Are MCZ's A 'Done Deal'?

[wurzel]

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.

 

Hello Leon

So when the nice girls from Natural England coo " oh we've had a really positive response from the angling fraternity" what they really mean is they have been talking to you.

[Steve Coppolo]

Hello Leon

So when the nice girls from Natural England coo " oh we've had a really positive response from the angling fraternity" what they really mean is they have been talking to you.

 

That sounds about right. I heard the other day that, at the Kent balanced seas meeting, the person elected as spokesperson by local anglers was ignored by Sue Wells, who went and spoke to Leon instead. They are on first name terms, apparently.

 

It doesn't seem to matter what the majority think, all they need is one or two 'anglers' to rubber stamp their plans and that's job done. It's been going on for years.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[Jaffa]

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!

 

 

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.

 

****s. The worst thing any Sea angler could do IMHO is buy into this nonsense. Look at the way the winds blowing, tell the buggers sod all, blank every questionaire. They wish to box, classify and control but they are dinosaurs.

 

Our hobby survived all the madness of the last 30 years. Nice that the control freaks manage to catch up several decades after the worst of it

[seafoods]

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.

 

 

You've got it in one there - what price a settlement allowing RSA activity to take part in certain areas (closed to other activities ) but only under 'licenced' conditions to allow the authorities to 'monitor' the effect RSA's have? I'm sure the usual suspects would trumpet that as a victory while introducing a licence by the back door.

[Steve Coppolo]

You've got it in one there - what price a settlement allowing RSA activity to take part in certain areas (closed to other activities ) but only under 'licenced' conditions to allow the authorities to 'monitor' the effect RSA's have? I'm sure the usual suspects would trumpet that as a victory while introducing a licence by the back door.

 

 

Funny you should say that. There have been some very interesting developments over on the Angling Trust forum. Given the 'official' stance being that the Angling Trust does not support a sea angling licence, I find the contents of a letter to the shadow fisheries minister on behalf of the Angling Trust, quite staggering. It begs the question, just who is the Angling Trust? We are being told one thing, while the AT goes and does the complete opposite behind our backs.

 

 

http://anglingtrust.forumotion.net/open-de...tter-t62-15.htm (Wayne McCully's post about halfway down the page)

 

I find the first couple of responses to the newly disclosed informationon the AT forum, (information that, in my opinion, we should all have been privvy to, anyway), equally as staggering. It seems to me that the people who are most keen to see the Angling Trust succeed are also the ones who want to stiffle debate and hide the truth; which will, ultimately, be the undoing of the AT if it is allowed to continue. By trying to defend the indefensible and berating a person who has been up front and honest with grass roots anglers, these people are doing more damage to the AT than they realise.

 

So much for, 'getting involved and changing it from the inside'. What a joke.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[seafoods]

Funny you should say that. There have been some very interesting developments over on the Angling Trust forum. Given the 'official' stance being that the Angling Trust does not support a sea angling licence, I find the contents of a letter to the shadow fisheries minister on behalf of the Angling Trust, quite staggering. It begs the question, just who is the Angling Trust? We are being told one thing, while the AT goes and does the complete opposite behind our backs.

 

 

http://anglingtrust.forumotion.net/open-de...tter-t62-15.htm (Wayne McCully's post about halfway down the page)

 

I find the first couple of responses to the newly disclosed informationon the AT forum, (information that, in my opinion, we should all have been privvy to, anyway), equally as staggering. It seems to me that the people who are most keen to see the Angling Trust succeed are also the ones who want to stiffle debate and hide the truth; which will, ultimately, be the undoing of the AT if it is allowed to continue. By trying to defend the indefensible and berating a person who has been up front and honest with grass roots anglers, these people are doing more damage to the AT than they realise.

 

So much for, 'getting involved and changing it from the inside'. What a joke.

 

I did see that Steve, it's amazing that some of the dinosaurs have the brass neck to berate Wayne for being honest and upfront and ignoring the very valid points he makes. If that is the standard of 'representation' the AT is giving you poor sods south of the border I can only say I'm glad they have no influence in Scotland. It would appear they are trying to get Wayne to do the same as yourelf and leave the AT, they don't like anybody who actually knows anything about facts rocking their boat (or should that be desk). It is obvious the AT are not going to do anything that real RSA's want and perhaps time that RSA's in England and Wales had an alternative to joining it.

[Worms]

I admit to not knowing too much about the organisation but if the aims are followed then what about extending the SSACN?

 

Any room for us?

[seafoods]

I admit to not knowing too much about the organisation but if the aims are followed then what about extending the SSACN?

 

Any room for us?

 

It would be worth asking them. They are much more open and above board than the AT, and, while I certainly don't agree with them all the time, they are at least willing to debate issues rather than think they are right and you are wrong. This is a link to their website which may help fill in some of the blanks in your knowledge of them. http://www.ssacn.org/

[Steve Coppolo]

I admit to not knowing too much about the organisation but if the aims are followed then what about extending the SSACN?

 

Any room for us?

 

Wasn't the SSACN just an offshoot of the SACN?

[seafoods]

Wasn't the SSACN just an offshoot of the SACN?

 

 

Probably in the first instance Steve, but are open with what they are doing, active at government level and honest enough to admit that they are not as politically astute as the snake oil dealers in high places.