Studland Seahorses, Studland Parish Council comments

Welcome to the forums. You will find that people here are ready to listen if engaged with, and not preached at. Certainly nobody here would want to be responsible for wiping out a species. That said, the evidence as presented to us has failed to convince a large number of people. Perhaps you could answer a few questions to help understand the situation.


You mention the anecdotal evidence of eelgrass beds spreading.

If this could be proven, what conculsions, if any, do you think could be drawn from that?

If the seahorses have been there 50 years then it is fair to say that the quantity of anchoring in Studland will have increased.
But if they prove to have been there for the lesser period of 15 years, then the anchoring would not have changed much in that period.
What conculsions could you draw from each scenario?
 
My, what an arrogant man you are.

Your statement: [ QUOTE ]
and the evidence we have shown and proven is that anchoring is damaging the site FACT !!!. This is a no discussion statement

[/ QUOTE ] coupled with [ QUOTE ]
some say the seagrass has only been there for 10 to 15 years (which means if there was no seagrass there would have been no Seahorses. Others states it has always been there and the length of time 50 years

[/ QUOTE ] The fact the seahorse population is "thriving" and the eelgrass, by your own admission above is spreading, is all the proof I need that the 'damage' caused by anchoring over many decades has not restricted the spread of the eelgrass in Studland Bay, so I cannot see what your problem is.

I think this is the problem most posters have with Steve Trewhella and probably you now. You cannot accept that despite decades of anchoring in the bay the evidence is that the eelgrass has significantly increased, not shrunk.

Also, Steve Trewhella harps on about the damage the fixed moorings have done to the seabed, but ignores that this damage is localised to the area the chain can scour. It does not spread from that area unless the mooring is moved, but it is presented as a growing problem. The chains are not organic, they can't grow so the damage will never occur out side that small area.

A personal opinion, but I think you are empire builders out for you own self aggrandisement. (This is a no discussion statement ) /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to put one fact on the table here, according to Crown Estates who own the Seabed not one mooring at Studland has planning permission; they are all illegal !!!! They do not pay for them (bear that in mind next time you get your mooring fee) because they are illegal they are not insured and visiting boats are mooring up to them all the time, think of the consequences of that !!!!
If as we proposed the EFM's had been put in (even treble the number) all visiting boats could have moored up safely and secure in the knowledge they were insured and if we had stopped anchoring then the answer would have been solved, the local businesses would have thrived, the seagrass would not be damaged, the reseachers could have got on with there work and the Seahorses would get the protection they legally have in law. A happy result for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which shows I'm afraid your lack of knowledge of the 'other side'. Personally I don't care about the moorings and indeed can see why these could damage areas if they were left in place year round. None of the visitor moorings are charged for and no mooring owner is ever liable for any damage to a boat on them.

Anchoring is an entirely different matter. There is no way anyone is going to install enough free to use EFMs to cater for the number of boats wanting to anchor as they have done for many many years. That is a realistic statement not wishful thinking or a throwaway answer to give to people who don't know enough to question it.

[ QUOTE ]
You need to ask Natural England, Crown Estates and some of the locals as to why we now have to endure a lengthy very costly (£50 K) survey funded by NE and CE (being done by a commercial company) rather than sort the problem out straight away????

[/ QUOTE ]

Because quite simply they want real evidence not just statements from you?

[ QUOTE ]
If we have not reached the tipping point on planet Earth we are damm well near it and when we do there will be nothing and I really do mean nothing that can save the human race, so every little bit of preservation we can all do is vital, so if you want to keep enjoying Studland support us (no we do not have a formal membership scheme yet but you can support us by adopting seahorses or make a monthly donation to our work by standing order, check out the website)


[/ QUOTE ]

Well it is nice to know that you are our self appointed gaurdian of the human race as well as of seahorses.


Sorry But I will await the independent survey results.

And I still have severe reservations about what still very much appears to be a one man run operation that has somehow gained charity status and lottery funding. Everyone else appears to be mere volunteers except for the now Project Officer ST44.
 
[ QUOTE ]
?? Wouldn't Prawn Nets do more damage than anchors from yachts ?

[/ QUOTE ]That's exactly what the Crown Estates statement speculates. They suggest that the presence of the fixed moorings may have stopped dredging and trawling operations within the bay, and that this may be why the seagrass area has been increasing.
 
I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss some of the issues with you, I have always supported the survey and would quote from the Dorset Wildlife Trust Site,

"Safeguarding the Seahorses

After much discussion with the wide variety of groups and individuals with an interest in Studland, a meeting held at Dorset Wildlife Trust agreed a plan of action to safeguard the future of seahorses at Studland.

This involves setting up a trial no-anchoring zone in the seagrass meadow, which will allow a properly controlled scientific study of the impact of anchoring on the seagrass; the trial replacement of a number of the permanent moorings with "eco-friendly" moorings (which don't scour the seabed around the mooring anchor) and the development of an education and awareness programme to highlight the issues and promote "seahorse-friendly" behaviour among visitors."

DWT

I have no problem with this statement, but I do have problems with calls for complete anchoring bans which are not in my view shown necessary by the evidence we have at present. Whilst I regret the tone of some of the postings on here I can understand the anger caused by such demands.

I feel that you and Steve and are doing your cause considerable harm by not welcoming the survey and waiting for its results whilst promoting your aims, instead of pursuing what appears to be a stridently anti boat campaign.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Neil,

I'd welcome a comment about why you think "the most important breeding site for seahorses in Europe" became and remained such, when there is a long history of boats anchoring on the site.

Prima facie, it would seem that anchoring there (mostly at weekends, mostly during the summer months) may be playing a part in helping the seahorse population succeed, rather than adversely impacting it. It may well be that anchors, seahorses and eelgrass have a symbiotic relationship.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good post and essentially expresses how many boaters feel about the issue. If the seahorses are thriving in this area, and the area is subject to the effects of anchoring, then are you absolutely sure that there is no chance that there is a symbiotic relationship? Can you provide any evidence, from the other sites that you've studied, to show that the situation will definately improve if anchoring is stopped?

I also think that sometimes the only evidence that will be available to you will be anecdotal, but this evidence should be weighed against the character of the person providing the anecdote, and not ruled out entirely as unreliable as is often the case when scientific studies are undertaken solely to gather empirical evidence. An evidential thread needs to be built that may include, as part of the story, anecdotal accounts of seahorse numbers, recent changes in the local fishermen's habits etc etc.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Dear all,...........Just another quick point about Steve Trewhella ST44, Steve is the trust Project Officer for the site and a good friend, he is also one of the best underwater photographers and researchers this country has, his power of observation is superb and he has a questioning mind vital to this sort of work, so when says something it really does pay to listen to him as he like me has the environment in mind not just for now but for our children and their grand children, something every member of this forum should be concerned about. If we have not reached the tipping point on planet Earth we are damm well near it and when we do there will be nothing and I really do mean nothing that can save the human race, so every little bit of preservation we can all do is vital, ........

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Dear - sorry Sir - but having suffered / witnessed and had to deal with consequences in a number of locations I have worked in of various organisations that put themselves up as "saviours of the Human Race and Environment / Planet" the statement by you has just blown it away for me.
Also that ST44 has not created a dialogue to be listened to, he has been arrogant and disregarded others questioning or opinions.

I believe in conservation, but also am intelligent enough to realise that evolution plays a large part in planets life. Many organisations want to save many species, environments, life and that is commendable, but it has to be done with earths evolution in mind. Mankind is a species that has a terrible record when it comes to environment, but it also has a terrible record when it comes to various actions to protect environment. A good example being the action to prevent water run off from a chemical plant on Mississippi River ... team of Greens tried blanking the spill pipe. Luckily for them and the surrounding evironment they did not succeed. If they had the subsequent backing up of spill water would have caused significant damage to the plant and resulted in a massive environmental disaster far in excess of any imaginable. Misguided do-gooders.

I dare say you are convinced of your correctness in your 'fight', but so are many others whose actions have caused damage to the very things they were trying to protect. You cannot push people to accept your view without proper independent and factual data. To ask why should money be spent on a survey is to say - WE are right - all else are wrong. That is not the way. Proper independent assessment is the way forward. Then a proper decision can be made. Probably creating a minority pressure group to overturn whatever decision made - but that's peoples choice.

I'm sorry - but I am fed up with small groups trying to decide for the world what is best for them.

Now of course will come the age-old comment - If not for the small groups fighting x, y and z .... w wouldn't be here etc.

Final comment for a "World-renowned" person as you claim to be - I find your post poorly written and tending to argumentative instead of constructive. You started well, but then let loose. I can also quote various famous names but makes no difference to my standing - I'm still who I am and what I am. I do not stand in awe of X who knows famous person Y.


Proper study, survey, independent ..... that is what is needed.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
?? Wouldn't Prawn Nets do more damage than anchors from yachts ?

[/ QUOTE ]That's exactly what the Crown Estates statement speculates. They suggest that the presence of the fixed moorings may have stopped dredging and trawling operations within the bay, and that this may be why the seagrass area has been increasing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems pretty well logical to me .... but then again I'm not an Evironmental Expert.
 
To give you a point of reference. I have only been to Studland bay once, about 20 years ago. It was my first real outing on a motorboat so was a special occasion. I remember vividly diving and snorkeling for hours in the bay and the eel grass at that time was there but mostly clumps and certainly not wide spread. At least where we were anchored anyway which was fairly close to shore.

Hope that helps.

Kevin.
 
Well done Neil! At last a factual, reasoned, and professional statement of the situation at Studland. Can I suggest Steve gets on with his excellent underwater photography, and leaves the PR side to you - please!

When I first started to use the Studland anchorage in 1976 the grass beds were well established, and there were large areas in the south western corner of the bay in which anchoring was difficult because of the extensive beds. I cannot quantify the area concerned as I was then only concerned to try to find a place where there was none to ensure my anchor stayed put! But I can defintely confirm from my first hand observation that the Grass beds were present in considerable acreage by 1976.

Because of this, I think it quite likely that Hippocampus may have been present then and the claim that it was found as long as 50 years ago seems reasonable to me.

However, closer inshore (mine was then quite a small boat) there were plenty of gaps in the beds and the grass in water depths of up to about 2m at LW was quite patchy. Further out - where I ideally wanted to anchor the beds had very few gaps. This was in the zone of around 2 - 5 m depth.

In the last ten years the grass beds have extended inshore very considerably, and when I was there a couple of weeks ago, the edge of the beds had encroached inshore to a mean depth of less than 1m, and there were very few gaps. Indeed I had great difficulty finding anywhere at all clear of grass in which to anchor in the inshore area. Mindful not only of this debate, and the need to ensure my anchor would set properly and not foul the weed beds, I in fact spent quite a long time trying to find a clear area of sand.

With this in mind I am very puzzled why our activities are seen as such a threat to weed beds that are apparently growing and spreading so vigorously.

Secondly, as you are aware, Studland has been a major leisure anchorage for a great many years - whenever it was Hippocampus arrived, he is presumably finding the conditions in the bay favourable enough to be proliferating and Steve T confirms this with his sightings. This strikes me as odd if the presence of large numbers of boats is actually detrimental to the Hippocampus population. If it arrived more recently it has clearly settled in in spite of our presence and according to Steves reports appears to be thriving.

I would be glad of your expert opinion on these points.
 
Just wondering if eel grass is a sea horses first consideration for selecting an area or is it the availability of food as the dominant factor?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Without doubt based on my experience and with working with other researchers around the world Studland is the most important breeding site for Seahorses in Europe

[/ QUOTE ]
If that is correct, why would you want to do anything to alter the most important breeding site for seahorses - such as changing the pattern of anchoring? Wouldn't any change potentially riskhaving a (negative) impact on the conditions for breeding?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top