1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Proposed Marine Conservation Zones Announced By Net Gain

Discussion in 'Sea Fishing Forum - Shore, Boat & Kayak Fishing' started by Baramundi Bob, Nov 2, 2010.

Tags:
  1. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    In a little publicised meeting held in the Fleece this evening, Net Gain's representative Peter Hansell met with a small group of anglers to discuss the proposed Marine Conservation Zones.

    Maps showing the proposed zones were circulated. Net gain were unable to say for definite what would or would not be allowed in the zone, however Mr Hansell did say he personally felt there would be no restrictions on angling at the current time. When questioned Mr Hansell said he was unsure if bait collecting would become a restricted practice in the zones.

    The proposed areas will be shown to all interested parties before going to a "Scientific Advisory Panel" for final approvement prior to being past to The Marine Management Organisation who will work on the required legislation to make it all happen.

    The maps showed a large area of 100 X 150 miles at the Dogger Bank to be set aside as a MCZ. when questioned Mr Hansell was unable to say if this zone would be a no trawling zone, and was unable to answer a specific question on the large scale trawling of sandeel in that area. Other smaller areas were also highlighted. There was very little mention of the shoreline other than a stretch of coast from Robin Hoods Bay To Goldsborough which was clearly marked as an MCZ from the shore out to roughly 3 miles.
     
  2. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    On a personal note I would say it was a waste of time. Even at this late date Net Gain are unwilling to say what is going to happen within the zones. Looking at it objectively, the meeting tonight showed the lads a map with boxes drawn on it, and we are still pretty much in the dark despite the fact these zones will become law in the New Year.
     
  3. DB2009

    DB2009 Whitby Fishing Forum _ Simply The Best

    Astonishing isnt it!
     
  4. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Nothing amazes me David. The daft thing is, quite a few people will come away from the meeting thinking they have taken part in something. If ever there was an example of a case of "Bull$hit baffles brains" then this is it. You have to take a step back, look at what happened, and work out just what is being said. When you take the objective viewpoint you realise that you've just been shown a map full of boxes, but apparently this is "Consultation".
     
  5. paulyfish

    paulyfish New Member

  6. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    The marine bill will over rule any previous law. To be honest I don't see any imminent threat to our fishing, but Net gain are also not playing a fair game by not saying what is in and what is out of the equation.
     
  7. seaurchinmick

    seaurchinmick New Member

    I Agree in full with you Glenn

    we were called there to view proposed areas with no content attached :laugh:
    and then asked to give our views and sign a form to prove we have all seen the "proposed sites"

    when net gain are disbanded and formed into another body with a new name future management teams will use these empty and little publicised meetings to explain how we have all seen and signed our names (notice our notes were on separate sheets you will not see them again) only our signatures alongside the maps :angry:
     
  8. Watersplatter

    Watersplatter New Member

    I wouldn't worry too much about it at this stage, years ago RHB was designated as a Marine conservation area, we weren't supposed to gather bait, you could fish but not dig worms or crab, we carried on doing both and as far as i'm aware nothing happened, how can they police such a vast area, I can really see Pete Hansell getting up and down Hawsker. :no: :no:
     
  9. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    The annoying bit is Les that Pete Hansell is on a hell of a salary to do nothing at all, whats worse is its at the tax payers expense. Net Gain are governemnet funded and Pete Hansell represents the government. I know the man dont like me, but I suppose thats life. I do make his life a little difficult, but basically hes getting paid to do absolutely nothing, other than show us maps full of boxes. In these days of financial hardship how can the government justify paying a man to show us a map full of boxes. Especially a man representing government who cant keep his cool in a public meeting when asked questions he finds difficult, even going as far as to make threatening remarks about seeing him when he is no longer on the net gain payroll.
     
  10. dan the pollock

    dan the pollock Rockling

    What a waste of time the meeting was apart from some light entertainment.

    The thing is tho that the maps didnt correspond with each other.

    There was one with all of the areas with the habitats of interest on and another with the proposed MCZs on but the MCZs didnt line up with the habitats of interest.

    For example, there is to be a proposed MCZ from Bay ness end to sandsend ness end but when you looked on the map to see what habitat was there, it was a blank space with no habitat interest stated. So where has this proposed MCZ come from???????

    Also Mr Hansel said MCZs would not affect anglers, so why was he in Whitby Angling Supplies about 6 weeks ago looking for anglers to interview for the MCZ project? If it wont affect us, why do you need to interview us?
     
  11. Watersplatter

    Watersplatter New Member

    It may be that Pete is trying to justify his existance and prove to his employers that he has ticked some boxes. He's not a bad bloke at heart. He does tend to get stressed easily but with his history its perfectly understandable and like I said how can anyone police it. The other side of the coin where angling permits may be introduced for these areas which are bound to warrant a fee of some description.
     
  12. newdave

    newdave Guest

    OK Guys I was at that last meeting & was waiting for the official version before i posted, it arrived today but due to work commitments i haven't had time to read it and make a post. but looking at this thread its obviously a waste of time as like most of our politics its much easier to sit on your arse then condemn it all as bollocks than actually be constructive.
    A good few of the angling lads put a lot of hard work into it and fought a battle with the pressure groups desperate to get the whole of Flamborough designated with the aim of making it a no take zone. Is it really worth it as our informed readers on hear will rubbish whatever is done by others without ever contributing sod all themselves.

    I exclude you from the ranks of the uninformed Glenn, but you must see that this is going to happen & its better to fight it constructivly than sit back and moan.

    Rant over :angry:
     
  13. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Hi Dave,

    Im still of the opinion that the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of input or otherwise and that the whole thing would have been better left well alone. The government are playing a very long and underhand game on this one and I dont believe for one moment that what happens in 2012 is the end of it They are playing a perfect game of deception. Theyve created a load of "Jobs for the boys" other wise known as "Consultation" Look at it objectively:

    They set up an external agency bankrolled from government coffers - ie net gain. Immediately focus is taken off the government. They recruit a group of consultees (The hub or what ever they are called). They (Net gain) meet with the Hub but are unable to give any substantial information other that "Something is going to happen, we dont know what, or where, but its going to happen). The Hub fired up by disgruntled members of the public complain about the lack of information. Net gain representatives say "Dont blaim us, blaim our bosses" You then try to speak to the bosses, only to find out that no-one quite knows who the boss is. Net gain then blaim DEFRA (Passing the buck).

    Time progresses. Net gain employees are then sent out with a multitude of maps containing boxes. Again the available information is minimal. The same questions are asked. The same replies come back "We dont know what is going to happen in the boxes, but it will happen in 2012". Displeased members of the public are not happy with the lack of information. Net gain employee (Ie Pete Hansell) hasnt a clue whats going on, again the buck is passed "Its my bosses fault". Further questions are asked, buck is passed again, this time the buck stops at the door of the marine management organisation (MMO). So where are the marine management organisation at these public meetings ? If its now their baby, then why arent they at the public meetings along with defra to answer our questions.

    Peter Hansel then distributes a piece of paper for every attendee to add their name to. Job done. Were stitched up and weve signed to say so.

    All of this does not include the attitude of Net Gain employees who get very defensive when asked questions they dont like, even descending to the level of making veiled threats in public meetings when asked questions that make them feel uncomfortable. Not to forget the Net Gain claim that "Anglers sell their fish".

    I understand that the NFFO (Commercial fishermens organisation) are mounting a legal case against net gain. Basically the case will be based around the undemocratic nature of the consultation. Not often do I agree with the commercials but I think they have it right on this one and I say good luck to them. Net Gain have been a complete and utter shambles. Individuals on a get rich quick scheme at the taxpayers expense.
     
  14. Watersplatter

    Watersplatter New Member

    Dave,
    From one of the assumed ill informed, Pete Hansell from Net Gain is a personal friend and has kept me informed of all Net Gains targets from the get go, I will argue with you as I argue with him. IMHO its a total waste of time and money that would be better spent fighting the Euro Common Fisheries Policy especially in regards to sandeel fishing. As I tell Pete take a look at the shoreline around you, its cleaner than its ever been (Whitby area ) the edibles are back in force, velvets numbers seem to have stabalised, more Bass than we have known, Billets galore, Pollack everywhere good numbers of Lobsters.Where the only downside has been lack of cod which Net Gain cannot do anything about. I realise I'm only going on about one specific area and have no knowledge about Flambrough etc. But you only have to look at all the jargon that spews forth SSSi's MPA's MCZ etc that its costing a fortune..

    Cheers for now
    Les
     
  15. newdave

    newdave Guest

    Its costing the EU a fortune as they are funding most of it, my understanding is that we are obliged to designate MCZ's otherwise the UK goverment will be fined for non compliance. & whilst i can acept that the process is a political process & they want to point to a consulation to justify the the nature of the final descision, simply turning our backs on it & moaning is not a solution. as for the trawler men they had a different agenda from the start with a planned walk out & non participation. whilst they organise there finacial muscle into a legal challenge.
    Ask yourself if we have the same agenda as them ?

    As to the recommended areas, they each have justification & are largely the course of least resistance, when i get a spare moment i will post up the stuff i recieved yesterday which I believe gives detailed reasoning.

    Im not saying its brilliant but i do get pissed off with our moaning brit mentality, just like the current economic situation where we are deap in the shit, but all we hear is what we shouldn't be doing but rarely a suggestion of alternatives.

    At the end of the day I have been going to these meetings and giving up my time to try & ensure we have some influence, if the majority of you would prefer that I dont do that, I do have better ways to spend that time so just speak up.
     
  16. Watersplatter

    Watersplatter New Member

    No Dave
    You should keep going, I can't put a reasoned argument together, I just spit dummy out and say what I think, which sometimes does not go down well with figures of authority. I just cant do with all the political speak. Someone articulate has to stand/sit in these meetings and try to make the best of what is sometimes an unbalanced argument and look after our corner.

    Good luck.
    Les
     
  17. mattylamb

    mattylamb Rockling

    that rules Dave out then :laugh:


    seriously though, we do need articulate people to represent us at these meetings but when these organizations wont tell you what they actually have planned for therse zones it gets frustrating.
     
  18. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Nothing personal Dave. But Ive never shied away from saying I would be far happier if people stayed well clear (A point I made long before your good self decided to get involved). Angling has survived well enough without politics for a long time, and I still believe firmly that politics needs angling far more than angling needs politics. Im sure you have our very best interests at heart but Im still convinced that being involved in the process does us more harm than good. I have a long memory which goes right back to the start of all this, when several well meaning individuals (Some site members) headed up the Inshore Fisheries Working Group. Yes they had our best interests at heart, and the original work they did looked promising for anglers, however what become of it all showed just what a waste of their time it had been - Namely the Recreational Sea Angling Strategy which proposed A Sea Angling Licence, Bag Limits and a whole raft of angling restrictions in return for Slipways, Toilets and Lectures on Hook Sizes (I kid you not). Not one single mention of stopping commercial overfishing, or indeed commercial illegal fishing. So we were to trade rights dating back to before the magna carte in return for nothing of value in terms of fish stocks (Something which should have been top of the list, not toilets or slipways). Everything I have seen since then convinces me that nothing has changed. Government wants a piece of angling because it will create them an income and keep civil servants in jobs.

    As I say, nothing personal Dave, your a great bloke, but I dont think getting caught up in this nonsense, does us any good whatsoever.
     
  19. bigcod

    bigcod Rockling

    I attended that meeting and to put bluntly it was a pile of doggy poo we were shown areas of importance that might have some sort of restrictions in the future all that meeting was about was to say we have shown you the area at risk to you now you have been told now wait for the bullets to arrive those maps might as well have been posted on the bridgend notice board or in the whitby gazette the meeting told you nothing in real terms it was nothing to what i expected and that probably goes for 99% of the people there.

    paul.
     
  20. DB2009

    DB2009 Whitby Fishing Forum _ Simply The Best

    I think the public would like to see Strict Proof of evidence that these areas are necessary.
    The notion that the EU directs that we designate these areas is interesting and perhaps it would be prudent in this financial climate to stop paying them the millions of pounds each day and take back control of our waters and indeed our other interests as well?
     

Share This Page