Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
I think that would be a great idea.
Your not safe on the East Coast!
- Thread starter Sans Bateau
- Start date
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
If the RYA are representing us, and have been closely involved, should it not be the RYA rep that should be telling us what is likely to be on the table?
It would be interesting to know their current time scales as well. It all looks to be 'information gathering' rather than proposals to me, but then there is so much on the website it is difficult to filter out the bits that we need.
It would be interesting to know their current time scales as well. It all looks to be 'information gathering' rather than proposals to me, but then there is so much on the website it is difficult to filter out the bits that we need.
Malish
Well-Known Member
Our regional stakeholder group sector representative for sailing is one Paul Rayner of the RYA who, from a bit of googling, would appear be on the RYA SE Committee. Might I suggest that in the first instance those who hold RYA membership rustle up a few e-mails to him and ask him what is going on.... I'm wary about putting his e-mail address on here but it is easily found, try "RYA winter news 2010" to get a .PDF which includes his details
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Studland is a high profile site with a very questionable reason for banning anchoring. If it can happen in Studland, it can happen anywhere. You need to study the charts on the balanced seas web site to get a better understanding of what is planned. Around £40M is being pored into the project, peoples political 'careers' depend on it working, the results will be draconian.
Guapa, MCZ's are vast, the MMO have said that the areas will be patrolled, the MMO was formed in April 2010, they used to be fisheries protection.
The conservationists want you to have a 'it will be OK' attitude, thats just what they want.
Seakindly
Well-Known Member
alarums
It would be good to talk with them although so far as I can tell, the 'plans' are not yet specific - they're setting out objectives -and firefly is right - it's not likely to be blanket exclusion zones -nor necessarily anchoring or passage prohibition. Each zone may have a reference area within it that has some prohibited activities, but it's also clear they do not have a bull-headed 'moronic' intention to ignore leisure users. The evidence cited about the only current conservation zone - Lundy - seems to demonstrate there is some benefit to the marine ecology. A small protected 'reference' area within a zone seems to export benefits to the rest of the zone - in Lundy's case, lobsters. I'd like to see what the actual proposals are, when they are more developed, and I reckon there's a fair amount of scope to get stuff I'm interested in included - such as effluent and pollution on the Medway, more assertive responses to high-speed power-boats and sea-bikes in restricted waters - and if proposals include some prohibitions on anchoring, I'd lobby to have that qualified by number and size of boats if possible. Mind you, there's not many 80ft Sunseekers parked up Hamford.
It would be good to talk with them although so far as I can tell, the 'plans' are not yet specific - they're setting out objectives -and firefly is right - it's not likely to be blanket exclusion zones -nor necessarily anchoring or passage prohibition. Each zone may have a reference area within it that has some prohibited activities, but it's also clear they do not have a bull-headed 'moronic' intention to ignore leisure users. The evidence cited about the only current conservation zone - Lundy - seems to demonstrate there is some benefit to the marine ecology. A small protected 'reference' area within a zone seems to export benefits to the rest of the zone - in Lundy's case, lobsters. I'd like to see what the actual proposals are, when they are more developed, and I reckon there's a fair amount of scope to get stuff I'm interested in included - such as effluent and pollution on the Medway, more assertive responses to high-speed power-boats and sea-bikes in restricted waters - and if proposals include some prohibitions on anchoring, I'd lobby to have that qualified by number and size of boats if possible. Mind you, there's not many 80ft Sunseekers parked up Hamford.
jhr
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't bank on it. These zones are being introduced as a result of EU Directives that require member states to define a certain percentage of their coastline as Marine Conservation Zones. Failure to do this will result in large fines being levied on the offending state - purportedly much in excess of the costs of introducing MCZs. (This isn't an anti - EU rant, by the way).
I agree with the observation that there is lots of heat and not much light in the current debate and I am also sure that the RYA are involving themselves in this by discreet lobbying. Unfortunately, however, we are fighting against emotive argument and PR spin, rather than logic and pragmatism, and I think we need to be as vocal as (but hopefully more reasoned and less hysterical than) the opposition.
It's true to say that designating an area an MCZ doesn't automatically mean access will be barred to leisure yachtsmen. However, an MCZ will, I believe, be rather like a National Park which means that all kinds of decisions can be taken in an autocratic fashion, rather than after debate and consultation. The people taking these decisions will almost certainly be career bureaucrats rather than anybody with a genuine vested interest.
I don't get too fired up about many things, but this whole business has got me extremely concerned.
Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
i'll second that.
I have a neighbour who is a keen twitcher, and a regular visitor to the Walton Backwaters.... upon discussing this with him, his attitude was... "why on earth should boats be allowed to damage the wildlife habitat?"
I suspect that his view and that of the 1 million other RSPB members would be 'sod the sailors.... lets close the area off to boats'.... and if it comes to a vested interest based discussion, they are better at lobbying, have a larger membership (read number of voters), are organised, and are better funded.....
Don't assume that because its crazy it won't happen!
I have a neighbour who is a keen twitcher, and a regular visitor to the Walton Backwaters.... upon discussing this with him, his attitude was... "why on earth should boats be allowed to damage the wildlife habitat?"
I suspect that his view and that of the 1 million other RSPB members would be 'sod the sailors.... lets close the area off to boats'.... and if it comes to a vested interest based discussion, they are better at lobbying, have a larger membership (read number of voters), are organised, and are better funded.....
Don't assume that because its crazy it won't happen!
Goldfish
Active Member
I totally agree with morgana, most of the stake holders mentioned are wildlife charities and those that own land adjacent to the coast. I think there would be little sympathy for 'luxury' yacht owners.
Malish
Well-Known Member
Fully agree, it is just a pity we cannot do the same to them - the amount of damage done in the name of conservation, especially for public access (read dog emptying) is criminal
Cantata
Well-Known Member
Clubs around here are being or have been visited by the Balanced Seas mob, some time ago, and full info was certainly given to them by our club (the area being Medway, Swale, North Kent Coast) and we pointed out that anchoring can and does take place everywhere in the entire area, not only for 'leisure' but sometimes also by necessity in time of danger.
I confess I haven't persevered to find stuff on their site although I did try a couple of weeks ago, and gave up.
I did attend one of their original set-up meetings maybe a year ago. It was dismally attended by sailing/boating people but there were many commercial fishermen there who were well-briefed and vociferous. The RYA SE region people were there and took up the responsibility.
I confess I haven't persevered to find stuff on their site although I did try a couple of weeks ago, and gave up.
I did attend one of their original set-up meetings maybe a year ago. It was dismally attended by sailing/boating people but there were many commercial fishermen there who were well-briefed and vociferous. The RYA SE region people were there and took up the responsibility.
Mariner69
Well-Known Member
Collecting Data
Last year, in July, I, as a representative of my yacht club on the River Blackwater, met with a very nice lady scientist working for the Balanced Seas group collecting data for the usage of the waters in the area. She was also visiting all of the other clubs on the rivers in the area. She was also an experienced yachts woman knowing our needs.
The data collection was based on where our members sailed, visited, anchored and the numbers involved. In my case I explained how the use of tidal moorings and the distances covered at the springs and neaps differed when day sailing and the whole east coast being our area during the holidays when members went further afield.
During the discussions it was raised about the damage being done to the saltings by the PWC's at the upper reaches or the Blackwater and the fact that the damage done by bottom trawlers is the area most likely to be addressed in any restrictions. Passage through the area has never been considered as a right to be limited; as was the case off Lundy which proved a success in allowing the regeneration of fish stocks for the benefit of all.
Individual boat owners were requested to provide their input at the time via the magazines and on this forum IICR.
The initial data input was closed at the end of October IIRC.
I would suggest that we save our powder until we have the zones identified and can then respond as necessary. We may well find that the restrictions will be limited to trawling in specified areas since anchoring has not so far been proved detremential to the sea bed.
No doubt there will be those that disagree but that's the pleasure and pain of a democracy.
Last year, in July, I, as a representative of my yacht club on the River Blackwater, met with a very nice lady scientist working for the Balanced Seas group collecting data for the usage of the waters in the area. She was also visiting all of the other clubs on the rivers in the area. She was also an experienced yachts woman knowing our needs.
The data collection was based on where our members sailed, visited, anchored and the numbers involved. In my case I explained how the use of tidal moorings and the distances covered at the springs and neaps differed when day sailing and the whole east coast being our area during the holidays when members went further afield.
During the discussions it was raised about the damage being done to the saltings by the PWC's at the upper reaches or the Blackwater and the fact that the damage done by bottom trawlers is the area most likely to be addressed in any restrictions. Passage through the area has never been considered as a right to be limited; as was the case off Lundy which proved a success in allowing the regeneration of fish stocks for the benefit of all.
Individual boat owners were requested to provide their input at the time via the magazines and on this forum IICR.
The initial data input was closed at the end of October IIRC.
I would suggest that we save our powder until we have the zones identified and can then respond as necessary. We may well find that the restrictions will be limited to trawling in specified areas since anchoring has not so far been proved detremential to the sea bed.
No doubt there will be those that disagree but that's the pleasure and pain of a democracy.
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
"I would suggest that we save our powder until we have the zones identified and can then respond as necessary. We may well find that the restrictions will be limited to trawling in specified areas since anchoring has not so far been proved detremential to the sea bed.
No doubt there will be those that disagree but that's the pleasure and pain of a democracy."
The first part of your post sounds like excellent news. However, as you identify, not everyone will agree with your thoughts as above. I would suggest that, and if you read the balanced seas reports, decisions on the Broad areas of Interest (BAI) which may well become MCZ's are being made, driven with little concern for the needs of sailors. Can I suggest that you take a more active part, if only monitoring what is happening. To leave it until the zones are drawn and the restrictions are in place, will be too late. There is nothing democratic about this process.
No doubt there will be those that disagree but that's the pleasure and pain of a democracy."
The first part of your post sounds like excellent news. However, as you identify, not everyone will agree with your thoughts as above. I would suggest that, and if you read the balanced seas reports, decisions on the Broad areas of Interest (BAI) which may well become MCZ's are being made, driven with little concern for the needs of sailors. Can I suggest that you take a more active part, if only monitoring what is happening. To leave it until the zones are drawn and the restrictions are in place, will be too late. There is nothing democratic about this process.
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
Rather than just make doom and gloom posts, constantly suggesting that we go read this and that, how about YOU tell us of the threats you keep warning us of ?
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Any other little jobs you'd like me to do? I'm investigating MY OWN sailing area, sorry about the doom and gloom, I never started the MCZ debacle, that came out of EU.
I'm sure if you just bury your head in the sand the problem will go away.
Grrr!! Gratitude!
Koeketiene
Well-Known Member
Couple of thoughts on this:
1. It's not proposed that anchoring should be banned in the entire MCZ.
2. The larger the area, the harder it will be to police/patrol.
3. If the fisheries protection lot are to police this, I'm not that worried - there's no more than 7 vessels patrolling the entire UK coastline. And I presume this will be on top of their existing duties.
4. Unless the government are proposing a MCZ off Portland & Weymouth before 2012, there's not much chance of the RYA being very vocal on this subject.
5. Why the sudden urge to spread the Studland frenzy to the East Coast? Don't recall much South Coast sympathy when windfarms started sprouting all over the Kent/Essex shores.
I am not averse to the odd crusade, but I find it impossible to get worked up about this. Best I can manage is a Gallic shrug of indifference.
Final bit of ancient folk wisdom: The soup's never eaten as hot as it's served.
Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
Hee hee... lot of truth in that.....
As long as we don't forget though that sometimes cold soup can contain some nasty lumps..... and that sometimes the person delivering the soup has stuck their thumb in it....
Seakindly
Well-Known Member
YUM!
Lipsmackin'. That's what I call East-Coast flavour.
Lipsmackin'. That's what I call East-Coast flavour.
DanTribe
Well-Known Member
I went to a meeting about the landfill and flooding of Wallasea Island organised by Crossrail & RSPB. I thought it was a consultation process but we were told "it's a done deal, get used to it"
When questions were asked about how the massive shipping movements and changes to tides will affect yachting, the reaction was that it wouldn't affect boat users at all, but the body language and attitude said very clearly, "so what if it does, the birds are all that matter"
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Lets all take up Wild Fowling 
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
If we poisoned all the birds, would they lose interest ?