Special Protection Areas in Wexford-will it affect Angling?

Same here.....

Dont even think I'll attend to be honest.

I've emailed the National Parks and Wildlife Service to try to get some more information "in writing". I'll post back here if/when I get a response.

Has anyone been in touch with the CFB? surely they would be aware if such a ban was on the cards, it seems that as there hasn't been anything confirmed other than the fact that there's a meeting we all need to calm down! Think logically about the possibility of a fishing ban in Wexford and the sourounding area, It wouldn't and won't happen in 100 lifetimes!

This is what was sent to landowners

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I just spoke again with the NPWS. Apparently Wexford Harbour and Slobs is already designated as an SAC and the current proposal is to designate as an SPA.

(This conflicts slightly with someone else I spoke to in the NPWS who said that the proposal was an expansion of the SPA.)

He confirmed that they have absolutely no interest in angling in relation to the designation as an SPA. It is not considered an issue at all.

He pointed out that fishing has been taking place in the harbour for years and the birds seem happy enough to keep coming back ...

I can confirm there are representatives from the IFSA and the Central Fisheries Board due to attend and observe proceedings tonight.

Didn't make it myself, unfortunately...
Stuck here in the office after hours :(

How did the meeting go????

how do every one
this eu proposal is no joke and could affect a lot of people in our chosen
past time.i only caught the first 30 mins ,the young fella wasn"t so interested in listening { time for bed }but from what i heard there is a lot of opposition to the proposal from local councilers ,co council and a huge turn out from the people of wexford.we still have till friday to object so do what you can between now and then,any further info would be greatly appreciated from anyone who attended and heard all of the speakers.... :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

As this case seems to have become a legal issue this thread should be locked or opened only to posters who's identy is known to the Mods.

Quotes from this site may be used on both sides for their own gain.

I moved a couple of posts (including one of my own) referring to a pending legal matter. The legal matter doesn't directly relate to the question of whether the SPA will effect angling.

J.

this eu proposal is no joke and could affect a lot of people in our chosen past time.

I would be careful about believing much of what was said last night. In my view the wider public are still being manipulated. There has been a lot of misinformation about the proposal, which is simply to designate areas around Wexford as SPAs under the EU birds directive.

A prominent speaker at the meeting last night called for the ban on commercial Bass fishing to be removed. Surely this is evidence that the people organising this protest do not represent the best interests of anglers.

Again, designation as an SPA will not effect angling. If you read back through the posts in this thread, you will see that there are already plenty of designated SPAs around the coastline, none of which prohibit angling.

Designation as an SPA will probably be good for angling because it offers some protection to marine habitats.

well said teacher agree with your post

Could some one from Wexford please tell me how Special Protection Areas
in Wexford will differ from Special Protection Areas all over Ireland and why no one has been stopped from fishing / walking / sailing / digging bait etc. any where in Ireland but for some reason every one things it will happen in Wexford.
[/u]

Could some one from Wexford please tell me how Special Protection Areas
in Wexford will differ from Special Protection Areas all over Ireland and why no one has been stopped from fishing / walking / sailing / digging bait etc. any where in Ireland but for some reason every one things it will happen in Wexford.
[/u]

jim,,,
not this hombray!!!!
fish and bait til i die :shock: :evil:

'Only 50 years left' for sea fish
There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major scientific study.
Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the rate of decline is accelerating.
Writing in the journal Science, the international team of researchers says fishery decline is closely tied to a broader loss of marine biodiversity.
But a greater use of protected areas could safeguard existing stocks.
"The way we use the oceans is that we hope and assume there will always be another species to exploit after we've completely gone through the last one," said research leader Boris Worm, from Dalhousie University in Canada.
This century is the last century of wild seafood
Steve Palumbi, from Stanford University in California, one of the other scientists on the project, added: "Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood."
Spanning the seas
This is a vast piece of research, incorporating scientists from many institutions in Europe and the Americas, and drawing on four distinctly different kinds of data.
Graph of fish decline.
Catch records from the open sea give a picture of declining fish stocks.
In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse, defined as a decline to less than 10% of their original yield.
Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are not bringing the world's fleets bigger returns - in fact, the global catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003.
Historical records from coastal zones in North America, Europe and Australia also show declining yields, in step with declining species diversity; these are yields not just of fish, but of other kinds of seafood too.
Zones of biodiversity loss also tended to see more beach closures, more blooms of potentially harmful algae, and more coastal flooding.
We should protect biodiversity, and it does pay off through fisheries yield
Experiments performed in small, relatively contained ecosystems show that reductions in diversity tend to bring reductions in the size and robustness of local fish stocks. This implies that loss of biodiversity is driving the declines in fish stocks seen in the large-scale studies.
The final part of the jigsaw is data from areas where fishing has been banned or heavily restricted.
These show that protection brings back biodiversity within the zone, and restores populations of fish just outside.
"The image I use to explain why biodiversity is so important is that marine life is a bit like a house of cards," said Dr Worm.
"All parts of it are integral to the structure; if you remove parts, particularly at the bottom, it's detrimental to everything on top and threatens the whole structure.
"And we're learning that in the oceans, species are very strongly linked to each other - probably more so than on land."
Protected interest
What the study does not do is attribute damage to individual activities such as over-fishing, pollution or habitat loss; instead it paints a picture of the cumulative harm done across the board.
Even so, a key implication of the research is that more of the oceans should be protected.
Modern fishing methods such as purse seine nets are very efficient
But the extent of protection is not the only issue, according to Carl Gustaf Lundin, head of the global marine programme at IUCN, the World Conservation Union.
"The benefits of marine-protected areas are quite clear in a few cases; there's no doubt that protecting areas leads to a lot more fish and larger fish, and less vulnerability," he said.
"But you also have to have good management of marine parks and good management of fisheries. Clearly, fishing should not wreck the ecosystem, bottom trawling being a good example of something which does wreck the ecosystem."
But, he said, the concept of protecting fish stocks by protecting biodiversity does make sense.
"This is a good compelling case; we should protect biodiversity, and it does pay off even in simple monetary terms through fisheries yield."
Protecting stocks demands the political will to act on scientific advice - something which Boris Worm finds lacking in Europe, where politicians have ignored recommendations to halt the iconic North Sea cod fishery year after year.
Without a ban, scientists fear the North Sea stocks could follow the Grand Banks cod of eastern Canada into apparently terminal decline.
"I'm just amazed, it's very irrational," he said.
"You have scientific consensus and nothing moves. It's a sad example; and what happened in Canada should be such a warning, because now it's collapsed it's not coming back."

I am not sure of the outcome of the proposals but i do think that one Commercial "Fisherman" taking 93 ton of crab from Wexford Harbour (all in the name of Whelk Bait), could have some kind of effect on the local wildlife also.

Nothing about that then from the do gooder's EH.


Or maybe i am wrong in thinking that no other creature rely on them as a food source.

Why protect bass or any other animal just to starve them.

What dose 93 ton of crab look like??????

Jeeze- how long did it take him to get 93 ton? Hasn't this being happening in other estuaries as well? Someone mentioned Youghal in the past.

Dear Minister Smith, & Minister Sargent

I write this letter to make you aware of a serious situation that exists in the Suir Estuary. I am pretty certain that this affects other areas
in and around the coast as well. It involves the removal of small shore crabs from the food chain, this will result in the complete fall off
of fish in the area because this is the main item in the food chain , for fish along our coast. These shore crabs are being taken without any open or closed season,
in fact they have are been taken in the height of their season. Female crabs carrying eggs, small and large crabs too, because there is no size limit on what can be taken,
no open or closed season or no maximum or minimum amount that can be taken from the estuary.

This is serious, similar has happened before in the North Sea, where fish stocks and bird stocks were severely damaged, when too many sand eels were taken.
We are doing the same thing to the food chain, along the Irish coast. I would ask you as a matter of urgency, to have a look at this matter, I am not sure if the number
of crab are being recorded,because they are being off loaded at small harbours along the estuary and taken directly to the company in Dxxxxxx Exxx, which is
exporting them.

Please investigate this as soon as possible, as I think it is going to totally destroy the inshore fishing industry.

Regards,

James Mc Cartan ( XXXXXXX )

90 XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
Waterford
086-26xxxxx

Dear James,

This is to confirm that I have received your email regarding the above and that I have put down a Parliamentary Question in the matter. I will be back in contact with you again immediately the reply is to hand.

With best regards.

Yours sincerely,


BXXXX XXXXXX T.D.