Jump to content

Who DOES Know About Marine Conservation Zones?


Elton

Recommended Posts

Is it the Global Warming myth to which there is as much scientific evidence to suggest that it being a myth is the case.
Let's start with some data supporting your hypothesis that of Global Climate Change is a myth.

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Barry I suggested that some might see Leon as unreasonable because of the flack the man gets at every post he makes.

 

Maybe it has something to do with all the dealings he has been involved in behind closed doors? Or his many cases of foot in mouth that have put sea anglers on the back foot?

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try to stick to the issue, rather than individuals, please.

 

I still don't believe, or understand, that we have a system whereby nobody, anywhere, actually knows what the final outcome is likely to be. If a problem has been identified, then surely they have some idea of how best to fix it?

 

Or, perhaps that's just it - maybe a problem hasn't been identified?

 

When a party wants to get elected into government, they promise to do this, raise that, cut that, etc. They then explain what the end objective is.

 

When you take a car to a garage with a fault, a mechanic may tell you that he intends to replace this part, tinker with that part, etc. The idea being that this will cure the problem you took it in with.

 

In this MCZ scenario, none of that seems to have actually taken place. Using the car analogy, we're being asked told to take our car to a garage, even though it may well be running fine, and then we've got to decide what parts we 'want' changing on it. When we take it home, it may well run like a bucket of the proverbial, but we'll be told that it's our fault, I'm sure, as it was us who told the garage to do what it did with it.

 

That's if we're allowed to drive it, of course.

Anglers' Net Shopping Partners - Please Support Your Forum

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try to stick to the issue, rather than individuals, please.

 

I still don't believe, or understand, that we have a system whereby nobody, anywhere, actually knows what the final outcome is likely to be. If a problem has been identified, then surely they have some idea of how best to fix it?

 

 

There's a difference between action to address a specific problem and action to address a generic problem.

 

 

 

The car analogy relates to a specific problem.

 

A generic problem would be that road capacity in the UK is creaking, and the Government has promised to extend the road network by (say) 20%.

 

Until town-planners, transport interests, national and local politicians, and involved stakeholders at a local level have decided exactly where the new roads should be built, and what sort of roads are needed in each area, you won't know whether your house will be knocked down, or a new bypass built to take the traffic away from your front door.

 

ie The required overall outcome is known, but until a lot more work is done, you and Joe Bloggs won't know specifically how you will be affected.

 

 

 

The generic problem being addressed by the creation of MCZs is the perceived decline in marine creatures and the habitat that supports them.

 

Internationally it has been recognised that whereas there is a great deal of land habitat that has been protected in the form of national parks, SSSIs, nature reserves etc, very little of the aquatic environment has had such attention.

 

Therefore the UK and EU have signed us up to international agreements and targets (such as the OSPAR convention for the protection of marine environment of the North-east Atlantic, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development for protecting the marine environment) which includes creating areas of marine protection forming a coherent network, with just broad targets set.

 

MCZs are just part of the Marine Protected Areas strategy that is being developed.

 

Now the planners, scientists stakeholders etc are sitting down to decide where these might go.

Edited by Leon Roskilly

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try to stick to the issue, rather than individuals, please.

 

I still don't believe, or understand, that we have a system whereby nobody, anywhere, actually knows what the final outcome is likely to be. If a problem has been identified, then surely they have some idea of how best to fix it?

 

Or, perhaps that's just it - maybe a problem hasn't been identified?

 

When a party wants to get elected into government, they promise to do this, raise that, cut that, etc. They then explain what the end objective is.

 

When you take a car to a garage with a fault, a mechanic may tell you that he intends to replace this part, tinker with that part, etc. The idea being that this will cure the problem you took it in with.

 

In this MCZ scenario, none of that seems to have actually taken place. Using the car analogy, we're being asked told to take our car to a garage, even though it may well be running fine, and then we've got to decide what parts we 'want' changing on it. When we take it home, it may well run like a bucket of the proverbial, but we'll be told that it's our fault, I'm sure, as it was us who told the garage to do what it did with it.

 

That's if we're allowed to drive it, of course.

 

That's what you get when you deal with cowboys.

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

What the hell was that all about? I was only thanking Leon for taking the time out to reply to something. Didn’t say I agreed with him.

As for the rest of your drivel about six mile limits and policing?

Flapper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The national debit we all know about and that was thanks to one Gordon Brown, but your still in denial about that, best you remove your head from your rectum on that one.
Since when have I been an apologist for New Labour in general or Blair and Brown specifically?

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between action to address a specific problem and action to address a generic problem.

 

 

 

The car analogy relates to a specific problem.

 

A generic problem would be that road capacity in the UK is creaking, and the Government has promised to extend the road network by (say) 20%.

 

Until town-planners, transport interests, national and local politicians, and involved stakeholders at a local level have decided exactly where the new roads should be built, and what sort of roads are needed in each area, you won't know whether your house will be knocked down, or a new bypass built to take the traffic away from your front door.

 

ie The required overall outcome is known, but until a lot more work is done, you and Joe Bloggs won't know specifically how you will be affected.

 

 

 

The generic problem being addressed by the creation of MCZs is the perceived decline in marine creatures and the habitat that supports them.

 

Internationally it has been recognised that whereas there is a great deal of land habitat that has been protected in the form of national parks, SSSIs, nature reserves etc, very little of the aquatic environment has had such attention.

 

Therefore the UK and EU have signed us up to international agreements and targets (such as the OSPAR convention for the protection of marine environment of the North-east Atlantic, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development for protecting the marine environment) which includes creating areas of marine protection forming a coherent network, with just broad targets set.

 

MCZs are just part of the Marine Protected Areas strategy that is being developed.

 

Now the planners, scientists stakeholders etc are sitting down to decide where these might go.

 

This is the problem though Leon who exactly are these internationally perceived people that recognise a decline in marine creatures and habitat. Their identification might answer Elton's question.

 

More importantly how exactly have they established there findings when they can't even count the amount of fish there are in the sea?

 

Call me sceptical if you like but as stated previously I have yet to see any evidence that can not be countered, yet the march to restrict continues unabated and all the while providing non jobs, paid for from a world economy that is struggling to make ends meet.

 

When you consider how much more sea there is to dry land then my suggestion would be let the scientist research the marine environment for another fifty years then make their findings known before proposing any necessary MCZs.

 

Flapper, why rubbish the idea of the six mile inshore waters as being a suitable conservation area for fish regeneration, given it is well known to be were fish spawn and their little ones then grow. Just ban towed gear is all that is required as opposed to setting up specific areas which will be difficult to police.

 

Tight lines Bob

Edited by Deene'0
Publication2_zpsthmtka6c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what you get when you deal with cowboys.
If you'll forgive my uncharacteristic ad hominen, it's you that sounds like the cowboy Steve. One that has run out of bullets, thrown his pistol and has got nothing left but insults to hurl.

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the problem though Leon who exactly are these internationally perceived people that recognise a decline in marine creatures and habitat. Their identification might answer Elton's question.

 

More importantly how exactly have they established there findings when they can't even count the amount of fish there are in the sea?

 

Call me sceptical if you like but as stated previously I have yet to see any evidence that can not be countered, yet the march to restrict continues unabated and all the while providing non jobs, paid for from a world economy that is struggling to make ends meet.

 

When you consider how much more sea there is to dry land then my suggestion would be let the scientist research the marine environment for another fifty years then make their findings known before proposing any necessary MCZs.

Flapper, why rubbish the idea of the six mile inshore waters as being a suitable conservation area for fish regeneration, given it is well known to be were fish spawn and their little ones then grow. Just ban towed gear is all that is required as opposed to setting up specific areas which will be difficult to police.

 

Tight lines Bob

Hello deano.

So on what grounds would you say that a 6 mile limit on trawling would benefit?

If you say that a ban on trawling inside the 6 mile limit would benefit then surely you would only bee stopping boats that can fish within the 6 mile limits from fishing there? What percentage of today’s larger more powerful trawling fleet are actually allowed to fish within the 6 mile limits? Wouldn’t you only be harming a large percentage of the under ten’s that are finding things difficult as it is with there small amount of quota etc? I don’t know.

Flapper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.