Studland Seahorses

Moonshiners

Moonshiners

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 Feb 2008
Messages
590
Location
Solent-ish
www.speedandstrip.co.uk
As a Maritime scientist (not involved with this project), I hope now that it is being dealt with in a reasonable manor fellow boaters will offer there support in giving the reasearch a reasonable chance of being undertaken by steering clear of the vol' no anchor zone.

I know there was alot of crud floating around by the extreme end of those involved in the beginning, but I hope the neutral nature which is now being undertaken by the researchers will reflect in the way we use our locality.

I have no affiliation to anyone involved, my only aspect it to support a reasonable contribution to our local environment.

New Press Release:

STUDLAND BAY SEAGRASS PROJECT
9 October 2009
The Crown Estate and Natural England are today pleased to announce the implementation of a voluntary no-anchor zone in a small area of Studland Bay, Dorset.
The zone will be implemented as part of a wider study examining the possible impacts of recreational boat anchoring and moorings on seagrass health and associated marine life in Studland Bay. The zone will be marked by four yellow buoys on each corner as well as two yellow buoys in the centre of the zone. Boaters will be asked to avoid anchoring in this area, which will also be marked on Admiralty Charts.
The seagrass meadows in Studland Bay are the habitat of spiny and short-snouted seahorses, and it is the new protected species status of these seahorses under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, that has led to concerns over the possible detrimental impacts of recreational boating. However, this remains a matter of debate. One view is that seagrass is disturbed when anchors are retrieved from the seabed and the plant is unable to regenerate as a result of damage caused by mooring, and that both of these activities have a detrimental effect on seahorses. Another view is that extent of seagrass and presence of seahorses has increased considerably over the years despite recreational anchoring and moorings within the Bay. It is hoped that the study will provide scientific evidence to inform the debate and assist future management.
SeaStar Survey has been appointed to undertake the study and following implementation of the voluntary no-anchor zone a baseline survey will be undertaken. Monitoring will be carried out in order to assess what happens to seagrass when anchoring is controlled, compared to areas where anchoring continues. The study is being overseen by a steering group comprising representatives of The Crown Estate, Natural England, Royal Yachting Association and the Chair of the Studland Seagrass and Seahorse Study Group (SSSSG). The zone has been established in collaboration with the SSSSG which is an informal, non-statutory, focus and discussion group, formed of residents, local yacht clubs, environmental groups, and other interested parties. It is anticipated that the zone will be operational until at least autumn 2011.
 
I have no experience here, beyond sailing in the Studland area. It strikes me that if the area has been used as anchorage for many years, which I think it has, and seahorses are thriving here more than elsewhere, which I presume is the case, it would seem counter-intuitive to stop a traditional anchoring practice which is associated with a thriving eco-system. Is there not a possibility that it is the disturbance of the sea bed by anchors in the summer which makes it such a good seahorse area? Possibly through raising nutrients or breaking up a hard bed? The proposed voluntary no anchor zone might help to decide this, but as I say, it does seem counter-intuitive.
 
Last edited:
I think thats a bit worrying if they are going to study the effects of anchoring on seagrass. What they should be studying is how the voluntary NA zone affects the Seahorse population.

Measuring its effects on seagrass will be a forgone conclusion that anchoring damages seagrass We probably do not need a Quango to tell us that.
 
Given where the No-anchor zone is the study is likely to be inconclusive.

Since the location was announced some months ago I have been keeping an eye on who/what has been anchored within the zone every time I have visited Studland all summer. I haven't seen any vessel over about 6m anchored within the zone all year, so the study is likely to say "no effect".

Its a really badly set up study - and when I was last there 2 weeks ago the marker buoys still hadn't been set up yet.
 
Picture this scenario;

Monitoring the No Anchor zone shows that the seahorse & seagrass populations are declining. Does that then mean that they will conclude that the boats are damaging the environment? Or will it mean that people will be forced to anchor there in order to improve the environment?

Or, if the population is increasing - as it has everywhere else in the area over the last several years, will they then ban boats?

And, are they also monitoring a comparison patch where boats do anchor?
 
I fear the study is a foregone conclusion. It will show that boat anchors cause immense damage, even though the ugly little critters seem to have been thriving for years, and boat should be banned from Studland.

Cynical, moi?
 
The zone will be marked by four yellow buoys on each corner as well as two yellow buoys in the centre of the zone.
Click to expand...

Do they, by any chance, mean four yellow buoys, one on each corner or do they really mean four on each corner?
 
benjenbav said:
Do they, by any chance, mean four yellow buoys, one on each corner or do they really mean four on each corner?
Click to expand...

Who knows - I don't think they know themselves. I suspect that they mean one on each corner and its just been badly written. About as much thought gone into it as the whole of the rest of the project really.
 
I know that this is a bit anti social but....

Why not have a mass organised "anchor in" and decare that the countryside is for everyone. The notice is only a voluntary exclusion. Why dont you just get a load of boats to show defiance of these tree huggers.

It will all change next year anyway when the government changes and there wont be any money for unnecessary "jobs worths" like these.
 
Hurricane said:
It will all change next year anyway when the government changes and there wont be any money for unnecessary "jobs worths" like these.
Click to expand...

I wish I could believe that but I dont think that Dave, Boy George and their crew have the stomach for such a fight. Talk is cheap especially when you're in opposition. Anyway, the Tories have come over all green recently so I guess seahorses will be as important as binning the 3rd runway at Heathrow when they get into power
 
Out of interest, why have you just posted this on the Mobo forum and not the Scutbutt forum? Surely, yotties are as desperate to hear about your concerns as we are?
 
Deleted User said:
Out of interest, why have you just posted this on the Mobo forum and not the Scutbutt forum? Surely, yotties are as desperate to hear about your concerns as we are?
Click to expand...

If your asking me - simply because I own a motorboat and this is the forum i frequent. feel free to re-post if you wish.

As for desperation, I'll have to leave that one to you... I was just posting a personal opinion that I'd hope people would be respectfull when given the opportunity of choice for a study in which the research may assist the local environment. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Scubadoo said:
It has my respect and I will keep clear, there are plenty of places to anchor and not sure why everyone is so anti giving it a go.
Click to expand...

I will keep clear of this zone too. The point I (see above) and others were trying to make is that this trial may be flawed from the start. My point being that if you study the effects of mooring on seagrass then you are probably going to find it harms seagrass, You then have to take it on faith that damage to seagrass = problem for seahorses.

The wider picture is that the Seahorses have been there for ages without the help of any environmentalists so why not let them just get on with it. Surely this is better than our tax money paying for all sorts of conversation zone maintenance, regulation, enforcement, prosecutions, appeals etc.
 
Scubadoo said:
It has my respect and I will keep clear, there are plenty of places to anchor and not sure why everyone is so anti giving it a go.
Click to expand...

I think that the reason why a lot of people were so anti was because of the tone adopted by a guy called Steve Trewhella (apologies if the spelling is wrong) who came on here shouting the odds to all and sundry and, frankly, crowing at the prospect that boaters might be banned from anchoring in Studland. Unfortunately a number of people now equate his attitude with that of everyone involved in the research at Studland so things have got off to a difficult start.

Egregious and illiterate nonsense like:

The bay is under major threat of damage due the large number of pleasure craft that use it, particularly during the summer months. The pleasure craft anchor in the seagrass meadow, causing serious damage, as well the seemingly endless amount of litter and rubbish they dump into the bay.
Click to expand...

.... from here doesn't exactly contribute to a reasoned and rational debate either.

In spite of all this, I wish this project well and won't be anchoring in the control zone myself.
 
a study i conducted concluded that building motorways destroys indigenous plant life, industrial scale farming causes mass deforestation and building houses increases the human population to plague like proportions and the detriment of almost every other species on the planet (bar possibly pigeons, rats, cockroaches and domestic dogs and cats).

i proposed that all these activities should cease voluntarily with a move towards making them illegal.

not got very far with it so far. :)
 
RIN said:
I will keep clear of this zone too. The point I (see above) and others were trying to make is that this trial may be flawed from the start. My point being that if you study the effects of mooring on seagrass then you are probably going to find it harms seagrass, You then have to take it on faith that damage to seagrass = problem for seahorses.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with observing the no-anchor zone to allow the study to go ahead, and I am all in favour of water users helping to conserve our wildlife both on and off-shore.

Like RIN though I'm not happy with the fundamentally flawed methodology that is to be used in this study and am certain that any "conclusions" drawn from it can only be the result of some very woolly thinking. This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, but we need to resist some of the wilder claims going hand in hand with this study so as to ensure that what comes out of it is fair and even handed to the environmentalists and the boating farternity. (or should that be fraternity - maybe my typo was right first time! :D)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top