Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

MCZ Proposals


  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

#1 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rainham, Kent
  • Interests:Fishing (Coarse, Sea & Game), Conservation & Cycling

Posted 10 November 2009 - 08:59 AM

With the Marine Bill entering it's final stage tomorrow, the Marine Conservation Society has mapped out the areas that it thinks should be considered for protection.

Posted Image

http://www.telegraph...-published.html


The regional project teams will together with stakeholders identify and put forward areas for consideration and the arguments for protection, some organisations are obviously getting ahead of the game.

It's important that local anglers get involved in the projects now to make sure that the areas chosen will be of possible benefit to anglers and not unnecessarily restrictive to angling.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#2 Elton

Elton

    Site Owner

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grundisburgh, Suffolk
  • Interests:fishing, internet, cars, my dog

Posted 10 November 2009 - 09:38 AM

unnecessarily restrictive to angling.


They shouldn't be restrictive to angling, fullstop.

Anglers' Net Shopping Partners - Please Support Your Forum

CLICK HERE for Dragon Carp Direct, one of the cheapest tackle shops anywhere.

CLICK HERE for all your Amazon purchases - books, photography equipment, DVD's and more!

CLICK HERE for Go Outdoors. HUGE discounts!


 

FOLLOW ANGLERS' NET ON TWITTER- CLICK HERE - @anglersnet
 
PLEASE 'LIKE' US ON FACEBOOK - CLICK HERE


#3 Worms

Worms

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Herefordshire
  • Interests:Coarse sea and game angling, mainly with vintage tackle, wildlife, especially otters, Vintage motorcycles, eating wild caught fish......the list goes on

Posted 10 November 2009 - 09:43 AM

They shouldn't be restrictive to angling, fullstop.

Not even if they are protecting a species or habitat that non anglers might wish to see?

Or, not even if they are protecting a species/habitat of importance to a species sought by anglers?

Edited by Worms, 10 November 2009 - 09:43 AM.

Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!

#4 Elton

Elton

    Site Owner

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grundisburgh, Suffolk
  • Interests:fishing, internet, cars, my dog

Posted 10 November 2009 - 10:27 AM

Not even if they are protecting a species or habitat that non anglers might wish to see?

Or, not even if they are protecting a species/habitat of importance to a species sought by anglers?


If you want to see fish, try a Sea Life Centre. Or the fish counter at Tescos.

Anglers only fish areas where there are fish aplenty. We are inherently conservation-minded, through pure economics, whether we like it or not. No angler wants to waste their time and money fishing an area bereft of fish, so we only target areas that have plenty of fish. If we find access to these areas restricted, then something's seriously wrong. If an area is devoid of fish, only numpties fish it. And, even if they were the best anglers in the world, they would catch next to nothing, so why ban them?

An angler in a boat causes no more 'damage' to an area than a diver, or a scientist (who seem to think they have some God-given right to access areas others are excluded from).

As for all this 'stakeholder' crap - we never see leisure boats when we're at sea, apart from the odd yacht sailing home, so who are all these stakeholders? Instead of letting them point to 'areas of interest' with a mouse, they should make them go out and actually show them by their usual means. Most of them would probably throw-up before they left sight of land.

Anglers' Net Shopping Partners - Please Support Your Forum

CLICK HERE for Dragon Carp Direct, one of the cheapest tackle shops anywhere.

CLICK HERE for all your Amazon purchases - books, photography equipment, DVD's and more!

CLICK HERE for Go Outdoors. HUGE discounts!


 

FOLLOW ANGLERS' NET ON TWITTER- CLICK HERE - @anglersnet
 
PLEASE 'LIKE' US ON FACEBOOK - CLICK HERE


#5 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rainham, Kent
  • Interests:Fishing (Coarse, Sea & Game), Conservation & Cycling

Posted 10 November 2009 - 12:00 PM

There's a list of the MCS proposed sites at:

http://www.divemagaz...le.asp?uan=5414

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust


#6 Worms

Worms

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Herefordshire
  • Interests:Coarse sea and game angling, mainly with vintage tackle, wildlife, especially otters, Vintage motorcycles, eating wild caught fish......the list goes on

Posted 10 November 2009 - 12:09 PM

If you want to see fish, try a Sea Life Centre. Or the fish counter at Tescos.

What about seahorses, corals, basking sharks, seabirds, algae, invertebrates etc?

I think you're missing the point somewhat Elton. The MCZs etc aren't being put in place just to protect fish. They are to protect all wildlife and all specific habitat features.


Anglers only fish areas where there are fish aplenty. We are inherently conservation-minded, through pure economics, whether we like it or not. No angler wants to waste their time and money fishing an area bereft of fish, so we only target areas that have plenty of fish. If we find access to these areas restricted, then something's seriously wrong. If an area is devoid of fish, only numpties fish it. And, even if they were the best anglers in the world, they would catch next to nothing, so why ban them?

So who's being banned from fishing then?

Again you are missing the point (even though you include the relevant points). Conservation areas are not imposed on areas bereft of life, that would be rather pointless wouldn't it?

They are imposed on areas that are important usually because they are full of life or contain some feature required by a species that is endangered elsewhere.

An angler in a boat causes no more 'damage' to an area than a diver, or a scientist (who seem to think they have some God-given right to access areas others are excluded from).


As for scientists having a "God-given right", well, arguably (if you believe in god) they do. The same as anybody else who isn't having a negative impact. Somebody has to do the research. Unfortunately you seem to be of the belief (like a number of other posters on the subject) that all scientists are given vast sums of money by the govt. to make up stories and stop people's enjoyment. You'll find that the vast majority of scientists work for peanuts.

Oh I agree, the grants given to the academic institutions that they work for might be large but most of that money goes on equipment, computer programmes, boat hire, interim reports back to the govt. etc. etc. The scientists answer the questions that they are asked based on the information they can afford to find out in the time given. The answer may then be presented in any number of ways by the funding body depending on how they see fit. Remember Nutt, Krebbs etc.?

As for all this 'stakeholder' crap - we never see leisure boats when we're at sea, apart from the odd yacht sailing home, so who are all these stakeholders? Instead of letting them point to 'areas of interest' with a mouse, they should make them go out and actually show them by their usual means. Most of them would probably throw-up before they left sight of land.


Perhaps that's because you live in an area bereft of life!

Haven't you read any of the info that's been served up on this site for the past year or so?

You are a stakeholder Elton as is anybody who uses the marine environment for any purpose. You can have your say as much as anyone else.

It's important that local anglers get involved in the projects now

I can see it now, anglers sitting and moaning and saying nothing to those who count. As they aren't seen as interested stakeholders restrictive legislation may be imposed!

Elton, you have a website, an audience of thousands (including people in the know on this subject) and and all the available information to present a cohesive argument for retention of angling 'rights'. Instead of arguing about it why don't all the interested parties sheath their swords, look at the proposals, discuss potential issues and present a petition/letter to the stakeholder's representatives?

I'll help.
Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!

#7 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester
  • Interests:Boat fishing and more boat fishing. Some times i have to go to work so it does interfere with my boat fishing, but not much.

Posted 10 November 2009 - 12:19 PM

Just had a quick scan of the list, very many areas are rocks, reefs, wrecks in any event. I.E. can't be trawled or dragged, so what sort of protection is being offered, appears to be a lot of paper shuffling to me.

berry head for example, got a job to put a bit of bait on the bottom, let alone trawl it. The wreck of the scyila, it's only really just been put there, who wants to try and trawl that and why does it need protecting?

 Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.

 
New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.
 
Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.
 
Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.
 
new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.
 
Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because  they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are.. 


#8 Worms

Worms

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Herefordshire
  • Interests:Coarse sea and game angling, mainly with vintage tackle, wildlife, especially otters, Vintage motorcycles, eating wild caught fish......the list goes on

Posted 10 November 2009 - 12:51 PM

Just had a quick scan of the list, very many areas are rocks, reefs, wrecks in any event. I.E. can't be trawled or dragged, so what sort of protection is being offered, appears to be a lot of paper shuffling to me.

berry head for example, got a job to put a bit of bait on the bottom, let alone trawl it. The wreck of the scyila, it's only really just been put there, who wants to try and trawl that and why does it need protecting?

The MCS is a charity Barry. They have rounded up signatures from the general public supported by the Co-op to suggest areas to protect. This will be sent to the stakeholder committee I should imagine. It is not cut and dried but a suggestion (albeit quite a strong one with over 600,000 signatories).

Anglers need to do something similar suggesting why angling is not a threat to these or any other areas. From reading through the MCS blurb it would seem that they are keen on the idea of NTZs. Angling does not appear to be on their agenda though.
Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!

#9 Brian Carragher

Brian Carragher

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,792 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redcar Cleveland
  • Interests:fishing , politics ,sport

Posted 10 November 2009 - 01:01 PM

Just had a look and in the case of the Farne Islands the protection zone is 3km2 but the additional buffer zone is some 24km2, thats some buffer thats going to affect anglers in some way. Some of the reasons for protection look somewhat spurious as well, most of what they describe as being worthy of protection are just changes in ground when they refer to peaks ridges and pinnacles are'nt they?

#10 Leon Roskilly

Leon Roskilly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rainham, Kent
  • Interests:Fishing (Coarse, Sea & Game), Conservation & Cycling

Posted 10 November 2009 - 01:03 PM

Just had a quick scan of the list, very many areas are rocks, reefs, wrecks in any event. I.E. can't be trawled or dragged, so what sort of protection is being offered, appears to be a lot of paper shuffling to me.

berry head for example, got a job to put a bit of bait on the bottom, let alone trawl it. The wreck of the scyila, it's only really just been put there, who wants to try and trawl that and why does it need protecting?



These are areas proposed by the Marine Conservation Society, mostly put forward by their members (who are mostly divers), and 'researched' by them over the last six years or so.

There will undoubtedly be other areas proposed by other groups, RSPB, WWF, Wildlife Trusts, Marinet, Greenpeace, etc.

(I've seen a list of areas proposed in my area by commercial fishermen!)

Each list of proposed areas will be skewed towards the interests of those doing the proposing ('tis only natural!).

It will be the regional project stakeholder forums that will bring together all the different interests to debate the pros and cons of the different proposals and to reach agreements (which almost certainly won't please everyone involved).

But they have to be put forward to a timescale, and meet the requirements as put forward by the Government and will include 'representative' areas typical of some of the types of habitat to be found in the region (ie sandbanks, reefs, mud etc) and 'special' areas of vulnerable habitat/species (including worms and vegetation etc., not just fish).

(Habitat is what underpins the ecology that underpins the existence of fish).

The decisions won't be made by people on internet forums, but by those who get involved in their local regional projects.

It's there where you can question the case for any particular proposal, agree what restrictions are needed to achieve the objectives of each particular area or put forward your own ideas to be considered by everyone involved in the decision-making.

And if you don't, others certainly will.

Edited by Leon Roskilly, 10 November 2009 - 01:09 PM.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust