Who DOES Know About Marine Conservation Zones?

[barry luxton]

Where is the info on what is being caught ?

 

Probably a hand full of cuttles and not much else.

 

At the time i asked a guy who knew and he told me they were targeting cuttle, as for the quantity, dunno.

[flapper]

YES That is exactly what is required and an under ten boat built to trawl will have no problem going beyond the six mile area.

Well that’s ok then.

Flapper.

[Jaffa]

Flapper, why rubbish the idea of the six mile inshore waters as being a suitable conservation area for fish regeneration, given it is well known to be were fish spawn and their little ones then grow. Just ban towed gear is all that is required as opposed to setting up specific areas which will be difficult to police.

 

Scotland had a 3 mile ban on trawling inside 3 miles for I guess half my lifetime.

 

It was unenforceable at that time so was pointless. What has changed?

 

Whats funny is that while there is locally now very little "towed gear" activity at all, the noisy politic stuff is all for spending ton's of dosh closing a door on an issue that was over decades ago in my little patch to do what exactly what?

 

Freeze and turn back time?, combined with the need for "interested parties" to have their say ( all a long way from any actuall freezing/hanging/namecalling etc of course )

 

 

Whatever the truth of all the stories is, I for one do not believe that legislation on Anglers will achieve anything but jobs for the boys and neswpapers in yesterdays recycle bin.

[Jaffa]

Internationally it has been recognised that whereas there is a great deal of land habitat that has been protected in the form of national parks, SSSIs, nature reserves etc, very little of the aquatic environment has had such attention.

 

Leon, do you really believe that a "great deal of land habitat" has actually been protected by all this legislation and also really believe the "aquatic environment" needs the same attention?

 

I don't get it..

[barry luxton]

Quote:

 

Internationally it has been recognised that whereas there is a great deal of land habitat that has been protected in the form of national parks, SSSIs, nature reserves etc, very little of the aquatic environment has had such attention.

 

 

And long may it stay that way until the brains come up with a plausible idea that will work without the disruption and cost that the brains are stating they wish to avoid.

 

Unfortunately those international geezers are going to cost our industry a great deal, impose rules and regulation on the rest that will achieve managers dreams. With lundy, little or no benefit will be achieved for a period of forty years, even then they guys being paid to run it are not sure if it is going to work or not. Have they chosen badly, over hyped the idea of banning all, over hyped the idea of bans are good. Too much a price to pay for little or no return. I hear that some of the guys who set this up are having second thoughts as to the viability of this project, so i have asked for the same in writing.

 

Bl@@dy bonkers.

[Bob Shotter]

Quote:

 

Internationally it has been recognised that whereas there is a great deal of land habitat that has been protected in the form of national parks, SSSIs, nature reserves etc, very little of the aquatic environment has had such attention.

 

 

And long may it stay that way until the brains come up with a plausible idea that will work without the disruption and cost that the brains are stating they wish to avoid.

 

Unfortunately those international geezers are going to cost our industry a great deal, impose rules and regulation on the rest that will achieve managers dreams. With lundy, little or no benefit will be achieved for a period of forty years, even then they guys being paid to run it are not sure if it is going to work or not. Have they chosen badly, over hyped the idea of banning all, over hyped the idea of bans are good. Too much a price to pay for little or no return. I hear that some of the guys who set this up are having second thoughts as to the viability of this project, so i have asked for the same in writing.

 

Bl@@dy bonkers.

 

Hi Barry

 

It is obvious that there are no clear and definite stats to support any levels of protection be it Bass, Mullet, Cod or even sea grass, then I can not personally give any support to the conservation protection plans on the table at this time.

 

I would suggest that given the scientist have recommended that forty years is required time to establish the value of the Lundy project, that we accept that time period and use it to monitor all and every further recommended MCA project but without making any changes or restrictions on said areas until that time has elapsed and there is then a proven need to the impose restrictions. This way with continued monitoring would then provide further proof or otherwise of the validity of such masseurs.

 

Indeed as Barry has said, this was the mistake made with regard the Lundy no take zone and this I have been told personally from some of those involved in its set up, it would have been better to fully establish the state of those species, fish, flora, or whatever that were to be protected before introducing the no take zone.

 

Further then and again using the guidance that each current proposed MCZ area should be reviewed every six years this then would give the opportunity to address any proven need to make changes sooner should there be an urgent need.

 

So to conclude yes introduce as many conservation zones as is felt necessary but make no changes to how we access these areas for forty years but monitor or research them and review the findings every six years making changes to any area were an urgent need is proven.

 

That will keep the jobs for the boys and leave us sea anglers in peace to get on as we have for hundreds of years.

 

Tight lines Bob

[76jerry]

Oh how I laughted at the picture of that trawler, funny it,s never fish there trawling for. The skipper lost his dentures over the side and would like them back ect. Having more than a few trips ruined by ***** trawling 100yrds off the shore moving them 6miles out to sea has certain apeal.

 

Why is it soon as the word conservation is mentioned we have such a negative reponse, which leads me to belive most of those oposed are comerical fishermen who are lurking on a recreational fishing forum who would be better off on there own site Gill netting today or Why I love Pair trawling.Conservation is a good thing for the ordinary fisherman because in the long term it will lead to better sport which is what this forum should be about better sport for all and not protecting comerical interests

 

As a surfer having a MCZ at Sennen will not stop me from surfing there so your point was ?

[wurzel]

Oh how I laughted at the picture of that trawler, funny it,s never fish there trawling for. The skipper lost his dentures over the side and would like them back ect. Having more than a few trips ruined by ***** trawling 100yrds off the shore moving them 6miles out to sea has certain apeal.

 

Why is it soon as the word conservation is mentioned we have such a negative reponse, which leads me to belive most of those oposed are comerical fishermen who are lurking on a recreational fishing forum who would be better off on there own site Gill netting today or Why I love Pair trawling.Conservation is a good thing for the ordinary fisherman because in the long term it will lead to better sport which is what this forum should be about better sport for all and not protecting comerical interests

 

As a surfer having a MCZ at Sennen will not stop me from surfing there so your point was ?

 

Hello 76jerry

 

How were your trips ruined by trawling 100 yds from the shore? Are you blaming them because you caught nothing or did you see a commercial boat close by and just didn't bother fishing?

 

Nothing funny about your perception or the snide remark about retrieving lost dentures, the true fact is the trawler in the picture was fishing for cuttles and in bright day light and clear water would catch very little else, being a commercial fisherman I would know this and also as an angler if I happened to be fishing the same spot I would not be put off by it, in fact as a commercial fisherman I would know that chances are there would be a few decent fish following behind the trawler feeding on food items being disturbed by the trawl so as an angler would be ready to cast as close to the back of it as possible.

How is pushing that trawler out side 6 mile going to enhance your sport do you regularly fish for cuttles?

My area the Thames Estuary is predominately a dover sole fishery and that is what the trawls catch and generally very little else, other areas it might be lemon soles,cuttles or prawns, I don't see how this effects angling interest much at all.

The reason commercials lurk on these forums is to right the perceptions of people like your self after all you would not want to campaign to relieve somebody of their livelihood with false or untrue perceptions, would you?

[barry luxton]

The reason commercials lurk on these forums is to right the perceptions of people like your self after all you would not want to campaign to relieve somebody of their livelihood with false or untrue perceptions, would you?

 

He has already answered that with his delight in the presumed ntz proposal at sennen cove. In that instance the man is happy that all will be banned to stop the once yearly practice of netting for mullet off the beach. So we can all see where he is misguided to consider a ntz when in fact commercially it is targeted for a brief period. Selfish, secular blokes like him give the rsa a bad name. Bet he wouldn't like to have the same discussion face to face with the under tens and a few charter skippers.

 

 

Slap me hand for putting the picture up.

[wurzel]

Slap me hand for putting the picture up.

 

 

No slap needed Barry, it's an emotive subject that will crop up time and time again and needs to be discussed.