Are MCZ's A 'Done Deal'?

[Elton]

Interesting to see that some think so:

 

http://www.bridportnews.co.uk/news/lymenew...f_Dorset_coast/

[Leon Roskilly]

Interesting to see that some think so:

 

http://www.bridportnews.co.uk/news/lymenew...f_Dorset_coast/

 

 

er, That meeting was about Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) not Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs).

 

The legislation behind them, and the process of designation (including how much influence stakeholders can have) are quite different.

 

Especially in that both SACs (and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)) cannot take account of social or economic considerations and are based entirely on the scientific case for protection.

 

see: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/m...pa/default.aspx

 

 

 

MCZs will be created according to Government guidlines, so in that sense are a done deal.

 

But it will be 'stakeholders' who will consider the data and the guidlines to decide exactly where they go, and what measures are needed to provide the level of protection so that they meet each area's particular objective.

 

But the powers that be will need to be satisfied that they do indeed fulfil all the requirements before a final decision is made by the DEFRA Minister.

[Elton]

Sorry, Leon. I'm all acronym'ed out. Whatever initials are used, they're all threats to angling. Seriously, I think we should come up with our own name for the collective lot of them.

[Leon Roskilly]

Seriously, I think we should come up with our own name for the collective lot of them.

 

 

Marine Protected Area (MPA) is the generally accepted collective name covering NTZs, HPMRs, Natura 2000 sites etc etc etc (oh! and MCZs)

[Elton]

GAM's - 'Good Angling Marks' - will probably cover most of them.

[Leon Roskilly]

GAM's - 'Good Angling Marks' - will probably cover most of them.

 

 

Let's hope so

[Elton]

Let's hope so

 

I think we're looking at it from a different perspective. I mean GAM's is probably what we refer to them as now.

[Leon Roskilly]

I think we're looking at it from a different perspective. I mean GAM's is probably what we refer to them as now.

 

 

I know (It was simply too good to resist!)

 

 

The thing about MCZs is that they are meant to be a nature conservation tool, not a fisheries management tool.

 

And are meant to protect 'habitat' not fish.

 

And 'habitat' is what makes an area important to various creatures (including fish!).

 

So, it's not simply a case of protecting 'rocks' or 'worm beds' etc, but protecting a habitat that supports a range of biodiversity, and ultimately supports the population of the water column with organisms, including food for fish and fish for us to catch!

 

Having identified candidate areas for protection (eg a number of rocky areas, worm beds etc), then the task will be to look at which of those areas will benefit best from protection with minimum disruption to the activities of different stakeholders.

 

Being selfish, the best possible outcome would be to identify features which, given protection, would become enriched with fish-life in an area where damaging activity was banned or restricted, but remains accessible to recreational sea-angling which would not need any restriction to achieve the conservation objectives of the MCZ.

 

Second would be an area where now no (or little) angling takes place, but because of the protection afforded, (perhaps restricted) good angling becomes available. Or overflow benefits increases the angling potential over a wider area than encompassed by the MCZ.

 

Third would be pushing the choice of area which require protection from angling away from areas which are important to angling to areas of similar ecological value which aren't important to angling.

 

And yes, there is the likelihood that there will be areas where other stakeholders consider the ecological (or scientific) benefit of protection against all users as overidding stakeholder interests.

 

So, the coming MCZs present both opportunities for better angling in future as well as threats of restriction on anglers with no significant benefit to anglers in return.

 

And that's why it's important for anglers to get involved, and to obtain the data and arguments that will deliver best value to angling from the MCZs that are definitely coming, and not simply sit back and wait for the worst outcomes to happen.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Leon Roskilly

[Steve Coppolo]

And that's why it's important for anglers to get involved, and to obtain the data and arguments that will deliver best value to angling from the MCZs that are definitely coming, and not simply sit back and wait for the worst outcomes to happen.

 

Or sit back and let one or two individuals with their own agendas dictate how it's going to be on our behalf, negotiating away our fishing heritage for no good reason and without our permission.

[barry luxton]

Letter to the ngo's.

 

Dear Sirs, as there is no evidence of damage caused by the rsa to any habitats, please do not arrange any zones to be restricted for the same.

 

End of discussion as far as i'm concerned.