Should We Start To Worry Yet?

[Stores]

Just released by the MCS (Marine Conservation Society........or divers, to you and me)

More MCZs to be designated | Marine Conservation Society

See we're top of the list.

This paragraph seems to up the anti somewhat:

"Melissa Moore says MCS is extremely concerned that, as a result of Government’s de-regulation agenda, a number of Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) are considering voluntary management measures, rather than byelaws: “We are presently awaiting more detail on management measures for the first 27 sites, but voluntary management has consistently been proven not to work. However great the buy in, one or two fishermen, often fishers from outside the local area can ruin the efforts of the majority. Without legal redress the good work of many can be spoiled, often irrevocably, by a few. It is vital that these MCZs are not 'paper parks'."

Is it time to put the hard hats on?

[Charlton]

that certainly is a worrying point Dave, looks as if Melissa is looking at keeping whatever there is within the MCZ for locals, what about those who don't live beside the sea, obviously she has not thought of that

[ambleangler]

I would say start worrying Dave !!!

Cheers,

AA.

[Stores]

that certainly is a worrying point Dave, looks as if Melissa is looking at keeping whatever there is within the MCZ for locals, what about those who don't live beside the sea, obviously she has not thought of that

Alan, do you mean she's looking after ALL locals (divers, RSA, walkers, holidaymakers etc) or all of her interested partners?

Another worry is this:

Tranche 2 Marine Conservation Zones:

This is the RSPB's response. Can I pick out:

"In the previous tranche of MCZs some stakeholders opposed sites because they feared that even their more benign activities would be curtailed.

In the meantime, we will also need to keep watch to ensure that effective management is put in place without delay for our sites already designated. Over the next couple of years, enforcement agencies and statutory conservation bodies will be looking at a whole new range of fishing activities and making recommendations on whether restrictions need to be introduced to protect conservation features"

Most interesting word???......."we will need to keep watch..........without delay for OUR sites already designated". My interpretation is they think it's all cut and dry. Goodbye Coquet to St Marys.

[RossW]

Sorry to be way behind, but what is the threat to anglers? - is it a total ban on fishing from the shore/boats????

Thanks for info..

[Stores]

Sorry to be way behind, but what is the threat to anglers? - is it a total ban on fishing from the shore/boats????

Thanks for info..

Hi Ross,

As far as I know nobody yet knows the fine detail. It will (would have) been nice if the area between Coquet and St Marys can (could) be self managed so that the custodians of the sea shore look after it but the opening shots from both the MCS and the RSPB seem to have RSA in their sights, IMHO. Worse case scenario could see no bait collection or even no take zones. Tell that to everyone who fishes the marks between these two spots.

[Charlton]

[QUOTE=Stores;673240]Alan, do you mean she's looking after ALL locals (divers, RSA, walkers, holidaymakers etc) or all of her interested partners?

think "fishers" as she calls us could be first then anyone else outside the area

[Stores]

[QUOTE=Charlton;673265]

Alan, do you mean she's looking after ALL locals (divers, RSA, walkers, holidaymakers etc) or all of her interested partners?

think "fishers" as she calls us could be first then anyone else outside the area

So how would that work? Would you have to produce proof of your address? Would it be like the schools admission programme - "sorry you live 3 miles and 20 yards away from the nearest breaker so you're outside the catchment area"? Will there be an array of flippered up volunteer Seasearch divers patrolling the sea front asking for your credentials? Would there be a quota, per day, per week like the ballot to get on St Andrews Old Course?

Sorry for being so flippant but who is this woman and who does she think she is, makes my..............

Right, back to rational thought......perhaps the fact that there's been nearly 300 views of this post and 6 replies (me 3, you 2 and Ross from London) puts us in the spot we (might) find ourselves in. Hope NIFCA are able to sway the balance of opinion here. Sorry AA, for missing you out......make that 7.

[Nooo Fish]

I've just read that statement and don't understand any of it. Is one part saying they might ban using plunders? What are they trying to do and why?

I hope I don't seem thick here. Ha ha.

[Stores]

I've just read that statement and don't understand any of it. Is one part saying they might ban using plunders? What are they trying to do and why?

I hope I don't seem thick here. Ha ha.

The idea of being thick is something that these announcements promote so alienating most of the angling community. Please don't feel as though you're in the minority - we've all been there. Not sure I understand the "plunders" bit. Can you tell me where it occurs?

They are trying to restrict access to the shoreline between the two named places to one degree or another, as yet unknown. Why? because they want the shoreline to themselves and for their group of supporters.

[Nooo Fish]

Plunders are weights. I read a sentence about bottom towed fishing or summit.

Are you saying they think anglers are thick? And they are trying to stop areas of the coast being fished?

[ambleangler]

Hello Dave, 'Plunders' are what we used to call lead fishing weights when we were kids Mate. How times change eh !
Cheers,

AA.

[Stores]

Plunders are weights. I read a sentence about bottom towed fishing or summit.

Are you saying they think anglers are thick? And they are trying to stop areas of the coast being fished?

Right - understand the plunders bit and, no, they would never admit to accusing us of being thick whilst continuing to produce reports that are written in a way that mean little to the average angler.

The bottom towed bit refers to the commercials - the crabbers and long liners who may disturb the bottom of the sea and therefore be responsible for untold, or unknown, damage. They too would be affected by these proposals.

For you, and me, it could mean limited or no access to the inter tidal zone.

[alaza]

Its there use of words that go over the head of your average Joe! me included....

She seems to be "in the know" regards the outcome David?

[g.ordon]

Plunders are weights. I read a sentence about bottom towed fishing or summit.

Are you saying they think anglers are thick? And they are trying to stop areas of the coast being fished?

think their trying to stop inshore netting/dredging mate, rsa won't be affected as it's low negative impact on the marine environment, so they say like