STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[Angele]

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

Oooh! Had a look at the updates for some of the other regions, especially the Channel Islands, and I think their update cites a comment posted by me!

“Leave it alone. Things are fine just the way they are. Can’t think what you think can be achieved in such a secluded and unspoilt area.”

Since the Channel Islands are not part of the UK (and hence nothing the MCS recommends will have the slightest impact unless the island governments make a conscious decision to listen to them) I'm pretty sure the MCS is wasting its time worrying about them. I wish the same could be said of Studland (and don't forget Worbarrow Bay - that is also on the MCS list for MPAs).

 

[Sans Bateau]

The MCS is a farce, it has no more influence on decisions made by Finding Sanctuary than anyone, in fact BORG probably has a greater influence. MCS may look official, its not though.

 

[Seajet]

To further illustrate galadriel's point, please go back a few spaces to my most recent comments on MCS !


The BORG need your support ! If you agree with what we're doing, please go to the darker blue heading bar above the forum titles, select 'community', social groups, Borg - join, thanks.

 

[Seajet]

Well I had my first 'discussion' with Steve of the sea horse trust last night, interesting !

He began with a lot of posturing, 'it's water off a duck's back, I've had 4 years of abuse' - (This is hardly surprising - only 4 years ? ).

Next when I pointed out that he wants to keep people including young families out to sea in any weather without rest or refuge, which could well lead to deaths, his reply - but not to me - was ' Oh he's being hurtful ' !

I did point out that he'd tried to make Studland Bay his own private paddling pool by seaking idiotic influences through, but is throwing his toys out of the pram now that he's been found out and the grown-ups have told him he can't have it.

Interestingly, when I asked him outright if he had plans for a dive centre, he wouldn't answer - in fact wouldn't answer anything directly - but in contact with galadriel of the BORG, he said ' My dive centre '...


We at the Boat Owners Response Group need your support; if you agree with what we're doing, please go to the darker blue heading bar above the forum titles, select 'community', social groups , BORG, join. Thanks.

 

[Clammer]

Interesting that you've had a conversation with "Steve" of SHT. The problem is that "Steve" is not a member of SHT! He was banished last summer for being rude to the Studland Residents. Perhaps you should speak to the Executive Director who has been very quiet the last month or so.

 

[Seajet]

Clammer,

Thank you very much ! I will indeed try to contact SHT, this puts a very different complexion on things. I realised I was n't speaking to an earthling as such, but to be in a position / place like that and upset the locals really is sawing off the bough one's resting on !

SHT, we may never be friends, but I do apologise if my being taken in meant a stronger than normal response. I know the berk has other links, but I certainly won't waste my time with him again...

Andy, seajet

 

[SailBobSquarePants]

Divers in Studland...

Fellow BORG members have tracked down THIS interesting quote from our "friends" in the diving community:

". I know that each of my divers (and the other divers visitng Studland to see the Seahorses)...a conservative estimate that there has been at least 1,000 dives undertaken in the last 12 months"

Neil of the SeaHorse Trust

So - what do you know - a leading member of the SHT operates a Studland DIVE Centre, who is insisting that we all go anchor somewhere else and leave it all to them. No, but REALLY it's all about those poor seahorses, isn't it? Not about the income to the dive centre operators, such as Neil?

How much damage do ONE THOUSAND dives per year do the the eelgrass and the marine environment? They do anchor their boats, don't they? They do directly invade the sanctuary of the marine environment on a level far more intimate than throwing out an anchor and pulling it up when done?

The public needs to open their eyes and realize what a special interest snow job they are being given. Mind you, I am NOT saying that all the SHT members have this perspective - but certainly a large number of involved people are divers, and it turns out that their motives do not entirely appear innocent. In fact, they appear far from innocent...

 

[Seajet]

Studland is of course more than bad enough, but PLEASE everyone, remember this sort of thing applies all around the UK coastline - Scotland and Wales have to get their assemblies to sort it out but are still afflicted;right now Finding Sanctuary are dealing with the South West, and Balanced Seas have already started on the South East, Solent to East Coast.

Check your area pronto, it WILL be affected - and not just anchorages, moorings and we now learn sailing schools will fall under the spotlight.

As I have mentioned, there is definitely going to be increased demand for moorings, due to the recession driving people away from Marinas.

While laying completely new moorings has been banned in most harbours anywhere near the South of England for years, clubs,yards and other organisations - individuals too - can gain places by rejuvenating old moorings, as long as they are on a Harbour Plan somewhere.

Now is the time for anyone interested to

A, Get hold of a copy of their Harbour Plan. Note that as most of these originate from distinctly pre-GPS days, expect delays in finding actual positions compared to dubious charted ones !

B, Mark the positions of any moorings which have even the faintest chance of ever being required in future - if using a temporary line & buoy, of course the line should be non-floating so as to hopefully not ensnare passing boats, and I'd stongly suggest a type of marker and something painted on it to deter people from using it while it's not ready...

C, If at all possible re-establish moorings NOW; once the MCZ nonsense hits your area, the shift to moorings - in fact even the present use - will be regarded as 'footprint expansion' - so must be fought vigorously.

Moorings in particular should be very alert to possible other interest goups such as the RSPB jumping in on the back of MCZ's, they seem to like nothing better than destroying anyone's interests - and even homes - other than their own...AND THEY HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT BEFORE !

Please don't delay, this is urgent.


The Boat Owners Response Group needs your support. If you agree with what we are doing, please select 'community' in the darker blue heading bar above the forum titles. Click 'social groups', 'join'. Thanks.

BORG www.boatownersresponsegroup.com

 

[Searush]

SailBob,

I remember reading on a post last year that divers taken to see the Seahorses at Studland are often asked for a "donation" and the figure of 10squid is suggested.

So 1000 dives @ £10 = £10k - a useful fundraiser for them.

 

[Clammer]

Congratulations to BORG for all their hard work and the excellent start to their website.
I am following these matters with great interest and have just seen a copy of Studland Parish Magazine. There is an interesting "state of play" article in it which is a message to BORG. Incase readers of this Thread have not seen it I paste it below...

1.Eelgrass
The Eelgrass/Seagrass beds have expanded considerably over the last 50 years. There are acres of beds covering areas of The Bay which were previously sandy seabed. In the last 2 years strips of eelgrass have developed nearer the beach mean tide line.
The Easterly gales in winter root out large quantities of eelgrass and deposit it on the beach. Nature’s way .

2. Existing chain Moorings
There are currently 51 moorings owned in the main by local Residents. Only 35 of these are currently up and running . Not all are in the eelgrass beds.
Some of the mooring chains do scour the seabed around the sinker. These bare areas when added up are a tiny fraction of the eelgrass in the area of the moorings.
Some of the current moorings have been in situ for 50 years or so and if they were causing the damage claimed by some the beds would have been destroyed long ago.

3. Eco- friendly moorings
These are suggested as an alternative and or a supplement to current moorings. Unfortunately they are untried /untested in the open sea and it is unlikely that insurance companies will accept them.
They are costly and will require regular checking and maintenance.
The idea of supplementing the current moorings with another 100 or so eco friendly moorings would mean a large area of the Bay would be covered in moorings. Many of these would have to be sighted so far out that the protection that the Bay gives to yachts/boats would be nullified.

4. Anchoring
It is said by some that anchoring is destroying the eelgrass beds because anchors rip up the eelgrass. This is not the case! The photos which have been published show in the main dead/moulted eelgrass on the anchor. The odd root of eelgrass-yes, but insignificant when one takes account of the winter easterlies which rip out large quantities of eelgrass depositing it on the beach.
The claim that the sandy patches in the eelgrass beds are caused by anchoring is not true. The same sandy patches are readily found in areas where boats don’t anchor.
A recent report by Dr Collins which concludes that anchoring “COULD” damage the eelgrass beds doesn’t really prove anything. He hasn’t taken into account the tide runs, gullies, contours of the seabed etc. The important factor of the fresh water run offs into the Bay is ignored. Eelgrass does not like freshwater that is why the Google earth photos show more sandy patches in the eelgrass at the fresh water outlets.

5. Voluntary No Anchor Zone
This Survey was set up by Crown Estates (CE) and Natural England (NE) to try and discover what effect anchoring has on eelgrass. The 2 yearly results will be available at end of next year. Thousands of pounds have been allocated to this project and it is strange that Finding Sanctuary due to their work timeframe will not be able to take the result into consideration. We support the Survey and feel that CE and NE have acted responsibly.

6. Conservationists.
We are all Conservationists! However there is a web of intent amongst groups such as DWT, MCS , NE, and NOC at Southampton University to take over the Bay and manage it banning anchoring and moorings. We say it doesn’t need managing.
This sudden surge of interest in wanting to “manage” the Bay was probably because there might once have been funds to do so. There are signs that now “the money” has run out there is less action towards this objective.
The SHT however continue their relentless media campaign to try and get their own selfish way of banning anchoring and installing eco moorings. They seem to have moderated their aims considerably in the last year now accepting that the Bay will remain a multiuse site.
The SHT seems to be “a bit of a one man band” the Executive Director who we are told is self appointed doing most of the spin. The theories put forward by SHT have all been dismantled by exposing the truth. These results can be seen on SBPA and Facebook blogs. Unfortunately SHT Director will not answer questions and when proved to be wide of the mark goes off in a huff.
SHT Director has asked to talk to SBPA about managing the Bay but because of his attitude and the fact that the Bay doesn’t need managing we have declined his request.
SBPA does not agree with the Tagging project being carried out by SHT.

7. Finding Sanctuary/ MMO
The Dorset Liaison Officer has done his best over recent months to gather information on the usage of the Bay. Not an easy task with just a laptop and mobile phone. Anyway the results should all be on the various FS website maps. Recreational boater’s input was difficult to achieve.
FS will make their recommendations on which areas of sea should become MCZs next summer. It is not clear whether this includes the degrees of protection within MCZs.
The MMO will then be landed with implementing whatever is passed by the Government. This will require a huge increase in staff, equipment, offices, legal reps etc.

8. Conclusion
SRBA does not accept that the current mooring damage is significant, does not accept that anchoring causes irreparable damage, does not believe eco friendly moorings are suitable for the Bay.
SRBA deplores the waste of public monies spent on Seahorses/Eelgrass studies.
We wish the Bay to be left as it is free for all to enjoy in harmony with the marine life.
We are heartened by the recent statement by the RYA that they will not support any bans on anchoring in the Bay.

 

[Sans Bateau]

Excellent report.

 

[Searush]

Recreational boater’s input was difficult to achieve.

They could have looked on here, or asked at local clubs, they could have visited some of the boats moored in the bay, or launching there. One wonders if they actually did ANYTHING at all to seek boaters' opinions.

 

[Seajet]

Just to point out that the BORG website

www.boatownersresponsegroup.com

can now take votes, and unlike some polls it doesn't allow multiple votes !

Forum members can also join our 'community' section accessed via the darker blue heading bar above the forum titles, please select 'community', 'social groups', 'join' - Thanks.

 

[Sans Bateau]

They could have looked on here, or asked at local clubs, they could have visited some of the boats moored in the bay, or launching there. One wonders if they actually did ANYTHING at all to seek boaters' opinions.

My major criticism of the MCZ process is the lack of representation for or by leisure boat owners as stakholders, all other groups are very well catered for. That applies not only to Finding Sanctuary, but to Balanced Seas as well.

 

[SailBobSquarePants]

We NEED your vote...

The BORG have a new poll on our website, which I put up just to show how concerned boaters are about anchorage bans. Unfortunately, we voters are being OUTVOTED in our own site!!! We are currently losing in the voting, with the pro-ban side racking up 3:1 ratio of votes! What it is showing to the world is that the Conservancy movement has more active people - they have been spreading the word via their own forums and websites.

SO WE NEED YOU TO GET OVER AND VOTE!!!

www.boatownersresponsegroup.com


Please select NO, meaning "I do NOT want an anchorage ban in Studland Bay".

I refuse to fake the data on the server - so all I can do is post here and ask for your help. It's very public, and we as boaters are losing. Help preserve our anchorages - it only takes one minute.

 

[alahol2]

I don't think it is necessary, or even possible, to 'win' the vote. The conservationist lobby is very strong having had years of practice on all sorts of issues. What the votes do show is that BORG has become a force that the conservationist lobby feels it needs to deal with. It also means that a lot of people are visiting the site and maybe reading another side to the story. Like I say, I don't think you can win the vote but the numbers will show the depth of feeling.

 

[Seajet]

Alahol,

I understand what you are saying, and it is of course positive, but let's not be had over by someone who fancies a government funded TV lifestyle ringing up their chums telling them to vote !

We can tell all 'yes ban anchoring' votes were over a certain short time; as they are separate I.D's ( we don't just use I.P's ) we are being honest and letting them stand ; we just need to rouse our chums too.

So please vote 'NO', and get onto your clubs and friends !

 

[Iona of Exe]

No vote now ahead by approx 2:1

 

[Seajet]

Poll closed

Please note the website poll 'should boat users be denied the right to anchor at Studland Bay' has been closed. We deliberately gave no advance notice to anyone, and a weekday and weekend - Friday 21st, Saturday 22nd January were sampled.

I am delighted to say that despite obvious organized block voting tactics by the conservation lobby, the results are as follows;

NO anchoring should not be banned 60.5 %

YES anchoring should be banned 35.6 %

Wait and see 3.9 %

Our grateful thanks to all who voted.

This is of course simply a straw poll, but does give us something else to present.

The fight is still very much on, and please remember Studland is just one example - this will be happening all around our coast, anchorages, moorings and now we hear sailing schools will all come under the focus for restrictions or bans; this WILL affect you wherever you operate your boat.

It is possible now to register as a supporter at the BORG website;

www.boatownersresponsegroup.com

- supporters will be updated on major points, there will be NO spam, and e-addresses will NOT be divulged to anyone else.

Please remember you can also join us at our 'community' - click this in the darker blue heading bar above the forum titles, select 'social groups', 'BORG', 'Join'.

This page has the facility to discuss via a message board, and is an excellent way of finding people in your sailing area.

 

[oldharry]

List of proposed MCZ sites in England

I thinik it will be useful to bring the list of areas that are 'under consideration' for MCZs round the English Coast, forward into the 'sticky' thread, for your reference. Note that this is BORGs list drawn from information published by the four RSGs at the 'Second Report' stage
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boat Owners Response Group

List of harbours and anchorages that lie in proposed MPAs Dec 2010


Notes:

1. This list is compiled by BORG for information of boat owners. It has NO OFFICIAL STANDING
2. The list includes areas we know about. There may be others. Please let us know any omissions.
3. The list is compiled from information presented by the four regional bodies who will be making recommendations to the MMO
4. All 4 regional bodies emphasise
a) NO DECISIONS have been made. These are ‘areas of interest’ whose conservation needs are being assessed as part of the recommendation process.
b) This listing is provisional. Areas will almost certainly change as conservation needs are identified.
5. The areas mentioned are all UNDER CONSIDERATION. Other areas may be included later, while some listed may be dropped.

These lists are compiled from the ‘Second Iteration Reports’ submitted this autumn, and you should refer to these for further information.

Thames Estuary (Balanced Seas)
Deben River
Orwell River
Stour River
Walton Backwaters
Colne, Blackwater, and Crouch estuaries – all areas inshore of a line between Clacton and Foulness
Thames estuary West of Southend
Medway out to Grain Spit
Swale out to Ham Gat

English Channel E (Balanced Seas)
Hastings to Beachy Head
Newhaven and coast between Beachy Head and Brighton
Pagham harbour
Selsey Bill and the Park
Chichester Harbour
Langstone Harbour
Portsmouth Harbour
Bembridge harbour and entrance
Bembridge Bay
Priory Bay
Ryde
Wooton Creek
Osbourne Bay
Gurnard bay + coast to Yarmouth
Newtown River and anchorage outside.
Alum Bay

Note Blanced seas have not yet prioritised their ‘Broad Areas of Interest’ as listed above, nor have they identified what features are likely to be of interest in the listed areas.






English Channel West (Finding Sanctuary)
Bournemouth Bay, including
Poole harbour lower reaches
Studland Bay
Swanage Bay
Chapmans Pool
Kimmeridge
Worbarrow
Mupes bay
Lulworth Cove
Lyme Regis and the inshore anchorage
Exe Estuary
Torbay - designated for ‘full water column protection’ see note
Dartmouth
Beesands area
Salcombe
Hope Bay
Yealm
Plymouth
Looe Bay
Falmouth Estuary
Helford River
Mullion Cove
Penzance Bay (not including St Michaels Mount)
Scillies (Finding sanctuary)
7 local areas mostly to E and N coasts

West Coast and Severn Estuary (Finding Sanctuary)
St Ives Bay full water column protection. Further info to follow
Camel Estuary and Bay
Morte bay
Lee bay
Ilfracombe
Coombe Martin
Watermouth
Woody bay
Lee bay
Lynemouth
Burnham and Bridgewater - Full water column protection
Weston Super mare and River – Full water column protection
Severn estuary upstream from a line from Cardiff to a point west of Burnham


Welsh Coasts (Welsh Assembly)
Many existing sites may be extended, particularly in West Wales. Milford, Skomer and Ramsey areas.
Welsh Assembly have their own brief, and are working independently, further info to follow.

North West England (Irish Sea Conservation Zone)
West Kirby
Hilbre Island
Whitehaven
Maryport

East and North East Coast (Net Gain)

Note: The second report from Net Gain has not identified BAI’s (Broad Areas of Interest) as they were asked, due to lack of reliable data about areas they were looking at. There is therefore little information to identify potential MCZ or MPA zones in the area.

Net Gain have divided the entire coast in to sectors, identified conservation features within those sectors, and based intial report on availability of reliable data.

To examine more closely youre referred to their report: http://www.netgainmcz.org/docs/NetGain2ndIterationProgressReport.pdf
And look specifically at areas as follows:

Area code:
NG1.2 Southwold, Lowestoft, Grt Yarmouth. IMPRTANT NOTE: This is designated as a potential REFERENCE AREA, in which all human influence is as far as possible removed. The report notes the serious implications for the ports involved.

NG2.3 The Wash, and coast East to Wells This area is designated in part for Reference area status.

NG2.7 Mouth of the Humber Estuary, and Lincolnshore coast.

NG2.14 Whitby and Staithes note that adjoining coastal area NG2.15 is designated for Reference status

NG2.19 Coast from a point N of S Shields, to Bamburgh


IMPORTANT NOTE FOR BOAT OWNERS

Within the coastal reports for your area there is only ONE mention of the needs for leisure boats – that is the NG2.14 Whitby area, where, ‘leisure boating should be permitted to continue f MCZ status is granted.!