Marine life worse off inside 'protected' areas, analysis reveals Findings expose ‘big

[JumbleDuck]

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.

I think it is too optimistic to expect commercial fishermen to want to do any more than plunder a resource for which they haven't paid a penny and then scream for subsidies when their plundering has the inevitable effect.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46460308

 

[dgadee]

I think it is too optimistic to expect commercial fishermen to want to do any more than plunder a resource for which they haven't paid a penny and then scream for subsidies when their plundering has the inevitable effect.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46460308

When 'slipper skippers' and banks are making most money of out fishing, you can see the pressures to ignore rules. I was told about one of these slipper skippers who sold his quotas (£28 million I was told) and moved off to Monaco from Orkney. Not sure how true, but sounds feasible.

 

[oldharry]

I think it is too optimistic to expect commercial fishermen to want to do any more than plunder a resource for which they haven't paid a penny and then scream for subsidies when their plundering has the inevitable effect.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46460308

I speak with insight of working alongside men in the inshore fleet on the S coast UK through the MCZ projects and ongoing contact with them through BORG. Yes they are a b-minded independent lot, and yes their all too narrow profit margins are threatened by some conservation initiatives. But neither are they stupid for the most part.

Yes there are the cowboys, but the fishermen themselves know who they are and how to deal with them if necessary.

IFCA a quite proactive too in their policing roles so no I dont think it is wishful thinking

What happens amongst the wider EU offshore fishing community I have no more idea than anyone else outside it but I think it is dangerous to tar them all with the same brush. There are the thoroughly professional fishermen, and there are the quick buck cowboys. The professionals will listen to sound arguments. Its the cowboys who do the damage.

EDIT: Perhaps I ought to add a third category - the local boatmen/fishermen who know their area far better than any researcher can from a lifetimes observation. Why do researchers never listen to waht they say? 'Its 'anecdotal' therefore not admissable as evidence is the reason given. There isa huge fund of knowledge and understanding out there completely untapped by experts who choose to ignore it, so losing valuable insights into changes, cyclical variations, and frequency or otherwise of sightings of occasional visitors such as seahorses.

 

[harry potter]

20 odd years ago the locals in Galicia were overtly hostile to yachties, blaming them for the decline of the fishing industry. It would appear nothing has changed. Please excuse me whilst I shoot myself.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I speak with insight of working alongside men in the inshore fleet on the S coast UK through the MCZ projects and ongoing contact with them through BORG. Yes they are a b-minded independent lot, and yes their all too narrow profit margins are threatened by some conservation initiatives. But neither are they stupid for the most part.

I never thought there were stupid. Just greedy.

 

[moomba]

I speak with insight of working alongside men in the inshore fleet on the S coast UK through the MCZ projects and ongoing contact with them through BORG. Yes they are a b-minded independent lot, and yes their all too narrow profit margins are threatened by some conservation initiatives. But neither are they stupid for the most part.

Yes there are the cowboys, but the fishermen themselves know who they are and how to deal with them if necessary.

IFCA a quite proactive too in their policing roles so no I dont think it is wishful thinking

What happens amongst the wider EU offshore fishing community I have no more idea than anyone else outside it but I think it is dangerous to tar them all with the same brush. There are the thoroughly professional fishermen, and there are the quick buck cowboys. The professionals will listen to sound arguments. Its the cowboys who do the damage.

EDIT: Perhaps I ought to add a third category - the local boatmen/fishermen who know their area far better than any researcher can from a lifetimes observation. Why do researchers never listen to waht they say? 'Its 'anecdotal' therefore not admissable as evidence is the reason given. There isa huge fund of knowledge and understanding out there completely untapped by experts who choose to ignore it, so losing valuable insights into changes, cyclical variations, and frequency or otherwise of sightings of occasional visitors such as seahorses.

utter nonsense , in saying the the fleet polices itself , what are we going to get vigilante groups of fishermen chapping on doors , fishermen have taken and plundered the seas for generations around the UK coast and are now bleating about their welfare and quotas and no fish, no shit sherlock , it was your fathers and fathers before them that took all the catch, (My Father and Brother Included in the Herring Fleet)like all the other people in this country if there is no work we sign on the dole or we get another Job , to much emphasis on fishing fleets and communities to be constantly subsidised for there wrongs, if they want to make it work sign up to these zones they work so their children will have fish to catch in the future.
I am fed up with the rhetoric that people think they know more about others, the UK is an Island we are all only 70 miles from the sea the seas around our shore belong to the people of the UK not just the communities , the fishermen , and the local boating people that think it is their personnel utopia those days are gone now , it is time to wake up and realise the plundering of the seas by the few and the devastation we are causing by our actions needs to stop people like old harry your time has come give the seas a future for the children of this country stop fighting your lost causes and look at the real science

 

[rotrax]

utter nonsense , in saying the the fleet polices itself , what are we going to get vigilante groups of fishermen chapping on doors , fishermen have taken and plundered the seas for generations around the UK coast and are now bleating about their welfare and quotas and no fish, no shit sherlock , it was your fathers and fathers before them that took all the catch, (My Father and Brother Included in the Herring Fleet)like all the other people in this country if there is no work we sign on the dole or we get another Job , to much emphasis on fishing fleets and communities to be constantly subsidised for there wrongs, if they want to make it work sign up to these zones they work so their children will have fish to catch in the future.
I am fed up with the rhetoric that people think they know more about others, the UK is an Island we are all only 70 miles from the sea the seas around our shore belong to the people of the UK not just the communities , the fishermen , and the local boating people that think it is their personnel utopia those days are gone now , it is time to wake up and realise the plundering of the seas by the few and the devastation we are causing by our actions needs to stop people like old harry your time has come give the seas a future for the children of this country stop fighting your lost causes and look at the real science

old harry did qualify it by saying it was the inshore fleet he worked alongside. Under 10 metre vessels, often pot fishing and taking seasonal varieties.

A big difference to the offshore fleet of bigger boats.

What do you say about the scientific community ignoring the years of daily experience and interaction with the environment by these fishermen? Academic rigor, which is essential, should at least listen and reflect on this.

For example, Cromer in Norfolk has some of the tastiest crabs available. Trouble is, they are small. They live on sand and shingle, not good feeding for crabs. The local fishermen had a big struggle to get the local size altered so they could land catch. Along time ago now, but the Scientists at MAF were adamant no size limit change would be made. IIRC, a question was asked in the house by the local MP, investigations were made and MAF climbed down on the issue. Common sense won over the Science in that issue.

Also, in the past, there was a period in Canada when the beef and dairy industry in one specific area was going to pot-no water.

A family who lived in the wilderness and had contact with the Native Canadian Indian tribes thought the decline in the water table was down to the almost total extinction of Beaver in the surrounding area. They went through the Government channels and their idea was poo-pooed as wishful thinking-by scientists!

They went a back door route, collected twenty or so young Beaver of breeding age and released them to do what Beaver do-make dams- and within five years the land was well on the way to recovery, thirty years on was as it would have been 200 years ago. Against the advice of the Canadian wildlife and scientific community, they restored the local habitat.

As to the last bit of your post, you are obviously referring to the splendid work old harry and BORG have done re Studland Bay. I recall your input there was not well received as you started telling them how to do it when it was all over.

Science has perhaps never been more important in these times of serious weather pattern changes, but it must be rigorous and honest. The conservationists dealing with Studland don't appear to have been either.

 

[moomba]

old harry did qualify it by saying it was the inshore fleet he worked alongside. Under 10 metre vessels, often pot fishing and taking seasonal varieties.

A big difference to the offshore fleet of bigger boats.

What do you say about the scientific community ignoring the years of daily experience and interaction with the environment by these fishermen? Academic rigor, which is essential, should at least listen and reflect on this.

For example, Cromer in Norfolk has some of the tastiest crabs available. Trouble is, they are small. The live on sand and shingle, not good feeding for crabs. The local fishermen had a big struggle to get the local size altered so they could land catch. Along time ago now, but the Scientists at MAF were adamant no size limit change would be made. IIRC, a question was asked in the house by the local MP, investigations were made and MAF climbed down on the issue. Common sense won over the Science in that issue.

Also, in the post was period in Canada the beef and dairy industry was going to pot-no water.

A family who lived in the wilderness and had contact with the Native Canadian Indian tribes thought the decline in the water table was down to the almost total extinction of Beaver in the surrounding area. They went through the Government channels and their idea was poo-pooed as wishful thinking-by scientists!

They went a back door route, collected twenty or so young Beaver of breeding age and released them to do what Beaver do-make dams- and within five years the land was well on the way to recovery, thirty years on was as it would have been 200 years ago. Against the advice of the Canadian wildlife and scientific community, they restored the local habitat.

As to the last bit of your post, you are obviously referring to the splendid work old harry and BORG have done re Studland Bay. I recall your input there was not well received as you started telling them how to do it when it was all over.

Science has perhaps never been more important in these times of serious weather pattern changes, but it must be rigorous and honest. The conservationists dealing with Studland don't appear to have been either.

Small dredgers are some of the worst culprits as they get into the shallow water and rake the seabed of marine nurseries , thus cascading the effect through the food chain, The Beef and dairy , have nothing to do with my professional opinion as a marine Biologist,
And as for studland bay I have seen better scientific research done for ecology reasons from my 8 year old daughters pond skimming class , the need to use a petrochemical retired chemist to tells us about ecology only makes it more ludicrous
The sad reality is that places like Studland bay have the backing of rich sailors and tory MPs with more clout than good sense, its a tragedy that under certain conditions the rich can use their influence in Parliament and pay for good lawyers which the conversation people cannot afford to fight , so please I pity the English in this as you have a system that fails you.
Science is not absolute but when there is a large consensus around the world of climate change and our sea getting warmer . more polluted over fished and habitat destroyed , must we believe old harry and his chums that Studland bay is unique to this destruction or do we believe peer reviewed hundreds of thousands of papers written on the Subject no I hear you cry we must believe poor scientific work , bad research that will never get publishes because it is so poor and Old Harry
good luck it is now to be active in the defence
But yous people will argue with your own shadow.

Bsc Hounours Mariny Biology , Organic Chemistry (Me)
Wife Bsc First Class Enviromental managment
Dr of Fresh Water Ecology
Eu framework Directive water Associate

 

[rotrax]

Small dredgers are some of the worst culprits as they get into the shallow water and rake the seabed of marine nurseries , thus cascading the effect through the food chain, The Beef and dairy , have nothing to do with my professional opinion as a marine Biologist,
And as for studland bay I have seen better scientific research done for ecology reasons from my 8 year old daughters pond skimming class , the need to use a petrochemical retired chemist to tells us about ecology only makes it more ludicrous
The sad reality is that places like Studland bay have the backing of rich sailors and tory MPs with more clout than good sense, its a tragedy that under certain conditions the rich can use their influence in Parliament and pay for good lawyers which the conversation people cannot afford to fight , so please I pity the English in this as you have a system that fails you.
Science is not absolute but when there is a large consensus around the world of climate change and our sea getting warmer . more polluted over fished and habitat destroyed , must we believe old harry and his chums that Studland bay is unique to this destruction or do we believe peer reviewed hundreds of thousands of papers written on the Subject no I hear you cry we must believe poor scientific work , bad research that will never get publishes because it is so poor and Old Harry
good luck it is now to be active in the defence
But yous people will argue with your own shadow.

Bsc Hounours Mariny Biology , Organic Chemistry (Me)
Wife Bsc First Class Enviromental managment
Dr of Fresh Water Ecology
Eu framework Directive water Associate

Some of the above post is relevant, much is a lot of old tosh.

The Conservationists have done NO current research to any level that will satisfy scrutiny by the rules that apply to test the evidence for that location.

The other research papers you mention are not relevant at the venue in question, and often relate to a totally different eel grass species.

Lets have some rules and rigour please!

Old harry and Marlynspike have been as rigorous and honest as their lack of scientific reporting experience have allowed them. To suggest your 8 year old daughter and her pond has surpassed their work is a figment of your imagination.

So far they seem to have done a better job at Studland than the Career Conservationists!

I note you avoid the issue re local experience assisting scientific research. I believe you were being deliberately obtuse disregarding the factual report I gave re the introduction of the Beaver in a Canadian location. Your specific expertise is irrelevant to the issue that history and local knowledge have a part to play in preparing a plan for the future safeguarding of our planet.

Unless you believe that science is all encompassing and always right...………………………………...

 

[Tranona]

Small dredgers are some of the worst culprits as they get into the shallow water and rake the seabed of marine nurseries , thus cascading the effect through the food chain, The Beef and dairy , have nothing to do with my professional opinion as a marine Biologist,
And as for studland bay I have seen better scientific research done for ecology reasons from my 8 year old daughters pond skimming class , the need to use a petrochemical retired chemist to tells us about ecology only makes it more ludicrous
The sad reality is that places like Studland bay have the backing of rich sailors and tory MPs with more clout than good sense, its a tragedy that under certain conditions the rich can use their influence in Parliament and pay for good lawyers which the conversation people cannot afford to fight , so please I pity the English in this as you have a system that fails you.
Science is not absolute but when there is a large consensus around the world of climate change and our sea getting warmer . more polluted over fished and habitat destroyed , must we believe old harry and his chums that Studland bay is unique to this destruction or do we believe peer reviewed hundreds of thousands of papers written on the Subject no I hear you cry we must believe poor scientific work , bad research that will never get publishes because it is so poor and Old Harry
good luck it is now to be active in the defence
But yous people will argue with your own shadow.

Bsc Hounours Mariny Biology , Organic Chemistry (Me)
Wife Bsc First Class Enviromental managment
Dr of Fresh Water Ecology
Eu framework Directive water Associate

You really do have a problem. What you say about Studland and the players involved is just absolute nonsense. You have no idea of the background nor the people involved but still spout your ecowarrior nonsense. I suggest you withdraw it because what you claim is simply not true as you would discover if you made any attempt to find out the truth.

One problem with "science" is that it tends to reify issues and think the solutions lie in complex investigations when simple common sense explains much of what is going on. Just take the health of eel gras. It has a definition based on coverage and recovery. This definition is agreed so you measure against it as BORG has done. Nothing difficult about it, but those who claim the opposite refuse to even define what healthy is never mind survey the beds to establish health. Why don't they? because it confounds their claims so they ignore it. The fieldwork may seem simplistic to you, but the issue is simple, so why complicate it?

There is nothing new about this. All players,, scientists, politicians, campaigners etc tend to ignore what does not suit their arguments, and one of the tactics scientists use is "...you don't understand this, we are scientists". Just as you are doing now. "Science" has been proved wrong throughout time. What it tells us is only what is known at the time - it is not absolute truth and it is only by challenging it that progress is made.

You are right, however that individuals or groups can have undue influence in arguments. Nowhere is this more true than in the Studland case where two people, neither of them scientifically qualified made claims about seahorses and eel grass based on just observation, that got into the public phsyche through press anxious to exploit pictures of cuddly seahorses and at the same time having a dig at "rich" boat owners. None of their claims have any scientific support but have popular appeal.

I love your belief in the integrity of the peer reviewed research system. It is fundamentally flawed because it is self serving and designed to isolate the contributors from external challenge. It is driven by the requirement to satisfy funders and meet the output requirements placed on the researcher by his or her employing institution. All summed up by a famous quote from Phillip Drucker. "Managers attend to those things by which they are judged".

That does not mean to say that the work that underpins the published research is not useful - much of it is. Just don't claim that because it is published in a peer reviewed journal makes it true. In practical terms it will be used by policy makers if it supports their policy and rejected if it does not.

The example that started this thread is a good one. Without reading the full research report and understanding the aims and constraints of the research it is impossible to tell whether the headline conclusions reflect the reality of what was found. It is published in a newspaper well known for bias which will choose what it wants and thinks will reflect its readers' biases.

Perhaps one day you will step outside the world that is governed by your employers and funders where your income and career advancement depends on a constant stream of reported research and perhap realise what a false world it can be.

 

[Tomahawk]

I am mindful of intrinsic bias from various parties.

Marine biologists come from the set of people who are interested in marine biology. As such they are a self selecting set of people who start their studies from a biased outlook. They tell themselves their interest is important therefore they are important and everyone must do as they say. Of course marine bioligy doesn't offer a financial return so they must be paid from other peoples earnings.

Fishermen start from trying to earn a living. Their bias is reinforced by the need to generate cash flow. Are fishermen likely to pay marine biologists salaries? Only if the marine biologists can demonstrate improved cash flow. But would career consevationists accept anything said by someone who is paid by commercial interests?

 

[JumbleDuck]

They tell themselves their interest is important therefore they are important and everyone must do as they say. Of course marine bioligy doesn't offer a financial return so they must be paid from other peoples earnings.

Fishermen are paid from other people's earnings too, you know.

 

[RichardS]

Fishermen are paid from other people's earnings too, you know.

Not if you don't like fish. :ambivalence:

Richard

 

[JumbleDuck]

Not if you don't like fish. :ambivalence:

Not quite what I had in mind, but since you raise it ... from earlier this month ...

 

[Deleted member 36384]

...... Marine biologists come from the set of people who are interested in marine biology. As such they are a self selecting set of people who start their studies from a biased outlook. .....

I would hope so. I also think that that there is a certain rigour applied when following the scientific method. No doubt there are charlatans, also biased study topics.

If I remember correctly the great expansion in herring fishing was around 1910 and it only lasted until the 1920's and after WW1 it was in noticeable decline. I can't find the article now but there was comments from the fishing industry on the destruction of the stock even back then, 1920s, as they moved from long line, to drift netting, to trawling and seine netting, with more an more of the fishing happening in larger boats owned by a few families.

The fishermen knew they were killing off the stocks and their solution was to develop bigger and more efficient methods of fishing. This simply resulted in global collapse of fish stocks. Scientists tend to react to observations and hypothesis why what they see is happening, fishermen just grubbed for money with no real interest in what the future brought; make hay while the sun shines.

DYOR.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

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

The protection is only applied in normal human fashion after a problem occurs. Some marine conservation areas are starting to do very well, no doubt others are yet to get results, and some are simply still damaged by illegal actions.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The protection is only applied in normal human fashion after a problem occurs. Some marine conservation areas are starting to do very well, no doubt others are yet to get results, and some are simply still damaged by illegal actions.

Hospitals are rubbish. They're full of sick people.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

Hospitals are rubbish. They're full of sick people.

+1

 

[oldharry]

Hospitals are rubbish. They're full of sick people.

My BiL was a GP, he reckoned a hospital is the worst place to be if you are sick.

 

[oldharry]

I have to say Moomba you seem to have shot yourself very thoroughly in the foot this time. I was actually agreeing with you over the fate the EU MPAs!

1. BORG is not and never has been anti conservation. We have 3 main aims: 1. To help achieve conservation objectives with minimum disruption to boating activities. 2. To agree protocols for reduction or cessation of boating activity that are safe, practical and effective, using in DEFRA's own words 'best possible evidence'. 3. To provide a resource and focus for boat owners affected by conservation proposals.

2. BORG is not a scientific research group, as you have been at pains to point out. We seek to apply best maritime practice where it is needed to support conservation objectives. we also act as an information resource on technical and other matters relating to leisure boats into any discussion of conservation objectives. Examples: In the early days, the outline of the Torbay MCZ was beinbg discussed. Conservation scientists were unaware of the presence and importance of Torbay Harbour! More recently an issue arose over access to some moorings in an MCZ. I was able to offer a solution which allowed the moorings to remain without compromising conservation objectives.

3.Studland: The issues here arise from a small group of unqualified but highly vocal conservation enthusiasts who have created a deeply polarised situation. They are determined to exclude the boats from this top S Coast anchorage and are manipulating the situation through the press and media to acheive thir agenda which is to build reputations and funding. Some of our website responds to their endeavours. These guys have NO scientific background. We seek an honest scientific assessment of the Bay and its needs. Our website follows the argument over the last 8 years.

4. You constantly urge is to read the scientific literature, yet you tell us we can not properly understand it! We have, and we do. As others here point out, the little research done in the Bay is very much less than objective, and has been condemned by DEFRA's own scientists as 'biased and full of erroros and mistakes'. There is a real likelihood that with the pressure mentioned in 3 above that precautionary measures will be put in place which severely disrupt leisure boating activity without giving any significant conservation gains. We ask for nothing more than an objective assessment of what is really needed to protect the eelgrass

Natural England acknowledge the lack of hard data for the Bay. It is our business to ensure that any proposed restrictions on activity will be realistic and effective as far as current knowledge allows. The MCZ process requires that Socio-economic impacts of designation will be taken into account. We will ensure in this case this is done properly.

Moving back to the OP. MPAs are a waste of time if they are ignored. Marine science, like many advanced disciplines can appear obscure and arcane to outsiders. You yourself have said others cannot read and fully understand your reports.

Nobody likes to be told what they can and cannot do. Offshore fishermen work in one of the toughest and most dangerous environments, so tend to be fiercly independent. They are there to make a living, but their stakes are high in terms of equipment and risk, so if someone comes along with an unreadable report and tries to tell them they cant do it any more they will likely raise a 2 fingered salute and carry on. The harvest is there, the market is there. thats how they make their money End of. They do not respond well to being told what to do, even by officialdom. So they have to be motivated to change. We cant afford to police these areas, so users need to understand the issues for themselves. That means explaining in detail;. it means re-education. Just rproducing an obscure report and a abit of legislation is not enough. The same condition applies to the leisure boating community. Even if people want to conserve their environment they cannot do so effectively without being shown how. We too object to just being told to stop without any explanation. Thats human nature. A Marine Biology qualification does not confer any right on you to tell me how to live my life.

In 2014 I initiated an educational programme with the support of RYA, the Wildlife Trusts, NE, MMO and others which gave visitors the basic information they needed to operate their boats safely in eelgrass. It was welcomed by all. EXCEPT the group of idiots in 3 above who refused to take part, and then tried to accuse BORG of disagreeing with our own leaflet! See what we are up against?

But then maybe humanity is facing its greatest crisis in history anyway, because we have all of us plundered the worlds fossil fuel resources which are finite and completely irreplacable in the next 50m years, and poisoned our planet in the process. For what? our own greed, wealth and comfort. So just maybe the pot should not be quite so vocal in calling the kettle black.