Anchors Cause “extensive, persistent” Damage to Seafloor

[StuM]

Originally Posted by grantmc

I'm really surprised by the negative reactions and comments. I had always thought that cruisers took enjoyment from their environment and it was one of the reasons to go sailing. The study was based at Picton, a port in a very special place called the Marlborough Sounds. Picton is right at the top and we now know it was a very stupid place to locate a port.

Ah yes, Picton Harbour.


I wonder what all those little magenta anchors with crosses over them mean? They seem to cover just about the whole harbour.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by grantmc

... And Chris wouldn't it have been a great service to humanity if before the extensive use of tetraethyl lead in petrol and then CFCs in cans that the warnings from the many serious studies that had been undertaken to ascertain that actually they were really really bad ideas for health, and perhaps shouldn't have been widely used. It was certainly well know in the 1920s that lead poisoning was no fun.

But TEL made money for Standard Oil, and GM. And Chris it took nearly a hundred years of 'waiting' and resulted in countless deaths

And by the way 'we' didn't discover the TEL additive for petrol nor chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). That was all to the credit of Thomas Midgley, Jr. who will, I hope, forever hold the record for creating more damage than anyone else who has or ever will live...

According to historian John R, McNeill: Thomas J. Midgley* “had more impact on the atmosphere, than any other single organism, in Earth's history.” [1]

* Inventor of:
TetraEthyl Lead gasoline anti-knock additive [TEL]
Dichlorodifluoromethane CFC refridgerant [Freon-12]
Midgley's other accomplishments include: creating a process for extracting bromine from seawater, and developing natural and synthetic rubbers.

[1]“Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World” ~ by J. R. McNeill
Reviews:
a. ➥ https://www.researchgate.net/publica...y_World_review
b. ➥ https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...neill-sun.html

[GordMay]

“Discharge, noise, light and concerns for marine life from anchored vessels” ~ Transport Canada

Due in part to the growth in Canada’s trade activities, some regions, particularly Southern British Columbia, have experienced an increase in use of anchorages for vessels in the last decade.
Through the Anchorages Initiative [1], under the Oceans Protection Plan [2], Transport Canada officials are examining ways to reduce anchorage use and transits by commercial vessels, while also advancing active traffic management solutions to mitigate socio-environmental impacts and improve traffic management.

More ➥ https://tc.canada.ca/en/marine-trans...chored-vessels

[1] Anchorages ➥ https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/f...anchorages.pdf
➥ https://tc.canada.ca/en/initiatives/...tion-plan#toc5

[2] Oceans Protection Plan ➥ https://tc.canada.ca/en/initiatives/...rotection-plan

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by SaylorMade

6.000 km2 is 0,0016 percent of the ocean area.

Stuff like this draws attention away from the real problems, of which there are plenty.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by robinco

Seems to me Sailorboy1’s so what?” refers to ‘so what are you (or we) going to do about it?’ rather than just restating the likely environmental effects.

No, it was referring to getting all uptight over a very very very very small area of the seabed

[boatman61]

This is old news in many ways.. in Salcombe they banned anchoring in 90% of the area and installed screw in moorings for sail and power boats a couple of decades back.
Its an area of natural beauty and anchoring was causing to much damage, along with traditional moorings.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by GordMay

[SIZE=3]“had more impact on the atmosphere, than any other single organism, in Earth's history.”

That's a bit of a stretch. Clearly cyanobacteria, which are believed to have caused the Great Oxidation Event, would hold the top spot if you didn't narrow it down to a single organism.

Even so, the impact of both leaded gasoline and Freon were nothing but an insignificant blip in geologic time. The effects of these are trivial compared to all the other atmospheric changes just in my own lifetime.

I bring this up not only to be pedantic, but to illustrate how easy it is to inflate issues which, while legitimate, pale in comparison to larger and more pressing problems.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

That's a bit of a stretch. Clearly cyanobacteria, which are believed to have caused the Great Oxidation Event, would hold the top spot if you didn't narrow it down to a single organism...

Maybe so, but:
Mcneil identified one particular human organism [Midgley].
Which particular single-celled cyanobacterium organism, can you identify?

[Idaho]

When believing or citing any study, your first duty is to learn and understand who funded that study.

Once you know the agenda behind the study, only then is it possible to to trust it.

Most employees work to please their master.

[Winf]

Originally Posted by Greatest Lakes

They are not complaining about cruisers. Yet. For a change.

Time will tell. This is exactly how it starts.

This is how it came about that in more and more marine areas of this country I can't throw a line in and legally catch, clean and eat a fish for our dinner.

Someone writes a paper, paper gets supported by someone with a political/ideological agenda, they get a political ear that needs support from a marginal group to get into or remain in power and bada bing, how fast can you say Green Zone so no fishing here you environmental vandal.

For the record, we (and I suspect most cruisers and commercial vessels) don't anchor on reefs, rocks, weed banks or other charismatic ecosystems. Mainly because of the poor holding. I am also quite aware that good holding, plain jane, sandy or mud buttons are also ecosystems with their own unique characteristics and flora/fauna.

It's about scale, as other posters have correctly pointed out.

Don't understand irony? So be it. Am sick and tired of more and more simple freedoms, taken for granted less than one or two generations ago, are now stripped away with barely a whimper and almost no application of common sense. Those freedoms are gone folks. And are never coming back.

[bensolomon]

I've been sailing the BVI's for years. Each time I went back to dead man's bay and eustachia sound and snorkel it is clear to see the damage on the sea floor from anchoring. I would watch the anchor chain scrub the bottom clean in its path. No doubt we impact our personal micro environment, as we do with bottom paint, dish detergent from the galley sink, shampoo from the head, and on and on. But..... Of all the things humans do, pleasure craft anchoring must be the smallest contributor overall.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Winf

Time will tell. This is exactly how it starts...

Right.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

I see a lot of these "unseen impact" articles. And I think it's very true that we (humans) have an impact on the environment with everything we do.

Taken together, these reports of ecological damage lead me to an inevitable conclusion as to the root of the problem: Humans.

Clearly something needs to be done to eliminate this threat to our environment. Who's willing to do their part to reduce this invasive population? (No fair volunteering someone else!)

Well I am, I'm not breeding. We have way too many people on this planet already. We collectively as a species are way past the point at which we should be talking about mandatory global birth control.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by GreenWave

Sure anchors of all sorts put holes in the sea floor and stir up sediment. However, way too soon in this research to truly state that is a problem that will cause more problems. And is this stirring worse than storms and their effects? Is it different in a bad way?

Surely we have something else to study. Sad that someone is actually sponsoring this research.

The other question that immediately comes to mind is the relationship between tonnage and damage. Is it linear for example? Do 1000 10 tonne vessels cause more or less damage for longer or shorter periods of time than one 10,000 tonne vessel?

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by ChrisOwens

When we discovered that leaded motor fuel was poisoning us, the alternative wasn't to stop driving, it was to develop improved fuels and engine technology. And it was a huge success: lead levels are way down.


When we discovered that CFC refrigerants and propellants were trashing the ozone layer, we didn't stop having air conditioners or products in aerosol containers; we developed superior alternatives. And the result was a reversal of the environmental damage that was nothing short of spectacular: one of the true success stories for environmental protection

Its also interesting to compare statistics on violent crime with lead in the atmosphere skewed 20 years. Lead is known to cause behavioral issues along with the concomitant drop in IQ.