Marine life worse off inside 'protected' areas, analysis reveals Findings expose ‘big
- Thread starter dgadee
- Start date
oldharry
Well-Known Member
There has been growing criticism that MCZs in UK are little more than paper exercises. Seems this is not the only place this is happening.
Conservation and the real world are uncomfortable bedfellows, and until conservationists realise they need to get us on side first, in the way Attenborough has over plastic rubbish in the seas, conservation effort will never be really effective.
Conservation and the real world are uncomfortable bedfellows, and until conservationists realise they need to get us on side first, in the way Attenborough has over plastic rubbish in the seas, conservation effort will never be really effective.
Last edited:
macd
Well-Known Member
Before anyone gets too carried away, the reason conservation zones show such negative results seems to be that the protection is sham:
"“This compelling study reveals the big lie behind European marine conservation. To be effective, all MPAs should be protected from trawling and dredging at a minimum, and many of them should prohibit all fishing.”
"We know that when areas are actually protected they deliver: species recover, biodiversity increases and fisheries benefit as well, as fish become more abundant and spill outside these areas."
Neither of those are arguments for getting rid of MPAs.
"“This compelling study reveals the big lie behind European marine conservation. To be effective, all MPAs should be protected from trawling and dredging at a minimum, and many of them should prohibit all fishing.”
"We know that when areas are actually protected they deliver: species recover, biodiversity increases and fisheries benefit as well, as fish become more abundant and spill outside these areas."
Neither of those are arguments for getting rid of MPAs.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I am shocked, shocked to learn that protection is needed more where damage is occurring.
RichardS
N/A
Although none of that would seem to explain why "marine life is worse off inside the protected areas". One would have thought that any protection is better than no protection.
I haven't read the article 'cos too busy at the mo'.
Richard
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Although none of that would seem to explain why "marine life is worse off inside the protected areas". One would have thought that any protection is better than no protection.
I haven't read the article 'cos too busy at the mo'.
Richard
but the fact that an area is protected on paper does not mean that constraints are placed on harmful actions such as fishing. Look at it another way, wildlife is better in non protected areas because perhaps they are not good for commercial fishing.
It is the age old argument between association and causation.
Surely the underlying message is that fishing (and fish) is a commercial and political football as we shall see when the next round of negotiations with the EU start. "They" want access to "our" rich fishing grounds and "we" want access to "their" financial markets. Protected areas will just be an inconvenience to overcome just like restrictive regulations on financial dealings.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Because you don't create protected zones in places where protection isn't needed?
RichardS
N/A
I understand that argument .... but surely we need to assume a steady-state situation to make a meaningful assessment. We therefore need to compare the state of marine life inside the protected area before it became protected to the state of the marine life in the protected area after the protection was applied.
Using this basis for comparison, how can the marine life be worse off after protection is applied?
Richard
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Agree, but almost impossible to do because you cannot control all the variables, whether natural or man made. That is why we get so many conflicting bits of research output from the same question. Researchers are never truly independent, no matter how much they claim to be. They have to get funds from somewhere and the funder essentially determines the answer required (not necessarily overtly) so that is what the researcher reports, usually very selectively.
We saw this in the Studland fiasco. Groups wanting to push their own take on the issues carrying out research designed to show it - and I include BORG to an extent, although they set out to disprove claims rather than to make them. That is how research should work, testing current thinking.
In the case of protected areas vs unprotected areas there is nothing in this report that says what the conditions were in the two (types of) areas that make them comparable. I could fill another thread with a list off the top of my head of the key variables I would want on the mind map that could be drawn of the shape of this type of research.
Appreciate that a brief report in a (biased?) newspaper will not provide this detail - it is only interested in headlines, but I hope the original report would have dealt with these issues.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
In this case it seems that protected areas are not being enforced. However, we might, pessimistically, have to check whether things would be even worse without protection.
For example, the Thames, with all its rules, is still a lot dirtier than the Spey ... but it's a hell of a lot cleaner than it was before the rules came in.
Last edited:
moomba
N/A
MPZ or no take zones only work when they are enforced the problem is there is no way to monitor dredgers going out in the middle of the night of fishing, as no one is motioning these
The UKs first no take zone was Lamlash bay in Arran and has been small enough to do some great studies and also easily enough to monitor the movement of vessels in and out of the bay , as it has been running for a number of years the data and the results are robust and clearly have been scientifically proven
I give you there website and the numerous scientific papers and great research which clearly shows that these zones thrive and push outwards , so I get frustrated with those that think these do not help , this is silly and is forced upon us by those opposing the expansion of such zones,
Through out history no take zones , nature reserves , and controlled farming on the land , have shown massive increase in wildlife abundance , to say this cannot be mirrored in our seas is a fundamental flaw in those that oppose such measures, it will happen , it needs to happen and we need to make it work.
I await my usual abuse:encouragement:
OH what would I know I'm just a medically retired marine Biologist married to a Dr of Fresh water Ecology who is part of the European framework directive for Water
http://www.arrancoast.com/research/arran-marine-science
http://www.arrancoast.com/research/marine-protected-areas
The UKs first no take zone was Lamlash bay in Arran and has been small enough to do some great studies and also easily enough to monitor the movement of vessels in and out of the bay , as it has been running for a number of years the data and the results are robust and clearly have been scientifically proven
I give you there website and the numerous scientific papers and great research which clearly shows that these zones thrive and push outwards , so I get frustrated with those that think these do not help , this is silly and is forced upon us by those opposing the expansion of such zones,
Through out history no take zones , nature reserves , and controlled farming on the land , have shown massive increase in wildlife abundance , to say this cannot be mirrored in our seas is a fundamental flaw in those that oppose such measures, it will happen , it needs to happen and we need to make it work.
I await my usual abuse:encouragement:
OH what would I know I'm just a medically retired marine Biologist married to a Dr of Fresh water Ecology who is part of the European framework directive for Water
http://www.arrancoast.com/research/arran-marine-science
http://www.arrancoast.com/research/marine-protected-areas
Last edited:
moomba
N/A
If you read the paper you would have read this
Destructive trawling is more intense inside official marine sanctuaries, while endangered fish are more common outside them, a startling analysis of Europe’s seas has revealed.
so if you destroy inside the zone , now I am no scientist , (oh wait I am ) this seems a no brainer
RupertW
Well-Known Member
Exactly - it's noting to do with enforcement, it's that the rules don't cover the most destructive element, fishing as a different UN body covers that. So it's like forbidding tin antifouling for yachts in an estuary but allowing big cargo ships to use it in the same place.
dgadee
Well-Known Member
I thought that the RSPB was always telling us that wild and birdlife was dying out. Which is it?
moomba
N/A
I think if you look at RSPB nature reserves for non migration birds then they are thriving in their protected areas, migratory birds cannot be protected as they land when they need to , we have Canadian geese that come from the Arctic every winter and roost and feed around all the plowed fields, thousands of them a beautiful site in the Sky.
Some of the Farm Land has been bought by developers , but the local council will not let them build because of the Geese every winter, we need balance .
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
In Scotland where bottom dredging is banned at some locations, somewhere up near Oban area, twice now fishing boats have been seen scallop dredging and reported. Investigation has shown high damage to the scallop beds. I don't think either of the skippers have answered for the damage they caused.
moomba
N/A
Yes I say this on the news and the damage caused , for quick greed will only end in no scallops in the future , we learned that lesson in the West Coast of Scotland when we destroyed our herring stocks
Yet In Norway which has stricked control's on take and monitoring and a human fishing population understanding the need for long term fishing stocks to last , they have managed too increase herring stocks,which also helps the food web , for predators of the sea to eat , seals , Orcas, and Seabirds, etc
We need to start acting responsibility for our seas , this is called a balanced response, and people need to get on board.
and I would just like to Add that anchoring is allowed in Lamlash Bay.
Last edited:
dgadee
Well-Known Member
Don't Norwegians hunt whales? Sell them to Japan and use as animal feed?
moomba
N/A
Yes in a sustainable way , is fish different from a whale , only in the fact that it is a mammal , just like a cow , deer , sheep etc.
I am a marine biologist whos passion was these great creatures , I do not ever wish to see them harmed , but I cannot be one sided as there are 2 points to every argument and we must not thing that the UKs liberal values are the ones the rest of the world must adoopt
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Exactly. And...?
There are two ways of tackling MPAs IMHO. One is to wrap it up tight in legislation, then hand out punitive fines to anyone who so much as waves a fishing net at it. Only achievable by expensive close policing and enforcement. The other way is as i said, get the people who use the area on side so they understand the issues, and are motivated to help. If the trawlermen understood the need to support these MPAs, they would be working towards achieving the conservation objectives - as long as they made sense and are based on observable fact. Legislation needs then only be used against the 'fast buck' merchants who are the real villains of the piece.
Such agreements work with the inshore fishing fleet in the Lyme Bay MPA for example where the fishermen themselves see the need to preserve breeding grounds and fish stock.