STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[grumpy_o_g]

Quelle Surprise...

So it was actually all quite okay....

The programme was a personal view on the successes and failings of our wildlife protection policies.

If it was a personal view then that should have been clearly stated and the program presented as one man's view as opposed to a documentary.

His study concludes that mooring and anchoring leaves scars on the seabed, and that recovery is far from straightforward and may take many years, leading to the decline of the seagrass habitat and associated species.

I don't remember hearing that crucial word MAY in the documentary, sorry - personal view. The report that I read (that he sent me himself very kindly) was actually very clear in highlighting the limitations in the conclusions to be drawn.

Regarding the two interviewees you mention; they are not “interested amateurs”.

Mr Garrick-Maidment is an elected Fellow of the British Naturalists Association, has studied seahorses for 30 years and has published his research into seahorses at Studland Bay. Mr Trewhella has been involved in the licensed seahorse tagging programme. Chris Packham is a qualified zoologist, and while he is a patron of many wildlife charities, including the Seahorse Trust, he bases his comments on scientific research and draws his own conclusions from that.

Surely that makes them interested amateurs? If not and they are professional (i.e. paid) then there's a financial conflict of interest that should have been made clear but wasn't.

Chris Packham’s use of the phrase “that’s about a G and T on a Sunday afternoon” in regard to leisure boat owners was not intended to be derogatory, but was used to illustrate the contrast between their use of the sea with that of fishermen, whose livelihoods depend on being able to fish, and who may be the biggest losers in the MCZ process.

It was highly derogatory and it was obvious that it would be offensive. It was used to influence not to illustrate. Had this been a remark made about an ethnic group, or a group defined by their sexuality for example, the BBC would not have dreamed of accepting it.

I am copying this to the producer of Britain’s Secret Seas for his information.

Why for information? He should be responding as well.


Sadly I won't be able to tell the BBC or OfCom this as they haven't even replied to me.

 

[Robin]

I got my standard letter fob off from the BBC also, much the same bullsh!t.

 

[Sans Bateau]

So it was actually all quite okay....



If it was a personal view then that should have been clearly stated and the program presented as one man's view as opposed to a documentary.



I don't remember hearing that crucial word MAY in the documentary, sorry - personal view. The report that I read (that he sent me himself very kindly) was actually very clear in highlighting the limitations in the conclusions to be drawn.



Surely that makes them interested amateurs? If not and they are professional (i.e. paid) then there's a financial conflict of interest that should have been made clear but wasn't.



It was highly derogatory and it was obvious that it would be offensive. It was used to influence not to illustrate. Had this been a remark made about an ethnic group, or a group defined by their sexuality for example, the BBC would not have dreamed of accepting it.




Why for information? He should be responding as well.


Sadly I won't be able to tell the BBC or OfCom this as they haven't even replied to me.

Excellent responses G O G, perhaps with your permission, this could be used for the basis of everyones reply to the BBC to what was a cut and paste response to our compliant.

 

[sea urchin]

I missed the broadcast but the Beeb is still showing a 4 minute clip from the programme on its website - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13617522

At the very least it should consider removing this highly emotive clip following the complaints, or invite someone to give their highly personal (but opposing) viewpoint on the issue, for broadcast in prime time viewing.

Points I have picked up from the 4 minutes - the SHT campaign is to protect 40 seahorses, with a proviso that there should be 160 of them (no mention of how this assumption is reached). It is a "man" problem - the fairer sex is of the hook, and there is no mention, in the clip, of the RYA backed voluntary zoned NAZ research project.

We are shown an area damaged by a mooring chain of larger proportions than most people's anchor chains. Am I right in thinking this chain might have been put down a few years back by the NT when it hoped to fleece a mooring charge from those visiting by water? I seem to remember it all flared up about 8 -10 rears ago with TV coverage then.

 

[sea urchin]

Whilst on the subject of TV programmes, there was one on Channel 4 last night which show that communities in poor countries are suffering to a far greater extent, from the effects of greenie policies. People's homes were being torched to make way for nature reserves, so that big multinationals could meet their carbon reduction targets. Perhaps we get off lightly here. It just went to show the size of the juggernaut we are up against..........

 

[alahol2]

Yes, I watched that. Interesting to note that the JNCC spokesman was saying that without the participation of the 'locals' that any conservation project was doomed to failure.

 

[pendlecats]

Strange footage of them complaining, then all three go out in a boat, tie up to a mooring, then dive down disturbing the marine life.

Now don't do what I do,,,,

 

[grumpy_o_g]

Excellent responses G O G, perhaps with your permission, this could be used for the basis of everyones reply to the BBC to what was a cut and paste response to our compliant.

Feel free to use anything you want, verbatim or otherwise. No need to ask...

 

[Ergonomist]

Bournemouth Bay?

Bournemouth Bay - the sea area between Needles and Anvil Point encompassing Swanage, Studland, Poole, Christchurch Bays etc.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise the nomenclature had been changed. I obviously need some new charts.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

We spent Tuesday night anchored at Studland. Amazing really, as we were the only boat there, apart from a couple of multis on buoys well inshore.

Didn't see any seahorses, divers, jet skiers or anything, apart from the Border Agency patrol boat which anchored north of us later. Quite close to the yellow buoys they were.

 

[Twister_Ken]

We spent Tuesday night anchored at Studland. Amazing really, as we were the only boat there, apart from a couple of multis on buoys well inshore.

Didn't see any seahorses, divers, jet skiers or anything, apart from the Border Agency patrol boat which anchored north of us later. Quite close to the yellow buoys they were.

No, no. There were over 300 boats anchored there. I saw it on the telly so it must be true.

 

[oldharry]

Now you have upset the statistics, Ken!

 

[SailBobSquarePants]

Updates

The BORG web site has a few updates today, including oldharry's executive summary of the Balanced Seas final draft report and recommendations, as well as a very informative article on eelgrass. You can find both easily from the homepage, via the Latest News menu on the left column.

For you East Coast, Chichester, and Solent sailors, I HIGHLY recommend that you take the time to read the Balanced Seas final draft summary...it contains much that was not in the 3d draft.

Cheers,
SailBob

 

[KristiferColumbus]

It seems to boil down to some bright spark has identified that anchoring damages the bottom so should be banned.....no mention of by how much & if it is a real problem in the scheme of things......my BBC complaint reply turned up in the junk folder so maybe microsoft are'nt that incompetent after all.

 

[oldharry]

Spot on KC. Thats the whole point of the RYA and BORG opposition to anchoring. Visitor numbers are unknown, so there is no clear idea of the 'increase' which is now supposed to be threatening the wildlife. Evidence like this strongly suggests that heavy use is limited to between 4 and 6 weekends a year. Yes we have seen it with probably 250 -300 boats on a fine Bank Hol, and yes, some of the boats wil not have anchored propelrly and will drage an anchor through the Eelgrass, and yes that does damage it. And yes, too, that damage takes a long time to heal. But if the average area of damage is say 5m sq, and occured ON AVERAGE 5 times a week in the 12 week season (and that is very high), then still only 0.1% of the eelgrass bed is affected each year. Hardly the devastation Packham describes, is it!

Also there is no report on the overall condition of the Eelgrass Beds. I have a preliminary assessment from Natural England which shows the Bed is patchy and short in growth. They do not know why, but say it could have a naturaL or human cause. In other words there is NO EVIDENCE yet.

 

[sea urchin]

It seems to boil down to some bright spark has identified that anchoring damages the bottom so should be banned.....no mention of by how much & if it is a real problem in the scheme of things......my BBC complaint reply turned up in the junk folder so maybe microsoft are'nt that incompetent after all.

As discussed on this thread a few days back, there is a principle of 'best available evidence', which underpins the MCZ designations, which is 'evidence' which can be vague, out of date and is not required to stand up to scrutiny. In fact, as Old Harry pointed out, if it is not there, then it can be based on the say so of an 'expert'.

Suggest you have a look at this:- http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-evidence_tcm6-26491.pdf

It is depressing. What happened to robust evidence that has been subjected to peer review, and can stand up to scrutiny. They must doubt it themselves to have to hide behind this smoke screen .......

 

[oldharry]

DAily Telegraph Magazine features Studland Bay 9th July

This weekends edition (9th July) of the Daily Telegraph magazine features the conservation issues surrounding Studland Bay. Many people were interviewed from different sides of the argument including BORG, and the Seahorse Trust, so it will be interesting to see what conclusions they draw.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

Well done indeed. Could we perhaps get IPC to put something on the main page and in the other forums as a sticky to ensure the maximum number of people read it and comment if or as appropriate?

 

[Boathook]

This weekends edition (9th July) of the Daily Telegraph magazine features the conservation issues surrounding Studland Bay. Many people were interviewed from different sides of the argument including BORG, and the Seahorse Trust, so it will be interesting to see what conclusions they draw.

I thought that it was quite a balanced article from a boat owner. It would seem though that Dr John Collins does not like having his scientific data 'challanged'.
I had a quick look on the Telegraph web site to see whether the article was on line to paste a link but could not find it.

 

[oldharry]

Yes, I can not find any link either _ anyone know of one?

I think the article acheived pretty well what it set out to do which was to give all sides the argument. I heard from the Seahorse Trust recently that boats are being much more careful about where and how they anchor in the bay which can only help.