Should We Start To Worry Yet?

Stores

Stores

Well-known member
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?
 
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
 
Charlton said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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..
 
RossW said:
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..
Click to expand...

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 said:
Stores said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Nooo Fish said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Nooo Fish said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Nooo Fish said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:D
 
alaza said:
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?
Click to expand...

"In the know" ?......in a political sense I am a mere novice and can only comment on what I read, like everyone else. What I do know is that all the pressure groups involved in restricting our use of the shoreline have massive financial and political influence and we have none, though numerically we are probably the biggest group. So I don't know the answer but I think that things are stacked against us unless perhaps NIFCA or MMO have a cunning plan.
 
begining of the end

begining of the end

Very worrying nrws and thats just the tip of the iceberg the parts that your inforned about ee realy should be very worried its the thin end of the wedge
 
g.ordon said:
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:D
Click to expand...

Hope you're right mate and I hope I'm wrong but the bar seems to be being raised all the time and I suspect both the RSPB and the MCS will push for the maximum.
 
I remember when these talks were first being held and consultation being sought from us shore anglers and they said it wouldn't affect us but was more for the commercials who make more of an impact on the eco system and fish stocks. Is this a massive U-turn? I hope not. I'm actually up for MCZs as I do feel they have a massive benefit not just for the place they are set but also for the whole eco system as fish will not just sit in these zones, as they have no idea about them obviously, but it will provide a safe nursery for the fish population and also the rest of the food chain to thrive. We just need to hear straight up intentions and not riddles
 
MCZ's

MCZ's

Just watched Fish fights. and from watching that it's only intrusive forms of fishing that will be band. Rod and line is classed as sustainable so we should be ok
 

Similar threads

Topfly
RSPB at it
Replies
16
Views
2K
Charlton
C
C
MCZ meeting Birmingham
Replies
4
Views
1K
sage
S
G
Sea Angling Strategy Draft 4
Replies
0
Views
1K
Glenn Kilpatrick
G
Back
Top