Studland - The Seahorse lovers are winning

I did attend a talk in March explaining what is planned and why from a member of the Dorset wildlife trust, Kathryn Dawson who is involved with the trial anchoring exclusion zone. First point the area which is a 100 metre square I believe, is voluntary and the intention is to find out whether anchoring is detrimental to the eel grass. Second there is concern and some evidence that the eel grass is declining in UK waters, however very little evidence that the seahorses are anything but thriving. Hopefully the trial will provide real evidence one way or the other. Finally I think the sensible seahorse supporters understand that you could not ban all anchoring in Studland.
 
[quote.... I would not trust a pressure group whose aim is to remove boats from Studalnd to conduct a study into the effects of yachts.

[/ QUOTE ]

so would you trust the RYA to do it? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
From page 14 of the Seahorse Trust's 2007 Survey:
[ QUOTE ]
It has long been thought that all Seahorses live just in Eel grass beds, slowly this is being disproved and the evidence from The British Seahorse Survey Reports 2002, 2003, 2004 and now 2007 show this to be far from the case...

[/ QUOTE ]
 
[ QUOTE ]
Finally I think the sensible seahorse supporters understand that you could not ban all anchoring in Studland.

[/ QUOTE ]

good to hear that... also good to hear that another endagered species still exists : the "sensible yachtsman"
 
[ QUOTE ]
Which is the best anchor to use in a Seahorse area?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a fisherman, ................
















But it's a bit awkward, the buggers wont stand still while you try to throw them overboard! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
We have the same problem in the Helford. A voluntary exclusion zone in one of the best anchorages.
eelgras3.jpg
 
I'm not claiming to have any knowledge of Seahorses or the areas concerned, but....

Isn't it fairly obvious that the most popular anchorages are going to be the ones with most damage to the seabed, much like the most popular paths on the Lake District fells are being eroded?

I know these places have been used for many years, but with leisure boating being more popular than ever their use is much greater than "when I anchored there in 1927".......
 
I have a solution that will please both seahorses and yotties

As the vast majority of those that anchor are stinkies, ban them and the area would soon recover.


Seriously, a trial site seems like a good idea. I have to admit to an interest I anchor there maybe a dozen times a year. The thing that surprised me was that anyone could get an anchor in at all. Of course, my trusty Spade does the job whilst the CQRs and other ploughs, er plough.

Having upset two and possibly three viciferous groups with one post I'll get my coat.
 
I don't think anyone on this forum has said anything to the contrary. So let's accept, for the sake of argument:

More anchorinng = more damage to the seabed (although query what "damage" means in this context)

What is missing is the next step:

Damage to the seabed from anchoring = destruction of seahorse habitat

That hasn't been studied, let alone proved. Either of the following are also possible:

Damage to the seabed from anchoring = no effect on seahorse habitat
or
Damage to the seabed from anchoring = enhancement of seahorse habitat

I sould suggest that the only way to investigate this is to study the status quo first, then perhaps set aside an area for voluntary no anchoring, and study how it changes. But the baseline should be established first.

And (heresy alert!) at some point, consideration needs to be given to whether any protection needs to be given to seahorses, in Studland Bay or elsewhere. If there are millions of the critters floating around the British Isles, who cares whether a few of them from Studland need to find new homes elsewhere. It isn't worth inconveniencing boaters for that. Of course, if this is the last surving population on earth, the answer might be different. But I haven't heard anyone suggesting that the question even needs to be asked.
 
Alternatively........?

[ QUOTE ]

And (heresy alert!) at some point, consideration needs to be given to whether any protection needs to be given to boaters, in Studland Bay or elsewhere. If there are millions of the critters floating around the British Isles, who cares whether a few of them from Studland need to find new homes elsewhere. It isn't worth inconveniencing seahorses for that. Of course, if this is the last surving population on earth, the answer might be different. But I haven't heard anyone suggesting that the question even needs to be asked.

[/ QUOTE ]
 
I'm sure a lot of those involved are prepared to use the cute looking seahorse to promote a restriction on anchoring. Although there is little evidence of a decline in numbers in fact the reverse seems to be the case. There is though evidence that the sea grass is declining and that is a lot less visually appealing. A proper scientific trial is IMHO the right way to go. The extremist views from both sides really don't help the case of those of us who value the environment and wish to be able to enjoy it sensibly and in harmony.
 
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Very good! I had to re-check my post to make sure I hadn't written it backwards.
But in all seriousness, (another heresy alert!) I consider human enjoyment of boating to have a higher value than the localised habitat of a few (non-endangered) tiny sea critters. If they suffer in order to allow us to enjoy the Studland Bay anchorage, tant pis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top