tom52
Active member
From todays Bournemouth Echo
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...o_save_rare_Studland_seahorse_habitat/?ref=la
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...o_save_rare_Studland_seahorse_habitat/?ref=la
Studland Seahorse Survey
- Thread starter tom52
- Start date
Robin
Well-known member
I just saw it in the paper version. The usual slanted PR from a press handout, printed as usual of course without any question or challenge by the Echo. Seemingly innocuous questions in a survey (which for sure would not have been a proper scientific sample), questions most of us might have innocently answered as they report. I very much doubt Julie Hatcher, Marine Awareness Officer, AKA close 'friend' of one ST44, he of the frequently documented screaming abuse, would dare to ask the questions again but this time with a proper summary of ALL the facts put forward and not just the cuddly ones.
This pseudo polling of people with what I'm sure were leading or loaded questions, by non-independent people is typical.
This pseudo polling of people with what I'm sure were leading or loaded questions, by non-independent people is typical.
Tranona
Well-known member
Oh, Robin you cynic - could not have put it better myself. If you ask questions that are biased towards what you want to hear - that is what you get. Lecture number 1 on how to design questionnaires!
DAKA
Well-known member
Although I accept your concerns, I didn't read it as being unreasonable and I would happily endorse the overall sentiment qualified with a no anchoring zone being no more than 3 to 4 times the size in the same area.
I pay voluntary berthing fees when visiting Newton creek and I am always pleased to find a vacant mooring buoy, adequate visitor buoys in Studland bay would enhance the location.
In my personal opinion (after diving the no anchoring zone and the anchoring zone) banning anchors altogether would damage the seahorse environment however my opinion isnt going to alter anything, the scuttlebutt train is rumbling along back and forth on the same old track and no one is taking time to listen or take note of the wider audience.
We might know more but the ignorant majority are more important, get used to it and have a go at getting the public furious about the wider money wasting schemes that should be on hold until we dig ourselves out of recession.
There are plenty of examples where these money wasting schemes have done far more harm than good.
I pay voluntary berthing fees when visiting Newton creek and I am always pleased to find a vacant mooring buoy, adequate visitor buoys in Studland bay would enhance the location.
In my personal opinion (after diving the no anchoring zone and the anchoring zone) banning anchors altogether would damage the seahorse environment however my opinion isnt going to alter anything, the scuttlebutt train is rumbling along back and forth on the same old track and no one is taking time to listen or take note of the wider audience.
We might know more but the ignorant majority are more important, get used to it and have a go at getting the public furious about the wider money wasting schemes that should be on hold until we dig ourselves out of recession.
There are plenty of examples where these money wasting schemes have done far more harm than good.
Robin
Well-known member
The article (for which read press release cut and pasted) was aimed at Joe Public and IMO gives the impression that all reasonable people share the same views, as supposedly proven by a survey. A bit like cosmetic manufacturers adverts.
As for a reasonable number of mooring buoys, what does that mean? The locals in Studland have some 50 permanent moorings I think which may or may not include the few laid by the Bankes Arms Pub. How many visitor moorings would you suggest, to cover the wide range in numbers of boats, from zero to say 300, depending on wind direction, season, weather conditions, weekend or weekday etc etc? What form would such moorings take, since the claim is that heavy moorings do lots of damage? ECO moorings, unproven, costly and uninsured/uninsurable? Who would maintain these moorings and pay for the maintenance? Ah yes, of course a charge would be made, how much then, and that will have to include the wages cost of somebody to collect the charge. Oh and then the collector will only have money to collect on days when the moorings are used, what about all the other days, actually the majority of days when the bay is empty? Oh look, today there are only 3 boats, lets see how much per mooring fee to cover Mr Collector and his launch and it's maintenance and insurance etc just to collect those three fees today?
This is not like Newtown Creek at all, because this is an open water anchorage and a passage anchorage and has been since Noah. Newtown is a very nice spot to wile away a day or two, one that is sheltered in all conditions but it provides no more than that.
As for a reasonable number of mooring buoys, what does that mean? The locals in Studland have some 50 permanent moorings I think which may or may not include the few laid by the Bankes Arms Pub. How many visitor moorings would you suggest, to cover the wide range in numbers of boats, from zero to say 300, depending on wind direction, season, weather conditions, weekend or weekday etc etc? What form would such moorings take, since the claim is that heavy moorings do lots of damage? ECO moorings, unproven, costly and uninsured/uninsurable? Who would maintain these moorings and pay for the maintenance? Ah yes, of course a charge would be made, how much then, and that will have to include the wages cost of somebody to collect the charge. Oh and then the collector will only have money to collect on days when the moorings are used, what about all the other days, actually the majority of days when the bay is empty? Oh look, today there are only 3 boats, lets see how much per mooring fee to cover Mr Collector and his launch and it's maintenance and insurance etc just to collect those three fees today?
This is not like Newtown Creek at all, because this is an open water anchorage and a passage anchorage and has been since Noah. Newtown is a very nice spot to wile away a day or two, one that is sheltered in all conditions but it provides no more than that.
oldharry
Well-known member
Well it makes a chnge to see the Echo - and come to that DWT - not actually attacking the boating community in Studland. On the other hand it does perpetuate the basic idea that boats ARE damaging the Bay - which is still highly questionable, and I have contacted the reporter responsible pointing this out.
The suggestion from Natural England earlier this year was that 30 EFMs in addtion to the 51 private moorings recorded by Crown Estates (only 39 of which are currently in use) would be 'enought to 'take the pressure off the eelgrass beds'. Some conservationists (including Seahorse Trust) would rather see 50. BORG (in the from of our good friend Seajet) researched this, and on his figures, 50 EFMS would cost £110k, including the special hydraulic machine needed to wind them in to the seabed, just fro the equipment. So for this to work someone has to put up around £150k investment... with highly uncertain returns. Any takers?
Other options being discussed at present range from a purely 'educational' voluntary scheme where we are told where the eelgrass is, and asked not to anchor in it, through to extensions of the VNAZ, or the ultimate anchoring prohibition. We need to be ready to fight this one during the public consulatition period next year, as there is still little evidence of any actual long term damage having occurred over 50 + years of continual use as the UKs most heavily used sea anchorage.
The suggestion from Natural England earlier this year was that 30 EFMs in addtion to the 51 private moorings recorded by Crown Estates (only 39 of which are currently in use) would be 'enought to 'take the pressure off the eelgrass beds'. Some conservationists (including Seahorse Trust) would rather see 50. BORG (in the from of our good friend Seajet) researched this, and on his figures, 50 EFMS would cost £110k, including the special hydraulic machine needed to wind them in to the seabed, just fro the equipment. So for this to work someone has to put up around £150k investment... with highly uncertain returns. Any takers?
Other options being discussed at present range from a purely 'educational' voluntary scheme where we are told where the eelgrass is, and asked not to anchor in it, through to extensions of the VNAZ, or the ultimate anchoring prohibition. We need to be ready to fight this one during the public consulatition period next year, as there is still little evidence of any actual long term damage having occurred over 50 + years of continual use as the UKs most heavily used sea anchorage.
Boathook
Well-known member
I would like to see the questions. Any one able to get a copy?
maxi77
Active member
The only trouble is that when you get a government sponsored organisation or local authority to organise this the cost will escalate by a factor of several hundred percent.
Rustyknight
Well-known member
jhr
Well-known member
I very much doubt that anyone's going to be allowed to see the questions - just a few carefully selected answers.
Still, should be good news for anybody with a photographic business, selling pictures of seahorses taken in Studland - if such a theoretical person happens to exist. Even better if they (still theoretically) happened to have a connection with somebody working for the DWT who could ensure that things were "on-message" .............
grumpy_o_g
Well-known member
Having looked at those questions (which seem eminently reasonable) I cannot see how the reporter managed to get to "THE majority of visiting boat owners have given the green light to protection for Studland Bay’s stunning wildlife, according to a new study." unless a majority happened to say it in a free format answer this as this wasn't even asked?
That's right & goodness knows how many jobsworths will come out the woodwork.
I can see an opportunity for another Government training scheme here,anybody want a seahorse guardian?
Talbot
Active member
If you look at the facts dispassionatly, and analyse the results which shows clearly that the area of eel grass has grown over the years, and then compare that to the increased use of studland by boats that anchor, it is quite clear that the improvement in the precious seahorses is due to the increased anchorage pattern rather than despite it.
Therefore the seahorse trust should be campaigning for leisure craft to anchor more frequently.
Therefore the seahorse trust should be campaigning for leisure craft to anchor more frequently.
CreakyDecks
New member
If you look at the facts dispassionatly, and analyse the results which shows clearly that the area of eel grass has grown over the years, and then compare that to the increased use of studland by boats that anchor, it is quite clear that the improvement in the precious seahorses is due to the increased anchorage pattern rather than despite it.
Therefore the seahorse trust should be campaigning for leisure craft to anchor more frequently.
Probably said tongue in cheek but maybe actually true. It's difficult to drag a trawl net through a load of anchored boats!
oldharry
Well-known member
If you look at the facts dispassionatly, and analyse the results which shows clearly that the area of eel grass has grown over the years, and then compare that to the increased use of studland by boats that anchor, it is quite clear that the improvement in the precious seahorses is due to the increased anchorage pattern rather than despite it.
Therefore the seahorse trust should be campaigning for leisure craft to anchor more frequently.
Ah yes, but the Studland eelgrass has not developed in the way other beds which are not anchored in have. Therefore it is 'wrong' and steps must be taken to put it 'right', you see?
You dont see? Neither do I, but that is their argument. The only scientific study concludes so far there is a risk of long term damage if anchoring continues because of the 'slow recovery' observed at Studland. This denies the fact that this activity has been going on for at least 50 years, and the eelgrass beds together with associated wildlife have survived intact. Many observers -including local residents - report an increase i n the eelgrass cover over that time. That certainly has been my own observation since I first went their in 1975. However the scientist says that he has compared aerial fphotos of 1975 and now, and the bed has 'if anything' decreased in size. In other words a marginal decline over 36 years.
All this completely contradicts the 'wholesale destruction of environment by boaters' theory being sold by BBC et al, for which there is no scientific or research basis whatsoever.
The funndamental issue is to what extent the current ecological state of the bay which inevitably has been affected by ongoing human use to some degree, is a ) 'sustainable' wtithin the meaning Sched 4 of the Rio Treaty 1992, or b) to what extent the environment HAS been modified, and how dependent is the 'unique' nature of the bay on that modified environment. Locals are putting up a pretty strong case to evidence that the bay is as it is because of what it is, and interference by conservation effort could actually destroy that balance.
This of course is strenuously denied by conservationists, who insist it should be allowe to 'recover' to a 'natural' state and allowed to develop freely and that removing human influence will naturaly enhance the Bay's wild life. Just like removing grazing sheep from downland allows it to return to its former woody scrubland state - killing off all the rare flowers and insect life that depends on it.
