Who DOES Know About Marine Conservation Zones?

[Elton]

At the moment we do not know what will happen with the conservation zones.

 

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/8876402.D...tat_protection/

 

I've only quoted that one, as it's one I've seen today, but that line has been spun a thousand times already by all of the MCZ projects, right from the very first meeting. I remember it being said in Chelmsford, when I turned up to the launch thing.

 

I do not believe, for one minute, that the knowledge of what MCZ's are going to mean is not out there. At the moment, they seem content to make us think it's some kind of 'Top Gear Challenge', where the producer tells them what to do next when they arrive at each stage. That's absolute rubbish - somebody must know. Somebody does know.

 

How about a bit of honesty and transparency? It would make a refreshing change in politics.

[barry luxton]

Here is the advice given by the angling governing body, been like it for quite a while now. Fiddling while rome burns, or can't be bothered?

 

 

 

Quote angling trust

 

: sorry this page you are trying to veiw is currently being updated, please visit again shortly.

Edited February 26, 2011 by barry luxton

[Elton]

To be honest, I'm not interested what the Angling Trust think on this matter, Barry.

 

The buck must stop somewhere - I'm just interested where that point is? They make it sound like the UK government is controlled by some mystical power that is never seen, but just implants instructions into their head telepathically.

 

Somebody, somewhere, knows exactly what the MCZ's will mean to Joe Bloggs. I'm surprised that anyone is still helping to implement them without that knowledge.

[Leon Roskilly]

A much simplified outline of the whole process is:

 

 

Step 1. Define what in the Marine Environment might benefit from some level of protection.

 

(see Ecological Network Guidance etc at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/m...cz/default.aspx )

 

Step 2. Define areas that contain those items of interest, taking into account conservation value and minimising dsruption to existing users.

 

(see various reports on the individual project websites - links on the same page as above)

 

Step 3. Define the level of protection which is appropriate for that particular site, bearing in mind what is being protected and what activities may be compatible.

 

 

As we are still only at step 2, there is still some way to go before the actual sites are defined and we can start looking in detail at how to go about defining the appropriate level of protection for individual sites.

 

 

(This is a consequence of not going down the simpler route by which all sites would have been No Take Zones regardless, instead forcing the process to define objectives for each site and only restricting those activities which may be relevant to the attainment of those objectives, whilst taking into account the social and economic consequences as well as the scientific objectives, and involving stakeholders in the decision-making up front).

 

 

That's very frustrating for those paticipating who are trying to protect the interests of their stakeholder group insofar that areas are first selected without knowing for certain what the final consequences will be for stakeholders.

 

In acknowledgment of this general guidelines have been published, which themselves raise fears which could be unwarrented.

 

( http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/images/mc..._tcm6-23451.pdf )

 

 

I hope that helps a little.

 

 

Ultimately the recommendations made by the various projects, which are accepted by the Science Advisory Group as fulfilling the criteria, will be put before the minister who will launch a public consultation before deciding which areas will be designated, then it will be down to the IFCAs (within 6 miles) and the MMO to implement and enforce.

 

 

In the meantime, there's still a lot of opportunity to get involved, find out what's happening in your area and attend site meetings etc. It's a case of letting the project teams know of your interest and keping an eye on their websites for relevant information being posted up, as well as signing up for newlsetters etc.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Leon Roskilly

[Bob Shotter]

To be honest, I'm not interested what the Angling Trust think on this matter, Barry.

 

The buck must stop somewhere - I'm just interested where that point is? They make it sound like the UK government is controlled by some mystical power that is never seen, but just implants instructions into their head telepathically.

 

Somebody, somewhere, knows exactly what the MCZ's will mean to Joe Bloggs. I'm surprised that anyone is still helping to implement them without that knowledge.

 

It is a very good point Elton and one that many of us are struggling with if we are honest.

 

For example this past week I have been trying to establish if the guidelines for areas to be set up as water column protection areas will indeed have angling banned from them. The guide line states angling will be included but those working on the proposals say that is not their view.

 

The one thing I did get and that is the four regional bodies currently collecting data and deciding on proposed marine conservation sites are doing so with local groups of interested stakeholders who then converse with their steering groups.

Once they get all of this sorted out their final job is to submit the findings to the JNCC for all off shore sites and Natural England for the inshore sites.

I believe it then goes via the independent scientific panel who may ask for further information and or changes but it then gets sent to DEFRA for a final appraisal and recommendation that is then presented to the minister and his political team.

They will make any amendments as they see fit and this final proposal will then go out to public consultation.

 

Once this process is finished the politicians will look at any findings from the public consultation and possibly make any further amendments they feel necessary and that then are the last pieces of the jigsaw. The proposal will become law and the areas will be installed as MCZs.

 

Finally the IFCAs will make relevant bylaws to govern the inshore MCZs the off shore ones will presumably covered by international law.

 

Now please don’t take this procedure as gospel as I could be wrong but that would be the normal route for such things here in the UK.

 

Who makes the important decisions, well my guess is it will be the apparently clued up civil servants at DEFRA who will have the biggest impact as they will look at the proposals as well as what the EU require of the UK government.

 

What can Joe Bloggs do, well right now he should be making as much noise as possible to the local groups as to why any area might not be a good idea and challenging any evidence being put forward to support each and every MCZ particularly those involving RSA.

He might also then see that his views are seen by the all important politicians so letters to the minister and his team before they sit and decide on the proposals that will go to public consultation, because only very serious flaws will get looked at from the public consultation its self and it is important the folk understand this.

 

Hope you find this of help and my apology for the length of the post but this is a very serious issue.

 

Tight lines Bob

[Leon Roskilly]

What can Joe Bloggs do, well right now he should be making as much noise as possible to the local groups as to why any area might not be a good idea and challenging any evidence being put forward to support each and every MCZ particularly those involving RSA.

 

 

A couple of things that anyone objecting to a proposed site needs to keep in mind is:

 

If a proposed site is rejected, another area will be proposed, so any objection should consider the alternatives because the alternative could put anglers in a worse position than if the original site had gone through.

 

Generally the projects will try to select sites where disruption to existing activities are kept to a minimum, and try to cover a variety of habitats within a single site, so again if a site is rejected, it may need more than one other site to provide the same level of protection to the various habitats that the original site was meant to contain.

 

As well as angling/fishing activity there are many other activities which will be displaced when a site is designated, leading to the the unintentional creation of 'displacement sinks'. Areas not protected where all the netting/discharging/dumping/development is allowed which might very well affect anglers far worse than having an area protected and subject to minimal restrictions.

[glennk]

A couple of things that anyone objecting to a proposed site needs to keep in mind is:

 

If a proposed site is rejected, another area will be proposed, so any objection should consider the alternatives because the alternative could put anglers in a worse position than if the original site had gone through.

 

Generally the projects will try to select sites where disruption to existing activities are kept to a minimum, and try to cover a variety of habitats within a single site, so again if a site is rejected, it may need more than one other site to provide the same level of protection to the various habitats that the original site was meant to contain.

 

As well as angling/fishing activity there are many other activities which will be displaced when a site is designated, leading to the the unintentional creation of 'displacement sinks'. Areas not protected where all the netting/discharging/dumping/development is allowed which might very well affect anglers far worse than having an area protected and subject to minimal restrictions.

 

 

Same old same old Roskilly.

[flapper]

Well I read Elton question and thought more or less the same what he was asking.

Then I read leons answer and would just like to say thank you.

If his reasonable reply was “same old Leon” then all that I can say is “let’s have more of it Leon”

Flapper.

[Bob Shotter]

Well I read Elton question and thought more or less the same what he was asking.

Then I read leons answer and would just like to say thank you.

If his reasonable reply was “same old Leon” then all that I can say is “let’s have more of it Leon”

Flapper.

 

Now heres the thing Leon and you Flapper what makes you lefties think our sea needs all this conservation, a few areas may be, but some of the stuff I have come across this past two years is frankly unbelievable.

 

The tope ban that was totally unnecessary, the eel fiasco and now we have a worm discovered and simultaneously pronounced as an endangered species on the Dorset coast.

 

For crying out load these species have probably been around for centauries and most certainly don’t need your, mine or any one else interfering with them, nor will banning angling make a sods worth of difference.

 

Lundy is a disputed conservation zone held together by media brain washing when the truth is far different to the hype put out by the likes of NE.

 

Get the CFP sorted out and then may be we might listen to you and the entire so called clued up scientist, until then let’s put an end to this conservation rubbish and save the country a packet of money.

 

Wales has all but given the idea a two finger salute so why are the rest of us putting up with it is beyond me, other than it is so very typical of our time.

 

If you really want to do some thing meaningful then turn the whole six mile limit into a MCZ at least you might then be able to police it.

 

Rant over any one seen my tin hat?

 

Tight lines Bob

[barry luxton]

A much simplified outline of the whole process is:

 

 

Step 1. Define what in the Marine Environment might benefit from some level of protection.

 

(see Ecological Network Guidance etc at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/m...cz/default.aspx )

 

Step 2. Define areas that contain those items of interest, taking into account conservation value and minimising dsruption to existing users.

 

(see various reports on the individual project websites - links on the same page as above)

 

Step 3. Define the level of protection which is appropriate for that particular site, bearing in mind what is being protected and what activities may be compatible.

 

 

As we are still only at step 2, there is still some way to go before the actual sites are defined and we can start looking in detail at how to go about defining the appropriate level of protection for individual sites.

 

 

(This is a consequence of not going down the simpler route by which all sites would have been No Take Zones regardless, instead forcing the process to define objectives for each site and only restricting those activities which may be relevant to the attainment of those objectives, whilst taking into account the social and economic consequences as well as the scientific objectives, and involving stakeholders in the decision-making up front).

 

 

That's very frustrating for those paticipating who are trying to protect the interests of their stakeholder group insofar that areas are first selected without knowing for certain what the final consequences will be for stakeholders.

 

In acknowledgment of this general guidelines have been published, which themselves raise fears which could be unwarrented.

 

( http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/images/mc..._tcm6-23451.pdf )

 

 

I hope that helps a little.

 

 

Ultimately the recommendations made by the various projects, which are accepted by the Science Advisory Group as fulfilling the criteria, will be put before the minister who will launch a public consultation before deciding which areas will be designated, then it will be down to the IFCAs (within 6 miles) and the MMO to implement and enforce.

 

 

In the meantime, there's still a lot of opportunity to get involved, find out what's happening in your area and attend site meetings etc. It's a case of letting the project teams know of your interest and keping an eye on their websites for relevant information being posted up, as well as signing up for newlsetters etc.

 

 

Not so simple is it Leon, what's expected from joe blogs to prevent the eu and co getting their hooks into the rsa is a lot more than these three 'simple' steps. And keeping an eye on the trust web site is the reason i put my post up, no information regarding the mcz's what so ever. Why's that? I have no doubt there is a lot going on in the back ground that the likes of joe blogs don't hear about. That is all the snouts putting forward their own agendas. Two plus two making five when it comes to the rsa. This is whats concerning me. In the mean time, what science is abound to offer up any restrictions for the rsa? Answer that one? Is there any. It appears to be a relatively 'simple' one. If that is the case, then why aren't the trust banging the drum for the rsa. All they have offered to date is to liaise with the likes of the MCS. Yer right.

 

quote Leon: A couple of things that anyone objecting to a proposed site needs to keep in mind is:

 

If a proposed site is rejected, another area will be proposed, so any objection should consider the alternatives because the alternative could put anglers in a worse position than if the original site had gone through.

 

Exactly my point, 'they' won't stop until there is a panacea of mpa's even in the grand scale of things where it won't make diddly squat any difference to the fish stocks. The mystical powers have failed with the fish and now it's the turn to protect the rocks.

 

Elton, i agree with you, the instruction is coming from somewhere and we must comply, in the meantime we have the trust appearing to be 'standing' up for the rsa industry, when in fact it looks like they agree with the likes of the unseen mystical powers who offering up the threats. It looks like another industry of restrictions without an ending, yet none of the powers to be can offer an alternative such as helping the commercial sector and helping the rsa to enjoy their angling without the proposed new level of rules and regulation.

Edited February 27, 2011 by barry luxton