Studland Seahorses - Seagrass Survey

I am being accused of wild speculation ??
this is nonsence.
Eelgrass dies when it is ripped up.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
This is why the survey is being carried out.
This sort of thing is why we are pushing for studland to become a marine reserve.
 
Hi Steve,

Thanks for calmly answering with the facts in the face of provocation.

Do you have any comments on why that particular area was chosen as the no anchoring zone? As others have said, it is too shallow for most boats to anchor in, so will be little changed.

To the casual observer it seems that it has other factors which make it very different to the rest of the bay: it is shallower, and being tucked away in the corner, and is therefore less subjected to wave action and tidal currents. It seems too neat to have been randomly chosen. Do the seahorses already prefer that area?

Thank you for taking the time to answer.
 
It was my suggestion that the moorings should be replaced with eelgrass friendly ones , at the start of this project.
And maybe even put some more down to accommodate the rest of the boats.
We asked crown estate to trial some seaflex moorings as part of the survey. They have said that it is to costly ??
I would like to see anchoring stopped or at least limited, it does do a great deal of damage.
But I have never asked for boats to be banned from the area.
This could work in everyones favour , if only the land owners would take some responsibility.
They have protected species living on their land, they have no choice but to look into this problem.
 
Sorry daka, clicked the wrong button.
It still applies to the person who did say it.
People are very brave hiding behind a false name online.
As for spelling mistakes ? take a look at some of the other posts.
 
I am not involved with the survey for this reason.
The VNZ should have been placed in an area which already has lots of anchor damage on it, how can you see if it grows back if there was none to start with ??
This is all part of crown estates token gesture of a survey.
We will be looking at this area today, if there is little or no anchor damage , questions will be asked.
This is nearly 50k of public money being spent.
Crown don't want there to be a problem down there, the knock on for other eelgrass beds with seahorses living on them could be huge.
This all comes down to politics and funding, hence the reason many conservation orgs who should be helping are lying low.
 
They are considered a rare and vulnerable species in the uk.
We know little or nothing about them.
A lot of thought goes into this ,google wildlife and countryside act, for more info.
 
[ QUOTE ]
We have no idea if the seahorse population will change in relation to the extent of the eelgrass beds, there is little base line data on these animals.
Our concern is that it will and precautions need to be taken.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you'll find most ppl will be concerned with the outcome of this - the majority of us do not wish to destroy the natural environment around us - however, we are also "natural" ... and we need to be able to enjoy the environment we're living in.

I think you'll find the objections are to the conclusions being decided before the analysis has been done. As you state - "we have no idea if the seahorse population will change" - fine - good - do the survey, I agree with the cordoning off of an area (although if you wish to restrict anchoring then you should cordon off some of the anchoring grounds!!) and welcome the data.

Here's another option for you - whilst anchoring does destroy the existing eel grass, it effectively ploughs the seabed allowing new eel grass to take root. Therefore preventing all anchoring will reduce the volume of eelgrass whilst any significant increase will destroy too much. In order to control this, areas should be "set aside" each season allowing the eelgrass to establish itself and seed - obviously this isn't fact, it is another possibility.

It would be really helpful if you could post some photos of the seabed in question and (in your opinion) what is anchor damage and what isn't ...
 
Hi Steve.

I'd like to echo the post praising your response to the name callers. Pay them no mind. Name calling during a discussion is usually a sign of low intelligence.

Re: anchor furrows helping regeneration. I have not studied eel grass, but I do recall studying marrom grass growth on sand dunes on land. The marrom grass stabilises the sand, and when uprooted, the wind would then erode the sand, causing 'blow outs' and large scale damage. It takes a great deal of work, IIRC, to help the damaged areas to recover.

Is this similar underwater, to your knowledge, or a red herring?
 
Thank you for your reply.

However, it still boils down to speculation about what might or might not be happening. If the concern is about the robustness of the Eel Grass beds, then observation suggests that they are in pretty good shape. There is more coverage now than when I first anchored there 35 years ago.

Surely if the concern is about the extent of the beds then monitoring the critical area where yachts anchor (which is not the proposed area) is sensible. As I said, there is no dispute that anchors pull up the roots. However, there seems to be no evidence that this has an effect on the overall size or health of the beds.

The 50k would be better spent understanding what is actually going on than the current proposal.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Re: anchor furrows helping regeneration. I have not studied eel grass, but I do recall studying marrom grass growth on sand dunes on land. The marrom grass stabilises the sand, and when uprooted, the wind would then erode the sand, causing 'blow outs' and large scale damage. It takes a great deal of work, IIRC, to help the damaged areas to recover.

Is this similar underwater, to your knowledge, or a red herring?

[/ QUOTE ]
No knowledge (ala the decline in seahorse population in a recognised anchorage) - just other option that could be considered when judging the effect of anchoring on eelgrass ...

The problem is, a lot of "studies" do not go deep enough into the cause of events and just scratch the surface. This study has the potential to establish quite a number of facts and if conducted in an un-biased fashion will be very valuable to both sides in the protection of an endagered species. The boaters concern is that the result has already been set and all that will occur is a study that backs it up.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry daka, clicked the wrong button.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am pleased about that as I think you and I agree on more than you realize.

The point of my post I think has been overlooked by you.

The area chosen is in an area where very few boats are able to anchor as it is too shallow.

While it is good news to me that I can anchor where I normally go I cant help but think an area of 100m x 100m in the centre of a popular anchoring spot would have been a more useful research area.

My other point was a few mooring poles makes good sense for all concerned and would cost less than the study that is going to follow.

I didnt dive last year so the next bit of information maybe 12 months out of date, but for the last 4 years there has been a 20-30m fishing net lodged under two rocks just outside the swimming area, it is central to the outer swimming markers.

It has killed thousands of fish and could take a swimmers/divers life if not removed.

I am pleased I have at last found someone who is hopefully equipped to cut it away.
If you would like my tel no so I can give you a better description please pm me.

I was told it had been lost during a fish survey in the bay.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Re: anchor furrows helping regeneration. I have not studied eel grass, but I do recall studying marrom grass growth on sand dunes on land. The marrom grass stabilises the sand, and when uprooted, the wind would then erode the sand, causing 'blow outs' and large scale damage. It takes a great deal of work, IIRC, to help the damaged areas to recover.

Is this similar underwater, to your knowledge, or a red herring?

[/ QUOTE ]
No knowledge (ala the decline in seahorse population in a recognised anchorage) - just other option that could be considered when judging the effect of anchoring on eelgrass ...

The problem is, a lot of "studies" do not go deep enough into the cause of events and just scratch the surface. This study has the potential to establish quite a number of facts and if conducted in an un-biased fashion will be very valuable to both sides in the protection of an endagered species. The boaters concern is that the result has already been set and all that will occur is a study that backs it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. In a very limited period of research it does seem that aerial photography is useful in eelgrass surveys. I'd have to say though that studying the area where the greatest concentration of yachts anchoring occured would be advisable.

Following this debate though, part of the problem seems to be the personalities, rather than the facts, absent or present.
 
[ QUOTE ]
There is more coverage now than when I first anchored there 35 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is true, then banning anchoring would be pointless.

That is the nub of my problem. Instead of conducting a pretty useless survey of a bit of seabed that very few people anchor on, a better use of the survey money would be used on researching the history of the site.

If there is more eelgrass there than 35 years ago, then it is pretty obvious that anchoring has a minimal, if not beneficial, impact on the the grass, which in turn supports the seahorses.

That part of the south coast was well documented during the war by aerial photography and proper scientific research would be using those photographs to observe the eelgrass growth. In conjunction, fishermen, divers, and locals should be extensively interviewed for their observations of the area over the years.
 
I'm with Daka, as i pointed out at the beginning of this discussion the area that has been selected is too shallow for the majority of vessels to anchor in, and as i previously commented is only really used by small vessels with small anchors and generally a short stay.

I spend a lot of time in the area when im working and often stop in the vacinity for lunch but will now anchor else where just to ease the load, so to speak.

Im sure none of us on here wish to kill off any of the indiginous species but by the same token dont want to be told by some faceless politician in Brussels (or wherever) that we cannot continue to enjoy an anchorage that has provided vessels with shelter for generations.

you stated you have pics of the damage could you please post them here for us to see ?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry daka, clicked the wrong button.
It still applies to the person who did say it.
People are very brave hiding behind a false name online.

[/ QUOTE ] That would be me then.

When you first posted on this forum, you shouted the odds about things that are, in reality, far from proven and made it clear that yachtsmen were the enemy, whatever they said, thought or did. I don't know why you should be suprised that this provoked a reaction.

People who know me (and there are a fair few on these Forums who do, so I'm not entirely anonymous) will tell you that I'm a mild-mannered person who enjoys a good discussion. What I am intolerant of is an aggressive "I-know-better-than-you" attitude so I'm afraid you pushed all the wrong buttons with me. You appear to be taking a more measured approch this time, which is all to the good. You'll be delighted to hear that I agree with you that the current proposal seems to me to be incapable of proving anything and that I'm alarmed at the prospect of any findings from it being used as the basis for a long term decision about how to manage the Studland anchorage.

I, too, have a long term interest in the area. I've been going there regularly since I was a child, both by land and sea and my grandfather built one of the first houses on Sandbanks Beach, before you needed to be a millionaire to do so. I'd hate to see the anchorage become ruined in the same way that the NT have destroyed the character of the Peninsular.

I shall now run for cover.
 
sorry but you are wrong if you think eelgrass will grow more if it is ploughed up, it just dies and washes up on the beach .
This problem has been looked all over the world.
As I said on one of the other posts, when a hole is left in the eelgrass bed it dosn't just grow back twice as thick a few weeks later.
I have been looking at scars for many years with no sign of any fresh grow back.
The problem being eelgrass cannot grow in fluid sand.
 
You've got it in one !!
Yes eelgrass is just like marrom grass, and often grows on the same part of coast line.
The eelgrass acts as a buffer, absorbing the energy of the waves, and binding the sand together.
Hence reducing coastal errosion.
There is much more to this than the seahorses.
Much of our eelgrass was lost in the 1930's , maybe because of pollution.
We need to look after what is left.
 
The main reason we want protection to be put in place at studland is because seahorses and thier habitat are supposed to be protected by law.
As a conservationist this has to be my only concern, I leave the money and politics to natural england.
Who I expect will roll over and have thier tummys tickled as soon as it starts getting nasty...as they do with the scallop fishermen who destroy the reefs.
Also it is hard to tell if the eelgrass is spreading while looking over the side of a boat, we see many large holes on the seabed that fill up with loose algae, so arial photo's ect always look green= lots of eelgrass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top