Formal consultation starts on proposed European marine sites

[Anglers' Net]

News Release From Natural England, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Countryside Council for Wales

 

Click here to view the full article

[Elton]

Please note that these are in addition to MCZ's.

 

There'll be a point soon when we spend more time and money on fuel dodging acronyms than we do chasing fish!

[Worms]

A bit of background:

 

SPAs are specifically for bird protection and have been around since 1979. There are 257 in the UK.

 

SACs are for species and habitat protection and have been around since 1992. There are 621 in the UK.

 

Both are also SSSIs

[Elton]

With the two round here, apparently the UK were told to nominate two sandbanks in this region to 'protect' Again, there was no need to prove that we needed any sandbanks protecting. It was an order from the EU. The schemes have been around long enough that if they had needed protecting, they would have been by now. The birds that they 'protect' have been coming back to the same grounds for at least 30 years, apparently. Whether they will now that the 'conservationists' and twitchers actually know that they exist is another matter. All the added disturbance of being 'protected' could well put them off the areas.

[Worms]

My guess is that the sandbanks have been on the cards for a while. The new Marine Bill has added teeth for getting protection implemented against the (Govt. licensed) mineral extraction sites.

 

The protection for the banks is (between both sites) from dredging and demersal and benthic trawling and also for protection from wind farm construction and gas extraction. The consultation process that has been set up may be new I don't know but, it could be another weapon in the angler's armoury. If angling is not seen as damaging when commercial fishing is then it could be used to cite as a precedent if/when similar sites are proposed as MCZs.

 

One of the good things about the EU is that conservation measures can be implemented 'against' Govt. wishes especially when it comes to short term extraction/destruction projects. Conservation isn't a dirty word, lots of freshwater angling has been saved or dramatically improved by active conservation or, in this case preventative conservation. The same will probably be so for the marine environment. Get the message across that sea anglers are as pro conservation as freshwater anglers are and get support from the general public and a level of respect from conservation groups. Think positively and get involved at the beginning

[Elton]

My guess is that the sandbanks have been on the cards for a while.

 

No need to guess. I was there and heard it from the horse's mouth.

[Worms]

It can only be a good thing then surely to see areas open to angling protected from dredging, pollution, obstruction and commercial fishing damage?

[Elton]

It can only be a good thing then surely to see areas open to angling protected from dredging, pollution, obstruction and commercial fishing damage?

 

You seem to have missed my point entirely. I'm talking about the areas that aren't being damaged by those.

 

'Conservation' seems to have become a pseudonym for 'interfering'. If things aren't broken, the best way to 'conserve' them would be to leave them alone.

[Brian Carragher]

It can only be a good thing then surely to see areas open to angling protected from dredging, pollution, obstruction and commercial fishing damage?

 

 

Obstruction, was that a fruedian slip?

[Worms]

You seem to have missed my point entirely. I'm talking about the areas that aren't being damaged by those.

It seems I have Elton. I thought you were referring to the two sites off the coast near you specifically. They are being damaged by trawling and mineral extraction. Also protection will prevent further encroachment and damage.

'Conservation' seems to have become a pseudonym for 'interfering'. If things aren't broken, the best way to 'conserve' them would be to leave them alone.

I can't say I agree with your translation. An overused word in some places yes and misunderstood by a lot of people who automatically seem to assume it means no angling. Your second point. Yes I agree. That's why they are being proposed for protection, to prevent damaging activities! They won't have a bunch of hairy crusties parked on them.

 

The quote below was taken from: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/ID..._tcm6-15187.pdf

The Site features are moderately exposed to Removal (aggregate dredging, demersal trawling, benthic dredging for seed mussel), they experience low to moderate levels of Obstruction (Just for you Brian )due to the placement of infrastructure such as cables and foundations on the seabed (oil and gas industry and offshore renewables infrastructure). They are also exposed to low levels of Smothering (aggregate dredging).

Some sections of the site (particularly within the deeper areas around Inner Dowsing and The Well) are actively trawled which may also cause physical loss of the habitat features (Centrica 2007). The inshore portion of the site is a key area for the dredging of mussel seed and in some areas seed mussel is known to occur in very close proximity to areas of biogenic reef feature (Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee, 2008). Trawling for shrimp also occurs in this area. Thus these fisheries may pose a significant risk to the biogenic reef feature in particular.

Licensed aggregate extraction occurs within the site boundary. The primary impact of aggregate extraction will result in the removal and lowering of seabed surface (along with associated infauna and epifauna) within the path of the dredgehead.

The placement of oil and gas and offshore windfarm infrastructure on the seabed obstructs some areas of the features, there will also have been some loss of habitat in the windfarm construction phase. The reef feature is considered to have higher exposure as the proportion of this habitat affected is higher although the absolute amounts of habitat loss remain small.