Studland - The Seahorse lovers are winning

Members of Ashlett SC have been anchoring in Studland for years and the older members recall the weed used to be the big flat leaf variety which was a blighter to get an anchor through. The same stuff that gives the problem anchoring off Swanage - just round the corner. It is likely that years of anchoring uprooted enough of this type of seaweed to allow the eelgrass to grow and thus the seahorses to increase in number. There should be a proper independant survey carried out before anything is allowed to be changed. The seahorse huggers have their own very narrow agenda with little or no scientific facts to back their claims.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It is likely that years of anchoring uprooted enough of this type of seaweed to allow the eelgrass to grow and thus the seahorses to increase in number.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The seahorse huggers have their own very narrow agenda with little or no scientific facts to back their claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
A bit like yotties demanding to anchor where they will then innit?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not demanding anything of the kind other than to be able to do what has gone on in Studland since Noah took a course in boatbuilding. I've been anchoring in Studland for almost 40 years and have snorkelled there too over most of that time. There is MORE eel grass there than ever before not less IMO so if anything the increased numbers of boats over the years has helped rather than hindered, maybe why the seahorse population is thought to be increasing. If anything might frighten the little blighters off it could be the hundreds of new underwater photographers that will be attracted - so maybe they had better ban swimming off the beach too!

Studland is only packed on relatively few days. Nobody in their right mind anchors there unless the wind is from SSW to NW for starters and then mostly only at weekends May to September and then only when the weather as well as the wind is good. The place is deserted pretty well at all other times because this is not an all weather inside harbour type anchorage so there is time for this weed to recover if needs be.
 
[ QUOTE ]


I'm not demanding anything of the kind other than to be able to do what has gone on in Studland since Noah took a course in boatbuilding. I've been anchoring in Studland for almost 40 years and have snorkelled there too over most of that time. There is MORE eel grass there than ever before not less IMO so if anything the increased numbers of boats over the years has helped rather than hindered, maybe why the seahorse population is thought to be increasing. If anything might frighten the little blighters off it could be the hundreds of new underwater photographers that will be attracted - so maybe they had better ban swimming off the beach too!


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that settles it for me. Why waste money on independent scientific surveys when we can rely on the opinion of one bloke with a vested interest?
 
Robin,
your post sounds very convincing to me. But why should we oppose some proper research in this issue? An "volountary encoring exclusion zone, with monitoring of the effects (and, yes, exclude diving/snorkelling too) soudns likea brilliant idea. Why so much fuss?

Maybe in the fullness of time, we will get into the habit of having "movable" anchorage areas, a bit like crop rotations...

Just a thought /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well, that settles it for me. Why waste money on independant scientific surveys when we can rely on the opinion of one bloke with a vested interest?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the bloke with the real vested interest is the one from the Seahorse Society, who BTW I believe has no formal qualifications other than an underwater camera and webbed feet.

For the record, I have NO vested interest at all as we are fleeing these shores next year and this is our last season to drop our Delta on a seahorse. After that the nutters can do what they will. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, that settles it for me. Why waste money on independant scientific surveys when we can rely on the opinion of one bloke with a vested interest?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the bloke with the real vested interest is the one from the Seahorse Society, who BTW I believe has no formal qualifications other than an underwater camera and webbed feet.

For the record, I have NO vested interest at all as we are fleeing these shores next year and this is our last season to drop our Delta on a seahorse. After that the nutters can do what they will. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to be perfectly honest, I think I'll wait for more evidence before labelling anyone as a nutter........
 
[ QUOTE ]
Robin,
your post sounds very convincing to me. But why should we oppose some proper research in this issue? An "volountary encoring exclusion zone, with monitoring of the effects (and, yes, exclude diving/snorkelling too) soudns likea brilliant idea. Why so much fuss?


[/ QUOTE ]

There are far too many other variables I think for a proper scientific survey that would be really meaningful and truly independent yet affordable. I also lean towards thinking that if you ask (pay) some group to do a survey to find something when the 'cause' has already been decided then they will do just that.

Studland has lots of eel grass, that is why some boats find setting an anchor difficult. We aren't high users anyway now but when we do we always look for a clear patch of sand to drop the anchor on, away from weed.

How can a small area be considered representative? Who chose the area and why that particular spot? Will weather be part of a survey, because prolonged stong easterlies have caused major changes in the past to seabed depths? How can you run a pilot small area survey without running a control one where all the anchoring goes on? Who will ask the seahorses why they moved home if they do, maybe they didn't like cameras?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think the bloke with the real vested interest is the one from the Seahorse Society, who BTW I believe has no formal qualifications other than an underwater camera and webbed feet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I presume you mean, Steve Trewhella, I agree he does a of harm to the case for proper investigation. But if you react to him with a knee jerk "We can anchor wherever we want regardless" we will end up with enforced legislation which will be much worse.

Another Press Link
 
[ QUOTE ]
the opinion of one bloke with a vested interest?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you had been around here longer you would know that Robin is due for a YBW.com long service award for consistently sensible posts unlike most of us who flit between nautical chit chat, teasing and standing on a political soapbox.

You also seem very naive about how the modern world ticks. Some people avoid doing proper work for decades by manipulating Government officials and obtaining public grants. Let's see now, zooming around the most pleasant anchorage on this stretch of the coast in a rib, sunning oneself on a beach in the name of surveillance and dropping below the waves with a fancy camera in hand! Most people pay to partake in such leisure pursuits.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the opinion of one bloke with a vested interest?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you had been around here longer you would know that Robin is due for a YBW.com long service award for consistently sensible posts unlike most of us who flit between nautical chit chat, teasing and standing on a political soapbox.

You also seem very naive about how the modern world ticks. Some people avoid doing proper work for decades by manipulating Government officials and obtaining public grants. Let's see now, zooming around the most pleasant anchorage on this stretch of the coast in a rib, sunning oneself on a beach in the name of surveillance and dropping below the waves with a fancy camera in hand! Most people pay to partake in such leisure pursuits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, pardon me. I did not realise that 'being ariound here longer' adds weight to one's arguments. I must bear that in mind.

I also wish I had some of your abilities to judge a poster's naivety on how the modern world ticks based on a few tongue in cheek comments about seahorses on a yachting forum.

But jumping to conclusions does seem to be de rigeur on this thread.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Studland has lots of eel grass, that is why some boats find setting an anchor difficult. We aren't high users anyway now but when we do we always look for a clear patch of sand to drop the anchor on, away from weed.

[/ QUOTE ] Certainly it is a good idea to anchor in the sand. I have seen Aerial photos which seem to show a reduction in the eel grass. But that is the point for having a proper survey not just a lot of anecdotal reports. [ QUOTE ]
How can a small area be considered representative? Who chose the area and why that particular spot? Will weather be part of a survey, because prolonged stong easterlies have caused major changes in the past to seabed depths? How can you run a pilot small area survey without running a control one where all the anchoring goes on?

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of interested parties including the RYA have been consulted, are you saying the area should be much larger? There is to be a control area adjoining the voluntary no anchoring zone.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I presume you mean, Steve Trewhella

[/ QUOTE ]

From the second press link, it does seem that he has already made his mind up.....

"He added that Natural England and Crown Estates, which owns the land, had commissioned research into the problem, but that was unlikely to discover anything that was not already known. "
 
[ QUOTE ]
I presume you mean, Steve Trewhella, I agree he does a of harm to the case for proper investigation. But if you react to him with a knee jerk "We can anchor wherever we want regardless" we will end up with enforced legislation which will be much worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he's the one.

The fact is that we CAN anchor in Studland and other places and it is he that wants to change things and not the boating fraternity. It isn't just for locals either, this is a safe and commonly used passage anchorage and a refuge in westerly gales whilst waiting to enter the harbour or go west.

The key too is 'proper' investigation. English heritage own the land and Crown Estates the seabed (between tide lines?) but they don't own the water yet or the offshore seabed or do they?
 
[ QUOTE ]
From his posts on here (as ST44) you could tell that he'd decided that he was right and everyone else was wrong. See previous long long thread

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, these days, far too few are prepared to accept that they could be wrong.

Which, of course, in itself, might be nonsense..........
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'm not demanding anything of the kind other than to be able to do what has gone on in Studland since Noah took a course in boatbuilding. I've been anchoring in Studland for almost 40 years and have snorkelled there too over most of that time. There is MORE eel grass there than ever before not less IMO so if anything the increased numbers of boats over the years has helped rather than hindered, maybe why the seahorse population is thought to be increasing. If anything might frighten the little blighters off it could be the hundreds of new underwater photographers that will be attracted - so maybe they had better ban swimming off the beach too!


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that settles it for me. Why waste money on independent scientific surveys when we can rely on the opinion of one bloke with a vested interest?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not doing yourself or the seahorses any favours here...

In simple terms, here are the facts as they appear to me.

1. Boats have been anchoring in Studland bay for many years.
2. At some point seahorses are discovered in Studland bay.
3. Eel grass has been reported in Studland bay for many years.
4. People with experience of Studland bay over many years either report no change, or an increase in eel grass.
5. It seems reasonable to conclude that boat numbers have increased in recent years as the sport becomes more popular


A scientific study could conclude one of four things -

1. The seahorses are threatened by the anchoring in Studland bay.
2. The anchoring has no effect on the seahorse population
3. The effect of anchoring is beneficial to the seahorses
4. It is not possible to make any conclusions.

So in an ideal world, how would this study be best produced?

As I understand it the seahorses are believed to need the eel grass to thrive.

Therefore I think it needs to answer one central question.

What effect does anchoring have on the plant life, in terms of encouraging specific species of plant, damaging plants in situ and overall effect on the extent of the bed?

Some good evidence for this study could be provided quite quickly by visiting other beds where anchoring does not take place and comparing.

If it is found that the studland bed is significantly different from other comparible beds that have no anchoring, then the question needs to be, is that good, bad or irrelevant for seahorses?

And given that seahorses are found in studland in greater quantities than anywhere else in the UKand are increasing in number, according to that BBC video, the odds of a detrimental effect seem small to me....
 
I want to be able to continue to stop over at Studland, it's particularly useful when leaving Christchurch going west. But to be wound up, into objecting to finding out the true situation, won't help our case, of course the results should be scrutinized in detail.

Possibly the solution will be eel grass friendly moorings, after all surely none of us want to anchor on the stuff.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'm not demanding anything of the kind other than to be able to do what has gone on in Studland since Noah took a course in boatbuilding. I've been anchoring in Studland for almost 40 years and have snorkelled there too over most of that time. There is MORE eel grass there than ever before not less IMO so if anything the increased numbers of boats over the years has helped rather than hindered, maybe why the seahorse population is thought to be increasing. If anything might frighten the little blighters off it could be the hundreds of new underwater photographers that will be attracted - so maybe they had better ban swimming off the beach too!


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that settles it for me. Why waste money on independent scientific surveys when we can rely on the opinion of one bloke with a vested interest?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not doing yourself or the seahorses any favours here...

In simple terms, here are the facts as they appear to me.

1. Boats have been anchoring in Studland bay for many years.
2. At some point seahorses are discovered in Studland bay.
3. Eel grass has been reported in Studland bay for many years.
4. People with experience of Studland bay over many years either report no change, or an increase in eel grass.
5. It seems reasonable to conclude that boat numbers have increased in recent years as the sport becomes more popular


A scientific study could conclude one of four things -

1. The seahorses are threatened by the anchoring in Studland bay.
2. The anchoring has no effect on the seahorse population
3. The effect of anchoring is beneficial to the seahorses
4. It is not possible to make any conclusions.

So in an ideal world, how would this study be best produced?

As I understand it the seahorses are believed to need the eel grass to thrive.

Therefore I think it needs to answer one central question.

What effect does anchoring have on the plant life, in terms of encouraging specific species of plant, damaging plants in situ and overall effect on the extent of the bed?

Some good evidence for this study could be provided quite quickly by visiting other beds where anchoring does not take place and comparing.

If it is found that the studland bed is significantly different from other comparible beds that have no anchoring, then the question needs to be, is that good, bad or irrelevant for seahorses?

And given that seahorses are found in studland in greater quantities than anywhere else in the UKand are increasing in number, according to that BBC video, the odds of a detrimental effect seem small to me....

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree that we'd be better off trying to get more information, rather than listening to one bloke with a vested interest, then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top