Studland Voluntary No Anchor Zone in place from 17/12

[oldharry]

See Marlynspykes post inthe sticky Studland thread for links. MMO announced yesterday they will put a Voluntary No Anchor zo e across the Southern end of the Bay, extended next June. They are seeking public education and information about the need for this, but make it quite clear that if people continue to anchor in numbers there, they will introduce tougher measures, and even an outright ban.

Saftey considerations will override any conservation controls however so we have got them to see sense on that count, and that includes stopping to prevent an emergency arising, such as stopping to rectify a fault before it becomes serious.

MMO will not fund provision of visitor moorings, but will permit up to 100 to be laid, including local privately owned moorings already there.

 

[Malish]

thin end of the wedge I fear, now every environmental pressure group will want one

 

[dom]

Thanks for the update and we are all indebted to you and Marlynspikes for the considerable work you both have put in to ensure a non-terrible outcome.

The safety issue makes this seriously difficult for the MMO to enforce, but probably a good idea to knock AIS TX off when anchoring to avoid becoming an easy target. Claiming there are safety issues on multiple occasions may prove problematic.

 

[lustyd]

make it quite clear that if people continue to anchor in numbers there, they will introduce tougher measures, and even an outright ban

So effectively it's already an outright ban then. It will be interesting to see how enforceable it actually is to expect any sailor from around the world to know not to anchor there and somehow make the punishment severe enough that someone in a £1M+ boat even cares.

 

[oldharry]

So effectively it's already an outright ban then. It will be interesting to see how enforceable it actually is to expect any sailor from around the world to know not to anchor there and somehow make the punishment severe enough that someone in a £1M+ boat even cares.

Yes but the same fine could be life changing for someone with a £10k boat.... So Packhams g&t swilling wealthy yachtsmen get the pickings? At this level, conservation has a very nasty smell of elitism:. The ONLY people allowed to look at seahorses in Studland are NGM and his cronies. It is illegal for you and I.

 

[Malish]

Yes but the same fine could be life changing for someone with a £10k boat.... So Packhams g&t swilling wealthy yachtsmen get the pickings? At this level, conservation has a very nasty smell of elitism:. The ONLY people allowed to look at seahorses in Studland are NGM and his cronies. It is illegal for you and I.

its an industry (like any other) in which people want to derive a career and an income.. sadly Studland is an easy target (unlike dogs being exercised by 'good hard working people' in nature reserves..). Ian Mitchell penned a couple of books on the adverse impact of environmentalists on some of the Scottish Isles, well worth looking out.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

So effectively it's already an outright ban then. It will be interesting to see how enforceable it actually is to expect any sailor from around the world to know not to anchor there and somehow make the punishment severe enough that someone in a £1M+ boat even cares.

MMO point out that while it is a voluntary anchor ban, there can be no fines, no law will have been broken. They also point out that "safety is paramount", which means more even important than the occasional seahorse which has occasionally been reported. It is probably in the boating community's interests to keep it voluntary by encouraging observance. At the same time, the potential threat of ignoring the ban if its provisions are too onerous, thus forcing MMO into expensive policing and enforcement of a law-based ban, could put a useful brake on the more zealous conservationists' daydreams and ambitions. While things are voluntary, the boating community does retain some influence.