Studland MCZ

[Blue Sunray]

Posted on Facebook Studland bay group today:

WEDNESDAY 29Th MARCH- VILLAGE HALL- STUDLAND pMCZ? Natural England (NE) are holding a 'Drop in' day between 1.30pm and 6.30pm in the village hall. NE will be available to answer questions on why they are recommending that Studland Bay should be included in the list of Tranche 3 Marine Conservation Zones.If Defra accept the NE advice there will follow a 3 month Public Consultation period before Defra decide on which MCZs should be finally designated. The Studland Bay Preservation Association (SBPA) has been working for nearly 10 years to keep our Bay free of unnecessary restrictions and regulation. We have said all along that if restrictions and regulations were shown to be necessary we would agree MCZ status.

To date there is No evidence to suggest that our Bay needs Protection from human activities other than bottom dragnet trawling. Protection of the Main Features of Conservation Interest (FOCI) is why MCZs are being designated. In the right place MCZs are a good idea as we all want to save the environment. However to make Studland Bay, one of the busiest recreational bays on the South Coast, an MCZ seems unwise. We are already surrounded by Conservation zones ( Poole Harbour, Poole Rocks MCZ, Needles MCZ and the Special Area of Conservation from Old Harry to Portland ). The FOCI which NE hope to protect are listed as Seahorses, Undulate Rays, Native Oyster and Eelgrass. The first 3 listed are already protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act so it is not clear what MCZ status would add to their protection. It all boils down to their habitat-the Eelgrass. Does the Eelgrass need additional protection? The weather we can't do much about and Southern Inshore Fisheries have the power through by- laws to regulate bottom drag net fish trawling.

Anchoring has often been blamed for damaging the Eelgrass beds. Recent studies have found this is not the case and that the Eelgrass beds are expanding and healthy. There are over 100 hectares of flourishing eelgrass in the Bay. So SBPA questions to NE will be along the lines mentioned above. If you have the time and inclination do 'Drop in' and speak to NE. Do we want restrictions, regulation, costly and bureaucratic management system in our Bay which will limit people's enjoyment? Charges for activities will ensue to pay for management and lead to further commercialisation.

SBPA say No to MCZ for Studland. As the Parish Council said some years ago 'Leave the Bay as it is' free for all to enjoy and free of unnecessary restrictions'. Nick Warner SBPA

 

[Blue Sunray]

Just to bring the petition below to people's attention:

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/savestudlandbay

 

[colhel]

Thanks, I didn't realise there was a petition. I'll spread the word

 

[MarlynSpyke]

It’s good to see this petition: I’ve just signed, and as one of the Boat Owners’ Response Group team, I welcome it and urge as many as possible to make their voices heard.

A very brief explanation about the agencies involved: Natural England (NE) is the government quango which gives official “advice” on MCZ matters, and in BORG’s view it is heavily skewed to a Conservationist perspective. The “advice” is considered by the ministry Defra who decide whether or not to put forward a site for public consultation after which it may, in practice probably will be, designated as a Marine Conservation Zone. If it is, then the Marine Management Organisation is responsible for management measures, eg restrictions on anchoring. They are more down to earth and practical about things, but will still be under the “advice” of NE.

However in the MCZ process, the social and economic consequences of designation can be taken into account. To quote an NE document (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/150130_MCZDataSufficiency_v5_0.pdf ) on previous tranches of MCZ’s:

“Decisions on site suitability were made by Defra based on a balance between the strength of the conservation advantages an MCZ offers relative to the economic and social implications of designation.”

So our approach has been to try to show that the conservation advantages in controlling boat use at Studland Bay would be small or non-existent, and the social (loss of recreational amenity) and financial losses substantial. We’ve made a shot at estimating the value of the leisure marine economy around Poole, see http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Marine-economy-Poole.pdf , we get a figure of around £13.5 million a year and we consider that serious restrictions on Studland Bay might mean 10% to 20% of boats being moved elsewhere. Any help in making these estimates more robust would be very welcome.

The social (loss of recreational amenity) loss is hard to quantify, but the more signatures on the petition the more important this aspect becomes. Also, ultimately the government Minister concerned (George Eustice M.P. under Secretary of State Andrea leadsom M.P.) has to sign off the measures, and the more pressure against the better!

It is worth pointing out that this is not just a Studland Bay issue, because the Isle of Wight coastline along the whole of the Solent is also being considered for MCZ status, and most anchorages along that southern coastline of the Solent have eelgrass present, and it is the alleged impact of anchoring on eelgrass which is the critical issues. Studland Bay seems a test case for a much wider area.

Lots more information and ammunition at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/ .

 

[dpb]

Petition signed.
But just wondering what happens when, even if the whole bay becomes a no anchor zone, 200+ boats rock up on a summer Saturday and drop anchor, who would enforce it and how?

 

[oldgit]

Studland MCZ.
On the face of it a simple black and white issue of Seahorses vs Yachts.
With much hard work and common sense from one or two folks providing reasoned argument against preventing mooring in the bay.The first of which was providing shelter during bad weather, then some further research apparently proved that the eelgrass was not declining but expanding.
Opponents of the scheme felt that their case had been proved.
Unfortunately the supporters of the scheme refused to accept their opponents conclusions and continued to press for a Studland MCZ.
Then the knives really came out.
A few folks really did their own case no favours by subjecting the folks in favour of the MCZ to a vitriolic torrent of somewhat personal abuse,one suspects Donald Trump would have blushed at some of the comments.
One notices now that the emphasis has changed from no sea horse problem here to the financial losses which will be suffered by the local communities.
To sum up.
We need somewhere handy to park.
We have always parked here.
We need somewhere to park during a storm.
No eel grass problem.
No sea horse problem.
Its divers causing the problem.
Its fisherman causing the problem
The pinko conservationistas who are all only doing it to annoy rich yachties. (class warfare).
The conservationists are only doing it to line their pockets.
Nobody understands us free spirits in the yacht world .
Its all the fault of the luvies at the BBC.
The Solent will end up a third world country.
We are not thinking purely about our bit of the coast but yours as well.

There have we missed something.