Studland Bay summary

[Twister_Ken]

Looks like UK plc may be trying to kick MCZs into the long (eel)grass. Conservationists upset, according to the Guardian.

[oldharry]

Yes the conservationists are getting impatient: Richard Benyon issued a written statement today saying that there would be a further delay before the MCZs become law, very much as I predicted. It appears now that the JNCC and Natural England will not produce their esults until next July, and the 'Public Consultation' will not now take place until towards the end of 2012, 12 months later than originally promised. Benyon says there is insufficent information on a number of the sites, but that the frist MCZs should be crated early in 2013.

Conservationists argue that this delay is unacceptable, and further damage is being done. They are demanding that MCZ are implemented BEFORE the information is in place. Really?!

Ministerial statement here: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/11...rvation-zones/

[Sans Bateau]

And this is the sort of response by one 'conservation' type to the article in the Guardian:

"*******s. This is prevarication dressed up as benchmarking. What the f*** is the point of gathering evidence WHILST the ecosystem is being degraded/ destroyed?

Yet again, another career politician who doesn't know **** from clay when it comes to his department. I'm thoroughly sick of it. I want to hurt someone."

Ending up saying "I want to hurt someone", really? just shows that these conservation groups are infiltrated by nothing more than thugs who only want to get their own way.

[oldharry]

Yes, I've met people like that in some of the meetings I have been to...

[ARCO7]

I am disappointed to read this latest setback, no honestly I am .
It might signal the Government have got wise to the fact that lawyers like myself are preparing to accept hundreds of clients on the basis that these proposed MCZs restrict their movement and amenities.
There are already several major loop holes/cock ups in the legislation and without a watertight case and overwhelming evidence these protected areas don't stand up in a court of law.
For instance, how can you prove a master of a craft was not acting in an emergency when he dropped his anchor on a patch of seagrass in an area of conservation ?
Its the most flawed piece of legislation we've seen in a very long time and this delay could cost me thousands of pounds in loss legal fees .
At least they will make sure its not rushed through because the professional conservationists are getting hysterical because they re running short on cash and donations in this deep economic decline.
Theses conservation charitys should take heed "NEVER BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU".

[BlueSkyNick]

Its the most flawed piece of legislation we've seen in a very long time and this delay could cost me thousands of pounds in loss legal fees .

I think you are pushing your luck, putting that up as an argument !!!

[Searush]

I think you are pushing your luck, putting that up as an argument !!!

Can you not see the bulge formed by the tongue in his cheek?

His point is well made, and also entertaining. Good zest to him for it.

[Tranona]

Before everybody gets too excited, it is worth reading the statement and the Report. While there are many areas where the "scientific evidence" is judged to be poor, most of the contentious ones such as Studland and the South Coast/South West estuaries get high scores (4 and 5 with 5 highest) for the quality of the evidence against the benchmarks.

Just like the EU one can see proposals for a two speed implementation - discarding or delaying those with poor evidence and pressing ahead with the others.

[sea urchin]

The Beeb gave more airtime to NGM last week - on radio 4 Saving Species. A feature on sea horses including Studland inhabitants.

Summary from the SHT here:http://www.theseahorsetrust.org/news.aspx

The Seahorses Trust was on Saving Species on Radio on Tuesday the 8th and repeated on Thursday the 10th of November where we were talking about the tagging project at Studland Bay in Dorset and about seahorses in general. There has been fantastic feedback from the public about the article including lots of boating organisations that want to know how they can alleviate the problems that anchors are causing in the sea.Etc

you can listen here :http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016wxv5#synopsis

[sea urchin]

This lot came from the MCZ Science Advisory Panel, the day before the ministerial statement. http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications...nal-report.pdf

It seems to be sayingsomething completely different to the minister, though well disguised in jargon. Rather too much emphasis on the precautionary principle for my liking. A lot about the scientists' disappointment that the evidence base is not more thorough, and more worrying, that the reference areas are too small, and the network not more joined up.

So who should we believe, who will win the day? The SAP or the politicians?