STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[Tranona]

It would seem though that Dr John Collins does not like having his scientific data 'challanged'.

Yes, Dr Collins is always very vague about the extent of changes of the eel grass beds - despite having spent 25 years or so studying them, including carrying out a survey for BP in the early 1990s.

Having spent some time with him a couple of years ago and following what has been said about subject, my conclusion is that the reticence indicates that the "evidence" does not support the SHT arguments, so best not to publish it - but of course I could just be an old cynic.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

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.

I thought it was a remarkably fair and accurate article. Let's people to draw their own conclusions based on what little data there was.

I've just sent the following to the Telegraph - if it's anything other than a straightforward link to the Telegraph web-site I'll obviously run it past the mods before putting it on here - assuming anything comes back at all.

Thanks yet again to Harry and all the others involved in getting the boat-owner's side across so well.

Sir,

You published an excellent article in Saturday's Telegraph Magazine about the fractious battle between the various parties re: Studland Bay mooring and anchoring rights.(Trouble in Paradise - John Dyson) . Firstly congratulations and thank you. This is probably the first time I have an article in the press on a subject I am very familiar with where I could not spot a single inaccuracy. It also presented the views of all parties in a neutral manner and allowed the reader to make up their own mind (if they could - I wish there was more definitive data available).

I have been unable to find a link to the article anywhere on-line. As a member of the "Scuttlebutt" forum referred to in the article I wondered if it would be possible in some way to have a copy of the article that we could post there - or a link to it.

I should probably mention that the "Scuttlebutt" forum is run by IPC Media and that I have no connection with them in any way other than as a customer and member of the forum.

If you could assist in anyway I and I'm sure others on the forum would be most grateful.

My thanks again for an excellent article,

Regards,​

 

[lenseman]

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wi...-vs-seahorses-the-battle-of-Studland-Bay.html

 

[Twister_Ken]

Thanks 4 the link

 

[Seajet]

As the BBC showed utter contempt by repeating Packham's drivel last night I have just complained; I would urge everyone who feels the same to do likewise.

 

[Boathook]

As the BBC showed utter contempt by repeating Packham's drivel last night I have just complained; I would urge everyone who feels the same to do likewise.

I complained last night to the bbc as well about packhams biased 'program'. I also mentioned the wild coast one about a month ago as also being biased over Studland.

 

[dancrane]

I was interested to see the start of the Chris Packham thing last night, so I started the VCR, then went to wash up as instructed. Sadly SWMBO not only let me wash up, but straightaway switched channels, and my VCR only records what the telly's showing, so I missed the seahorse thing.

Any hope of a brief two or three lines, for and against whatever it is, rather than trawl through all 350 posts here? I was at Studland last month. Dreamy place to anchor, though I'd like to hope I wasn't destroying the rare sealife.

 

[lenseman]

I was interested to see the start of the Chris Packham thing last night, so I started the VCR, then went to wash up as instructed. Sadly SWMBO not only let me wash up, but straightaway switched channels, and my VCR only records what the telly's showing, so I missed the seahorse thing.

Any hope of a brief two or three lines, for and against whatever it is, rather than trawl through all 350 posts here? I was at Studland last month. Dreamy place to anchor, though I'd like to hope I wasn't destroying the rare sealife.

You can see it here if you are in UK waters:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011r3y0/The_Truth_about_Wildlife_Coast/

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Packhams a God so why not try channel 4 or ITV in order to try & get a bit of balance on this whole subject?
Also just concentrating on Studland Bay it seems to me that we could well win the battle but loose the war because attention is being taken off other areas of the coast that are also being effected.......Maybe a deliberate tactic by 'conservationists'?

 

[oldharry]

This is something I have been wondering about. Nothing whatsoever about the propoosed reference area bang in the middle of Osborne Bay anchorage, or proposals for Newtown River for example, they seem to be keeping their heads well down on that one. Might it be that they are waiting to see how Studland works out? I personally think it is the first option - keep it quiet.

 

[dancrane]

Dear me, this is embarrassing. The truth is, I suspect the question I want to ask, has already been very fully answered. But in forty minutes, I only got through about the first fifty contributions of this thread.

I know somebody made the suggestion that visitors' moorings would eliminate the problem (if it is a problem) of anchor chains rattling around the bottom.

(Although, where in the world must the chap on the Chris Packham program who said anchor chains turn as if on a clock-face, do his anchoring? The Gulf of Corryvreckan?)

It was said on this thread, that hundreds of moorings would be needed to accommodate the visitors who presently prefer to anchor there on any high summer Sunday. Doubtless. But, the shortness of the mooring cables' scope, with no fear of dragging, would surely allow at least as many moored boats, as have ever anchored in the area.

Moreover, I can't help thinking the significant point is, that if boats seeking shelter in Studland Bay have always anchored close to the southern cliff, it's because dropping the hook north of the disputed area, allows too little shelter to lie securely to an anchor, there...

...whereas, if the mooring blocks, hundreds of them, were planted only in the undisputed area, their security won't be reduced by their exposure...so no-one will need the space that the seahorses graze in.

I love anchoring, so it's all pretty objectionable to me; but it could happen. What's the minimum distance between moorings? 20 meters? If the mooring ground were a quarter-mile square, that'd be 400 moorings...or a half-mile square...1600? It's a lot of cable and concrete, but it's not an engineering nightmare, it's not difficult.

I may apply to that Ayrshire couple who just scooped £160mill. If they'd like to shell-out on five or six miles of mooring line and rather a lot of cement, then 'to save the seahorses', we're in business.

Or, I may just double the size/weight of my ground tackle, and park further out. Sorry if this contribution is even less relevant than my usual standard, I'm sober for the first night in months and it's affecting my judgment.

 

[Seajet]

Dan,

we at BORG have had a look into moorings at Studland Bay.

For a start, any future jobs are very likely to be Environmentally Friendly Moorings, EFM's.

These consist of a helical screw into the seabed, or several of them, and maybe an elasticated rode to the surface.

When I asked my boat insurer about this, I got the long pause 'I'll call you back' treatment !

The installation of these moorings is difficult and expensive, and the big question is ' who pays ? '

The most moorings suggested is around the 50 mark, while the generally agreed number is around 30; this would absorb the number of boats to some extent, in fact cater for all on most days, but not at busy periods.

It is reasonable to expect fast motor boats from Poole would take up these EFM's at weekends in the summer, and good luck to them; this is why we need to fight to protect the right to anchor, to allow space for everyone; no-one anchors deliberatly on eelgrass, as the holding won't work'.

In daytime everyone goes for a clear sandy bit, the 'destroying habitat' thing is totally bogus, invented by people out to make a living conning the public it's about conservation.

 

[dancrane]

The Enviro-Friendly Moorings sound great...for some other world, like Holland or Scandinavia or California where they can afford to back their bright-green principles. Or, are they that bad? What does each one cost? Is Seajet's insurer justified in having doubts about their resilience?

I recognise the deterrent that's inherent in spending a fortune on the solution to an ecology question; but oughtn't moorings - enough moorings - in Studland bay, be everyone's long-term plan? If we're too fervent about our right to anchor, we risk appearing steadfastly uncaring. Wouldn't that be playing right into the over-the-top greenies' line of fire?

If there were fifty moorings in Studland bay, or just fifteen, by the start of next season, most visitors, most of the time, would sooner hook on to one of them, than anchor.

I've heard that implementing new laws or changes to existing laws, is amazingly tedious, even for the bods who do that sort of stuff every day. I'm sure they, and both sides, would all rather find a compromise that aims to keep the eel-grass free of anchors, whilst not introducing criminality. I hope so, anyway.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

I'm not sure I fancy the idea of trying to pick up a mooring off Studland in a SW F6-7 especially at night. It's a pretty likely scenario - the F4-5 predicted has turned into a F6-7 with a bit more west in it and, instead of a steady 5 or 6 knots followed by a nice night entry into Poole with tide with us, we've been tramping along at up to 10 knots so we're a bit early and have to hole up for the tide. Even with a crew it wouldn't be easy. Single-handed I wouldn't even want to try.

More to the point, why am I compromising when my actions aren't causing anyone a problem? The eel-grass is spreading, the sea-horses are thriving, the people living in Studland on the bay are quite happy, and the divers can all dive quite happily. The "problem" seems to exist only in the minds of a few very vocal people who, to put it mildly, are struggling to prove there is any problem at all.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

This is something I have been wondering about. Nothing whatsoever about the propoosed reference area bang in the middle of Osborne Bay anchorage, or proposals for Newtown River for example, they seem to be keeping their heads well down on that one. Might it be that they are waiting to see how Studland works out? I personally think it is the first option - keep it quiet.

I think there is the danger that we will be so grateful for the backing off of Studland Bay that we would allow some of their other proposals to go through unopposed because they are unlikely to upset the majority of anchorers.
That Balanced Seas have even suggested most of those places proposed around the Isle of Wight & inside Portsmouth Harbour are under threat by anchoring looks absolutely insane to me.
They are out to build empires & set up little private zoos.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

I'm not sure I fancy the idea of trying to pick up a mooring off Studland in a SW F6-7 especially at night. It's a pretty likely scenario - the F4-5 predicted has turned into a F6-7 with a bit more west in it and, instead of a steady 5 or 6 knots followed by a nice night entry into Poole with tide with us, we've been tramping along at up to 10 knots so we're a bit early and have to hole up for the tide. Even with a crew it wouldn't be easy. Single-handed I wouldn't even want to try.

More to the point, why am I compromising when my actions aren't causing anyone a problem? The eel-grass is spreading, the sea-horses are thriving, the people living in Studland on the bay are quite happy, and the divers can all dive quite happily. The "problem" seems to exist only in the minds of a few very vocal people who, to put it mildly, are struggling to prove there is any problem at all.

I'm damn sure if I bombed into Studland Bay as a refuge I would be endangering my life to try & pick up a buoy out in the exposed part of the Bay & I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY OF THESE PLACES TURNED INTO HORRIBLE ARTIFICIAL ENVIRONMENTS.
If it ai'nt broke don't fix it.

 

[Seajet]

KC,

we've been wary from the outset that the conservationists may ask for the moon, hoping we'll settle for less; which was the real target all along.

This is a well known ploy in such things as planning applications...We are keeping a close eye on Balanced Seas, but nothing is formally proposed yet; BS are a lot more cagey than Finding Sanctuary, Galadriel has the best knowledge on them but he is sensibly off sailing at the moment.

We certainly do need to keep an eye on Balanced Seas, they're threatening all the major anchorages in the Solent !

 

[dancrane]

QUOTE: The eel-grass is spreading, the sea-horses are thriving, the people living in Studland on the bay are quite happy, and the divers can all dive quite happily.

If Grumpy O G's second paragraph expresses the facts, then I agree with his sentiments wholeheartedly. If things are actually all fine on the seabed (other than according to the whining types who think pleasure-boat-ownership is nothing but G&T addiction, as Packham foolishly alleged), then heaven forbid that anchoring becomes verboten.

But...as long as there's doubt, I'm certain it'd be shrewd politically, to lean towards encouraging whoever's reponsible for the bay, to put some moorings in. Granted they mightn't be the best way to stop for the night in really foul conditions, but the occasions that cause sudden significant damage (if that's actually the case) are more likely to be when countless day-trippers drop their lunch hooks, in moderate weather...which they only do, because there's no permanent alternative, as yet.

As a gesture as well as a wholly practical measure, the option of 50 visitors' moorings would surely favour everyone.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

KC,

we've been wary from the outset that the conservationists may ask for the moon, hoping we'll settle for less; which was the real target all along.

This is a well known ploy in such things as planning applications...We are keeping a close eye on Balanced Seas, but nothing is formally proposed yet; BS are a lot more cagey than Finding Sanctuary, Galadriel has the best knowledge on them but he is sensibly off sailing at the moment.

We certainly do need to keep an eye on Balanced Seas, they're threatening all the major anchorages in the Solent !

Maybe we should broaden this to alert everyone interested in anchoring not just the ones that have heard of Studland Bay?
Not sure how sensible Galadriel is at the moment looking out my window

 

[KristiferColumbus]

QUOTE: The eel-grass is spreading, the sea-horses are thriving, the people living in Studland on the bay are quite happy, and the divers can all dive quite happily.

If Grumpy O G's second paragraph expresses the facts, then I agree with his sentiments wholeheartedly. If things are actually all fine on the seabed (other than according to the whining types who think pleasure-boat-ownership is nothing but G&T addiction, as Packham foolishly alleged), then heaven forbid that anchoring becomes verboten.

But...as long as there's doubt, I'm certain it'd be shrewd politically, to lean towards encouraging whoever's reponsible for the bay, to put some moorings in. Granted they mightn't be the best way to stop for the night in really foul conditions, but the occasions that cause sudden significant damage (if that's actually the case) are more likely to be when countless day-trippers drop their lunch hooks, in moderate weather...which they only do, because there's no permanent alternative, as yet.

As a gesture as well as a wholly practical measure, the option of 50 visitors' moorings would surely favour everyone.

Having watched developments in Bursledon & Hamble for over fifty years I have to say not me.That's just the thin end of the wedge it don't just stop there!Snip a piece off there.'Upgrade' that bit there ...& in the end all charm is lost.Thankyou "conservationists",you will inherit a world as bland & boring as you are yourselves!