Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Is this an accurate current position?
As far as I could understand last time I waded through some of the posts, a ban was possible but by no means a foregone conclusion.
Your not safe on the East Coast!
- Thread starter Sans Bateau
- Start date
Is this an accurate current position?
As far as I could understand last time I waded through some of the posts, a ban was possible but by no means a foregone conclusion.
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
No MCZ's have been confirmed yet, just areas that MAY become MCZ's. This will be the case all around the country, not just Studland. Areas that are 'possible' MCZ's are called Broad Areas of Interest (BAI). These are areas where one group or another has 'found' something that needs protecting and it is these BAI's that are being negotiated at the moment, the boundaries and content is subject to change.
I would suggest that as the RSPB has a foot hold on your estuaries that they could say that boats moving on the estuaries are causing distress to nesting sea birds, and because of this, boats should be band via a full water column exclusion. Dont dismiss this one, as there has been a big fight down at Torbay over a similar problem. Alternatively, it could be a case of some mud residing worm has been found and as such no anchoring would be allowed.
Balanced Seas are, like the other two areas, running way behind Finding Sanctuary in giving any idea of the BAI's let alone MCZ's.
I hope this helps.
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
True, but you cannot take the position that, 'it might be OK' so no need to worry. No MCZ has yet been confirmed yet.
jhr
Well-Known Member
This is my interpretation, so treat it with caution.
Studland is being regarded as a possible site for an MCZ. This doesn't imply anything, in the first instance, except that certain measures may be put in place following designation, which could include things like anchoring bans. These measures wouldn't (I think) require further regulation or consultation.
Iirc, Finding Sanctuary have stated that there is no intention to ban anchoring for purposes of refuge from the weather in Studland (or words to that effect). This gives me little comfort - are they implying that anchoring for other reasons will not be allowed, or have they just hurried out a placatory and meaningless statement in response to the fierce, and probably unexpected, reaction from the yachting community? Either way, it doesn't inspire any confidence in the rigour of their processes, or their concern (if any) for yachtsmen.
To repeat myself from a previous post - once the MCZs are designated, a lot of far reaching decisions can be taken by officials with no public accountability and potentially no expert knowledge of how a ban could affect yachstmen, whether through loss of an amenity or on safety grounds. This will be exactly the same set up as for National Parks and the results there have often been disastrous for local communities.
Purely imho
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
I understand that, and I don't see how why this would be implicit in my post. I wished purely to confirm the accuracy of the smth448's post.
Whilst we need to be vigilant, and ask questions, as far as the East Coast is concerned, it is hard to disagree or fight something that we as yet do not know what we may be faced with.
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Yes, not well written. What I was meaning was that I agreed with what you said, but we must not relax the campaign, anywhere.
As for your second paragraph, yes, the plans of Balanced Seas are very foggy, however, all of us within the Balanced Seas area cannot afford to sit by and wait until something is published. More of us who contact them the better, ask the question, "what are we going to be faced with?"
Koeketiene
Well-Known Member
Why do certain people always assume the worst? The more I read and think about the whole MCZ issue, the more it starts to look like just so much NIMBY-ism.
People agree that something needs to be done on so many issues; yet no-one wants a nuclear power plant, windfarm, or MCZ in their backyard.
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Guapa, if you are happy to allow single issue conservationists and bureaucrats who know nothing of the needs of the leisure boat owner to make decisions on your sailing future, do nothing.
But dont forget, "only dead fish go with the flow"
But dont forget, "only dead fish go with the flow"
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
My boat is based at Shotley, i'd like an MCZ that covers the rivers Orwell and Stour and extends seaward as far as Landguard Point (at least).
I'll get an email off to balanced seas right away.
Koeketiene
Well-Known Member
Bru
Well-Known Member
In two minds
Bit hesitant to post on such a thorney topic but having visited the various websites it appears that the *official* bodies are presenting quite a balanced view at this relatively early stage.
OK, there are the extremist conservation views and they could be a problem being vociferous and organised but until the details start to be fleshed out I'm struggling to disagree with the broad concept of Marine Conservation Zones.
Having just bought a boat which we'll be keeping on the East Coast, I don't want to see excessive restrictions on boating activities, obviously, but on the other hand nor do I want to see the marine environment inapropriately subjected to continuing development pressures (wind farms for example)
Studland Bay does seem to be a specific case where one organistation (or perhaps as I read it more significantly one individual) is generating a momentum towards an excessive and unneccesary degree of restriction on leisure activities and that needs countering but with that exception I find myself broadly supporting the concept of MCZ's and feel that it is going to be on the detailed restrictions that impact on leisure boaters where we need to be vigilant.
Ducks and runs for cover ...
Bru
Bit hesitant to post on such a thorney topic but having visited the various websites it appears that the *official* bodies are presenting quite a balanced view at this relatively early stage.
OK, there are the extremist conservation views and they could be a problem being vociferous and organised but until the details start to be fleshed out I'm struggling to disagree with the broad concept of Marine Conservation Zones.
Having just bought a boat which we'll be keeping on the East Coast, I don't want to see excessive restrictions on boating activities, obviously, but on the other hand nor do I want to see the marine environment inapropriately subjected to continuing development pressures (wind farms for example)
Studland Bay does seem to be a specific case where one organistation (or perhaps as I read it more significantly one individual) is generating a momentum towards an excessive and unneccesary degree of restriction on leisure activities and that needs countering but with that exception I find myself broadly supporting the concept of MCZ's and feel that it is going to be on the detailed restrictions that impact on leisure boaters where we need to be vigilant.
Ducks and runs for cover ...
Bru
Lucky Duck
Well-Known Member
They are one step ahead of you
(From the list of potential MCZ on scuttlebutt)
Sadly I fear that anybody expecting this whole process to hinder the spread of windfarms are going to be disappointed.
Jomo
Well-Known Member
I can't believe you might be intimating that the whole process could be skewed by cash rich vested interests
. you sir are a cynic!
Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
just for the record brup, I agree with you. In fact FullCircle and I were chatting about this the other night.... we agreed that the concept of MCZs is a good one, and anything that can be done to protect the marine environment should be supported whole heartedly.
As you point out, and as Galadriel has been urging, the care we need to take is to avoid the MCZs being used by single interest groups to curtail the activity of other single interest groups... eg us!
As you point out, and as Galadriel has been urging, the care we need to take is to avoid the MCZs being used by single interest groups to curtail the activity of other single interest groups... eg us!
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Please read some of the posts by oldharry, he through diligence has got into the confidence of some senior government officials. This process is not about going head to head with the conservationists, 'the other side'. It is a war of attrition finding who is who, getting to meetings and discussing what is planned and negotiating a favourable outcome.
One thing is for sure MCZ's are coming, and to a great extent they are a good thing. However, we do not want an ancient right to navigate be lost as a result of weak unsupported evidence put forward by conservationists which just suits their needs, evidence that is accepted as correct, because no one has challenged it.
One thing is for sure MCZ's are coming, and to a great extent they are a good thing. However, we do not want an ancient right to navigate be lost as a result of weak unsupported evidence put forward by conservationists which just suits their needs, evidence that is accepted as correct, because no one has challenged it.
FullCircle
Well-Known Member
I have engaged with the Balanced Seas management, and have invited them to dine with us at the East Coast Forum Fitting Up Supper, at our expense, and have offered a berth for the evening on Full Circle.
In return, they have agreed to lay out their vision, and flesh out what they think they mean (in the current definition) by restrictions of conservation.
They will be getting back to me later this week or early next week.
In return, they have agreed to lay out their vision, and flesh out what they think they mean (in the current definition) by restrictions of conservation.
They will be getting back to me later this week or early next week.
AliM
Well-Known Member
Well done, Jim - brilliant idea. I hope they accept, or if not, we can arrange something similar with them at another time.
I have been quite concerned by the antagonistic viewpoint of a minority of posters on this subject. We can all benefit if we work with these people - in actuality we all want the same things with only minor differences, so we want to focus on the differences in order to negotiate a solution that works for all of us.
I have been quite concerned by the antagonistic viewpoint of a minority of posters on this subject. We can all benefit if we work with these people - in actuality we all want the same things with only minor differences, so we want to focus on the differences in order to negotiate a solution that works for all of us.
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
Well said and well done Jim.
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Sounds good, and well done for organising this.
For those of us south of the river who cannot get to the function, perhaps somebody be able to write a few notes up from it? It is looks as though it could be a source of information that we are otherwise not getting.
I too wish that the idea about the whole process would get more support - the last several decades have been rife with miss-management of the North Sea, and this is a far better proposition for fish stock control. The idea that fish can recover if fisherman are allowed to keep landing all fish that are mature enough to re-produce, but are supposed to leave the ones that cannot is just plain daft. What is needed are areas where all wildlife and habitat is not habitually trawelled off the floor, and the fish above it allowed to reproduce. Why has it taken so long?
So long as the zones deliver what they first set out to do, and that the understandable fears of politics affecting decision making do not dominate the procedings, it can only be a good thing.
If 'Pyefleet', 'anchoring' and 'ban' appear in the same sentance then I may not be so upbeat over it all!
Love the new avatar.
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
It's clear that MCZ's are coming and in my mind, they are a good idea in principle. They are certainly something we all need, if done correctly.
We all see things on our travels around the East Coast that we know are just wrong and harmful, so we all know that something needs to be done. There may be areas where boating is causing some harm, i don't know. If, for example, there is an area where boats anchor and disturb breeding birds, then it would seem fair and proper to restrict anchoring in that area during breeding season. It wouldn't be appropriate to ban access totally, all year round though.
I said i'd like to see the Harwich Haven made an MCZ. The only condition of that would be to ban the use of nets within the area. Some of the fishermen might not like that idea, but how ridiculous is it to be using small trawlers in the Orwell and Stour.
Take The Wash, an area that is designated as a SSSI and apparently considered one of the most important ones in Europe. Many times i have sat quietly at anchor, watching beam trawlers scour the entire seabed, back and forth over several day, scouring every inch of seabed up to the river mouths. Or watching the suction dredgers hoovering ever once of life up and discarding all but a few Cockles. Not sure how the two most destructive forms of fishing fit in with such an important SSSI. I'd put money on this being an MCZ for sure.
We all see things on our travels around the East Coast that we know are just wrong and harmful, so we all know that something needs to be done. There may be areas where boating is causing some harm, i don't know. If, for example, there is an area where boats anchor and disturb breeding birds, then it would seem fair and proper to restrict anchoring in that area during breeding season. It wouldn't be appropriate to ban access totally, all year round though.
I said i'd like to see the Harwich Haven made an MCZ. The only condition of that would be to ban the use of nets within the area. Some of the fishermen might not like that idea, but how ridiculous is it to be using small trawlers in the Orwell and Stour.
Take The Wash, an area that is designated as a SSSI and apparently considered one of the most important ones in Europe. Many times i have sat quietly at anchor, watching beam trawlers scour the entire seabed, back and forth over several day, scouring every inch of seabed up to the river mouths. Or watching the suction dredgers hoovering ever once of life up and discarding all but a few Cockles. Not sure how the two most destructive forms of fishing fit in with such an important SSSI. I'd put money on this being an MCZ for sure.