Studland update, and a question

[TSB240]

Despite a disease massively reducing the eelgrass around the 1930's, and the huge expansion of pleasure boating from the late 1950's, the eelgrass has greatly expanded.mooring

Hopefully the same applies at Porth Dinllaen.

Yes it has recovered but probably not to as great extent as at Studland.

The monitoring group are right that 10 percent of the sea grass meadow area is destroyed by mooring chain scouring.(average 10m radius scars can be seen around the regularly used moorings).

This is very much a function of the tidal range. It is going to be a long way to the pub in the dinghy this weekend with a 5 meter range!

They are still claiming without any proof that anchoring has the potential to damage and ask Boat owners to think responsibly about where they anchor.

There has been a significant loss of intertidal sea grass in the inner harbour by the pub but could this be as much down to high nitrate concentration(Pub Excrement?) as propeller and dragging/ beaching damage!

 

[Seajet]

Seeing as a beached boat usually causes light ' skid marks ' via the keel ( even on a mobo ) and a chine or one side of the bottom, I fail to see how this inflicts far reaching, wide radius damage, if any at all !

It's probably asking too much from the career conservo's, to just for once know what the **** they're talking about....

 

[SimonFa]

Agreed, even with bilge keels we can't get in too close to the shore unless we want to dry out. However, the dayboat lot out from Poole think nothing of just parking on the beach. Who is going to tell them they can't park there or in the shallows and walk ashore and under what authority, some rule about a MCZ? if they refuse what then, call the Police on a bank holiday weekend? Perhaps as suggested point out to Defra how they are going to enforce any rules.

MMO, who will be tasked with the Policing job are very well aware of the issues - and their lack of cash! I discussed it at some length with the previous Head of Enforcement at MMO. It seems to me (and this is purely my own opinion) that voluntary regulation can be the only way forward. Even that is pretty impossible: how on earth would you get the information out beyond local boat and angling clubs? A great many visitors tow their boats from inland and are not affiliated to any organisation that would tell them the does and donts. Looking beyond that we could be in danger of registration and regulation for all seagoing leisure vessels in order to implement the MCZ regs! Dont laugh - the Conservationist looney left sees that as the obvious solution and are already asking why boats are not regulated with compulsory driver training as cars are. MMO dont have the budget for that either. Anyone visiting Studland can see how well the existing 5kt limit is observed and enforced!

There's nothing we Brits like more than appointing some jobsworth to enforce petty regulations. It wouldn't take much effort to pass enabling legislation to allow local authorities to police MCZs. Then we could expect to find said jobsworth on his Dory issuing £50 Fixed Penalty notices that become £100 if not paid within 3 weeks, followed by a trip to the civil courts if that isn't paid within 4 weeks.

I wouldn't rely on lack of budgets as a protection against regulation either. The money would come from those being regulated in the form of licence fees and other charges, see above. I've worked alongside Defra and other civil servants, although not the ones doing MCZs, and like all civil servants the chance to extend their size, power and budgets will be very tempting. See:

Public Choice Theory - http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html

Any Yes, Minister or Yes PM programme

Parkinson's Law http://www.economist.com/node/14116121

 

[Lucky Duck]

Alternatively fines would be set a draconian levels which are then only occasionally policed so rocking up there becomes a potentially an expensive pass time

 

[Giblets]

There's nothing we Brits like more than appointing some jobsworth to enforce petty regulations. It wouldn't take much effort to pass enabling legislation to allow local authorities to police MCZs. Then we could expect to find said jobsworth on his Dory issuing £50 Fixed Penalty notices that become £100 if not paid within 3 weeks, followed by a trip to the civil courts if that isn't paid within 4 weeks.

Which would require ALL vessels likely to anchor in MCZ's to be registered and, to avoid confrontation, each would have to display large registration numbers as per the Lake District. Ain't gonna happen!

 

[Seven Spades]

If DEFRA accepts that anchoring makes no difference to the health of our seagrass then there is no justification for any restrictions at Studland. To concede even a small inshore no anchoring zone is to concede that there is a reason to have it.

 

[Nicholas123]

If DEFRA accepts that anchoring makes no difference to the health of our seagrass then there is no justification for any restrictions at Studland. To concede even a small inshore no anchoring zone is to concede that there is a reason to have it.

Like what this bloke says^ I can't see why we are even considering it!

 

[Rustyknight]

Possibly an interesting article on the "Dorset Echo" website today, in case anyone hasn't seen it.....

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/14475618.School_assemblies_to_give_pupils_a_glimpse_of_underwater_world/

And a link to the "Community Seagrass Initiative" mentioned in the above article.......

http://www.csi-seagrass.co.uk/

 

[oldharry]

Alternatively fines would be set a draconian levels which are then only occasionally policed so rocking up there becomes a potentially an expensive pass time

That is what I fear also: a few fines of life-changing (or at least boat changing) size is the simple way. I have read from an unconfirmed source that fines for breaching MCZ regs could be set as high as £20k. Excessive? Not really, maximum fine for going up a shipping lane the wrong way is (was) £50k. Anchoring in an MCZ NAZ is likely to attract similar penalties. NGM has often said he is just looking for the chance of prosecuting one of us for anchoring in his playground, and is already fed up that MMO wont play over what he sees as breaches of the Wildlife Act, so dont think it wouldn't happen. He is constantly slagging off the authorities because they will not prosecute anyone for anchoring in Studland.

Section 9 of the Wildlife Act says anyone 'willfully damaging' or disturbing a protected species or its habitat is committing an offence. He reckons this means anyone knowingly anchoring in eelgrass is doing so deliberately, and should be prosecuted under this clause. MMO and RYA both point out that anchoring in itself is a 'normal and legal action', and the Act requires proof of deliberate intent to cause damage. NGM gets very angry about this and frequently refers to the authorities 'failure to apply the law'. I discussed this issue in some depth with Gus Lewis, Head of Legal Affairs at RYA, who is very clear about it.

 

[chanelyacht]

Section 9 of the Wildlife Act says anyone 'willfully damaging' or disturbing a protected species or its habitat is committing an offence.

What about diving on, siezing, and attaching a whacking great tag to, one of the world's smallest sea creatures?

The bloke has no reason to keep having his licence renewed just to support his own personal molestation tendencies.