are we losing the right to fish...

[loopy]

Some facts, fish are not owned by anyone, however a commercial is governed by regulation cascading down from the Common Fisheries policy via the Marine Management Organisation out to 12 miles (RN after that) Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority out to 6 miles. All have regulation about types of gear and quota. Salmon fishermen are regulated through the Environment Agency.
Northumberland has a European marine site that runs from just north of Alnmouth up to Eyemouth. We have many protected areas including the Farnes, Coquet Island Budle Bay, Druridge Bay, in fact the majority of our coast is protected to a degree in theory. The problem is many of the rules have not yet been made and are out for consolation or review (MACA Act 2009) so the big commercial and very well funded producer Organisations and to an extent the small under 10 fleet respond along with environmental groups again well funded and represented, take part, how many Recreational Sea Anglers did?
3 years of stakeholder led debate on MCZ have left us in Northumberland with 6 proposed sites and 1 intertidal reference area and 2 at sea. Remember at this stage these are only proposed and to protect habitat and features no regulation has been discussed as how to do that yet. 127 have been proposed and government has paper sifted them for the moment to 31 for consolation ! (enter tv chefs ) of which we have 3 in Northumberland 2 out past the 6 mile limit and one so tiny on the map you have to blow it up to see it, the Aln Estuary. We are quite lucky in North Northumberland as the under sea terrain makes many forms of inshore bottom fishing gear un viable and only have a couple of scalloper's working way out. Pair trawling is banned as is beam trawling within the NIFCA 6 mile limit. I could d go on. I often do, if you care about your sport you have to engage with the system and not shout when it is all to late. its all about balance .
As an ignorant sod just a bit of reading as to how complex MPAs are, enjoy

UK Marine Protected Areas Centre- Interactive map of UK MPA's

MCZ Interactive Map

Natural England - SSSIs : Units for Northumberland Shore

European Marine Site management

Natural England - Marine Protected Areas

In May 1992 European Union governments adopted legislation designed to protect the most seriously threatened habitats and species across Europe. This legislation is called the Habitats Directive and complements the Birds Directive adopted in 1979. At the heart of both these Directives is the creation of a network of sites called Natura 2000. The Birds Directive requires the establishment of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds. The Habitats Directive similarly requires Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) to be designated for other species, and for habitats. Together, SPAs and SACs make up the Natura 2000 series. All EU Member States contribute to the network of sites in a Europe-wide partnership from the Canaries to Crete and from Sicily to Finnish Lapland.
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are classified under the Birds Directive to help protect and manage areas which are important for rare and vulnerable birds because they use them for breeding, feeding, wintering or migration.
Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are classified under the Habitats Directive and provide rare and vulnerable animals, plants and habitats with increased protection and management.
Natura 2000 sites can be designated on both land and water. Marine Special Areas of Conservation might include reefs or lagoons, intertidal areas, areas which are always covered by the sea or perhaps land near the sea which is used by marine wildlife. Marine Natura 2000 areas are protected by innovative conservation measures to ensure they are not over-fished, or affected by pollutants from sewage or shipping traffic.

 

[Fd01]

Fd01, you will find this interesting on the Dr Ruth Brown Saga

https://m.facebook.com/hughsfishfight/posts/514272531957104?refid=17&ref=stream

Thanks mate.

What do you make of it all?!

 

[loopy]

Fd01, HFW's answer to Dr Brown

Many of you have... | Facebook


HFW kind of answers your question, a complex set of ideas and regulation, world wide, mixed with a lot of greed driven often by foreign markets, how do you get it over to the public in laymen's terms about sustainability, we and the rest of the world are the market and people power in Tesco's and other leading supermarkets might just make the big CF Producer Organisations such as CP from last night program think about maximum sustainable yields not the share prices.

 

[lumpsucker]

Any chance somebody could paste hfw's response on here please?

 

[Blanked again]

Any chance somebody could paste hfw's response on here please?

There you go mate

Dear Ruth,

Thanks for taking the time to write with your views on the latest Fish Fight programme. I am sorry that you feel disillusioned with the campaign, and that you feel we misrepresented your views on Marine Protected Areas or the krill fishery.

Let me respond to your points in the same order you presented them. You say that we implied that the research you do is paid for by license money received from the krill industry. In fact in the film it is Dr Martin Collins of the British Antarctic Survey who introduces the idea that the fisheries generate £3 million a year, and we specifically state in the voiceover “the bottom line is that the fisheries operating round South Georgia bring in 3m pounds a year for the Government, and that money is what keeps the whole place running”. This is an accurate summery of Martin’s explanation to us on camera – and it contains no specific reference as to how the research programmes on the island are funded. We never said or implied that the research on Bird Island, or anywhere else, was funded by krill fisheries or any other fisheries.

You seem disappointed that we never once mentioned BAS, CCAMLR, or NERC. This is because television needs to work hard to make complicated ideas and stories comprehensible and accessible to a wide audience, and including acronyms and too many auxiliary parts to the story often works against this guiding principal. We do however explain clearly that there is an “international management body” which sets quotas for the krill boats (ie CCAMLR), we just never mention it by its name.

When we talked about penguin populations declining, and we did this more than once during the programme, we made it clear that what is known is that penguins are declining due to habitat loss. What we actually said is that “It is not yet known what effect fishing for krill might have on this fragile ecosystem”, and again later in the programme “What is harder to measure is the effect that the growing krill fishing industry is having on the local wildlife”. It is precisely because of this uncertainty that we go on to talk about the need for “future proofing” our oceans, and setting up more restrictions on the fisheries working in those areas, management plans which we are delighted to see are currently being discussed and implemented.

You say that fur seals have undergone a population explosion in recent years in South Georgia and that we fail to mention this fact in our programme. What we actually say (over shots of lots and lots of fur seals) is that the populations of whales and seals around these islands are “almost back to pre-hunting levels. In fact South Georgia has now become the most important breeding site in the world for fur seals”, which I think gets the point across. You say that it is misleading to suggest that all the whales have recovered to pre-hunting levels, and I agree, we may have over-simplified this point, and I’m happy to post a clarification on our website along the lines of: “During our latest Fish Fight programme we gave the impression that all the whale species around South Georgia have recovered to their pre-hunting levels. In fact, although humpback whales have shown strong recovery, Blue Whales and fin whales haven’t yet recovered to pre-hunting levels, and there is a lack of data on Sei whales and Antarctic Minke whales.” Perhaps you, or others working at BAS could help to clarify these facts?

You are right that we didn’t include the fact that the Saga Sea has little or no bycatch while it is fishing for krill. We did film a sequence talking about this on board the boat, but due to a lack of time, we did not include it in our final edit. As I mentioned before, it is important to keep the story telling of a TV documentary clear and simple, and as you know, bycatch is not something we are looking at in this series, having covered it so comprehensively in the first series of Fish Fight 2 years ago. I do not feel that this omission misrepresents our story in any way.

You conclude by saying that our programme was poorly researched and misleading, and suggest that we came to South Georgia with preconceived ideas of what we wanted to film. I can assure you, however, that we take great pride in getting our facts right, and putting across forceful and engaging arguments to our viewers to try to encourage them to take an interest in marine conservation issues. Although we thoroughly research our stories before we leave the office, we never arrive on location with preconceived ideas of what we will discover there. One of the joys of documentary making is filming what you find, and following the stories that emerge on the ground. Unfortunately, when we arrived on South Georgia, it appeared to us that everyone we were due to film had been briefed about what they could and could not say to us. It was later confirmed that a briefing from the BAS press office and representatives of the South Georgia Government had indeed taken place before our arrival in South Georgia. This made it quite difficult for us to feel like we were ever getting heartfelt and true responses to our questions.

I hope this answers some of your queries and concerns, and that we can continue to have an informed and productive conversations about marine protected areas and how best to manage the astonishing seas round the Southern Oceans.

All best wishes

Hugh

 

[lumpsucker]

Cheers. Interesting reading.

 

[Red5]

Fd01, HFW's answer to Dr Brown

Many of you have... | Facebook


HFW kind of answers your question, a complex set of ideas and regulation, world wide, mixed with a lot of greed driven often by foreign markets, how do you get it over to the public in laymen's terms about sustainability, we and the rest of the world are the market and people power in Tesco's and other leading supermarkets might just make the big CF Producer Organisations such as CP from last night program think about maximum sustainable yields not the share prices.

Wow.....Looks like we may get some more lads politicised about our hobby/sport Les.

I know most anglers will stand on the shoreline and blame the foreign trawlers for the demise of our fisheries but we should also look at ourselves for not being political enough to be part of an organsiation who will defend our sport and promote conservation.
The commercial industry has the loudest voice, because it has been around for hundreds of years and is well funded, just like The Natioanl Trust RSPB etc....What do we have.... a few lads from the North East who fund their own fuel to meetings with most anglers having an apathetic attitude to actually doing anything but mention the magna carta and sparking some fisheries officer out in the middle of the night for doing his job!

I have heard it countless times from people, but very few are willing to put themselves up to take part. Take the meeting regarding the angling licence in Newbiggin....I attended from the Alnwick Sea Angling Club so there was myself out of a club of 26 anglers!....where were the other 25....standing on the beach complaining there aren't as many fish as there used to be!....3 have nearly been lost to the sea over the past few years....invite them to a "sea safety" workshop and how many step forward to go.....None!

Here's some sobering facts for you regarding the state of angling...As club secretary for Alnwick SAC from 2002 to 2006...

in the season 2002-2003 there were 381 fish caught for a total weight of 990lb with an average weight of 2.6lb...there were 21 anglers contributing to the local economy as well as the tackle industry....

in the season 2006 to 2007 there were 175 fish caught for a total weight of 333lb with an average weight of 1.7lb....the club lost 6 anglers that year!

That's a decrease of 1/2 the number of fish and 2/3 in terms of weight

Surely it makes sense for us all to be represented by a group with a voice loud enough to send tremors down the hallways of Brussels and Westminster consisting of tackle manufacturers/traders, shore and boat anglers and everyone else who benefits from the billions we contribute every year!

As for MCZ's and MPA's ....I think the commercial sector has more to fear than shore/boat anglers, which is why there are lobbying so hard to water down legislation on this and the likes of discards!