• 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

Foxes were countryside animals, now there are purely urban fox's.
We are constantly encroaching and replacing their habitat, don't be so surprised when they turn up in ours.
 
the title of the thread is angling times OTTER article... the question i believe is .. have otters had a profound effect on any barbel populations... the answer to that question is yes

all the other things being discussed ...pollution...abstraction...crayfish etc etc are another discussion

which only leaves one burning question....
Damian what planet is it that you live on 😁
 
Rhys Perry said:
Foxes were countryside animals, now there are purely urban fox's.
We are constantly encroaching and replacing their habitat, don't be so surprised when they turn up in ours.
Click to expand...
They did ban fox hunting though Rhys (so large land/country estate owners had no more reason to keep woods/copse/groves/coverts). And hedgerows were removed and farming was done on an industrial scale. All that may have something to do with it?
I wouldn't say that rivers/banks/margins have changed as much as the actual fields have.
 
So there's been no urban/industrial expansion throughout history? Rivers don't flow through towns/cities or near garden centres?
Foxes are actively seeking out urbanisation because they've technically banned fox hunting? (they still hunt BTW)
Industrial scale farming has had a massive impact on nature, that I will give you!
 
Rhys Perry said:
So there's been no urban/industrial expansion throughout history? Rivers don't flow through towns/cities or near garden centres?
Foxes are actively seeking out urbanisation because they've technically banned fox hunting? (they still hunt BTW)
Industrial scale farming has had a massive impact on nature, that I will give you!
Click to expand...

I get it now, they hunt illegally but they don't release otters illegally!.
 
Terry Harman said:
the title of the thread is angling times OTTER article... the question i believe is .. have otters had a profound effect on any barbel populations... the answer to that question is yes

all the other things being discussed ...pollution...abstraction...crayfish etc etc are another discussion

which only leaves one burning question....
Damian what planet is it that you live on 😁
Click to expand...
How to undo a statement in just a few words!
 
Rhys Perry said:
So there's been no urban/industrial expansion throughout history? Rivers don't flow through towns/cities or near garden centres?
Foxes are actively seeking out urbanisation because they've technically banned fox hunting? (they still hunt BTW)
Industrial scale farming has had a massive impact on nature, that I will give you!
Click to expand...
I agree Ryhs, but another factor (IMO) is the urbanisation of foxes is massively self-perpetuating. That is, foxes that are born in towns/cities will produce offspring that will remain urban , go to breed in the towns/cities, and never know the countryside. The removal of hedgerows is the major factor in the urbanisation of foxes, IMO. Today's fox hunting removes very few I reckon.
 
Chris Guy said:
Never was there a history of otters out and about in large numbers in daylight.
Otter hunts were carried out in daylight because they were holed up in their holts. Dogs flushed them out and the hunt was on.
Click to expand...
I think that's inarguable Chris.
 
Terry Simner said:
They did ban fox hunting though Rhys (so large land/country estate owners had no more reason to keep woods/copse/groves/coverts). And hedgerows were removed and farming was done on an industrial scale.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where the idea that the banning of foxhunting resulted in the loss of woods/copses/coverts comes from. As far as I'm concerned, such losses have been largely attributable to mechanisation and the increasing size of those machines. Being a bumpkin with at least some involvement with farming, gamekeeping, and shooting, since childhood, if woods, hedgerows and copses have been removed in the last thirty years or so, it's likely to be because a farm or estate has given up on pheasant shooting and potential profit is greater than the subsidy for leaving land cropless.
 
Chris Jones said:
I'm not sure where the idea that the banning of foxhunting resulted in the loss of woods/copses/coverts comes from. As far as I'm concerned, such losses have been largely attributable to mechanisation and the increasing size of those machines. Being a bumpkin with at least some involvement with farming, gamekeeping, and shooting, since childhood, if woods, hedgerows and copses have been removed in the last thirty years or so, it's likely to be because a farm or estate has given up on pheasant shooting and potential profit is greater than the subsidy for leaving land cropless.
Click to expand...
I totally, 100% agree Chris. I was harking back to press releases made by estate etc owners at the time when a fox hunting ban was to be put before parliament. They said that ancient woodlands on their land was only being kept so that foxes may live and breed there, and if fox hunting was banned, they would have no reason to keep it. They would sell the timber and plant crops on the land/build houses on it. I'd suggest that not all woods/forests lend themselves easily to game-bird husbandry.
 
Rhys Perry said:
Wouldn't put it past some actually meaning it though Chris.
Click to expand...
There is one unsaid aspect of it that isn't beyond my imagination. However, it's not the removal of woodland bit. For the most part, that's just blather. For the record, I'm not a fan of the hunts. I've always tried to avoid shoots, keepers and landowners that welcome them. Some might find it surprising just how many folks, that you might expect to be sympathetic, that the hunts have alienated over the years.
 
I'm no fan of fox hunting, but there are far worse wildlife crimes that are still committed. Happy that it is banned, legally anyway, but at least it was sustainable to some degree.
 
Chris Jones said:
There is one unsaid aspect of it that isn't beyond my imagination. However, it's not the removal of woodland bit. For the most part, that's just blather. For the record, I'm not a fan of the hunts. I've always tried to avoid shoots, keepers and landowners that welcome them. Some might find it surprising just how many folks, that you might expect to be sympathetic, that the hunts have alienated over the years.
Click to expand...

I can think of a couple of hunts local to me that have a done a very good job in alienating farmers and landowners. Brazenly cutting down farmers stock fencing to allow horse access then sending some clown out a week later to do a botched repair, trampling on crops and just generally being an annoyance to people trying to get on and make a living. Most of them aren’t country folks, just wannabes from the towns and suburbs.
 
Chris Jones said:
I'm not sure where the idea that the banning of foxhunting resulted in the loss of woods/copses/coverts comes from. As far as I'm concerned, such losses have been largely attributable to mechanisation and the increasing size of those machines. Being a bumpkin with at least some involvement with farming, gamekeeping, and shooting, since childhood, if woods, hedgerows and copses have been removed in the last thirty years or so, it's likely to be because a farm or estate has given up on pheasant shooting and potential profit is greater than the subsidy for leaving land cropless.
Click to expand...

There has been a significant increase in hedgerows in the last 25 years due to agri-environment schemes. More woodland coverage as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top