Rhys Perry
Senior Member
As always the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, clean rivers with some barbel, but not the 20lbers fat on boilies and pellets as the otters would soon take them out.
-
You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...
Angling Times otter article
- Thread starter Steve Lewis
- Start date
Lawrence Breakspear
Senior Member
Big Picture Two Predation: An Ecological Disaster
The numerous sources we have drawn on are acknowledged elsewhere but without the published results of their research, and the pictures we have been able to draw on (for some of which we are unable to acknowledge the source), ‘Predation: An Ecological Disaster’ would not have been possible.
www.thepredationactiongroup.co.uk
Terry Simner
Senior Member & Supporter
Well for your argument to be (logically) valid @Damian Kimmins , would you agree that one can only affirm that something stated as fact is actually untrue if, you yourself know what the truth actually is? Surely you agree with that as a balanced posit?
You insist that what Lawrence states as factual is actually untrue. So what is the truth Damian? Tell us please.
For example, could you answer simple questions such as :
- Has the increase in number of otters on small to medium rivers in the UK had a positive or negative effect on the UK's barbel population?
- Do otters kill fish by catching them, eating a small portion of that caught fish, and then leaving the remains to rot?
- What is the main predator of large fish in UK rivers?
- Has the identity of the predator (in #3) changed in the last (say) 25 years ?
Please?
Damian Kimmins
Senior Member
We are not going to get very far with that one, Terry, namely for it being incumbent on the individual who would state things to suggest they are facts to prove that what they are stating are facts. It is not for everyone else to disprove!
My argument is valid because Lawrence has not proven that they are facts! He will not be able to prove they are facts. He will not even be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is correct in his assumptions, quite assuredly because he generalises too much. A vast number of anglers' experiences will contrast his because they fish different rivers, experiences which are considered by him to be utterly irresponsible.
Terry Simner
Senior Member & Supporter
Your 'slip' is showing (again) Damian ... you cannot say something is 'not a fact' unless you know 'what in fact' is true. All you might reasonably posit is "That has not, as yet, been proved to be the case". The best, and by far the wisest thing, you, personally, can say is "I don't know" (try Wittgenstein instead of Tzu eh)
Re. your "A vast number of anglers' experiences will contrast his because they fish different rivers". Where did you get that pearl of wisdom from ... is that a 'fact' of yours? Which small to medium sized rivers that have seen a large rise in the number of otters has not seen a large reduction in barbel numbers? Name me one or two Damian. And, whilst you're at it, have a blind stab at the four questions I put to you.
N.b.. the only point on which we appear to agree is your comment "We are not going to get very far with that one". Well no, we probably won't ... as you'll avoid giving answers, other than "No, that's not true/factual"
Ian Lovett
Senior Member & Supporter
It is not just waste water treatment chemicals that end up in rivers. What about household detergents and other household products. And that is a fact! Why don't you try tasting Trent water? I have!!! Must be fooking mental.
Steve Lewis
Senior Member
That covers about 90% of beer in the UK doesn't it?
...not sure who that answer supports/defends
Ady Brayshaw
Senior Member & Supporter
Coagulants and flocculants chemicals used in the water treatment industry are not the odours that I can smell on the Trent Damian. I am certain that they are detergents. Not too unpleasant with a whiff of washing machine powder as well. The non-tidal weirs also used to foam. Most certainly odour evidence of chemical pollutants. Yet, thankfully, the Trent is a very prolific river for specimen Barbel.
Damian Kimmins
Senior Member
You are really counting your chickens Terry!
Something is not a fact unless it has proven to be the case! Hope you'll agree with that.
Lawrence Breakspear has proven nothing, therefore what he supposes is not fact! In fact what purports to be facts can be dismissed just by looking at the pages of BFW, even this thread!
That, my friend is a supposition, and when it is supported by no evidence, it stays so! Saying it is a fact does not make it one! For my experience, having been aware of the presence of Otters in the Hants Avon from '97, I would say unequivocally that is incorrect as clearly, barbel shared the Avon with otters! In fact in terms of big barbel (again those big females purported to be specifically targeted by the otter), since '97 the Avon has probably never had it so good! Just a quick look at the river records shows to be similar elsewhere (that is to say that at the same time otters were repopulating waterways barbel anglers were filling their boots with big barbel), again conflicting with the above supposition.
I get the emotions surrounding this issue but you cannot engineer facts by saying on one hand you catch less barbel and on another you see more otters and stating them as being responsible however much you would like to. You need supporting evidence!
Lawrence Breakspear
Senior Member
What utter nonsense to suggest that otters have had no effect on barbel populations on the rivers that otters share with the barbel.
Terry, its hopeless mate trying to debate with certain people, in some cases people that dont even fish for barbel.
Without fences, carp waters would be stripped of their carp, unfortunately we don't have the luxury of a fence on our rivers, therefore I am in no doubt that barbel populations where barbel are present in what we recognise as barbel rivers, and I include the Trent and the Wye in that, have been reduced by the otter and are still being reduced on a 24/7 basis, i also include pike and chub on that victim list.
anglingtrust.net
Terry, its hopeless mate trying to debate with certain people, in some cases people that dont even fish for barbel.
Without fences, carp waters would be stripped of their carp, unfortunately we don't have the luxury of a fence on our rivers, therefore I am in no doubt that barbel populations where barbel are present in what we recognise as barbel rivers, and I include the Trent and the Wye in that, have been reduced by the otter and are still being reduced on a 24/7 basis, i also include pike and chub on that victim list.
Otter Predation
Background As otter numbers have successfully recovered across most parts of the country they are at times having an impact on some fisheries through predation of stock. In the last few decades while otter numbers were low, still water fisheries stocked with large carp became widespread...
anglingtrust.net
Last edited:
Steven Hodges
Senior Member & Supporter
Fact: Otters live in rivers, lakes, canals etc. Fact: River otters eat 15% to 20% of their total body weight each day. A large male may consume as much as 11 kg (25 lb.) of food daily. Fact: I see otters nearly everytime I go fishing nowadays whereas I never saw one at all a few years ago. Fact: if you multiply the amount they eat by the number of Otters it equates to a lot of fish. Fact: Barbel numbers have reduced dramatically year on year. Fact: Chub and Bream are also in decline now. Therefore if you say they are not responsible for eating all these fish what else do you think they feed on ? You can list other factors such as pollution, water abstraction etc but these things have always been present whereas a large population of otters widespread in areas where they were previously absent is increasing year on year. As the saying goes and with all due respect doubters need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Definition of wake up and smell the coffee: to realize the truth about one's situation : to become aware of what is really happening These problems are not going to fix themselves.
Lawrence Breakspear
Senior Member
Well said Steve....says it all!
Joe Winstanley
Senior Member & Supporter
I have to say that much of the content within the 'report' from the PAG really is pitiful. It just makes anglers look like a bunch of ecologically illiterate half-wits. How can anybody expect biologists to take anglers seriously when they produce this type of guff.
Comments like:
'If you are a human-being born in this country you are a native. If you are a carp born in this country you are a non-native.'
'....if you visit the dictionary definitions of ‘native’, ‘non-native’ and ‘indigenous’ you realise that there is one set of terms of reference for humans and another set for flora and fauna. How many of our fellow countrymen can be deemed to be ‘native’ on the basis of the definition applied to carp?'
'Can your average lay person even tell the difference between a mink and an otter? It isn’t easy at a quick glance, which is often all you get as far as both species are concerned. You can even argue that a mink is more cute and cuddly than an otter, but no one is making a case for them to be protected.'
'An angler being attacked by a fox was highly unlikely, and unprecedented – until it happened. An angler being attacked by an otter may seem farfetched, and it may well never happen, except that it already has!' Err no it hasn't - the newspaper cutting they include to support this ludicrous statement is based on a completely different species of otter attacking a kayaker in the USA!
Even the title is flawed.
People should stick to the facts. Yes otters impact on barbel in small/med rivers and yes clearly they will help themselves to non-native carp in stillwaters. But otters are not going to be culled. So surely the debate should be focused on how their impacts can be mitigated and on rivers surely that has be improving habitat and water quality.
Comments like:
'If you are a human-being born in this country you are a native. If you are a carp born in this country you are a non-native.'
'....if you visit the dictionary definitions of ‘native’, ‘non-native’ and ‘indigenous’ you realise that there is one set of terms of reference for humans and another set for flora and fauna. How many of our fellow countrymen can be deemed to be ‘native’ on the basis of the definition applied to carp?'
'Can your average lay person even tell the difference between a mink and an otter? It isn’t easy at a quick glance, which is often all you get as far as both species are concerned. You can even argue that a mink is more cute and cuddly than an otter, but no one is making a case for them to be protected.'
'An angler being attacked by a fox was highly unlikely, and unprecedented – until it happened. An angler being attacked by an otter may seem farfetched, and it may well never happen, except that it already has!' Err no it hasn't - the newspaper cutting they include to support this ludicrous statement is based on a completely different species of otter attacking a kayaker in the USA!
Even the title is flawed.
People should stick to the facts. Yes otters impact on barbel in small/med rivers and yes clearly they will help themselves to non-native carp in stillwaters. But otters are not going to be culled. So surely the debate should be focused on how their impacts can be mitigated and on rivers surely that has be improving habitat and water quality.
Last edited:
Damian Kimmins
Senior Member
What utter nonsense to suggest that otters have had no effect on barbel populations on the rivers that otters share with the barbel.
Terry, its hopeless mate trying to debate with certain people, in some cases people that dont even fish for barbel.
Without fences, carp waters would be stripped of their carp, unfortunately we don't have the luxury of a fence on our rivers, therefore I am in no doubt that barbel populations where barbel are present in what we recognise as barbel rivers, and I include the Trent and the Wye in that, have been reduced by the otter and are still being reduced on a 24/7 basis, i also include pike and chub on that victim list.
Otter Predation
Background As otter numbers have successfully recovered across most parts of the country they are at times having an impact on some fisheries through predation of stock. In the last few decades while otter numbers were low, still water fisheries stocked with large carp became widespread...
You are doing it again Lawrence! Unbeknownst to you, you have gone from making the statement (as fact) that otters have had significant negative on all the barbel rivers which they share with barbel to saying that I have said that they have had no impact on those rivers. You used the words significant, negative and all previously. I question that as a statement of fact not only because it is a sweeping general one, but because you provide no supporting evidence to make it with. All I did was provide my own experience and read a little to cloud that statement. Another angler posting on this thread has done the same, as his experiences conflict similarly with your statement of fact
I am not stating that they have had no impact - they eat fish as part of their diet (Steven Hodges)! I am saying that the simplicity of your sweeping statements of fact are problematic at least - problematic not only for you, but problematic in trying to improve the situation!
It seems taken for granted that in the river systems where barbel were an introduced species ie. not native, that they were destined to flourish and become entirely self-sustaining, yet that has never even been touched upon as perhaps not being the case in this discussion. What if they were never destined to be so? What if on those rivers the recruitment rate was such that they could never become self-sustaining? I am pretty sure I remember recruitment being an issue long before now and I am quite sure I may not be the only angler with that experience! 20 years ago before the floods of 1999-2000, CAC were preparing to jet the spawning gravels on the Avon to help reduce the compaction caused by sedimentation, realising that the issue was real. At the same time, perhaps through a change in the biomass, barbel were getting bigger and bigger and more and more anglers were switching to becoming barbel specialists or specimen hunters.
Chris Jones
Senior Member
I fish an unfenced syndicate gravel pit that's within a few hundred yards of a river where otters were never totally absent. I also fish the closest stretch of this river and see otters regularly. The suspected holt location is less than a mile away. Twelve years in, the lake still has decent sized carp, tench and bream. Despite otters occasionally visiting, we've only lost a few fish over the years. We have far greater issues with the smaller fish and fish species in the face of avian predation, mostly from cormorants. Due to the constant tales of woe I've heard, I've been expecting to see a family group of otters appear on the water every spring/summer for the last ten years or so. Thankfully, it hasn't happened yet. The biggest trick in avoiding large scale otter predation would appear to be stocking in moderation. If they can go elsewhere for an easier meal, they will.
I'm not in any way suggesting that some carp waters haven't been hammered by otters. However, not all carp waters are being stripped of their carp if they don't have fences. Sadly, whilst the gravel pit is going from strength to strength, year on year, the same can't be said for the river. However, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that otters are very unlikely to have played more than a small part in the demise of the river.
I'm an angler, I wouldn't shed a tear if otters disappeared again. However, I won't ever argue for their removal. I'm not remotely convinced that they are much more than a bit part player in the demise of our rivers. Not surprisingly, they'll have a greater impact on some rivers than others, but even on the worst affected, I doubt they are the worst problem. The biggest issue we have is that they are the most visible and obvious problem for many anglers. Some simply refuse to look beyond them to see other possible issues. As I see it, otters are just the tip of a rather large iceberg.
Ady Brayshaw
Senior Member & Supporter
To keep things civilised how about we all use either Anecdotal Evidence or on the Balance of Probability? Shortened to an acronym to avoid taking up type space
.
It always easy to deny a phenomena or trend due to a lack of 'evidence'. Politicians use this all the time to 'justify' their inaction. Be it a social problem or in this case Otters. When anecdotally they are a problem to barbel on small to medium sized rivers.
. It always easy to deny a phenomena or trend due to a lack of 'evidence'. Politicians use this all the time to 'justify' their inaction. Be it a social problem or in this case Otters. When anecdotally they are a problem to barbel on small to medium sized rivers.
Last edited:
Terry Simner
Senior Member & Supporter
I don't think many anglers (less than 10% anyway) would disagree much with that Joe. I think that most anglers who are aware of the 'barbel situation' know that it's extremely unlikely that there will ever be a sanctioned cull. Furthermore, I guess that most anglers now take a mostly fatalistic view i.e. that 'the authorities' will do nothing about the 'barbel situation', or even recognise that there is a situation. And maybe that's the biggie : anglers' concerns are not recognised as valid. The 'powers that be' might realise that certain rivers are now virtually barbel-free but, as otters are deemed to be 'native', whilst barbel/carp are not... well, what's the problem? It may be a cynical view but I believe the word 'native' is used here as not much more than a device to justify one (cute) species being given a free hand/paw to destroy another (non-cute) species. Cute and 'native' ... what's not to like eh.
But what do you reckon will happen if our 'native otters' take a liking to the subject of one of EA etc. pet-projects ... the easement of movement of the present Holy Grail of fishes ... the Shad. If shad do get upstream this year in numbers (say, on the Teme) and the otters are there waiting for them, and eat most of them (well, just bits of each and every one they kill) ... what then? Maybe then a 'situation' will be recognised.
Then there's beaver kits ... what happens when most of the fish have gone, the birds have flown, the crayfish and eels eaten, but the beavers are thriving and producing potentially vulnerable kits.
I (sounds daft, yeah) do wish the shad well. But my overriding fervent wish is that, the powers that be are upfront and honest in recognising, publicly, that otters have had a massive negative impact on the population of certain species of fish, and will continue to do so.
Terry Simner
Senior Member & Supporter
Great post Chris. I think that otters would pose a minimal threat to a large and deep gravel pit, especially when it's located next to a river. But if the river is eventually wiped out then maybe some otters will take advantage of easy meals to be had at spawning times on the pit. Otters will always go for the easy option (IMO).
Steve Lewis
Senior Member
That's got me thinking - how long does a species have to be established before it can be considered to be native? Has the barbel not been a resident of UK rivers long enough? Is it still thought of as an immigrant species and, if so, does that mean it will never be considered as a native species? I mean carp have been in the UK for hundreds, if not thousands of years right?
Tangentially, I remember a year or two ago there was big talk about the burbot being reintroduced to a few river systems (I think there was a thread on here as well) - did that ever happen?
Terry Simner
Senior Member & Supporter
I think a species' designation of native/non-native is most likely made by committee (e.g. like the committee that designed the horse that came out looking like a camel). I think that barbel are considered to be native to easterly facing rivers (Thames, Trent etc) due to the British mainland being joined to continental Europe (via Doggerland) until ~8000 years ago. That's how arbitrary it is. But if spawn is transferred from (say) the Thames to a non-east facing river (e.g. on the feet of a wading bird, as can be the case) then those fish are non-native. Logical eh.