Marine Conservation Zones ins and outs

[Topfly]

I can understand why all the information on sea angling is required from the various areas around our national coastline, what i dont understand, is why these appointed bodies went the long way round to get it.

Firstly, they try scaring everyone with the introduction of a sea licence, then its no-take zones, bag limits,etc. Yes they got our attention, but only because of the internet, and the angling forums. It would have been a lot easier for every local authority to notify the electorate of the impending changes to their recreational persuit, as it would if they were to bulldose the six football pitches on the playing fields down the street.
Only our playing field has a bit of water on it. Now they want our input . I wonder if the inshore netters and potters will be forthcoming with the information required to collate an accurate account of their activities, considering they will come under the new Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities, and they will be managing the MCZs .
I personally am prepared to give them as much info as i can , like Red5 says it's on it's way. In the long term it is the best thing to happen to our coastline. if there is one thing that comes out of this i hope it is :accountability:

At least the genuine anglers will benefit from it , and all the anti social will not, because we will all be :accountable:.

Thanks Alan / Dave .

 

[Charlton]

I can understand why all the information on sea angling is required from the various areas around our national coastline, what i dont understand, is why these appointed bodies went the long way round to get it.

Firstly, they try scaring everyone with the introduction of a sea licence, then its no-take zones, bag limits,etc. Yes they got our attention, but only because of the internet, and the angling forums. It would have been a lot easier for every local authority to notify the electorate of the impending changes to their recreational persuit, as it would if they were to bulldose the six football pitches on the playing fields down the street.
Only our playing field has a bit of water on it. Now they want our input . I wonder if the inshore netters and potters will be forthcoming with the information required to collate an accurate account of their activities, considering they will come under the new Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities, and they will be managing the MCZs .
I personally am prepared to give them as much info as i can , like Red5 says it's on it's way. In the long term it is the best thing to happen to our coastline. if there is one thing that comes out of this i hope it is :accountability:

At least the genuine anglers will benefit from it , and all the anti social will not, because we will all be :accountable:.

Thanks Alan / Dave .

if you understand why they need this info can you answer me a simple question, which I waiting for the powers that be to answer. Why do they need information on bait digging and fishing outside the MCZ's it is only Natural England (English Nature) that wants it.WHY?

 

[mark]

if you understand why they need this info can you answer me a simple question, which I waiting for the powers that be to answer. Why do they need information on bait digging and fishing outside the MCZ's it is only Natural England (English Nature) that wants it.WHY?

my guess would be to be able to put down a claim that xx gazillion marine invertebrates are being extracted every year and that 26 less crested greater monkey birds are as a consequence getting a bit peckish more than usal there fore it should be banned everywhere, including in your garden

NEVER underestimate the power that English Nature and the RSPB have.

ask the crofters on the western isles... corncrake numbers drop a bit (only in scotland, there's millions of them elsewhere in the world)

crofters get told they cannot work there own land because it upsets the corncrakes

and they enforce it as well

 

[Topfly]

Like you have already said Alan, Anglers need bait to fish , it's quite simple, we can go to the supermarket and buy all the various baits that they sell....... they will catch fish lol, but the government can see another little earner,.... They need to know how many people are actually paying for bait, it's just another way of how bait collecting is carried out. All the bait diggers all over the country working . not paying tax..they are trying to assess the financial benefits at this end of rsa. only my view.
sorry if it's not very coherent

 

[Topfly]

I know Mark , They had their testicles removed during the clearances. This is now, it's not closing shipyards,coalmines steelworks, iv'e been there. this is something totally different. This is a depravation of a social activity, and they know this, that is why they are pussy footing on the whole issue .they are not competent in what they are doing.

 

[davem2005]

Alan,
They are not just collecting data from anglers, they are collecting it from anyone who uses the seas and foreshore. The Natural England questionairre is part of the finding sanctuary project which is being introduced throughout the uk later this year.

The pilot project in the SW has been running a while and a start has been made on the maps detailing activities in a particular area.

Take a look at Home » Finding Sanctuary for full details and Finding Sanctuary WebGIS for the type of information they are trying to collate.

Following some telephone conversations yesterday it would appear a second RSA questionairre is to come out shortly from Defra and I believe this has the backing of the Angling Trust.

I am not exactly sure when the north sea (area 4) project will start but I believe it will be in June this year.

Cheers
Dave

 

[Charlton]

Hi all
further to my recent questions, I sent a few more, they are below, below that is the answers I got, hope it is not just me or does she contradict herself, and my reply to her answers

Alan

Hi Audrey
can I just ask you a couple more Q's and make a point

1/ Why do you need to know about all the areas anglers use for bait digging as many of these may not be included in MCZs

2/ Why do you not wait until MCZs are designated and then get the information if anglers use that MCZ for anything.

all I would like to say is that you should scrap the survey and go about the whole business by getting anglers info when and where needed, there is no need for all the information you are asking for

Alan

Hi Alan

1. As I mentioned on the phone - the MCZs are unlikely to significantly effect bait digging as they are likely to be predominantly in subtidal areas. However some may be in intertidal. So if you wanted you could disclose the whereabouts of the bait digging beds only if it looked as if a MCZ was going to be designated in that area.

2. If we designated sites first and then asked people what they do there - it will be too late for them to influence the location of the site - so effectively if the MCZ is on a prime angling location and its designation results in restrictions on activities then anglers would have to effectively live with this. If they are involved at the beginning when the location and the size of the sites are being decided upon then they can influence where they are and make a case to potentially avoid a prime angling spot being designated - or conversely make a case for it to be included as a way to protect it from other activities.

Audrey

Hi Audrey
sorry Audrey but you seem to have contradicted youself with the answers, first you say

"So if you wanted you could disclose the whereabouts of the bait digging beds only if it looked as if a MCZ was going to be designated in that area"

then you say

we must get in from the start before sites desiganted before MCZs are designated

If we designated sites first and then asked people what they do there - it will be too late for them to influence the location of the site - so effectively if the MCZ is on a prime angling location and its designation results in restrictions on activities then anglers would have to effectively live with this. If they are involved at the beginning when the location and the size of the sites are being decided upon then they can influence where they are and make a case to potentially avoid a prime angling spot being designated - or conversely make a case for it to be included as a way to protect it from other activities.

you also say

"the MCZs are unlikely to significantly effect bait digging"

yet in your summary where you changed what you said on the phone, from the summary "their could be bans under certain circumstances" any ban would significantly effect bait digging as we have lost a lot up to now.


Q if anglers follow this, will this then mean you are scrapping the survey and then ask for the information required from anglers when the siting of an MCZ could be made
Alan

 

[northeast1]

If they put a ban fro Amble to the pool on all kinds of fishing most anglers wont need bait.

Keep up the work Alan we dont seem to have as many voices as we should have out there backing us up.

 

[Glenn Kilpatrick]

RSA were well represented with SACN NFSA

Now there is a paradox if ever I read one. Whilst your happy to let these people represent you your on a hiding to nothing. You need to get ready to fight for yourselves or else your battle is lost already.

A lot of you have missed the real concept of the video that has been posted. It portrays the outcome if you continue to let SACN, BASS and ANGLING TRUST represent you.

There are tough times ahead and tough decisions to be made but prepare to loose all you currently hold so dear if you dont sack the current bunch of angling MISS-representatives.

 

[Charlton]

Now there is a paradox if ever I read one. Whilst your happy to let these people represent you your on a hiding to nothing. You need to get ready to fight for yourselves or else your battle is lost already.

A lot of you have missed the real concept of the video that has been posted. It portrays the outcome if you continue to let SACN, BASS and ANGLING TRUST represent you.

There are tough times ahead and tough decisions to be made but prepare to loose all you currently hold so dear if you dont sack the current bunch of angling MISS-representatives.

No real need to sack them, when the powers that be say these bodies have made this agreement just turn round and say, they don,t represent me, I am not a member of their organisation.

 

[pondlife]

sinking feeling

sinking feeling

if it was'nt going to be restrictive to anglers they would'nt have asked us owt at all. one things for sure IMO, there will be restrictions from wherever to whenever in some varying degree or other. Its just a matter of how punitive.

 

[Castaway]

I think we'll end up with various licenses from the Envirement Agency just like our freshwater friends but with additional ones for digging bait as well. It'll be another tax that they think they can get way with. Money for nothing as they say. We can protest, lobby MP's and have petitions etc. but it will just be a question of time before they do it.
We've had stuff in the Magna Carta before, wiped with the stroke of a pen. They'll say its about the security of the country and change the law in an instant.

 

[Charlton]

just to keep you up to date, was informed by Jamie Davies on Wednesday that he would have answers, to other points I have brought up, today. They did not come.

 

[pondlife]

hat trick

hat trick

there's a rabbit away

 

[sam harris]

Gill nets.

Gill nets.

It doesn't seem to be common knowledge, but councils have the authority to pass by laws prohibiting the use of gill nets around the coast.
If enough people badgered their local councils, asking or indeed demanding (after all, we put them there)that they look at the damage being done by these damn things then maybe we would have a start towards some sort of "golden mile" or whatever distance offshore the councils would designate,even a few hundred yards would help.
I have approached numerous councillors myself but I'm only one voice, it needs all of us who are concerned about the future to speak to these people.
I have nothing against people who are trying to make a living,it's the ones who are "fiddling" I object to.
Tight Lines. Sam.

 

[davem2005]

Sam,
I am not aware of any by law but would love to have a link to a site with the details and would be happy to back you up.

It could be that you are referring to the fact the councils currently have control out to mean low water. That would cover beach set nets. Something that will change with the marine bill and you can be almost certain if the council introduced such a law the SFC ( IFCA after the marine bill) will overturn it.

A classic example of this is where the EA introduced a no netting law in the Tyne playground (and several other areas) and the SFC immediately introduced a bylaw saying except ...and a whole list of reasons how people can still set gill nets.

I keep getting told by the SFC enforcement officers that "not many " commercials are using gill nets but they have not come up with any figures. I will ask the question and see if they actually have figures or just consider "not many" as a correct answer.

Cheers
dave

 

[Red5]

Now there is a paradox if ever I read one. Whilst your happy to let these people represent you your on a hiding to nothing. You need to get ready to fight for yourselves or else your battle is lost already.

A lot of you have missed the real concept of the video that has been posted. It portrays the outcome if you continue to let SACN, BASS and ANGLING TRUST represent you.

There are tough times ahead and tough decisions to be made but prepare to loose all you currently hold so dear if you dont sack the current bunch of angling MISS-representatives.

Or we can scream and shout without having BALANCED representation and have things enforced on us anyway. I would rather have people represent me who have done their homework, than work on supposition and hearsay. Just like the commercials, we are going to have accept some changes, as everyone elses opinions have to be taken into account when MCZ's are created.

You could also argue that other angling bodies have supposedly been representing sea anglers interests for many years, and on their watch we have seen the rapid decline of catches from both boat and shore over the past two decades. Now that to me seems more like a failure than anything SACN or BASS have done. At least now the government and other agencies know we exist!
How many of these 'representatives' attempted to get their way into the inner circles of SFC's to see how they work or made the effort to publicise the legislation that affects anglers, or to meet with MPs and MEP's? can't say I remember.

Thankyou for your time

 

[Charlton]

trying to get recogniation in any of the government bodies has been a long hard slog by a few people. I think it has been going on for around twenty years, at first they said we weren't worth talking to as we brought very little to the economy and basically just a bunch of ruffians. They are now realisng their mistake and are listening to our views as they have realised we bring a great deal to the economy. However it will still be a long hard slog to get full recognition, well at least the way we want it.

 

[sam harris]

Gill nets.

Gill nets.

I was given the information by someone at Sea Fisheries regarding councils having the power to bring in by-laws regarding gill nets. I confirmed this with Mike Quigley at the meeting at Eyemouth last week, he agreed that this is correct.
Tight Lines, Sam.