STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[Seajet]

KC,

As regards Balanced Seas' ideas we have mentioned this on the forum but as I say the snag is there are no hard & fast proposals yet.

Dan,

BORG agree in principle to say 30 - maybe 50 EFN's at Studland, while it wouldn't cater for all on a busy summer weekend it would take the pressure off; the problem is, who pays ? Installing the things in the seabed requires specialised kit with professionals to match, the tiny EFM's for the voluntary no anchor zone buoys were put in by hand !

If the cost of installation ( did work out the figures but don't have them to hand, away from my normal computer ) decrees some chap with illuminated gold braid on his hat has to come and collect fees by boat, that means additional costs, and so on !

 

[dancrane]

Good points, gentlemen; I expect that some permanent mooring set-up there, would be only the thin end. And I'm certain, as there's a business footing to controlling moorings, that thin end would grow exponentially fatter, in alarmingly short order.

At Studland Bay a month back, using the rather excellent telescope in the shed on the beach, I peered into the mist...nothing visible initially, but eventually I could make out one very lovely trad yacht at anchor, all her sails in bundles at the spars or on deck (none of that 20th century roller-furling!). I can't describe how very much at home she looked.

If the place were dotted with mooring-buoys, it'd be just as filled with artless plastic monstrosities attached to them, lowering the tone and besmirching the bay's natural beauty. Here's a plan! ...no-one may anchor in the disputed southern sector...unless the vessel passes certain aesthetic standards. Mine...

 

[Seajet]

Dan,

the locals and others have come out pretty strongly against a huge number of mooring buoys, for aesthetic reasons.

I happen to agree, and as Kristifer says seeking shelter in the bay at night would be akin to sailing into a minefield if the place were filled with unlit buoys.

 

[oldharry]

Being, like Galadriel 'off base' at present I have missed joining this discussion, though Seajet has put BORGs points of view across very fully.

On the question of possible environmental problems in the bay, last saturdays (9/7) Telegraph Magazine article is as good a summary of the various points of view as you will find, and is worth a read. This is the big issue at Studland: IS there really a problem with anchoring in the bay? We all know the point of view presented by Packham and crew on TV - that by anchoring here we are wrecking the place, and it must stop, pronto. The main line view of most serious conservationist groups is that anchoring IS causing 'some damage', though the extent is at present unknown pending the results of the Seastar Survey, and the question is whether or not that damage is 'sustainable' - i.e. is the Eelgrass Bed (and therefore the protected habitat of the Seahorse) recovering sufficiently to ensure its survival? At present there simply is not sufficient data to be able to say.

The Seahorse party say the eelgrass Beds are diminishing. Dr Collins says comparisons of various aerial photos show that it is. However, he has not to my knowledge quantified this, or produced evidence to back this. Nobody who uses the Bay regularly, residents and visitors alike understands this claim, because we all see that Eelgrass is growing in places it has not grown previously. Unfortunately nobody recorded where the clear areas were, so we can produce no data to support what we believe to be true.

Likewise, The current Seahorse Trust survey records 40 individuals in the Bay. A similar area in Portugal is known to support 200 in the same area and therefore says SHT, the population here is 'alarmingly low', and must therefore be regarded as 'under threat' ".. as a direct result of anchoring activity" says Seahorse Trust Director Neil Garrick-Maidment.

The Science Advisory Panel who guide the four MCZ regional bodies, have very recently laid down that only documented evidence about seahorse populations, provided by Seahorse Trust should be used, and anecdotal or "serendipitous sitings" by the rest of us can not be used as evidence.

In the meantime, Dr Collins has invoked the 'Precautionary Principle' as regards the Bay's eelgrass: this is similar to modern H&S legislation in identifying potential rather than actual problems. It demands that where there is a possible risk to the environment, even if no damage has yet occurred, action should be taken to minimise that risk. "Applying Wadden Sea Ecological Quality Objectives concepts to Studland where anchoring and chain mooring has created a large number of scars within the seagrass meadows disturbance should be reduced, allowing the scars to heal and further impact reduced." He concludes in his latest report.

Seajet has already spelled out the problems surrounding the laying of EFMs. Following a conversation with Natural England earlier this year it was agreed that the laying of 30 EFMs in the bay would acheive the 'reduction of disturbance' that is being seen to be needed to allow the 'scars to heal'. Everybody I have spoken to: Natural England (who suggested the figure), Seahorse Trust, RYA, and SBPA, have -with on our side some misgivings about the cost as Seajet has explained - have agreed 'in principle'.

RYA has been deeply involved in the debate since well before the legislation came before parliament, and have on our behalf managed to win some important concessions even before things 'went public'. As far as Studland is concerned their environmental advisors have solidly maintained that there is 'insufficent evidence of unsustainable damage to justify an outright ban on anchoring'. They currently are pushing for a voluntary arrangement similar to that in Helford River, where a designated area of eelgrass is already a VNAZ, and is clearly buoyed as such, and as a result is very rarely anchored in. I put the suggestion to SHT for their comments. They do not believe it would work here, because of the problems experienced with the present VNAZ. Knowing in some detail the problems that have surrounded the attempts to set up a VNAZ in Studland for study purposes, I can understand their misgivings!

Most local residents simply want the Bay 'left alone' Like the RYA, their own extensive and detailed knowledge of the bay tells them that things are not as bad as the conservationists say, and that Eelgrass and seahorses are thriving alongside the visitors as they always have done, and that the proposals are a 'solution looking for a problem'. They also point out that there are other factors such as many fresh water springs in the bay which are in fact the cause of the 'anchor damage' reported. (Eelgrass will not grow in desalinated water), and it has always been like that. They are also not unnaturally concerned about the social and economic impacts of closure or regulation of the bay. The legislation, they (and we!) point out very clearly requires these impacts to be assessed and taken into clear account.

That the bay needs protection from commercial interference such as bottom trawling and dredging, everyone agrees, including many local trawlermen. But anchor damage? Hopefully the Seastar Survey will provide some of the answers.

In the meantime the extremists continue to shout in the press and telly how we dreadful and uncaring 'rich yotties' continue to throw our 50kg anchors at the seahorses and are wilfuilly destroying the eelgrass Beds, in the hopes of swinging public opinion and feeling against us.

In the meantime in the wings are Eelgrass Beds in the Solent, The Fal, Salcombe, Torbay, the Medway, Padstow, and Porth Dinllaen and other places most of which are designated for MCZ protection, and most of which also lie in favoured regular anchorages....

The great difficulty facing BORG, the RYA and SBPA is the lack of clear historical and current data and information about the Bay. Science Advisory Panel is insisting that only quantifiable data is taken in to account, and the MMOs Head of Conservation and Enforcement - whose task it will be to set up and enforce whatver byelaws will be needed to regualte MCZ's - has asked me very clearly to present him with whatever facts and data BORG can provide to support what we say. Like SAP, he cannot frame and enforce byelaws based simply on peoples opinions!

 

[sea urchin]

Just a cross reference to a new thread - "Studland, IoW, Pagham, etc MCZ's Sunday Times". Studland gets a mention.

Have a look at today's Sunday Times article on page 17 "We won't be bullied by a 2mm snail: towns fight coastal conservation plan" for details.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Good points, gentlemen; I expect that some permanent mooring set-up there, would be only the thin end. And I'm certain, as there's a business footing to controlling moorings, that thin end would grow exponentially fatter, in alarmingly short order.

At Studland Bay a month back, using the rather excellent telescope in the shed on the beach, I peered into the mist...nothing visible initially, but eventually I could make out one very lovely trad yacht at anchor, all her sails in bundles at the spars or on deck (none of that 20th century roller-furling!). I can't describe how very much at home she looked.

If the place were dotted with mooring-buoys, it'd be just as filled with artless plastic monstrosities attached to them, lowering the tone and besmirching the bay's natural beauty.

That is a wonderful evocative bit of writing,you need to write a book.I'd buy it

 

[dancrane]

Apologies for a momentary derailment of the thread...

KristiferColumnbus's Quote:That is a wonderful evocative bit of writing; you need to write a book. I'd buy it.

Thank you for that! It's more encouragement than I've had from any literary agent! But, umm...why the laughing smiley?

 

[KristiferColumbus]

KristiferColumnbus's Quote:That is a wonderful evocative bit of writing; you need to write a book. I'd buy it.

Thank you for that! It's more encouragement than I've had from any literary agent! But, umm...why the laughing smiley?

I felt it was an admission that I was living in the past.

Likewise apologies for the distraction of this thread.Anybody got a link for the Times article that sea urchin has mentioned for those of us to tight or to late to buy a copy of the paper?

 

[Twister_Ken]

.Anybody got a link for the Times article that sea urchin has mentioned for those of us to tight or to late to buy a copy of the paper?

The Times and the ST now charge for i'net access. Guess Murdoch now needs every penny he can get to pay the upcoming fines.

 

[sea urchin]

I quote the following from the article (Sorry about the format - this is how it has come out - I have put a smiley by the bit about Studland - it shows a sustained campaign has a chance influencing them) and please think of writing to the Letters page:- letters@sunday-times.co.uk
We won't be bullied by a 2mm snail:
towns fight coastal conservation plan
Robin Henry
ENGLAND'S coastline has
become a battleground as the
yachting set, fishermen and
seaside villagers join forces to
fight government plans to
create more than 100 marine
sanctuaries.
Conservationists are using
new legislation to section off
thousands of square miles of
sea and shore to protect rare
species and vulnerable
habitats. However, widespread
opposition to these Marine
Conservation Zones (MCZs) has
seen the government accused
of putting coastal communities
at risk by trying to rush
through the plans to meet a
2012 deadline.
The government has set up
groups covering the Irish Sea,
North Sea, southeast and southwest
coasts. These have until
the end of August to draw up
proposed boundaries for the
MCZs, including "reference
areas" where fishing, diving,
dredging and the mooring of
boats will be banned.
Pagham Harbour, in West
Sussex, was earmarked for the
scheme to protect a colony of
rare Defolin's lagoon snails. On
Friday, Pagham residents and
business owners packed out the
village hall to protest that this
would prevent them from
strengtheni ng sea defences and
jeopardise tourism. Locals have
appointed a marine biologist
who has challenged whether
the harbour is still home to the
snail, which is just 2mm long
and shaped like a slightly
curved test-tube.
Ray Radmall, chairman of
the parish council, said: "They
were proposing this off the
back of finding20 snails in 2007,
10 of which were killed while
unearthing them. Our entire
community is being put at risk
over a handful of snails which
may not even be here any more."
According to the Royal
yachting Association, which
represents Britain's recreational
boaters, such battles are
being fought around the entire
coast - Scotland and Wales are
also setting up similar
schemes. It fears that its
members will be banned from
dropping anchor in yachting
hotspots, including parts of the
Isle of Wight.
"Many of the areas included
in these zones are the harbour
mouths and bays, and in some
cases they are discussing
controls on mooring even
though we have yet to see any
evidence that it does any
meaningful damage to these
habitats," said Caroline Price,
the association's planning and
environmental adviser.
The MCZS are being brought
in under the Marine and
Coastal Access Act 2009 to
meet international conservation
targets. The Department
for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs said it was
confident that the zones were
based on "robust science" and
would be ready in time.
However, Sue Wells, project
manager for Balanced Seas, the
team set up by Natural England,
a government advisory
board, to link the groups
affected by the southeast coast's
MCZs with environmental
experts, admitted: "This is a
rush job, we accept that, but
the sad fact is that our seas are
in bad health. It needs to be
addressed as soon as possible."
Plans for a reference area to
protect sea horses in Dorset's
Studland Bay - also a haven for
yachtsman and divers - are in
doubt after a campaign by
sailors.
The disputes are not
confined to waters close to
shore. One zone in the Irish
Sea, off Cardigan Bay, is facing
a complete ban on fishing to
protect the tubeworms and
"dead man's fingers" coral
inhabiting the sea bed.
The National Federation of
Fishermen's Organisations
claims that the current plans
will displace hundreds of fleets
and lead to overfishing in some
areas and overcrowding of
stock in others.
Tony Delahunty, 57, has fished
for lobster and whelk in the
English Channel for 35 years
and believes the project is
heading for disaster. His patch
includes Mixon Hole, a deep underwater
cave, and North Utopia,
a reef populated with fragile
sponges - both of which are included
in a conservation zone.
"No one denies these features
need to be proteoted," said Delahunty,
"but we are told that
these restrictions will cover an
area of at least three square
miles around each one. I can't
see the sense in that. If the government
doesn't get this right,
then no one will respect the
zones when they are finally
introduced and it will be impossible
to police and manage. "

 

[dancrane]

No more indecision from me, gentlemen.

Thank you, well done for finding a way to reproduce that, Sea Urchin.

I'm wholly on-side, now. To hell with the MCZs. They're very clearly an extreme over-response to some rather doubtful macroscopic ecology issues. And, I suspect, they are also some monstrous scheming cynic's attempt to find a backdoor way to making boaters pay, whenever they stop, for any reason, anywhere. Pay-per-Day moorings in an 'anchoring-forbidden' ecology zone.

Funny, I've always been very green in my outlook and ambitions. But these seahorsemen are wetsuit-wearing killjoys, hoping to manipulate a window-dressing government into introducing bans that look like conservation.

What's our next step, in preventing them?

 

[Boathook]

Got a reply (below) from the bbc following my complaint. Are we able to see Ken Collins paper and who reviewed it? I thought that arial photos of Studland had shown that the eel grass had expanded and not declined.

"I am sorry if you were upset by The Truth About Wildlife, presented by Chris Packham.

The Studland Bay sequence was informed and underpinned by the scientific paper published by Dr Ken Collins, senior research fellow at the School of Earth Science, University of Southampton.

His independent, peer-reviewed study into the seagrass at Studland says that anchoring and mooring leave scars on the seabed - of up to 20 meters across, as illustrated by sonar scans - which during his observations showed no evidence of recovery. He concludes there is potential for the decline of the seagrass bed and its inhabitants.

As to the seagrass beds expanding, Dr Collins has presented a report to the MMO saying that seagrass throughout Europe was wiped out by disease during the 1930s and 40s, recovered in the years up to the 70s, but since then has been declining. He bases this on a study of aerial photographs.

Chris is involved with many conservation charities but expresses his own views based on his knowledge of the subject.

His use of the “G and T on a Sunday afternoon” phrase was used to contrast leisure users of the sea with fishermen, whose livelihoods depend entirely on being able to fish, and who may be the biggest losers in the marine conservation zone process if bottom fishing is banned or restricted. His closing remarks were also critical of fishermen and conservationists, and expressed his concerns over whether the forthcoming MCZs will be properly monitored.


Yours sincerely

Zoe Clough
Producer"

 

[oldharry]

Thank you, well done for finding a way to reproduce that, Sea Urchin.

I'm wholly on-side, now. To hell with the MCZs. They're very clearly an extreme over-response to some rather doubtful macroscopic ecology issues. And, I suspect, they are also some monstrous scheming cynic's attempt to find a backdoor way to making boaters pay, whenever they stop, for any reason, anywhere. Pay-per-Day moorings in an 'anchoring-forbidden' ecology zone.

Funny, I've always been very green in my outlook and ambitions. But these seahorsemen are wetsuit-wearing killjoys, hoping to manipulate a window-dressing government into introducing bans that look like conservation.

What's our next step, in preventing them?

The vast majority of sailing types I have met are like you, pretty strongly pro -conservation on the whole, and most of us get pretty fed up when conservationists with 'agendas' turn up and start trying to push us around. particularly when the scientific community only partially backs them up in their claims.

My personal view is that the basic MCZ programme is fubdamentally pretty sound. It suffers from two major setbacks: firstly even those involved agree it is FAR too rushed. The government has set ridiculous deadlines which HAVE to be met later this year and next, forcing them to finish the job before it is half way done. Secondly, because of these deadlines, there has been wofully inadquate consultation with those it affects. Compounding this the governemnt has failed to give any clear guidelines about the inevitable clash of interests between commercial and leisure interests on one side, and conservation interests on the other.

We boaters have rather literally missed the boat, as so few of us realised what was being planned this time last year, when we could still have got in and made a difference. Basically it is TOO LATE now - reports are going in, decisions have been made, and it is too late to get the four Regional Groups to change their recommendations now.

What is the next step? Collection of data based information. The Scientific Advisory panel is now laying down that anecdotal or 'serendipitous' evidnec can not be used. That means that if we express an opinion, we must back it with data, whichg we simply do not have. MMO, who will be the enforcers, are quite willing to listen to RYA and BORG - provided we bring facts, not just opinions to them. MMO's Head of Conservation is quite willing to listen to what BORG has to say, but tells me quite candidly he can only use FACTS, not opinions or suppositions.

So the next step is to collect those FACTS, ready to present them to MMO, whose next workshop is September. In the new year there will be a three month 'Public Consultation' following the publication of the Government White Paper. w eneed to be ready there armed with whatever we can bring in that will carrty weight. we need to be canvassing MPs, and we need to be consolidating and agreeing on how we are going to tackle this whole subject.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

The Scientific Advisory panel is now laying down that anecdotal or 'serendipitous' evidnec can not be used. That means that if we express an opinion, we must back it with data, whichg we simply do not have. MMO, who will be the enforcers, are quite willing to listen to RYA and BORG - provided we bring facts, not just opinions to them. MMO's Head of Conservation is quite willing to listen to what BORG has to say, but tells me quite candidly he can only use FACTS, not opinions or suppositions.

Surely this means that the claim of Dr Collins that the eel grass beds are shrinking should be discounted as he is unable or unwilling to produce the aerial photographs that back this claim up.

The only photos (all 2 of them) I've seen show it as growing over years.

 

[oldharry]

Quite so. But he is an recognised 'expert'. I am not. I can only challenge his evidence by producing photographs that prove our point. Anyone? Anywhere?

Its getting a bit like a courtroom here at the sharp end, expert witnesses have been produced - now we have to be able to produce material evidence to disprove what has been said. Non expert opinions (however valid) ware not enough - from either side.

 

[sea urchin]

In our neck of the woods we are still being presented with "best available evidence" over snail information. It is a moving feast and impossible to challenge! If we were to rebut it with "best available evidence" then we will be ignored. What is sauce for the goose, is certainly not sauce for the gander.

 

[yesod]

i note that even the bbc trust realise that the bbc science programmes are very badly produced.

Jones was commissioned and endorsed by the BBC's independent governing body, the BBC Trust. The Trust invited Jones to report on the impartiality and accuracy of the Beeb's science coverage. Jones found that 75 per cent of the BBC's science stories were based on a single press release, and seven out of eight of those only feature the source – there is no additional view to the story.

 

[ARCO7]

The seahorses have gone from studland bay

This is not a joke , I have just had a phone call from someone at Studland and the latest is there are, at present no Seahorses at Studland.
Shocking isn't it ? Why aren't they there this year ?
Various divers have said there have been no sightings this year,so far.
There haven't been many boats in the bay either because of the awful weather and today I have been told at 1500 hrs BST there were 17 boats (including dinghies) in the South of the bay, and most of them were on moorings .
There is no sign of any pollution or Green Algae so it might turn out to be the mystery of the century.
However , as the MMO have recently banned the use of FLASH GUNS around Seahorses because it can cause them stress and be eventually fatal you have to wonder if all those photographs, man handling,tagging and BBC film crews have taken their toll on these poor little creatures .
Its a very sad day indeed.

 

[lenseman]

. . . . . Its a very sad day indeed.

Obviously, as they are sea-horses and the fact that they don't like photographers with their flash, they have all gone for a hack!!

 

[oldharry]

I am rather afraid there is probably a very much more simply explanation. Earlier this year I warned MMO and SHT that beam trawlers were operating in Poole Bay over the winter. These things drag around 4 tons of gear across the seabed with about the finesse of a motorway excavation bulldozer, taking anything between 100 and 200cms depth of the seabed out. They have already destroyed many valuable submarine features along the coast.

Seahorse Trust tell us Seahorses migrate to deeper water in winter to avoid storms and extremes of temprature. It seems very likely the 'world famous' Studland colony has been wiped out in their winter quarters by the trawlers. FS bowed to pressure from the trawlermen to reduce the original Poole Bay pMCZ from the whole of Poole bay to just Studland - so that they could continue fishing and trawling. Now watch while we suffer the consequences and get the blame as this 'proves' the damage we are supposed to do.