ArmChairCivvy wrote:but in this instance it was about 'sovereignty'
Which my reply addressed. It may not have been a helpful reply for your point of view, but it certainly addressed the 'sovereignty' subject
ArmChairCivvy wrote:We just did it, with DG... which appears in this post
Yes - that was my point
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Well, you have prescribed the answer for Pitcairn
No - I didn't (though I like the image), because there is no "answer for Pitcairn". It has a failing population (down to less than 30 people of working age, out of c. 58 on the island - around 300 moved to Norfolk Island in the 60's or 70's IIRC) and the only harbour is capable of handling a couple of longboats. No chance of building any sort of local enforcement capability.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:The zone is described as 'no-take'.
- is there an exception for the islanders, on a small scale?
- they have, prior to this current initiative, been praised for the sustainability of the lobster 'industry'
The MPZs are not uniform. There are zones where only local fishing is permitted (up to a certain scale - they have trawlers too), there are zones where no fishing is permitted (full on conservation). I believe some also allow controlled commercial fishing in specific areas (I guess that's the bit that actually generates some revenue for the community, rather than subsistence fishing)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill