Studland Seahorses - Seagrass Survey

I have little or no faith in the survey being carried out.
It is a token gesture, which I expect will prove nothing.
All we are asking for is that the wildlife and coutryside act can be enforced.
At the moment there is nothing at studland to say it is the largest breeding population of both species of native seahorse in the uk.
 
If you are correct, how do you explain the observed increase in the extent of Eel Grass in the bay?

Many of us long term users have observed this, although there is no survey to support it - presumably because it was never considered important.

You also say (presumably correctly because there is no other independent data) that seahorses are thriving and breeding despite the continuing anchoring and apparent damage to the roots.

So where is the problem? Why is there a need for "precautions" - against what?

I could understand concern if there was any evidence that a once thriving population is declining and that the cause was a decline in the habitat. However as the opposite seems to be the case there seems only to be a case for research and action that helps understand the relationships.
 
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just HOW does it prevent erosion whilst being on the sea bed not on dry land?

If so much eel grass was lost in the 1930's but has returned since, that could very well be because of greater numbers anchoring.

Nobody said that eel grass dislodged would re-plant in the same or another 'hole' but it may well establish a hold elsewhere. How else can you explain how the eel grass returned in the first place and has flourished?

Let's see some PROPER scientific evaluation here not speculation from either side with an end result already in mind beforehand.

The area selected for a trial really does seem nonsensical to me as it is not a place where anything bigger than a little motorboat could anchor.
 
I say again, we are not trying to ban boats.
Eelgrass friendly moorings could and should be installed.
Crown estate 'the land owners' have informed us that no permission was given for any of the moorings at south beach over 30 in all.
I wonder how much you guys have to cough up each year for yours ?
Makes you wonder in they are insured ?
 
Eelgrass reproduces asexually and sexually. Asexual reproduction occurs through growth and elongation of the rhizome and by formation of turions. Sexual reproduction occurs through seed formation, and begins with flowering in May and June. Eelgrass is monoecious and fertilization occurs by drifting pollen. Male and female flowers mature at different times on the same plant to prevent self-fertilization. Once fertilized the flowers develop into seed-bearing generative shoots that eventually break off and float to the surface. The shoots then release their seeds as they drift.

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/sav/key/eelgrass.asp
 
We have never said seahorses are thriving.
There is no baseline data to prove this.
There are seahorses breeding on the site.
And we are studying them as we speak.
The main reason so many have been found is due to effort based surveys, carried out by highly experienced divers within the seahorse trust.
The facts are , anchoring damages eelgrass, the seahorses habitat.
Seahorses and thier habitat are protected against damage by law.
This will still apply , even if the eelgrass is spreading.
 
Erosion can still happen underwater.
If the eelgrass goes , the beach will feel the full impact of winter storms.
The eelgrass hasn't returned , we only have a fraction of the eelgrass beds left.
I say again eelgrass cannot re grow once it has been torn up. it dies and washes up.
There are many papers and studies that prove this, maybe google seagrass damage, see what comes up.
 
But this comes back to the same question. Why is there a "problem" with eel grass? Where is the evidence that anchoring is causing the beds to decline? Why is there a need for "eel grass friendly" moorings rather than efficient flexible anchoring with a yacht's ground tackle?

Why do you think they "could and should be installed"?

It is irrelevant whether the current moorings have "permission" or not - and I think you will find the reason they are there is because the rights to the seabed are under dispute and the current position is that anyone is free to lay a mooring there.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I say again, we are not trying to ban boats.
Eelgrass friendly moorings could and should be installed.
Crown estate 'the land owners' have informed us that no permission was given for any of the moorings at south beach over 30 in all.
I wonder how much you guys have to cough up each year for yours ?
Makes you wonder in they are insured ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that with respect is just so much bollox it shows you have no understanding at all of the boating world.

None of us have moorings in Studland, there are a few put down by the Bankes Arms Pub for visitors and a few by local fisherman, some just for crab or lobster storage I think but anyway nothing to do with us whatsoever. NONE of these are permanent moorings as the bay is far too exposed.

As for laying eel grass friendly moorings that is cloud cuckoo land! To cover for the few hot summer weekends when there could be 300 would be anchorers would require a huge investment that would then be unused for 90% of the time. To lay just a few would mean anchoring continues in large numbers. I'm sure you aren't stupid enough to realise that this would be way too expensive an option to be remotely possible and you are really just looking for a total ban. Lets see, 300 moorings cost to lay then inspect annually recoverable from just a few summer weekends (plus a collector's wages) that would work out at what per boat per night? You know and we know that people will just move somewhere else like Swanage or inside the harbour which of course is what you and 40 or so seahorses want.
 
ST44

I think you will acknowledge that the Studland area is changing. The beach is only a fraction of the size it was only twenty years ago. I think like you that the study that is being conducted is a waste of time and will prove nothing. Perhaps that is a good thing because for us it will mean no need for change.

The problem I have is that how can you conduct a study when the goal posts are being moved in any event? As there are already sea horses present why change anything. To change anything could be your worse nightmare. Imagine that your well meaning ban on anchoring lead to a decline in the sea horse population, can you imagine how difficult it would be to get any legislation reversed. I can tell you this it won't happen.

If moorings are laid it will ruin the area for yachtsmen (they will not be free), it will ruin the area when the yachts are not there, do you want to look at 300+ buoys and lastly it might ruin the area for sea horses.

As a conservationist you you seek to ensure that there is no change to the environment. To prevent anchoring will lead to a change.

Let us assume that the removal of yachts does in fact lead to a seahorse population, what have you done You have not protected the existing seahorse population you have in fact created a new a greater population. You may see that as desirable but I do not believe that is the purpose of the act. The act is there to protect what is there now.

The act is not there to determine to advantage one users over another. Unless you can prove that anchoring is leading to a decline then there is no argument for change.
 
These are all questions that seastars survey should answer over the next two years.
They will monitor the anchor holes to see if the eelgrass recovers in a year.
If it dosn't natural england and crown should protect the area in some way .
As I say seahorses are protected and eelgrass is a B.A.P. habitat.
 
I never said you had moorings at studland...but I expect a lot of you have them elsewere, and have to pay.
And we are not talking about 300 boats comming a few days a year.
This is my local beach, I do see how many boats go there.
Cuckoo land ? maybe , but better for you guys than an M.P.A 'MARINE PROTECTED AREA' which is the next step.
The marine bill will go through soon, it would be nice to meed somewere in the middle.
 
Although I have no faith in the seastar survey, that dosn't mean we are sitting back waiting to be told something we already know.
There is other survey work underway.
I keep hearing about how seahorses might benefit from having hundreds of boats anchoring on them every weekend ?
Do apes benefit from having the rain forest chopped down ?
Animals rarely benefit from human disturbence, I would love to meet the man who could prove that one.
This is habitat loss , a habitat that is protected by law.
Just because seahorses live in studland bay dosn't mean they enjoy having boats anchoring .
 
[ QUOTE ]
I never said you had moorings at studland...but I expect a lot of you have them elsewere, and have to pay.
And we are not talking about 300 boats comming a few days a year.
This is my local beach, I do see how many boats go there.
Cuckoo land ? maybe , but better for you guys than an M.P.A 'MARINE PROTECTED AREA' which is the next step.
The marine bill will go through soon, it would be nice to meed somewere in the middle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talking of MPAs, there was a comment on Springwatch that we needed more MPAs. No reason given, just that we needed more. Unless there is a scientifically proven reason to have one then it is not needed. It will be interesting to see the data coming out of this survey...
 
[ QUOTE ]
Although I have no faith in the seastar survey, that dosn't mean we are sitting back waiting to be told something we already know.
There is other survey work underway.
I keep hearing about how seahorses might benefit from having hundreds of boats anchoring on them every weekend ?
Do apes benefit from having the rain forest chopped down ?
Animals rarely benefit from human disturbence, I would love to meet the man who could prove that one.
This is habitat loss , a habitat that is protected by law.
Just because seahorses live in studland bay dosn't mean they enjoy having boats anchoring .

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, theory... Seahorses eat small crustaceans, small crustaceans eat plant debris and very small animals living in or on the sea floor. Anchoring disturbs the sea floor making more food for crustaceans which in term makes more food for seahorses.

If the survey is just to work out if Anchor "damage" recovers in a year, then it may not be looking at the right data.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Eelgrass friendly moorings could and should be installed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Out of interest, how do you make an eelgrass-friendly mooring, or to put it another way how is it different from a normal mooring?

We have a swinging mooring of what I think of as the normal type, a sinker on the bottom with a length of heavy chain rising to the buoy on the surface. Most of the time some of that chain lies on the seabed, and gets dragged around as wind an tide change. Presumably you'd need to design something which keeps that chain off the seabed at all times.
 
only 0.001 percent of the uk's sea's have protection
A tiny no take zone on lundy island, yes we do need more MPA's .
We cannot just keep on trashing the marine life around the british isles.
If the seahorses lived on land they would put a fence around it and call it a nature reserve, as they do with other protected wildlife.
 
You are not the first person to think that.
But there is nothing to back that theory up.
I have spent more time in the water with wild seahorses than anyone else in the UK.
How do you work out that anchoring makes more food for seahorses ?
The mysids and fish fry that they feed on are there anyway.
These animals have also been studied in depth, we don't tend to find them hanging around anchors waiting for their next meal.
I think we have to deal with facts, not theory.
These crustaceans have more than enough food at this time of the year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top