xyachtdave
Well-Known Member
If this is 'comedy gold' an exclamation mark or smile thing would be helpful.
Your not safe on the East Coast!
- Thread starter Sans Bateau
- Start date
If this is 'comedy gold' an exclamation mark or smile thing would be helpful.
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
That is really where my concerns lay....
I can see (as a made up example) a consultation meeting for Hamford water taking place in 2 years time, to review whether to make it a dedicated wildfowl area under this legislation.... everyone traipsing to the meeting, and hearing what is said, and all the while the local councillor, who is retiring next year, and responsible for the decision, can't help but let his mind drift to the promised childrens visitor centre for the local school kids, named after his wife, and with a shiny brass plaque on the wall and the 10 new jobs in what is an economically depressed area... leaving him a lasting legacy....
6 months later, 10 new piles are placed across the entrance.... and Councillor Smith gets his name splashed across all the local press for negotiating such a great deal for the local community and congratulating him on his retirement at the end of the month.
Unlikely? Really?
Well, the lobbying groups involved, as DanTribe demonstrated so well above, have been cultivating relationships just like this for many years.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Tendering Councilers ( Cons factions ) are far too busy fighting each other to bother with the Backwaters
bitman
Well-Known Member
government scam
as far i see this;
in the eyes of the government they need to cut costs so how to do this?
well simple, ban most of the coast for pleasure boats so you can send more then halve of the cost guards home job done... put it under the name of "Marine Protected Area" and the non boaters are thinking oh that's good to protect our cost lines...
it's a sad world we live in
as far i see this;
in the eyes of the government they need to cut costs so how to do this?
well simple, ban most of the coast for pleasure boats so you can send more then halve of the cost guards home job done... put it under the name of "Marine Protected Area" and the non boaters are thinking oh that's good to protect our cost lines...
it's a sad world we live in
AliM
Well-Known Member
I was looking at it from a different point of view, Bitman.
It will cost money to pursue the draconian aspects of the MCZ's. No local council has any money, so there may be a big song and dance, but nothing will actually get done by local or even national government.
The flaw in this argument is that the RSPB does have money, so if they decide to pursue this, they might be able to get things done at their expense (or by some negotiation) just like Wallasea. However, buying up, or leasing the whole of the backwaters is far beyond even them - there are much better birdie places for them, so I don't even think that's going to happen. There are no plans that i've seen to limit boat access around the Wallasea site, or Havergate island (a very well established RSPB reserve).
We certainly need to keep a watch on this and make sure the RYA represent our views. I'd be perfectly happy with the backwaters being a MCZ and/or a bird reserve, but we need to convince the RSPB that anchored boats (or boats transiting the area) do no harm to anyone. And we need to work with the RSBP and conservationists to preserve these areas (from housing, Brightlingsea-like development), not against them.
My conclusion:
Don't panic or overreact, but do keep in the consultation loop!
It will cost money to pursue the draconian aspects of the MCZ's. No local council has any money, so there may be a big song and dance, but nothing will actually get done by local or even national government.
The flaw in this argument is that the RSPB does have money, so if they decide to pursue this, they might be able to get things done at their expense (or by some negotiation) just like Wallasea. However, buying up, or leasing the whole of the backwaters is far beyond even them - there are much better birdie places for them, so I don't even think that's going to happen. There are no plans that i've seen to limit boat access around the Wallasea site, or Havergate island (a very well established RSPB reserve).
We certainly need to keep a watch on this and make sure the RYA represent our views. I'd be perfectly happy with the backwaters being a MCZ and/or a bird reserve, but we need to convince the RSPB that anchored boats (or boats transiting the area) do no harm to anyone. And we need to work with the RSBP and conservationists to preserve these areas (from housing, Brightlingsea-like development), not against them.
My conclusion:
Don't panic or overreact, but do keep in the consultation loop!
MoodySabre
Well-Known Member
As it won't affect dinghy sailors and Olympic hopefuls nor all the blazered old boys with boats in sunnier climes then this is optimistic. There is little evidence that the RYA know what a coastal cruising sailor is or does. The Boat Owners Reference Group was established to represent real interests.
Goldfish
Active Member
So where does this leave us? as i suggested earlier is there someone who we could get to come and talk to us re the proposed MCZ's???
Seakindly
Well-Known Member
Engage
'Stay in the consultation loop' : agree. The idea that the country and all of us are going to hell in a handcart sounds like what Prof Farudi describes as 'the rise of possibilistic risk'. In other words -whereas once we calculated the odds and blasted off the planet to explore, we now fear anything that might, just, conceivably happen. It's the kind of anxiety that led to millions, if not billions being spent to prevent the 'millenium bug'. The impact was always going to be minimal. Lets get a grip on the issue and engage with the process. Marine conservation is something we ought to have some respect for. It is, after all, about conserving an environment we cherish. As for the twitchers, why, there's nothing better than watching the birds from the cockpit with a warm cuppa. Just wish I hadn't sold the four-foot punt-gun.
'Stay in the consultation loop' : agree. The idea that the country and all of us are going to hell in a handcart sounds like what Prof Farudi describes as 'the rise of possibilistic risk'. In other words -whereas once we calculated the odds and blasted off the planet to explore, we now fear anything that might, just, conceivably happen. It's the kind of anxiety that led to millions, if not billions being spent to prevent the 'millenium bug'. The impact was always going to be minimal. Lets get a grip on the issue and engage with the process. Marine conservation is something we ought to have some respect for. It is, after all, about conserving an environment we cherish. As for the twitchers, why, there's nothing better than watching the birds from the cockpit with a warm cuppa. Just wish I hadn't sold the four-foot punt-gun.
Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
Ali,
While I don't disagree with your post, and also would be supportive of MCZs if they remain inclusive rather than restrictive to boaters, there is one element that needs a little more attention.
One of the elements of the consultation is to examine areas with a view to creating areas of 'Full Water Column' protection or FWC for short. When you examine what this means, it is a mechanism designed to remove entirely any human intervention from an area, including any access of any sort, by boat, foot or otherwise.... while this sounds eminently sensible for small areas, and indeed I am sure would create some fascinating new habitats, its notable that the one exception allowed to the complete removal of human engagement is for conservational monitoring.....
Now that sounds extremely 'agenda driven' to me. I may be reading too much into it, but it certainly has the opportunity to be a wonderful playground for the conservationalist who are more extreme in their stances, as is being seen by the Studland folk with the Sea Horse Trust.
While I don't disagree with your post, and also would be supportive of MCZs if they remain inclusive rather than restrictive to boaters, there is one element that needs a little more attention.
One of the elements of the consultation is to examine areas with a view to creating areas of 'Full Water Column' protection or FWC for short. When you examine what this means, it is a mechanism designed to remove entirely any human intervention from an area, including any access of any sort, by boat, foot or otherwise.... while this sounds eminently sensible for small areas, and indeed I am sure would create some fascinating new habitats, its notable that the one exception allowed to the complete removal of human engagement is for conservational monitoring.....
Now that sounds extremely 'agenda driven' to me. I may be reading too much into it, but it certainly has the opportunity to be a wonderful playground for the conservationalist who are more extreme in their stances, as is being seen by the Studland folk with the Sea Horse Trust.
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Just be clear about this, this is not just a Studland issue as suggested wrongly by someone, I have not posted here looking for support for a problem that will affect someone else. I'm sorry some of you think that the case. I'm trying to raise your awareness of what is happening around YOUR coast. I'm not here with scare stories.
MCZ's are going to affect everyone. MCZ's are being set up through an act of parliament, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Its not about local government, its not going to be managed by the RSPB, its being managed by DEFRA and the newly formed Marine Management Organisation.
I read somewhere (and I have read a lot of reports recently!!) and as far as I can remember the budget for setting up MCZ's was around £40M, (presumably these budgets were signed off by the previous government and are so far down the process that it is unlikely to be stopped now). That does not sound a lot, but dont forget, the ground work is being done by NGO's and volunteer conservationists.
Conserving our coastal waters is a good thing, the part that concerns me is that leisure boat users are being treated as a totally unimportant group. Consequently they are not being represented in the process. Consider for one moment, in the Solent area there are 11 people representing fishing and that include leisure angling. Sailing and boating is represented by 2, yes 2 people, one the RYA and the second the CA. Who is representing YOUR interests on the East coast? Do you you know if anyone is?
Certainly sit around and wait too see what happens, but its only through persistence that OldHarry has got through the door at Finding Sanctuary. With these committees heavily weighted in favor of the conservationist lobby dont be surprised to find a 100% exclusion MCZ to be slapped on your favorite sailing area, time is running out, fast.
MCZ's are going to affect everyone. MCZ's are being set up through an act of parliament, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Its not about local government, its not going to be managed by the RSPB, its being managed by DEFRA and the newly formed Marine Management Organisation.
I read somewhere (and I have read a lot of reports recently!!) and as far as I can remember the budget for setting up MCZ's was around £40M, (presumably these budgets were signed off by the previous government and are so far down the process that it is unlikely to be stopped now). That does not sound a lot, but dont forget, the ground work is being done by NGO's and volunteer conservationists.
Conserving our coastal waters is a good thing, the part that concerns me is that leisure boat users are being treated as a totally unimportant group. Consequently they are not being represented in the process. Consider for one moment, in the Solent area there are 11 people representing fishing and that include leisure angling. Sailing and boating is represented by 2, yes 2 people, one the RYA and the second the CA. Who is representing YOUR interests on the East coast? Do you you know if anyone is?
Certainly sit around and wait too see what happens, but its only through persistence that OldHarry has got through the door at Finding Sanctuary. With these committees heavily weighted in favor of the conservationist lobby dont be surprised to find a 100% exclusion MCZ to be slapped on your favorite sailing area, time is running out, fast.
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
What are the proposed MCZ's for the East Coast then ?
Cobra
Well-Known Member
So, and you will pardon me for being just a bit thick on this one..."a 100% exclusion MCZ"...Now 100% exclusion in my book reads no Canoes, no rowing dinghies, no sailing dinghies, no cruisers, no powerboats, no Fishing boats, no vessels servicing the wind farms, no Sand Barges...I guess that it would also include heavy commercial traffic on the Thames and Medway.
Just one question really...How exactly will that work? I would have thought too many commercial interests would be affected...or have I just got the wrong end of the stick once again?
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
As I understand it an MCZ will be of variable size, lets say 1 Sq mile, the exclusion within that area could be anything from total water column exclusion, I.E. from sea bed to surface, so nothing is able to enter it. Or the MCZ could just exclude, say building a wind farm or dredging, the possibilities are endless. An MCZ will not cover the whole of the East Coast!
But you could find (possibly) the conservationists find a 'rare' sea creature in one of your estuaries and despite that boats have been sailing and anchoring in the area since Noah was a lad, that estuary becomes a total exclusion zone. Without you being in the decision process, you will not know.
With the greatest respect, I have enough to do watching my own patch and helping in the Studland issue to start looking at the Balanced Seas web site for details for the East Coast. I've told you all, you need to keep a weather eye on what could happen, the rest is up to you.
But you could find (possibly) the conservationists find a 'rare' sea creature in one of your estuaries and despite that boats have been sailing and anchoring in the area since Noah was a lad, that estuary becomes a total exclusion zone. Without you being in the decision process, you will not know.With the greatest respect, I have enough to do watching my own patch and helping in the Studland issue to start looking at the Balanced Seas web site for details for the East Coast. I've told you all, you need to keep a weather eye on what could happen, the rest is up to you.
Jomo
Well-Known Member
I think that young Galadriel is intimating that the other interests are well represented and capable of arguing their corner to shape any MCZ restrictions, but no one currently represents us... either on the South coast, or in our mud bowl.
FWIW I also tend to the view of AliM. As to the costs of policing, most of us are generally law abiding and would be uncomfortable deliberately setting out to break any new laws, especially if one or two examples were made, as recently happened with the prosecution of a motorist for flashing his lights to warn others of a speeding trap.
smth448
Well-Known Member
I have just been checking the minutes of the last meeting of the Balanced Seas people which covers the East Coast. The RYA was represented on the meetings which seem to be run by people at Kent University. The approach from the RYA rep was that "We can live with it" As far as I know nobody at my Yacht Club (Medway) has been consulted or even informed. I suspect that is the case across the board.
Areas they are looking at are the Medway Estuary, River Swale, Thames Estuary, Thanet, Blackwater, Crouch. The list goes on. We need to make sure these people are told of our concerns and that the RYA do not just go there and act like a doormat.
The MCZ in Studland Bay is just the start. If the guys on the South Coast lose then it could be the thin end of the wedge.
Areas they are looking at are the Medway Estuary, River Swale, Thames Estuary, Thanet, Blackwater, Crouch. The list goes on. We need to make sure these people are told of our concerns and that the RYA do not just go there and act like a doormat.
The MCZ in Studland Bay is just the start. If the guys on the South Coast lose then it could be the thin end of the wedge.
Seakindly
Well-Known Member
aye I'm lazy
So what, exactly, are the restrictions arising out of this in Studland? Can anyone point me to a detailed account? ta
So what, exactly, are the restrictions arising out of this in Studland? Can anyone point me to a detailed account? ta
smth448
Well-Known Member
Suggest you look at one of the many threads on Scuttlebut. Basically the MCZ there is going to ban anchoring in a popular anchorage in Studland bay to conserve seaweed and seahorses.
Seakindly
Well-Known Member
Thanks -just been reading through the thread. Now need to burrow somewhere to see what MCZ people are saying themselves. Looks like it's the safer-bit part of Studland they want to designate. Mind you -if it was stormy and me or the seahorses, I know where I'd drop my pick.
fergie_mac66
Well-Known Member
ahh but if its a toss up between a £1000 fine and the unknown , what then ?