Cod, off the menu

[barry luxton]

First thing to remember is that currently no MCZ that excludes anglers has yet been proposed.

 

Beg pardon, the mcs are proposing most of their sites to be total ntz including rocks and seaweed, will anglers be allowed then?

[Leon Roskilly]

Beg pardon, the mcs are proposing most of their sites to be total ntz including rocks and seaweed, will anglers be allowed then?

 

I perhaps should have said that no specific areas are yet under consideration.

 

I've no doubt that a lot of proposals will be put forward from competing organisations, and with extensive data to support their proposals.

 

The process by which those proposals are formally put forward is still to start, and the majority will probably be set aside quite early on in the process with only relatively few candidate sites making it all the way through to being designated.

 

Right now, our best course of action (as well as preparing our challenges to proposals that might not deliver the benefits we want) would be to put forward sites that would suit the criteria and deliver conservation benefits, but will have no great impact on angling, backed up of course with credible information and data.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Leon Roskilly

[barry luxton]

I perhaps should have said that no specific areas are yet under consideration.

 

I've no doubt that a lot of proposals will be put forward from competing organisations, and with extensive data to support their proposals.

 

The process by which those proposals are formally put forward is still to start, and the majority will probably be set aside quite early on in the process with only a few candidate sites making it all the way through to being designated.

 

Right now, our best course of action (as well as preparing our challenges to proposals that might not deliver the benefits we want) would be to put forward sites that would suit the criteria and deliver conservation benefits, but will have no great impact on angling, backed up of course with credible information and data.

 

I'm going to question that again Leon. I know i am using this mcs as an example. Thats without looking at other ngo's doing exactly the same, no doubt with the same intentions. However the main man is the prince of wales, followed by tv personalities etc, with 100,000 people in agreement with their proposels. They also state that it took them a long time to consider their 'jewels' that has been sent all over the uk in a blaze of glory. They also intimate that they wish for 30% of the waters to be ntz. Dangerous or what. Wondering how difficult it will be to win against charlie boy and his followers?

 

Are you telling me that the likes of these people who i dissagree with as no proof what so ever has been put up to justify their yes please we want total ntz's in the areas that they have put forward are going to be discounted. Don't think that is going to happen in reality do you? The powers to be will be only too pleased to work with these guys and to show all exactly what can be acheived. Won't make absolutly any difference in the grand scheme of things with the sites that they have chosen, apart from rubbing people up the wrong way?

 

Don't know about this zone in the north sea that has been set up as a ntz, again is there any justification as to why?

 

Of course credible information and data would be very nice, however these greenies can't provide any in any event against anglers, unless someone knows different, thats the challenge i have put up.

Edited November 23, 2009 by barry luxton

[glennk]

First thing to remember is that currently no MCZ that excludes anglers has yet been proposed.

 

And despite the strenuous efforts of the environment lobby to make the legislation disregard socio-economic data when looking at which areas to designate, socio-economics still have to be considered when selecting areas.

 

Second thing to remember is that although it's all very well putting together arguments based on rhetoric, when all parties sit down to make the decisions those arguments need to be backed up with credible information and data.

 

And this is where we (RSA) are weak compared to other organisations with their own particular agendas, and the budgets and resources to do the science, to back their particular arguments.

 

(It's frustrating knowing that if anglers were prepared to get organised and provide the money and resources, we could easily be amongst the biggest players and the hardest-hitters in the game).

 

But without the ability to commission the research needed to support our case, we need people who can use what data is available, and to find the holes in the information and data being used to establish areas which might not be of 'benefit' to RSA (or worse!).

 

As an example have a go at this:

 

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Do...03_7653_FRP.pdf

 

(There might be scope for some work in our favour

 

e.g.

 

 

 

Some hard information that demonstrates those 'reasonable assumptions' are far too low, would put us in a much stronger position, as others have done with the initial report increasing the overall cost benefit figures of protecting areas )

 

Hopefully we will end up with a network of protected areas, including MCZs, that will be of considerable benefit to the marine environment and thereby improving the quality of our fishing, with no or very little impact on angling activity.

 

But we can't rely on hope, or unsupported argument to carry the day.

 

 

The thing is Leon, the hardcore anglers don't want to be big players in any sort of bureaucratic set up. We want to collect bait without licences or permits, enter areas of the coast without permission, catch fish just as we always have done, be able to take the fish home just like we always have done and continue to have no impact on our environment or the creatures that live there just like we always have done. You might be able to convince a few fellow sad saps that they should join committees and pass their life away attending meetings but at the end of the day what good will it do you ? Non what soever.

 

Its your desire to having meetings and committees Leon that has caused the problem in the first place. You have caused massive damage to my Hobby and Im sure you wont rest untill you have caused a lot more. Please let me know when you retire for good as I will hold a party . All this nonsense will all come to a head when Natural England start to try to impose their ideas on us. Lets see what happens then. I predict a riot.

[barry luxton]

Glennk, your post started ok, then went downhill and degenerated into your Leon thingy. I have no doubt that there are many people with different opinions as yours, and mine, don't have a problem with that. I think i'll ask this again, why don't you do a Leon thingy post and see how you get on with it.

[Leon Roskilly]

The potential opportunities and constraints of MPAs for angling.

A report to English Nature from

 

Prof C.L.J. Frid

 

School of Biological Sciences,

University of Liverpool

Crown Street,

Liverpool,

L69 7ZB

 

June 2006

 

 

 

 

Full Report at: http://www.liv.ac.uk/marinebiology/DOCUMEN...eportJune23.pdf

[Steve Coppolo]

I've no doubt that a lot of proposals will be put forward from competing organisations, and with extensive data to support their proposals.

 

Oh yes, and where has the extensive data, to support why angling should be restricted, come from? As far as I'm aware, there isn't any - despite various 'we know best' merchants urging us to provide any data that we are asked for.

 

Right now, our best course of action (as well as preparing our challenges to proposals that might not deliver the benefits we want) would be to put forward sites that would suit the criteria and deliver conservation benefits, but will have no great impact on angling, backed up of course with credible information and data.

 

And who, in their right mind, is going to provide that information and data so that it can be used as per your first comment relating to data?

 

Right now, you are the last person who should be suggesting 'our best course of action', because you clearly haven't got a clue.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[Steve Coppolo]

Full Report at: http://www.liv.ac.uk/marinebiology/DOCUMEN...eportJune23.pdf

 

 

Oh look, Leon. This looks familiar, doesn't it.

 

Restrictions imposed on RSA may include combinations of:

- Angling methods

- Times of day/Times of Year

- Species

- Catch and Return only

- Size Limits / Slot limits (where both small and large fish have to be returned)

- Bag limits

- Restrictions on tackle

o No lead weights

o No weights over a certain size

o Hook sizes

o Barbless Hooks only

o Circle hooks only

 

I wonder how on earth that got in there?

[barry luxton]

Full Report at: http://www.liv.ac.uk/marinebiology/DOCUMEN...eportJune23.pdf

 

This professor guy, wonder if he has actually spent time offshore fishing, first of all wrasse, don't really target them 20-30 mile out, never have, might catch a wreck one accidentally. Conger eel, yes, however we have on numerous occasions pulled them up with hooks in them or puncture marks, blind in one eye, suggesting previous capture, release, to that extent i would have to question the effect that anglers have on the stock. Much the same for blonde ray on the banks, with hook marks in them. Bet the conger if asked would prefer to be caught by the rsa rather than commercially. Doesn't the common skate success counter any argument that the rsa can have on a stock? In addition i see he uses the precuationary word a few times. That would be ok in the sence of expanding the stock if little detail like the importance of diminishing the effects of discard was taken into account before hand. So a heck of a lot of work needs to be carried out by defra and the eu looking at their own faults and workings before the minor amount of benifit these mpa's might acheive.

 

Good reading the link Leon, thanks for that more detail to look at when i have the time.

 

Oh look, Leon. This looks familiar, doesn't it.

 

 

 

I wonder how on earth that got in there?

ain't got to that bit yet.

Edited November 23, 2009 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

ain't got to that bit yet.

 

I take it you haven't got to the bit where he says species more important to RSA than comercial fishermen include, Conger, Wrasse, Flounder, Mullet, Tope and CATFISH!!!!!

 

Mind you, looking at some of the sources he's used for information, I'm not the slightest bit surprised to see Catfish included in the list of saltwater species that are important to me.