RobbieW
Well-known member
This particular idiot generally sails a boat over 10 tonnes so doesnt use the bouys
Studland - MMO Management protocols for the MCZ in place from 17th December
- Thread starter oldharry
- Start date
chrishscorp
Well-known member
At the time I was there I did not see anyone who was anchored in a boat that was anywhere near close to 10 tons, the majority were small and half at least were speed boats, you would clearly have a very reasonable excuse for not using a buoy.
MMO survey filled out and a slating comment on failing to respond to earlier queries I raised lets see if they come back too me.
Lodestone
Active member
"With behaviour like that this will only go one way and that will be down to the idiot type boater"
If folk obey as they direct then the situation has already gone down the very route you fear.
The concept of 'voluntary' is a Kafkaesque joke... Voluntary-with-menaces. Do this or else - without any actual proof of harm.
I certainly don't want to live in a world like that.
If folk obey as they direct then the situation has already gone down the very route you fear.
The concept of 'voluntary' is a Kafkaesque joke... Voluntary-with-menaces. Do this or else - without any actual proof of harm.
I certainly don't want to live in a world like that.
chrishscorp
Well-known member
I completely agree with the section I highlighted, the trouble is we are where we are, they had people in deck chairs on occasion counting non compliant boats at Studland during the summer, im betting this survey is the start of a 'review and tighten up' of the VNAZ
We now have a voluntary no anchor zone in Osborne Bay, this has been brought in without MMO involvement, presumably as they dragged their feet and involved those boaty people so they were cut out of the Osborne bay job. So looks like we have a faction in Natural England who are trying to broaden their remit and step on the MMOs toes, which would be funny if it wasnt for the fact they are the only official body speaking up for boaty types, the RYA think its a great idea....
Lodestone
Active member
I was interested to see, when we were down in August, that no one pays the slightest bit of attention to the seagrass NAZ in The Carrick Roads. Locals or visiting boats alike.I completely agree with the section I highlighted, the trouble is we are where we are, they had people in deck chairs on occasion counting non compliant boats at Studland during the summer, im betting this survey is the start of a 'review and tighten up' of the VNAZ
We now have a voluntary no anchor zone in Osborne Bay, this has been brought in without MMO involvement, presumably as they dragged their feet and involved those boaty people so they were cut out of the Osborne bay job. So looks like we have a faction in Natural England who are trying to broaden their remit and step on the MMOs toes, which would be funny if it wasnt for the fact they are the only official body speaking up for boaty types, the RYA think its a great idea....
The intentions of the MMO are not based (as yet - if ever) on fact, their directions are a perverse fudge, the proponents extremists and they offer no universal solution to their universal 'ban'. I do though have some sympathy for them being the jam in NE's sandwich. However, I see this as only going one way any way.
Ultimately when they do legislate, which they will have to to get anywhere, the matter will rest on the inclusion or not of one simple phrase for a vessel claiming stress - "the burden of proof being upon him". That's a whole new can of worms.
Last edited:
Lodestone
Active member
"So looks like we have a faction in Natural England who are trying to broaden their remit"
Put at the head of an organisation a leopard who has promised parliament that it won't eat the goats....
Put at the head of an organisation a leopard who has promised parliament that it won't eat the goats....
Boathook
Well-known member
If they put the buoys where people want them then they will be used. A lot of small motor boats want shallow water for kids to swim so they anchor.
The 'grass' has expanded over the last 40 years and the seahorses disappeared after divers took an interest in them.
stephen_h
Active member
Agree, one of the reasons we have a catamaran is so we can get in close. Also it is shallow enough to be able to drop the anchor onto a sand patch.
chrishscorp
Well-known member
Yes I get that, it does make it quite a way to shore currently, so what sort of depth are you talking about ? as I am not aware they ever asked anyone for an opinion surprise surprise.....
Boathook
Well-known member
The small motor boats seem happy to semi dry out, I prefer to stay afloat in my cat so like around 1.2m depth at LW. This means that I can paddle the dinghy ashore easily.
Who monitors the condition of these ecco buoys. I know the state of my anchor, chain and connectors.
rotrax
Well-known member
Me too.
Dropped the hook a couple of times in SB this year and stayed on the pub buoys too.
On one sunny weekend there were so many boats on the hook I lost count-high hundreds.
There were so many dinghy's on the beach we nearly went off in the wrong one!
oldharry
Well-known member
What I never understood was why they went to all the trouble expense of installing eco moorings outside the eco-sensitive area. The whole point of those moorings is they can be used IN seagrass without damaging it.
chrishscorp
Well-known member
They received funding to plant up 8 hectares of seabed with seagrass, 4 hectares were in the Solent I am sure that is where the no anchor zone is in Beaulieu river, that area would be about 4 hectares. So the other 4 I am pretty sure were at Studland to help spread the area of grass in which case it could be planted up around the eco buoys, how long for is anyone's guess if it has not spread there naturally that may well be its current limit, a good gale in the right direction could rip it all up. There must be a difference in holding power between plants pepper potted on the bed and a thick continuous mat of interwoven rhizomes, which then brings us full circle to the fact there are no peer reviewed scientific papers on this strain of seagrass and its parameters.
Boathook
Well-known member
I suspect that the seagrass has expanded as much as it wants. Any further out it won't have the protection that Studland offers from the prevailing SW winds. After an 'easterly' gale the beach is covered by the grass and if the gale occurs at LW springs it can be worse.
A lot of experts seem to use reviews based upon the stuff growing in the Med. A bit like comparing cattle with sheep, both eat grass .....
doug748
Well-known member
A number of sites in Plymouth have been assessed as satisfactory despite the usual propaganda suggesting otherwise. These sites include some anchorages which are very heavily used in season. In Cawsand Bay there has been an eco mooring project (local moorings not for general use), the conclusions were published last summer:
https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...nts/Plymouth_Seagrass_-_Final_report_2022.pdf
Interesting that there is a lack of the usual carping about anchoring - probably because the grass continues in good order despite heavy use. Also there is a heavy emphasis on poor water quality - A consideration that was conspicuously absent during the Studland debates.
Also we recall that the experiment to get seagrass to grow in novel locations was less than a success:
Plymouth seagrass project switch after low yield
.
https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...nts/Plymouth_Seagrass_-_Final_report_2022.pdf
Interesting that there is a lack of the usual carping about anchoring - probably because the grass continues in good order despite heavy use. Also there is a heavy emphasis on poor water quality - A consideration that was conspicuously absent during the Studland debates.
Also we recall that the experiment to get seagrass to grow in novel locations was less than a success:
Plymouth seagrass project switch after low yield
.
oldharry
Well-known member
I found 16 peer reviewed and published papers in 2010 which demonstrate quite clearly that Z Marina is fas grwoing and well capable of healing sometimes within months, from both human interference and natural disasaters. One Amaerican study actually raked out a series of 1m squares to see what happened. Healing was well established within a few weeks, and in every location the site of the original test patch was indistinguishable from surrounding growth. By the time we finished we had 26 papers on the subject, only one of of which suggested tht eelgrass was susceptible to damage. That one? surprise surprise! It was a study of Studland written in cooperation with SHT. It made several fundamental mistakes, and did not even try to establish whether the gaps in the seagrass it was studying (the 'damage ') had actually been caused by an anchor. Similar gaps appear elsewhere in Poole Bay where no one in their right mind would anchor...!
The only other survey of Studland eelgrass was the Seastar Survey published in 2012, which concluded anchoring made no significant difference to eelgrass health, and that Studland eelgrass was in better condition than the norm for the Dorset coast. Natural England, who had assisted in the research work, hastened to discredit its conclusions as 'unscientific'.
NE did comission a survey around 2016, (NECR 111) but Marlynspsyke complained to DEFRA about the weak science used in it: Defra concluded the report was 'full of mistakes and errors' NE hastily withdrew it for 'review', and it sank without trace.
oldharry
Well-known member
Some of the clearer evidence of Z Marina's ability to recover rapidly, from a report I wrote in 2013.
The proof?
Boese et al 2009: raked out 2m sq areas of Zostera M,, “recovery started immediately, was substantial in ten months and complete in 24 months”.
Ruesink et al 2012 “We found that at multiple sites 4m sq gaps in eelgrass meadows recovered in 2 years.”
Greve T., Krause-Jensen D, Rasmussen M., Christensen P., 2005: “Rapid recolonisation of eelgrass in the summer of 2001 following an anoxia event in the summer 2000 in a Danish estuary. 96% of the recolonisation was by seedlings”
Plus et al, Thau lagoon S France: “complete destruction by anoxic crisis, recovery in 9 months via rhizomes and seeds."
Jarvius and Moore, Chesapeake bay “…Recovered next year via seedlings, plus vegetative following year”.
Lee et al, 2007 Jindong Bay, S Korea. Complete destruction caused by a red tide algal bloom “bed completely re-established.. ...in less than a year.”
…and in case anyone thinks it doesn’t apply to Studland: MAIA report p 160 “It is important to consider that seagrasses subjected to frequent disturbance events may be more resilient to these pressures” “ disturbance can also induce changes in the growth form and rate of seagrass. ….in the majority of cases reproductive effort in seagrasses increases with disturbance” (my italics)
All this and a great deal more was submitted by us as part of the published and peer reviewed scientific evidence they required. NE chose rather to rely on anonymous 'expert opinion' in drafting their findings and recommendations, and appear to have completely ignored these and 19 other similar reports from specialists in the field. The only report was Collins and Suunto's 2010 Survey in Studland, which took one tiny corner of Studland, around 200 sq m and applied their theories/findings to the whole 96 hectares. They started from the premise that a holes in the eelgrass had been caused by anchors, offering no evidence that this was actually the case. We know that many underwater fresh water springs are present in the Bay. Seagrass requires a significant level of salinity to flourish, so naturally would never grow round a fresh water spring!
The proof?
Boese et al 2009: raked out 2m sq areas of Zostera M,, “recovery started immediately, was substantial in ten months and complete in 24 months”.
Ruesink et al 2012 “We found that at multiple sites 4m sq gaps in eelgrass meadows recovered in 2 years.”
Greve T., Krause-Jensen D, Rasmussen M., Christensen P., 2005: “Rapid recolonisation of eelgrass in the summer of 2001 following an anoxia event in the summer 2000 in a Danish estuary. 96% of the recolonisation was by seedlings”
Plus et al, Thau lagoon S France: “complete destruction by anoxic crisis, recovery in 9 months via rhizomes and seeds."
Jarvius and Moore, Chesapeake bay “…Recovered next year via seedlings, plus vegetative following year”.
Lee et al, 2007 Jindong Bay, S Korea. Complete destruction caused by a red tide algal bloom “bed completely re-established.. ...in less than a year.”
…and in case anyone thinks it doesn’t apply to Studland: MAIA report p 160 “It is important to consider that seagrasses subjected to frequent disturbance events may be more resilient to these pressures” “ disturbance can also induce changes in the growth form and rate of seagrass. ….in the majority of cases reproductive effort in seagrasses increases with disturbance” (my italics)
All this and a great deal more was submitted by us as part of the published and peer reviewed scientific evidence they required. NE chose rather to rely on anonymous 'expert opinion' in drafting their findings and recommendations, and appear to have completely ignored these and 19 other similar reports from specialists in the field. The only report was Collins and Suunto's 2010 Survey in Studland, which took one tiny corner of Studland, around 200 sq m and applied their theories/findings to the whole 96 hectares. They started from the premise that a holes in the eelgrass had been caused by anchors, offering no evidence that this was actually the case. We know that many underwater fresh water springs are present in the Bay. Seagrass requires a significant level of salinity to flourish, so naturally would never grow round a fresh water spring!
RivalRedwing
Well-known member
Studland moorings to be £10 a go as of the spring.....
Studland Bay Boating | Hidden away in the newsletter for the Studland Bay Marine Partnership is the revelation that the ecomoorings will not be free anymore and they are int... | Facebook
Studland Bay Boating | Hidden away in the newsletter for the Studland Bay Marine Partnership is the revelation that the ecomoorings will not be free anymore and they are int... | Facebook
wonkywinch
Well-known member
Just in:
| Dear Stakeholder, Happy New Year! You have 1 week left to share your views on the effectiveness of the voluntary no anchor zone (VNAZ) in Studland Bay in 2023. The purpose of the VNAZ is to protect the bay’s valuable seagrass beds, and the animals it is home to, from damage from the dropping and weighing of anchors. We now need you to help improve our understanding of the VNAZ, how it is protecting the site, what’s worked well, and what can be improved to ensure Studland Bay continues to be protected in the future. The survey will contribute towards our 2023 review. We thank all those who have shared their views so far. If you have not done so already, please take 10 minutes to complete our online survey before it closes on 10 January 2024. |
PWLS08
New member
I cannot this of a better example of the RYA's complete abrogation of any responsibility to represent their members interest. Preferring instead to lecture them on fashionable causes.
An RYA spokesman said: “Our discussions with boaters about seagrass at the Southampton Boat Show last year were overwhelmingly positive, with a clear desire to support conservation efforts."
"A new daily £10 fee to use the eco moorings at Studland Bay in Dorset has sparked outrage among some boaters, but their view “does not represent the majority”, says the Studland Bay Marine Partnership."
£10 daily fee for Studland Bay eco mooring buoys - Practical Boat Owner
An RYA spokesman said: “Our discussions with boaters about seagrass at the Southampton Boat Show last year were overwhelmingly positive, with a clear desire to support conservation efforts."
"A new daily £10 fee to use the eco moorings at Studland Bay in Dorset has sparked outrage among some boaters, but their view “does not represent the majority”, says the Studland Bay Marine Partnership."
£10 daily fee for Studland Bay eco mooring buoys - Practical Boat Owner