MCZ BBC News item
- Thread starter FWB
- Start date
Tranona
Well-Known Member
As usual claiming that Poole Harbour is an important breeding ground for seahorses - despite the lack of any evidence to support the statement. When will they ever admit that seahorses are very common in many areas, but not common in Poole or Studland because they are not attractive places for them to breed!
If anyone doubts that simple fact they should see the Seahorse Trust data on where seahorses are most commonly observed.
If anyone doubts that simple fact they should see the Seahorse Trust data on where seahorses are most commonly observed.
oldharry
Well-Known Member
The usual heavily biased rubbish we have come to expect from the Beeb. As if we want to anchor our boats in rock pools!
I really fail to see how the Conservationists can expect to be taken seriously when they produce rubbish like this. But it is a major change that Richard Benyon is now warning that the country cannot afford what is proposed. This contradicts his quite unequivocal statement last monday that he is committed to the UK becoming the 'flagship state in Marine Conservation, leading the way in showing other countries how to do it'. You cant do that on the cheap, and it seems to me the reality must be that we need a more modest scheme which is achievable within budget constraints. Otherwise we will just end up with the kind of half baked compromise, which satisfies no one and achieves very little, which recent governments seem to be very good at!
But in fact a week ago at the meeting from which this item stemmed the Minister said a great deal more about using common sense, and creating a programme which does actually take the various activities affected into account. He also made it clear that all out bans on activities were not within his scheme of things. The social and economic effects of any MCZ must be properly assessed and taken in to consideration before a decision can be taken about how to achieve conservation objectives. In my reading of the Defra summaries, this is one of the main reasons for holding back on many of the areas regarded by NE and the Conservation groups as being in need of urgent protection.
The Conservationists are in danger of shooting themselves in the foot in my view, trying to force the governments hand before key information has been provided, specially on the socio - economic side. Read Defra's summaries , and time and time again their refusal to recommend an area is because the effects of doing so on activities taking place in them have not been properly assessed and taken in to account.
And the Givernment has not got the money to do it all anyway!
I really fail to see how the Conservationists can expect to be taken seriously when they produce rubbish like this. But it is a major change that Richard Benyon is now warning that the country cannot afford what is proposed. This contradicts his quite unequivocal statement last monday that he is committed to the UK becoming the 'flagship state in Marine Conservation, leading the way in showing other countries how to do it'. You cant do that on the cheap, and it seems to me the reality must be that we need a more modest scheme which is achievable within budget constraints. Otherwise we will just end up with the kind of half baked compromise, which satisfies no one and achieves very little, which recent governments seem to be very good at!
But in fact a week ago at the meeting from which this item stemmed the Minister said a great deal more about using common sense, and creating a programme which does actually take the various activities affected into account. He also made it clear that all out bans on activities were not within his scheme of things. The social and economic effects of any MCZ must be properly assessed and taken in to consideration before a decision can be taken about how to achieve conservation objectives. In my reading of the Defra summaries, this is one of the main reasons for holding back on many of the areas regarded by NE and the Conservation groups as being in need of urgent protection.
The Conservationists are in danger of shooting themselves in the foot in my view, trying to force the governments hand before key information has been provided, specially on the socio - economic side. Read Defra's summaries , and time and time again their refusal to recommend an area is because the effects of doing so on activities taking place in them have not been properly assessed and taken in to account.
And the Givernment has not got the money to do it all anyway!
dgadee
Well-Known Member
And, I note, he importantly used the word 'evidence'. Perhaps there is a realisation that evidence supporting the MCZ programme is minimal.
greylag
Well-Known Member
Stop preaching to the converted. Send your objection to DEFRA before tomorrow night.
dgadee
Well-Known Member
greylag
Well-Known Member
Obviously
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Not minimal - The NE report alone is 1400 pages! It in turn is backed by many other reports, some prepared specially for the MCZ process, at huge cost. Additional Surveys and Reports in Studland alone have cost over £0.5m What is missing is the socio-economic evidence which the Government asked for from day one, and which has not yet been provided. The Conservationists thought they were going to have it all their own way, so presented a grand scheme, while completely ignoring the effects their recommendations might have on the rest of us. But that was OK because Conservation is the modern 'Sacred Cow' and will be pushed through whatever the cost. They thought.
The Government has held back 97 recommendations, even those marked by the Conservos as Urgent, mainly because they want to know the cost to local COMMUNITIES and BUSINESSES.
The cynic in me says perhaps more realistically, they dont want to do anything that will cost them VOTES and MONEY!
Like: closing the Commercial anchorage off the E of IoW where cargo ships waiting to use Southampton anchor up to await their turn to come alongside.
Like: the effect on the struggling economy of the Solent region if amenities are withdrawn pushing more people off the water.
Like the effect on Poole's marine business community and economy if the Studland anchorage was to be closed down. It is estimated locally that Leisure boat usage there could drop by as much as 30% without Studland, and has already dropped noticeably following the adverse publicity about boats using the Bay. Visitors numbers in Studland are already said to have dropped to a 40 year low because of the weather, recession, and bad publicity.
Like: the effect on the income to the Scilly Isles if visiting yachts were limited to the one available harbour The HM and Tourist Board estimate 7500 'Yacht Nights' there just in the harbour alone in 2012, with an average £70 per head spend to boost Island economy. That's a big chunk of their income to be under threat just to preserve a few patches of Seaweed!
Like: The effect on the racing community if Racing Marks and Committee boats were not allowed to be anchored in MCZs in places like Falmouth, Plymouth, Poole Bay and the Solent and elsewhere with a wide range of support businesses losing much needed income.
The fact is that Finding Sanctuary alone employed many experts, and involved well over 1000 people to help provide information to support their MCZ recommendations. They employed just 2 to work out the economic and social consequences of the recommendations and reports! The senior of those two is on record as saying he did not "have a clue where to start", just weeks before his report was due.
Defra, entirely properly, have said they need that information before they can move forward with designation. The Conservationist reaction is predictable: having for years accused us (BORG, RYA SBPA etc) of producing 'emotional arguments based on hearsay' have abandoned their science and are pleading to have these places closed down before too much damage is done...... as if we had only just arrived in places we have been using for generations, in some cases for over a century, and there is suddenly some dreadful environmental crisis looming if we are allowed to go on doing what we have done for the last 60 or more years!
Last edited:
