• 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

Alex Warren said:
My opinion is that nature will eventually find find a way, but it won’t be one that’s favourable to us as Barbel anglers.

Sorry for the gloomy outlook, I hope to be proved wrong.
Click to expand...

Alex - my opinions on the matter are roughly the same as yours, however my longer term outlook is probably a bit more optimistic, but then my experience is a LOT more limited than most on here. I left the fishing scene in the mid 90s (work, social life and relationships "got in the way") just as the Bristol Avon was starting to become nationally known as a highly regarded barbel river (in fact I remember one of the last trips, if not the last trip I had to the stretch at Lacock before I hung up my gear, I saw Tony Miles, Trefor West, Stef Horak and Matt Hayes on the bank, and I'm pretty sure they weren't all together on a group outing) with its rise to fame amongst locals and those in the know starting in the late 80s. I only started fishing again a few years ago and I have to say my barbel catches in these last few years are better than they ever were back in the 90s, both in number and size, and my tactics and baits are EXACTLY the same as they were then (I've even used the same rod and reel on several occasions!) and I've been fishing the same spots. But I completely missed that primo period from the late 90s to mid 00s when the BA was one of the top barbel rivers in the country, so I had no experience of the time when at least one double per visit was all but guaranteed.
 
Worrying to hear your comments about barbel numbers on the Wye Graham. I was hoping that the Wye might be one of the few rivers not to be too badly effected.
Been coming down for many years now and haven't caught as many the last few trips but put it down to wrong conditions etc.
If you're right that's very depressing.
 
avian predation can be controlled to a certain extent with licences being issued... that will never happen with otters.... what i’m struggling to understand is ..if otters aren’t a problem as pete reading and others have said then why are clubs ...syndicate,s... and privately owned waters spending tens of thousands of pounds erecting otter fencing
 
Terry Harman said:
avian predation can be controlled to a certain extent with licences being issued... that will never happen with otters.... what i’m struggling to understand is ..if otters aren’t a problem as pete reading and others have said then why are clubs ...syndicate,s... and privately owned waters spending tens of thousands of pounds erecting otter fencing
Click to expand...

Re avian predation, I currently hold 3 licenses for 2 different clubs. Problem is that most clubs either can’t be bothered or are not organised enough to sort things. Nowadays many clubs only care about Carp, which puts bums on seats so to speak (membership). These clubs offer river fishing too, but it’s seen as secondary and priorities, just aren’t there unfortunately. Finding trusted safety conscious shooters can be tricky too and especially where public access is involved. When we control Cormorants locally, they soon get the message, but simply move onto other clubs waters, which are not protected, so the whole strategy is somewhat flawed.

Goosanders and Cormorants really can decimate juvenile fish stocks, meaning fewer fish reach maturity, thus reducing an Otters available prey. Barbel have become an endangered species on my local River Dane, with adult Chub numbers crashing too.

The renowned wildlife and angling film maker Hugh Miles, had an excellent short film on YouTube, which summed up Otters and Cormorants, per above, but unfortunately, the video has now lost its sound.

Re stillwaters, I firmly believe that every Otter territory is different, here in Cheshire the Lower Dane Valley Otters stay on the river and the T&M Canal, which runs parallel, within yards of the river and which is solid with fish of a suitable prey size. Nearby stillwaters in the Northwich area have not had any Otters issues to date, with breeding Otters now being present for some years.

Just down the road on the River Gowy, it’s a very different story, as the river can’t seem to support the Otters fully, so they took to raiding nearby stillwaters, with clubs and fisheries, forced to erect expensive fencing.
 
Some eccentrics like catching fish, then putting them back again, there are lots of fish. Far more like seeing otters, they're quite rare to see.
That in a nutshell is your answer to any petition, you are wasting your time.
 
Unfortunately I agree Rhys and with a lot of other points highlighted here, we’ve been round the block on this subject. Just like pollutions d abstraction of our water waters is an unseen issue to the wider public so is the decline of fish stocks.

The fundamental issue with “getting anything done” is that the data set is virtually impossible to collect. There is no widespread big data to say before otter populations increased, fish X was at this level and a decline to the present figure has occurred, certainly not without compounding environmental factors that could render your dataset useless. Even the decline of Salominds and els that would of likely built a large portion of their diet virtually absent is a big enough bit of noise in the data.

Collection of these figures now, retrospectively is merely a snap shot. It’s evidence of what is, not what has occurred. Finding that the main constituent of their diet is small birds and that Barbel have a low occurrence is like saying they are no problem to Burbot as we didn’t find any Burbot in the spraint samples.

Personally and I’ve little but anecdotal evidence I don’t think Otters are doing half as well as some like to make out. They’re surviving and breeding, that’s clear but with road deaths being the largest cause of death, risky activity like crossing large areas of dry land and attacking animals like swans that could cause serious harm coupled with a diet analysis that shows that these opportunist feeders are relying on low value food items like minnows does rather point to an animal that’s scraping by.
I mean if you think logically you have an animal that’s got millions of years of evolution to feed primarily at dawn/dusk and that’s been undone by what? My money is that, that Otter you see in daylight is working overtime because of environmental pressure.
 
Stephen Crowhurst said:
Unfortunately I agree Rhys and with a lot of other points highlighted here, we’ve been round the block on this subject. Just like pollutions d abstraction of our water waters is an unseen issue to the wider public so is the decline of fish stocks.

The fundamental issue with “getting anything done” is that the data set is virtually impossible to collect. There is no widespread big data to say before otter populations increased, fish X was at this level and a decline to the present figure has occurred, certainly not without compounding environmental factors that could render your dataset useless. Even the decline of Salominds and els that would of likely built a large portion of their diet virtually absent is a big enough bit of noise in the data.

Collection of these figures now, retrospectively is merely a snap shot. It’s evidence of what is, not what has occurred. Finding that the main constituent of their diet is small birds and that Barbel have a low occurrence is like saying they are no problem to Burbot as we didn’t find any Burbot in the spraint samples.

Personally and I’ve little but anecdotal evidence I don’t think Otters are doing half as well as some like to make out. They’re surviving and breeding, that’s clear but with road deaths being the largest cause of death, risky activity like crossing large areas of dry land and attacking animals like swans that could cause serious harm coupled with a diet analysis that shows that these opportunist feeders are relying on low value food items like minnows does rather point to an animal that’s scraping by.
I mean if you think logically you have an animal that’s got millions of years of evolution to feed primarily at dawn/dusk and that’s been undone by what? My money is that, that Otter you see in daylight is working overtime because of environmental pressure.
Click to expand...

Some good points Stephen. As you say nobody knows what a naturally self-sustaining barbel population looks like, there just isn't any data on the fish populations of our rivers before we started to completely mess them up. Not least due to the fact that barbel were only introduced to many river systems such as the Severn within the last 70 years.

Nor do we really know what a natural otter population looks like. All we can say with any degree of certainly is that the situation the majority of lowland our rivers were in between to 1950's and 1990's was entirely unnatural because of the absence of the main top level predator due to the impact of organochlorines.

I think it's well understood that otters are still struggling with the impact of pollutants, albeit a different set to the pollutants that impacted the population so greatly in the past. I believe the average lifespan in England and Wales is several years below what it should be naturally.

I'm not sure I would read too much into otters being active in daylight. In my experience it is not uncommon to see otters foraging right through the day in the coastal areas and lochs of Western Scotland and the Hebrides where the population is deemed to be at it's healthiest.
 
Anglers are partaking in a pastime surrounded by a largely natural environment. It shouldn't be held against it if nature has other ideas to artificially stocked stretches of river.
 
When it comes to our rivers and the coarse fish that inhabit them, there is little doubt that the barbel is the most iconic species.

Barbel can be found in many of our river systems, in fact on some they are indigenous (The East flowing rivers), and on the others they have been stocked.

From an angling perspective they are a very popular species but today (2021) they are under threat in so many ways as never before, not least of which is predation by the otter.

Over the past twenty years we have seen a gradual decline in barbel populations in practically all the rivers where they inhabit, to a point where in some cases the decline is so great that the numbers now are basically non-existent.

On rivers such as the Wensum, Dorset Stour, Kennet, Teme, Bristol Avon, Gt. Ouse, Windrush, Cherwell… the list goes on, the barbel population has shown a drastic decline.

On a river like the Kennet barbel have always been there, it is a tributary of the Thames where barbel are indigenous.

Otters are a major problem. Once they move on to a stretch of river it does not take long before the reduction in barbel numbers becomes very apparent.

This apex predator will eat whatever is on offer and if that means a ten pound female barbel carrying many thousands of eggs then so be it. The consequence for the fishery is then very clear to see.

No big females means no continuity of the species.

It is absolute fallacy to say the otter will only target the old, infirm and moribund fish; it will take whatever it can.

Barbel are a vulnerable species, they are a shoal fish, they spawn in the same areas, they can lie up for some time especially in the winter. It does not take long for the otter to work it out.

One thing we have to appreciate with regard to understanding the damage otters can do to barbel stocks is the need to be aware of the demographics of a barbel population.


The barbel population will be made up of male and female fish; males outnumber the females by a ratio of approximately 7:1 in some cases as high as 10:1. Whereas females (the egg producers) can grow to sizes close to 20lb and live for 20 years plus, the male lives a much shorter life span than the female and grows to weights that rarely exceed 8lb.



With this information we are suddenly aware of a profound mathematical situation unfolding in front of us. With big healthy females producing 20,000 plus eggs the damage an otter can do by killing that one fish isn’t just about one less big barbel to catch, it’s about the many thousands of barbel fry lost over the remaining years of what its life would have been.



So for example, with 500 barbel living in a short stretch of river, science tells us that 60 to 70 will be female (at best) with big females being more likely to be loners or in small groups. By default they become easy pickings for a big powerful dog otter as a favoured source of food because it does not have the protection of the shoal or the erratic escaping speed of a smaller barbel.


Therefore, taking into account how the barbel population is made up and the shorter life span of the male fish, it’s not surprising how a small barbel population can suddenly collapse. What we are seeing now with many barbel populations, indigenous or introduced, is a self-fulfilling prophecy being played out before our very eyes.


We have to acknowledge there are other predatory and pollution effects on barbel populations, be they signal crayfish feasting on the fertilised eggs of a barbel, goosanders and cormorants on the barbel fry, but it’s the killing of a large fertile female barbel that basically takes out thousands of barbel fry that could have been the corner stone of a future barbel populations and sustainability.

For any angler to suggest that barbel aren't affecting barbel populations is being utterly irresponsible, for the Angling Trust not to publicly acknowledge the effect otters on all species in all situations is a betrayal of all anglers.

If otters don't eat large fish, why are we spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in fencing still waters, the tragedy is we cant fence off rivers...
 
Pete Readings "investigation" was in conjunction with Bournemouth university and came to the conclusion that the sprays of otters contained no barbel but lots of minnows. It doesn't take an idiot to realise that when an otter takes a barbel it eats the soft underbody which doesn't contain any bones, when it takes a minnow it eats the whole fish hence bones in the sprays.
At the moment nowhere near as many otters are being seen on the Hampshire Avon or Dorset Stour as yes nature has balanced them out, when more otters are released into the wild by "nobody" the problem will start again.
Ringwood angling club have spent over £300000 in the last 7 years protecting our fisheries, money we could have used elsewhere.
Anybody who thinks too many otters aren't an issue and that they only eat old fish is living in cuckoo land and should take up golf (no offence to golfers out there).
 
I rather doubt that anyone can seriously suggest that otters don't affect fish, fisheries and therefore, angling. The biggest problem I have with anglers complaining endlessly about otters is the futility of it. I doubt that any amount of anglers complaining is ever going to change the protection afforded to otters. The other thing that's problematic about most anglers outlook is that our halcyon days were largely artificial due to the complete lack of otters in most regions. We got used to seeing fish being unusually prolific and extraordinarily large. Not surprisingly, anglers miss that scenario and lament the return of otters, but they seem to ignore the fact that it wasn't a natural situation.
 
There’s always a lot of talk regarding Otters impact on barbel numbers but not much on the effect on the actual angling experience.

From my own experience on the Kennet and of many other anglers I know, when an Otter comes through you can pretty much write off your chances of catching.

I personally don’t get to fish every week and when I do get a chance it’s frustrating to have the time and effort go down the pan on an already difficult river as it is these days and I’m sure this feeling is common with anglers fishing other rivers.

I appreciate this is a personal view and not the big picture but it’s a consequence that needs a mention.
 
Lawrence Breakspear said:
When it comes to our rivers and the coarse fish that inhabit them, there is little doubt that the barbel is the most iconic species.

Barbel can be found in many of our river systems, in fact on some they are indigenous (The East flowing rivers), and on the others they have been stocked.

From an angling perspective they are a very popular species but today (2021) they are under threat in so many ways as never before, not least of which is predation by the otter.

Over the past twenty years we have seen a gradual decline in barbel populations in practically all the rivers where they inhabit, to a point where in some cases the decline is so great that the numbers now are basically non-existent.

On rivers such as the Wensum, Dorset Stour, Kennet, Teme, Bristol Avon, Gt. Ouse, Windrush, Cherwell… the list goes on, the barbel population has shown a drastic decline.

On a river like the Kennet barbel have always been there, it is a tributary of the Thames where barbel are indigenous.

Otters are a major problem. Once they move on to a stretch of river it does not take long before the reduction in barbel numbers becomes very apparent.

This apex predator will eat whatever is on offer and if that means a ten pound female barbel carrying many thousands of eggs then so be it. The consequence for the fishery is then very clear to see.

No big females means no continuity of the species.

It is absolute fallacy to say the otter will only target the old, infirm and moribund fish; it will take whatever it can.

Barbel are a vulnerable species, they are a shoal fish, they spawn in the same areas, they can lie up for some time especially in the winter. It does not take long for the otter to work it out.

One thing we have to appreciate with regard to understanding the damage otters can do to barbel stocks is the need to be aware of the demographics of a barbel population.


The barbel population will be made up of male and female fish; males outnumber the females by a ratio of approximately 7:1 in some cases as high as 10:1. Whereas females (the egg producers) can grow to sizes close to 20lb and live for 20 years plus, the male lives a much shorter life span than the female and grows to weights that rarely exceed 8lb.



With this information we are suddenly aware of a profound mathematical situation unfolding in front of us. With big healthy females producing 20,000 plus eggs the damage an otter can do by killing that one fish isn’t just about one less big barbel to catch, it’s about the many thousands of barbel fry lost over the remaining years of what its life would have been.



So for example, with 500 barbel living in a short stretch of river, science tells us that 60 to 70 will be female (at best) with big females being more likely to be loners or in small groups. By default they become easy pickings for a big powerful dog otter as a favoured source of food because it does not have the protection of the shoal or the erratic escaping speed of a smaller barbel.


Therefore, taking into account how the barbel population is made up and the shorter life span of the male fish, it’s not surprising how a small barbel population can suddenly collapse. What we are seeing now with many barbel populations, indigenous or introduced, is a self-fulfilling prophecy being played out before our very eyes.


We have to acknowledge there are other predatory and pollution effects on barbel populations, be they signal crayfish feasting on the fertilised eggs of a barbel, goosanders and cormorants on the barbel fry, but it’s the killing of a large fertile female barbel that basically takes out thousands of barbel fry that could have been the corner stone of a future barbel populations and sustainability.

For any angler to suggest that barbel aren't affecting barbel populations is being utterly irresponsible, for the Angling Trust not to publicly acknowledge the effect otters on all species in all situations is a betrayal of all anglers.

If otters don't eat large fish, why are we spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in fencing still waters, the tragedy is we cant fence off rivers...
Click to expand...

So you are completely disregarding the experiences of any angler that would state they have not noticed any discernable decrease in their catches? Is there any reason that being the case why anyone shouldn't completely disregard your experiences?
Looking at the catches on some rivers, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they contain nothing but females!
Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?
 
Damian Kimmins said:
So you are completely disregarding the experiences of any angler that would state they have not noticed any discernable decrease in their catches? Is there any reason that being the case why anyone shouldn't completely disregard your experiences?
Looking at the catches on some rivers, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they contain nothing but females!
Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?
Click to expand...
Damian, those anglers who have seen no discernible decrease in their catches are likely to be on big rivers like the Trent and Wye which have held up a lot better. Or they are anglers who seldom caught any great amount of barbel anyway, so again might not notice a problem. Try asking anglers on the rivers Laurence mentions, proper barbel anglers that is, and you will find most of them don't even bother to fish for barbel any more. I know I don't and I caught barbel regularly on the Cherwell and Windrush and WA, but certainly wouldn't bother with the Cherwell and Windrush any more, and the WA is nowhere near the river it used to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top