STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[PaulJ]

Ahhh........ It IS a long time since I was there and I have certainly never seen anything like that number of boats. Clearly such a large number of moorings is impractical and a "practical" number of moorings would be completely inadequate..........

Maybe somethings DOES need to be done........ IF it can be proved that damage is being caused, how about restrictions which would not apply when the wind is greater than (say) Force 7. I don't think many people plan to go there in strong winds but if someone gets caught out, he can go there without hassle. That might at least limit the damage.........

 

[Robin]

Ahhh........ It IS a long time since I was there and I have certainly never seen anything like that number of boats. Clearly such a large number of moorings is impractical and a "practical" number of moorings would be completely inadequate..........

Maybe somethings DOES need to be done........ IF it can be proved that damage is being caused, how about restrictions which would not apply when the wind is greater than (say) Force 7. I don't think many people plan to go there in strong winds but if someone gets caught out, he can go there without hassle. That might at least limit the damage.........

And for the smaller boat for which F5 is a handful? Or one which (any size) anchors to wait for the tide to allow it into Poole or to head past the St Albans or The Needles tide gates? These are the reasons Studland has been an important passage anchorage since Noah.

 

[rbcoomer]

And for the smaller boat for which F5 is a handful? Or one which (any size) anchors to wait for the tide to allow it into Poole or to head past the St Albans or The Needles tide gates? These are the reasons Studland has been an important passage anchorage since Noah.

The Victorians would of course engineered a solution! A giant breakwater with pontoons perhaps... Sadly, the British have lost the impetus to engineer solutions and have become a nation of NIMBYs...

 

[oldharry]

Ahhh........ It IS a long time since I was there and I have certainly never seen anything like that number of boats. Clearly such a large number of moorings is impractical and a "practical" number of moorings would be completely inadequate..........

Maybe somethings DOES need to be done........ IF it can be proved that damage is being caused, how about restrictions which would not apply when the wind is greater than (say) Force 7. I don't think many people plan to go there in strong winds but if someone gets caught out, he can go there without hassle. That might at least limit the damage.........

All those involved from SHT through to MMO agree that anchoring 'for reasons of safe navigation' will always be permitted in any Marine Conservation zone. The difficulty immediately is of course in defining those reasons. Yes sheltering from a bad blow is obvious: or is it? F6 is nothing to a fully crewed 40 footer, to Mum and Dad in a perhaps less than well equipped weekender its a full gale. Then what about short handed crews delayed by either head winds or lack of wind, and nearing exhaustion? What about the engine that is running but 'doesnt sound quite right'. BORG and RYA are working with MMO, FS and NE to create a set of workeable definitions.

That bad anchoring practices CAN cause damage to eelgrass is not in doubt, it is the extent of the damage in Studland that is in question. Scientists are now falling back on the Precautionary Principle, as defined by the Treaty on Biodiversity 1992 which requires that even where there is no evidence of damage, if there is a POSSIBILITY that damage could occur, then steps should be taken to minimise it. Its the same thinking as H&S legislation which looks for potential accidents or harm, and takes steps to avoid them.. But there is little evidence that the situation in Studland is 'unsustainable' within the terms of the Legislation.

 

[Seajet]

PaulJ,

Old Harry sums it up well as usual, or to put it my way, why on earth should boat users be penalised and give up a major asset to both safety and pleasure, when there is no evidence they are causing any harm ?

As mentioned, the number of divers has increased massively, a practice which is far more intrusive to shy Seahorses and the reason, many think, why the Seahorses seem to have packed their bags & gone elsewhere ( if not collected for aquariums or Oriental delicacies - all these developments and possibilities thanks to Packham & the BBC's biased and unwise publicity).

It should also be emphasized that despite SHT's claims, Studland is by no means unique in having Seahorses, they are common all over the South coast.

Where Studland scores is in being a lovely place to be based if you are going to dive from a beach for a 'job', paid for by misguided charity...

 

[PaulJ]

Seajet and Old Harry.... Yes, one man's "good blow" is another man's gale but in my own defence I must point out that I did say "(say) Force 7", the (say) implying that that it was open for negotiation and certainly, I take your point.

I did also say "Maybe something DOES need to be done........ " and maybe it does, but I also went on to say "IF it can be proved that damage is being caused......" and please note the capital IF.

Again, forgive me because I still haven't been able to read all 47 pages of this thread and maybe I am just repeating what others have already said, but it seems to me that the nub of the argument is that boats have been anchoring at Studland since time immemorial yet the amount of eelgrass has actually increased since the war. And certainly, instead of the knee-jerk reaction of just banning anchoring to protect seahorses, any seahorse population should be seen in the context of the population along the South Coast as a whole......... What is needed is a proper "study" to see if there is actually a problem.

Who knows, maybe it would be shown that constant ploughing up by anchors actually invigorates the growth of eelgrass and hence the increase since the war? I confess I know nothing about seahorses or their populations around our coasts but if they are not a "threatened species", just because they are "cute" is no reason to especially protect them. Again, a proper study would give an idea of the maginutde of the problem.

If the RYA are negotiating on our behalf and if it has not already been done, I think they should be pressing for a full study/inquiry before this issue goes much further........

 

[oldharry]

PaulJ, your questions very adequately sum up the frustration many people feel over the whole process in Studland Bay, and why we started BORG. In spite of the claims of 'scientific evidence', the only study of Studland Bay to date demonstrated HOW anchors can cause damage, but never said how much. It also claimed eelgrass did not regenerate in an anchor scar over the two year period. QED anchors 'cause serious damage'. But it is well known that eelgrass grows in phases, and elsewhere on the coast grows at considerable speed. And yes, its been a small boat anchorage since long before the war, the eelgrass has recovered and grown there after being nearly wiped out by disease, the seahorses have been around by first hand account since the 1950's - until this year when as a result of publicity the number of divers looking for them rocketed, and they largely disappeared!

Seahorses are a 'Protected species' under the wildlife Act, which makes disturbing them and their habitat illegal. The claim is that Studland is the only place where pregnant Seahorses can be seen, and therefore needs protection. Add a load of hype from certain conservation crusaders, and a couple of TV Broadacasts by the BBC accusing 'rich gin swilling sunday sailors' of being totally uncaring about the environment, and the whole debate becomes highly politicised, with local residents and yachstmen unwilling to allow a few conservationists to make it their own exclusive wild life preserve and being forced to go on to the defensive, then to attack the crazy assumptions being made about a human activity in the Bay.

Yes almost certainly something does need to be done to protect the environment from the huge influx of visitors each summer, and we have proposed a scheme which would do that, which is gaining wide support amongst 'real' conservationists, but as long as we continue to have wild unfounded accusations flung at us in in the press and on National TV then the fight for our right to continue to enjoy the beauty of the Bay will continue - not only here, but at Westminster and if necessary to Brussels. Our website will hopefully give you a clearer summary of what we are doing than trying to plough through this huge thread: http://www.boatownersresponsegroup.com/

RYA have been deeply involved in the whole MCZ process from day one, and we have worked closely with them since we started a year ago. Their website carries a very full summary of the whole business right round the coast, with a lot of detailed information about it. They have had representatives in at almost every level of the Marine Planning Process, and have had considerable influence on it since 2007. Just they forgot to tell us about what they were doing until we pointed out how frustrated members were at the apparent lack of information!

http://www.rya.org.uk/infoadvice/planningenvironment/marineconservation/mcz/Pages/MCZsEngland.aspx

 

[oldharry]

The deadline has arrived, and all the Regions are supposed to have presented their Final Recommendations for proposed MCZ areas by the end of last month. A bulletin from Balanced Seas tells us they have 'been delayed' handing their homework in, and expect to be publishing their results on 7th September. So far nothing has been published.

Over the next month 'Management Measures' for each proposed area will be prepared, and I am attending ameeting shortly specifically about what might happen at Studland.

Through the Autumn the Science Advisory Panel, and Natural England will study all the proposals, and add their own comments before sending the whole thing to DEFRA. DEFRA are committed to ensuring 'Stakeholder Participation' continues, particularly during the 12 week 'Public Consultation' process now postponed to next spring/summer.

The first MCZs will come in to being late next year: these will be those where designation is straightforward and unopposed. More complex areas like Studland will continue to be debated.

The Marine Management Organisation which has the unenviable task of enforcing it all continues to take particular interest in the Studland issue, and is expecting to hold another 'workshop' specifically about Studland later this autumn, when Finding Sanctuaries conclusions and management proposals have been published.

BORG continues to be involved directly with discussing the possible Management scenarios for the Bay.

 

[Nicholas123]

Is Fareham already a marine conservation zone because apparently "Natural England" are using their influence to push boats into marinas & discourage deep water moorings because it upsets worms.

 

[DaveS]

Nothing directly to do with the subject under discussion, but is anyone else seeing this thread displayed as very wide, like the way it goes when someone posts a too large picture?

The same thing happened with the God thread in The Lounge. I'm wondering if there's something odd with the way long threads are handled.

 

[Seajet]

DaveS,

my display does that too now & again for no apparent reason, thought it was just me !

Nicholas123,

there was an 'emergency MCZ' set up in Portsmouth last year when scallop dredgers were found to be damaging Eelgrass...

As laying new moorings is regarded as 'depositing items on the seabed' it is outlawed in MCZ's, and will be frowned on / actively prevented everywhere in harbours around the whole coast.

This is why I tried to warn everyone in position to do so, to resurrect ALL old established moorings while they can, they will be like gold dust in future.
This warning was met with a lazy 'it'll never happen here' by some; well it's begun already, don't say you weren't told.

 

[oldharry]

Seajety is spot on here on the moorings issue: Moorings can only be laid under the auspices of a Harbour Authority, River Authority or simiular water authority,or Trinity House, to an approved pattern or type. ANY independent new mooring will have to be individually approved by the MMO, who advise that this is a costly and lengthy procedure, regardless of its location. And they will remove any 'illegal' mooring. they have already been in, lifted and inspected the privately owned moorings at Studland many of which have been there for generations. they definitely mean business on this one.

So get your moorings sorted now while there is still time!

 

[sea urchin]

Balanced Seas entered into correspondence with the Minister - Richard Benyon, and then invited him to one of its stakeholder meetings. They have posted the letters on their website, and a list of the questions put to him at the meeting, and his answers. It does give some insight into the current thinking and hints at a more grounded approach being adopted by the government. It appears that the precautionary principle may be given less weight, and that evidence will need to be robust.
However, there was little reassurance for leisure boating activities, I quote:-

Yachting representative: In terms of interactions at the surface: across the four regional projects it has been expressed that we are unlikely to have strict controls on surface navigation – it would be of great comfort to have some reassurance on this.
Minister: I can’t give you a specific answer as I think this will be on a site by site basis. There are certain areas of controversy around the coast where I don’t feel able to comment with any expertise. In principle I don’t see why activities on the surface as a principle should be impacted. But the sea needs management. It seems to me we can deal with it – we need to recognise the needs of different sectors in balance with what we are trying to protect but we don’t want to sacrifice one for the other.

Here are the links:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24165932/RSGresources/BS_RSG_letter_to_Minister_4May11.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24165932/RSGresources/Richard_Benyon_letter_to_BSRSG.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24165932/RSGresources/ministerial_visit_RSG10.pdf

 

[oldharry]

Its the 'Full water column protection' recommendation that is causing Benyon to hesitate. There are a very few locations where this is being recommended mainly to protect marine bird nesting areas, and where it applies it is quite possible that it will be illegal for boats to enter the area except for reasons of safe navigation (see my post above). For example: At one point it was suggested that the whole of the Torbay coast to a quarter mile out to sea, and on south round Berry Head should become a full exclusion zone to protect the birdlife on the cliffs. As far as I know the idea has been dropped now thanks to the energetic intervention of Torbay HM, whose harbour was included in the original exclusion zone proposal. The conservationists 'didnt know it was there'!!!

The argument coming mainly from RSPB is that a large moving object such as a yacht can disturb nesting birds (!) when sailing past a nesting site. Also, perhaps a little more reasonably, powered craft travelling at speed could be a disturbance, particularly ones with noisy engines like PWCs (or Seagull Outboards? )

My own observation sailing past major nesting sites when I sailed in the Irish Sea was that birds didnt take any notice of yachts until they got within about 50metres of the nesting site, by which time there wouldnt be much yacht left because of the rocks! On open water, the more shy species like Razorbills would take off at about 150m distance from an approaching boat. So closing whole zones seems overkill to me.

 

[Nicholas123]

there was an 'emergency MCZ' set up in Portsmouth last year when scallop dredgers were found to be damaging Eelgrass...

As laying new moorings is regarded as 'depositing items on the seabed' it is outlawed in MCZ's, and will be frowned on / actively prevented everywhere in harbours around the whole coast.

This is why I tried to warn everyone in position to do so, to resurrect ALL old established moorings while they can, they will be like gold dust in future.
This warning was met with a lazy 'it'll never happen here' by some; well it's begun already, don't say you weren't told.

What they seem to be doing is saying to the Fareham Sailing & Motor Boat club (according to my informant) is that you can have an extension to your marina development if you give up the deeper half tide type moorings.....because of the worms.
Meanwhile down the creek sewage or overspill is routinely pumped into the creek.Rubbish of all sorts routinely ends up in the creek & army's of bait diggers have probably if not actually hunted down & tracked every worm living in the creek decimated the worm population which will of course have a knock on effect with the surrounding wildlife/ecology.
There seems to be no balance in this whole argument.

 

[oldharry]

What they seem to be doing is saying to the Fareham Sailing & Motor Boat club (according to my informant) is that you can have an extension to your marina development if you give up the deeper half tide type moorings.....because of the worms.
Meanwhile down the creek sewage or overspill is routinely pumped into the creek.Rubbish of all sorts routinely ends up in the creek & army's of bait diggers have probably if not actually hunted down & tracked every worm living in the creek decimated the worm population which will of course have a knock on effect with the surrounding wildlife/ecology.
There seems to be no balance in this whole argument.

Sounds typical of the whole debate - uninformed judgements and assumptions being made about leisure boating activity and impacts by people who know nothing about boats except they are all owned by the filthy rich! The original draft legislation assumed the mere presence of small boats was impacting the environment adversly. The RYA sat on that one very firmly and a number of other major assumptions in the legislation which could have virtually cleared us off the water!

Bait diggers and beach fishermen are protected by ancient rights going back to the Magna Carta, and there is currently very little anyone can do about them. We have the same problem in Chichester Harbour where some more accessible areas look like the back end of the moon, and diggers are making large sums of money except on sign-on day! CHC seem unable to find any way of controlling it. We too have overspill problems from the big sewage works at Apuldram in the Fishbourne arm of the harbour.

 

[Seven Spades]

All those involved from SHT through to MMO agree that anchoring 'for reasons of safe navigation' will always be permitted in any Marine Conservation zone. The difficulty immediately is of course in defining those reasons. Yes sheltering from a bad blow is obvious: or is it? F6 is nothing to a fully crewed 40 footer, to Mum and Dad in a perhaps less than well equipped weekender its a full gale. Then what about short handed crews delayed by either head winds or lack of wind, and nearing exhaustion? What about the engine that is running but 'doesnt sound quite right'. BORG and RYA are working with MMO, FS and NE to create a set of workeable definitions.

That bad anchoring practices CAN cause damage to eelgrass is not in doubt, it is the extent of the damage in Studland that is in question. Scientists are now falling back on the Precautionary Principle, as defined by the Treaty on Biodiversity 1992 which requires that even where there is no evidence of damage, if there is a POSSIBILITY that damage could occur, then steps should be taken to minimise it. Its the same thinking as H&S legislation which looks for potential accidents or harm, and takes steps to avoid them.. But there is little evidence that the situation in Studland is 'unsustainable' within the terms of the Legislation.

Surely is it obvious that the rate of damage is lower than the rate of recovery so there is no need for protection. If this were not the cause Studland would long since have been a baron patch of sand?

 

[oldharry]

Surely is it obvious that the rate of damage is lower than the rate of recovery so there is no need for protection. If this were not the cause Studland would long since have been a baron patch of sand?

Seemples, isnt it..... Try convincing them.

 

[oldharry]

MCZs in the National Press today

Many of you may have come across a generalised reference to the MCZ process in the papers and the BBC today. This has actually come from the RYA alerting editors to the fact that the consultations throught he four regional bodies, Net Gain, Balanced Seas, Finding Sanctuary and Irish Sea Cons Zones are now finished, and the Final Reports are being published. RYA are actually a bit ahead of the game in that neither Balanced Seas nor Finding Sanctuary have actually published yet. I have just received a copy of the Balanced Seas Report, while Finding Sanctuary this afternoon were unable to tell me how soon theirs will be ready for publication.

I am checking though the Balanced Seas report, and will report back on anything that affects us - notably a number of Reference Areas located in the Thames Estuary East Coast Rivers, that may or may not affect activities.

These are only the final 'recommendations'. DEFRA. JNCC and Natural England now have to sift through it all and prepare to present it to Westminster next year. None of the final reports go further than identifying WHERE MCZs should be located, and what needs protecting in those locations. They do not suggest how these features are to be protected. I recently had a long meeting about Studland with an economist from Finding Sanctuary, helping to identify various possible ways of 'protecting' what is not being damaged, and looking at the viability and impact of various controls that have been suggested for the Bay. That report will not be ready until the New Year, apparently.

More shortly.

 

[sea urchin]

RYA are actually a bit ahead of the game in that neither Balanced Seas nor Finding Sanctuary have actually published yet. I have just received a copy of the Balanced Seas Report, while Finding Sanctuary this afternoon were unable to tell me how soon theirs will be ready for publication.

Balanced Seas went public today - the final recommendation report was put on its website this morning. The report and its component parts (for convenience you can just open the bits you are interested in) are linked to this webpage:http://www.balancedseas.org/page/RSG%20Resources.html