Twister_Ken
Well-known member
No **** (four letter synonym for dung)?
Studland: YM reports on the facts.
- Thread starter oldharry
- Start date
No **** (four letter synonym for dung)?
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
I have not had it analysed, no, but since it stinks of sewage, contains small pieces of toilet paper and only appears in marinas or other places with many leisure boats I don;t think there can be much doubt about what it is. Don't shoot the messenger, please.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
I'm puzzled about why people get so worked up about "unelected" officials. I would much rather that civil servants were appointed impartially on knowledge, skill and ability than by election..
I completely agree about people who use, twist or distort scientific evidence for their own reasons, but there is no point in us boaters dismissing all conservationists, even the professionals. It makes us look selfish and stupid and we will lose.
Seajet
...
Jumbleduck,
I am certainly not dismissing all conservationists, just the ones who carve out a nice career by misleading the public, ' Do you want to save seahorses ? ' - of course everyone does ( apart from Far Eastern people with a peculiar idea of delicacies ) but that presupposes there's a problem.
As for ' gin swilling yachties ', if that's not rabble rousing I don't know what is !
I am certainly not dismissing all conservationists, just the ones who carve out a nice career by misleading the public, ' Do you want to save seahorses ? ' - of course everyone does ( apart from Far Eastern people with a peculiar idea of delicacies ) but that presupposes there's a problem.
As for ' gin swilling yachties ', if that's not rabble rousing I don't know what is !
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
I agree totally. I just think we should as a group sing our enthusiasm for conservation loudly ("Seahorses at Studland are doing well because seagrass is doing well and the growth of anchoring there correlates with increased seagrass cover") and not let the extremists occupy the moral high ground.
PETA call themselves "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" which shows their assumption that any other view is unethical. I have met and worked with several people involved in experimental work involving animals, and they all had extremely high ethical standards.
Seajet
...
Jumbleduck,
I think your point is valid; I am not a member of BORG anymore, but agree with their gist fighting idiotic quango's - however I tend to think ' of course its' obvious I'm a fan of nature, I'm a sailor ! ' but maybe to the public I'm a gin swilling, environment wrecking squillionaire ( please dont tell SWIMBO ).
Maybe ' we ' should set up a pro real not career conservation campaign, something like ' Save the environment, adopt a yottie for life and get a cuddly toy looking quite unlike seajet or Jumbleduck ?
I think your point is valid; I am not a member of BORG anymore, but agree with their gist fighting idiotic quango's - however I tend to think ' of course its' obvious I'm a fan of nature, I'm a sailor ! ' but maybe to the public I'm a gin swilling, environment wrecking squillionaire ( please dont tell SWIMBO ).
Maybe ' we ' should set up a pro real not career conservation campaign, something like ' Save the environment, adopt a yottie for life and get a cuddly toy looking quite unlike seajet or Jumbleduck ?
oldharry
Well-known member
Do not for one moment think that all BORG has been doing is just taking the odd swipe at conservationists who happen to stick their head above the parapet.
We have already acheived a good deal in SUPPORTING conservation and MCZs. We were fully involved for example in defining the MCZ now approved in the Fleet behind Chesil bank in Dorset, and directly resolving issues which would otherwise have resulted in the removal of 30 or more moorings and a boatyard from the vicinity.
Conservationists (with a capital C) have spent a great deal of time talking about and reporting on Studland issues, spending an estimated £600k trying to prove that the presence of boats is damaging the ecology. The ONLY people to actually DO anything about the sensitive environment there has been BORG, supported and funded by RYA, producing a leaflet to help boat owners visiting the place to minimise any disturbance of the sensitive environment. That leaflet is planned to be extended to all environmentally sensitive areas to help boat owners use these places without disturbing the environment.
Many of us were deeply concerned about the English Heritage attempt to create its own No Anchor Zone in Osborne Bay a couple fo years ago. BORG was able to alert the right people to force EH to observe the conditions of their MMO licence and to remove their anchor ban.
BORG worked closely with Finding Sanctuary as recognised stakeholder in the process of defining and setting up the MCZ proposals. We are recognised by the Marine Management Organisation, and operate in advisory capacity alongside RYA oneleisure boating affairs in particular the controversy over EFMs
But we strongly oppose the 'conservation first' stand seen so often right across the board: the same thinking that decided that maintaining the drainage in the Somerset Levels was possibly restricting the wildlife and which has caused such devastation there. We oppose the Natural England stand that says wildlife must be returned to a 100% natural state, even if doing so means that boat users lives are put at risk by closing refuges and anchorages. Quite early on we were able to secure an assurance that MCZ restrictions would not apply to any boat that was in distress. We are stll in discussions about what constitutes 'distress' for the purposes of the legislation.
We have ALWAYS fully supported conservation where it is clear it is needed. But we will not tolerate sloppy, biased science, based on wrong assumptions, or on political or personal agendas and will do everything in our power to force re-evaluation as we have done in Studland.
"Seahorses at Studland are doing well because seagrass is doing well and the growth of anchoring there correlates with increased seagrass cover" has been exactly what we HAVE been saying to NAtural England, to MMO to Seahorse Trust, to the Wildlife Trusts and to outspoken individual Conservos.
"Where is your evidence?" they reply. Well that is what the YM article is all about, and why it is the Victory YM described it.
So what was their reply? "You are clutching at straws".
Sorry Jumbleduck, I hear what you are saying, but things have gone way beyond that. We really do need to take a stand against the career conservationists and quangos who think they can sacrifice peoples homes, livelihoods and just take over and close off some of our best beauty spots in the interests of 'Conservation' with no regard at all to consequences to the people who live or use these places. And we need to do it NOW before it is too late.
oldharry
Well-known member
Algal growth, increasingly common, extremely unpleasant, and damaging, caused by nutrient laden water from agricultural run off. waste water discharge etc. Develops particularly well in places like marinas which have little or no tidal flow. And yes it looks and smells just like 'tish'
Last edited:
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Oh I don't. It's the aggressive attitude of some of the others here which worries me. Mind you, I can't quite sea why BORG is worrying about the Somerset Levels, though if the rivers are dredged again the inevitable increased flooding at high tides may make boat access to the level rather easier than it is now ...
oldharry
Well-known member
Not involved... but its the same attitude as we are up against.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
It's not that long since the levels were a mixture of peat extraction wasteland and watercourses poisoned by agricultural run-off. The current situation is much, much nicer.
Seajet
...
I'm not too sure the current situation is much much nicer for the locals !
I have been visiting Somerset since 1980 and lived there in 1993; there was no flooding then, but Natural England was yet to be spawned...
I know the history of the levels ' Glastonbury used to be the Isle Of Avalon ' etc, but the causeways were prehistoric, and the Rheins - the big drainage system now undredged thanks to the RSPB - were introduced before living memory.
I expect the recent very heavy rainfall would have caused some flooding, but nothing like we've seen if the RSPB and NE hadn't got their oars in !
I have been visiting Somerset since 1980 and lived there in 1993; there was no flooding then, but Natural England was yet to be spawned...
I know the history of the levels ' Glastonbury used to be the Isle Of Avalon ' etc, but the causeways were prehistoric, and the Rheins - the big drainage system now undredged thanks to the RSPB - were introduced before living memory.
I expect the recent very heavy rainfall would have caused some flooding, but nothing like we've seen if the RSPB and NE hadn't got their oars in !
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
There is always flooding somewhere on the levels, every year.
Like the big flood in the sixties when roughly four times as much of the levels were under water?
Nicholas123
N/A
While the human population just keeps on growing conservation is pointless it is just a cosmetic exorcize.What we really need to do is move half the human population up to Scotland where there are plenty of open spaces & then I suspect jumbleduck would change his tune!
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Do we go back, then, to allowing any company that wants to to pump waste into the Thames? It's very easy to sneer at conservation and conservationists, but without sensible conservation sailing wouldn't be nearly as much fun. Yes, there may be some cases where recreational boating can be shown to be causing significant damage, and in those cases we should withdraw with good grace, because in general conservation is very much in our interests.
As a Solent sailor, would you happily see Newtown Creek filled in and built over for housing? Or how about those wind farms planned for just off the western entrance to the Solent - would you be happier if all restrictions on their size and location were lifted? Bembridge would make a lovely spot for ship breaking ...
Nicholas123
N/A
Of course I think sensible conservation measures are necessary but what we are seeing is empire building by people who want to be in charge of the wildlife & nature & keep it to themselves.
They are sticking their heads in the sand where the size of the human population & it's influences are concerned because they personally are benefiting from it.
The whole thing is creating an entirely artificial environment.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Depends whether you think unrestrained development and pollution are natural, I suppose.
oldharry
Well-known member
Its not the Somerset levels that are in question here. I lived there for 12 years, so knew them pretty well. They were most certainly not a 'poisoned wasteland' when I was there.
My objection is to the patronising assumption that Conservationism a) has a monopoly on caring about the environment, b) assumes it has a right to ride roughshod over communities and individuals to achieve its aims and c) uses often the flimsiest of evidence to substantiate its claims - evidence that just does not stand up to even superficial scrutiny. Evidence which as we in BORG have found is often biased, inaccurate and deliberately misleading. Examples? 1. in 2008 SHT counted 40 Seahorses, using large teams of searchers several times a week. In 2013 Small teams often diving less than once a week only saw 7. Therefore the Seahorse Population has dropped. Therefore the boats (that have been there 60+ years) have driven them away. The 2008 peak sighting is always quoted as the 'norm' for the bay although there is no evidence that these were not repeat sightings of the same animals day after day, seen by different people. Feed that to the popular press, and there is outrage against the 'wealthy yotties' who have destroyed these charismatic creatures by throwing anchors at them! 2. "Up to 350 boats visit Studland each day" The highest count I know of was 290 boats on a fine August Bank Hol Saturday before the recession. The fact is that for 10 months of the year the Bay is more or less deserted, the remaining two months midweek visitors may be ten or twenty, and on a fine August midweek may see 30 -40 boats, and weekends around 150 - 170. Thats not the same as 'up to 350 boats' which is quite deliberately misleading and overstating the case.
RYA has today launched a press release pointing out that although the legislation demands that socio economic factors are taken in to account they are being ignored, and that the evidence presented in some cases is far from robust and does not tell us what we need to know about the likely impacts of MCZ designation.
It's high time an element of accountability was introduced into this whole business, accountability which is conspicuously absent from the drafty corridors of NE Towers!
My objection is to the patronising assumption that Conservationism a) has a monopoly on caring about the environment, b) assumes it has a right to ride roughshod over communities and individuals to achieve its aims and c) uses often the flimsiest of evidence to substantiate its claims - evidence that just does not stand up to even superficial scrutiny. Evidence which as we in BORG have found is often biased, inaccurate and deliberately misleading. Examples? 1. in 2008 SHT counted 40 Seahorses, using large teams of searchers several times a week. In 2013 Small teams often diving less than once a week only saw 7. Therefore the Seahorse Population has dropped. Therefore the boats (that have been there 60+ years) have driven them away. The 2008 peak sighting is always quoted as the 'norm' for the bay although there is no evidence that these were not repeat sightings of the same animals day after day, seen by different people. Feed that to the popular press, and there is outrage against the 'wealthy yotties' who have destroyed these charismatic creatures by throwing anchors at them! 2. "Up to 350 boats visit Studland each day" The highest count I know of was 290 boats on a fine August Bank Hol Saturday before the recession. The fact is that for 10 months of the year the Bay is more or less deserted, the remaining two months midweek visitors may be ten or twenty, and on a fine August midweek may see 30 -40 boats, and weekends around 150 - 170. Thats not the same as 'up to 350 boats' which is quite deliberately misleading and overstating the case.
RYA has today launched a press release pointing out that although the legislation demands that socio economic factors are taken in to account they are being ignored, and that the evidence presented in some cases is far from robust and does not tell us what we need to know about the likely impacts of MCZ designation.
It's high time an element of accountability was introduced into this whole business, accountability which is conspicuously absent from the drafty corridors of NE Towers!
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Which is precisely why I think it is a very bad idea indeed for members of the recreational boating world (not BORG) to express hysterical criticism of conservation as a whole and of conservationists en masse. Every posting here along those lines plays right into the hands of those who like to claim that boating and conservation are fundamentally incompatible.
Nicholas123
N/A
It depends whether you love nature or not.
