Marine Conservation Zones coming soon to south-west England

[Steve Coppolo]

One thought I had about MCZ's the other day was this:

 

Okay, if you make an area a no-take zone, there's every chance that shellfish and non-migratory fish stocks may benefit. The scientists will see that as a success. But what about the surrounding areas that, because of this exclusion, will probably get fished more often by both anglers and commercial fishermen? If you believe the people who reckon that these activities have a detrimental effect, then you could well just be moving the 'problem' on.

 

They've already thought of that and that's where buffer zones will come into play.

 

Then I suppose we might have buffer, buffer, zones.

[Steve Coppolo]

So get as many anglers to support a cogent argument as you can, nationwide. With an estimated 1.4 million sea anglers in the UK we should have a loud voice. The MCS's "jewel" areas can easily become RSA's "jewel" areas as well. As long as RSA's shout the same thing but louder we have a very good chance.

 

 

All sounds good, Worms, except for one thing. It isn't the number of voices, or volume of the shouting, that influences any of this. It's the words of just one or two individuals, quietly spoken in the right ears during coffee breaks at meetings. Along with discreet emails and various ill thought out documents eminating from a few people with their own agendas, unfortunately, this is sea angling representation in the UK.

[Elton]

They've already thought of that and that's where buffer zones will come into play.

 

Then I suppose we might have buffer, buffer, zones.

 

Blimey. Imagine the amount of fuel you'd need just to get somewhere to fish. Luckily, petrol is harmless and free.

[Worms]

All sounds good, Worms, except for one thing. It isn't the number of voices, or volume of the shouting, that influences any of this. It's the words of just one or two individuals, quietly spoken in the right ears during coffee breaks at meetings. Along with discreet emails and various ill thought out documents eminating from a few people with their own agendas, unfortunately, this is sea angling representation in the UK.

If that is true then all the more reason for anglers to say what they want and for anglers to select their own representatives to sit on the committees. If the current representatives are not truly representing anglers' wishes then they need removing.

 

One of the problems is that it seems anglers don't know what they want and/or aren't prepared to stand together and say so.

[H.A.]

With an estimated 1.4 million sea anglers in the UK we should have a loud voice.

 

Agreed, but that will take another 50 years of painful evolution.

 

Right now the only recognised 'voices' we have are AT, BASS and SACN.

That's fact; no one else is recognised.

 

That's why it's so important for individuals to respond to the post-Bill consultations in numbers.

 

Everyone seems to recognise the 'greenies' powerful lobby, not to mention the Soc. for the Prevention of Birds (!), and we'll get what we deserve as long as apathy reigns and the Fifth columnists encourage everyone to abstain on the issues.

 

I badger Steviecopout only in the vain hope he might write something constructive , which his minions might respond to, instead of the rather strange tactic of 'duckin' and divin'.

 

[samuel-cox2010]

Agreed, but that will take another 50 years of painful evolution.

 

Right now the only recognised 'voices' we have are AT, BASS and SACN.

That's fact; no one else is recognised.

 

That's why it's so important for individuals to respond to the post-Bill consultations in numbers.

 

Everyone seems to recognise the 'greenies' powerful lobby, not to mention the Soc. for the Prevention of Birds (!), and we'll get what we deserve as long as apathy reigns and the Fifth columnists encourage everyone to abstain on the issues.

 

I badger Steviecopout only in the vain hope he might write something constructive , which his minions might respond to, instead of the rather strange tactic of 'duckin' and divin'.

 

 

Nothing changes! it all just stays the same!

[Steve Coppolo]

If that is true then all the more reason for anglers to say what they want and for anglers to select their own representatives to sit on the committees. If the current representatives are not truly representing anglers' wishes then they need removing.

 

I agree 100%. However, that, despite several false reassurances, is easier said than done. I strongly believe, more than ever before, that angling representation is being lead by politicians.

 

One of the problems is that it seems anglers don't know what they want and/or aren't prepared to stand together and say so.

 

I'm sure anglers do know what they want. The trouble is, most of them are not aware that they are in danger of losing it! Those that are aware, are constantly being told that, either, everything will be alright - or they don't have any choice, it's going to happen anyway so bend over and make the best of it.

[Steve Coppolo]

Agreed, but that will take another 50 years of painful evolution.

 

Right now the only recognised 'voices' we have are AT, BASS and SACN.

That's fact; no one else is recognised.

 

That's why it's so important for individuals to respond to the post-Bill consultations in numbers.

 

Everyone seems to recognise the 'greenies' powerful lobby, not to mention the Soc. for the Prevention of Birds (!), and we'll get what we deserve as long as apathy reigns and the Fifth columnists encourage everyone to abstain on the issues.

 

I badger Steviecopout only in the vain hope he might write something constructive , which his minions might respond to, instead of the rather strange tactic of 'duckin' and divin'.

 

 

Hello Adrian, or H.A., or Snakefish, or Esox100, or whoever you are today. Greetings, anyway.

 

Everything I write is constructive - unless you happen to be one of the sell out merchants that I'm trying to make more anglers aware of.

 

As for getting anglers to respond? Mmm, how many sea angling members does the Angling Trust have at the moment - including those it inherited from what was left of the NFSA? How does that figure compare to the number of anglers who responded to petitions regarding the sea angling licence, and/or responded to the consultation on the RSA travesty?

 

I'm sure if anglers wanted the Angling Trust to have a more powerful voice, they would join in their droves. The fact that they haven't, tells me that the AT aren't saying what the anglers want them to say. If people think that we are being quietly sold down the river, (and I do), the last thing they want to do is speed up the process. Sea anglers telling various groups of eco bullies where we would like MCZ's and MPA's, is a bit like turkeys telling Bernard Mathews when they would like Christmas.

[barry luxton]

So get as many anglers to support a cogent argument as you can, nationwide. With an estimated 1.4 million sea anglers in the UK we should have a loud voice. The MCS's "jewel" areas can easily become RSA's "jewel" areas as well. As long as RSA's shout the same thing but louder we have a very good chance.

 

After forty odd years of going on charter boats Worms, i could tell you approximate areas, however i could quite easily be a quarter or a half mile out. For example. i can take you to a bouy where i caught a 18lb turbot, however, i would have to remember if it was a rising or falling tide at the time if you get me drift. I could take you to approximate areas of a bank and say you can catch this here and that there but not accurate enough to make a difference, i could be yards out and catch s@d all, you must agree. So the only people who are going to be accurate enough are either charter skippers or commercials. So again, i say to you that the greenies, they are going to be looking to create areas on the say so of the loudest and the mostest but not nessesary the accurate. it will be guess work and a paper chace, hit and miss. Waste of time and effort.

 

Tell me honestly, how many of the rsa are going to provide accurate information in any event. Would they be the ones who carry portable gps's secretly from the skippers. As quite rightly, the skipper for one minute thought someone was nicking his spot would throw them over the side and i wouldn't blame him. Tell me how many of these greenies are going to be spot on or guessing on the say so of others. Can you accuratly pin point your areas of interest? Wurzel asked you a couple of weeks ago the same question, slightly different as i have put it though.

Edited December 8, 2009 by barry luxton

[wurzel]

So get as many anglers to support a cogent argument as you can, nationwide. With an estimated 1.4 million sea anglers in the UK we should have a loud voice. The MCS's "jewel" areas can easily become RSA's "jewel" areas as well. As long as RSA's shout the same thing but louder we have a very good chance.

 

Hello Worms

 

I don't think that is how it will work, they won't allow 1.4 million anglers a say.

Divide and conquer is the name of the game.

From the literature and correspondence I have had it seems every body is shadow boxing blindfolded at the moment as nothing is being admitted to have been decided yet, all the responses I get are it will have to be discussed and decided by the stake holder’s representatives that represent each different areas around the country. So if you are lucky you and the anglers of your area might influence your stakeholder reps for your area but I doubt it will make one jot of a difference, Finding sanctuary along with Balanced Seas are just the party whips for Natural England they are there to whip the stakeholder reps into shape and arrange the meetings and keep every thing tight with in the format they have decided, for some reason they seem to think that all the different stakeholder reps will get along fine with each other and angler reps will come to an a agreement along with commercial fisher's reps and every other stakeholder rep imaginable that suits every body.

It's my experience (with DEFRA) that what will happen is that 3 or 4 areas or issues will be tossed into the fray that nobody wants but will be somehow forced to decide on one, I hope the one picked is not your favourite hot spot , species or method, it will undoubtedly be some bodies they will not allow or ask the reps to decide on a sterile patch of ground or a species that nobody wants. It’s their democratic way of getting what they want and it’s no good complaining after wards if you are not happy with the decision , they just say “ the decision was your rep’s not ours “

 

 

At the end of the day this is going to be another layer of fish stock management and not much else as I said before I don't expect the fishing industry especially the inshore fleet to come out of it very well, but Worms I think you are dancing with the Devil thinking that getting rid of the commercial fishermen is worth a little pain in return, a trap some RSA reps have already fell for.

But how to ovoid it I don’t know .

FWIW I think having an environmental group involved with fish management whether commercial or RSA is like getting a group of vegan bunny huggers to run a live stock farm.