DEFRA Public consultation on MCZs - how to take part

[oldharry]

DEFRA Public consultation on MCZs

Just before Christmas, DEFRA published its report on the first stage of the MCZ process.

It recommended 31 of the 127 suggested sites for immediate consideration. Of the remainder, 6 were rejected altogether as unsuitable, and the rest held for further consultation. The reasons given for delaying sites flagged in several cases as being 'high risk', was generally uncertainty over the data provided.

All the disputed south Coast MCZ anchorages were delayed. The reason given at Studland: “….. there is still uncertainty as to whether the advantages (of designation as an MCZ) are sufficient to justify the socio-economic implications. Therefore this site will require further consideration prior to designation.”

The other disputed anchorage areas had similar comments.

With the report, DEFRA launched a Public Consultation period which runs to 31st March. BORG urges as many as possible to take advantage of this opportunity to make our views known, and asks that individuals, Clubs, and Associations who have detailed knowledge of local waters to respond.

HOW DO WE RESPOND TO DEFRA?

The official DEFRA consultation page is at http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/12/13/marine-conservation-zones-1212/ .

A useful one-stop-shop for the background to the MCZ process, for arguments against designation, and for links to all the official sites and reports, is the website of the Boat Owners’ Response Group (BORG) at http://boatownersresponse.org.uk ( the “latest news” page leads straight to the action).

1. Use the BORG list of MCZs to identify the area you are interested in. This gives a brief summary of the current position and where to find it on the DEFRA consultation pages. DEFRA provides links to other more detailed information if you need it.

2. Check the DEFRA summary. Is it accurate? Is it realistic? does it reflect local conditions? Has it missed anything relevant? Is there anything you want to add/ disagree with? Use information on the BORG website, or contact us.

3. Download the Consultation response page Annex H on the DEFRA page, read the notes, and respond to whichever questions are relevant. Note you do NOT have to answer everything!.

Make sure your response is factual, and wherever possible backed by evidence. This can include local data or photographs (Google Earth is a good source of aerial photographs, and BORG has used them to good effect at Studland for example).

Be concise. DEFRA will be handling many hundreds of responses. The more plainly you can state your case, the more likely it is to stand out.

Do not hesitate to PM Oldharry, who runs BORG for help or information.

Please also pass this across to your Sailing Club, Bertholders or other Association. The more of us who make our voices heard the better.

 

[Seajet]

Old Harry,

thanks very much for your tremendous efforts.

The whole MCZ process has been wriggled through with very little relation to reality or common sense, so given a rare chance to actually have a say rather than just being counted automatically in any way that suits, we must take it.

 

[oldharry]

+1

 

[prv]

My thanks too - will be doing that.

(This post mostly to bump the thread back up where more people can see it )

Pete

 

[Boathook]

My thanks too - will be doing that.

(This post mostly to bump the thread back up where more people can see it )

Pete

Another bump ....

 

[Malish]

and here - can we have it as a sticky please

 

[Nicholas123]

All the disputed south Coast MCZ anchorages were delayed. The reason given at Studland: “….. there is still uncertainty as to whether the advantages (of designation as an MCZ) are sufficient to justify the socio-economic implications.

Does this mean that I can role over & go back to sleep now then?
This all looks like a lot of hard work this proving oneself innocent & what is meant by disputed.Does this mean that there are others that have been agreed upon?

 

[Searush]

Does this mean that I can role over & go back to sleep now then?
This all looks like a lot of hard work this proving oneself innocent & what is meant by disputed.Does this mean that there are others that have been agreed upon?

Read the first post.

31 have been recommended for moving on to the "Discussion" stage where you have the opportunity to point out how it will affect you & your life, business, hobby etc. Say nowt & it will happen regardless of the impact on you.

For 96 of them the "evidence" offered by the eco-freaks has been considered inadequate or the consequences of implementing them has been assessed as too high. This does not mean they will not happen, just that they have been defferred for more work to improve the evidence or reduce the impact. This will take time, & they are therefore lower priority & defferred.

Feel free to go back to sleep, but don't come back bleating on here if your favourite safe anchorage becomes a nature reserve & boats are banned (except for the eco-freaks' approved study boats). This could possibly leave you without a safe haven to wait out a tide or a nasty blow in safety. But maybe that isn't really important to you.

The Welsh Governemt is running a little behind as they tried to implement complete "no-take" zones that would have affected holidaymakers on the beach, anglers, boaters, swimmers, sustainable small family fishing etc etc. The outcry was quite considerable as much of the coastal tourism industry would have been devastated.

These ideas are often not well thought thro if only the "ecology" side of the equation is considered. There is sometimes massive cost for insignificant benefit, we need to help them seek maximum benefit for minimum cost. It is up to us to try to balance benefits against costs, or we will pay the costs & still not gain any benefit.

 

[oldharry]

and here - can we have it as a sticky please

Asked Natalie when I posted it - no reply yet.

 

[Nicholas123]

Read the first post.

31 have been recommended for moving on to the "Discussion" stage where you have the opportunity to point out how it will affect you & your life, business, hobby etc. Say nowt & it will happen regardless of the impact on you.

For 96 of them the "evidence" offered by the eco-freaks has been considered inadequate or the consequences of implementing them has been assessed as too high. This does not mean they will not happen, just that they have been defferred for more work to improve the evidence or reduce the impact. This will take time, & they are therefore lower priority & defferred.

Feel free to go back to sleep, but don't come back bleating on here if your favourite safe anchorage becomes a nature reserve & boats are banned (except for the eco-freaks' approved study boats). This could possibly leave you without a safe haven to wait out a tide or a nasty blow in safety. But maybe that isn't really important to you.

The Welsh Governemt is running a little behind as they tried to implement complete "no-take" zones that would have affected holidaymakers on the beach, anglers, boaters, swimmers, sustainable small family fishing etc etc. The outcry was quite considerable as much of the coastal tourism industry would have been devastated.

These ideas are often not well thought thro if only the "ecology" side of the equation is considered. There is sometimes massive cost for insignificant benefit, we need to help them seek maximum benefit for minimum cost. It is up to us to try to balance benefits against costs, or we will pay the costs & still not gain any benefit.

I have read the first post but it is very complicated & I'm not a lawyer.
Some places around the Isle of Wight that I like have already been mentioned in these forums as being designated special nature reserves or sites needing recovery or some such nonsense.Is that now not the case?

I am knocking on now & doubt those jobsworths will be able to get an entire strangle hold on the situation before I snuff it.Also I am loathe to mention anywhere I consider of value now because I know from past experience that those "conservationists" then jump on it & claim it for themselves.The phrase if it ai'nt broke don't fix it springs to mind.
I hav'nt got kids so I have to ask myself why should I go to all this trouble you searush I suspect are in a different situation.
OH & I can't make out a case to protect places that I have yet to visit (or to just leave well alone).This whole argument is just bloody ridiculous while the population just keeps growing.

 

[oldharry]

I have read the first post but it is very complicated & I'm not a lawyer.
Some places around the Isle of Wight that I like have already been mentioned in these forums as being designated special nature reserves or sites needing recovery or some such nonsense.Is that now not the case?

.This whole argument is just bloody ridiculous while the population just keeps growing.

OK, I will try to dumb it down for the octogenarians amongst us:

Hearing aid on? turned up? OK.....

Government decided it wants to prove it 'cares about the Marine environment'. Its good 'green' propoganda, and anyway the Americans are doing it, so we must too.

It spends around 8 million squids to find out where there is mud and seaweed around the coast. Close a few Hospital wards and we can afford to do it.

Conservationists building hefty bank balances and pension funds out of it all try to tell government we yotties are wrecking the place and should be banned outside our marinas.

Why? because somebody spotted a seahorse or two... and some special seaweed. (No, not 'magic weed', just some rather ornery, common stuff, but Seahorses like it.)

Somebody else came along and accused yotties of deliberately throwing anchors at the seahorses to try to exterminate them. (Actually we were throwing our anchors at the divers who were chasing the seahorses away).

They told Auntie Beeb who jumped on the bandwagon, looking to boost their audience numbers and did a nice piece of science fiction. Beat Dr Who hands down!

We wrote to the government and said it was all b******t. Quite a few of us wrote to the Beeb too.

So Beeb finding they had a rather tasty bit of b******t put the programme back on again, on National TV this time, and got even better audience figures.

The fact that it was a load of total rubbish doesnt matter to Beeb, it was 'good TV' like Eastenders or Corrie. And about as far from reality too. In fact quite a lot further. Thats why people are getting hot under the collar here.

However somebody in government has agreed with us enough about the conservation fiction to want to stop and have a closer look at it all before making it law.

Thats where we are at.

Does it matter? Most of us think so. Some of the places they want to close are very popular with a lot of people, and are quite important safe havens in bad weather.

Oh, and in case you are wondering, many scientists now reckon closing them will not make any difference to the seaweed. Or the seahorses.

 

[Nicholas123]

However somebody in government has agreed with us enough about the conservation fiction to want to stop and have a closer look at it all before making it law.

Thats where we are at.

Good.Can we now just put to Government that people anchoring in odd places does absolutely no harm to wildlife in the broader scheme of things & the whole situation has been blown out of all proportion & that we cannot possibly put the case for individual locations in the British Isles God knows how many miles of coastline because we all collectively or as individuals have not been there & do not know as individuals what our future plans will be.Then hopefully I can go back to sleep
When I look back over my career anchoring oldharry as I did last night the idea that it has had any sort of long lasting effect of wildlife is bonkers.I think there are much more important matters to contend with!

 

[oldharry]

Good.Can we now just put to Government that people anchoring in odd places does absolutely no harm to wildlife in the broader scheme of things & the whole situation has been blown out of all proportion & that we cannot possibly put the case for individual locations in the British Isles God knows how many miles of coastline because we all collectively or as individuals have not been there & do not know as individuals what our future plans will be.Then hopefully I can go back to sleep
When I look back over my career anchoring oldharry as I did last night the idea that it has had any sort of long lasting effect of wildlife is bonkers.I think there are much more important matters to contend with!

Err... I thought that was what we have been doing for the last two years.

And no you cant go back to sleep.

Because I can not. Not yet, anyway. Theres more convincing to do.

Thats why we need people to answer the DEFRA questionnaire. People who KNOW their local waters, like the Studlanders do. And can see why it is such nonsense.

So wake up at the back there. I know and have sailed round quite a bit of the coast that is on the lists I put up on BORG, That is why I was able to do it.

But I dont know it anything like as well as you who sail/live/keep boats there. We need YOU to tell them about YOUR bit. Or tell me so I can tell them, like the Studlanders did, though they made a very thorough job of it for themselves, after we had talked round it a bit a couple of years back.

 

[Moonbeam]

First of all, a huge thank you to Old harry and the rest of the crew who doing so much work on this issue. (we actually met and had a chat a few years ago at Dell Quay as I also owned a Trident 24 at the time)

Secondly, if like me, many of you out there will be tempted to do nothing and leave it to others assuming that your input won't make any difference. WRONG... the public reaction to the poll tax made even the iron lady do a U turn!!! If the guys planning these MCZs get the message that there will be a seriously adverse reaction if they try to curb mooring and anchoring in these areas, they will wind their necks in.

Lastly, Old Harry...you highlighted The Tamar amongst others areas in the SW as needing urgent action from locals as the impact could be HIGH. Do you know if the locals are getting involved in these areas??? Being based in the Solent, and not having cruised the SW yet, I feel I can not offer any expert input on the DEFRA consultation for these areas.

 

[Nicholas123]

Err... I thought that was what we have been doing for the last two years.

And no you cant go back to sleep.

Because I can not. Not yet, anyway. Theres more convincing to do.

Thats why we need people to answer the DEFRA questionnaire. People who KNOW their local waters, like the Studlanders do. And can see why it is such nonsense.

So wake up at the back there. I know and have sailed round quite a bit of the coast that is on the lists I put up on BORG, That is why I was able to do it.

But I dont know it anything like as well as you who sail/live/keep boats there. We need YOU to tell them about YOUR bit. Or tell me so I can tell them, like the Studlanders did, though they made a very thorough job of it for themselves, after we had talked round it a bit a couple of years back.

Would'nt it be easier to go for a no banning anchoring anywhere stance as an organization because otherwise they are just going to pick us off individually & not every remote location can be covered?
Sure the Studland Bay campaign was a success,look at the publicity it got!
Fred Blogsess little favourite out of the way spot will not be so successful I have already seen this with some of the spots I cherish.This individual "consultation" process looks like the usual divide & rule policy to me.

 

[oldharry]

Stuey re Tamar: I have so far had one enquiry from someone down there wanting to know more, but am not in any further touch with them.

Nicholas123: Studland is very much the 'test case' for anchoring in Eelgrass, and what is decided there should apply to any Eelgrass anchorage. I think thanks largely to our efforts very little likelihood that anchoring in any other environment will be challenged, but equally we know we are dealing with very slippery customers who are working hard to come uop with something new:

for example, the latest rumblings from NE are switching from 'anchor damage' to ' propellor noise disturbance' of marine life! Yes, really!

Another new angle is to use the Wildlife Act where a protected species is involved. Anchoring near a seahorse for example is now claimed to be an illegal disturbance. As the Act demands that a 'wilful intent to disturb' has to be proved this seems unlikely. How on earth would you KNOW whether a 3-5cm animal is present 3m down?

Going back to the anchor damage debate: yes you are quite right about the divide and conquer policy. Each MCZ has to be debated on its own merits, and a blanket policy on anchoring just would not be accepted. However we are working on ensuring the Studland result (which has been the subject of in-depth study) is applied to all the Eelgrass anchorages.

Yes - you had 'Drum' at DQ didn't you?

 

[Seajet]

Personally I feel the RSPB are the next BIG challenge, and they have a lot to answer for; Selsey including homes and businesses has been largely written off thanks to them banning flood defences ( and a career conservationist ' just happening ' to find a dead snail of a type previously unknown there; call me cynical... ) , and Pagham Harbour completely lost to boats.

The East Coast has already suffered in sailing and mooring terms greatly thanks to the RSPB, while I am damn sure the birds don't give a hoot; and I am as keen on birds as any prat with a mac and posing monocular on a tripod, but I feed the ones I can rather than ticking them off like a trainspotter ( no offence to train or indeed 'plane spotters who do a relatively great job trying to preserve history rather than destroy it and make their own self aggrandaising versions ).

 

[Moonbeam]

Hi Old Harry, yes, we owned 'Little Drum' at the time. Well remembered.

 

[oldharry]

Personally I feel the RSPB are the next BIG challenge, and they have a lot to answer for; Selsey including homes and businesses has been largely written off thanks to them banning flood defences ( and a career conservationist ' just happening ' to find a dead snail of a type previously unknown there; call me cynical... ) , and Pagham Harbour completely lost to boats.

The East Coast has already suffered in sailing and mooring terms greatly thanks to the RSPB, while I am damn sure the birds don't give a hoot; and I am as keen on birds as any prat with a mac and posing monocular on a tripod, but I feed the ones I can rather than ticking them off like a trainspotter ( no offence to train or indeed 'plane spotters who do a relatively great job trying to preserve history rather than destroy it and make their own self aggrandaising versions ).

Yes RSPB want to ban yachts sailing within a mile or whatever of any nesting site. It 'disturbs' them. They tried hard to get this in to MCZs, but nesting sites are usually above HWM for some odd reason....

Wish it disturbed the little beggars who carp all over my decks.....

BTW I thought it was only Owls that hoot? Hmmm.

 

[Seajet]

Old Harry,

well the Swans, Coots etc on the River Frome seem to nest away happily with boats passing; I had a Coot jump into my cockpit from Wareham town quay, the noise of its' scrabbling feet was quite something as it went around at Warp 9 like a ' wall of death ' rider, took quite some timing to release the guardrails and let it go over the side...

We also looked after and got treatment for a Cygnet injured by a fishing line & hook, a sadly common occurrence there - both the injuries due to idiot anglers and help from yachties inc Redcliffe YC...I doubt the RSPB ever acknowledge that.

As for nuisance birds on boats, my windex seems to keep most off, but I had a very big crow land on the boat one day while I was still in my bunk, the sound of it on deck was like a Velociraptor strolling around, I was frightened to open the hatch !