STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[sea urchin]

At the outset of the MCZ process, we all thought it was to stop beam trawling, which is a problem East of the Nab, too. Lots of support for it locally, and then....... instead of ousting the beam trawling, the MCZs get focussed on well managed bays and estuaries like Studland Bay, Pagham Harbour, and all around the IoW, and which are already weighed under with conservation designations such as SSSI's, SPAs, SACs, Ramsars etc. MCZs will just make our lives more complicated with bureaucracy, unnecessarily. Meanwhile much of the beam trawling will go on unabated.

What a missed opportunity. Mmmm ..... no sea horses at Studland, and the little tern for which Pagham Harbour is famous is allegedly also absent this year.

Likewise, the very few dinghies, wind and kitesurfers, and paddlers who drag their craft up onto the shingle near the nesting sites will no doubt get the blame. Locals put the changes down to the Natural England mantra of 'let nature take its course' (conservation speak for 'do nothing'.) The harbour entrance used to be managed and kept clear, which provided the right conditions for winkle and cockle beds which were at the bottom of the food chain for the wading and marine colonies of birds. They all used to be in profusion, but now they are dwindling or gone, since the harbour entrance has moved and become silted up whilst 'nature takes its course'. Never mind - recreational boaters have got the blame - it has been put down to human disturbance of one sort or another - usually boats. Not so many boats now, but there used to be more, co-existing with the more abundant wildlife.

Now, because of a micro-snail they might prohibit all 'damaging' human intervention if it is made an MCZ reference area, including intervention to manage the site for conservation. So how daft is that?

The hours of debate, lobbying, letter writing, and meetings to then argue out the socio economic impacts at places like Studland and Pagham, has successfully diverted our attention from where it should be - to press government to designate MCZs to stop/restrict the really damaging activities out there such as the beam trawling. The big commercial interests must be laughing at us all whilst they put political pressure to be left alone and go unnoticed behind our parochialism.

 

[Alcyone]

No seahorses?

I'd be interested to see some statistical data. Number of hours spent on the seabed by divers this year in comparison to previous years, number of sightings per hour dived, exact location and so on. Add in the visibility and thickness of weed growth which would affect spotting, as well as the actual divers used, are they the same as in previous years, do they have the same level of experience, or are they less used to spotting the little critters?
.... and so on

One just wonders whether there is any such data available, or, as sadly seems to be the norm in this whole debate, everything is just spin and hearsay.........

 

[alahol2]

Well, can the SHT really be surprised? A little creature that relies entirely on camouflage to evade its predators has a little shiney tag hung round its neck. What was written on the tag, 'here I am, eat me'?

 

[oldharry]

Lack of seahorses - and other species this year

I spoke to Seahorse Trusts Director today about the reported lack of seahorses in the Bay. He confirms that three were sighted in May, and nothing has been seen since. He also reports that the eelgrass beds are not growing normally, there are areas of yellowing, considerable growth of jack weed that has not been seen before away from the Old Harry rocks, and a big increase in worm casts, and the growth is thinner than usual. The reasons for this are not known at present, and Dr Collins and team are investigating. I am also told by local fishermen there are far fewer Spider Crabs and Lobsters this year than normal. There are various theories, but nobody at present knows exactly what is going on. One thing SHT are clear is that this is NOT related to anchor damage - there are other influences at work which are as yet not identified.

Studland residents confirm also that the eelgrass is not growing normally, and believe that sand deposition is taking place following beach restoration at Swanage and elsewhere, and suggest this may be a major factor. The disappearance of the Seahorses does not seem to be linked directly to the Eelgrass, unless it has the same primary factor. Locals reckon there is no 'colony' of seahorses in the Bay, and they are simply visitors, having chosen to go elsewhere this year.

 

[ARCO7]

Studland Bay Beach Wardens Return

We can expect to see a Dorset Wildlife Trust Wardens on the South Beach at Studland for the next 10 weeks according to recent reports from locals there.
These wardens are to "engage with boat owners etc and build up a picture of anchoring preferences and monitor the VNAZ and conduct BOAT COUNTS "
They have been partly funded by Natural England (our tax) and Dorset Wildlife Trust and supported by the National Trust.
With the recent developments posted in this blog and others one could question the need for this expense when the SHT and others are now claiming there are no seahorses and the changes to the bays wildlife and fauna are not due to anchoring,moorings or boat use.
In fact if anyone person , organisation or charity continue to act in such a manner that suggests or claims boats ,mooring and anchors are the main enviromental problem within the bay ,then legally they could be asked to retract said claims or actions.
I must check the wildlife sign at the bottom of the lane on the South Beach next weekend as this may now be outdated and have to be urgently revised .
These are interesting times ,especially when public funds appear to have been wasted on a completely fruitless and outdated exercise.

 

[Sans Bateau]

Dont you find it rather odd. Boats anchor in Studland for 100's of years, then seahorse are 'discovered', 40 I believe was the estimate. Then, the next thing we hear is that the seahorses have not returned. Now let me think, what has changed in recent years that may have driven the seahorses away? Mmm, the only thing I can think of is the proliferation of divers and TV camera crews poking around on the sea bed. Maybe some of NGM's "1000 divers" have taken seahorse home as pets?

Out of interest, I anchored in Studland Friday night last week, we had to motor around for some time before we could see a patch of sand, our anchor was in sand, as when it was raised there were only a couple of stray blades of eel grass on it.

Maybe what ARCO7 now reports is a last ditched effort to preserve the conservationists.

 

[oldharry]

We can expect to see a Dorset Wildlife Trust Wardens on the South Beach at Studland for the next 10 weeks according to recent reports from locals there.
These wardens are to "engage with boat owners etc and build up a picture of anchoring preferences and monitor the VNAZ and conduct BOAT COUNTS "
They have been partly funded by Natural England (our tax) and Dorset Wildlife Trust and supported by the National Trust.
With the recent developments posted in this blog and others one could question the need for this expense when the SHT and others are now claiming there are no seahorses and the changes to the bays wildlife and fauna are not due to anchoring,moorings or boat use.
In fact if anyone person , organisation or charity continue to act in such a manner that suggests or claims boats ,mooring and anchors are the main enviromental problem within the bay ,then legally they could be asked to retract said claims or actions.
I must check the wildlife sign at the bottom of the lane on the South Beach next weekend as this may now be outdated and have to be urgently revised .
These are interesting times ,especially when public funds appear to have been wasted on a completely fruitless and outdated exercise.

None of the conservation groups - NE, DWT, SHT or Dr Collins has changed their position over the anchor and mooring issues. They are observing changes in the bay this year, including the disappearance of the Seahorses, which as far as they can tell is not related to anchor damage. A new and different problem whose cause is yet to be established.

Direct information about numbers and anchoring is needed to get a clear picture of just what is needed in the Bay. This may not be the most cost effective way of collecting this information, and it is important to know whether the data collected is biased in any way by the way questions are framed. But one of the biggest problems has been the claim of 300 boats a day using the anchorage. We can shout 'not true' until we are blue in the face, but until somebody records actual numbers every day all we can put up is informed guesswork.

 

[Sans Bateau]

There were 15 boats anchored Friday night.

 

[Boathook]

...... But one of the biggest problems has been the claim of 300 boats a day using the anchorage. We can shout 'not true' until we are blue in the face, but until somebody records actual numbers every day all we can put up is informed guesswork.

Also the conservationists can shout out various figures but until someone does the count no one knows.

The problem is how they do the count. Once an hour, day, am or pm, night ? Who checks the data to ensure that it is fair. Photos would be good even though they can be 'altered'.
Weather conditions at the time of the count would also help. Also this count should happen every day through out the year rather than just at the peak.

 

[Clammer]

Counting boats in Studland bay. I thought Seastar Survey were doing this as required by Natural England and Crown estates? It seems an additional waste of money if DWT are doing the same exercise through their wardens.

 

[oldharry]

Counting boats in Studland bay. I thought Seastar Survey were doing this as required by Natural England and Crown estates? It seems an additional waste of money if DWT are doing the same exercise through their wardens.

They were last year. I assume they are continuing to do so, but as yet no figures have been published. Presumably the DWT wardens have other duties apart from counting?

 

[rbcoomer]

Just a few thoughts...

It should be remembered that this spring and indeed the last couple of winters have been particularly dry and given that river estuaries and nearby coastlines are typically rich in minerals and other run off, the 'starvation' of the ecosystem could well have a bearing on the yellowing of eelgrasses and absence of seahorses.

As I think I've mentioned before, some plants (like nettles) thrive in disturbed soils so perhaps eelgrass is just such a plant and a lack of anchoring/disturbance actually has a detrimental effect on it's prospects? Lots of seabed disturbance, the eelgrass thrives, boats move away not wanting to entangle anchors in grasses, eelgrass struggles/fails and boats return. Cycle begins again. The more often you cut your lawn the thicker it gets, leave it and it soon becomes thin and weedy!

Finally, seahorses are as I understood, shy and retiring creatures. As referred to in earlier posts above, are we really saying that they're going to thrive under the noses of 1000 divers photgraphing and tagging etc? Who exactly are the SHT trying to fool here? Surely a 'proper' reference area would be no diving too? (excepting perhaps half-a-dozen limited dives to monitor) This is more of a 'my recreational interests are more important than yours' scenario than anything about 'conservation'.

If the seahorses have indeed vacated then I think we need to look no further than the SHT for responsibility.

 

[Sans Bateau]

"Finally, seahorses are as I understood, shy and retiring creatures. As referred to in earlier posts above, are we really saying that they're going to thrive under the noses of 1000 divers photgraphing and tagging etc? Who exactly are the SHT trying to fool here? "

They have managed to fool the BBC, big time!

 

[rbcoomer]

"Finally, seahorses are as I understood, shy and retiring creatures. As referred to in earlier posts above, are we really saying that they're going to thrive under the noses of 1000 divers photgraphing and tagging etc? Who exactly are the SHT trying to fool here? "

They have managed to fool the BBC, big time!

You seem surprised at that???

 

[davtt]

Well I just tried this link, and the screen just goes dark, with no map shown. The register and login functions also do not work!!
So much for democracy eh!

I bet if they found oil in Studland, the Eelgrass et al would become insignificant all of a sudden.

DaveT

 

[sojib1278]

thanks for the post

 

[Robin]

There is oil in Studland and it is the wellheads are at Goathorn Point inside Poole Harbour plus they drill sideways from there out to sea several miles. The oil probably came from millions of fossilised seahorses.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Just a few thoughts...

It should be remembered that this spring and indeed the last couple of winters have been particularly dry and given that river estuaries and nearby coastlines are typically rich in minerals and other run off, the 'starvation' of the ecosystem could well have a bearing on the yellowing of eelgrasses and absence of seahorses.

As I think I've mentioned before, some plants (like nettles) thrive in disturbed soils so perhaps eelgrass is just such a plant and a lack of anchoring/disturbance actually has a detrimental effect on it's prospects? Lots of seabed disturbance, the eelgrass thrives, boats move away not wanting to entangle anchors in grasses, eelgrass struggles/fails and boats return. Cycle begins again. The more often you cut your lawn the thicker it gets, leave it and it soon becomes thin and weedy!

Finally, seahorses are as I understood, shy and retiring creatures. As referred to in earlier posts above, are we really saying that they're going to thrive under the noses of 1000 divers photgraphing and tagging etc? Who exactly are the SHT trying to fool here? Surely a 'proper' reference area would be no diving too? (excepting perhaps half-a-dozen limited dives to monitor) This is more of a 'my recreational interests are more important than yours' scenario than anything about 'conservation'.

If the seahorses have indeed vacated then I think we need to look no further than the SHT for responsibility.

Seems you don't need to know much about biology & ecology to be considered a conservationist........& then there is global warming & climate change

 

[Twister_Ken]

.& then there is global warming & climate change

According to many around here (The Clarkson Tendency?) "Oh No, There's Not!"

 

[oldharry]

Just a few thoughts...

It should be remembered that this spring and indeed the last couple of winters have been particularly dry and given that river estuaries and nearby coastlines are typically rich in minerals and other run off, the 'starvation' of the ecosystem could well have a bearing on the yellowing of eelgrasses and absence of seahorses.

As I think I've mentioned before, some plants (like nettles) thrive in disturbed soils so perhaps eelgrass is just such a plant and a lack of anchoring/disturbance actually has a detrimental effect on it's prospects? Lots of seabed disturbance, the eelgrass thrives, boats move away not wanting to entangle anchors in grasses, eelgrass struggles/fails and boats return. Cycle begins again. The more often you cut your lawn the thicker it gets, leave it and it soon becomes thin and weedy!
QUOTE]

Doesnt work like that. It creates a 'rhizome mat' which consolidates the root system and gives it coherence and the ability to stand up to wave action etc. The argument is that our anchors drop in to this rhizome mat which is then torn up by the anchor dragging across it. Recovery is said to take a number of years, and none at all over the 2 year study period ( source: Dr Collins Soton University). This is why they want us to go away.

Eelgrass is regarded as providing an important and unique habitat for a wide range of species, and appears on various 'red lists' as being in decline internationally, therefore any important site like Studland is of major interest to naturalists and conservationists. Seahorses happen to live there too, as another protected species, adding weight to the arguments for protecting the Bay.

More info here: http://www.boatownersresponsegroup....rvancy/2-studland-bay-conservancy/11-eelgrass