• 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

Rhys Perry

Senior Member
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.
 

Terry Harman

Senior Member & Supporter
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 😁
 

Terry Simner

Senior Member & Supporter
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.
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.
 

Rhys Perry

Senior Member
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!
 

Phil Nixon

Senior Member
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!

I get it now, they hunt illegally but they don't release otters illegally!.
 

Damian Kimmins

Senior Member
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 😁
How to undo a statement in just a few words!
 

Terry Simner

Senior Member & Supporter
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!
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.
 

Terry Simner

Senior Member & Supporter
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.
I think that's inarguable Chris.
 

Chris Jones

Senior Member
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.
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.
 

Terry Simner

Senior Member & Supporter
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.
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.
 

Chris Jones

Senior Member
Wouldn't put it past some actually meaning it though Chris.
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.
 

Rhys Perry

Senior Member
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.
 

Joe Winstanley

Senior Member
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 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.
 

Joe Winstanley

Senior Member
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.

There has been a significant increase in hedgerows in the last 25 years due to agri-environment schemes. More woodland coverage as well.
 
Top