Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[Bash]

Originally Posted by congo

Anchorring bans have been on the increase, the launch of concave has given ammunittion for the green groops, the visuals now with concave means you no longer have to dive to find environment destruction, the evidence is hanging offer your boat.

Further, If you look around our estauries you will find a high concentration of Parks and wild life officers siffting, testing, reporting, unforuately they do not have to look far anymore with the help of concave , just walk along the weed beds at low tide and you will see evidence like never before,

Seriously? "ammunittion [SIC] for the green groops" [SIC]? Parks and wild life[SIC] officers doing all that siffting [SIC]?

That's a bit of paranoia. Most anchoring bans are there to protect the coral from the rodes, not to protect the substrate.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Sounds to me to endorse any professionally branded 'danforth style', any problems in wind shifts? Any problems with retreival.

He said "... smaller Danforth used in Bahamian moors...", didn't he.

Danforth will re-set in sand OK. Know your bottom.

Never had any issue retrieving our Danforth yet.

But it does not set in thick grass/weed, etc. at all. Again, know your bottom.

b.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Bash

That's a bit of paranoia. Most anchoring bans are there to protect the coral from the rodes, not to protect the substrate.

I think you might need broaden your horizons,

There is no coral in Jervis Bay, the anchor ban is to protect the sea grass. Just north of Coffs Harbour, I have no idea why there is an anchor ban but there is no coral. Manly (Sydney) again there might be coral but anchor bans are to protect breeding grounds, maybe the sea horses. We also have bans in coral areas, same, same,

We have anchor bans introduced for environmental reasons in areas that have no coral.

Studland Bay, UK, I'm not aware that the UK is famous for its coral (but I am ready to be educated).

[Bash]

Originally Posted by JonJo

I think you might need broaden your horizons,

There is no coral in Jervis Bay, the anchor ban is to protect the sea grass. Just north of Coffs Harbour, I have no idea why there is an anchor ban but there is no coral. Manly (Sydney) again there might be coral but anchor bans are to protect breeding grounds, maybe the sea horses. We also have bans in coral areas, same, same,

We have anchor bans introduced for environmental reasons in areas that have no coral.

Studland Bay, UK, I'm not aware that the UK is famous for its coral (but I am ready to be educated).

I stand by my statement, "most anchoring bans are there to protect coral from rodes, not to protect the substrate." (Note the emphasis, in bold.)

Eel grass would not be "substrate."

[JonJo]

Bash,

don't get picky - its the internet

What on earth (maybe that should be what in the sea)do you anchor and does your sea grass grow

[Bash]

Originally Posted by JonJo

What on earth (maybe that should be what in the sea)do you anchor and does your sea grass grow

Rocna, mostly.

Actually, the restoration and preservation of eel grass meadows here in Richardson Bay is a "growing" concern. (Please excuse the word play.) When the herring spawn they deposit their roe on the eel grass. It's a huge fishery dependent upon a single host plant. But it would be silly to make a case that convex anchors will do more damage to the meadows than concave anchors, or to argue that "wild life officers" (cracks me up!) will use snapshots of mud pulled up on Rocna rollbars to close more anchorages.

I'm willing to bet that those wild, wild officers can base their inferences on stronger science than that.

[JonJo]

Bash,

I hope you are correct, about the scientific evidence.

But to show you that in 'our' Jervis Bay case there is some contradiction

At the 'Hole in the Wall' (the historic anchorage) we are now banned from anchoring in less than 10m, low water. This anchorage is in the SE corner of the bay. The restriction covers a fairly large geographic area. To the north of the restricted area, is another restricted area, run by a different conservation group. The two 'restricted' areas share the one common border. They ban anchoring in depths greater than 10m.

I find it very difficult to reconcile one group protecting 'something' deeper than 10m and another group protecting something shallower than 10m. To me, the science does not entirely stack up.

But if I were a wild life officer, with an agenda, I might include an anchor on a bow roller - it has visual impact in a dry report totally absent from a set of numbers - and a picture is worth a thousand words, especially to a bureaucrat. Its perception not reality.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by JonJo

But to show you that in 'our' Jervis Bay case there is some contradiction

At the 'Hole in the Wall' (the historic anchorage) we are now banned from anchoring in less than 10m, low water. This anchorage is in the SE corner of the bay. The restriction covers a fairly large geographic area. To the north of the restricted area, is another restricted area, run by a different conservation group. The two 'restricted' areas share the one common border. They ban anchoring in depths greater than 10m.

Just so everyone knows, we're talking about "sanctuary zones" in a marine park. As I understand it, there are also "habitat protection zones" in the park where anchoring, crabbing, et cetera are permitted. These habitat protection zones are more extensive than the sanctuary zones where anchoring is prohibited. Some species, such as seahorses, corals and anemonies, are not allowed to be taken anywhere in the park. Crabs, prawns, finfish, et cetera are able to be harvested within the habitat protection zones.

I've never dropped the hook in Jervis Bay, but it sounds as if some reasonable compromises are being made in a marine park to preserve habitat while still permitting recreational boating and fishing. What am I mising here?

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I'll stick to Bruce.. TYVM..

And sometimes even a Bruce will stick

[congo]

Hi Bash,

Bash wrote:

Just so everyone knows, we're talking about "sanctuary zones" in a marine park. As I understand it, there are also "habitat protection zones" in the park where anchoring, crabbing, et cetera are permitted. These habitat protection zones are more extensive than the sanctuary zones where anchoring is prohibited. Some species, such as seahorses, corals and anemonies, are not allowed to be taken anywhere in the park. Crabs, prawns, finfish, et cetera are able to be harvested within the habitat protection zones.

I've never dropped the hook in Jervis Bay, but it sounds as if some reasonable compromises are being made in a marine park to preserve habitat while still permitting recreational boating and fishing. What am I mising here?
__________________

Well Bash it may be all SIC to you and probably there are a few here that would agree with you, coral, I am not talking about protecting coral, we do not have coral in south of Victoria Australia,further I am not talking specificaly yachters, recreational fisherman and charter operators.

Charter operators are all about protecting the weed beds of which is low growing ground cover weed, you know if you would really like the evidence I could post it on utube, it would certainly gain interest from many, I suppose it would also attract unwanted observation and start the concave mud bucket discussion all over again.

Yes we have our no go zones, fishery nurseries, and the like, our problem is we are loosing more of our fishing grounds to such no go zones, nurseries, because a parks officer has just found a new species of what ever that it needs this paticular area of habitat to no longer be disturbed.

Like all other protected areas.

Fact is every time you pull up a concave design in mud, weed shell you will have a full scoop to fossick in for bait. there is no way around
that.

Siffting the sea bed by parks officers is as real as your denial of that being true, I certainly think all of this is unneccesary, but you know they may find that some worm is becoming extinct, has to be the anchors, that is what we are up against, the removel of sea bed by the means of scoop, concave design is gaining recognition, hard to argue when more and more displays are there for all to see.

But removal of low ground cover weed from whiting grounds is a fact, and like I said try using them on whiting grounds in Westernport and the chances are you will cop a handfull of sinkers from a charter boat.

I certainly would keep my thoughts of SIC to myself in a situation as such, but their condemnation further adds fuel to the fire as bascially without realizing, unwillingly, they are supporting wild life and parks officers to enforce possibly banning of all anchoring regardless of design, they certainly are not going to single anyone anchor design out.

To good an opportunity to blanket ban them all as destructive, their statment has some truth in it but some designs are far more destructive than others and advertising the fact doesn't help.

Even the old plough anchor will plough a furrow,it doesnt take out a club of this weed and dump it somwhere esle.

Your statement Bash, that more damage is done from anchor chains and ropes is totally not true. Surface dragging chains and ropes will flatten ,drag of weed but doesn't remove the root matter. Concave digs, scoops, then when lifted brings the whole kit and kaboodle with it.

Any way, I dont really care enough to try and convince anyone, and given your line of comment sic sic sic I am wasting my time ,but what you shoud be concerned about is the amount of evidence as to dragging concave anchor designs, not just on this forum but now many are voicing the same, when the anchor has surfaced after these dragging episodes, comments from those dragging has shown the cause of a scoop clogged with either mud, weed, or clay, that my friend is a fact of life.

You maybe totally happy with your design but Im hoping these findings will alert you to be more cautious when riding out storm fronts just in case of an unexpected big drag due to a clogged anchor.

Further to your comment, it's not the convex that creates disturbance ,it is the plow shears attached to the convex ,it may be of interest to you, our anchors are convex without the plough shears, leaving the substrate the same way up with little disturbance.

Regards.

Rex.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by congo

You maybe totally happy with your design but Im hoping these findings will alert you to be more cautious when riding out storm fronts just in case of an unexpected big drag due to a clogged anchor.

Further to your comment, it's not the convex that creates disturbance ,it is the plow shears attached to the convex ,it may be of interest to you, our anchors are convex without the plough shears, leaving the substrate the same way up with little disturbance.

Talk about thread drift. But far I'm concerned choosing an anchor based on whether it brings up mud or whether it leaves the mud on the bottom is ridiculous! It dug in and ripped up the bottom either way.

I bet most anchoring rules based on this type of thinking is more about boats being an easy regulation target than really making a difference, like a lot of other regulations.

[Cotemar]

If you want to protect the "sanctuary zones" then give the cruisers what they need to protect the environment in those locations.

Put in a mooring field. Then no one causes any bottom damage and all is good.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by foggysail

And sometimes even a Bruce will stick

Mate... its not what you've got... its how you use it.. you should know that by now...
I sail a variety of boats doing deliveries so come across a variety of anchors... last year in Las Brisas, Panama the BR 54 I was delivering had a CQR... every afternoon the winds, lightening and rain would come.. we never dragged.. did have to ride the dinghy to rescue a few others with the new Super Anchors tho'...
Re anchor bans Salcombe enforces that as well.. also they've changed all their moorings and floating pontoons upstream toward Kingsbridge to the screw in types... Studland Bay tho' seems a tad extreme... the main weed/grass is under the cliffs & about 500 metres out.. running out to Old Harry... which is used as a play area for water skiers etc.. though they still like to come into the anchorage area to show off.
The Studland Arms has laid a few moorings for patrons.. free of charge.. maybe this will be expanded as its a very popular spot protected from all directions but E & NE..

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Don L

Talk about thread drift. But far I'm concerned choosing an anchor based on whether it brings up mud or whether it leaves the mud on the bottom is ridiculous! It dug in and ripped up the bottom either way.

I bet most anchoring rules based on this type of thinking is more about boats being an easy regulation target than really making a difference, like a lot of other regulations.

aah Don, you cynic you. To think that you believe civil servants sit and make up regulations just to make them up

Why if you keep thinking that way - you might even begin to believe some of your tax dollars are wasted

Or that politician only think about getting reelected

WARNING: Thread drift Thread drift

[congo]

Hi DonL

DONL WROTE:

Talk about thread drift. But far I'm concerned choosing an anchor based on whether it brings up mud or whether it leaves the mud on the bottom is ridiculous! It dug in and ripped up the bottom either way.

Rex wrote:
Yes well I have been accused of worse things (THREAD DRIFT) Iwas simply responding to Bash's first and last post on this page.

DonL wrote:

I bet most anchoring rules based on this type of thinking is more about boats being an easy regulation target than really making a difference, like a lot of other regulations

I think a lot of your statment is very true, unfortunately you would have seen the green group in action, at war with the walers, they have a lot of support, not saying all in what they believe is wrong, but weather you are in the boating industry, or you are a shooter, we are all targeted with support from groups that never get their feet wet,eat red meat,we cannot go out the bush and cut dead fire wood, the Ants live there.

Like I said before if you are going to have an all night party keep the noise down and you wont be noticed.

Regards Rex.