STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[Major Catastrophe]

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.

Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Searush]

As suggested by SeaJet, I e-mailed Bridget Betts as follows;

B Betts,
I note with interest your proposal for a "no-anchoring zone" in the South end of Studland Bay. I presume you are not a boat user, otherwise you would know instantly that this area has been a safety refuge from South Westerly gales for ships on passage from time immemorial. Your proposals, if enforced is likely to seriously endanger the lives of people making passages in small boats. This shelter is essential to small boat users caught out by bad weather.

May I also suggest that you take a look at the German WW2 reconnaisance photos of the area that clearly show a smaller area of eel grass than currently exists? It is clear that, far from reducing the spread of eelgrass, the post war boom in small boat useage & leisure anchoring in the area has actually encouraged its spread.
Despite thousand of hours of partisan research by SHT, there is actually no evidence of long term damage caused by boats' anchors.

Thank you for for the opportunity to send you my thoughts, Steve Kean C Eng

Her response has just arrived & it would seem that she is not the person to speak to DUH!

Dear Mr Keen,

Thank you for your email expressing your concerns. I am however NOT the person or the organisation who is proposing any such thing. if you are refering to the proposed Marine Conservation Zone network, then it is Finding Sanctuary who are delivering this. They are doing this through stakeholder engagement and the Dorset Coast Forum (which I run) has a local dorset MCZ group to feed local comments in. It would be great if I could ring you to explain the process and to ensure you are clear on what is going on. Please email me your number and I will call you.

Jut one thing to note I am unaware of any proposed MCZ being a no anchor zone - if you have heard different I would be pleased to now this and where it came from.

The DCF is a strategic coastal partnership who is neutral and has over 260 organisations in all sectors as members.

Looking forward to hearing from you

Bridget Betts

I guess she is pretty brassed off with all the e-mails she's had 'coz she couldn't be bothered to copy my name correctly.

And I thought this Govt was about cutting QUANGOS & red tape & reducing the "Big Government" - fat chance, it's all "say this, but do that" again isn't it?

 

[Seajet]

Searush,

Excellent letter, very good point re. Luftwaffe recce photo's, I've used those in arguments before; the RAF etc have various recce runs over the ages too.

Interesting Ms.Betts doesn't think she's the person to speak to; here's an extract from the mail I received from 'Finding Sanctuary':

-------------
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

-------------
Interesting you got such a prompt - negative - reply when I've been waiting over a week to hear back on one of my mails, and since yesterday for the other...

From the tone of her reply maybe she'll only deal with locals ?

Or just happy to take her cut and not do anything...

How is 'stakeholder engagement' meant to happen when one gets this sort of reply ?!

 

[oldharry]

Searush,

Excellent letter, very good point re. Luftwaffe recce photo's, I've used those in arguments before; the RAF etc have various recce runs over the ages too.

Interesting Ms.Betts doesn't think she's the person to speak to; here's an extract from the mail I received from 'Finding Sanctuary':

-------------
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

-------------
Interesting you got such a prompt - negative - reply when I've been waiting over a week to hear back on one of my mails, and since yesterday for the other...

From the tone of her reply maybe she'll only deal with locals ?

Or just happy to take her cut and not do anything...

How is 'stakeholder engagement' meant to happen when one gets this sort of reply ?!

Sorry - you are chasing the monkey again. The organ grinder is still in hiding. Quite who he/she is in FS, I dont know, but it is FS and FS alone who have the responsibility for making recommendations. Not surprised Miss Betts is brassed off, its not her fault.

As I said earlier the big boys in this game know EXACTLY how to get the opposition chasing its own tail, keeping the board clear for them.

 

[oldharry]

Stockholm Syndrome.

I didnt say they were willing to give way on anything.... Even Steve T doesnt WANT to ban boats. He just wants us to stop dropping '50kg anchors' all over the place in the Eelgrass.

 

[Seajet]

It was Finding Sanctuary I first contacted, they replied ( without really answering anything except to confirm they do receive government funding ) and as I've posted above in the excerpt, recommended contacting B.Betts !

In the hierachy described by F.S, she is meant to be at the coalface taking people' views.

As to the divers and SHT, in their tv programme they were moaning about 'mooring chains' - well there is the odd mooring there I think.

I was amused and angered when the woman presenter then commented 'Amazing to think we're only 200yards from the beach' - so how did they go diving ?

From an anchored boat !!!

Incidentally another couple of things I picked up from chatting with Caroline Price of the RYA; a great many people query why the hell F.S. etc get government money when hospitals, schools, care homes and defence are being savaged.

Apparently the stock answer is that the E.U. would fine the govt. more than they're spending, if they didn't do this ecology nonsense.

Also Finding Sanctuary, Balanced Seas etc are supposed to have contacted all clubs in their regions; when I said I hadn't heard or seen any sign of them contacting my club, Caroline Price seemed quite perturbed, saying she would 'flag that up'.

I'm going to contact Finding Sanctuary again at http://www.finding-sanctuary.org
, suggest everone possible does the same; I for one will mention B.Betts' stance and the fact the interactive Map is not working - for me at least, has anyone had any luck ?

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I dont sail this area so I would appreciate an explanation of the problem. To my eye, it looks as if there would be better shelter just a couple of miles away in Poole harbour . In this era of decent weather forecasts and the www you should never be caught out by bad weather that close inshore and less than half an hour away from sanctuary anyway. So is sanctuary the real problem or is it just that you wont be able to use a scenic lunch spot.

Incidentally, where is Keyhaven? I couldnt find it on my charts.

P.S. Found it! Keyhaven is near Lymington. Are you really saying that there is no shelter in Poole or anywhere in between Studland and Lymington? Which in any case is less than 15 miles away.

 

[jhr]

Are you really saying that there is no shelter in Poole or anywhere in between Studland and Lymington? Which in any case is less than 15 miles away.

Yes, there is shelter in Poole but getting there from Studland can be quite dodgy in some conditions. The only other shelter between Studland and Lymington is (1) Christchurch Harbour - but only in favourable conditions at some states of the tide and if your vessel is shallow draft and (2) Keyhaven - very tidal, and shallow, though a more sheltered entrance. Getting in to the Solent to get to Keyhaven can also be very dangerous in certain conditions, whether you go via the North Channel (aaaaaaargh) or the Needles Channel (OhmyGodaaaaaaaaaargh).

In response to your question "is sanctuary the real problem or is it just that you wont be able to use a scenic lunch spot", I'd say that the answer is a bit of both, but with the emphasis on sanctuary. But why should yachtsmen be deprived of the use of a beautiful and popular anchorage when there is actually no evidence that their presence is doing any damage, and hard evidence to prove that the eelgrass beds have grown over the past 50 years, in spite of the presence of leisure yachts anchoring there? In truth, their presence, and that of the existing moorings, has probably prevented scallop dredging, which would have left a wasteland on the sea bed.

 

[Seajet]

I have been trying to point out to the conservationists that Poole is not an option, as jhr says the entrance can be downright dodgy in poor conditions, the tide is VERY strong, well over 5 knots, in a very narrow channel; so half the time the tide is against, and it can be too rough to attempt - the entrance has no shelter.

A chain ferry operates across these narrows for good measure, every now and again a boat or person is swept into this; a while ago a keelboat was swept straight under this and out the other side, which significantly disimproved the boat and the elderly female crew...

I've been at Studland anchored in a near-gale, looking with some alarm at the line of white water where the shelter ended; going to Poole would have meant going through that, which looked a very unhealthy option.

Also if Studland was banned, there is nowhere near enough space in Poole; it's a huge harbour in area, but most is inches deep !

 

[Twister_Ken]

I dont sail this area so I would appreciate an explanation of the problem. To my eye, it looks as if there would be better shelter just a couple of miles away in Poole harbour . In this era of decent weather forecasts and the www you should never be caught out by bad weather that close inshore and less than half an hour away from sanctuary anyway. So is sanctuary the real problem or is it just that you wont be able to use a scenic lunch spot.

Incidentally, where is Keyhaven? I couldnt find it on my charts.

P.S. Found it! Keyhaven is near Lymington. Are you really saying that there is no shelter in Poole or anywhere in between Studland and Lymington? Which in any case is less than 15 miles away.

In a strong S'ly, Sw'ly or W'ly once you're on a hook in the SW corner of Studland you're safe and it's kettle on. In those conditions, especially if Poole Hbr is ebbing, you're faced with a tough entrance channel (tide up to 5 kts) and no shelter until you've plugged quite a way W into the harbour. Not pleasant. And a lot more than 30 minutes extra.

 

[glashen]

I dont sail this area so I would appreciate an explanation of the problem. To my eye, it looks as if there would be better shelter just a couple of miles away in Poole harbour . In this era of decent weather forecasts and the www you should never be caught out by bad weather that close inshore and less than half an hour away from sanctuary anyway. So is sanctuary the real problem or is it just that you wont be able to use a scenic lunch spot.

Incidentally, where is Keyhaven? I couldnt find it on my charts.

P.S. Found it! Keyhaven is near Lymington. Are you really saying that there is no shelter in Poole or anywhere in between Studland and Lymington? Which in any case is less than 15 miles away.

Much of this argument is based on emotion on both sides, but Studland is a remarkably comfortable anchorage in strong westerlies as well as a useful stopping off point cross channel or when heading west and yes a nice spot for lunch (although usually too crowded. to be really pleasant). The point is removing the right to anchor should only be contemplated if their is real evidence of damage to the habitat, and that is what many of us have been asking for since this saga began.

Now many of us are beginning to suspect we will have restrictions imposed because it suits the demands to establish MCZs, there are some very vocal advocates for restrictions, and it will only upset a few yotties.

Those aren't good reasons.

 

[oldharry]

I dont sail this area so I would appreciate an explanation of the problem. To my eye, it looks as if there would be better shelter just a couple of miles away in Poole harbour . Are you really saying that there is no shelter in Poole or anywhere in between Studland and Lymington? Which in any case is less than 15 miles away.

What is not so clear from charts is that both Poole and the Solent have serious tidal 'gates'. Yes for modern boats with powerful engines this is not too much of a problem - until things go wrong for any reason. For smaller less powerful boats like mine, it is potentially much more serious. The whole coast Weymouth to St Catherines becomes a lee shore with no refuge except Studland, and to a lesser degree Swanage.

If for any reason you cannot make up against a 5 knot wind over tide situation in a blow - engine failure, rig failure, crew illness etc - Studland is the only safe place to make for.

It is also almost certainly the most heavily used open sea anchorage in the UK, with on a fine weekend up to 300 boats enjoying a uniqe place on the S Coast. Yes it is emotion too, but it is abundantly clear we are not doing any long term damage to the habitat, and no one is prepared to give it up without a fight. 'We will fight them on the beaches...etc'!

 

[Robin]

What is not so clear from charts is that both Poole and the Solent have serious tidal 'gates'. Yes for modern boats with powerful engines this is not too much of a problem - until things go wrong for any reason. For smaller less powerful boats like mine, it is potentially much more serious. The whole coast Weymouth to St Catherines becomes a lee shore with no refuge except Studland, and to a lesser degree Swanage.

If for any reason you cannot make up against a 5 knot wind over tide situation in a blow - engine failure, rig failure, crew illness etc - Studland is the only safe place to make for.

It is also almost certainly the most heavily used open sea anchorage in the UK, with on a fine weekend up to 300 boats enjoying a uniqe place on the S Coast. Yes it is emotion too, but it is abundantly clear we are not doing any long term damage to the habitat, and no one is prepared to give it up without a fight. 'We will fight them on the beaches...etc'!

A lot of assumptions are made that Poole is easy and sheltered but forget that the circumstances are very different for smaller boats, probably because so many these days have bigger boats with more powerful engines. I can assure you that in the days we sailed from Poole with a Debutante (Stuart Turner 4hp), Halcyon 23 (Vovo MD1 7hp), Trident 24 (Volvo MD1 7hp) and even an Elizabethan 30 (Bukh 10hp), entering against a spring ebb of 5kts was not on even on calm days. Later boats with 50hp and 44hp it was entirely different.

We often used Studland as a safe stopover when returning and the tides or weather were wrong for entering Poole. Even in our W33 and later SL41 we were glad to enter Studland after a hairy ride back across Channel when anchoring there was a lot easier than attempting a night entry into our downwind marina berth.

The tide gates either side at the Needles or Hurst for the Solent or from Handfast, Anvil and St Albans to the west quite simply close firmly shut to displacement speed vessel as well as providing significant dangers in the form of severe overfalls.

Studland is a crucial safe anchorage.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

As suggested by SeaJet, I e-mailed Bridget Betts?

Great letter Steve, but in future I would omit the bit about "It is clear that, far from reducing the spread of eelgrass, the post war boom in small boat useage & leisure anchoring in the area has actually encouraged its spread."

There is no proof that anchoring encourages the spread of eel grass.

The line should read, "It is clear that, far from reducing the spread of eelgrass, the eel grass has thrived despite the post war boom in small boat usage & leisure anchoring.

 

[oldharry]

Great letter Steve, but in future I would omit the bit about "It is clear that, far from reducing the spread of eelgrass, the post war boom in small boat useage & leisure anchoring in the area has actually encouraged its spread."

There is no proof that anchoring encourages the spread of eel grass.

The line should read, "It is clear that, far from reducing the spread of eelgrass, the eel grass has thrived despite the post war boom in small boat usage & leisure anchoring.

Sea Horse Trust with Southampton University have 'proved' over a 2 year professional research period that Eelgrass does not recover from damage to the rhizome mat (root layer), and at the end of that period the rhizome layer is being further undercut. On that basis Dr Clifford of the Soton University, a world authority on Eelgrass habitats, submits that anchoring is not a 'sustainable activity' within the meaning of the conservation and MCZ process, and needs therefore to be stopped immediately before further damage and irreparable loss of the Eelgrass bed takes place.

Studland has had its Rhizome layer damaged very frequently over 50 years extensive regular anchoring activity, and probably 100 years before that.

It has recovered.

Completely.

 

[Seajet]

This is just to say 'moves are afoot', please watch this space, and keep your suggestions and comments coming...

 

[KristiferColumbus]

A lot of assumptions are made that Poole is easy and sheltered but forget that the circumstances are very different for smaller boats, probably because so many these days have bigger boats with more powerful engines. I can assure you that in the days we sailed from Poole with a Debutante (Stuart Turner 4hp), Halcyon 23 (Vovo MD1 7hp), Trident 24 (Volvo MD1 7hp) and even an Elizabethan 30 (Bukh 10hp), entering against a spring ebb of 5kts was not on even on calm days. Later boats with 50hp and 44hp it was entirely different.

We often used Studland as a safe stopover when returning and the tides or weather were wrong for entering Poole. Even in our W33 and later SL41 we were glad to enter Studland after a hairy ride back across Channel when anchoring there was a lot easier than attempting a night entry into our downwind marina berth.

The tide gates either side at the Needles or Hurst for the Solent or from Handfast, Anvil and St Albans to the west quite simply close firmly shut to displacement speed vessel as well as providing significant dangers in the form of severe overfalls.

Studland is a crucial safe anchorage.

Agree entirely.The channel ai'nt no place to be caught out in a gale.I thank God that I have the experience to recognize the crucial role that places like Studland represent.
Even Portsmouth Harbour Entrance can be to dodgy to enter under certain circumstances for people like me in a small boat so I time my entrance/exit VERY VERY carefully..We underestimate what is now going on at our peril!

 

[BlueSkyNick]

As a skipper with a choice of sheltering in Studland or taking a risk to go somewhere else, I would make a seamanlike decision to drop the hook in Studland regardless of any bans. Better safe than sorry and all that.

If whoever (??) is going to police the area is prepared to come out to ask why I am there, I will worry about it then.

But please don't get me wrong, I am as opposed to the ban as much as anybody else!

 

[fireball]

And a very good rational decision - as you can contest any penalty in court ... however, many would take a ban at face value and not even think about anchoring there in times of crisis ...

 

[banger]

This has been going on for a long time, but I want to know why have the British Marine Federation, Surveyors, accessory manufacturers etc got involved, after all if we cannot sail , or are restricted then no one will buy their products.We are talking about a large industry that pay a lot of tax, maybe someone should inform the Goverment of this.
I would expect the RYA to organise such a lobby, but that outfit appears to be supine.
Finally what about the Magazines, why are they lying low, they should be screaming from the rooftops about this, from the self preservation point of view if nothing else as again no boating no sales.