Nice to see the article perpetuating what amounts to nonsense;
May is doing some very heavy lifting here.
The info is one-sided because the ivory tower types have done heehaw original research, they take a pasting on here because they're making it up.
I think its more that the research used isnt based on the seagrass types that typically grow in UK waters. Those that do grow here have different characteristics as reported by @oldharry and @MarlynSpyke
I'm pretty sure that "ivory tower types" do carry out original research. It's the obsessive nutters (and BBC presenters) trying to have their prejudices enshrined in law who avoid reality.
@MarlynSpyke has written a recent summary, https://boatownersresponse.org.uk/eelgrass-evidence-overview-2021.pdf, which has been sent to the RYA in an effort to persuade them to change thier stance on scientific evidence from NE. If that leads to the RYA sponsoring research by an expert acceptable to the MMO so much the better
Thank you for the link to that document and to Marlynspyke for preparing it. I have included it in my email to my MP.
No its never been proved or disproved. Some researchers have found improved health after disturbance, but other factors were present that could have caused it. What IS clear is that damaged, even obliterated eelgtrass is on record as recovering sometimes in weeks, and nearl always within 2 seasons it has returned to almost the same state as it was (shoot length, leaf width, rhizome density etc). That is the basis for our challenge. With Marlyspykes estimate that less than 2% of the total area is affected by anchoring in any season what is the issue? As he points out the chances of somebody anchoring in exactly the same spot and disturbing new growth is very slender.
Well I would accept sensible restrictions to my activities. If that will positively benefit the ecology. The thing is that I am in no position to make any judgement. We have to rely on scientists to advise. There is no balanced debate on here. Just a one sided argument.
I agree NE are only considering a one sided argument as they consider all the data provided by BORG as not from a scientist. Talk about ignoring confirmed increasing area of eelgrass at Studland over the past 60 years as per photographic evidence provided by BORG. The speed that MMO are proposing to implement an anchor ban, probably in June, which may be fine to a landlubber, but in the marine world all current almanacs work on information from last summer. Many sailors rely on information provided by an almanac and probably do not follow a thread like this for up to date infomation.
The scientists seem biased to me about Studland. More to protect their jobs rather that be honest about what they don't know imho.