Trust claims high support for Marine Conservation Zones
3:00pm Sunday 10th February 2013 in News
A new petition from conservation organisation, The Wildlife Trusts claims it has “high public support” for Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), one of which is recommended for part of Falmouth Bay The 250,000-signature strong petition from The Wildlife Trusts, dubbed “Petition Fish”, was presented to Environment Minister Richard Benyon this week.
Cornwall Wildlife Trust, which collected 4,000 signatures locally, now plans to meet with local MPs to push for the 13 MCZs recommended for waters off the Cornish coast.
A marine poll commissioned by the trusts also showed 92 per cent of 1,100 respondents were in favour of protecting nature “in circumstances where sea life is threatened by commerical activity such as industrial fishing or dredging– even if this means putting restrictions on where commercial activities can take place.”
MCZs were originally conceived to protect plants, animals and habitats from the potentially damaging activities, whilst mostly allowing “sustainable activity” to continue.
However, opponents have raised concerns that the zones would restrict recreational boating and damage local economies.
The government’s current public consultation on MCZs closes on Sunday, March 31.
seamus48 says...
1:07am Mon 11 Feb 13
As was found at Studland Bay in Dorset with the whole eel-grass and the seahorse protection saga, the media sound bites and dramatic posturing by the most vocal eco-spokespersons do not always stand up to close scientific scrutiny. That's why the so-called evidence, (that cost in the region of £700,000 to produce I think) was not accepted by the Government and the temporary ban on boats anchoring was lifted. The evidence, albeit obtained at great expense to various eco groups, just didn’t stand up to scrutiny under the scientific spotlight despite the media campaigns.
I think that the case for each potential MCZ should be examined in an impartial and professional manner with the decisions rightly balancing the needs of the natural environment with the needs, livelihoods and economic and social requirements of the local population too.
I'm really not against MCZs by the way, in fact I support them in principle, I have been involved in international marine research for over 20 years and am a fanatical diver and sailor. I just think the real value of any evidence produced should be based solely on its unbiased findings, not on how much it cost someone to produce, or how loudly some factions choose to shout about it in the media. It should be strong enough to stand up for itself and not need to be ‘spun’ to people.
The chap from the RSPB on Spotlight several times last week who took every opportunity to spout on about how MCZs would have prevented the sea birds getting contaminated along the south coast proves my point. I think the current thinking is that the contamination was actually caused by a vessel discharging mineral oil somewhere in the channel or the Western Approaches? How would the establishment of a particular MCZ have stopped that despicable event? Of course it wouldn’t, but let’s not miss the chance to get a sound-bite on TV to promote our own particular political or ecovangelical agenda eh?
I think we should let the facts speak for themselves and let the decision makers do so in a truly independent manner without being brow-beaten by persons or groups with their own vested interests.