Marine Protected Areas.

[Steve Coppolo]

I was just looking through the SACN news and apparently there was quite an important meeting held recently regarding MPA's, (marine protected areas), and what impact they may have on sea anglers. I've taken a few paragraphs from the SACN site that have given me reason to be concerned.

 

SACN’s Leon Roskilly (who was also representing the National Federation of Sea Anglers Conservation Group at the conference) stressed that MPAs, by providing protection for the Marine Environment in ways that could not be achieved by other methods, could benefit Sea Anglers and the species that anglers are interested in.

 

However, it is also important to ensure that where restrictions on Recreational Sea Angling are proposed in any form (from restrictions on the angling methods employed to a ban on any form of extractive use), that these are shown to be absolutely necessary, and that all stakeholders, including individual sea anglers that would be impacted by a particular MPA, be included in consultations prior to their development.

 

Leon said “The concept of MPAs could receive a huge boost from the enthusiastic support of the over 1 million sea anglers who could be amongst those who would benefit from healthier and more productive seas, but unless their views are fully taken into account at an early stage of planning, and the potential benefits of an MPA properly explained, those affected might organise and mount an effective opposition against any restrictions on angling, making the whole process unnecessarily expensive and wasting precious resources that could be better utilised in creating and maintaining beneficial MPAs.”

 

My first concern is that we could end up with a situation where some of the best inshore fishing areas become MPA's, and anglers could be banned from fishing them. At the meeting it was decided that there would be a consultation period before anything is implemented.

 

My second concern is that if the consultation gives a choice of options it is possible that none of the options would be desirable for anglers. In other words, we could end up having to choose the option which is least damaging to our sport even if it isn't what we want, or opt out of the consultation and therefore not have any say at all. By choosing any of the options available we will be seen to be supporting the proposals, even if we don't agree with them.

 

The article also says that anglers should be involved in talks at an early stage. My third concern is that hardly anyone knew about this recent meeting, so what guarantee do we have that we will all be able to have our say before it is too late? Once the consultation starts it's too late for us to have any input on how it will be shaped, or how the options will be loaded.

 

That's why I think it's important to air this subject on the forums, to get the opinions of as many sea anglers as possible. You can bet that the commercial sector and SFC's will do their very best to make sure that anglers are included in any restrictions. If commercial fishing is banned in some areas, they will want angling banned too. This is too important an issue to pass through un-noticed, so what do you think?

[Jaffa]

Hi Steve,

 

From what i've read the commercials are worried about just how this will be implemented too. e.g.

 

SFA concernc

 

FWIW I think they are great idea in theory but they must be decided upon locally and with those effected deciding where to put them, not some dictak from above which gives a limited range of responses.

 

NGO's not local and not effected by the decisions should be kept well out of it too IMHO.

 

Chris

[sam-cox]

This really concerns me as most of my shore angling marks are up little creaks or well up river.

 

Im going to talk to my commercial fisherman friend to get his opinion, maybe anglers could form a partnership with the commercial fishermen to fight against this!

[Steve Coppolo]

This really concerns me as most of my shore angling marks are up little creaks or well up river.

 

Im going to talk to my commercial fisherman friend to get his opinion, maybe anglers could form a partnership with the commercial fishermen to fight against this!

 

I don't think we need to fight against them necessarily, but we do need to make damn sure that anglers won't suffer any restrictions, especially if they are just to appease other stakeholders or to ease the way for MPA's.

Edited September 18, 2006 by Steve Coppolo

[sam-cox]

Sorry to sound pesermistic mate but I aint got any confidence in the people who make the decissions on such matters.

[stavey]

This really concerns me as most of my shore angling marks are up little creaks or well up river.

 

Im going to talk to my commercial fisherman friend to get his opinion, maybe anglers could form a partnership with the commercial fishermen to fight against this!

 

Your having a laugh sam right!?????

[Jaffa]

Your having a laugh sam right!?????

 

Perhaps you could elaborate a bit ?

[steve good]

I was just looking through the SACN news and apparently there was quite an important meeting held recently regarding MPA's, (marine protected areas), and what impact they may have on sea anglers. I've taken a few paragraphs from the SACN site that have given me reason to be concerned.

 

SACN’s Leon Roskilly (who was also representing the National Federation of Sea Anglers Conservation Group at the conference) stressed that MPAs, by providing protection for the Marine Environment in ways that could not be achieved by other methods, could benefit Sea Anglers and the species that anglers are interested in.

 

However, it is also important to ensure that where restrictions on Recreational Sea Angling are proposed in any form (from restrictions on the angling methods employed to a ban on any form of extractive use), that these are shown to be absolutely necessary, and that all stakeholders, including individual sea anglers that would be impacted by a particular MPA, be included in consultations prior to their development.

 

Leon said “The concept of MPAs could receive a huge boost from the enthusiastic support of the over 1 million sea anglers who could be amongst those who would benefit from healthier and more productive seas, but unless their views are fully taken into account at an early stage of planning, and the potential benefits of an MPA properly explained, those affected might organise and mount an effective opposition against any restrictions on angling, making the whole process unnecessarily expensive and wasting precious resources that could be better utilised in creating and maintaining beneficial MPAs.”

 

My first concern is that we could end up with a situation where some of the best inshore fishing areas become MPA's, and anglers could be banned from fishing them. At the meeting it was decided that there would be a consultation period before anything is implemented.

 

My second concern is that if the consultation gives a choice of options it is possible that none of the options would be desirable for anglers. In other words, we could end up having to choose the option which is least damaging to our sport even if it isn't what we want, or opt out of the consultation and therefore not have any say at all. By choosing any of the options available we will be seen to be supporting the proposals, even if we don't agree with them.

 

The article also says that anglers should be involved in talks at an early stage. My third concern is that hardly anyone knew about this recent meeting, so what guarantee do we have that we will all be able to have our say before it is too late? Once the consultation starts it's too late for us to have any input on how it will be shaped, or how the options will be loaded.

 

That's why I think it's important to air this subject on the forums, to get the opinions of as many sea anglers as possible. You can bet that the commercial sector and SFC's will do their very best to make sure that anglers are included in any restrictions. If commercial fishing is banned in some areas, they will want angling banned too. This is too important an issue to pass through un-noticed, so what do you think?

 

Hi Steve

 

Very good well spotted

 

QUOTE/ Once the consultation starts it's too late for us to have any input on how it will be shaped, or how the options will be loaded.

 

Thats is exactliy whow you anglers stuffed commercial fishermen over the mls for bass wont happen again and in any event if commercials get banned from fishing anywhere we will be pushing for anglers to be treated the same

 

regards stephen

[steve good]

This really concerns me as most of my shore angling marks are up little creaks or well up river.

 

Im going to talk to my commercial fisherman friend to get his opinion, maybe anglers could form a partnership with the commercial fishermen to fight against this!

 

Hi sam-cox

 

are you a to faced turn coat then, on the one hand you are stuffing your so called coommercial chum with the so called GOLDEN MILE and now you want his hepl so you can fish up the creek what ever next smiles and lol

 

regards stephen

[steve good]

This really concerns me as most of my shore angling marks are up little creaks or well up river.

 

Im going to talk to my commercial fisherman friend to get his opinion, maybe anglers could form a partnership with the commercial fishermen to fight against this!

 

hi sam-cox

 

abit two faced then are we, you are trying to stuff your so called commercial chum with the GOLDEN MILE and now you want him to hepl you to continue fishing up the creek tut tut what ever next commercials and anglers working together mmmh anglers said no never not possible, a few weeks is a long time in fisheries management, te he ha ha lol lol wink, wink know what i mean opppps just broke a rib laughing.

 

kind regards stephen