MCZ Proposals

[Steve Coppolo]

Ok, now we are getting down to some common ground.

 

Just for a moment lets work on the assumption that the Marine Bill is aimed at reducing damage to the marine environment. Let's also make the assumption that what we have been told about anglers not being adversely affected by Article 47 is true. Again let's include the point that MCZs will protect social and economic practices as well as the marine environment (anglers are specifically asked to put their views on MCZs and the use that they make of their local waters).

 

Now just for a few minutes put aside your doubts based on previous experience and look at the possibilities.

 

As anglers don't have a significant negative impact on the marine world and, the socio-economic importance of anglers around our coasts is not insignificant then there is plenty of room to believe that anglers are not the targets and the socio-economic importance of angling could become protected within the MCZs

 

Protection of areas from commercial fishing, especially inshore or in fish spawning areas (expanded from what they are now) could easily enhance stocks, not just for anglers but for all.

 

This whole thread and the lively discussion it has aroused is all based on one stakeholder's submission. It doesn't mention angling (to my knowledge) and, as far as we know anglers aren't a target. Barry's question might reveal more.

 

We may well find that a large number of marine stakeholders, canoeists, pleasure sailors, divers, surfers etc. all have the same fears as RSAs and contact and perhaps even amalgamation with other groups (or at least cross reference to each other's fears and suggestions) may go a long way to re-inforcing common views.

 

I know you have reservations about dealing with authority and that you have no faith in officialdom and, some of it is probably with good reason. I strongly believe however that getting involved in the stakeholder consultations with a fist full of signatures and a well thought out plan for the retention of angling as it is with possible support from other stakeholders will do us no harm at all.

 

By ignoring the stakeholder consultations then the views of anglers, and particularly some of the more experienced could be angling's loss. Creating a guerilla group to shout down the process is more likely to have a negative effect.

 

As I mentioned earlier. The coarse fishing consultation (proposed ban on taking coarse fish and grayling) was open to consultation. Although this was largely voted for, sensible fact based discussion was made with the EA and, it now appears that a blanket ban is highly unlikely.

 

I presume you are referring to the AT's "Magnificent Seven" when you refer to reps?

 

I think that the lack of support for the AT by the great unwashed is possibly enough reason for their views to be countered if enough sensible anglers get together to present a sensible presentation.

 

So a lot of assumptions but, better some chance than less!

 

Like you said, Worms, a lot of assumptions in there. Unfortunately, most of them have little bearing on reality.

 

You can't ignore history and pretend it hasn't happened.

 

Good luck in your endevours to unite sea anglers, but I doubt you, or anyone else, will succeeed by leading them up the garden path.

[Leon Roskilly]

I have asked the mcs to tell me what sort of protection they are looking for and why they consider the rocky areas and wrecks are of prime importance to protect. Looking forward to a reply.

 

 

Interesting that a few years ago, the MCS attempted to engage with RSA.

 

Together with the NFSA they organised several annual 'RSA conferences' around the country, with keynote speakers from RSA and organisations that impact upon RSA, and giving ordinary anglers the chance to catch up with what was going on, and to talk to speakers and RSA representatives, as well as to DEFRA & SFC officials etc., both through Q&A sessions and more informally during the coffee and lunch breaks.

 

Angling organisations had stands, along with others such as the EA.

 

(The MCS also had an officer dedicated to RSA matters).

 

I think it was the one in Birmingham that Elton and I went along to.

 

At £20 per head, they barely attracted 100 anglers, rather than filling the auditoriums, and angling membership of the MCS never took off (my membership lapsed when I had to cut back because of reduced income in retirement), so I guess that's when they looked elsewhere for support.

 

If things had worked out differently, it could have been anglers, rather than (or perhaps along with) divers driving the MCS agenda.

 

But I guess that the anglers preferred to go fishing.

 

Thereby leave it to the divers and others to determine the MCS agenda.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Leon Roskilly

[Elton]

Makes you wonder how much economics comes into it, Leon. Angling is, traditionally, a working class hobby. Diving, on the other hand, costs an arm and a leg.

[Leon Roskilly]

Makes you wonder how much economics comes into it, Leon. Angling is, traditionally, a working class hobby. Diving, on the other hand, costs an arm and a leg.

 

That's true Elton.

 

 

And not just the money side, they (along with yachtsmen etc) can marshall the resources of members who are not tied to 8am to 7pm jobs, prepared to dump large amounts into a 'fighting-fund', and give of their legal, financial, political and management expertise (and influential contacts) to get their way (but not always!).

 

Tapping into that kind of support from its membership base is an uphill struggle for the RSA lobby.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Leon Roskilly

[Steve Coppolo]

Interesting that a few years ago, the MCS attempted to engage with RSA.

 

Together with the NFSA they organised several annual 'RSA conferences' around the country, with keynote speakers from RSA and organisations that impact upon RSA, and giving ordinary anglers the chance to catch up with what was going on, and to talk to speakers and RSA representatives, as well as to DEFRA & SFC officials etc., both through Q&A sessions and more informally during the coffee and lunch breaks.

 

Angling organisations had stands, along with others such as the EA.

 

(The MCS also had an officer dedicated to RSA matters).

 

I think it was the one in Birmingham that Elton and I went along to.

 

At £20 per head, they barely attracted 100 anglers, rather than filling the auditoriums, and angling membership of the MCS never took off (my membership lapsed when I had to cut back because of reduced income in retirement), so I guess that's when they looked elsewhere for support.

 

If things had worked out differently, it could have been anglers, rather than (or perhaps along with) divers driving the MCS agenda.

 

But I guess that the anglers preferred to go fishing.

 

Thereby leave it to the divers and others to determine the MCS agenda.

 

A few years ago, there were lots of people wanting to jump on the back of the RSA campaign. Because a few years ago, it was RSA making most of the noise and, by using dubious figures regarding economics, making politicians ears prick up.

 

What a shame our inept representatives failed to listen to, and engage with, the sea angling population in general - instead of displaying the now classic 'we know best' attitude and pressing for the very things that now threeaten the future of our sport. It's a shame they made it so easy for the environmongers and eco bullies to hijack the RSA campaign, because they had already done most of the work for them. Now we are being held to ransom. I wonder who's going to pay?

 

It's also a shame that, on the recommendation of the politicians who betrayed them, the inept reps kicked the Countryside Alliance into touch when they sought to engage with sea anglers.

 

Oh, how different things could have been come next June.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[Brian Carragher]

Not engaging with the Countryside Alliance was the right thing to do back then and the reasons that were valid then are just as valid today

 

RSA influence and rsa opinion is best served without jumping into bed with an organisation that has dubious origins and motives

[Steve Coppolo]

Not engaging with the Countryside Alliance was the right thing to do back then and the reasons that were valid then are just as valid today

 

RSA influence and rsa opinion is best served without jumping into bed with an organisation that has dubious origins and motives

 

I'm not convinced, Brian. In terms of what's been done for sea angling, keeping the CA at arms length has made no difference whatsoever. And in terms of support, clout and acheivements, RSA looks very much like a Mickey Mouse outfit in comparison. I can't see the Angling Trust getting any future laws restricting sea anglers repealed.

[Brian Carragher]

Well if keeping the CA at arms length has made no difference then engaging with them would give exactly the same results, far better in my opinion not to get involved with what is generally regarded as a psudeo political organisation and keeping any integrity intact

 

Both major political parties view the CA with suspicion (with a couple of personal exceptions) and even the Tories would be very wary of the publics perception of giving ground to them so I think anyone thinking the Tories and the CA are the answer to sea anglings problems then I see a rude awakening coming

 

I remain to be convinced by the AT's ability to influence changes in legislation or future legislation but only time will tell

[Steve Coppolo]

Well if keeping the CA at arms length has made no difference then engaging with them would give exactly the same results, far better in my opinion not to get involved with what is generally regarded as a psudeo political organisation and keeping any integrity intact

 

Both major political parties view the CA with suspicion (with a couple of personal exceptions) and even the Tories would be very wary of the publics perception of giving ground to them so I think anyone thinking the Tories and the CA are the answer to sea anglings problems then I see a rude awakening coming

 

I remain to be convinced by the AT's ability to influence changes in legislation or future legislation but only time will tell

 

I'm not so sure, but we'll never know now, anyway.

[Brian Carragher]

Heres a little update for those who never venture past the forums http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/News/balanced-...tion-zones.html