Studland - MMO Management protocols for the MCZ in place from 17th December

Just visiting Studland for the first time since they laid all the myriad eco-moorings... What an absolutely appalling aesthetic tragedy they have created. Only 6 boats but God knows how many dozens of white mooring buoys totally ruining what was a near pristine seascape.
 
Yes and the 10 tons maximum is not adequate for most boats. A 36 foot Westerly weighs 10 tons it is utter madness. Why are there no bouys for larger vessels. If they had laid buyos capable of taking 30/40 tons like salcombe all boats could have been accomodated and few buoys would have been needed as boats could double up or more.
 
alahol2 said:
Just visiting Studland for the first time since they laid all the myriad eco-moorings... What an absolutely appalling aesthetic tragedy they have created. Only 6 boats but God knows how many dozens of white mooring buoys totally ruining what was a near pristine seascape.
Click to expand...
This is the knock-on effect of misguided 'eco warriors' that we and many locals fought against. All that extra plastic in the sea..... As you rightly say an aesthetic tragedy, turning beautiful Studland into a marine car park without a shred of evidence that it will in any way help marine life.
 
oldharry said:
This is the knock-on effect of misguided 'eco warriors' that we and many locals fought against. All that extra plastic in the sea..... As you rightly say an aesthetic tragedy, turning beautiful Studland into a marine car park without a shred of evidence that it will in any way help marine life.
Click to expand...

The seahorses may infact like the 88 new shiny elastic bungy cords, it would be great to get a picture of a pair of them hanging off one them 'courting'
 
alahol2 said:
Just visiting Studland for the first time since they laid all the myriad eco-moorings... What an absolutely appalling aesthetic tragedy they have created. Only 6 boats but God knows how many dozens of white mooring buoys totally ruining what was a near pristine seascape.
Click to expand...
Did you use the sippi app to pay for the mooring or did you anchor ?

The app has appalling reviews and I read somewhere that the directors are also directors of a parking inforcement company, so a win win for them!
 
Boathook said:
Did you use the sippi app to pay for the mooring or did you anchor ?

The app has appalling reviews and I read somewhere that the directors are also directors of a parking inforcement company, so a win win for them!
Click to expand...
No, I was going to anchor but we would have been so far out that the row ashore would have been a struggle. In the end we picked up one of the buoys provided by the Bankes Arms.
 
oldharry said:
This is the knock-on effect of misguided 'eco warriors' that we and many locals fought against. All that extra plastic in the sea..... As you rightly say an aesthetic tragedy, turning beautiful Studland into a marine car park without a shred of evidence that it will in any way help marine life.
Click to expand...
I got the impression the cute little seahorses issue is slowly being dropped because they are very common and everywhere in Poole bay. Instead NE et al are latching on to carbon sequestration. If this works, vastly more money from the Gov making them look good and huge areas of the Solent open for grabs.
 
Seahorses have always been common, not just in Poole but all around the coast, mainly to the west and particularly in man made environments like marinas and harbours where they can be easily observed. In the early days SHT had a reporting system for logging observations from volunteers which clearly showed this. It was part of the campaign to get protection, but once that was achieved publication stopped and SHT changed tack. The Studland fiasco started because it was a field study site for uni students attracted by the shallow water, easy diving and one academics interest in seagrasses. Once a photo of one of the sweet creatures was taken by a local "conservationist" the groundwork was laid for the political campaign supported by the gullible media.

As you say, next fad is carbon capture, again based on dodgy science - but it really isn't anything new. History is dotted with fads based on dodgy science.
 
Tranona is right: in the course of the BORG campaign I came across ample first hand evidence that seahorses are quite common round UK coasts. Rarely seen because 'researchers' will not go out to where they live. They would have to go out to deep cold and dangerous waters tosee them. Much easier and nicer to go paddling in Studland!

Looking for a small well camouflaged creature in 20-30m of murky water is nothing like as much fun!
 
RogerJolly said:
I've read you have to sink the seaweed in the deep ocean to stop it re-releasing its CO2 as it dies. Are they going to do that?
Click to expand...
Countryfile last Sunday showed a seaweed farm producing 120 tonne pa yield for consumption and they hope to increase this. We are not disposing of it, but going to eat it.

Just think, make it taste like a Maccy D's and that's a win because you don't need mad cows producing methane, another green house gas.

Perhaps we could harvest seaweed from Studland in return for the £10 a night with a two Aldi bag limit per person, bit like lobsters 🥹 That should give the MMO and NE something to chew on :ROFLMAO:
 
oldharry said:
Tranona is right: in the course of the BORG campaign I came across ample first hand evidence that seahorses are quite common round UK coasts. Rarely seen because 'researchers' will not go out to where they live. They would have to go out to deep cold and dangerous waters tosee them. Much easier and nicer to go paddling in Studland!

Looking for a small well camouflaged creature in 20-30m of murky water is nothing like as much fun!
Click to expand...
I have been reading the various quango reports which you’ve kindly linked.

I think the sailing community owes thanks to you and your colleagues, inasmuch as it seems a very sensible outcome to have a voluntary no anchor zone.

If the VNAZ is largely observed there should be much better data available to future studies to demonstrate whether anchoring in the relevant area does or does not have an impact on sea grass, albeit that it is clearly just one of a number of factors that could have an impact.

The tone of the latest studies suggests that minds may be more open than in the past. Although perhaps you may feel that you have had to drag officialdom kicking and screaming to this position…
 
Seems to me that Natural England have failed to notice the damaging effect of algae blooms in and around Poole Harbour. The recent rains have washed agricultural run-off into the catchment causing blanket weed to choke the water. A month ago this area was clean sand. This happens regularly around the UK after heavy rain and is largely ignored but it is devastating to marine life.
20 years ago we used to anchor at this spot in Poole Harbour and watch the photo-luminescent plankton after dark. The show then was startling. Bit by bit it has reduced and I have not seen it for the past 4/5 years. Agricultural run-off is the likely cause of the decline.
Anchoring boats are an easy target and proves to the general public that "something is being done" to "protect the environment" but as soon often is the case it's a gimmick solution not based on proper science.
 
macxman said:
Seems to me that Natural England have failed to notice the damaging effect of algae blooms in and around Poole Harbour. The recent rains have washed agricultural run-off into the catchment causing blanket weed to choke the water. A month ago this area was clean sand. This happens regularly around the UK after heavy rain and is largely ignored but it is devastating to marine life.
20 years ago we used to anchor at this spot in Poole Harbour and watch the photo-luminescent plankton after dark. The show then was startling. Bit by bit it has reduced and I have not seen it for the past 4/5 years. Agricultural run-off is the likely cause of the decline.
Anchoring boats are an easy target and proves to the general public that "something is being done" to "protect the environment" but as soon often is the case it's a gimmick solution not based on proper science.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Three things are never mentioned:

* The effects of the run off of farming chemicals - as you say.

* The effects of sewage outfall after rainfall and consequent chemical pollution.

* The effects of seagrass disease, which has had the effect of perverting the commonly presented figures for decline.

The media print the easy story and follow the narrative. Our "experts" play the game and perpetuate nonsense to keep the issue at eye level.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top