MCZ Proposals

[Steve Coppolo]

I'm sure you can be 'honest' but can you tell the truth and explain how people like me have put angling at the top of a slippery slope.

 

Sorry to repeat the question but you still seem unable to answer the question/back up your accusations with facts.

 

Don't worry about my sensibilities, if it's true I won't be offended. If not, well, that won't be my problem.

 

First of all, the slippery slope Jibe was yours, initially. I just corrected your assumption by telling you the truth.

 

People like you, who put all your faith in the science, the consultations, the politicians false promises, the misrepresentatives misguided views, etc, etc, will make sure sea angling ends up regulated and restricted to death for absolutely no benefit to fish stocks or anglers. People like you love to blame angler apathy on their own failure achieve their misguided ideals or to deleiver any actual benefits. People like you accuse anyone who opposes the view that we can't do anything about it, as 'sticking their heads in the sand'. People like you won't stop until sea angling is finished in this country, then you'll slink off into the background never to be seen again.

 

I could go on and on and on, but what's the point with 'people like you'? You'll never accept reality. People like you never do.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[Worms]

First of all, the slippery slope Jibe was yours, initially. I just corrected your assumption by telling you the truth.

 

People like you, who put all your faith in the science, the consultations, the politicians false promises, the misrepresentatives misguided views, etc, etc, will make sure sea angling ends up regulated and restricted to death for absolutely no benefit to fish stocks or anglers. People like you love to blame angler apathy on their own failure achieve their misguided ideals or to deleiver any actual benefits. People like you accuse anyone who opposes the view that we can't do anything about it, as 'sticking their heads in the sand'. People like you won't stop until sea angling is finished in this country, then you'll slink off into the background never to be seen again.

 

I could go on and on and on, but what's the point with 'people like you'? You'll never accept reality. People like you never do.

Reality is the Marine Bill.

 

I choose not to ignore it but to accept that it is happening now!

 

By getting involved in consultations anglers' views can be put forward. If they are ignored anglers have no input and therefore their views are not incorporated in any decision making.

 

So if no anglers put their views forward to the same people who are considering other stakeholder's views then those views will be the ones considered and obviously not those of anglers.

 

I won't stop until I do my best to ensure sea angling (or any other kind of angling) is retained with the least possible interference.

 

I don't put all of my faith in science, I do put faith in the consultation process. It's all we have at the moment to make our voices heard. I don't put any faith in politician's promises and I haven't heard any representatives views (I keep asking you where I can find such info, remember!).

 

As for my misguided ideals: I want as many anglers as possible to get together and put forward a counter argument to those of e.g. the MCS. Something you conveniently forget, difficult though as I've said it enough times. Apathy is when people say it won't work and give no constructive advice on how to make an effect. Does that sound familiar?

 

People like you accuse anyone who opposes the view that we can't do anything about it, as 'sticking their heads in the sand'

No, quite the opposite. I believe anyone who agrees with your view that we can't do anything about it is sticking his head in the sand.

 

I could go on and on and on

No could about it. Just a shame that you do without saying anything constructive or even bothering to read my posts properly to get everything so @rse about face.

 

I do accept reality it's just a shame that your view of reality is a little different to what is actually happening around us now.

 

So your view of the "truth" about how I think is largely incorrect. I'm sure my answers won't change your mind on your version of what I think. You are too set in your ways.............and you had the gall to call me arrogant!

[Brian Carragher]

So all that said and I hope understood can you tell me why Worms is being seen as an enemy rather than a potential ally? His training,employment history and obvious interest in doing something seem to be being ignored because he may have leaped in condemning the average angler due to apathy.No doubt unaware of the previous or indeed ongoing contributions of some here?

 

Hes asked for information and guidance so why isn't it being given? Like I said I'm not privy to all the info so I may be missing something,anyone care to fill me in?

 

 

Something Budgie mentioned above, so if you don't mind me asking, what is your background ie training,employment history and obvious interest

 

Obviously not directed at Budgie but at yourself Worms

[barry luxton]

Melissa Moore, MCS Senior Policy Officer said "This is a major milestone for marine conservation in the UK. We strongly welcome the Marine Act and congratulate government on producing it. Two years from now we will have a network of Marine Conservation Zones in place giving nature some space to recover."

 

Under the new Marine and Coastal Access Act, the UK Government will have a duty to designate marine conservation zones (MCZs), which will include a range of protection levels including 'no take' marine reserves closed to damaging activities such as commercial fishing and dredging, and has committed to introduce a network of these zones by 2012. A Marine (Scotland) Bill is expected to be enacted in early 2010.

 

Earlier this week the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) and The Co-operative Group unveiled suggestions as to where more than 70 new marine protected areas should be considered as a priority. The sites have been identified following six years of surveying work carried out by divers around the UK, and represent "the Jewels in the Crown" of UK marine wildlife sites.

 

Dr Jean-Luc Solandt, MCS Biodiversity Policy Officer said: "Our 73 recommended reserves would help protect a spectacular array of nationally important marine life and habitat, which many would be surprised to find in UK seas, from vibrant cold water corals to rare seahorses to giant basking sharks." Arguably, these 73 sites are the jewels in the crown of our inshore waters and require consideration as a priority under the new Act."

 

end quote.

 

This is what we are looking at Worms, six years this lot have taken to 'intimate' that they would like to preserve. Apart from the fact that the majority of the sites that they are saying are the jewel in the crown, want protecting. They are protected naturally by the very nature of how they are made up. What other protection would they be looking for then. the only thing i can think of is by anglers or possibly potters. Tell me, what chance do you think an angler can have against these type no nothing greenies, who have got the support from uncle tom cobbly, the co-op and no doubt massive help and support from the men in suits as it looks good for the cause. 'Major milestone, for marine conservation', do you really beleive that, i don't. There are massive problems out there with our stock and also the fishing industry as a whole, first and foremost, however they way that the suffling is continuing there's not much hope there, don't you agree.

 

Fiddling while rome burns. Is this really the way foreward. Of course we can moan, it's a load of cobblers, looking forward to be proven wrong though and not optimistic.

 

Quite a while ago i chose not to ignore the marine bill and spent a long long time with a responce, however it appears that the angler is certainly going to be trodden on by the likes of the above, unless again, i'm proven wrong.

 

Must apologise for the long post Steve, please excuse me

Edited November 11, 2009 by barry luxton

[Worms]

Melissa Moore, MCS Senior Policy Officer said "This is a major milestone for marine conservation in the UK. We strongly welcome the Marine Act and congratulate government on producing it. Two years from now we will have a network of Marine Conservation Zones in place giving nature some space to recover."

 

Under the new Marine and Coastal Access Act, the UK Government will have a duty to designate marine conservation zones (MCZs), which will include a range of protection levels including 'no take' marine reserves closed to damaging activities such as commercial fishing and dredging, and has committed to introduce a network of these zones by 2012. A Marine (Scotland) Bill is expected to be enacted in early 2010.

 

Earlier this week the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) and The Co-operative Group unveiled suggestions as to where more than 70 new marine protected areas should be considered as a priority. The sites have been identified following six years of surveying work carried out by divers around the UK, and represent "the Jewels in the Crown" of UK marine wildlife sites.

 

Dr Jean-Luc Solandt, MCS Biodiversity Policy Officer said: "Our 73 recommended reserves would help protect a spectacular array of nationally important marine life and habitat, which many would be surprised to find in UK seas, from vibrant cold water corals to rare seahorses to giant basking sharks." Arguably, these 73 sites are the jewels in the crown of our inshore waters and require consideration as a priority under the new Act."

 

end quote.

 

This is what we are looking at Worms, six years this lot have taken to 'intimate' that they would like to preserve. Apart from the fact that the majority of the sites that they are saying are the jewel in the crown, want protecting. They are protected naturally by the very nature of how they are made up. What other protection would they be looking for then. the only thing i can think of is by anglers or possibly potters. Tell me, what chance do you think an angler can have against these type no nothing greenies, who have got the support from uncle tom cobbly, the co-op and no doubt massive help and support from the men in suits as it looks good for the cause. 'Major milestone, for marine conservation', do you really beleive that, i don't. There are massive problems out there with our stock and also the fishing industry as a whole, first and foremost, however they way that the suffling is continuing there's not much hope there, don't you agree.

 

Fiddling while rome burns. Is this really the way foreward. Of course we can moan, it's a load of cobblers, looking forward to be proven wrong though and not optimistic.

 

Quite a while ago i chose not to ignore the marine bill and spent a long long time with a responce, however it appears that the angler is certainly going to be trodden on by the likes of the above, unless again, i'm proven wrong.

 

Must apologise for the long post Steve, please excuse me

A lot of the sites mentioned in the MCS proposals are already protected as MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) SPAs (Special Protection Areas) SAC's (Special Areas of Conservation) and MNRs (Marine Nature Reserves). MCZs will be a new type of conservation zone. Unlike the others social and economic considerations are included in MPZs. From my brief perusal of the list I should imagine that (as you pointed out) some are not that imprtant to commercials anyway. The only worry to anglers is the possibility of them being made NTZs (No Take Zones) where any removal of organic or inorganic material will be banned. This is where anglers need to get together and put forward a sensible reason for not making them NTZs assuming of course that there is one.

 

My guess is that the Co-op have got a lot of people who would like to sea 'line caught' fish on their plates. If that is the case we obviously don't have as far to climb for obvious reasons.

 

I don't think that an angler does have much chance against a large well organised bunch. I hate to say it but that's why I've been suggesting that RSAs become precisely that! Fight them at their own game. The fact that angling hasn't been mentioned might just mean they haven't considered it as a damaging exercise and don't include it as something to be excluded. Won't know unless we ask!

[wurzel]

Quote

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

 

 

And I will bet you any thing you like none of those areas will be implimented.

[Steve Coppolo]

Must apologise for the long post Steve, please excuse me

 

No problem, Barry, It makes sense.

 

It's only long posts, and links, full of gonads and excrement that I object to.

[Steve Coppolo]

I don't think that an angler does have much chance against a large well organised bunch. I hate to say it but that's why I've been suggesting that RSAs become precisely that! Fight them at their own game.

 

I think you'll find, Worms, that anglers will only unite in order to fight something. (sea angling licence, RSA strategy, etc.) If everything is rosy in the garden, like they are being lead to believe by sea angling representatives, (i.e, just respond to the consultations and let them know what you think and everything will be alright), most of them would rather be left alone to get on with what they like doing best - fishing.

[H.A.]

I think you'll find, Worms, that anglers will only unite in order to fight something. (sea angling licence, RSA strategy, etc.) If everything is rosy in the garden, like they are being lead to believe by sea angling representatives, (i.e, just respond to the consultations and let them know what you think and everything will be alright), most of them would rather be left alone to get on with what they like doing best - fishing.

 

This is what continually bothers me about you, Steve.

 

You want to leave it alone and get on with fishing.

 

Why not?

 

Why do you stir up anyone/anything which is remotely politically orientated, then?

 

I'm actually agreeing with you.

 

But it's you who raises 'the second ball', in footballing terms and then goes on

 

 

and on

 

 

 

and on ...

 

 

 

The pretentiousness is amazing!

 

[wurzel]

A lot of the sites mentioned in the MCS proposals are already protected as MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) SPAs (Special Protection Areas) SAC's (Special Areas of Conservation) and MNRs (Marine Nature Reserves). MCZs will be a new type of conservation zone. Unlike the others social and economic considerations are included in MPZs. From my brief perusal of the list I should imagine that (as you pointed out) some are not that imprtant to commercials anyway. The only worry to anglers is the possibility of them being made NTZs (No Take Zones) where any removal of organic or inorganic material will be banned. This is where anglers need to get together and put forward a sensible reason for not making them NTZs assuming of course that there is one.

 

My guess is that the Co-op have got a lot of people who would like to sea 'line caught' fish on their plates. If that is the case we obviously don't have as far to climb for obvious reasons.

 

I don't think that an angler does have much chance against a large well organised bunch. I hate to say it but that's why I've been suggesting that RSAs become precisely that! Fight them at their own game. The fact that angling hasn't been mentioned might just mean they haven't considered it as a damaging exercise and don't include it as something to be excluded. Won't know unless we ask!

 

 

You carry on Worms, get stuck in , join the ranks of the committee junkies and meeting addicts, get involved with the science and help the scientists with their assessments on the impact by RSA, plenty of work coming up there, reply to all the consultations you possibly can, I hope you have ample free time on your hands , I doubt you will have any time to go fishing in the foreseeable future for they will certainly keep you busy.

Mean while we will run a book betting on how long it will take for you to become as cynical and bitter as those of us that have been before you.

 

I bet you won't last a year possibly only six months.

 

But there is always the possibility that you will become indoctrinated by the rhetoric of the marine bill and it's implementers , if this happens and it has happened to a few in the past, there will be no hope for you and you will be lost from reality for ever.