Pete7
Well-known member
Agreed but an opportunity to give them both barrels and explain their poor decision making rather than act on the evidence.
Studland - MMO Management protocols for the MCZ in place from 17th December
- Thread starter oldharry
- Start date
Agreed but an opportunity to give them both barrels and explain their poor decision making rather than act on the evidence.
Boathook
Well-known member
The mmo are just using Studland to further their careers by ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their criteria. Studland has been going on for more than 4 years.
Maybe the Marines at Poole need to practice more beach landings with landing craft. First objective coffee at the cafe on South Beach. Second objective Bank's Arms .....
oldharry
Well-known member
Marlynspyke and I are actually quite encouraged by this latest report.
"People have the right to anchor within any marine protected area under emergency conditions or in order to avoid an emergency. We encourage boat users to use their judgement and only anchor in areas where it is safe." (My italics)
This is a huge step forward, and a direct snub to Natural England and the conservationists, who want to ban anchoring altogether. It acknowledges the fundamental priority that a skipper remains free to make his own decisions concerning his vessels safety, regardless of conservation needs and rules.
This was something we worked and campaigned hard for.
MMO are the regulating authority for MCZs, but they are tied legally to observe the Natural England recommendations: if NE say the seagrass is 'in need of restoration', MMO MUST by law enact that. This is all pretty new legislation, and I guess this new defintion encouraging us to use our own judgement about what is safe is part of this defining and exploring where the legal boundaries actually are.
I rather think a certain neoprene-clad individual from Devon is in need of urgent dental treatment just now.....?
"People have the right to anchor within any marine protected area under emergency conditions or in order to avoid an emergency. We encourage boat users to use their judgement and only anchor in areas where it is safe." (My italics)
This is a huge step forward, and a direct snub to Natural England and the conservationists, who want to ban anchoring altogether. It acknowledges the fundamental priority that a skipper remains free to make his own decisions concerning his vessels safety, regardless of conservation needs and rules.
This was something we worked and campaigned hard for.
MMO are the regulating authority for MCZs, but they are tied legally to observe the Natural England recommendations: if NE say the seagrass is 'in need of restoration', MMO MUST by law enact that. This is all pretty new legislation, and I guess this new defintion encouraging us to use our own judgement about what is safe is part of this defining and exploring where the legal boundaries actually are.
I rather think a certain neoprene-clad individual from Devon is in need of urgent dental treatment just now.....?
FWB
N/A
We have this problem in the Helford.
Eelgrass seems to grow in anchorages.
The “Conservationists“ panic and say we’ve found eelgrass we must ban anchoring!
There is no science behind it and since they want to change things they are not Conserving what they have found.
My view is that anchoring probably encourages the eelgrass by removing kelp etc. Yes just an opinion but at least it looks at maybe why eelgrass is found in anchorages.
These people are not Conservationists, they are a nuisance with the power to actually upset the status quo and maybe actually cause the eelgrass beds to be overrun with other marine flora and decline.
Eelgrass seems to grow in anchorages.
The “Conservationists“ panic and say we’ve found eelgrass we must ban anchoring!
There is no science behind it and since they want to change things they are not Conserving what they have found.
My view is that anchoring probably encourages the eelgrass by removing kelp etc. Yes just an opinion but at least it looks at maybe why eelgrass is found in anchorages.
These people are not Conservationists, they are a nuisance with the power to actually upset the status quo and maybe actually cause the eelgrass beds to be overrun with other marine flora and decline.
oldharry
Well-known member
A suggestion: The Seastar Survey 2012 the only measure extant of the condition of the eelgrass, covering the basic health metrics of shoot length, root density and coverage.
Unless there is new data demonstrating a significant reduction on these metrics, what is the point of imposing intrusive and restrictive measures on visitors? The precautionary principle does not apply here. All that is needed is to check the current eelgrass condition against the 2010-11 baseline. Marlynspyke did a small random video survey 2016 which showed no measurable change we could detect from the 2012 reports. This was insufficiently detailed to be put forward as serious data, but gives a clear pointer. We might also press for an independent survey or audit so that results are not 'interpreted' by NE's 'experts' .
Marlynspyke was looking for NGM's claimed evidence of widespread anchor damage. All we could find across the centre of the anchorage area was acre after acre of healthy sound eelgrass. Estimated measuments of shoot length and density gave results well up the generally accepted levels for a healthy eelgrass bed, and like Seastar we found it generally above the regional average.
Marlynspykes results can be seen here: https://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Studland_Underwater_Videos.pdf
Unless there is new data demonstrating a significant reduction on these metrics, what is the point of imposing intrusive and restrictive measures on visitors? The precautionary principle does not apply here. All that is needed is to check the current eelgrass condition against the 2010-11 baseline. Marlynspyke did a small random video survey 2016 which showed no measurable change we could detect from the 2012 reports. This was insufficiently detailed to be put forward as serious data, but gives a clear pointer. We might also press for an independent survey or audit so that results are not 'interpreted' by NE's 'experts' .
Marlynspyke was looking for NGM's claimed evidence of widespread anchor damage. All we could find across the centre of the anchorage area was acre after acre of healthy sound eelgrass. Estimated measuments of shoot length and density gave results well up the generally accepted levels for a healthy eelgrass bed, and like Seastar we found it generally above the regional average.
Marlynspykes results can be seen here: https://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Studland_Underwater_Videos.pdf
PWLS08
Member
Sorry but LCs moved to Guz years back, only the secret shakies left in Poole.
oldharry
Well-known member
MMO on Studland reviewing 'progress', with yet another survey for us: Studland Bay Voluntary No Anchor Zone - 2022 Review I will be contacting Nick Greenwood as the link results in a message 'the survey has now closed' It was to be open until 20th January
chrishscorp
Well-known member
Perhaps they didnt like the answers......
bignick
Active member
The link works fine for me ?
(on an iPad running Safari browser)
(on an iPad running Safari browser)
bignick
Active member
The questions are a bit leading….
oldharry
Well-known member
Direct link which works if the other doesnt: https://defragroup.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_56lUGaIPHcb4K4S
doug748
Well-known member
oldharry
Well-known member
Agree, fairly typically seeking the results they want.
Boathook
Well-known member
As per others leading questions but open fields allow people to accuse NE and MMO of meddling.
doug748
Well-known member
Indeed, three questions in particular of the "Have you stopped beating your wife? " variety. With no boxes available to qualify your answer.
For example, they ask something of this nature:
Do you think seagrass in Studland should be protected?
Answer yes and the narrative in the Bournemouth Bugle will be: - "Yachtsmen give a resounding yes to Protection measures in Studland Bay - 'most pleasing' say NE"
Answer No and the headline will be: "Sailors Shun Conservation - they just don't care"
.
Last edited:
ImpImp
Member
I said in answer to the last question "what more could be done": "Encourage anchoring in the bay and this has significantly improved seagrass coverage in the >30 years that I've been visiting."
Seven Spades
Well-known member
The question should read:-
Do you think seagrass in Studland needs protecting?
Do you think seagrass in Studland needs protecting?
Seven Spades
Well-known member
The NE ban on anchoring in Studland is not conserving the area it is changing it and surly this is more risky than keeping the status quo. By banning anchoring it could result in more sea grass or much less, it could allow other plants to become established destroying the sea grass completely. The only safe thing to do is to maintain the current use then nothing will change.
By changing the use NE are failing in their duty to protect the area.
By changing the use NE are failing in their duty to protect the area.
oldharry
Well-known member
Tried that argument quite early on. But its not enough for interfering busybodies and eco-warriors determined to sieze control. 'Expert opinion' cannot be challenged, particualrly when it is anonymous, as it is in this case.
We should be demanding NE tells us who made the decisions about the state of Studland eelgrass, and the need to 'protect' it, What are their qualifications. What data did the use to come this conclusion? Most of the NE report is based on anonymous 'expert opinion' not on ground truthed data.
NE constantly refused any evidence we put forward because it was not 'ground truthed' to their standards, or was 'anecdotal'. They were on a winner because there was no data relating to the Bay apart from an oil survey in 1996, until NGM started fooling around there 20 years ago.
Where is the ground truthing data and evidence that Studland's eelgrass is in need of 'restoration?' All existing publicly available data sets show otherwise, as does Marlynspykes own investigation.
There's plenty of evidence that meddling with things we dont understand will do more harm than good, and this is as true in conservation as it is elsewhere, and conservation worldwide is littered with disasters in which unexpected results have caused havoc and mayhem.
Seven Spades
Well-known member
We really need the RYA to fund a judicial review.