Consultation??

[mike60]

I thought there was to be consultation on whats supposed to be happening with these marine protection zones, I was down at Kimmeridge the other day when I came across a board with a poster on it from "the wildlife trust" who seem to have thier own ideas on whats going to happen in our costal waters i.e. thier "Marine Reserves" Its made quite clear on thier poster to the public that they want "Fishing, dredging & all damaging activities banned" This could be the start of a ban on any of us fishing close to our shores & upto a few miles out which in my view would put lives at risk, for some small boats close in is the only safe way of enjoying our sport. I think we are now going to see more of these ppl trying to ban all sorts of activities including our fishing, wither we have consultations or not & will go so far as to say that the consutations on Marine protection zones are just as much a case of going through the motions before they do as they wish & ban us all anyway. I agree with banning trawlers from dragging heavy gear & nets across the bottom, destroyng the seabed & everything on it but when we get the barmy pillocks asking for a blanket ban on nearly all activities its going too damn far.

 

Would have uploaded a pic of the poster but keep getting told it don`t accept this type of file (Jpeg)

 

Mike.

[Paul D]

I think you are possibly doing "these people" a great disservice calling them "barmy pillocks".

 

From what I can tell from their website is they are campaigning to have a loophole within Clause 114 closed which if left would mean an area which can be shown to be scientifically of benefit to have as an MCZ would not be chosen as such due to economic or financial reasons.

 

eg.. If the legislation is passed as it stands it could be argued that an MCZ cant be put where it scientifcally should be because either it would cost commercial's lots of money or because say PBSBAC boats fish it a lot.

 

Do we really want a loophole which would effectively mean any MCZ is put where it is least effective ?

 

At the end of the day some areas need to have fishing etc. activities banned and if this means more/bigger fish for all then surely has to be a good thing ?

 

Or are you saying it is wrong to have our access prevented but everyone else should be stopped ?

 

I quote from Dorset Wildlife Trust Website

On land, designated sites are identified using scientific criteria alone. The same principle should apply at sea. Clause 114 suggests that economic and social consequences may be taken into account. This is a significant weakness and risks jeopardising the designation process.

 

Learning from the history of legislation that has now worked, we argue that the Secretary of State should have a duty to designate an ecologically coherent network ofMCZs, including highly protected sites. This was recommended by the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill. The general offence for damaging MCZs is welcome.

 

However, we would urge that the offence applies to 'reckless', as well as intentional acts, and to 'disturbance' as well as damage. This would mirror the protection offered to Sites of Special Scientific Interest on land. The loophole for fishing activities should be closed.

 

[duncan]

I think you are possibly doing "these people" a great disservice calling them "barmy pillocks".

 

From what I can tell from their website is they are campaigning to have a loophole within Clause 114 closed which if left would mean an area which can be shown to be scientifically of benefit to have as an MCZ would not be chosen as such due to economic or financial reasons.

 

eg.. If the legislation is passed as it stands it could be argued that an MCZ cant be put where it scientifcally should be because either it would cost commercial's lots of money or because say PBSBAC boats fish it a lot.

 

Do we really want a loophole which would effectively mean any MCZ is put where it is least effective ?

 

At the end of the day some areas need to have fishing etc. activities banned and if this means more/bigger fish for all then surely has to be a good thing ?

 

Or are you saying it is wrong to have our access prevented but everyone else should be stopped ?

 

I quote from Dorset Wildlife Trust Website

On land, designated sites are identified using scientific criteria alone. The same principle should apply at sea. Clause 114 suggests that economic and social consequences may be taken into account. This is a significant weakness and risks jeopardising the designation process.

 

Learning from the history of legislation that has now worked, we argue that the Secretary of State should have a duty to designate an ecologically coherent network ofMCZs, including highly protected sites. This was recommended by the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill. The general offence for damaging MCZs is welcome.

 

However, we would urge that the offence applies to 'reckless', as well as intentional acts, and to 'disturbance' as well as damage. This would mirror the protection offered to Sites of Special Scientific Interest on land. The loophole for fishing activities should be closed.

at the risk of inflaming the situation...

 

totally agree with your first point

 

yes re 114, but "

Do we really want a loophole which would effectively mean any MCZ is put where it is least effective ?" is a bit of a jump! Logic fails I am afraid.

 

On balance what is really needed is both a better (wider) balance on 114 activities and a breakdown of these activities.

 

The problem here is that the commercial sector wouldn't react well to other parties (RSA) arguing against trawling but for line fishing - despite the increasing acceptance that these have very different impacts on both stocks and habitat.Personally I think DWT are both well meaning and balanced but there exists an all or nothing element in the wider picture.

 

 

 

 

[codpiece]

I will be controversial, I worked for years with the Dorset wildlife trust, English nature, (natural england), woodland trust, Herpetalogical conservation trust, etc.etc. and other smaller groups too numerous to mention!! the trouble is they are neither ''barmy'' or ''pillocks'' their membership/management is full of people with degrees coming out of their ears But they are incapable of having an open mind on their own subject, it is drilled into their volunteers that they are the only people with an opinon worth listening to as they are the only ones who know what they are talking about, they are so good at it that usualy ''the powers that be'' only give credit to their opinion, a typical example is St Catherines Hill at hurn, Have a look at tonights echo. I am very sceptical, Derek V,

Edited May 20, 2010 by codpiece

[mike60]

Well at least it started a bit of a discussion, Further to my opinion earlier it seems I am not the only one who has concerns about how this is all going to effect us as sea anglers, There is a very good article in boat fishing monthly (Steve`s Angle.)where he writes about the shinnanigans & goings on between Finding sanctuary, Natural England, The Angling Trust etc which doesn`t help one bit in putting our fears to rest about what will happen to our sport. & as he says there have already been many disturbing reports of "restrictions to bait digging, Beach angling, Anchoring boats, & the use of lead weights etc." The AT are seemingly no use whatsoever & in fact could even be more of a danger to our sport than a help.

All I am saying is there is too much going on here that we have no control over & no one who has the clout to fight our corner effectively, Yes I do agree that there is a need to stop the damage in our coatal waters but I do not believe for one minute that when all these restrictions & bans are thrust upon us, its going to put more & bigger fish in the sea for us to catch.

As for people with degrees & qualifications, yes! there`s plenty of them around but "All brains & no common sense" springs to mind, There`s ppl running this country with all those degrees coming out of thier ears & look what a mess they have made, Why should this MCZ business be any different, we will get the short end of the stick as usual & the seas round our coast will still be getting destroyed by other parties both foriegn & domestic & further down the line & down the MCZ road, in say 10yrs or so, there will be even fewer fish left.

I don`t know what the answers are but I do have serious worries as to wither we will have a sport left after these brain boxes get through with thier games.