A better deal for our seas

Mark 7 Comments

Claude Joseph Vernet[see page for license], via Wikimedia Commons
Claude Joseph Vernet, via Wikimedia Commons
I’m heading for the London Eye to meet up with hundreds of other folk to express our disappointment with the English government’s feeble (lack of) progress on Marine Conservation Zones and marine protection in general.

Will I see you there at 11am? I hope so – say hello if you see me.

I’ll blog about it on Wednesday.

Dave Pyper [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Dave Pyper [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
[registration_form]

7 Replies to “A better deal for our seas”

  1. Mark,

    Having been fortunate enough to grow up in a small Welsh seaside town and having ‘messed around’ in rock pools when knee-high to a grasshopper and later enjoyed bird watching, fishing, beachcombing and wildfowling, I am fully in favour of conserving our fabulous coastline habitat as well as the birds, animals, fish, moluscs, crustaceans, plants, etc. etc. that rely on this habitat for their survival.

    Habitat destruction, as well as harmful activities like over-fishing certain species of fish, have to be controlled in the sea just as much as they should be on dry land.

    However, can you tell me whether the plans for Marine Conservation Zones still include a ban on all ‘extractive activities’, which, at least at the time of the first consultation, included all forms of fishing, wildfowling and even stopping children exploring rock pools (as I did and as I would like my children to be able to do)?

    If these proposals are still an integral part of MCZs, then I would be totally opposed to them. Sustainable activities, such as fishing, wildfowling and children exploring rock pools surely pose no threat to marine conservation. If these activities are prohibited, then what MCZs would be doing is preserving parts of our coastline in aspic as opposed to conserving them, further turning Britain’s wild landcape into a ‘do not touch’ theme park.

    1. Gethin – given the weakness of protected areas on land it would beggar belief that they would be stronger in the marine environment! I’d agree that sensible measures are what we should be aiming for – but then there has been a huge amount of consultation gone into this process already so those wrinkles ought to be fairly flattened out by now.

  2. Wish I could join you to say hello Mark.
    Just so happens I’ll be in that exact part of the world today (not often I’m there) looking down on right on top of you from one of the very tall buildings over the Thames – with not a fair amount of jealousy I’m sure.

    I hope you, Hugh, Barny McGrew… have a good (and productive) day.

  3. I would agree with Gethin. For example, Bardsey Island off the Lleyn peninsula must have its grassland habitats maintained in a certain way to support the Choughs that breed there. The small number of people who farm the island sensitively cannot survive purely on the (sheep) farming and fish offshore for lobster, crab etc. If they were to be prevented from doing this they would have to leave and the island would become unattractive to Choughs. I’m in support of the MCZs as long as they are flexible enough to allow these small-scale extractive activities as and where there is a need for them to support broader conservation.

  4. Unfortunately I was unable to be there with you today being in another part of London on work business. However I was thinking of the march and wishing you the best of luck with the march and with the campaign. Interestingly, on the train home, I have been reading in Le Monde newspaper about the incorrect labelling of fish in the USA whereby over fished species and species in danger are labelled wrongly as more common types of fish. Carole

  5. Did y’all break step over Westminster Bridge? There was a lot of vibration on the Jubilee Line.

Comments are closed.