Formal consultation starts on proposed European marine sites

[wurzel]

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.

Hello Worms

 

They say they MAY not are

 

Quote

 

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.

quote

Trawling for shrimp also occurs in this area. Thus these fisheries may pose a significant risk to the biogenic reef feature in particular.

 

Or have you got absolute proof that trawling is causing loss of habitat in those areas,

 

What the hell, truth has little to do with it does it? You are happy to go along with it in the belief that you (RSA) will come out on top, but at what price?

 

I have no doubt that anglers will fare better in this battle than the inshore commercial fishermen, it was quite clear at the meeting Wednesday night with Balanced Seas that the main objective is fish management and any conversation with English Nature soon come around to damaging fishing practices, the same goes for the EU bird and save a sandbank directive.

 

The government need sand and gravel that's a fact, do you think they will cancel the Olympics or stop building because they can't get enough ballast? They have signed up to produce so much renewable energy they can't and won't stop the wind farm sites already planned and are already being built, but they can and will stop commercial fishing where ever they can , and angling will be heavily managed or like Elton says interfered with even excluded from some areas.

Have you got a favourite spot you are willing to be excluded from in the name of conservation or are you just an armchair pirate?

Edited November 28, 2009 by wurzel

[Worms]

Hello Worms

 

They say they MAY not are

 

Quote

 

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.

quote

Trawling for shrimp also occurs in this area. Thus these fisheries may pose a significant risk to the biogenic reef feature in particular.

 

Or have you got absolute proof that trawling is causing loss of habitat in those areas,

 

That depends on whether you read the risk assessment or the reports on the surveys. The MAY comes from the former. These are quotes from the latter for the two sites.

Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton

 

a) Physical loss

The Sandbank feature is exposed to Removal at low levels (aggregate dredging), experiences low levels of Obstruction (gas and windfarm industry infrastructure) and low levels of Smothering (drill cuttings)

 

 

Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge

 

a) Physical loss

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 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).

 

 

What the hell, truth has little to do with it does it? You are happy to go along with it in the belief that you (RSA) will come out on top, but at what price?

 

I have no doubt that anglers will fare better in this battle than the inshore commercial fishermen, it was quite clear at the meeting Wednesday night with Balanced Seas that the main objective is fish management and any conversation with English Nature soon come around to damaging fishing practices, the same goes for the EU bird and save a sandbank directive.

I don't really have the interests of the commercial fisherman at heart. I am contributing as an angler. Commercial fishermen have their own bodies for putting their voice across, the MPA Fishing Coalition which already has the backing of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. Anglers are struggling to find one that will represent them, or don't want one, or don't know about the problems etc.

 

The government need sand and gravel that's a fact, do you think they will cancel the Olympics or stop building because they can't get enough ballast? They have signed up to produce so much renewable energy they can't and won't stop the wind farm sites already planned and are already being built, but they can and will stop commercial fishing where ever they can , and angling will be heavily managed or like Elton says interfered with even excluded from some areas.

Have you got a favourite spot you are willing to be excluded from in the name of conservation or are you just an armchair pirate?

Of course sand and gravel extraction won't be stopped completely. Nor will wind farms. If you have an issue with a commercial fishing ban go and speak to the MPAFC. If anglers are worried about angling bans then get together and respond to the consultation!

 

As for being excluded from favourite fishing spots, you must be behind the times. Freshwater anglers have been excluded or limited by similar conservation regulations for years.

 

No, I'm not an armchair pirate.........I'm an angler that wants to continue catching fish.

[Steve Coppolo]

No, I'm not an armchair pirate.........I'm an angler that wants to continue catching fish.

 

 

I don't really have the interests of the commercial fisherman at heart. I am contributing as an angler. Commercial fishermen have their own bodies for putting their voice across, the MPA Fishing Coalition which already has the backing of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. Anglers are struggling to find one that will represent them, or don't want one, or don't know about the problems etc.

 

 

I see the old divide and conquer tactics have worked a treat.

 

As Winston Churchill once said, "An appeaser is one who feeds the crocidile, hoping it will eat him last"

[Worms]

I see the old divide and conquer tactics have worked a treat.

 

As Winston Churchill once said, "An appeaser is one who feeds the crocidile, hoping it will eat him last"

Article 47 showed the problem that anglers faced when being lumped in with commercial fishermen. It's the same with this scenario. Every group has their chance for a say. Commercials will use their livelihood as a reason, RSAs will use their 'minimal impact' reasoning, divers will use another, etc.

Divisions yes but better than being lumped together and limited because somebody elses recreation or living is having a greater impact than one's own.

[Steve Coppolo]

Article 47 showed the problem that anglers faced when being lumped in with commercial fishermen. It's the same with this scenario. Every group has their chance for a say. Commercials will use their livelihood as a reason, RSAs will use their 'minimal impact' reasoning, divers will use another, etc.

Divisions yes but better than being lumped together and limited because somebody elses recreation or living is having a greater impact than one's own.

 

You've missed the point completely , Worms. Article 47 and sea anglers being recognised under the CFP is a totally different scenario and irrelevant to my post.

 

The history behind sea angler recognition under the CFP stems from demands by RSA misrepresentatives that we be taken more seriously, be given more recognition and importance than commercial fishermen - because we were worth more to the economy. It was exactly the attitude displayed in your previous post and it backfired spectacularly.

[Worms]

You've missed the point completely , Worms. Article 47 and sea anglers being recognised under the CFP is a totally different scenario and irrelevant to my post.

But, as usual you made no constructive comment that made any sense. Your post was irrelevant to my reply to Wurzel's post

 

The history behind sea angler recognition under the CFP stems from demands by RSA misrepresentatives that we be taken more seriously, be given more recognition and importance than commercial fishermen - because we were worth more to the economy. It was exactly the attitude displayed in your previous post and it backfired spectacularly.

Whether it backfired spectacularly or not depends on whether you're interested in tackling the current issues as a group of anglers or, you are so wrapped up in past errors, howsoever caused, that you can't see the current issues with clarity or even a modicum of common sense.

 

My reply to Wurzel was based on his concerns as an inshore commercial fisherman. Those are not my concerns. Angling is. He has a support group, anglers do not. That is the precise reason that this thread started as an effect on ANGLERS. It was you who have completely missed the point.

 

I made no reference to importance of anglers over commercials at all. Read the post.

[Steve Coppolo]

But, as usual you made no constructive comment that made any sense. Your post was irrelevant to my reply to Wurzel's post

 

 

Whether it backfired spectacularly or not depends on whether you're interested in tackling the current issues as a group of anglers or, you are so wrapped up in past errors, howsoever caused, that you can't see the current issues with clarity or even a modicum of common sense.

 

My reply to Wurzel was based on his concerns as an inshore commercial fisherman. Those are not my concerns. Angling is. He has a support group, anglers do not. That is the precise reason that this thread started as an effect on ANGLERS. It was you who have completely missed the point.

 

I made no reference to importance of anglers over commercials at all. Read the post.

 

Worms.

 

It beats me why someone would post so much, with so much authority, about something that they don't understand at all.

 

The bold tecxt above, along with the content of your many other posts, demonstrates that the finer points of the subjects you write so much about are completely lost on you. This is backed up by your insistence that my comments are not constructive and don't make any sense to you.

 

Unfortunately, (for you), sometimes you have to look a bit further than Google to find the answers.

[Worms]

Worms.

 

It beats me why someone would post so much, with so much authority, about something that they don't understand at all.

 

The bold tecxt above, along with the content of your many other posts, demonstrates that the finer points of the subjects you write so much about are completely lost on you. This is backed up by your insistence that my comments are not constructive and don't make any sense to you.

 

Unfortunately, (for you), sometimes you have to look a bit further than Google to find the answers.

If you bothered to read my posts and the references (not Googled but included in Elton's original post) then perhaps you would see why and what I am saying.

 

If you want to spout forth about historical RSA issues and commercial fisheries issues feel free to start a thread about it.

 

I am responding to the issues in Elton's first post. If you can't understand that then fine. But I would appreciate it if you wouldn't just slag off any posts I make without putting them in the correct context. That context does not include your personal vitriol to past decisions/proposals/representatives regarding RSAs and fisheries policies.

 

The correct context includes the issues regarding proposals to include a number of marine areas as SACs and SPAs and the attendant consultations.

 

Just to be topical and include some bold quotes and to put in a few words to explain to you what my reply to Wurzel was about "He (Wurzel) has a support group, anglers do not." Is that too difficult a concept to grasp?

 

To put it in simple language so that you don't get the wrong end of the stick again: I don't wish RSAs to be restricted by any new legislation. I don't wish RSAs to be left out in the cold at consultations when all other stakeholders are organising themselves and getting their viewpoints across. I'm not interested in discussing the past when time discussing current issues is of more value to RSAs .

[Steve Coppolo]

If you bothered to read my posts and the references (not Googled but included in Elton's original post) then perhaps you would see why and what I am saying.

 

If you want to spout forth about historical RSA issues and commercial fisheries issues feel free to start a thread about it.

 

I am responding to the issues in Elton's first post. If you can't understand that then fine. But I would appreciate it if you wouldn't just slag off any posts I make without putting them in the correct context. That context does not include your personal vitriol to past decisions/proposals/representatives regarding RSAs and fisheries policies.

 

The correct context includes the issues regarding proposals to include a number of marine areas as SACs and SPAs and the attendant consultations.

 

Just to be topical and include some bold quotes and to put in a few words to explain to you what my reply to Wurzel was about "He (Wurzel) has a support group, anglers do not." Is that too difficult a concept to grasp?

 

To put it in simple language so that you don't get the wrong end of the stick again: I don't wish RSAs to be restricted by any new legislation. I don't wish RSAs to be left out in the cold at consultations when all other stakeholders are organising themselves and getting their viewpoints across. I'm not interested in discussing the past when time discussing current issues is of more value to RSAs .

 

Nah, sorry Worms, that's a complete cop out. You can't ignore the past when it has so much bearing on the current situation and, potentially, the future.

[Worms]

Nah, sorry Worms, that's a complete cop out. You can't ignore the past when it has so much bearing on the current situation and, potentially, the future.

Rubbish, the past is precisely that and no amount of crying about it will change it. Deal with the problems we have now using the the same weapons that other stakeholders are using.....RSAs just need to bring their own ammunition and arrange it in an orderly fashion next to the guns, not leave it scattered around all over the place for others to pick up.