Finding Sanctuary: Planning Marine Conservation Zones in the south-west

[prv]

Alana seems to be bending over backwards to involve the sailing community in this process - I think some of you are being a little bit negative about the whole thing.

I think plenty of negativity-until-proven-otherwise about the scheme in general is required, lest we sleepwalk into yet further regulation of our lives. But I'd agree that the contact here has been good - better than I would expect from this kind of organisation - and I'm rather surprised and vicariously embarrassed about some of the rude comments others have made upthread.

Pete

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Scottish Marine Bill Information

What is the equivalent body for Scottish waters? I presume is is a devolved activity.

For Scotland: -

The bill details and process can be found here, which also includes a link to the bill as passed: -

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/25-MarineScot/index.htm

The bill as submitted can be found here: -

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/25-MarineScot/b25s3-introd.pdf

Quote From Introduction, "A Bill to make provision in relation to functions and activities in the Scottish marine area, including provision about marine plans, licensing of marine activities and the protection of the area and its wildlife including seals; and for connected purposes."

 

[Robin]

Hi Robin,

We have been planning a few drop in days in Dorset and I'm sorry you didn't make it to Weymouth in January. I hope we will see you at the Poole drop-in day on March 18th. Just ask for me on the day and I will help in any way I can.

Alana

Thanks Alana.

Has this information also been circulated to local yacht clubs and so on? I haven't heard it mentioned in the YC but I can't say I looked very hard either as we are not there that often this time of year and are currently boatless pending moving to the USA.

 

[timbartlett]

Sorry I'm late

I hope we will see you at the Poole drop-in day on March 18th. Just ask for me on the day and I will help in any way I can.
Alana

But March 18 is a weekday. Most of those who own boats work. And many of those who keep their boats in Poole do not live in Poole. So a "day" becomes an "evening" and a "drop in" becomes a slog halfway across the country on a winter's evening.

I think the fundamental point is your organisation's own description of itself

<meta name="description" content="Finding Sanctuary is a partnership project that aims to create a network of Marine Protected Areas around the coasts and seas of South West England." />

In other words, your self-proclaimed objective is to prohibit normal recreational boating around large sections of our coasts. Your attempts to recruit recreational boaters on the pretence that you "want to hear from them" are disingenuous: you clearly do not want to be told that you should stop doing what your organisation was set up to do. OTOH you would find it quite convenient to be able to pretend that you have "consulted".

 

[Peegee]

Who? What? When?

Just in passing...I live twenty minutes from Canterbury, venue of an apparently recent meeting according to Pye-End. I keep my boat locally and would like to think that I take an interest in the area. It would seem that some of the measures contemplated by these people could have profound effects to both my environment and my leisure time........My question is....how come this is the first I have heard of it.

 

[glashen]

But March 18 is a weekday. Most of those who own boats work. And many of those who keep their boats in Poole do not live in Poole. So a "day" becomes an "evening" and a "drop in" becomes a slog halfway across the country on a winter's evening.

I think the fundamental point is your organisation's own description of itself

In other words, your self-proclaimed objective is to prohibit normal recreational boating around large sections of our coasts. Your attempts to recruit recreational boaters on the pretence that you "want to hear from them" are disingenuous: you clearly do not want to be told that you should stop doing what your organisation was set up to do. OTOH you would find it quite convenient to be able to pretend that you have "consulted".

Is that fair, below is a quote from the "Marine Conservation Project Document" apart from anything else this has now passed into law, so saying stop altogether seems a bit pointless.

" Marine Conservation Zones
The Marine and Coastal Access Act received Royal Assent on 12th November 2009. It creates a new type of Marine Protected Area (MPA), called a
Marine Conservation Zone. MCZs will protect nationally important marine wildlife, habitats, geology and geomorphology. The MCZ Project
concerns the selection of MCZs in English inshore waters and offshore waters next to England,Wales and Northern Ireland.
Sites will be selected to protect not just the rare and threatened, but the range of marine wildlife.
The management measures required within MCZs will be decided on a site-by-site basis and will depend on what the site has been designated for.
In a similar way to protected areas on land, there will be sites where some activities are not allowed but others can occur, or where there are
seasonal restrictions on activities rather than a complete ban. Not all sites will need the same management measures and there is no presumption that any specific type of activity will be restricted. There may however, be some sites where many activities are restricted."

It is made clear elsewhere that existing users and economic interest are to be taken into account, therefore I think it is essential we do interact over these issues.

 

[Seven Spades]

Quite right - we have to lobby for no restrictions to be imposed without first proving that they would have a SIGNIFICANT benefit for the conservation zones. The problem is that dropping one anchor on one bit of coral of grass damages it. The point is whether that damage is significant and does it effect marine life.

 

[timbartlett]

Quite right - we have to lobby for no restrictions to be imposed without first proving that they would have a SIGNIFICANT benefit for the conservation zones. The problem is that dropping one anchor on one bit of coral of grass damages it. The point is whether that damage is significant and does it effect marine life.

Let's be blunt about it: the only thing these conservation zone quangos can actually do is ban boating activities. So when they say (quite openly) that their objective is to set up MCZs, what they are really saying is that their objective is to ban boating. Anything else is a euphemism that is intended solely to deceive.

And I think it is worth bearing in mind what happened to our canals and inland waterways.
When they became economically useless (the fate that is proposed for the so-called "conservation" zones) they fell into disrepair, and became little better than sess pits, full of stagnant water, dead cats, and shopping trolleys. Good for the mosquito population, perhaps, but not much else.

Then few, evil, self-centred boating folk started to open them up for (oh horror!) recreational use. Gradually, their waters -- aerated by propellers churned by those dreadful internal combustion engines -- became clearer and cleaner: wildlife returned, and the waterways became an important environmental, recreational, educational and financial resource.

It was not achieved by quangos whose primary objective was to ban boating.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Let's be blunt about it: the only thing these conservation zone quangos can actually do is ban boating activities.

That's literally true, but risks confusing "banning all activities" with "banning some activities". They could, for example, just ban anchoring in areas with particularly sensitive seabeds. If the science is good, I have no problem with that. Or they might ban water skiing and personal water craft, but allow sailing. They might ban landing (as with anchoring, this need not be a year-round ban) if the foreshore had something unusual about it.

 

[RAP77]

Delivering Marine Conservation Zones in the South East

Quoted from Balanced Seas website - So it is all settled except the actual delivery

 

[macd]

Opinion is varied, but was it Jefferson or Paine who said that "the price of liberty is eternal short-sighted self-interest"?

 

[webcraft]

In other words, your self-proclaimed objective is to prohibit normal recreational boating around large sections of our coasts. Your attempts to recruit recreational boaters on the pretence that you "want to hear from them" are disingenuous: you clearly do not want to be told that you should stop doing what your organisation was set up to do. OTOH you would find it quite convenient to be able to pretend that you have "consulted".

A gross misrepresentation IMO and not very helpful. It is about as rational as your designation of the PC in the hot dogs case as a premeditated murderer. Have you stopped taking your medication Tim?


- W

 

[timbartlett]

A gross misrepresentation IMO and not very helpful. It is about as rational as your designation of the PC in the hot dogs case as a premeditated murderer. Have you stopped taking your medication Tim?- W

According to its own words:"Finding Sanctuary is a partnership project that aims to create a network of Marine Protected Areas around the coasts and seas of South West England."
the creation of a marine protected area involves the prohibition of normal boating activities such as anchoring or landing, or sometimes even the removal of the right of innocent passage.
My summary of Finding Sanctuary's objectives may not have accorded with the spin they like to put on them, but I believe it was entirely valid.

I cannot see what this has do with the activities of the convicted criminal police dog-killer, but since you raise the issue -- he killed two highly intelligent living creatures in an excruciatingly painful fashion by locking them in a car. The court found him guilty. If you can think of any way in which it is possible to lock two large dogs in a fairly small car without being aware of the fact, I would be fascinated to hear it. I'm sure he would, too, because obviously his brief and his federation rep must have let him down badly.

 

[maxi77]

A gross misrepresentation IMO and not very helpful. It is about as rational as your designation of the PC in the hot dogs case as a premeditated murderer. Have you stopped taking your medication Tim?


- W

Perhaps over dramatisation for effect but not a gross misrepresentation. I do suspect that the big loser in this will be the leisure boat user be thay sail, motor or for fishing. There are quite certainly some in the conservgation industry that believe that they are not making enough impact unless the pigs are really squealing. I do fear that many will find their normal activities severely restricted unless they rise up now.

 

[webcraft]

Perhaps over dramatisation for effect but not a gross misrepresentation. I do suspect that the big loser in this will be the leisure boat user be thay sail, motor or for fishing. There are quite certainly some in the conservation industry that believe that they are not making enough impact unless the pigs are really squealing. I do fear that many will find their normal activities severely restricted unless they rise up now.

I think that the confrontational tone adopted by Tim and others serves only to alienate the pleasure boating community from the rest of the beachgoing wooly minded bunnyhugging public, who are then easy prey for the more extreme members of these groups.

No-one on here can be against marine conservation per se - we are talking about the preservaton of the environment we love to spend time in. Similarly, no-one who has been going down to the sea - in boats or just to the beach - for the last thirty years can fail to be aware of the degradation of the seashore environment over that time.

Boaters are an easily visible target, and we are not completely white - our activities do have environmental consequences. IMO these consequences are easily contained/minimised and are generally far outweighed by the social good that comes from them. I believe that because I believe that humans are also part of nature and that we have at least as many rights as animals.

Most of the conservation groups pay at least lip service to involving all marine users. It is up to us to exploit this to attend meetings, to speak rationally, to form our own public-friendly PR groups and to ally with other marine interest groups such as fishermen and other commercial users of the sea. Failure to engage, public bluster and mouthing off agressively plays straight into the hands of the eco-extremists who value a small piece of moss more highly than the wellbeing of their fellow men.

Refusing to engage rationally with the process by making controversial statements like Mr. Bartlett will get us precisely nowhere - it is playing straight into the hands of the likes of the SHT who sadly seem to be more media-savvy than the yachting community. One poster has already been banned from here as a result of the Studland thread, which will inevitably be seen as a 'victory' by the devious Mr. Trewhella.

So Tim, that is why I was somewhat scathing. I was not unaware of the thinking behind your remark, but it is unlikely to do the boating cause a lot of good as ST will no doubt have cut and pasted it ready to present whenever some poor yachtie actually does try to approach them reasonably.

- W

 

[timbartlett]

So Tim, that is why I was somewhat scathing. I was not unaware of the thinking behind your remark, but it is unlikely to do the boating cause a lot of good

Suggesting that I had "stopped taking my medication" was a bit more than "somewhat scathing", and doesn't really suggest that you were aware of the thinking behind my remark.

I think that the confrontational tone adopted by Tim and others serves only to alienate the pleasure boating community from the rest of the beachgoing wooly minded bunnyhugging public, who are then easy prey for the more extreme members of these groups.

And calling someone "beachgoing wooly minded bunnyhugging public" won't alienate them?

Most of the conservation groups pay at least lip service to involving all marine users.

Exactly. It is lip-service: nothing more. We should make it quite clear what the intentions of these people really are, rather than giving them the spurious credibilty they crave.

 

[webcraft]

Suggesting that I had "stopped taking my medication" was a bit more than "somewhat scathing", and doesn't really suggest that you were aware of the thinking behind my remark.
And calling someone "beachgoing wooly minded bunnyhugging public" won't alienate them?
Exactly. It is lip-service: nothing more. We should make it quite clear what the intentions of these people really are, rather than giving them the spurious credibilty they crave.

Damn right. No surrender. We are going over the top, men. Some of you may not be coming back . . .

- W

 

[KristiferColumbus]

I think that the confrontational tone adopted by Tim and others serves only to alienate the pleasure boating community from the rest of the beachgoing wooly minded bunnyhugging public, who are then easy prey for the more extreme members of these groups.

No-one on here can be against marine conservation per se - we are talking about the preservaton of the environment we love to spend time in. Similarly, no-one who has been going down to the sea - in boats or just to the beach - for the last thirty years can fail to be aware of the degradation of the seashore environment over that time.

Boaters are an easily visible target, and we are not completely white - our activities do have environmental consequences. IMO these consequences are easily contained/minimised and are generally far outweighed by the social good that comes from them. I believe that because I believe that humans are also part of nature and that we have at least as many rights as animals.

Most of the conservation groups pay at least lip service to involving all marine users. It is up to us to exploit this to attend meetings, to speak rationally, to form our own public-friendly PR groups and to ally with other marine interest groups such as fishermen and other commercial users of the sea. Failure to engage, public bluster and mouthing off agressively plays straight into the hands of the eco-extremists who value a small piece of moss more highly than the wellbeing of their fellow men.

Refusing to engage rationally with the process by making controversial statements like Mr. Bartlett will get us precisely nowhere - it is playing straight into the hands of the likes of the SHT who sadly seem to be more media-savvy than the yachting community. One poster has already been banned from here as a result of the Studland thread, which will inevitably be seen as a 'victory' by the devious Mr. Trewhella.

So Tim, that is why I was somewhat scathing. I was not unaware of the thinking behind your remark, but it is unlikely to do the boating cause a lot of good as ST will no doubt have cut and pasted it ready to present whenever some poor yachtie actually does try to approach them reasonably.

- W

I categorically deny that there has been any degradation to the seahorse environment webby in fact as far as I can see they are thriving & have any number of locations outside Studland Bay where they receive absolutely no attention from boaters.Our Coast line is enormous & what with the consequences of Global Warming who is to say that they will not now become a pest?(A few years ago you would not have seen one Little Egret around our coasts while now they are in very big numbers around here at least.This is just one enormous mountain built out of a molehill solely for the benefit of "conservationists."

 

[webcraft]

I categorically deny that there has been any degradation to the seahorse environment webby in fact as far as I can see they are thriving & have any number of locations outside Studland Bay where they receive absolutely no attention from boaters.Our Coast line is enormous & what with the consequences of Global Warming who is to say that they will not now become a pest?(A few years ago you would not have seen one Little Egret around our coasts while now they are in very big numbers around here at least.This is just one enormous mountain built out of a molehill solely for the benefit of "conservationists."

Kris, you may well be right but categoric denial is not acceptable - it must be backed up by appropriate evidence.

We HAVE to engage rationally with groups like Finding Sanctuary. Sticking our fingers in our ears and singing 'la la la' is not going to make them go away, and they have the public ear. Seahorses are cuddly, boaters are (generally) not and it is an uphill struggle, but one that I feel is worth taking on. It is alll about evidence, rational argument and good PR though - not hurling insults and refusing to engage.

- W

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Kris, you may well be right but categoric denial is not acceptable - it must be backed up by appropriate evidence.

We HAVE to engage rationally with groups like Finding Sanctuary. Sticking our fingers in our ears and singing 'la la la' is not going to make them go away, and they have the public ear. Seahorses are cuddly, boaters are (generally) not and it is an uphill struggle, but one that I feel is worth taking on. It is alll about evidence, rational argument and good PR though - not hurling insults and refusing to engage.

- W

Well I think we have provided the evidence by pointing out that seahorses have been reported in many different locations webby & that therefore Studland Bay is not unique enough to warrant those people intrusion.I will continue to fight it but it seems to me that we are having to do all the proving while these peoples case is based purely on sentimentality.Why should we have to prove anything when they intend to limit our freedoms & are using public money to do so?