Jump to content

Steve Coppolo's Vision


Elton

Recommended Posts

This all being left to a bunch of scientists and Natural England is a potential nightmare!

 

 

Exactly where individual MCZs are to be placed will be decided by stakeholder groups working to Government criteria.

 

It's up to those who have an interest to get involved and make sure that representatives sitting upon regional stakeholder groups, and the local advisory panels, have input from those with the necessary knowledge to make the right decisions.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Exactly where individual MCZs are to be placed will be decided by stakeholder groups working to Government criteria.

 

It's up to those who have an interest to get involved and make sure that representatives sitting upon regional stakeholder groups, and the local advisory panels, have input from those with the necessary knowledge to make the right decisions.

 

Thats all very well in an ideal world though Leon. As we are aware the likes of the mcs has somewhere in the region of 100,000 members and co-op shoppers who are party to a yes we want areas protected campaign without them realising exactly what they have signed upto. In the mean time the unfortunate rsa are going to be banned from the areas, because the likes of the mcs and divers are asking for the majority of ntz's because it will be good, all without any evidence that the rsa are part of the demise of the fish stocks in any event. The only alledged evidence as we are both aware, one dive trip onto a wreck. Shamefull that the mcs are using that as a reason to get the rsa banned from more areas. This is where the threat to the rsa angling scene is coming from at the moment.

 

I can name two prime examples no problem that will have an effect on the fish stocks 100 times more so than all of the ntz's that the mcs are promoting. One of them would only have to be closed for 1/3 rd of a year. As Cleehive has intimated, where they breed.

 

Even the guys at lundy have stated that they need 30-40 years to confirm if this one will be a success. Ok for lobsters and divers at the moment, they don't know about fish stocks though. Shame the rsa have been banned from that area on no evidence.

Edited by barry luxton

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the mean time the unfortunate rsa are going to be banned from the areas, because the likes of the mcs and divers are asking for the majority of ntz's because it will be good, all without any evidence that the rsa are part of the demise of the fish stocks in any event. The only alledged evidence as we are both aware, one dive trip onto a wreck. Shamefull that the mcs are using that as a reason to get the rsa banned from more areas. This is where the threat to the rsa angling scene is coming from at the moment.

 

 

In that case, fortunately perhaps, the MCS aren't running the show.

 

Like anyone else they will need to submit detailed proposals to the regional stakeholder groups who will be deciding exactly where MCZs will be placed, and reviewing all the evidence submitted behind each proposal.

 

Each MCZ will have specific objectives, and only activities which impinge upon those objectives will need to be restricted or banned.

 

So, if the MCS suggest an area without having any evidence that RSA will have a significant impact on the achievement of the objectives for that area, then I can't see how they will get RSA banned.

 

And remember too that socio-economic considerations may be taken into account.

 

So, lets not fall over and surrender before anyone has yet said 'boo!'

 

And let's make sure that the type of people on the regional stakeholder forums and local advisory groups, representing RSA, have the skills and knowledge to ensure that we don't get stitched-up, and have available to them robust evidence to show why RSA needn't be restricted (unfortunately simple rhetoric unsupported by facts isn't going to do the job needed).

 

ps In Wales it's going to be different. There they are only looking at Highly Protected Marine Conservation Areas!

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, fortunately perhaps, the MCS aren't running the show.

 

Like anyone else they will need to submit detailed proposals to the regional stakeholder groups who will be deciding exactly where MCZs will be placed, and reviewing all the evidence submitted behind each proposal.

 

Each MCZ will have specific objectives, and only activities which impinge upon those objectives will need to be restricted or banned.

 

So, if the MCS suggest an area without having any evidence that RSA will have a significant impact on the achievement of the objectives for that area, then I can't see how they will get RSA banned.

 

And remember too that socio-economic considerations may be taken into account.

 

So, lets not fall over and surrender before anyone has yet said 'boo!'

 

And let's make sure that the type of people on the regional stakeholder forums and local advisory groups, representing RSA, have the skills and knowledge to ensure that we don't get stitched-up, and have available to them robust evidence to show why RSA needn't be restricted (unfortunately simple rhetoric unsupported by facts isn't going to do the job needed).

 

ps In Wales it's going to be different. There they are only looking at Highly Protected Marine Conservation Areas!

 

If the MCS aren't running the show, how come the AT are urging people to visit their website to give them credibility by supporting their wish list of proposed MCZ's?

 

And why, when some of us attended our local MCZ stakeholders meeting last month, were we told by a so called sea angling 'rep' that none of were qualified to take our views forward to the national stakeholders group? Could it be that same old arrogance surfacing again? You know, only the unelected few misrepresentatives are alowed to speak for anglers, rather than people who actually knows a lot about angling?

 

The whole thing is a stitch up before it's even begun.

Edited by Steve Coppolo

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some nice fish there Peter but in comparison to how it used to be its crap. Whitby still has the potential to draw anglers from across the UK, the fact that Paul and a few others like Rich on Shytehawke are booked every good weather day, 12 months of the year is testament to that, if the fishing was finished then people wouldn't pay £50 to be taken out there for 10 hours. But on the other hand anyone who has known Whitby for 20 or 30 years will tell you of the demise. Anyone who fishes the port but not sure what I'm talking about just needs to look above the counter in the rods and reels fishing tackle shop when they call in to pick up their bait and lures. Up there are the pictures of catches made by the shop owner from the Dark Island boat back in the early 80's. When you see those pictures and you realise what the fishing was like, it is enough to make you weep. The trend has been a downward one since those times, so lets not play silly little games Peter as you know as well as I do that unless something gives then the whole thing is shafted for us all. A large percentage of sea anglers are fed up to the back teeth with the local trawlers who have all but ruined our sport in the name of greed.

 

 

Still the enemy and still a communist to boot Glenn.

I'm not playing silly games either, your self and a large percentage of sea anglers along with the ngo's and English Nature have no idea on the mechanisms and logistics that cause good and bad years .

I'm not going to bother going over old ground except in saying again that you play straight into the hands of the greens and their closed areas with your claims of decimated stocks, when it comes to cod a supposed endangered fish they won't differentiate much between RSA and commercial.

 

I do know Whitby having fished there several times as an angler in the late 70's with the then super star Stu Jonson on Sea Trek arranged by the late Tut Uttley who loved the place so much he emigrated there buying his own boat.(not sure if it was for the fishing or the beer)

We had some good fishing but despite hearing of fantastic catches we never had many fish over 10 lb most were 5 to 7lb.

I then came to fish Whitby commercially about 17 years ago for 3 years and again had some very good catches of mainly 5 to 7 lb codling with a smattering of larger fish with one or two wrecks holding some bigger than average fish to over 30lb.

I suspect if I came back and fished the same grounds and wrecks I would not find much has changed, no doubt the fishing has gone up and down in the dividing years but that’s the same for every body whether you have a fleet of super trawlers working on your door step or not and no amount of closed areas will change it.

I fish to live and live to fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can name two prime examples no problem that will have an effect on the fish stocks 100 times more so than all of the ntz's that the mcs are promoting. One of them would only have to be closed for 1/3 rd of a year. As Cleehive has intimated, where they breed.

 

I doubt that Barry, just like English Nature and Glenn you have no evidence.

Edited by wurzel

I fish to live and live to fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, fortunately perhaps, the MCS aren't running the show.

 

Like anyone else they will need to submit detailed proposals to the regional stakeholder groups who will be deciding exactly where MCZs will be placed, and reviewing all the evidence submitted behind each proposal.

 

Each MCZ will have specific objectives, and only activities which impinge upon those objectives will need to be restricted or banned.

 

So, if the MCS suggest an area without having any evidence that RSA will have a significant impact on the achievement of the objectives for that area, then I can't see how they will get RSA banned.

 

And remember too that socio-economic considerations may be taken into account.

 

So, lets not fall over and surrender before anyone has yet said 'boo!'

 

And let's make sure that the type of people on the regional stakeholder forums and local advisory groups, representing RSA, have the skills and knowledge to ensure that we don't get stitched-up, and have available to them robust evidence to show why RSA needn't be restricted (unfortunately simple rhetoric unsupported by facts isn't going to do the job needed).

 

ps In Wales it's going to be different. There they are only looking at Highly Protected Marine Conservation Areas!

 

Hello Leon

 

Spoken like a true meeting junky who has total faith in the system.

As you say socio-economic considerations may be taken into account but more likely not and defiantly not with in the bird protection directive areas nor in the Long and Margate sand protected area.

I think you will find that all areas will have a Highly Protected area with in them somewhere

and it is that area that the Stakeholders are supposed to pick. I will be surprised if they do though, English nature helped no doubt by DEFRA have set up a system and format of not too many meetings and a very tight schedule that won't allow time to discuss and argue over an area that supposedly suits all stake holders so they will be forced into making a decision they are not happy with.

I fish to live and live to fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you say socio-economic considerations may be taken into account but more likely not and defiantly not with in the bird protection directive areas nor in the Long and Margate sand protected area.

 

 

Hi Wurzel,

 

They are Natura 2000 sites, created under EU legislation, and where socio-economics is not allowed to be given consideration.

 

The MCZs, to be created under legislation contained within the new Marine Act, are somewhat different.

 

I agree that in some cases it's quite likely that there is going to be a struggle to balance RSA concerns with nature conservation objectives (and remember MCZs are a nature conservation tool, not a fisheries management tool, more about protecting habitat than restoring fish-stocks), and that there is going to be tension with some NGOs who really don't like the fact that they may have to compromise their agenda.

 

But it's too early to roll-over completely just yet.

 

The need to meet deadlines which are now far too tight, might just play in our favour, not theirs.

Edited by Leon Roskilly

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that Barry, just like English Nature and Glenn you have no evidence.

 

 

One site could be where they play mothers and fathers, are you saying that if they are left alone for that period during the year it wouldn't make any difference. The second is a place that for many many years held a sustainable fishery, then they went, wasn't global warming as when the pressure on them deminished they returned albeit much smaller. Leave them alone for a period of time and give them a chance to grow. Is that not a fair assumption. Or do we leave it all for the likes of the co-op, to choose.

 

Is the above better than sticking pins in a map that someone else has determined.

 

 

Yes it's a good thing the mcs arn't in control Leon as they would close down angling as we know it for sure. However when you have a funded ngo with that sort of agenda, 600,000 co-op shoppers who this ngo has hoodwinked, it makes it slightly difficult for the rsa to compete against. Some of the rsa have made an effort to meet deadlines for ages Leon, hasn't made one jot of difference though has it. They are just playing games, fiddling.

 

Quote: And remember too that socio-economic considerations may be taken into account.

 

don't beleive that. There would still be an airport plan on the table for hoo marshes if the twitchers hadn't got their way and can you see boris's suggestion of an airport off herne bay, margate coming to fuition, with a new crossing over the thames, na it will be too conveiniant to say yes and like likes of the guys who have to drive up to london in the traffic can carry on doing so, continuing the horrible pollution while stuck in traffic. Let people continue to struggle, que up, to get to heathrow, because it looks green on paper.

Edited by barry luxton

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.