oldharry
Well-known member
...and there never will be, unless the suggestion disturbance stimulates growth is correct!
Studland - MMO Management protocols for the MCZ in place from 17th December
- Thread starter oldharry
- Start date
Ian_Rob
Well-known member
….that the breaking off of seed bearing fronds actually aids the wider dissemination of the species is a key bit of research that needs further investigation. I can’t remember the typical distance that the negatively buoyant seeds travel from the parent plant but it is only a matter of metres, whereas a floating, seed ladened frond that has been broken off, can travel very much further. My guess is that the year on year spread of seagrass at Studland is attributable to this.
Last edited:
Lodestone
Active member
I came across an interesting quote in an older (2021) Countryside Alliance article and wondered, if there was anything concrete in it, whether it might have any relevance for the Studland argument.
The writer Tim Bonner said "The one serious impact that Wild Justice’s legal actions has had is to confirm the view of many within government that the legal structures that we have inherited from the EU, especially the Habitats Directive and its reliance on the ‘precautionary principle’, which legal activists increasingly use in an attempt to stop anyone from doing anything they disapprove of in the countryside, cannot remain in their current form."
Does anyone know who these 'many in Government' are? Any evidence of a wobble regarding the Environmental Principles?
The writer Tim Bonner said "The one serious impact that Wild Justice’s legal actions has had is to confirm the view of many within government that the legal structures that we have inherited from the EU, especially the Habitats Directive and its reliance on the ‘precautionary principle’, which legal activists increasingly use in an attempt to stop anyone from doing anything they disapprove of in the countryside, cannot remain in their current form."
Does anyone know who these 'many in Government' are? Any evidence of a wobble regarding the Environmental Principles?
Lodestone
Active member
The 5 Principles are outlined here:- Environmental principles policy statement
Including the 'precautionary principle'..."The purpose of these principles is to guide ministers and policymakers towards opportunities to prevent environmental damage and enhance the environment. However, the principles are not rules and they cannot dictate policy decisions by ministers."
As the policy statement is a statutory document the Environment Act requires ministers to have 'due regard'. Due regard does not compel.
Also "The precautionary principle is applicable where there is plausible evidence of a risk". That would seem key in Studland. A plausible argument is open to being challenged, picked apart... therefore so is the risk. Surely that means the Minister has to hear us in order to assess the plausibility of that risk? Without a fair voice and a demonstrable weighing up the Minister has surely failed in the application of the principle?
Including the 'precautionary principle'..."The purpose of these principles is to guide ministers and policymakers towards opportunities to prevent environmental damage and enhance the environment. However, the principles are not rules and they cannot dictate policy decisions by ministers."
As the policy statement is a statutory document the Environment Act requires ministers to have 'due regard'. Due regard does not compel.
Also "The precautionary principle is applicable where there is plausible evidence of a risk". That would seem key in Studland. A plausible argument is open to being challenged, picked apart... therefore so is the risk. Surely that means the Minister has to hear us in order to assess the plausibility of that risk? Without a fair voice and a demonstrable weighing up the Minister has surely failed in the application of the principle?
Last edited:
Lodestone
Active member
Oh and it appears that noise in Studland is the next itch to be scratched by a certain someone.
st599
Well-known member
As the UK decarbonisation plan is putting a lot of eggs in the blue carbon basket (storing CO2 in the subsoil under seagrass, in salt marshes etc.) which they believe will be released by anchoring, whether or not the plant growth is stimulated will probably never be tested.
This is why RYA, CA, BM et al are looking at eco moorings seriously.
stephen_h
Active member
Those pesky waves!
Lodestone
Active member
whats the point in monitoring wave noise - it's eternal.
unless of course it causes the rattling of eco-mooring shackles - the noise of which alarms and distresses the local critters.
Last edited:
oldharry
Well-known member
Yes, watch this space. I have talked to one or two of NE's 'experts' - the same ones who went against established science on eelgrass in order to establish the anchor damage myth. They are now hell bent on 'proving' that propeller noise is a major issue for marine life. They are building on the theory that just as sonar disrupts marine mammals such as whales and Dolphins, so propeller noise, which travels a long way in water is disruptive to other marine life. From what I gather fish generally cannot detect sound in the normal way. However there are some which use a sonar like method of detecting prey. i've little doubt that they will sooner or later come up with 'evidence' of the need to restrict the use of powered boats.
Boathook
Well-known member
That will then stop the ferry's in and out of Poole. And the noise of the chain ferry ....
chrishscorp
Well-known member
Do we know which buoy that has been installed on ? very tempting to do a 'mix tape' for those who will listen to it...
A friend has just started a circumnavigation of the UK and were looking for somewhere to drop the hook in the Solent overnight so I went to recommend Thorness Bay just past Gurnard, I very sensibly pulled up the electronic charts and was gobsmacked to see the the whole of Thorness Bay is now a no anchor zone.
Who decreed this and on what authority ?
Seven Spades
Well-known member
I think that it is a mistake. It goes all the way to Yarmouth on Navionics. Even the anchorage outside Newtown is shown as no anchoring.
wonkywinch
Well-known member
Seven Spades
Well-known member
The area is a conservation zone but the chart is wrong because there re no anchoring restrictions.
Can i anchor in an mcz? - 20 Jul 2023 - Yachting Monthly Magazine - Readly
Can i anchor in an mcz? - 20 Jul 2023 - Yachting Monthly Magazine - Readly
oldharry
Well-known member
MCZs do not carry any automatic restriction on activities unless or until MMO has made orders specific to the area. Generally these limit fishing, trawling and dredging activities. The NE attempt to create a No anchor Zone in OSborne Bay carries no legal authority, and will only work if visitors choose to cooperate.
Statutory harbour authorities can of course impose controls within their waters usually for navigational and safety reasons, but they can pretend there are conservation reasons too , like the anchor ban in the Beaulieu River in the reach below Needsoar Point to 'preserve the (non existent) eelgrass'.
Statutory harbour authorities can of course impose controls within their waters usually for navigational and safety reasons, but they can pretend there are conservation reasons too , like the anchor ban in the Beaulieu River in the reach below Needsoar Point to 'preserve the (non existent) eelgrass'.
Last edited:
chrishscorp
Well-known member
Read the article thanks for posting the link. NE held three stakeholder meetings REALLY ? anyone hear about these meetings or get an invite ?
DJE
Well-known member
Navionics shows "Anchorage" and "No Anchoring" symbols next to each other inside and outside Newtown.
Seven Spades
Well-known member
I am not impressed yesterday we sailed back from the c.i.’s and we couldn’t make the needles without tacking (jibing) and arriving very late so headed for Studland. We arrived in darkness to a very different place to last year with buoys everywhere none of which was suitable for anything bigger than a 36 foot westerly. We were forced to anchor a long way off shore and rolled most of the night.
Is there any reason why there is a stupid 10 ton limit? Putting in buoys capable of 30-40 tons would mean that boats could raft up and bigger boats could be accommodated. The total capacity of the anchorage would be three to four times what it is now or fewer buoys would be needed.
I know that it is a voluntary no anchoring zone but it was really difficult to estimate the swinging room in the darkness.
Is there any reason why there is a stupid 10 ton limit? Putting in buoys capable of 30-40 tons would mean that boats could raft up and bigger boats could be accommodated. The total capacity of the anchorage would be three to four times what it is now or fewer buoys would be needed.
I know that it is a voluntary no anchoring zone but it was really difficult to estimate the swinging room in the darkness.
doug748
Well-known member
You are blessed to be able to spot buoys in the dark, I always fail to. You can choose your anchor spot at will if you consider it a safety issue, which it probably is in those circumstances. It's true that judging distances in the dark is difficult though
onesea
Well-known member
We had a passage Silent to Torbay, arriving at dusk.
Not fancying £50 for 12 hours sleeping in a marina. With an entrance in the dark, we figured with F5 SE going SW 6 we would anchor in Elberry Cove.
Now a voluntary no anchor zone with yellow marker buoys.
To make it worse area is scattered with small unlit buoys about 30 cm diameter.
How we got out of the buoy pattern without one in our prop I do not know.
We ended up with rolly night with no shelter from Berryhead. In the dawn we could the safe flat water we desired.
The Seagrass area is fully supported by MDL who also owns/ manage both marina's in the bay. A marina group I will endeavour to avoid in future.
Other lesson learned. Don't look at charts and Pilots, the internet is more important.