Studland Seahorses - Seagrass Survey

[ QUOTE ]
I think we have to deal with facts, not theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree (and my earlier post that you said I was wrong was only a hypothesis - to be proved or disproved) - and it is the facts we're hoping will be shown - but what we have is a apparently biased study and a group which apparently wants to prevent anchoring in the area without any scientific evidence for the effects that will have.

There is a general assumption that in order to maintain a "natural environment" we must exclude human activity completely - however, nature is exceedingly versatile and will take advantage of all but the worst human made environments - we have seen no proof that anchoring causes long term damage to the areas.


We keep going on about the eelgrass and the seahorses in studland - but there must be seahorses in other areas - are these other areas anchorages too? If so, we start to see some correlation between anchoring and seahorse population, if not, then that adds weight to the restricted anchorage/mooring argument.

I did briefly read that eelgrass likes clear, low nitreogen water (low nitreogen = no algea = clear water) ... so clearly eelgrass requires good sunlight to survive. So, question to you is - how far out does the current eelgrass go - into what depth of water? Perhaps there is an option to restrict anchoring by depth of water, thereby naturally keeping them out of the eelgrass areas.

We keep on asking - but I'll ask again - do you have any photos of the damage caused by anchoring? This is something that we don't usually see, so will be of general interest. If you can't or don't know how to post photos then please let us know and we can arrange it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
... yes we do need more MPA's .
We cannot just keep on trashing the marine life around the british isles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Less emotive terminology and more evidence might help.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have spent more time in the water with wild seahorses than anyone else in the UK.

[/ QUOTE ]

You appear to be claiming specific knowledge in this area. Can you give us an idea in what capacity you are involved.

To me, with no detailed knowledge of Seahorses and Eelgrass, I am just looking at the tests being undertaken and realise from a scientific point of view it is a flawed test as there is no control.
 
There are huge amounts of data on anchor and mooring impact from all over the world.
They are very strict in the USA.
I am happy to post some pics, but can't work out how to do it.
 
I am an underwater photographer and conservationist.
I have been diving the site for 20yrs.
I photographed the first pregnant seahorse down there 4yrs ago.
Since then I have seen nearly 50 seahorses, both species.
And spent in excess of 50hrs in the water with them.
Yesterday I photographed the first courting pair of spiny seahorses ever seen in the UK.
There is plenty of science involved in this project, side scan ect.
Nobody will listen to us if its not done correctly.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I am an underwater photographer and conservationist.
I have been diving the site for 20yrs.
I photographed the first pregnant seahorse down there 4yrs ago.
Since then I have seen nearly 50 seahorses, both species.
And spent in excess of 50hrs in the water with them.
Yesterday I photographed the first courting pair of spiny seahorses ever seen in the UK.
There is plenty of science involved in this project, side scan ect.
Nobody will listen to us if its not done correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an above water photographer and a salior.
I have been anchoring in Studland since 1970
Since then I have seen many thousands of boats anchoring in Studland
I have spent many hours in the waters of Studland both on the surface and below
I have seen many courting couples in the area since 1970 but never photographed them. Some are same sex too I believe.
As you say, nobody will listen unless things are done properly.

Two sides to every coin?
 
[ QUOTE ]
There is plenty of science involved in this project, side scan ect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sidescan is a technology, not a principle of scientific research.

I'm not a scientist, but nor do I anchor in Studland bay. I'm interested in conservation. I would like some unbiased answers on the nature of the survey and whether the survey is based on sound scientific research principles.

It seems very much from your posts that you have a theory that anchoring is contrary to Seahorse welfare and you want to prove this.
Yet it seems, from your posts, there are more seahorses now than ever before.
Could it be that the increase in seahorses is related to the higher temperatures and they are migrating from more southerly climes?

In the survey will you be making a similar study of seahorses in the non-buoyed area, where anchoring is allowed?
Will both areas be surveyed before the buoys are laid?
How will seahorse counting be performed? On how many days will counts be made and over what period?
Will both sites be survey on the same day?

If you are right in your theory, the use of a contol, such as the unbuoyed area would show a migration from one to the other.
 
Thanks to ST44 for the following pictures to which he retains the copyright too.
Mesg from ST44
[ QUOTE ]
Here are some low res pics of anchor and mooring damage at studland.
They must not be used elsewere or copied.
As you can see on the mooring pics , the eelgrass has been swept away by the chain , some of these scars are 50ft across.
Nearly 40 moorings all with damaged area's aound them, some worse than others.
We are mapping and recording these area's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anchor in Eelgrass
anchor_eelgrass43.jpg


Anchor Hole
anchor_hole3.jpg


Bankes Mooring1
bankes_mooring1a.jpg


Bankes Mooring2
bankes_mooring_21a.jpg


Eelgrass Damage
eel_grass_damage1.jpg


Mooring FF
mooring_ff.jpg


Steve Anchor Scar
steve_anchor_scar_5.jpg
 
Excellent pics I think - they quite clearly show the damage made by chain dragging over the seabed ...
Do I take it these were taken in about 2m of water?

What is the eelgrass like further out - would it be sensible to request boats to anchor further out if there is less seagrass out there?
 
Any chance you could resize those pics!

Two comments:-

1) The greatest damage to the eel grass is seen by the scouring action of the PERMANENT moorings. There could well be an argument that anchoring by comparison is far less damaging since it is done on much more limited occasions with long periods of very low activity. We all anchor as far as possible on areas of clean sand, dropping anchor in weed is never a good idea.

2) Anyone using those Bankes Arms moorings in preference to their own tackle needs their head examining given the state of some of that chain!
 
I don't claim any inside knowledge regarding the survey and if I am wrong am happy to be put right, but I think the intention of the Crown estates survey is not to find the number of seahorses declining or otherwise but whether anchoring damages the Eel grass which is the natural habitat of the sea horse. There is a different survey by the Sea Horse Trust tagging the sea horses.

It is interesting that both opposing POVs are unhappy with the Crown Estates survey, but it seems to me this is independent and should at the very least give some indication of whether it would be useful to restrict anchoring and install eel grass friendly moorings or not. I cannot see a complete ban on anchoring in the bay ever being workable but if there are to be restrictions lets make sure it is for the right reasons.

One point I would make, I found it a bad idea to try to anchor on the eel grass, It is hard to dig the anchor in and you as likely to tangle it in the weed thinking you are secure until the tide turns, Anecdotally it was lot easier to find nice clean patches of sand in the past than it is now.
 
The Crown Estates document looks quite contradictory. They quote anecdotal evidence that the eel grass coverage has improved over the last few years, and speculate that this is because the permanent moorings prevent damage by towed fishing gear.

They then introduce the planned survey in a seriously prejudiced manner, explaining the the purpose of the survey is to monitor the recovery in the no-anchor zone, and the decline in other areas.

A proper scientific survey would collect data first, and only then determine whether there was any recovery or decline, and whether their findings were even any different between the areas at all.
 
What if there were sea horses in every anchorage in the country should anchoring be banned completely in that case?

Why should 50 sea horses take priority over the interests of thousands of yachtsmen? Seem to be a crazy set of priorities since there is no evidence of their decline. Seahorses need no further protection they are doing fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top