Can an anchor be "environmentally friendly?:

[MidLandOne]

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

...one issue has not been addressed and that is of the chain.

Quite agree with that. Always disappointed to see the wildlife that comes up entangled in our chain, especially the likes of brittlestars off mud bottoms. I'm kind though, I religiously hose them off before they disappear into a million bits around the gypsy. But doesn't help the habitat damage down below.

Much worse again perhaps, and we see alot of them used where we are, are scallop dredges.

[Pblais]

Much worse again perhaps, and we see alot of them used where we are, are scallop dredges.

Current estimates are that the problem of scallop dredges will go away not too long from now. By 2012 most of the worlds scallops should be gone leaving too little to commercially harvest.

[GMac]

The whole 'environmentally friendly' thing is a bit out of hand in my opinion but saying that some anchors do leave less seabed disturbance than others. One of the first to really push the environment tag in AUS and NZ is an absolute shocker. The term 'trenching tool' would be more what I'd say. Then we think they were more talking no lead.

Our Dept of Conservation started to look at what anchors do a few years back and some of the boats in the real sensitive areas use a specific anchor which leaves a very small disturbance even if dragged.

Chain wise, that's a tricky one I'm having issues with at the moment. I also thought chain would do a far whack of damage but over Xmas I jumped over to give my bottom a tickle and as I do I thought I'd do a quick scallop suss. Couldn't find any but was somewhat surprise to see very very little 'chain tracks' on the seabed. We were in a very popular bay with a sandy/hint of mud bottom. Considering the large number of boats that were in and use the bay there was minimal marks of any sort, even anchor.

Last week we popped down to another even more popular bay for a picnic/ pre-race bottom polish. Again I had a look around and found minimal marks of any sort.

Sure there were marks but all very fresh so I'm thinking damage to seabeds like that is very short term. As for other bottom types I'd say coral does get beaten up and would weed or grass bottoms. Rock I think the damage is more like to be to the boats gear rather than the seabed.

As for lead, I doubt the lead used in anchors would be a biggie. Most is encased and just won't 'fall out'. Lost anchors would be the biggest problem I'd say. From memory I think I remember Duck shooting was the biggest cause of lead getting into our waterways from the recreational side of users. Hence all our shotguns now have to use steel pallets and no more lead. That's good for the environment but I've heard it's not good for the Ducks due to a lot lower 'clean kills'.

We've used the term 'Biodegradable combined with 100% Fat and Salt free makes this chain both good for your environment and body' when doing a very tongue in check promo for some chain

Interesting subject.

[Alan Wheeler]

We have good regulations here for scolloping. Although I am stunned at how hard the beds are hit each year. Yet the quality and No.s still seems to remain OK. The commercial guys have a very short season to dredge and then closely after that the beds are opened to the public. Personly, I think the beds are opened too soon. Early in the season I often hear many complain that the scollop has not matured and is of poor quality. Why on earth they still persist on taking scollops so early bets me.
Here is an interesting point and question. Firstly a little pre-information. Oysters & oystering from the coast of Bluff
We currently have Oyster season. It is very heavily restricted and only a small No. of commercial operators can harvest and they have a very restricted catch. Hence the Bluff Oyster commands a very high price. The Beds are devided up into management area's and only certain area's are Harvested each season. But an interesting dicovery has occured. It seems that the beds that are harvested seem to do better at recovering resulting in a better quality of Oyster than the Beds that have been left alone for a season or two. So it seems that the dredges breaking up the beds are actually good for the Oyster.
So I wonder. Does the same apply for the Scollop perhaps?. Now in saying that, we have two area's here that are constantly hammered each season. Yet scollops grow pretty much all over the sound. Yet if you dredge in any area outside of the two that haved regular use, the No.s of scollops are very very low. I just ownder if that is because the Beds are not broken up each season. I really don't know, I am just wondering.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Whilst I understand that a coral reef takes a little while to grow ......and therefore dropping an Anchor straight on top / through is arguably not environmentally freindly......to be honest I find it hard to get too excited about the "damage" done on "normal" seabed by an Anchor / Chain......I am sure that for every undersea critter or piece of seaweed that gets disturbed their is another that is quite happy to take advantage of the new (and often temporary) environment.......indeed change is probably quite normal.

Regular bottom trawling however is another matter - and IMO should be regulated / controlled.........partly for the benefit of the undersea critters (arrrrr ) but mainly for the benefit of folk whose livelihoods depend on sustainability....and who without regulation are otherwise forced commercially to use unsustainable practices.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Whilst I understand that a coral reef takes a little while to grow ......and therefore dropping an Anchor straight on top / through is arguably not environmentally freindly......to be honest I find it hard to get too excited about the "damage" done on "normal" seabed by an Anchor / Chain......I am sure that for every undersea critter or piece of seaweed that gets disturbed their is another that is quite happy to take advantage of the new (and often temporary) environment.......indeed change is probably quite normal.

Yeah, I really can't see this being a big issue either.

When I've gone swimming around anchorages, I see very few "scars" and if there are some, they are fresh. Just think how quickly the marine life grows on the bottom of your hull, even with biocides and copper all over it!

It grows much more quickly in spots where the anchor chain may have moved around.

After anchoring for a week or so, my chain comes up as *part* of an eco-system complete with tons of new growth and many living creatures setting up shop right in the links.

Lastly, the mobile creatures just move when the chain is bothering them. As I said somewhere before... the lobsters I anchor next to just walk over somewhere else if they don't like my chain... however, I think they do sit around close to the boat to catch any food scraps that make it out the galley seacock! Why do I assume this? Because the lobstermen drop traps as close as possible to a boat that has been anchored a while. They know the lobsters are attracted to it.

[GordMay]

Those who would minimize, or otherwise excuse, the damage that anchoring over living coral causes - are simply uninformed & wrong.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Those who would minimize, or otherwise excuse, the damage that anchoring over living coral causes - are simply uninformed & wrong.

I think I may have missed that post. Of course... *never* even think about anchoring in coral or sea grass. My post applies to rocky/sandy/muddy/other bottoms.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Those who would minimize, or otherwise excuse, the damage that anchoring over living coral causes - are simply uninformed & wrong.

A bit of tongue in cheek on the coral ......will wait untill the first of next month to start a thread "Best Anchor for Coral"

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

A bit of tongue in cheek on the coral ......will wait untill the first of next month to start a thread "Best Anchor for Coral"

Ha ha ha!!! lol

Yes, the new CoralPlow(tm) anchor direct from Jersey. Made of Uranium alloy with a powder coating of Ricin to keep unwanted growth at bay. Guaranteed to plow away all the pesky coral heads or your money back!

[MidLandOne]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

...to be honest I find it hard to get too excited about the "damage" done on "normal" seabed by an Anchor / Chain......I am sure that for every undersea critter or piece of seaweed that gets disturbed their is another that is quite happy to take advantage of the new (and often temporary) environment.......indeed change is probably quite normal.

..and along similar lines any critter that does get mangled is food for the others so is not wasted either.

It is not something that worries me much but would be sure that on mud bottoms, for example, many fragile things like brittle stars (which are very common around our main haunts) get mangled by the chain as it drags across/through. As I think GMac indicates sand is probably not a big issue as the chain will just sweep the surface and most clear sandy bottom critters are either pretty mobile or else buried.

The other thing, unlike trawl fishing, is that anchorages only comprise a very, very small area of the wider sea bottom so not a wide problem (excepting anchoring over unique concentrated structures such as coral).

[tyrntlzrdking]

Originally Posted by ssullivan

CoralPlow(tm) anchor direct from Jersey. Made of Uranium alloy with a powder coating of Ricin to keep unwanted growth at bay. Guaranteed to plow away all the pesky coral heads or your money back!

I want two! What size do I need for my boat?
I hate coral. It must be destroyed.

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by MidLandOne

Which is, of course, the only reason you mentioned it .

They produce plenty of anchors that do not have lead in them. So it is a LIE and foolish deception aimed at the gullible to claim that "every" anchor of theirs has lead in it as you have.

Is definitely about time you went away until you have had time to grown up. Perhaps he should be sent away as he drivels this tripe on every forum he gets access to?

It is not clear whom you think I was referring to by 'primary competitor', but every Spade I have seen includes a large quantity of lead and it is no lie to say so. Perhaps you could confirm things if they are not clear before making such allegations.

Originally Posted by Manson Anchors

3. The Supreme doesnt "plough" like other anchors. This type of anchor reaches its maximum hold without having to dig deep like the plough and Bruce Type. This "ploughing" is what damages seabeds.

As to the company which produces a range of knock-offs in addition to their Rocna variant, is it ironic to advertise the one as 'environmentally friendly' if that then implies by contrast that the bulk of the products they move, i.e. the other 'types', are therefore anything but?

[MidLandOne]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

It is not clear whom you think I was referring to by 'primary competitor', but every Spade I have seen includes a large quantity of lead and it is no lie to say so. Perhaps you could confirm things if they are not clear before making such allegations.

Well I certainly stand by my comment that the only reason you pointed out that there was lead in another's anchor was because of your desire to always point to what you consider are issues with the anchor of others.

With respect to the competitor I was indeed thinking of Manson as, of course, you knew all along while pretending not too . I would have thought that Manson make more anchors than Spade do and also had a wider presence across both commercial and pleasure - and so a primary competitor for both yourself and others. If I am wrong in that I will readily accept so, just provide me with the respective sales revenues and volumes upon which you base your claim.

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by MidLandOne

With respect to the competitor I was indeed thinking of Manson as, of course, you knew all along while pretending not too . I would have thought that Manson make more anchors than Spade do and also had a wider presence across both commercial and pleasure - and so a primary competitor for both yourself and others. If I am wrong in that I will readily accept so, just provide me with the respective sales revenues and volumes upon which you base your claim.

Spade is the first real "new generation" anchor, and it has drawn people's attention to the fact that the flaws of the older types, familiar to many boaters for decades, no longer need be tolerated. It still has an excellent and well deserved reputation amongst cruisers, is well built, and it is for the Rocna the product to beat. That's no secret.

You have assumed that all I cared about was sales revenue. The market is segmented, and the Rocna's direct competitors consists of the higher end products (like the Spade). These naturally are more expensive to produce, so priced more highly, and so tend to be less 'successful' in terms of sales quantities than the low end products. [If all we cared about for the purposes of this conversation was sales revenues, then our 'primary competitor' would probably be some random Chinese outfit spitting out cheap Bruce clones with multiple re-branding exercises happening further down the supply chain.]

The flock of companies around the world, in New Zealand, North America, and Europe, which watch for good products, then expand their range of imitations, can strive but never come close to the value and ultimate appeal of the genuine items.