wonder why they can't get volunteer administrators? & as if to rub that in it says "No value is placed on volunteer’s time."
Something I've long suspected
Something I've long suspected
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I know, I know. I was entertained, not convinced, by the SHT spin. Don;t you like the way they use "boat owners" rather than "recreation sailors" or "boaters" or "leisure sailors"? I wonder why they chose to do that? Perhaps there is a group with "boat owners" in its name whom they wish to discredit.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I wondered about that. Almost the entire income of the charity goes on administrator's fees. Fees? Why not wages or salary or expenses?
Vitesse
Well-Known Member
I had a read of the SHT Studland Tagging Project 5 year report. I note it refers to BORG as Boat Outrage Reaction Group.
A deliberate mistake, given that the author 'knows his stuff'. Tells me all I need to know about the SHT!
A deliberate mistake, given that the author 'knows his stuff'. Tells me all I need to know about the SHT!
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Oh no, ' its a genuine mistake, I thought thats what it was called' was the glib excuse.
Funny that when he's always got it right before.
As you say - tells us all we need to know about them....
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Yes funny that one too: I have been at nearly all the meetings since 2009. I have never seen anything rowdy going on. What I HAVE heard is various people questioning and challenging the blatant spin. Some happen to be boat owners.
But this is classic SHT spin itself. exactly the sort of thing we are up against all the time. As I reported before: the winter floods in the west Country are because the weather is affected by anchors in the Studland eelgrass. The severe beach erosion following the worst storms since the 1987 hurricane that can be seen on every exposed beach in the south only affected Studland because of anchors breaking up,the eelgrass.
Then they wonder why we challenge the 'science' they use to 'prove' their point?
Vitesse
Well-Known Member
Exactly. The report is not written in the scientific manner I'd expect and the writer is obviously showing bias and makes unproven connections.
The figure of 350 boats anchoring each day is obvious nonsense, given the poor weather of recent summers.
The figure of 350 boats anchoring each day is obvious nonsense, given the poor weather of recent summers.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
That piece of fiction is very easy to "prove". You just use an ariel photo taken on the one day of the year when it is possible to capture 350 boats anchored in the bay. You then ignore all the other days of the year and the fact that many of the anchored boats are not even in the seagrass areas but still turn this photo into fact. After all the camera does not lie. It is also worth noting that conditions when large numbers of boats (sunny weekends with winds from the west) are there are also days that are ideal for diving. So those who dive (like SHT) can truthfully say they have seen these huge numbers with their own eyes (ignoring of course the 350+ days when they are not diving, or even anywhere near the Bay.
There have been attempts to get better estimates of the number of boats with a funded project to collect survey data. But as you will see from Dr Simon's report the data is very limited and subject to questionable extrapolation.
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Thats right - I took a photo once of the bay with over 300 boats in shot. It was a fine Bank holiday Saturday in 2002. I also have a photo from a reasonably fine Saturday in June last year, (there was one!) with two boats in it, and I am told by someone whose home overlooks the Bay that in recent years, the there are usually only two or three visitors a week usually passage makers sheltering from bad weather, up to the beginning of the school Hols mid July, May Bank Hol excepted. The current average for holiday weekends is around 70 - 120, and about 20 - 30 mid week - in fine weather only. As soon as the weather breaks, numbers drop to near zero again.
The problem at Studland is that until very recently nobody ever bothered to count or record anything, whether it is visitoing boats, Seahorses or eelgrass quantity, so there is no hard evidence we can fall back on. We can point to the 60 years or whatever of use as an anchorage: "where is your evidence to prove it?". The only response can be "Where is your evidence to DISprove it?" which leaves nobody any the wiser. So the 350 boats a day myth continues to be spread around though everyone who knows the bay knows it is a lie. However, Jo public reading it in the reports and in the press has no way of knowing that so it becomes 'true'.
The problem at Studland is that until very recently nobody ever bothered to count or record anything, whether it is visitoing boats, Seahorses or eelgrass quantity, so there is no hard evidence we can fall back on. We can point to the 60 years or whatever of use as an anchorage: "where is your evidence to prove it?". The only response can be "Where is your evidence to DISprove it?" which leaves nobody any the wiser. So the 350 boats a day myth continues to be spread around though everyone who knows the bay knows it is a lie. However, Jo public reading it in the reports and in the press has no way of knowing that so it becomes 'true'.