anchor-outs have significantly harmed the ecosystem

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Had you read the study, on which you comment, you'd know:

From the paper’s Abstract:
“... The purpose of our study was to provide factual evidence for policy makers by quantifying damage to eelgrass caused by illegal anchor-outs in San Francisco Bay, an issue that has been disputed for decades. Using aerial imagery and GIS analyses, we determined the amount of direct damage to eelgrass caused by anchor-outs. We found that boats damage up to 41% of the eelgrass bed, and each boat may cause up to 0.3 ha of damage. These results can be used to inform decisions about anchor-outs by stakeholders and government agencies ...”


From the paper’s Discussion:
“... Illegally anchored boats in Richardson Bay have been highly controversial, and we hope our study will inform policy decisions. If boats are removed from Richardson Bay, the eelgrass bed within the anchorage likely could recover in about three years and epifaunal richness could restore in just one year. Eelgrass recovery may increase potential for sediment stabilization, increase water clarity, and increase shoreline protection through reduced wave action. Scientific evidence may inform future policy to protect eelgrass not only in San Francisco Bay, but across the Pacific coast.


From the paper's Acknowledgements:
This research was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
We thank Pat and Julie Belanger of 111th Aerial Photography Group for taking the aerial images.
Dr. Katharyn Boyer and Dr. Ellen Hines gave valuable input regarding the identification of anchor scour and eelgrass conservation in San Francisco Bay.
We appreciate Dr. Tendai Chitewere, Heather Richard, Keith Merkel, Barbara Salzman, and representatives from Marin County, the City of Sausalito, and the RBRA for discussions on the anchor-out issue that informed this work.
Conversations with Alden Bevington and others from the Richardson Bay Special Anchorage Association also provided insight into the anchor-out community.
We also thank Andrea Jones, Anna Weinstein, Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg, and our peer reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

Gord, I like you and respect that your smarter than the average Bear.
But please understand that by quoting what the study says it’s intent is, may not be the “real” intent of the study.

It’s sort of like when the FAA shows up and says they are here to help, they aren’t really there to help, even if that is their stated intent.

I don’t intend to read the study.
Why? Because I don’t believe the study states it’s actual intent, and I’m very suspect of the findings.
Call that ignorant if you like, but I don’t believe anything RJ Reynolds funds either