STUDLAND - How much do they want???
- Thread starter SailBobSquarePants
- Start date
- Status
Seajet
...
As usual - until I suspect we merge everything onto one thread - please see the 'Look Out The MMO Is Coming' - with my currently clumsy but workable attempt to show the Studland Voluntary No Anchor Zone - and Solent Recreational Disturbance Studland to Pagham threads as well for developments.
Last edited:
oldharry
Well-known member
Sorry to say all these votes are as I understand it meaningless. The 'voting' is set up by MCS, one of the more vocal of a number of conservation charities who are involved in the Studland debate, and not necessarily particularly close to the centre of it. You are still talking to the monkey, not the organ grinder on these sites. All these pretty little chartlets and aerial pics are purely the opinion of one or another group of conservationists - albeit a fairly large one. But they are nothing to get excited about as they have no more or less clout the the Seahorse Trust in this - in fact if anything rather less because Sea Horse Trust and SSSG are the only people who have actually studied the site at Studland. All the rest are organisations that have jumped on Neil Garrick-Maidments bandwagon, and support his claims about the damage to the Eelgrass.
I must say I am disappointed at RYAs attitude - 'there is no evidence of any damage, so there is nothing to worry about'. Sounds like Dibden Bay all over again. Watch the presentation by Dr Clifford and Sea Horse Trust, as I have, they are putting up some pretty convincing stuff. Only when you put it firmly in its historical context do you realise they are missing out a key factor: high levels of anchoring have taken place on this site for at least 50 years, and rather more moderate levels for 30 years before that, probably significantly longer. Their claim that the eelgrass bed does not recover simply does not stand up. It has. The 'evidence' they produce is all localised and relatively short term against a period of 80+ years.
So what can we do? Voting on one or another website will not make any actual difference, unless we can swamp them. The conservationist groups are as convinced they are right, as we are convinced they are wrong.
The 'chain of command' as I understand (and it is quite difficult to cut through all the convuluted jargon of the paperwork behind it all) is basically as follows:
1. EU directive that vulnerable maritime areas should be identified and conserved.
2. UK government hands responsibility for implementation of directive to DEFRA
3. DEFRA Revamps the old Fisheries Board to become the MMO, the Marine Management Organisation with responsibility not only for Fisheries but all marine ecological matters. MMO invested with powers to set up MCZs and to create byelawas to control them.
4. MMO sets up four regional organisations to investigate and advise on the need for conservation areas - MCZs - in their area.
They are a) Net Gain, covering the N Sea coast down to around Ipswich, b)Balanced Seas covering the S E quadrant from Ipswich to the Needles including the Solent, c) Finding Sanctuary - Western Channel and Severn Sea and d) Irish Sea Conservation Zone
These advisory bodies work closely with English Nature and other conservation bodies such as MCS, SHT, DWT, NT and many others, to GATHER INFORMATION ONLY. In due course (not sure of the timetable) they will report back to the MMO who will decide where the MCZs will be placed.
Many of the consultative bodies such as NE, MCS, talk on their websites about 'our work to establish MCZs'. Strictly speaking it is not. They are only invited by MMO in an advisory capacity, so that anything they put forward - like the chartlets and maps we are worried about in this thread - are purely the OPINION of one advisory body and have NO actual weight or significance. However official it all looks.
There is a lengthy and detailed document set out that the four advisory groups have to follow, with a highly complex set of I think 8 stages of consultation, known as 'Iterations'. This is available on the internet, but I dont currently have the URL Will post if I can find it.
The early iterations are involved with public consultation and this is the point at which we boatowners need to make our voices heard. Unfortunately with Studland I believe we have already reached or are about to reach the third iteration. I am not quite clear on this. Once it moves to the 4th and successive iterations it then goes to professional scrutiny at increasingly high levels, and by the time it reaches the 8th Iteration, proposals are being examined by 'senior government scientists and economists', and the matter will be out of reach by us mere mortals.
The four advisory bodies were required to prepare lists of 'stakeholders' - that is any organisation commercial or voluntary, any user group, landowners, and conservation bodies who might have an interest in the areas they are looking at. As has been commented on a number of times, and I have made the strongest possible representations about it to the MMO -
RECREATIONAL CRAFT OWNERS WERE NOT INCLUDED in the stakeholder lists. Yes there is a heading 'recreational use', but this was not intepreted as 'boatowners' so that at the MMO meeting in Poole last week the 'recreational users' were represented ONLY by the Studland Bay Preservation Group - an online chat board, and the Studland Bay Beach Users Asspociation. And me. By the merest offchance. This to discuss the use of the biggest recreational boat anchorage in the UK!
Now, I hope this gives a better idea of what we are up against. I am not 100% certain I have got it all right - I am very bad at civil service jargon, so if anyone knows more, and thinks i missed it - say so!
The message is basically, pussyfooting around with the various conservation groups who are throwing up 'official' looking ideas is just a distraction. You wont beat them at their own game on their own ground IMHO. They know their stuff too well, and will have answers all the way down the line. So unless you really KNOW your way round the science of what they are saying, you are effectively wasting your time.
We need to get as many as possible close to the decision making core of it all: in Studland that is 'Finding Sanctuary'. We need to lobby them, bombard them with questions from boat owners and MAKE them take notice of us. As I have said before, yelling 'its not fair' or trying to clobber individual outspoken divers, doesnt wash any more. We have a point of view that is not being heard, and is being drowned out by the heavy conservationist lobby. RYA seems to be as usual sitting on its hands saying 'there isnt a problem'. So as always its down to us to make ourselves heard, to get ourselves in to the consultations, to make people listen to us.
Ye gods - did I really write that last paragraph? Me, who never felt strongly about anything except my next drinky? But its true. And its going to be down to you, me and all of us to fight to keep what we have. Because nobody else will, and we are up against some pretty powerful national and international conservationist lobbys - not just the Seahorse Huggers, who you will find are quite friendly decent people by comparison!
End of rant.
I must say I am disappointed at RYAs attitude - 'there is no evidence of any damage, so there is nothing to worry about'. Sounds like Dibden Bay all over again. Watch the presentation by Dr Clifford and Sea Horse Trust, as I have, they are putting up some pretty convincing stuff. Only when you put it firmly in its historical context do you realise they are missing out a key factor: high levels of anchoring have taken place on this site for at least 50 years, and rather more moderate levels for 30 years before that, probably significantly longer. Their claim that the eelgrass bed does not recover simply does not stand up. It has. The 'evidence' they produce is all localised and relatively short term against a period of 80+ years.
So what can we do? Voting on one or another website will not make any actual difference, unless we can swamp them. The conservationist groups are as convinced they are right, as we are convinced they are wrong.
The 'chain of command' as I understand (and it is quite difficult to cut through all the convuluted jargon of the paperwork behind it all) is basically as follows:
1. EU directive that vulnerable maritime areas should be identified and conserved.
2. UK government hands responsibility for implementation of directive to DEFRA
3. DEFRA Revamps the old Fisheries Board to become the MMO, the Marine Management Organisation with responsibility not only for Fisheries but all marine ecological matters. MMO invested with powers to set up MCZs and to create byelawas to control them.
4. MMO sets up four regional organisations to investigate and advise on the need for conservation areas - MCZs - in their area.
They are a) Net Gain, covering the N Sea coast down to around Ipswich, b)Balanced Seas covering the S E quadrant from Ipswich to the Needles including the Solent, c) Finding Sanctuary - Western Channel and Severn Sea and d) Irish Sea Conservation Zone
These advisory bodies work closely with English Nature and other conservation bodies such as MCS, SHT, DWT, NT and many others, to GATHER INFORMATION ONLY. In due course (not sure of the timetable) they will report back to the MMO who will decide where the MCZs will be placed.
Many of the consultative bodies such as NE, MCS, talk on their websites about 'our work to establish MCZs'. Strictly speaking it is not. They are only invited by MMO in an advisory capacity, so that anything they put forward - like the chartlets and maps we are worried about in this thread - are purely the OPINION of one advisory body and have NO actual weight or significance. However official it all looks.
There is a lengthy and detailed document set out that the four advisory groups have to follow, with a highly complex set of I think 8 stages of consultation, known as 'Iterations'. This is available on the internet, but I dont currently have the URL Will post if I can find it.
The early iterations are involved with public consultation and this is the point at which we boatowners need to make our voices heard. Unfortunately with Studland I believe we have already reached or are about to reach the third iteration. I am not quite clear on this. Once it moves to the 4th and successive iterations it then goes to professional scrutiny at increasingly high levels, and by the time it reaches the 8th Iteration, proposals are being examined by 'senior government scientists and economists', and the matter will be out of reach by us mere mortals.
The four advisory bodies were required to prepare lists of 'stakeholders' - that is any organisation commercial or voluntary, any user group, landowners, and conservation bodies who might have an interest in the areas they are looking at. As has been commented on a number of times, and I have made the strongest possible representations about it to the MMO -
RECREATIONAL CRAFT OWNERS WERE NOT INCLUDED in the stakeholder lists. Yes there is a heading 'recreational use', but this was not intepreted as 'boatowners' so that at the MMO meeting in Poole last week the 'recreational users' were represented ONLY by the Studland Bay Preservation Group - an online chat board, and the Studland Bay Beach Users Asspociation. And me. By the merest offchance. This to discuss the use of the biggest recreational boat anchorage in the UK!
Now, I hope this gives a better idea of what we are up against. I am not 100% certain I have got it all right - I am very bad at civil service jargon, so if anyone knows more, and thinks i missed it - say so!
The message is basically, pussyfooting around with the various conservation groups who are throwing up 'official' looking ideas is just a distraction. You wont beat them at their own game on their own ground IMHO. They know their stuff too well, and will have answers all the way down the line. So unless you really KNOW your way round the science of what they are saying, you are effectively wasting your time.
We need to get as many as possible close to the decision making core of it all: in Studland that is 'Finding Sanctuary'. We need to lobby them, bombard them with questions from boat owners and MAKE them take notice of us. As I have said before, yelling 'its not fair' or trying to clobber individual outspoken divers, doesnt wash any more. We have a point of view that is not being heard, and is being drowned out by the heavy conservationist lobby. RYA seems to be as usual sitting on its hands saying 'there isnt a problem'. So as always its down to us to make ourselves heard, to get ourselves in to the consultations, to make people listen to us.
Ye gods - did I really write that last paragraph? Me, who never felt strongly about anything except my next drinky? But its true. And its going to be down to you, me and all of us to fight to keep what we have. Because nobody else will, and we are up against some pretty powerful national and international conservationist lobbys - not just the Seahorse Huggers, who you will find are quite friendly decent people by comparison!
End of rant.
Pinnacle
Well-known member
Thank you for a really informative post. Its the first time I have understood how the whole MCZ stuff is structured.
As you say, we need to get the recreational boaters viewpoint across quickly, otherwise the iterations will have risen to such a level that influencing the final outcome will be beyond us.
Lets hope the RYA gets off its backside and does some good for the subs we all pay!
Seajet
...
Old Harry,
Good point well made. In fact I have pointed out that the MCS are pretty bogus ( in every way ) but some feel it's worth registering as many votes against them as possible as it can do no harm and may be worth pointing to in future, as well as the sheer fact that they're increasingly discredited and effort directed at them may be pointed to as well;the RYA seem pretty upset at the distraction the MCS provide with their quasi-official presentation.
I tried just now to register my comments on the 'interactive Map' at http://www.mczmapping.org, which IS taken note of by the MMO; my 'data' could not be received due to a server error at their end - as I've just mentioned on your 'Look Out The MMO Is Coming' thread, it would be interesting to hear if anyone is able to register their views...
On a different note, I really think we ought to merge all our efforts onto one thread, probably the Look Out the MMO IS Coming';at the moment we also have this thread, and the earlier but still relevant 'Solent Recreational disturbance Studland To Pagham' thread - how does everyone else feel ?
Good point well made. In fact I have pointed out that the MCS are pretty bogus ( in every way ) but some feel it's worth registering as many votes against them as possible as it can do no harm and may be worth pointing to in future, as well as the sheer fact that they're increasingly discredited and effort directed at them may be pointed to as well;the RYA seem pretty upset at the distraction the MCS provide with their quasi-official presentation.
I tried just now to register my comments on the 'interactive Map' at http://www.mczmapping.org, which IS taken note of by the MMO; my 'data' could not be received due to a server error at their end - as I've just mentioned on your 'Look Out The MMO Is Coming' thread, it would be interesting to hear if anyone is able to register their views...
On a different note, I really think we ought to merge all our efforts onto one thread, probably the Look Out the MMO IS Coming';at the moment we also have this thread, and the earlier but still relevant 'Solent Recreational disturbance Studland To Pagham' thread - how does everyone else feel ?
Last edited:
choppy
Member
Mr Old Hal`
I have to say this looks to be going round in circles (organised opposition??) but would agree with going to the top - is that Ms Betts ?
If so will email in addition to RYA as this is an important issue -
- TO LOOSE AN ANCHORAGE SUCH AS STUDLAND ! -
The voteometeres are just a con/waste of time, designed to distract detractors & reinforce the website point of view; suggest ignore them.
I also don't see conservation / anchoring as mutually exclusive & hope to leave a place as i find it - I also don't want to anchor in weed/seagrass & there is tons of it in the shallows close in by the cliffs. I know where id be if i was a horse.
How does drying out on the beach with an anchor in the sand for refloating figure by the way ?
Quick warning Mr Old Harry - my old man wants his ashes scattered in your direction when his time comes; I'll try to give warning.
I have to say this looks to be going round in circles (organised opposition??) but would agree with going to the top - is that Ms Betts ?
If so will email in addition to RYA as this is an important issue -
- TO LOOSE AN ANCHORAGE SUCH AS STUDLAND ! -
The voteometeres are just a con/waste of time, designed to distract detractors & reinforce the website point of view; suggest ignore them.
I also don't see conservation / anchoring as mutually exclusive & hope to leave a place as i find it - I also don't want to anchor in weed/seagrass & there is tons of it in the shallows close in by the cliffs. I know where id be if i was a horse.
How does drying out on the beach with an anchor in the sand for refloating figure by the way ?
Quick warning Mr Old Harry - my old man wants his ashes scattered in your direction when his time comes; I'll try to give warning.
NOHOH
Member
Background Information
This year I have come across a couple of schemes similar to the ones likely to be proposed by the Conservationists. Basically, the tactic is to propose a complete ban on anchoring so that this can subsequently be watered down to a controlled, limited mooring scheme.
One such is the `Posidonia Scheme` in the Balearics. Basically this involves the provision of a completely inadequate number of laid mooring bouys which you must pre-book online and on which you can only stay a maximum number of two nights in any seven. The bouys are policed by red ribs complete with blue flashing lights. To be fair, the guys I encounterd in the ribs were generally fairly helpful and pleasant....but it could have been otherwise.
The second I encountered was in Porto Conti in N Sardinia. This is a vast sheltered anchorage about 5miles x 2miles...and the whole of it is a prohibited area, parts of it you cannot even SAIL through.....Anchoring is permitted in small parts of it BUT ONLY..if you use an anchor made out of the local stone. (see the pilot, this is no joke)...In practice this seems to be ignored...but in that inimmitable Italian fashion...the law is there should they choose to use it.
We need to be careful that we are not just being manipulated by the process. The conservationists will have been through this before and know how to produce the result they want.
This year I have come across a couple of schemes similar to the ones likely to be proposed by the Conservationists. Basically, the tactic is to propose a complete ban on anchoring so that this can subsequently be watered down to a controlled, limited mooring scheme.
One such is the `Posidonia Scheme` in the Balearics. Basically this involves the provision of a completely inadequate number of laid mooring bouys which you must pre-book online and on which you can only stay a maximum number of two nights in any seven. The bouys are policed by red ribs complete with blue flashing lights. To be fair, the guys I encounterd in the ribs were generally fairly helpful and pleasant....but it could have been otherwise.
The second I encountered was in Porto Conti in N Sardinia. This is a vast sheltered anchorage about 5miles x 2miles...and the whole of it is a prohibited area, parts of it you cannot even SAIL through.....Anchoring is permitted in small parts of it BUT ONLY..if you use an anchor made out of the local stone. (see the pilot, this is no joke)...In practice this seems to be ignored...but in that inimmitable Italian fashion...the law is there should they choose to use it.
We need to be careful that we are not just being manipulated by the process. The conservationists will have been through this before and know how to produce the result they want.
Seajet
...
Choppy,
Here is a copy of Finding Sanctuary's reply to me, first posted on the Solent Recreational Disturbance Studland To Pagham thread.
As you see, Bridget Betts is the person to contact re. Studland; I await a reply from her to the mails I sent her last week and yesterday.
The 3rd - and last - Progress Report is due to be presented in February 2011, and the Final Recommendations in June.
After that there will allegedly be Public Consultations; which one can't help thinking is AFTER decisions have been made !
So we need to get our message across quickly,to Ms Betts, tthe Interactive map if anyone gets it to work ( if not we need to highlight that quickly ) and the RYA.
Here is what I received;
----------------
Finding Sanctuary query
10 Nov 2010
To XXX- ( Seajet )
Dear Seajet,
Thanks for the two e-mails you send ( sic ) us recently.
As you rightly point out the area around Studland is currentlybeing considered by the Steering Group of stakeholders for protection as a Marine Conservation Zones ( MCZ ). The site was originally suggested by the Dorset Local Group, although the Group was not unanimously in support of the site and there was some opposition to it. The Dorset Local Group, Steering Group and working groups are well aware of the importance of Studland for anchoring and this is being taken into account in their discussions around the site. If you are interested to read the working group meeting and Steering Group meeting reports they are available on our website under the Resources Section. MCZ status in the area does not necessarily mean that anchoring will be prohibited in the whole area. The working groups are currently discussing different zoning options within MCZs, whereby a given activity might be restricted in one part but allowed to continue in another part of the MCZ. Nevertheless, I would suggest that you contact the Dorset Local Group and arrange to speak to your representative on the Group to ensure your views can be recorded and taken into account. You can contact the Dorset Local Group coordinator Bridget Betts at b.betts@dorset-cc.gov.uk
It is still quite early days in the planning region- the boundaries of sites may change over the coming months as the groups refine the developing network. Also, work will be carried out to determine what the likely management measures / restrictions will be in any given MCZ. You will see on our website the Steering Group has just submitted its second progress report to the Science Advisory Panel , setting out their developing suggestions. The Panel will then provide feedback on whether the developing network meets the ecological guidance. The Steering Group and its working groups are currently working towards the third progress report which is due to be submitted in February 2011. Following this, the Steering Group will finalise its recommendations and these will be submitted to Government through Natural England and the JNCC in June. Later that year, Defra plan to run a public consultation before designating sites. There is still plenty of time to engage in the project to ensure your views are heard.
It has been challenging as a region-based project to try to ensure that all stakeholders, including those who live outside the region but use the sea in the south-west, are aware of the project and can engage. In order to address this issue, the four regional projects developed an online Interactive Map which allows sea users to input their sea-user activity data regardless of where they live and which parts of England’s seas they tend to use. We have publicised the Interactive Map through national media, online boating and yachting forums and specialist magazines such as Motorboat and Yachting Monthly.
Our funding has come from a range of sources including funding from government and charitable trusts. You can see a full list of project sponsors on our website under the ‘About Us’ Section. Finding Sanctuary as a project will cease to exist after the Steering Group submits its final recommendations to Government in June, and our staff will then be looking for work elsewhere – we are not a government body in permanent employment.
I am glad that you have taken the time to get involved and make your views known. It’s important that people make sure they use this opportunity to air their views so that they can be taken into account during the planning of sites by your representatives on the Local Group, Steering Group and working groups, before the recommendations are finalised in June 2011.
Kind Regards,
W www.finding-sanctuary.org
Try out Finding Sanctuary’s interactive map
Here is a copy of Finding Sanctuary's reply to me, first posted on the Solent Recreational Disturbance Studland To Pagham thread.
As you see, Bridget Betts is the person to contact re. Studland; I await a reply from her to the mails I sent her last week and yesterday.
The 3rd - and last - Progress Report is due to be presented in February 2011, and the Final Recommendations in June.
After that there will allegedly be Public Consultations; which one can't help thinking is AFTER decisions have been made !
So we need to get our message across quickly,to Ms Betts, tthe Interactive map if anyone gets it to work ( if not we need to highlight that quickly ) and the RYA.
Here is what I received;
----------------
Finding Sanctuary query
10 Nov 2010
To XXX- ( Seajet )
Dear Seajet,
Thanks for the two e-mails you send ( sic ) us recently.
As you rightly point out the area around Studland is currentlybeing considered by the Steering Group of stakeholders for protection as a Marine Conservation Zones ( MCZ ). The site was originally suggested by the Dorset Local Group, although the Group was not unanimously in support of the site and there was some opposition to it. The Dorset Local Group, Steering Group and working groups are well aware of the importance of Studland for anchoring and this is being taken into account in their discussions around the site. If you are interested to read the working group meeting and Steering Group meeting reports they are available on our website under the Resources Section. MCZ status in the area does not necessarily mean that anchoring will be prohibited in the whole area. The working groups are currently discussing different zoning options within MCZs, whereby a given activity might be restricted in one part but allowed to continue in another part of the MCZ. Nevertheless, I would suggest that you contact the Dorset Local Group and arrange to speak to your representative on the Group to ensure your views can be recorded and taken into account. You can contact the Dorset Local Group coordinator Bridget Betts at b.betts@dorset-cc.gov.uk
It is still quite early days in the planning region- the boundaries of sites may change over the coming months as the groups refine the developing network. Also, work will be carried out to determine what the likely management measures / restrictions will be in any given MCZ. You will see on our website the Steering Group has just submitted its second progress report to the Science Advisory Panel , setting out their developing suggestions. The Panel will then provide feedback on whether the developing network meets the ecological guidance. The Steering Group and its working groups are currently working towards the third progress report which is due to be submitted in February 2011. Following this, the Steering Group will finalise its recommendations and these will be submitted to Government through Natural England and the JNCC in June. Later that year, Defra plan to run a public consultation before designating sites. There is still plenty of time to engage in the project to ensure your views are heard.
It has been challenging as a region-based project to try to ensure that all stakeholders, including those who live outside the region but use the sea in the south-west, are aware of the project and can engage. In order to address this issue, the four regional projects developed an online Interactive Map which allows sea users to input their sea-user activity data regardless of where they live and which parts of England’s seas they tend to use. We have publicised the Interactive Map through national media, online boating and yachting forums and specialist magazines such as Motorboat and Yachting Monthly.
Our funding has come from a range of sources including funding from government and charitable trusts. You can see a full list of project sponsors on our website under the ‘About Us’ Section. Finding Sanctuary as a project will cease to exist after the Steering Group submits its final recommendations to Government in June, and our staff will then be looking for work elsewhere – we are not a government body in permanent employment.
I am glad that you have taken the time to get involved and make your views known. It’s important that people make sure they use this opportunity to air their views so that they can be taken into account during the planning of sites by your representatives on the Local Group, Steering Group and working groups, before the recommendations are finalised in June 2011.
Kind Regards,
W www.finding-sanctuary.org
Try out Finding Sanctuary’s interactive map
Last edited by a moderator:
SailBobSquarePants
New member
Would you mind merging my "STUDLAND - How much do they want???" thread into that as well?
And could we get this made STICKY?
Seajet
...
Nohoh,
A very worthwhile consideration; this tactic of asking for the moon so that one eventually gets the result one wanted all along is of course well known to property developers.
The airfield where I used to work, Dunsfold in Surrey where the Harrier was developed and a great deal other history made ( now home to 'Top Gear' ), is in the hands of developers who want to build 2,600 houses there.
History and green space notwithstanding, the local area infrastructure simply couldn't handle it, and the local council are to be applauded for telling said developrs what they can do with their plans.
One thing the developrs tried relatively recently was to say " well if we can't build houses we'll use the place for film work, with fast jets, fast cars and explosions " ( yes really ).
Obviously they were hoping there would be an outcry from the large proprtion of rich NIMBY's who have moved in since the airfield became a lot quieter; ( there is still a large airshow every year in conjunction with Brooklands Museum, with fast jets inc' Red Arrows - also built there - and lots of fast loud cars etc ).
This was such a transparent move that they were just laughed at and told not to be silly, but you're right, we should watch out for 'settling' with compromises which would still harm our pastime and indeed safety.
A very worthwhile consideration; this tactic of asking for the moon so that one eventually gets the result one wanted all along is of course well known to property developers.
The airfield where I used to work, Dunsfold in Surrey where the Harrier was developed and a great deal other history made ( now home to 'Top Gear' ), is in the hands of developers who want to build 2,600 houses there.
History and green space notwithstanding, the local area infrastructure simply couldn't handle it, and the local council are to be applauded for telling said developrs what they can do with their plans.
One thing the developrs tried relatively recently was to say " well if we can't build houses we'll use the place for film work, with fast jets, fast cars and explosions " ( yes really ).
Obviously they were hoping there would be an outcry from the large proprtion of rich NIMBY's who have moved in since the airfield became a lot quieter; ( there is still a large airshow every year in conjunction with Brooklands Museum, with fast jets inc' Red Arrows - also built there - and lots of fast loud cars etc ).
This was such a transparent move that they were just laughed at and told not to be silly, but you're right, we should watch out for 'settling' with compromises which would still harm our pastime and indeed safety.
Last edited:
oldharry
Well-known member
Thanks for that, it highlights just how powerful a lobby we are up against. Its not just Studland - MCZs are being looked at and prepared all round the coasts, so you Northeners had best get on to Net Gain, soon as it stops snowing, and find out what they are up to. There are some big projects well ahead for the Lincolnshire coast and the Wash. Same in the Irish Sea, and in the Solent. Did you know there are at least four Seahorse Colonies in the Eastern Solent alone? and yes one is in Chi Harbour. The writing is on the wall for all of us wherever we sail.
And Nohoh you are absolutely right. the big conservationist lobbies KNOW what they are doing, They know exactly how to manipulate legislation and opposition to their own ends.
Like I said, Neil G-M and his diving mates come up as quite decent people alongside the big boys of the international conservation lobby! If RYA is getting upset about MCS then that could mean there are things going on we do not know about behind the scenes.
Seajet
...
Would you mind merging my "STUDLAND - How much do they want???" thread into that as well?
And could we get this made STICKY?
sailbob,
Sorry I didn't make it clear, of course I meant your thread too.
Seems a good idea to me, do we need a new title and does anyone know how we go about it ?
Do we merge the whole contents of prevous threads or just selected bits ?
And could we get this made STICKY?
sailbob,
Sorry I didn't make it clear, of course I meant your thread too.
Seems a good idea to me, do we need a new title and does anyone know how we go about it ?
Do we merge the whole contents of prevous threads or just selected bits ?
SailBobSquarePants
New member
The diving boys are at least water USERS...some of them actually have boats too. They may be more amenable to a working relationship than the conservationists, many of whom I am sure have never taken to the sea on anything other than a ferry crossing.
And the RYA can be as upset as they want - I am still not sure they are putting max effort into fighting this. Certainly the presentation they made was the weakest business presentation I have seen in ages, and yet they are insisting they are our only true representatives. If that is the case, I fear the outcome if they are left unassisted. Oldharry, Seajet, et al are going to have to help in any way they can...
NOHOH
Member
If You Want Peace, Prepare for War. (Some Roman Guy)
Has it ever been asked, of these conservationists, (and muddying the waters is never a bad idea in this sort of situation) what the scientific feasibilty is , given the absolutely strategically important nature of the small bit of seabed they wish to deny us, ...what the feasibility is of moving this community of seahorses, complete with a huge lump of their sacred grasses to some other nearby site....the less frequented end of Poole Harbour, or Swanage Bay, or Hengistbury Head for examples...and don`t they think they should do some research and feasibility studies about these proposals before pursuing their present course of action?.....It would keep some of them in a job for a bit longer(it might be pointed out )
Has it ever been asked, of these conservationists, (and muddying the waters is never a bad idea in this sort of situation) what the scientific feasibilty is , given the absolutely strategically important nature of the small bit of seabed they wish to deny us, ...what the feasibility is of moving this community of seahorses, complete with a huge lump of their sacred grasses to some other nearby site....the less frequented end of Poole Harbour, or Swanage Bay, or Hengistbury Head for examples...and don`t they think they should do some research and feasibility studies about these proposals before pursuing their present course of action?.....It would keep some of them in a job for a bit longer(it might be pointed out )
johna
New member
STUDLAND How much do they want?
As I can not face reading all the posts on this question forgive me if this has already been suggested but would everyone's interests be satisfied by placing permanent moorings in both the suggested "No anchoring" area and the more northern area of the bay. The moorings in the southern area would be available for storm shelter and summer overflow.
Thank goodness I still have my "Tin Hat" from WWII!!
As I can not face reading all the posts on this question forgive me if this has already been suggested but would everyone's interests be satisfied by placing permanent moorings in both the suggested "No anchoring" area and the more northern area of the bay. The moorings in the southern area would be available for storm shelter and summer overflow.
Thank goodness I still have my "Tin Hat" from WWII!!
Seajet
...
Johna,
Sadly the answer is it has been thought of, as a vague Plan B by I think mainly the RYA, but look at the number of boats calculated by Old Harry !
It would take a LOT of expensive moorings, in reality I'm certain there would be far too few, all grabbed early on in the day by speedboats etc from Poole - and normally it's far too lumpy to raft boats together.
Sadly the answer is it has been thought of, as a vague Plan B by I think mainly the RYA, but look at the number of boats calculated by Old Harry !
It would take a LOT of expensive moorings, in reality I'm certain there would be far too few, all grabbed early on in the day by speedboats etc from Poole - and normally it's far too lumpy to raft boats together.
oldharry
Well-known member
Yes, I have both corresponded with and met the two main SHT people NG-M, and ST. They are not 'the enemy'. Just passionate about what they have found under our keels and anchors, and wanting to preserve it. And quite willing to discuss it with me in a professional manner. (i.e no bricks or mud).
I KNOW what the outcome will be if owners dont get their act together! Im just a retired old git who looked up from his bilges at the wrong moment and got involved. It needs a whole lot more than a few voices at random to make ourselves heard against the growing conservationist lobby.
Seajet
...
So as I and others have mentioned, how do we set up an association ?
oldharry
Well-known member
This is what the SHT guys actually propose as a solution to their problem, and it mwas discussed at some length with the MMO last week.
However, NG-M and I agree there would need to be probably 300 moorings, to ensure the seabed remains undamaged. these would need to be 'eco moorings' as ordinary moorings clear holes in the Seagrass, which apparently do even more harm than one off 'anchor tears'. There is a well proven American system advocated which gives a 3 point mooring attachment screwed in to the seabed, with a buoyant riser, so that it can not scour the seabed. This leaves effectively no impact on the seabed at all, and is claimed to be secure, by the makers.
So why not? Firstly, local residents, and the Studland Parish Council object vigorously to the aesthetics of 300 large mooring buoys across the bay. Secondly the cost. A ball park figure would run £200k for the equipment alone. Add the cost of installing it - a figure of another £200k was mentioned, insuring it , maintaining it, supervising it, collecting mooring fees: the end cost to the user would be in the region of £15 - £20 a day based on my usage figures, to give a reasonable return on the investment. It was suggested Crown Estates might meet that bill as it is their land... they seem less than enthusiastic!
Bear in mind these moorings would need to be engineered to be capable of taking boats up to say 15m - 20m length, and the equipment cost would probably rise dramatically, so that end user cost would be as much if not more than a top class marina berth!
Major Catastrophe
New member
Despite all the boats.
- Status
