STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[sea urchin]

There does not have to be any actual evidence either way, merely reasonable assumption.

And there I was thinking there had to be an evidence base - how could I have been so mistaken!? Sounds like a conservationist's charter beyond their wildest dreams! It evades the realms of any reasoned challenge. Talk about having the cards stacked against us.......

Now I get it. The defolins snail was discovered high on the shingle bank above MHWM. A challenge was mounted on the grounds that as it was found outside the marine area on land above the tidal area, but we were told that as it was not known whether it might stray into the wet areas it could still qualify to justify a Ref Area protection. Had not made any sense before! (Everyone was puzzled anyway as it is a lagoon snail preferring brackish water. The lagoon is further East from the place it was discovered!)

 

[oldharry]

You got it in one! The government landed the whole thing in DEFRAs lap to implement. DEFRA thought - conservation - ah! we have our own conservationists, the JNCC and NE, and handed the whole thing to them on a plate. Did you know Natural Englands wages bill last year was £86m? It will be a lot less this year!

And yes of course there has to be an evidence base - the evidence of a conservationist or wildlife experts say-so. The person with the best set of figures, wins. Thats why there is such a battle at Studland. SHT have a set of figures. Nobody else even dreamed there was a reason to count anything, least of all the seahorses and Seaweed! Why should there be? Might as well start counting crabs, or Seagulls. And visitor counts - the nearest to that was the daily 'take' at the Bankes Arms. Suddenly out of the blue these figures are important, and providing evidence nobody ever dreamed we would need.

 

[sea urchin]

Another ludicrous 'justification' at Pagham Harbour, is to have the ref. area cover the lagoon too, (which is separated from the marine area - ie it is not tidal), because about 15 years ago someone saw an anemone in there. It has not been seen since, the nature reserve managers have noted that it is probably no longer there due to pollution (from road run off through land drains etc), but presumably due to the 'precautionary principle' - yes you have guessed - just in case it is resurrected from the dead ..........

The lagoon is a place where the next generation of seafarers get to learn the ropes. There is a small sail training organisation there for kids. But it has been a source of contention for some twitchers for some time - the dinghies spoil the view of the birds apparently and I quote 'there are plenty of other places where people can go and sail'. This is an ideal training area as it is sheltered.

My view is that if the kids are out there, then they probably get to appreciate the birds too, and develop an interest in the great outdoors (and to how protect it sensibly), as well as in sailing.

 

[Seajet]

It's about time these twitchers realised 'there are plenty of other places one can go and watch birds'; as I say I love nature, it's one of the attractions of sailing, but I'm suspecting views will become increasingly polarised as the 'conservationist sounds a cushy career' lobby increasingly alienate anyone whose lives they touch.

Hopefully that will be their undoing, but in the meantime they are messing peoples' livelihoods and whole lifetimes enjoyment for their selfish ends.

Meantime, there is an interesting if somewhat ironic development...For those who don't follow the 'Save Studland Bay' campaign on 'Facebook', this was set up mainly by Studland residents who are mightily fed up with the SHT and support boat users to the hilt - now one would have expected the residents of an expensive, beautiful place to live would be all in favour of prohibitive conservationism; it speaks volumes that they want the boats to continue visiting !

The latest news from residents is that since that god-awful 'truth about wildlife' rant, groups of foreign divers have been observed on the beach at 10pm, going out to observe the Seahorses !

Nice one Packham, you've really helped the little creatures' cause...

 

[sea urchin]

Thanks for the info about the Save Studland Bay facebook campaign. I will have a look at it. There is a Save Our Selsey website which might interest folks - it is focussed on sea defenses and MCZ's and includes concerns for the fishing community - I dont remember anything on leisure boating (but perhaps there should be - here is the link to its latest newsletter (another one due soon)http://www.saveourselsey.org/news/Balancing%20People%20and%20Nature.html
From that there are links to the Manhood Peninsula Steering Group, and the National Voice for Coastal Communities. They are now on the case of the implications of reference areas.

I have spoken to elderly residents on the sea front here, some of whom are not that mobile any more - many of them love to watch the birds, and equally they love to watch the boats out there and people (especially children) enjoying themselves on the water. They want that connection to the vibrancy of life, that may otherwise be evading them with advancing years.

Maybe the 'foreign divers' will frighten all the little marine equine critters away from Studland...... then problem solved! ......Whoops! I had forgotten about the precautionary principle .. so 15 years hence there would still be NAZ's there. Now I know that our world has gone crazy!

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Seems to me that conservationists ar'nt fit to adjudicate in what is after all a balance between man's needs & Nature.Should'nt we be pressing for a more objective stance on this whole subject?
If what has been posted here about the Solent is true then it is clear that diplomacy ai'nt working!

 

[Searush]

And there I was thinking there had to be an evidence base - how could I have been so mistaken!? Sounds like a conservationist's charter beyond their wildest dreams! It evades the realms of any reasoned challenge. Talk about having the cards stacked against us.......

Now I get it. The defolins snail was discovered high on the shingle bank above MHWM. A challenge was mounted on the grounds that as it was found outside the marine area on land above the tidal area, but we were told that as it was not known whether it might stray into the wet areas it could still qualify to justify a Ref Area protection. Had not made any sense before! (Everyone was puzzled anyway as it is a lagoon snail preferring brackish water. The lagoon is further East from the place it was discovered!)

And did none of the bird-watchers not consider that being a snail, it may have been dropped by a Thrush?

 

[sea urchin]

Finding Sanctuary - Draft Final Recommendations also published

The Finding Sanctuary draft final recommendations are also published - on a cursory inspection, it looks as if FS to has listened to the concerns of local stakeholders in the south west to a greater degree than Balanced Seas has in the south east. EG at the meeting of Dorset Local Marine Conservation Zone Group on the 17th February 2011 (which was attended by Old Harry), many of the issues raised seem to have been taken on board and the proposals amended, boundaries made to accommodate sea defenses or local activities, livelihoods etc. However, not being local to that area, many who are, may disagree with this observation!

Apologies if this info has already been posted. I have done a search but did not find anything.

The link to the 583 page (!!!) draft report is here (The final recommendations are due to go forward to Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in August):-

http://www.finding-sanctuary.org/page/news/420

A link from this page on the Finding Sanctuary website goes to the the full report including maps.

Go to page 273 for the section on Studland Bay

 

[alahol2]

Am I wrong in thinking that the proposed MCZ that included Studland Bay has disappeared from the report? The proposed MCZ is now SPECIFICALLY Studland Bay. If so I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Previously Studland was only a very small part of the MCZ now it is the whole focus and, as such, is far more 'policeable' if they deem it necessary.

 

[oldharry]

Am I wrong in thinking that the proposed MCZ that included Studland Bay has disappeared from the report? The proposed MCZ is now SPECIFICALLY Studland Bay. If so I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Previously Studland was only a very small part of the MCZ now it is the whole focus and, as such, is far more 'policeable' if they deem it necessary.

No you are quite right. the original 'building block' area was the whole of Bournemouth Bay as far as Hengistbury Head. When we came to look more closely at it, there was actually very little out there of specific interest , so we agreed to cut it back to cover the Eelgrass Beds in Studland. There was no way we could justify not including this species location, and subsequently the conservationists tried to upgrade it to a reference area. The combined efforts of RYA, SBPA and BORG were needed to squash that one.

 

[Ergonomist]

While applauding your campaigning for the continued use of Studland Bay as an anchorage, I feel your credibility, at least locally. is slightly undermined when you refer to Poole Bay as "Bournemouth Bay". Meanwhile,
thank you for your perseverance for common sense in this controversy!

 

[oldharry]

While applauding your campaigning for the continued use of Studland Bay as an anchorage, I feel your credibility, at least locally. is slightly undermined when you refer to Poole Bay as "Bournemouth Bay". Meanwhile,
thank you for your perseverance for common sense in this controversy!

Bournemouth Bay - the sea area between Needles and Anvil Point encompassing Swanage, Studland, Poole, Christchurch Bays etc.

The original Building Block area 11a extended South beyond Poole Bay out to the East end of Dolphin Bank, and west to Anvil. The Poole Bay pMCZ included areas outside Poole Bay, until it was decided in January the Eelgrass at Studland, and Poole Rocks were the only features that actually needed MCZ status.

I wouldn't try telling Bournemouth folk they dont have a Bay either!

 

[oldharry]

Just a thought - the Delfins snail lives on the shingle bank sea defence? If that is allowed to be swept away, along with all the homes and businesses, what happens to the snails? Doh!

 

[sea urchin]

There are two shingle spits, one either side of the entrance. The de folins snail is on the southern spit which is growing, whilst the northern spit is being scoured by the current in a channel which is moving ever closer to the houses. if it breaches then homes, business interests, and good agricultural land further inland are in the flood risk area too (plus sewage farm, electricity substation etc). The shingle is needed from the southern spit to deposit on the northern spit.

But you are right, as the whole area is very dynamic, and previously the sea defense work had stabilised it, with the result that rare species have been protected along with human interests eg childing pinks and sea cabbages, as well as the snail. Now they too could all get washed away. Strangely, the conservationists logic seems to work in a different way.

When they dredged the entrance there were winkle beds - food for the birds as well as a few locals, and also harvested by some local fishermen. But since leaving 'nature to take its course', the winkles have gone, also removing this rich source of food for the birds.

The local authority and the EA have gone ahead with some temporary sea defenses in 2009 whilst drawing up more long term proposals, and now all their efforts could be undermined by a reference area ........ madness!

 

[alahol2]

Packham complaint answered

Well that did a lot of good...

I am sorry if you were unhappy with ‘The Truth About Wildlife’ broadcast on 6 June 2011.

The programme was a personal view on the successes and failings of our wildlife protection policies. It set out to ask questions about the imminent marine conservation zones – will they work or not, what stands to be protected or not – and in this context Studland Bay was included.

The Studland Bay sequence was informed and underpinned by scientific research conducted by Dr Ken Collins, senior research fellow at the School of Earth Science, University of Southampton.

His study concludes that mooring and anchoring leaves scars on the seabed, and that recovery is far from straightforward and may take many years, leading to the decline of the seagrass habitat and associated species.

Regarding the two interviewees you mention; they are not “interested amateurs”.

Mr Garrick-Maidment is an elected Fellow of the British Naturalists Association, has studied seahorses for 30 years and has published his research into seahorses at Studland Bay. Mr Trewhella has been involved in the licensed seahorse tagging programme. Chris Packham is a qualified zoologist, and while he is a patron of many wildlife charities, including the Seahorse Trust, he bases his comments on scientific research and draws his own conclusions from that.

Chris Packham’s use of the phrase “that’s about a G and T on a Sunday afternoon” in regard to leisure boat owners was not intended to be derogatory, but was used to illustrate the contrast between their use of the sea with that of fishermen, whose livelihoods depend on being able to fish, and who may be the biggest losers in the MCZ process.

I am copying this to the producer of Britain’s Secret Seas for his information.

 

[oldharry]

Well that did a lot of good...

I am sorry if you were unhappy with ‘The Truth About Wildlife’ broadcast on 6 June 2011.

The programme was a personal view on the successes and failings of our wildlife protection policies. It set out to ask questions about the imminent marine conservation zones – will they work or not, what stands to be protected or not – and in this context Studland Bay was included.

The Studland Bay sequence was informed and underpinned by scientific research conducted by Dr Ken Collins, senior research fellow at the School of Earth Science, University of Southampton.

His study concludes that mooring and anchoring leaves scars on the seabed, and that recovery is far from straightforward and may take many years, leading to the decline of the seagrass habitat and associated species.

Regarding the two interviewees you mention; they are not “interested amateurs”.

Mr Garrick-Maidment is an elected Fellow of the British Naturalists Association, has studied seahorses for 30 years and has published his research into seahorses at Studland Bay. Mr Trewhella has been involved in the licensed seahorse tagging programme. Chris Packham is a qualified zoologist, and while he is a patron of many wildlife charities, including the Seahorse Trust, he bases his comments on scientific research and draws his own conclusions from that.

Chris Packham’s use of the phrase “that’s about a G and T on a Sunday afternoon” in regard to leisure boat owners was not intended to be derogatory, but was used to illustrate the contrast between their use of the sea with that of fishermen, whose livelihoods depend on being able to fish, and who may be the biggest losers in the MCZ process.

I am copying this to the producer of Britain’s Secret Seas for his information.

Stock letter with a few amendments according to what we each said, and that we have all had.

 

[Twister_Ken]

All standard complaints dept stuff, but BBC hasn't addressed the fact that there was no balance in the prog - no opposite p-o-v contributors. As the Corporation is spozed to be dead hot on balance, that could be the next line of attack. Maybe Dylan (wearing a disguise, coz sometimes the Beeb pay him) could advise? Is this the sort of bad programme making that should be brought to the attention of the BBC Trust, or some sort of complaints commission?


In the meantime the G&T remark WAS derogatory.

 

[Sans Bateau]

I still have not had a reply, when I sent in my complaint I copied in OFFCOM. Curious.

 

[Seajet]

Galadriel,

same here, re. both Ofcom & no reply...

 

[alahol2]

Well you can read your BBC reply here first... I'm waiting to see if I get a reply from OFCOM; but not holding my breath.