Flamborough Head Not Take Zone

[glennk]

Letter from Leanne Stockdale

 

19 February 2008

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

A meeting with the angling sector is to be held at 11am on the 23 February 2008 at the Bridlington Rugby Union Football Club, Dukes Park, Queensgate, Bridlington.

 

 

I have decided to hold a meeting to clear up any confusion as a result of the last Flamborough Fisheries Liaison group meeting in November last year.

 

The Purpose of the meeting is to:

 

* Identify and resolve all areas of confusion following the meeting in November;

* Clarify the current management of the Flamborough Head Special Area of Conservation;

* Outline the roles of the Flamborough Head Project Officer, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee and Natural England;

* Discuss Natural England’s ideas about designating a small experimental No Take Zone within the Flamborough Head Special Area of Conservation.

 

 

 

No Take Zones (NTZs) are a type of Marine Protected Area (MPA) that provides the highest level of protection for both commercial and non-commercially valuable, marine animals.

 

The government are committed to introducing additional Marine Protected Areas through the Marine Bill by 2012. They have proven to have benefit to marine wildlife and in some instances have benefited fish and shellfish of commercial and recreational value. However, because there are very few of these sites it has not proved possible to study their effects in a scientific manner.

 

Natural England have requested that I help them work with local interest groups to identify a location for an experimental site that is acceptable to people who use Flamborough Head for recreational or commercial reasons.

 

Essentially I think that the Environment Sector (such as Natural England) and responsible commercial and recreational fishing interests all want similar things – a healthy and productive marine environment with abundant wildlife some of which you can eat (e.g. fish and shellfish) and some of which you cant (e.g. sponges and sea slugs) and I would like to work with the fishing industry and recreational sector to see what benefits we can achieve. Essentially the best way to do this is to sit down and agree how to do this at a local level.

 

 

 

 

This is not part of a staged plan to shut down fishing at Flamborough Head. I will be contacting the commercial sector to arrange a similar meeting to discuss these issues too, with a representative from the commercial sector invited to the forthcoming meeting, to ensure there is transparency throughout the process.

 

I look forward to seeing you on the 23 February.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Leanne Stockdale

 

Flamborough Head Project Officer

[clem]

Letter from Leanne Stockdale

Someone else with far too much time on their hands. I presume she is been lobbied by the bloody twitchers some of whom think they have sole rights to this area and its gulls.

[Jaffa]

This is only the beginning. The country will be haunted by plenty more of this (MPAs that is) in the near future and the years to come.

 

For once I agree with you wholeheartedly FF: A tidal wave of legislation is about to hit UK anglers, UK commercials (though nothing new there; they have suffered it for years) ,and even UK fish-keepers ( eu about to ban the import of species that have been a mainstay of the hobby for decades).

 

The hate has to stop and its time we all looked at that weird wave forming on the horizon. Just MO.

 

Chris

[Guest challenge]

http://www.nffo.org.uk/news/sea_angling_strategy.html

[barry luxton]

http://www.nffo.org.uk/news/sea_angling_strategy.html

 

My interpretation of the contents is the nffo considers that the rsa have nothing to offer with regards to fish stock preservation and management. Would that be correct?

Edited March 1, 2008 by barry luxton

[Guest challenge]

My interpretation of the contents is the nffo considers that the rsa have nothing to offer with regards to fish stock preservation and management. Would that be correct?

Not sure Barry. I think that they (NFFO) will be looking after there own interests.

Maybe they don’t think that at the moment that the rsa sector is not in a position to make decisions on fish management within other industries until they have some accountability and controlled restrictions from within there own industry.

Ill e-mails them Barry and se what they have to say.

Regards.

[barry luxton]

Not sure Barry. I think that they (NFFO) will be looking after there own interests.

Maybe they don’t think that at the moment that the rsa sector is not in a position to make decisions on fish management within other industries until they have some accountability and controlled restrictions from within there own industry.

Ill e-mails them Barry and se what they have to say.

Regards.

 

Same old question rears up again. As the rsa sector is renown to support conservation methods for the stock survival in any event. i.e. the rubbery common skate reported is a very good example, restrict what? What restrictions are required? What sort of accountability is required? Tell us, please do. Look forward to thier responce to your email. Why is it that the commercial sector is to have a say in the rsa consultation. Can anyone imagine a balanced responce. Don't you also think that commercially there could be a heck of an effect on the stock that the rsa is interested in compared with the reverse?

[wurzel]

Why is it that the commercial sector is to have a say in the rsa consultation. Can anyone imagine a balanced responce. Don't you also think that commercially there could be a heck of an effect on the stock that the rsa is interested in compared with the reverse?

 

Hello Barry

 

I should imagine the responce would be just as balanced as any rsa responce to a commercial consultation.

[hastfish]

trouble is some anglers dont want to talk sensible though