STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[alahol2]

Today - New Years' Day appropriately - has seen the announcement that anchoring at Studland Bay 'will be allowed for safe navigation'.

While this is an important concession...

Sorry, but that is NO kind of concession. Where safety of life is concerned I don't believe any authority would be able to prosecute a boat owner for anchoring ANYWHERE.
The more I think about specifically Studland the more angry I get. The RYA and any other boating groups should stop pussyfooting about getting 'concessions'. They should be fighting very, very hard to remove Studland from any MCZ. They should not be trying to appear 'reasonable'. Which other group of stakeholders is appearing 'reasonable'? The boat owners should be MILITANT in their demands in the same way walkers were militant in demand of Open Access rights.
Who made the announcement by the way?

 

[Seajet]

If you read what I said, it's a concession compared to the blanket ban some like the Seahorse Trust wish to inflict, and before we made a noise there was a good chance of that going through unopposed.

We will certainly be as vociferous as situations require, but as we are recognised - and listened to - at government level, simply putting our case in a straightforward way seems a good idea...

 

[glashen]

Sorry, but that is NO kind of concession. Where safety of life is concerned I don't believe any authority would be able to prosecute a boat owner for anchoring ANYWHERE.
The more I think about specifically Studland the more angry I get. The RYA and any other boating groups should stop pussyfooting about getting 'concessions'. They should be fighting very, very hard to remove Studland from any MCZ. They should not be trying to appear 'reasonable'. Which other group of stakeholders is appearing 'reasonable'? The boat owners should be MILITANT in their demands in the same way walkers were militant in demand of Open Access rights.
Who made the announcement by the way?

IMHO if you take that line you will end up with draconian restrictions. Studland is heavily used and if that use if damaging to the bay some management is inevitable. I am not sure how many boat owners honestly believe that Studland can be excluded from being a MCZ. The important thing is that the MCZ, management and any restrictions are based on scientific fact and take into account existing usage. Frankly the attitude above plays into hands of those who wish to paint us all as rich uncaring vandals.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

IE, you'll sit on your jacksie criticising everyone else while not bothering your arse. Don't know why people bother to reply to your troll posts. Damn; I've just done it......

The reason I don't trust my local MP is that I have tested him to destruction on other issues......that affect us all.
All MP's might not be the same so I don't want to discourage others from trying their's.What bit of that don't you understand?
This is not a conspiracy & the whole world is not out to get you

 

[KristiferColumbus]

IMHO if you take that line you will end up with draconian restrictions. Studland is heavily used and if that use if damaging to the bay some management is inevitable. I am not sure how many boat owners honestly believe that Studland can be excluded from being a MCZ. The important thing is that the MCZ, management and any restrictions are based on scientific fact and take into account existing usage. Frankly the attitude above plays into hands of those who wish to paint us all as rich uncaring vandals.

Not sure about that & can't help agreeing with alohol2 that we are a bit soft.
Studlands not unique & if we give in to them on that we will be fighting a rear guard action on every bay & inlet up & down the coast.
No quarter to seahorse huggers!

 

[Clammer]

There should be no compromise. Finding Sanctuary are likely to recommend that certain areas in Studland Bay should become "No anchor zones" because anchoring causes damage to the eelgrass beds. One such area is bound to be within the SW corner of The Bay. This as we all know is the favourite anchorage because of the shelter it provides. We all say where is the evidence that anchoring causes damage? There is none at present therefore Finding Sanctuary must delay any such recommendations until the findings of the current Survey invoving the VNAZ, being conducted by Natural England, are available. This will not be until the end of this year.
I don't believe there has ever been the possibility that a no anchoring ban should be levied on the whole Bay.
The SW corner of Studland Bay has acres of eelgrass according to a Dr Collins an area 1 k by 1k which equals 247 acres! Finding Sanctuary will say to us"You can't have it all" and will recommend part to be a No Anchor Zone.
BORG keep at it -No compromise!

 

[oldharry]

Even Dr Collins is now backing down a bit and no longer denies that the Eelgrass beds are are either growing or healthy. ""I dont question the Seagrass is doing well at present ... I am simply advocating caution" (Radio interview 'Open country. 18/12/10).

There is simply no evidence that there is long term unsustainable damage to the Studland eelgrass beds. I have sat through Dr Collins presentation. I have read his report. There is NO EVIDENCE of long term irreparable damage. Period.

 

[alahol2]

IMHO if you take that line you will end up with draconian restrictions. Studland is heavily used and if that use if damaging to the bay some management is inevitable. I am not sure how many boat owners honestly believe that Studland can be excluded from being a MCZ. The important thing is that the MCZ, management and any restrictions are based on scientific fact and take into account existing usage. Frankly the attitude above plays into hands of those who wish to paint us all as rich uncaring vandals.

No. As soon as we try to be 'reasonable' we will have to make concessions. MCZ's are obliged to take into account 'social impact'; in the case of Studland, I can't think of any other open anchorage in the UK that is used by so many people. If we cannot hold Studland on that basis then the outlook for any other anchorage will be hopeless, because the legislators will cite very little social impact.
All this makes me sound like some sort of landscape destroying behemoth, I'm not really, I really do like to immerse myself in nature both afloat and ashore. It's just that this particular case really gets my goat.

 

[SailBobSquarePants]

Another study, more research...

I have been reading several emails from the BORG members today, and frankly one of them can be summarized as Finding Sanctuary telling us to clam up and leave it to our betters in the RYA.

Ummm, no. I would LIKE to be able to, but I have seen so little fire in their bellies that it is hard to leave them on their own. Frankly, the RYA exists to RAISE MONEY for itself, to promote GB racing mainly. They SAY they do more, but from the focus of their website and other promotional materials it is hard to believe.

A few random thoughts:

1) We should seek an IMMEDIATE clarification from FS regarding the EXACT definition of an "emergency anchoring" according to them, in writing. Under what circumstances, for how long, what size and what type of boat, etc.

2) As stated above in the thread, the damage to eelgrass really HAS NOT been proven, and AFAIK, the research that HAS been done was underwritten by a conservancy group. Perhaps it is time for the boating community to find a professor in the UK that WE can sponsor to do research regarding the eelgrass environment, and historical and practical damage to it resulting from small leisure boat anchorings?

3) The London Boat Show is neigh, and we should think if we would like to get together during it, or even better (had we had more time for planning) what we could do to promote BORG during it. Even if it is just to attend and find media people to talk to to discuss the issues with...

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Bob,seems to me that Finding Sanctuary are being marginalized by their own actions (largely as a result of having already 'accommodated' the Seahorse Trust & their twisted view of things).
I don't think we should consult with them.I think we should stick to our guns that anchoring is insignificant in the broader scheme of things & that it should be taken off the agenda.
I agree about the RYA & more power to your elbow.
Publicity is the key & we should concentrate on that by all means.

How about we bring out a BORG burgee,I would buy one & would fly it with pride.We could have a competition for the best design?

 

[Seajet]

In the light of the Yachting Monthly February 2011 article giving the BORG our first real mention outside of the forum, we have asked YM Scuttlebutt to make this thread a 'sticky', so that people can find us and see more of what is going on.

I would point interested readers to the other threads on this issue, including

'Look Out The MMO is Coming'

'Studland Bay - A New Threat'.

We need your support at the Boat Owners Response Group - please select 'community' in the dark blue heading bar above the furum titles, select 'social groups', and join the BORG.

 

[Seajet]

Here is a letter I sent to 'The Independent' after a recent article of theirs shamelessly reproduced the conservationists' claims without checking, I reproduce it here as it may be a good short summary of the sort of nonsense we have to disprove...

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


Dear Sir,

In relation to the ‘Independent’ article of 4th January 2011, pages 14-15 ‘Boats Destroying Delicate Seahorse Breeding Ground’, I must take exception to the unquestioning bias of this reporting.

In fact there is no proof whatsoever that small craft anchoring is causing damage to the habitat of Seahorses at Studland Bay or any of the many other places where they happily co-exist with small boats.

The SeaHorse Trust have provided some extremely biased misinformation on this subject, as they have their own agenda; it would suit them very nicely to ban boats from Studland Bay anchorage, so as to increase their diving activities, and the possibility of then establishing commercial dive centres – “ Come and swim with the Seahorses” has not been lost on boat users.

In fact, many realities have been conveniently omitted by the pro-Seahorse/ diving lobby.

Their own ‘expert’ Professor Clifford has admitted that the Eelgrass which is the Seahorses’ habitat takes decades to show trends in proliferation or decline; Luftwaffe aerial reconnaissance photographs of the Second World War show a great deal less Eelgrass than is present today, despite the post-war boom in boat use.

Professor Clifford himself has stated that the Eelgrass is actually recovering from a disease which affected it in the 1930’s, and is flourishing today – with the small boats present !

He has admitted not only that the Eelgrass habitat takes decades to show trends, but also that the longest research period to date is 2-3 years…

The anti-boat lobby also try to give the impression that small boat anchors damage the Eelgrass in a manner akin to a farmers’ plough.

This is simply not true; a modern anchor will dig in and ‘set’ within almost its’ own length, if it were to drag along the seabed as in the impression the Seahorse Trust try to instil, the boat would not be secure and the owner / user would have right to be deeply concerned and have to do something about it.

For exactly this reason, a boat user will always do their best to avoid places where there is weed; in the clear waters of Studland Bay, one can usually easily see the clear patches to place one’s anchor in.

Professor Clifford has now stated that only larger boats with power windlasses to lift their anchors are causing damage, ‘dragging anchors across the seabed’.

This is simply not the case, if power is applied to an anchor cable from a floating boat, the boat will be pulled up to the anchor, which will then lift vertically.

It is true that anchoring on coral causes damage and quite rightly is generally banned.

This is very different to anchoring above a sand or mud seabed at recognised anchorages around the UK, but the conservation lobby like to let people think the issues are the same, as the public will probably have heard of the coral issue, even if they are not familiar with normal anchoring practice.

It must be understood that Studland Bay is not a picnic stop for rich yachtsmen; it is used by small, family boats and is vital as a place to rest or take shelter in bad weather, and has been used by various craft for centuries.

I have ridden out gales at anchor there myself several times, when conditions offshore would most certainly have been dangerous.

This is the only place of rest and refuge for tens of miles, a long way in a small boat travelling at 5 miles per hour, a lot slower if facing a gale and the area’s strong tides.

Nearby Poole Harbour has extremely strong tides, especially at the unsheltered entrance, so attempting to enter there in bad weather can be highly dangerous if not impossible.

A lot of boat users, who are most certainly not rich but forsake other activities and material belongings in order to have their boats, are deeply concerned at the misinformation being presented to those in government who are seeking recommendations as to how they go about conservation.

It must be made clear that boat users are keener than most to conserve the environment, it is the biased and inappropriate way some suggest implementing conservation that we object to.

To that end, as a result of much discussion on a sailing magazine forum a small group of owners, with a huge amount of support from other fellow sail and motor boat users have formed an informal group to put the boat owners case.

We call ourselves the Boat Owners Response Group, and we already are recognised by the Marine Management Organisation, the Government body which will decide on any conservation measures.

I would be most grateful if you could publish what I have said above, so as to balance what at present is a very biased and inaccurate representation of the issues involved.


Yours,

( seajet )

Boat Owners Response Group.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please support us at the BORG ! Select 'community' in the dark blue header-bar above the forum headings, select 'social groups', BORG and join us.

 

[alahol2]

A recent update from MCS...

Studland Bay Votes for: 1673 Votes against: 1260
See here http://www.mcsuk.org/downloads/ysyv/MCS%20recommended%20sites_S%20England.pdf

It appears, even though they slant the voting process, that the message is getting through from boat owners. I just hope the vote count and ALL comments are forwarded to Finding Sanctuary.
If anyone hasn't voted perhaps they should, just double check before you click to vote. The more ways in which boat owners feelings can be expressed the better.

 

[Seajet]

Alahol,

yes I couldn't help smiling when I saw their latest offering; still trying to make out they are the major player, and being very flexible with the way they report votes; OK they may well have had 16,000 votes and 3,500 comments, but were they yes or no, and I'd love to see the comments !

This lot still try to make out that any vote ( yes or no ) and ANY contact of any kind is in favour of their views..." The landlords say we owe for rent and they're going to break our legs " --- " great, tick that as a yes vote and favourable comment " !

I'm actually VERY upset with the Marine Conservation Society, if they put a fraction of their effort into actual conservation as they do into deliberately misleading websites etc, they might be able to live with the name they've given themselves.

As it is, a huge amount of input from concerned boat users has been wasted, as people - including me initially - were spoofed into thinking they'd made their feelings known.

What still amazes me is that I should be going up against 'conservationists'; anyone who knows me will say I'm quite the 'green' type. The difference is, I'm not trying to make a comfy, well paying lifestyle out of it. Real conservationists should be pretty upset about this, and I know even Finding Sanctuary and the RYA are fed up with the MCS pretend formality skewing the figures.

As for the Seahorse trust, they've been remarkably quiet lately.

This could be because they got all excited about finding another 'endangered species' - the Undulate Ray - at Studland ( surprising as the books say that's more shallow than they like ) -so hey, another reason to keep nasty boats away, great !

Then it turned that a part of the diet of these rays is...seahorses

Or it could be that it's been discovered the head of the SHT has 2 types of Seahorses outside his door in Devon, but keeps quiet about the moorings there on home turf, instead driving all the way to Studland to jump up and down...

 

[SailBobSquarePants]

Membership open

WOW!!!

When oldharry, seajet, and I started bitching about the Studland Bay issue, I had no idea it would be so popular. No idea so many would support it.

I did it just out of a sense of finely tuned outrage. An outrage that people with such a special interest in their own limited agenda could try to hurt our sport.

But we have become a lot more visible, in less than two months.

TWO MONTHS. Blimey. That's internet time.

So, I have fixed a few things, and membership to the Boat Owners Response Group has now been thrown open to the wind and wild. If you try to join I will get notified and approve your membership posthaste. Give me a day, maybe two. I think most of you know I am on nearly daily, if not hourly at times. Just approved about 10 new members, and it's only been open a few hours.

If I don't accept your request, it's because I've decided your'e a seahorse-loving conservationist that deserves to "swim with the fishes".

Cheers,
SailBob

 

[KristiferColumbus]

WOW!!!

When oldharry, seajet, and I started bitching about the Studland Bay issue, I had no idea it would be so popular. No idea so many would support it.

Glad this has finally got off the ground but this has been a hot topic on this forum for well over a year.My blood started boiling at least a year ago & I know there were others before me.The ground swell has been there for quite some time.Fortunately it is now all being pulled together.
Congratulations Bob but I think some credit should be given to some of the early pioneers & the fallen like Madfranky who deserves a headstone in the annuls of forum martyrs......
A simple headstone above the tide line in Studland Bay commemorating a great battle fought between the army's of one madfranky & a certain Mrs Trellis sudo conservationist would be nice.

 

[Seajet]

I would just say, and this is no disrespect to Madfrankie who I for one just missed but read about, we were reading this as the groundswell arose, I might not even have bothered joining to be able to post if my blood hadn't been boiling along with yours.

I think it was Old Harry's 'Look Out The MMO is Coming' which really put the fear of god up me, though I and many others had already tried 'discussing' what was emerging with the FS people - 'Juggling With Fog' springs to mind !

Must say some sort of unofficial memorial to those who went before at Studland, which wouldn't get desecrated by wierdo's who like to wear rubber, sounds an excellent idea...

I'd be rather surprised if there isn't some sort of rally at Studland, but to be serious for a moment this must be light-hearted, we've already seen wild accusations being thrown around ( see YM Feb' ) - which naturally were tied in with other distortions of the truth.

Can't help thinking a 'design a BORG burgee' time nay be approaching...

 

[Seajet]

Yachting Monthly Feb' 2011;

just a quick point; 'Neil Garrick-Maidment of the seahorse trust claimed a recent meeting in Poole to discuss the issues was "gate-crashed by an abusive mob" of yachtsmen "who had no evidence to present".

Now what really happened; the only invited representative, for ALL BOAT USERS, was Old Harry, who was only invited as he had expressed an interest to the right person.

Some ( I believe 5-6, Old Harry is away at the moment ) sailors from local Poole clubs had got wind of the meeting, and asked to hear what was being said.

They were told they could stay but not speak, which they did.

So much for the 'abusive mob'...

As for 'with no evidence to present', this is clearly fatuous, as all boat users present including Old Harry were there as the first opportunity to find out what was going on.

I'm not surprised Mr.Garrick-Maidment was upset about boat users hearing what was happening; We have plenty of evidence to present now, please see the 'Letter to The Independent' a few posts back on this thread...

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

The Boat Owners Response Group need your support ! If you agree with us, please select 'community' in the darker blue heading-bar above the forum titles, select 'social groups', BORG. Thanks.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

I would just say, and this is no disrespect to Madfrankie who I for one just missed but read about, we were reading this as the groundswell arose, I might not even have bothered joining to be able to post if my blood hadn't been boiling along with yours.

I think it was Old Harry's 'Look Out The MMO is Coming' which really put the fear of god up me, though I and many others had already tried 'discussing' what was emerging with the FS people - 'Juggling With Fog' springs to mind !

Must say some sort of unofficial memorial to those who went before at Studland, which wouldn't get desecrated by wierdo's who like to wear rubber, sounds an excellent idea...

I'd be rather surprised if there isn't some sort of rally at Studland, but to be serious for a moment this must be light-hearted, we've already seen wild accusations being thrown around ( see YM Feb' ) - which naturally were tied in with other distortions of the truth.

Can't help thinking a 'design a BORG burgee' time nay be approaching...

Make it a flag with an anchor being raised with a "conservationist" attached
(Possibly even grasping a seahorse)

 

[Sans Bateau]

I'm not looking for any kind of praise or a tombstone, but I posted the original Studland thread back in Nov 08, here:

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179458&highlight=seahorses

Its a shame that from that moment on, (and I'm as guilty) we were diverted from the REAL issue by a smoke screen put up by the SHT. It took some time and as a result of Old Harrys detective work that Finding Sanctuary were identified as the key player. Its a shame that the RYA did not publicise the fast approaching MCZ issue. How the hell did such huge life changing issue slip past without us knowing?

And its not just Studland, dont let Studland be your sole focus. Wherever you are around the country, you need to be looking to take action. It not enough just talking about it on the forum.

The next area that should be giving us concern is the Solent and Eastwards, see here:

http://www.balancedseas.org/

Look carefully, and you guys on the East coast, are you aware of what is being proposed where you are?