Anchors Cause “extensive, persistent” Damage to Seafloor

[GordMay]

The World: Total Fertility Rate (2022): Births per woman
➥ Geoba.se: Gazetteer - The World - Total Fertility Rate - Top 100+ By Country (2022)
United States of America 2.06
Canada 1.62
United Kingdom 1.85
Germany 1.49
Denmark 1.73
Sweden 1.68
Australia 1.76
New Zealand 1.97
Japan 1.44

[GordMay]

Somewhat more on-topic ...
See also:
“anchor-outs have significantly harmed the ecosystem” [Richardson Bay]
➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post2892594

[Idaho]

Maybe world population will peak at 10.9B.

Human population will eventually exceed 100 billion as we grow our civilization into the Solar system, then exceed 100 trillion as we grow out into the Milky Way galaxy.

Short timeline horizons are so limiting to understanding the true progression of life and species.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Outside of Africa, the rest of the world is already at or below replacement fertility rates and falling. Even Africa is dropping fast. The overall world fertility rate has dropped by about half since the 1950's and is a hair above replacement rates. Probably will fall below in the next few years.

I suspect wealth and education are the result more than the cause of lower fertility rates (correlation vs causation question).
- Before recent times, it was financially beneficial to have large families. They were effectively free labor that cost very little to maintain and when you got old, they were your retirement plan. Even highly educated well-off couples typically had lots of kids.
- Now, it's frowned upon to expect kids to work (or even do chores). It's not uncommon for parents to be supporting them into their 20's (sometimes beyond). They are a huge financial drain and fewer and fewer expect to live with their kids when they get old. The wealthy and well educated were simply the first to make the transition as they more often had work that didn't benefit from having the cheap labor that kids provided.

By having fewer kids, people have more time to gain wealth. It's now typical for both parents to work which substantially increases income. With the extra wealth and fewer kids, parents can afford to send them further into the education system while saving to pay for their retirement years.

That's a very "first world" viewIt's not just Africa. Its the whole "developing world".
You have your correlation/causation backwards.
It's very clear from any developing or recently developed nation that bettern maternal health, education and access to energy need to come first. They result in better education, wealth and, a generation or two later, lower birth rates.

[sailorboy1]

I thought this was an anchoring thread

[StuM]

Originally Posted by grantmc

Yes Stu there are number of areas where anchoring is restricted in the Picton Harbour, almost all the restrictions are because otherwise a boat would be in the paths of the ferries or the large number of smaller commercial boats.

There's only one area, not a number.

According to the Marlborough Distict Council (Marlborough District Council Navigation Bylaw), "Anchoring is prohibited within Picton Harbour inside a line from Wedge Point to The Snout. Vessels stopping in this
area must arrange to use a registered mooring or berth; "
i.e. the entire Picton Harbour:


The only place in Picton Harbour where anchoring is permitted in in the small trapezoid "Quarantine Anchorage Area" around Kaipupu Point to Mabel Island ( shown in green on the chart) . Apart from that there is no anchoring anywhere.

[paralog]

Originally Posted by grantmc

A High-resolution mapping study by New Zealand's NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) has produced the first ever global estimates of coastal habitat damage caused by anchoring.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in port congestion around the world, leading to unprecedented bottlenecks in maritime traffic and intensive anchoring of high-tonnage ships.

Researchers from NIWA, University of Auckland, and Auckland University of Technology wanted to characterise the footprint and extent of anchoring on the seafloor, which has never been quantified before. Using sonars and ship tracking data, they documented the morphology of anchoring outside Picton’s marine port on New Zealand’s South Island, revealing an extensive and persistent physical impact.

They discovered that every time a high-tonnage ship anchors, it can excavate the seafloor up to 80cm, displacing enough sediment to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool. Comparison data shows that the damage remains for at least 4 years.

Scaled-up globally, this equates to at least 6,000km2 of impacted seabed. However, this is probably a “substantial underestimate,” says the study’s lead author Dr Sally Watson, a marine geophysicist at NIWA and lecturer in marine science at the University of Auckland.

“Picton is a low congestion port but in higher congestion ports, such as Wellington or Long Beach, USA, the footprint extends over a much wider region. In fact, the number could be as high as 20,000km2 of damaged seabed worldwide,” Dr Watson said.

The numbers are comparable to that of trawling because even though trawling occurs over a greater area, anchoring is done much more frequently, for longer, and penetrates more deeply.

“The anchor digs into the seabed and is moved around as the ship drifts on the surface, dragging the chain and causing ‘broomstick-like’ abrasions, killing off marine species and releasing carbon stores from the sediment. This has far-reaching implications for already stressed ecosystems and carbon cycling.

“It seems that this problem is ‘out of sight, out of mind’ because the environmental footprint of anchoring is not yet considered in official reporting of global human impacts on the marine ecosystem,” Dr Watson said.

Dr Marta Ribó is a lecturer in marine geology at Auckland University of Technology and is the study’s co-author. She said that new solutions are needed to reduce the destruction of anchorage on the seafloor.

“The impact of regular anchoring worldwide likely represents a major driver of shallow marine habitat degradation. This brings up questions about how anchor sites are chosen - do we know what kind of habitat anchors are being dropped onto or is it done without regard to what’s below the surface?

“We also don’t yet have a snapshot of cruise ships because our analysis was done during the height of the pandemic when most had ceased operating. Cruise ships are large and numerous, and they often drop anchor in pristine areas. Now knowing what we do, we must ask ourselves whether we want to encourage this kind of tourism,” Dr Ribó said.

Dr Watson said that their research has unearthed the ‘hidden cost’ of ship anchoring.

“To meet the climate goals outlined in COP26, countries have agreed to work towards a net-zero goal for global maritime shipping. As seaborne trade is projected to quadruple by 2050 and cruise ships begin to sail once more, new solutions are needed to avoid irreversible damage to marine habitats caused by this unreported problem,” she said.

The study was published in Nature Scientific Reports.

The big issue with reports like this is that some groups of eco nitwits will glam onto it and the next thing boaters using a 25lb anchor will be banned from anchoring because it is causing the earth to collapse. It's happening already, many places are banning anchoring and only allowing the use of mooring balls (for a charge of course) with no real scientific justification.

[capn_billl]

Yay, another anchoring thread.

1. Most ships, even commercial ships anchor in anchorages.

2. I would expect extensive seafloor plowing in the those areas.

3. Most of the ocean, 99.9999% is unsuitable for anchoring, and not likely to have ANY anchoring damage.

4. Mooring fields in sensitive areas makes sense, there are already mooring fields in popular cruising bays with coral.

5. Just outside major ports is where the problem is, and remains. There is plenty of seafloor OUTSIDE these areas where commercial ships are unlikely to anchor. AND the sea life is just fine.

Unless someone wants to make the case there is an endangered species of seaworm that ONLY lives in Picton Bay.

As far as the rest of us?
Avoid anchoring in coral, and Seagrass.

I've recently anchored in several popular cruising anchorages, and I saw several dozen anchor marks, but there had been literally hundreds of anchored boats there in the last few months. apparently the weeds had regrown over the older marks.

As far as virtual anchoring, that's already a thing that oil platforms, and other high tech ships use. But it requires the engines to be running fulltime, and THAT releases more carbon.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by paralog

The big issue with reports like this is that some groups of eco nitwits will glam onto it and the next thing boaters using a 25lb anchor will be banned from anchoring because it is causing the earth to collapse. It's happening already, many places are banning anchoring and only allowing the use of mooring balls (for a charge of course) with no real scientific justification.

And that's the real problem here.

NO POLITICIAN is going to ban international trade.

The shipping companies, and the major manufacturing corporations OWN them.

Small boaters are an easy target, and is a "feel good" gesture so they can point to their voters, and say "see I'm doing something". Even if it is a completly useless gesture, like banning deck runoff on small boats.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by flightlead404

Malthus was right!

We can either be proactive and begin to limit population now, or our population will be reactively limited due to the four horsemen (who are already making their presence known).

Did you even bother to read anything I wrote before responding?

[Mr B]

Most big tonnage ships anchor in a designated mooring field, They are clearly marked on maps,,
They have been anchoring there in the same spots for decades,
Its highly unlikely that there would be any growth on the seafloor under these big ships any way,
It would have been ripped out many years ago,
Big ships do not anchor in shallow water,

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by StuM

That's a very "first world" viewIt's not just Africa. Its the whole "developing world".
You have your correlation/causation backwards.
It's very clear from any developing or recently developed nation that bettern maternal health, education and access to energy need to come first. They result in better education, wealth and, a generation or two later, lower birth rates.

Thanks. I was going to respond similarly. There is decades of research showing the causal link to wealth/education and fertility.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by paralog

The big issue with reports like this is that some groups of eco nitwits will glam onto it and the next thing boaters using a 25lb anchor will be banned from anchoring because it is causing the earth to collapse. It's happening already, many places are banning anchoring and only allowing the use of mooring balls (for a charge of course) with no real scientific justification.

Indeed. Damn those eco-warriors!

[Pegu Club]

Anchors cause damage, industrial trawlers scraping the ocean floor cause damage, the unmeasurable tonnage of consumer goods waste that ends up on land and the ocean causes damage, we humans since the start of the industrial revolution have been fouling our own nests more and more every year since, hell we now have our children being born with heavy metals in their bodies, we pump untold metric tons of carcinogenic pollution into the air every day, and breath it into our bodies, it’s no wonder cancer is so prevalent…, our capitalistic ideals are the driving force behind all of this self destruction, summed up in one word, “GREED”


Fair winds, hope to see some of you in the Bahamas this winter

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by StuM

That's a very "first world" viewIt's not just Africa. Its the whole "developing world".
You have your correlation/causation backwards.
It's very clear from any developing or recently developed nation that bettern maternal health, education and access to energy need to come first. They result in better education, wealth and, a generation or two later, lower birth rates.

Actually outside of Africa, most of the developing world is right around or even below replacement rate. It's pretty much only in Africa where they are well above replacement rates.

As far correlation vs causation, it's not fully clear and hard to prove. All you did was provide evidence of correlation.

Third world countries as they move up the economic ladder tend to shift from manual labor jobs (family farms often) to cash jobs. You could as easily say access to cash jobs (vs family farms) comes first, then the wealth and education follow in a generation or so as the financial value of having lots of kids wanes and the social mores that a "good woman" has lots of kids fades.