Irish Wildlife trust article - sustainable seas

Interesting perspective here - http://iwt.ie/what-we-do/sustainable-seas/

I quote - In fact, within Europe, Ireland is among the [color=#BF0000]poorest performing nations for providing socio-economic data
(www.nwwrac.org/Meetings/Meetings_ENG/Na ... 27&languag e=English). In our opinion, these knowledge gaps need to be addressed (by bodies such as the Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit within the Data Collection Framework) before a meaningful and integrated marine plan with real benefits to local communities can be drawn up. These baseline data would also help to monitor any improvements in the welfare of coastal communities resulting from measures that are being implemented.[/color]

from here http://iwt.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/0 ... Wealth.pdf

They're extremly dangerous to anglers:

There is significant potential to marry the goals of marine conservation and
tourism e.g. by creating MPAs that exclude all fishing or commercial
activity in favour of snorkelling, diving, kayaking, sea bird watching and
other non-destructive activities.

See your fav marks designated within an MPA and you are banned from fishing them.

This is extremly worrying. These guys have an agenda, are organised and active. Most of what they call for would align with what we as anglers would want, but that quote from their submission worries me greatly.

Where's our national organisation to respond to this?

Angling is not mentioned in any aspect that I can see on their site or submission.

We can't have it every way. Any suggestion of an MPA should be welcomed with open arms in my opinion, even if anglers can't fish in them. Surely these MPAs would be fish stock growing areas and when there's no room for the growing population of fish within the MPA where will they go?

Catch my drift?

John D.

I do agree John, in certain circumstances - there's a common thread/s running/emerging through at least three topics in this section at the moment.

Angling is not mentioned in any aspect that I can see on their site or submission.

See that quote of theirs I put up, Jim? Why isn't angling mentioned alongside the likes of snorkelling, diving, kayaking, sea bird watching? Is it implicit that angling is lumped in with "all fishing or commercial activity"?

In fact, it's pretty explicit, now that I look at it again: "All fishing" covers RSA.

They want to create marine parks that would ban angling.

That's the long and short of it - they want to ban angling in certain areas.

Leave that out of it, and I'd be quite happy to support what they're trying to achieve. But not at the cost of a ban on angling in certain areas.

I'm going to contact somebody at the organisation as I'm interested to to determine what both you and I have loosely interpreted T - I have noticed that Ed Fahy recently made a presentation for the organisation.

I think when you look at the site and the people involved irrespective of many things its a very powerful presence.

Strangford Lough was set up as the first UK marine nature reserve but angling has not been affected at all. It spelt the end of commercial trawling in the loughs for scallops and the only commercial boats are now lobster, crab and prawn (Nephrops) pot fishermen. There are some hand collected scallops. Winkle picking is common and there are rumours that controls may be brought in due to the damage to the shoreline by gangs leaving stretches with all the rocks upturned. Angling is promoted and there has been a sea trout enhancement scheme which has resulted in increased interest in this species and a number of professional guides establishing in the area. So this approach would be welcome.

I know the Italian coast of Liguria and Tuscany where there are huge marine reserves and angling is common everywhere.

The impact of anglers is minuscule. Someone should keep a log of the fish caught in all competitions this year and if this is coupled with the number of rods and duration. With this information a measure of the impact of angling could be established. A catch and release figure could be entered into the calculations to estimate impact per rod in non competition angling. We should have this information to ward off wild claims that could be targeted at us by those who want to limit anglers. I would be happy to help with collation and analyses of data.

A worry about here in that in the interest of retaining votes the politicians try to to be all things to all men. Some may remember that the salmon season used to continue until about the 10th October, but when they limited the drift net season the anglers lost the days in October to placate the commercial interests. Will this happen to placate the commercial interests who want to fish for bass? If it did the anglers would leave an area which would result in Nirvana for illegal netting of bass and sea trout.

It all depends really on what they propose to set up, doesn't it?

I've first-hand experience with two such marine reserves in my angling travels around the world. bearing in mind i was a tourist angler who had his fishing already lined up, the presence of the reserves had no impact on me. Had I been local, they would have.

In Mabrui, Kenya there was no fishing permitted inside the reserve for anyone, local or tourist. Didn't bother me, I was waaaay offshore everyday chasing Bills.

In the Skeleton Coast National Park in Namibia you weren't allowed to fish unless you paid a permit to enter the Park. Didn't bother me, I had plenty of fantastic fishing outside the Park. But anyone see the tenous connection to my rather tounge-in-cheek posting on the other thread.....?

i wonder will we feel the same way about this if cork harbour was a designated mpa or perhaps a sixty mile stretch of wexford and waterford .i suppose we could start showing visitors our bass by snorkeling and wrap up the evening with a story telling session in the empty local hotel ,about how we used to catch bass and fish off the shore .

Anecdotal (I hate that word with a passion, it's another way of saying give in or do nothing) evidence suggests that due to the fragmented and therefore weak nature of sea angling politics decisions are made by burocrats who do not understand the sport. So yes, where MPA's have been set up to date or are being considered presently, it is feasible to suggest that ignorance of the fact has led to sea angling being lumped with fishing and so banned as a practice.

Proper representation by professional angler/lobbyists could and most likely would change this status quo. Ignorance leads to bad law, explanation of the true facts can negate that problem.

Example, lets say that an area I love to fish "The Beara" was designated an MPA. Could I fish in a supposed no go area for commercial fishing. The answer is yes, maybe not for all species and certain methods might have to be foregone also, but overall the area still could be open for business.

How: Catch and release using single barbless hooks and methods that firmly put the iron in the fishes mouth or scissors and not in the throat or gut. Allied to proper handling methods angling could continue for a number of key species within the MPA. Pollack, Mullet, Mackerel, Bass, Wrasse immediately come to mind. Methods applied would vary from jelly worming and float fishing to plugs, spinners, soft plastic jigs, and flies. Any regular angler reading this post knows that all those species will be caught in the mouth, lips, or scissors using the above methods.

It just takes vision and lateral thinking applied to modern PR and communications to change perception in an honest, true, and positive way. There is no need to be negative about MPA's and angling, it's just a matter of communicating correctly and professionally.

i wonder will we feel the same way about this if cork harbour was a designated mpa or perhaps a sixty mile stretch of wexford and waterford .i suppose we could start showing visitors our Bass by snorkeling and wrap up the evening with a story telling session in the empty local hotel ,about how we used to catch Bass and fish off the shore .

Thing is, it would be a mighty pain in the ass for sure... but the fish do not stay within this area... their population will explode and spill to other area's and we will fish these area's and reap the benefits of the MPA... in that regard it may outweigh the cons (just hypothetical mind you... we'll have to see the final work).

yes all these new ideas been put forward are brilliant and we should welcome them with open arms and were now seeing the promised land. until we realise we have to pay through the nose for it.not the commercials who have done all the damage.they can move out further away from the protected area, we cant,and who will pay for the new protection squad why your permits will and your new rod licence will.and the first protected areas are the harbours.they will be out of bounds to all anglers. so while your giving out about greystones or the fortyfoot been a no go area.think hard about what your giving away .our sport is under attack from 3 sides .firstly the eu with this marine bill. 2ndly the wildlife trust who have brought us anglers presents like seal santuaries. and 3rdly from within our own community by anglers with hidden agendas and involved with this bill only for there own gains. god the futures so bright il have to wear shades

Now now, calm down twinkle. I haven't yet seen anything to support your third assertion.

There is a lot of ignorance about sea angling out there Twinkle, but that is the fault of sea anglers because they haver never came together and engaged politically. Unfortunately if you want to get anything done in this world you have to get involved in that area. As they say keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

As for sea anglers with agendas in it for the own gain, please enlighten me I'm curious.