Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Check this site which lists areas where limits on use are proposed.
You may care to vote for or against the various sites proposed.
You may care to vote for or against the various sites proposed.
Marine conservation areas, vote.
- Thread starter Twister_Ken
- Start date
jhr
Well-Known Member
Well; it looks as if voting for the Needles might stop lobster pots in the Needles Channel - or at least ensure that the cretins who lay them there get prosecuted. Now I'm torn..... 
Evadne
Well-Known Member
Thanks for noting that Ken, it seems obvious from comments by locals that anchoring damage has not prevented the spread of eelgrass in Studland bay over the last 20 years.
Last edited:
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
Looking at the voting system on this website it may just be that when you vote, YES or NO, you may well be counted as merely 'A VOTE'.
It could be said that you have done so with name, email and post code provided, despite whatever comment you happen to make in the box provided.
How then would your vote be used?
Even yachties and mobos have an area to tick, but that does not confirm WHY you are ticking. ???.....just that you have concern.
Are they really going to argue against their cause with a negative comment made about it?
It could be said that you have done so with name, email and post code provided, despite whatever comment you happen to make in the box provided.
How then would your vote be used?
Even yachties and mobos have an area to tick, but that does not confirm WHY you are ticking. ???.....just that you have concern.
Are they really going to argue against their cause with a negative comment made about it?
Last edited:
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Scotty,
Who knows, but a vote agin is a vote agin, whatever they do with it. And it 's better than an abstention.
Incidentally, some of the proposals are worth voting yes to.
Who knows, but a vote agin is a vote agin, whatever they do with it. And it 's better than an abstention.
Incidentally, some of the proposals are worth voting yes to.
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
Forget that site it is just a pressure group of eco warriors who would ban all fishing and anchoring if they could.
The site we need to concentrate on is:-
Right Here
This is the official body who will be bring forward the proposals and this is the place we need to be heard.
The MCS are a lobby group much like the RSPB only much worse.
The site we need to concentrate on is:-
Right Here
This is the official body who will be bring forward the proposals and this is the place we need to be heard.
The MCS are a lobby group much like the RSPB only much worse.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Dorset, Devon & Cornwall only.
Robin
Well-Known Member
Not sure now about this. I voted NO and filled in their questionaire and they counted me as a vote on their side regardless. It seems that by voting at all you get included as a supporter of their aims.
Gordonmc
Well-Known Member
Its an impressive website on a technical level but I have to wonder about what it is setting out to achieve.
Whatever the agenda of the MCA, the site content is flawed, at least in regard to the Clyde and Upper Loch Fyne.
Consider the absence of a tick-box for the first ever mooted "no take" zone in Scotland which is an area of Lamlash Bay which is rich in soft corals.
The pressure to legislate for protection of this area came not from the MCA but from locals... including the local sailing club. Could that have something to do with non inclusion in the list, or am I just a cynic.
We should be told.
Whatever the agenda of the MCA, the site content is flawed, at least in regard to the Clyde and Upper Loch Fyne.
Consider the absence of a tick-box for the first ever mooted "no take" zone in Scotland which is an area of Lamlash Bay which is rich in soft corals.
The pressure to legislate for protection of this area came not from the MCA but from locals... including the local sailing club. Could that have something to do with non inclusion in the list, or am I just a cynic.
We should be told.
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
Yes... once you've voted and even said 'NO', you get an email which says.......
............................................................................................................................
"your seas your voice
your chance to protect our seas
Thanks very much for voting."
"Now that you've done that you're probably wondering what else you can do to help. Just as the seas and its creatures need our help to survive the threats they face, MCS needs your support to help us in our vital work. You can join us from just £3.00 a month."
"Please let us know about your use of the sea by filling out this short questionnaire."
"Thank you for your support"
.......................................................................................................................................
So, whatever you've voted it may be the case that they count it as a vote of support. :-(
A
Alcyone
Guest
So basically, we all vote to protect areas that are not near us, is that right? So, I think Scotland should be protected, and since I don't sail there, I vote to ban all of everything. Nobody is allowed to go near the sea in Scotland, to save it.
This is great!
This is great!
ianat182
Well-Known Member
Doesn't look as though they think there is any thing worth protecting in East Anglia,or the North Sea coastlines -or them's fixed the poll!
ianat182
ianat182
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Axshully, the East Anglia sites are listed under SE England. So, their geography is questionable as well.
Searush
Well-Known Member
Ex squeeze me, but while it is generally & loosely called the "East Coast", it is actually, like the Kent coast, associated with the South East of England, and it is not unreasonable to differentiate it from the North East.
It's like the West Coast which could be anywhere from the Lizard to Cape Wrath.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
"it is actually, like the Kent coast, associated with the South East of England"
Call me London-centric, but for me East Angrier (once you're north of the Thames estuary) is actually Midlands-on-Sea.
Call me London-centric, but for me East Angrier (once you're north of the Thames estuary) is actually Midlands-on-Sea.
So what's the consensous of opinion about this site,will they just use it to say "Look X thousand people have visited our site & support our efforts"?
If they enforse an exclusion zone for anchoring in that position it looks like they will put peoples lives at lisk who want to shelter there fromSW/Southerly gales.Bonkers!
If they enforse an exclusion zone for anchoring in that position it looks like they will put peoples lives at lisk who want to shelter there fromSW/Southerly gales.Bonkers!
hairbox
Well-Known Member
Thames Estuary
Nothing in the Thames estuary!! ahh maybe because somebody wants to biuld an airport there.
Nothing in the Thames estuary!! ahh maybe because somebody wants to biuld an airport there.
That's a good point hairbox.I have seen atrocious developements that have spoilt the view from seawards & wonder if that is ever taken into consideration!
glashen
Well-Known Member
I would think voting could well imply support of the Marine Conservation Zones in general, no problem for me because I do. Voting NO to a specific area and leaving an appropriate negative comment could not sensibly be seen as support for that area. (actually I'm not against Studland being a MCZ just a total ban on anchoring in the area shown) As has been said, this is clearly a Pressure Group Site so voting against may not do any good, but I can't really see it doing any harm, unless you are opposed to MCZ's altogether.
I'm all for marine conservation glashen but in my experience most of the problems stem from the land & to many people.
We have marine conservationists in Portsmouth Harbour but I have nothing but contempt for them because I have seen them in action.(I would love to give particulars but it would probably just exasperate the situation & encourage another phalanx of do gooders to a location that I cherish).
A perfect example of my concerns is what is happening to Fareham creek & Portsmouth Harbour generally because of relentless development in Fareham/Gosport/Portsmouth & the sheer number of people.It is not a marine conservation issue it is just down to the pure number of people b*ggering up the environment.