Marine Conservation Zones coming soon to south-west England

[Worms]

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.

The point is Barry that anglers don't need to accurately pinpoint areas that they want to fish. The idea is to suggest why conservation is a good idea in the MCS "jewels" but not to exclude angling in those areas for reasons a, b and c etc.

 

As it is I should imagine that quite a few anglers can pinpoint areas (myself included) because the MCS has listed most of the UK shoreline for protection......pick your mark from their map!

 

I must have missed Wurzel's post if he asked me that but, the same answer.

[Worms]

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.

Evening Wurzel, I hope you're wrong about the 'system' but who knows? In theory all individual anglers can fil in the consultation papers. Whether they are given the weight that they deserve (or not) is open for debate.

 

I'm not trying to advocate getting rid of commercial fisherman, after all that's where fish comes from for the majority of people. I'm just taking the view (on an angler's forum) that anglers should be kicking the doors a bit harder. The commercials, "greenies", divers, surfers, and Uncle Tom Cobbley are all making their noises. It just seems a bit quiet on the angler's side!

 

As for environmental groups being involved in fish management, well, I hate the word environmental as it seems to have so many different meanings these days. The word gets bandied around and frequently is used as a label for bunny/tree huggers.....not always the case!

 

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.

Evening Wurzel, I hope you're wrong about the 'system' but who knows? In theory all individual anglers can fil in the consultation papers. Whether they are given the weight that they deserve (or not) is open for debate.

 

I'm not trying to advocate getting rid of commercial fisherman, after all that's where fish comes from for the majority of people. I'm just taking the view (on an angler's forum) that anglers should be kicking the doors a bit harder. The commercials, "greenies", divers, surfers, and Uncle Tom Cobbley are all making their noises. It just seems a bit quiet on the angler's side!

 

As for environmental groups being involved in fish management, well, I hate the word environmental as it seems to have so many different meanings these days. The word gets bandied around and frequently is used as a label for bunny/tree huggers.....not always the case!

[Steve Coppolo]

Evening Wurzel, I hope you're wrong about the 'system' but who knows?

 

Evening Worms. Sorry to butt in, but in answer to your question - he does!!

Edited December 9, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[wurzel]

I'm not trying to advocate getting rid of commercial fisherman, after all that's where fish comes from for the majority of people. I'm just taking the view (on an angler's forum) that anglers should be kicking the doors a bit harder. The commercials, "greenies", divers, surfers, and Uncle Tom Cobbley are all making their noises. It just seems a bit quiet on the angler's side!

 

Hello worms

 

With the AT government backed and part funded by WWF I doubt they will be kicking any doors very hard over this issue, who else is there?

 

I haven't heard much noise from any body as yet other than the greens who all preach from the same hymn sheet, the commercial fishers are the same as the RSA we don't know what we are consulting on, what areas we are going to be excluded, what the objective are going to be for the areas in our area, Natural England says some methods might be allowed depending on the objective of the site that we might pick, they also say certain species will have special protection that I suspect won't be just in the NTZ, you just know that cod is one of them, evidently there are 19 other species in need of special protection, how do you consult on maybes ?

[wurzel]

As for environmental groups being involved in fish management, well, I hate the word environmental as it seems to have so many different meanings these days. The word gets bandied around and frequently is used as a label for bunny/tree huggers.....not always the case!

 

Never met an environmentalist that wasn’t

[Jaffa]

As for environmental groups being involved in fish management, well, I hate the word environmental as it seems to have so many different meanings these days. The word gets bandied around and frequently is used as a label for bunny/tree huggers.....not always the case!

 

Hi Worms,

 

I hate the word "environmental" too! No idea what it means..

 

But we seem to be getting a world of their strange legislation heading for us..

 

Its all so daft that it can't last though

[barry luxton]

As it is I should imagine that quite a few anglers can pinpoint areas (myself included) because the MCS has listed most of the UK shoreline for protection......pick your mark from their map!

 

Hi Worms,

 

The mcs have not listed most of the shore line, if you look at their maps they are localised areas. However their main agenda is for 30% of the uk's seas to be mcz's, have another read of their site. Their map marks, look good on paper for the co-op punters and the like, thats about all. What free thinking person would want to choose their areas, for the reasons already given. Load of cods.

 

I can name two general areas down the south west that would replace all of theirs put together and make a significant difference compared with saving some lobsters and divers habitat, they are not ruined in any event, rocks and pinnicles. Point being, compared with them, they wish to make the majority exclusive to all but a few. My two zones would not need to be made exclusive for a better return. One area in particular would benift from closure for three months of the year as opposed to shut completly.

 

From another of your posts,

 

quote: I'm not trying to advocate getting rid of commercial fisherman, after all that's where fish comes from for the majority of people.

 

Not quite true, over 70% of the fish is exported. What the ordinaries eat is mostly imported, Don't want the mcs interfearing with areas i use, as they are also me larder.

Edited December 10, 2009 by barry luxton

[Worms]

Morning Wurzel, Barry, Jaffa, Steve C, et al, I'll apolgise now for the length of this piece.

 

Those reasons (Wurzel's) are pretty much why I think anglers should get together, perhaps using an existing website to put together responses to the consultations and to address the MCS proposals. At least with their proposals known we have something to work with/against. Once a document is drafted a petition could be presented to the various angling fora and angling clubs, charter skippers etc. to see what the general concensus was. Get a big enough response and submit it to the consultation group/steering committee.

 

MCS have named some areas that they think should exclude angling. Don't forget this is not based on peer reviewed science and so carries no more weight than a sensible argument against it by people who have a vested interest in the fish stocks and the financial benefits to the local areas. NTZs and fish bag limits/catch and release are possible but by no means assured. The more of the 'general public' that stand up and counter 'silly' proposals the more chance of success. If you are concerned that cod are going to become a catch and release species in North Sea areas (for example) then propose revised size/bag limits. Some fish is better than none.

 

There is always the possibility that if the AT see anglers taking a lead that they will have to fall in and add their support!.........or lose any support that they might have at the moment.

 

Barry, yes, you are right, I was being slightly flippant about the total area of MCS's proposals. However thay are being proposed as MCZs, not necessarily NTZs. As I said in response to Wurzel, if those areas that are 'at risk' of becoming NTZs because the MCS have requested it are a possibility then, if an equal or greater number of anglers counter those suggestions then the powers that be are, (going on past experiences) not going to give up millions of pounds in tax revenue to see a few fish saved when they can use a well prepared reason (from anglers) that RSAs have a minimal impact on the seabed and fish stocks. MCZs don't automatically exclude angling.

 

My view on the MCS's proposals are that they got in early to try and counter any responses from all of the other stakeholders, such as Govt. sponsored wind/wave farm planners, Govt. backed oil and gas exploration companies (£££££), Govt. licensed gravel extraction companies, tax paying commercial fishermen etc. I'm sure that they are not expecting to get 100% or anything like that accepted and, when you consider what those huge commercial companies are going to want (money talks) and get then MCS's requirements are probably going to be somewhere near the bottom......enter RSAs.

 

As anglers we don't like to see our beaches littered with rubbish, we abhor wastage of fish, or fish cruelty. We want to fish where and when we want without having oil spills or other pollution events affecting our sport or our angling environment. We rile at seabed damaging operations that affect both the waters below the low tide marks and the beaches.

 

Whether you like it or not, as a group we are environmentally minded!

 

Let's look at the potential negative side first (not sure I know how to do that )

 

Gas, oil, gravel and other mineral extractors and wind, wave....you get the drift, might see us as "environmentalist" types.

 

The MCS and other "greenies" might see us as louts who like nothing more than dropping anchors and 12oz leads on every available piece of coral or sea-horse that we can find whilst angling every day to fill our collective array of deep freezes with the finny contents of the sea.

 

We could be seen as somewhere in the middle of 'the rest' and, it could be thought that we will therefore get stomped by both sides until we have nowhere to fish.

 

On the positive side however, yes, we are somewhere in the middle but, closer to the "greenies" in that we want to see the seas clean and full of fish but also wanting the benefits of the commercials and the mineral extraction etc groups who want to have access to the sea for commercial purposes. That potentially gives us public support!

 

Like the commercial sector we are worth a hell of a lot of tax pounds and that potentially gives us a certain amount of Govt. sympathy!

 

Worded carefully and presented to as many RSAs and the general public (think "line caught fish" phrase) as possible we could have a much stronger voice than we have at the moment and present a very strong case for the consultations and the steering party. With current internet technology we have the power

[Jaffa]

Whether you like it or not, as a group we are environmentally minded!

 

Let's look at the potential negative side first (not sure I know how to do that )

 

Gas, oil, gravel and other mineral extractors and wind, wave....you get the drift, might see us as "environmentalist" types.

 

The MCS and other "greenies" might see us as louts who like nothing more than dropping anchors and 12oz leads on every available piece of coral or sea-horse that we can find whilst angling every day to fill our collective array of deep freezes with the finny contents of the sea.

 

We could be seen as somewhere in the middle of 'the rest' and, it could be thought that we will therefore get stomped by both sides until we have nowhere to fish.

 

On the positive side however, yes, we are somewhere in the middle but, closer to the "greenies" in that we want to see the seas clean and full of fish but also wanting the benefits of the commercials and the mineral extraction etc groups who want to have access to the sea for commercial purposes. That potentially gives us public support!

 

Like the commercial sector we are worth a hell of a lot of tax pounds and that potentially gives us a certain amount of Govt. sympathy!

 

Worded carefully and presented to as many RSAs and the general public (think "line caught fish" phrase) as possible we could have a much stronger voice than we have at the moment and present a very strong case for the consultations and the steering party. With current internet technology we have the power

 

Hi Worms,

 

I guess my basic problem with what your saying is that i have grown up in a world where i was always pretty much free to come and go fishing wise and take that for granted; there may be downsides to the area i live in but fishing is a major upside I have never had to answer to anyone for the risks i took as a kid dodging waves in January on the Arbroath cliffs, had nothing but kind help and advice from the commercials as i later got into diving and kayak fishing.

 

As for "management" of the commercials, i joined the Scottish Fisheries Office as a kid of 18 and was there when the quotas began (all for the best etc) and helped in the process, rather than just watched, as the madness began. Well meaning guys like yourself had all the answers apparently and a whole world went down the tubes. I regret ever having anything to do with it, it was mostly nuts. Monty Python would not have compared to it.

 

Decades of that kind of experience is not going to shift my opinion much Worms..

 

Nought stays the same though and i don't think you see the wave thats coming People are hurting so like the tide politics will shift;just mho like

 

All the best,

 

Chris