oldharry
Well-known member
Studland - where are we at?
At risk of being accused of double posting, I am posting here in 'sticky' an enlarged version of a post elsewhere giving a summary of the two sides of the argument to date.
There are two arguments, both backed by fairly solid scientific data, which I can refer you to if you wish. There is also a loophole in the legislation, kindly provided by the RYA at the draft stage of the legislation.
The conservation, anti anchoring argument is: Eelgrass beds in the sheltered portions of the Bay are home to a range of marine species, including two protected species - the Undulate Ray, and Seahorses. The Seahorse Trust discovered in 2002 that Seahorses are breeding there - the only known site in the UK. As an aside is perhaps unfortunate that Undulate Rays eat Seahorses, but that is a fact of nature! Seahorse Trust Divers have found a number of gaps in the Eelgrass bed, which they attribute to extensive anchoring activity, and they asked Dr Clifford of Southampton University, an expert on eelgrass, to investigate. He conducted a 2 year survey and concluded that anchoring 'could' (his word) damage the eelgrass beds, and therefore advocates 'caution' (again his word). Conservationists therefore believe that the area should become an 'MCZ with bottom protection' in order to conserve the eelgrass habitat. 'MCZ with bottom protection' means that any activity that could disturb the seabed, such as anchoring, is prohibited.
The pro anchoring argument was much less focussed which is why BORG became involved to help give a coherent response: On the science of the damage of the anchoring debate, both BORG and the RYA, having studied the reports, firmly believe that the evidence provided is insufficient in a major social and recreational facility to justify banning anchoring at all. This view is based on Dr Cliffords own evidence: shortly before WW2 he tells us the Eelgrass beds in the bay were almost wiped out by disease. BORG has confirmed this from Luftwaffe aerial reconaissance photographic surveys taken before and during the war. The eelgrass beds re-established themselves and have been growing ever since. Throughout the entire recovery phase, Studland has been increasingly heavily used as an anchorage for small boats, and prior to the boating boom it was heavily trawled by local fishermen - an activity known to damage and destroy eelgrass. Dr Collins is on record as saying that the eelgrass beds are in good condition (BBC Open Country 18/12/10). Eelgrass is slow growing but has extended to over 1 sq Km area in the bay in spite of the heavy frequent anchoring activities. BORG does not argue that the beds might not be larger and better if that had not happened, but we, with the RYA maintain that anchoring has not prevented the re-establishment of the grass beds, and is therefore in the terms of the MCZ legislation a 'sustainable activity'. i.e. not only is the Habitat is not under threat of extinction or destruction of the Eelgrass because of anchoring, but is surviving quite well and expanding. The gaps and holes in the Rhizome layer of the Eelgrass bed (the root mat that it develops, which gives it cohesion), are in some cases attributable to moorings and bad anchoring practices. However we find that gaps in eelgrass beds are a normal feature, brough about by fresh water ingress (Eelgrass dislikes fresh water and does not grow near stream and run off points) and are also caused by regular current flows near the bottom. These are features not evn mentioned by Dr Clifford, but which have prominence in reports by other researchers elsewhere. Dr Clifford survey lasted two years. Eelgrass is a slow growing plant, and other researchers have found that it does re-establish over a 5 year period. Conclusions based on a 2 year study must be at least highly questionable.
It is unfortunate that due to the aggressive attitude of conservationists from the outset the debate around Studland has become deeply polarised. Both boat owners, and local residents have been engaged in a long, bitter and acrimonious debate for nearly two years over the whole question of 'Management' of the Bay, so that little meaningful debate is now possible.
Finding Sanctuary - the regional body responsible for collecting data and submitting MCZ recommendations to DEFRA have already nailed their colours to the mast by saying (9/12/10, FS website) that they will NOT consider an outright anchoring ban in the bay, but boats will always be able to anchor there for 'reasons of safe navigation'. BORG supported by RYA have asked them to define 'reasons of safe navigation'. There has been no response to date.
MCZ legislators insist that when considering an area for MCZ status the 'social and economic impact' of doing so must be assessed and taken in to account, and should as far as possible be minimised. Until very recently, nobody has bothered to count the boats in Studland, so there is little data to go on. Natural England is in the process of conducting a survey, the interim results of which I have seen. BORG from its own first hand knowledge of the Bay produced estimated figures, which, when adjusted to allow for the NE survey indicators, suggest between 10 and 12000 boats a year visit the bay. This means that in excess of 25 or 30000 people visit the bay by by water each year. NE figures suggest this may be a lot higher, and the real figure may exceed 40k.
This in turn indicates that Studland Bay is among the top most heavily used and important open sea anchorage in the UK, possibly in Europe even. Clearly the 'Social impact' of closing it altogether, or even any serious limitations on its use is greater here than anywhere in the UK waters, within the classification of Sea anchorage. The 'economic impact' would also be substantial, as even if only 20% of vistors go ashore, that will impact Studlands local economy by up to 8000 vistors. Then within the wider region the supporting infrasructure of the boating community in Poole would be affected as vistors no longer have this beautiful facility and turn elsewhere.
Tomorrow (tuesday) BORG will be represented at the final meeting of the Dorset Local Group, whose task it is to submit data and recommendations about the possibility of Studland becaming an MCZ. This will go the 'Regional Stakeholder Group' of Finding Sanctuary who will consider the submission, and may ask for more inforation and data before passing the submission on via Natural England and the MMO to DEFRA for Ministerial Approval (or otherwise!) in 12 months time. There will be further consultation and information gathering processes along the route, in which BORG has been promised a place alongside RYA.
It is very important to remember that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the proposal for an 'MCZ with bottom protection' for Studland, and proposals for most of the other sites in the list in my earlier posting. The ONLY difference is that Studland has received much publicity, and is therefore headline news. While we are all busy shouting the odds over Studland, many other areas are being quietly recommended for 'MCZ with Bottom Protection Status', behind our backs! Balanced Seas is much more cagey and circumspect about for example major Solent and East Coast anchorages. Try and find out what is REALLY happening there, and Studland pales in to insignificance. Dont just take my word - go and have a look for yourselves if you can find it buried in the mumbo-jumbo of jargon and smoke screen.
__________________
At risk of being accused of double posting, I am posting here in 'sticky' an enlarged version of a post elsewhere giving a summary of the two sides of the argument to date.
There are two arguments, both backed by fairly solid scientific data, which I can refer you to if you wish. There is also a loophole in the legislation, kindly provided by the RYA at the draft stage of the legislation.
The conservation, anti anchoring argument is: Eelgrass beds in the sheltered portions of the Bay are home to a range of marine species, including two protected species - the Undulate Ray, and Seahorses. The Seahorse Trust discovered in 2002 that Seahorses are breeding there - the only known site in the UK. As an aside is perhaps unfortunate that Undulate Rays eat Seahorses, but that is a fact of nature! Seahorse Trust Divers have found a number of gaps in the Eelgrass bed, which they attribute to extensive anchoring activity, and they asked Dr Clifford of Southampton University, an expert on eelgrass, to investigate. He conducted a 2 year survey and concluded that anchoring 'could' (his word) damage the eelgrass beds, and therefore advocates 'caution' (again his word). Conservationists therefore believe that the area should become an 'MCZ with bottom protection' in order to conserve the eelgrass habitat. 'MCZ with bottom protection' means that any activity that could disturb the seabed, such as anchoring, is prohibited.
The pro anchoring argument was much less focussed which is why BORG became involved to help give a coherent response: On the science of the damage of the anchoring debate, both BORG and the RYA, having studied the reports, firmly believe that the evidence provided is insufficient in a major social and recreational facility to justify banning anchoring at all. This view is based on Dr Cliffords own evidence: shortly before WW2 he tells us the Eelgrass beds in the bay were almost wiped out by disease. BORG has confirmed this from Luftwaffe aerial reconaissance photographic surveys taken before and during the war. The eelgrass beds re-established themselves and have been growing ever since. Throughout the entire recovery phase, Studland has been increasingly heavily used as an anchorage for small boats, and prior to the boating boom it was heavily trawled by local fishermen - an activity known to damage and destroy eelgrass. Dr Collins is on record as saying that the eelgrass beds are in good condition (BBC Open Country 18/12/10). Eelgrass is slow growing but has extended to over 1 sq Km area in the bay in spite of the heavy frequent anchoring activities. BORG does not argue that the beds might not be larger and better if that had not happened, but we, with the RYA maintain that anchoring has not prevented the re-establishment of the grass beds, and is therefore in the terms of the MCZ legislation a 'sustainable activity'. i.e. not only is the Habitat is not under threat of extinction or destruction of the Eelgrass because of anchoring, but is surviving quite well and expanding. The gaps and holes in the Rhizome layer of the Eelgrass bed (the root mat that it develops, which gives it cohesion), are in some cases attributable to moorings and bad anchoring practices. However we find that gaps in eelgrass beds are a normal feature, brough about by fresh water ingress (Eelgrass dislikes fresh water and does not grow near stream and run off points) and are also caused by regular current flows near the bottom. These are features not evn mentioned by Dr Clifford, but which have prominence in reports by other researchers elsewhere. Dr Clifford survey lasted two years. Eelgrass is a slow growing plant, and other researchers have found that it does re-establish over a 5 year period. Conclusions based on a 2 year study must be at least highly questionable.
It is unfortunate that due to the aggressive attitude of conservationists from the outset the debate around Studland has become deeply polarised. Both boat owners, and local residents have been engaged in a long, bitter and acrimonious debate for nearly two years over the whole question of 'Management' of the Bay, so that little meaningful debate is now possible.
Finding Sanctuary - the regional body responsible for collecting data and submitting MCZ recommendations to DEFRA have already nailed their colours to the mast by saying (9/12/10, FS website) that they will NOT consider an outright anchoring ban in the bay, but boats will always be able to anchor there for 'reasons of safe navigation'. BORG supported by RYA have asked them to define 'reasons of safe navigation'. There has been no response to date.
MCZ legislators insist that when considering an area for MCZ status the 'social and economic impact' of doing so must be assessed and taken in to account, and should as far as possible be minimised. Until very recently, nobody has bothered to count the boats in Studland, so there is little data to go on. Natural England is in the process of conducting a survey, the interim results of which I have seen. BORG from its own first hand knowledge of the Bay produced estimated figures, which, when adjusted to allow for the NE survey indicators, suggest between 10 and 12000 boats a year visit the bay. This means that in excess of 25 or 30000 people visit the bay by by water each year. NE figures suggest this may be a lot higher, and the real figure may exceed 40k.
This in turn indicates that Studland Bay is among the top most heavily used and important open sea anchorage in the UK, possibly in Europe even. Clearly the 'Social impact' of closing it altogether, or even any serious limitations on its use is greater here than anywhere in the UK waters, within the classification of Sea anchorage. The 'economic impact' would also be substantial, as even if only 20% of vistors go ashore, that will impact Studlands local economy by up to 8000 vistors. Then within the wider region the supporting infrasructure of the boating community in Poole would be affected as vistors no longer have this beautiful facility and turn elsewhere.
Tomorrow (tuesday) BORG will be represented at the final meeting of the Dorset Local Group, whose task it is to submit data and recommendations about the possibility of Studland becaming an MCZ. This will go the 'Regional Stakeholder Group' of Finding Sanctuary who will consider the submission, and may ask for more inforation and data before passing the submission on via Natural England and the MMO to DEFRA for Ministerial Approval (or otherwise!) in 12 months time. There will be further consultation and information gathering processes along the route, in which BORG has been promised a place alongside RYA.
It is very important to remember that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the proposal for an 'MCZ with bottom protection' for Studland, and proposals for most of the other sites in the list in my earlier posting. The ONLY difference is that Studland has received much publicity, and is therefore headline news. While we are all busy shouting the odds over Studland, many other areas are being quietly recommended for 'MCZ with Bottom Protection Status', behind our backs! Balanced Seas is much more cagey and circumspect about for example major Solent and East Coast anchorages. Try and find out what is REALLY happening there, and Studland pales in to insignificance. Dont just take my word - go and have a look for yourselves if you can find it buried in the mumbo-jumbo of jargon and smoke screen.
__________________
Last edited:
