Government gives go ahead for New Cormorant and Goosander Management Plan

[Joe Fletcher]

Joe....I am not, as you seem to think, at complete odds with you on the Zander position...I doubt very much that Howard is either. They are NOT a native species, they should NOT be here. The history of zander in this country goes way back to the 1870's, in Woburn Park...but the really meaningful introduction was carried out by Anglian Water, who released large batches into the Great Ouse relief channel in 1963...what happened then is, as they say, history.

The problem is, how would you go about eradicating a species of fish as well established as zander are? The EA has discovered that the only workable method to tackle the much more recent (and potentially disastrous) illegally introduced species (Topmouth Gudgeon) is to use a piscicide (rotenone I believe) which wipes out virtually everything in the water involved, which is why they usually confine this to enclosed waters rather than rivers. As numerous attempts at controlling problem fish species in the past has shown, any other methods are completely unsuccessful. I am fairly sure that nobody would want that on our popular rivers....though it must be said that the profit making machine that is corporate England are having a damned gould go at achieving that goal already

It would seem then that controlling zander in any meaningful way is virtually impossible. On the other hand, cormorants and other predators that are easily seen because they spend a great deal of their lives above water...are obviously relatively easy to control. That may not be fair, if that's the way you wish to see it....but it is a fact. So...realistically speaking...we have as you admit, an imbalance in the predator/prey fish numbers. We CAN (and in my opinion should) redress that imbalance by sensible control of the species where that is a practical and realistic possibility (perhaps I should qualify that by saying mechanically possible ).

David I aggree with alot of what you say and as you say you would not control Zander in any meaningful way . The same could be said about Cormorants . They wont dissapear completly from our rivers and lakes .

All I have tried to say is that a none native species that was introduced in to UK waters could be one part of the problem ? and nobody seems prepaired to have a sensible debate on the subject .

 

[Graham Young]

I have found on waters where Zander have been introduced that other predators (fishy ones) suffer for longer than the prey species, one water near my home suffered for a few years with a lowering of both prey and predators, but it didn't take long for the prey species to come back, in fact the place is full of Roach and Bream, strangely the predator fishing is not what it was pre introduction but that may be down to the amount of prey in there and also the lack of predator anglers fishing it may be giving a false picture.

The Zander were in there before they were in Coombe so they have been in there for some years.

 

[Nick Coulthurst]

It's definitely a move in the right direction by the Trust, and IMO to be applauded. Will having the annual limits raised and making the licencing procedure simpler make a difference ? It will on those waters where a licence is applied for and someone is out there shooting them, for sure it will. Inevitably many clubs won't apply, but that's just the state of angling I'm afraid. The key to ensuring good fishing in the future is to make sure you are a member of a proactive club which "takes care" of it's waters and fish stocks. Any club with members like Martin for example, has every chance of succeeding.

Nick C

 

[Dave Powell]

I find the "too little too late" rhetoric aired at the AT as a rather distorted view. The simple fact remains that no other body has fought so hard, negotiated so strenuously to combat the massive problem of Cormorant predation in the UK's inland waterways. They have managed to do this despite an overwhelming lack of support from the majority of UK anglers who regularly bemoan the lack of action taken by the AT, or its impotency at dealing with the multitude of problems faced by anglers.

The AT have very limited resources. They have a pathetic uptake on membership, despite some simply outstanding success stories that would not have been achieved without them. They continue to involve themselves in all matter of issues that potentially damage angling and our waterways. At last (and probably for the first time) a united angling body has been able to campaign at a governmental level and actually be heard and be involved in so many discussions and negotiations. Anglers and angling would simply be ignored otherwise.

Forget what's gone before; the angling bodies that tried previously but ultimately failed. I appreciate there are some very bruised egos out there from past environmental/angling champions, that desperately tried to make a real difference. Those that failed before should now look to the future and that can only be the Angling Trust in my opinion. I hope it continues to evolve and grow and eventually work with the many other regional trusts and river groups to improve our waterways and fight for angling.

None of what has been achieved would have happened if angling had carried it on as it was. We would be totally lacking in direction and completely impotent to influence government and implement necessary changes to policies to try and make a real difference.

Superb post Nathan.

Dave

 

[David Gauntlett]

David I aggree with alot of what you say and as you say you would not control Zander in any meaningful way . The same could be said about Cormorants . They wont dissapear completly from our rivers and lakes .

All I have tried to say is that a none native species that was introduced in to UK waters could be one part of the problem ? and nobody seems prepaired to have a sensible debate on the subject .

I really don't understand what you mean when you say "The same could be said about cormorants".... in the context of degrees of difficulty in controlling the numbers of these two completely different critter Joe.

Zander are fish, and to all intents and purposes, invisible most of the time. They live in amongst a mixed mass of other fish, with no means of separating them...and no means of controlling the numbers without killing all the other fish as well. In other words, a HUGELY difficult task.

Cormorants on the other hand are birds....they spend a great deal of their time VERY visible indeed....in fact they spend a fair bit of time sitting motionless in trees resting. When drying their wings for hours on end, they kinda look like they are holding their hands up in surrender Even more conveniently, they tend to gather in large groups in their favourite (easily identified) trees at roosting time. Reducing their numbers is therefore a relatively simple task. And who said anything about getting rid of them completely Joe? All that's needed is to reduce the numbers to a manageable, sustainable level....and keep it that way.

Lastly, you claim that nobody is prepared to have a sensible debate on the subject Joe I must be missing something here, because I thought that was what we were having? I agreed with you previously that they are indeed a non indigenous species...so they shouldn't really be there. And yes, they MAY be part of the problem....in some areas.

However, zander still remain in relatively localised areas (Although they are spreading year by year) There are still massive areas of our waterways where they are not present at all....so they can't really be 'A part of the problem' where they don't exist, can they? The problem still exists where zander are not present Joe. Cormorants on the other hand are pretty well everywhere, they even frequently commute many miles to work and back...just keep your eye on the sky while you are fishing to prove that So....they CAN fairly be classed as 'Part of the problem' just about anywhere. Do you see what I mean Joe?

Cheers, Dave.

 

[Alex Gowney]

Neil,

The point I'm making is that if clubs were allowed to shoot as many cormorants as they wanted it would make little difference. However that is just my opinion whereas you will be able to give us hard figures.

How many cormorants were you able to shoot over what period of time? Were you able to shoot 100 a day or less than 3? How much did you charge to do this? How much do you think it would cost a club to hire a marksman such as yourself on a daily basis? What rifle did you use? How long do you think it would be before members of the public out walking dogs would started to be injured by stray bullets? And if you shot them all in one day how long before the next batch would move in?

Do I have an alternative? Why not treat the cause of the problem instead of the effect and ban beam trawling in our inshore waters. Let's try that for starters before we start blasting away in the countryside.


Steve

Steve, no offence mate, but this post would suggest you know very little about shooting. There are three points on which I would take issue with you.

Point one; clubs with licenses to cull cormorants would have no trouble finding people to shoot them at no more expense than the cost of the cartridges. People these days pay a fair bit of money for pigeon shooting where pigeons are damaging crops. So the farmer actually get's paid to have his pests controlled, not the other way around. It would be no different with cormorants.

Point two; "members of the public getting hit by stray bullets". It isn't Helmand Province Many shoots take place all across the country between October and January,several times a week, some in close proximity to houses and roads. When was the last time you heard of a passer by getting hit by a stray "bullet"? People who shoot are trained and responsible, otherwise they would lose their licenses. A rifle would be very unlikely to be used unless in a remote or coastal area. Shotguns are the principle weapon for controlling birds.

Point three; shooting does have a definite effect on controlling birds (see Martins post). In sheep farming country carrion crows and black backed gulls are controlled by shooting to protect lambs. In arable country crops are effectively protected from wood pigeons by shooting. On the continent crops are similarly protected from Canada geese by shooting. As Martin correctly states, they soon get the message.

However, I am in full agreement with your last sentance.

 

[Graham Young]

Steve, no offence mate, but this post would suggest you know very little about shooting. There are three points on which I would take issue with you.

Point one; clubs with licenses to cull cormorants would have no trouble finding people to shoot them at no more expense than the cost of the cartridges. People these days pay a fair bit of money for pigeon shooting where pigeons are damaging crops. So the farmer actually get's paid to have his pests controlled, not the other way around. It would be no different with cormorants.

Point two; "members of the public getting hit by stray bullets". It isn't Helmand Province Many shoots take place all across the country between October and January,several times a week, some in close proximity to houses and roads. When was the last time you heard of a passer by getting hit by a stray "bullet"? People who shoot are trained and responsible, otherwise they would lose their licenses. A rifle would be very unlikely to be used unless in a remote or coastal area. Shotguns are the principle weapon for controlling birds.

Point three; shooting does have a definite effect on controlling birds (see Martins post). In sheep farming country carrion crows and black backed gulls are controlled by shooting to protect lambs. In arable country crops are effectively protected from wood pigeons by shooting. On the continent crops are similarly protected from Canada geese by shooting. As Martin correctly states, they soon get the message.

However, I am in full agreement with your last sentance.

Correct me I am wrong Alex but wont the shooting just move the problem from place to place? once the shooting stars they wont stick around for long will they?
I ask because I have never shot this particular bird and don't know their habits other than the eating one

 

[Alex Gowney]

Correct me I am wrong Alex but wont the shooting just move the problem from place to place? once the shooting stars they wont stick around for long will they?
I ask because I have never shot this particular bird and don't know their habits other than the eating one

To a point Graham, yes. The same can happen with wood pigeons so you would require more than just the odd club taking action. Having said that, from a purely selfish viewpoint, if you keep them off your own water, they aren't going to eat your fish! So from that point of view shooting would prove a decisive control measure. Obviously on rivers it is more difficult but co-ordination among clubs would certainly make a difference.

 

[Alex Gowney]

I really don't understand what you mean when you say "The same could be said about cormorants".... in the context of degrees of difficulty in controlling the numbers of these two completely different critter Joe.

Zander are fish, and to all intents and purposes, invisible most of the time. They live in amongst a mixed mass of other fish, with no means of separating them...and no means of controlling the numbers without killing all the other fish as well. In other words, a HUGELY difficult task.

Cormorants on the other hand are birds....they spend a great deal of their time VERY visible indeed....in fact they spend a fair bit of time sitting motionless in trees resting. When drying their wings for hours on end, they kinda look like they are holding their hands up in surrender Even more conveniently, they tend to gather in large groups in their favourite (easily identified) trees at roosting time. Reducing their numbers is therefore a relatively simple task. And who said anything about getting rid of them completely Joe? All that's needed is to reduce the numbers to a manageable, sustainable level....and keep it that way.

Lastly, you claim that nobody is prepared to have a sensible debate on the subject Joe I must be missing something here, because I thought that was what we were having? I agreed with you previously that they are indeed a non indigenous species...so they shouldn't really be there. And yes, they MAY be part of the problem....in some areas.

However, zander still remain in relatively localised areas (Although they are spreading year by year) There are still massive areas of our waterways where they are not present at all....so they can't really be 'A part of the problem' where they don't exist, can they? The problem still exists where zander are not present Joe. Cormorants on the other hand are pretty well everywhere, they even frequently commute many miles to work and back...just keep your eye on the sky while you are fishing to prove that So....they CAN fairly be classed as 'Part of the problem' just about anywhere. Do you see what I mean Joe?

Cheers, Dave.

I agree Dave. It's also worth remembering that zander have been present during some of our rivers most prolific and golden years so they are not likely to attract as much attention as otters and cormorants whose (re)appearance has coincided with an alarming decline in the quality of river angling.

 

[Joe Fletcher]

I really don't understand what you mean when you say "The same could be said about cormorants".... in the context of degrees of difficulty in controlling the numbers of these two completely different critter Joe.

Zander are fish, and to all intents and purposes, invisible most of the time. They live in amongst a mixed mass of other fish, with no means of separating them...and no means of controlling the numbers without killing all the other fish as well. In other words, a HUGELY difficult task.

Cormorants on the other hand are birds....they spend a great deal of their time VERY visible indeed....in fact they spend a fair bit of time sitting motionless in trees resting. When drying their wings for hours on end, they kinda look like they are holding their hands up in surrender Even more conveniently, they tend to gather in large groups in their favourite (easily identified) trees at roosting time. Reducing their numbers is therefore a relatively simple task. And who said anything about getting rid of them completely Joe? All that's needed is to reduce the numbers to a manageable, sustainable level....and keep it that way.

Lastly, you claim that nobody is prepared to have a sensible debate on the subject Joe I must be missing something here, because I thought that was what we were having? I agreed with you previously that they are indeed a non indigenous species...so they shouldn't really be there. And yes, they MAY be part of the problem....in some areas.

However, zander still remain in relatively localised areas (Although they are spreading year by year) There are still massive areas of our waterways where they are not present at all....so they can't really be 'A part of the problem' where they don't exist, can they? The problem still exists where zander are not present Joe. Cormorants on the other hand are pretty well everywhere, they even frequently commute many miles to work and back...just keep your eye on the sky while you are fishing to prove that So....they CAN fairly be classed as 'Part of the problem' just about anywhere. Do you see what I mean Joe?

Cheers, Dave.

David if you read the Angling Trust document its states the the Quota for 2014/15 has been raised to a national limit of 3,000 birds .
Its also states the offical estimate of population is 25,000 to 30,000 birds with a margin of error of 9,000 . So if you take the lowest figure it will be around 20,000 give or take a few thousand + or - so on those figures it is going to be hard to make any impression on the numbers of birds . As you say will be easy to control as opposed to some thing that swims below the surface ?

You appeared to be the only one that agreed that Zander were a non native and I would disagree that Zander are very much wide spread across the Uk .
One simple solution to the removal of Zander would be for clubs where Zander are present not to return them to the waters .
The Birmingham Angling Association run such a policy and perhaps that would go some way to the problem ?

I know alot of people would not agree with my views , I see it as part of the problem of disappering fish stocks

 

[Graham Young]

How long would it take for Zander to be considered indigenous if ever.

How far do we go into saying a fish isn't indigenous, Rainbow trout? Carp? or how about Barbel stocked into rivers where they are not indigenous?

We cant have it both ways can we?

 

[Joe Fletcher]

Graham I dont know how far wide spread Zander are across the UK ?

I wonder what sort of a impact it would have on fish stocks on say our smaller rivers if they were not all ready there .

Lets say the Kennet , Lodden etc etc

 

[Alex Gowney]

I think if a fish is indigenous to the country it is indegenous regardless of what body of water it inhabits. I have never seen a zander in this country

 

[Steve Stringer]

Steve, no offence mate, but this post would suggest you know very little about shooting. There are three points on which I would take issue with you.

Point one; clubs with licenses to cull cormorants would have no trouble finding people to shoot them at no more expense than the cost of the cartridges. People these days pay a fair bit of money for pigeon shooting where pigeons are damaging crops. So the farmer actually get's paid to have his pests controlled, not the other way around. It would be no different with cormorants.

Point two; "members of the public getting hit by stray bullets". It isn't Helmand Province Many shoots take place all across the country between October and January,several times a week, some in close proximity to houses and roads. When was the last time you heard of a passer by getting hit by a stray "bullet"? People who shoot are trained and responsible, otherwise they would lose their licenses. A rifle would be very unlikely to be used unless in a remote or coastal area. Shotguns are the principle weapon for controlling birds.

Point three; shooting does have a definite effect on controlling birds (see Martins post). In sheep farming country carrion crows and black backed gulls are controlled by shooting to protect lambs. In arable country crops are effectively protected from wood pigeons by shooting. On the continent crops are similarly protected from Canada geese by shooting. As Martin correctly states, they soon get the message.

However, I am in full agreement with your last sentance.

Alex,

Firstly my questions were addressed to Neil Blood who says he has practical experience of culling cormorants using firearms. He has chosen not to reply to date regarding the effectiveness of the culling or the actual weapons used.

It is also because I DO know something about shooting that I question the practicality of clubs arming some of their members. Drawing comparisons with shooting pigeons and crows on private farms and estates and doing the same on fisheries, many with public access, is totally irresponsible.

It is because I DO know something about shooting that I understand the limitations of a shotgun regarding its suitability to dispatch cormorants due to its range limitations. On my local waters a shot would have to be taken at a range of up to 60 to 100 yards, a fat lot of good a shotgun would be.

However all the above detracts from my main point which is that it would not be practically possible to deploy sufficient trained people on enough waters SAFELY to make the slightest difference to the cormorant problem. All this gung ho talk of giving clubs the legal ability to blast away at will is completely unworkable. An accident is not only possible, but inevitable, and then we would be back to square one with culling outlawed again and the reputation of angling worse than it already is with the general public

Steve

 

[Graham Young]

I think if a fish is indigenous to the country it is indegenous regardless of what body of water it inhabits. I have never seen a zander in this country

There are plenty in your area Alex.

 

[Joe Fletcher]

How long would it take for Zander to be considered indigenous if ever.

How far do we go into saying a fish isn't indigenous, Rainbow trout? Carp? or how about Barbel stocked into rivers where they are not indigenous?

We cant have it both ways can we?

Graham would you apply the same logic to Mink and Grey Squirrel that have been roaming our towns and countryside for how many years ? and what about Signal Crayfish how many years have they been in our rivers ?
One day in the future will they be classified as indigenous to our waters ?

 

[Chris Jones]

Alex,

Firstly my questions were addressed to Neil Blood who says he has practical experience of culling cormorants using firearms. He has chosen not to reply to date regarding the effectiveness of the culling or the actual weapons used.

It is also because I DO know something about shooting that I question the practicality of clubs arming some of their members. Drawing comparisons with shooting pigeons and crows on private farms and estates and doing the same on fisheries, many with public access, is totally irresponsible.

It is because I DO know something about shooting that I understand the limitations of a shotgun regarding its suitability to dispatch cormorants due to its range limitations. On my local waters a shot would have to be taken at a range of up to 60 to 100 yards, a fat lot of good a shotgun would be.

However all the above detracts from my main point which is that it would not be practically possible to deploy sufficient trained people on enough waters SAFELY to make the slightest difference to the cormorant problem. All this gung ho talk of giving clubs the legal ability to blast away at will is completely unworkable. An accident is not only possible, but inevitable, and then we would be back to square one with culling outlawed again and the reputation of angling worse than it already is with the general public

Steve

Steve,
you are just re-inforcing the belief that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you know very, very little about the realities of shooting and shooters in the UK. Angling clubs can't possibly arm anybody. Unless they actually own the land, they can't even give a shooter genuine permission to take a rifle/shotgun onto the land (it's armed trespass without proper permissions from the landowner, even if it were just a sub 12ft/lb air rifle). A responsible shooter knows the law and wouldn't be so stupid as to risk FAC/SGC by shooting irresponsibly and illegally. The only thing you seem to have any grasp of is the relative range limitations of a shotgun and how difficult shooting a cormorant with a shotgun might be. The rest of your post is ill-informed Daily Mail, think of the children, claptrap.

 

[Steve Stringer]

Steve,
you are just re-inforcing the belief that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you know very, very little about the realities of shooting and shooters in the UK. Angling clubs can't possibly arm anybody. Unless they actually own the land, they can't even give a shooter genuine permission to take a rifle/shotgun onto the land (it's armed trespass without proper permissions from the landowner, even if it were just a sub 12ft/lb air rifle). A responsible shooter knows the law and wouldn't be so stupid as to risk FAC/SGC by shooting irresponsibly and illegally. The only thing you seem to have any grasp of is the relative range limitations of a shotgun and how difficult shooting a cormorant with a shotgun might be. The rest of your post is ill-informed Daily Mail, think of the children, claptrap.

Chris,

So you are actually agreeing with me then when I state that it is impractical for angling club to control cormorants by shooting.

Your statement that " The rest of your (my) post is ill-informed Daily Mail, think of the children, claptrap" is so asinine it does not warrant a response.

Steve

 

[Graham Young]

Graham would you apply the same logic to Mink and Grey Squirrel that have been roaming our towns and countryside for how many years ? and what about Signal Crayfish how many years have they been in our rivers ?
One day in the future will they be classified as indigenous to our waters ?

To be honest Joe I wasn't trying to be logical, I was just playing devils advocate and seeing where it went.

I have seen waters suffer from the introduction of Zander but all that I know of have recovered from the initial predator/prey imbalance that may have been created. some of them are better waters than they were before the Zander were there.

As David has said once they are in (and that includes anything under the water) it is impossible to remove them, cormorants on the other hand may be able to be controlled but IMO if they are put on general licence.

 

[Chris Jones]

Chris,

So you are actually agreeing with me then when I state that it is impractical for angling club to control cormorants by shooting.

Your statement that " The rest of your (my) post is ill-informed Daily Mail, think of the children, claptrap" is so asinine it does not warrant a response.

Steve

Steve,
it depends entirely on the circumstances. Fishing clubs don't generally own anything, so it's not within their remit to grant shooting permission. I do know of clubs that have the agreement of the landowner to shoot. They take their alloted quotas with no problem whatsoever. For others, for a multitude of different reasons, there's not a chance of them getting permission to shoot, they sensibly don't even make the application to cull, there would be no point.

As to the rest, perhaps I would have been better off not responding to your ridiculously ill informed post. Please yourself what you think of me, you patently know very little about shooting or the laws that restrict it. For that reason, your previous post qualifies as asinine in a way that mine never could. I can only suggest that you get yourself informed with reality before talking complete cackbabble on a subject you are demonstrating admirably that you know very little about.