• 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...

Martin Salter blog

Terry Simner said:
Well said Paul ...and that'll teach you to have a week away from BFW:p
I think the wisest thing that any of us can say is "I/we don't know" ...for that IS the truth of it. Ok it's natural to have opinions, but when we start to believe our opinions are 'hard facts', without having the 'hard and unarguable evidence', then we are being foolish.
Overall my own opinion is that otters must have had some impact, and on balance I think that impact will have been a negative one. My thinking behind this is ... how can you have an 'eco system' that's working reasonably ok, then add thousands of apex predators to it, and not expect a high level of predation? But that is not excluding any other (additional and negative) factors from said 'eco equation'...I simply believe that the addition of otters is bad news for barbel (etc).
Re. "bad science" (the phrase I used earlier which Joe took exception to). The blog was about a study that could be seen as somewhat 'scientific' in its nature. Overall I'd say it amounted to a bit of data collection, and some surmising (scientific guessing?) If I was generous (like, late Friday night generous) I'd call it 'scientifically technical in nature', except that, having a title containing the word "truth" makes it bad science at best,...the kind of 'science' the Sun or Daily Mail might lap up.
I don't know....but I DO know that YOU don't know either. And that IS an "inconvenient truth":eek:
Click to expand...



Isnt that what started all this with Mr Salter doing exactly that?
 
Joe said: "If anglers knock-on the door of the likes of the RSPB or the Wildlife Trusts, (I use these two organisations as I know them both well and understand their firm commitment to conservation science and evidence-led policy)"

Joe, where were they and what was their response years ago when cormorant predation
was becoming an all-too obvious problem?

Maybe with Brexit and the reviewing of European Laws, the various groups with powerful lobbyists can get the protection of all cormorants reduced to the particular species it was originally designed for. That would be beneficial for all rivers in the long term.

On a different note, one of our members lost his hens to an otter. He caught it on CCTV climbing over his fence to get to them! This was about three years ago but sadly he didn't keep the footage. Now that would have made for interesting reporting on today's media platforms!
 
Anthony Pearson said:
Joe said: "If anglers knock-on the door of the likes of the RSPB or the Wildlife Trusts, (I use these two organisations as I know them both well and understand their firm commitment to conservation science and evidence-led policy)"

Joe, where were they and what was their response years ago when cormorant predation
was becoming an all-too obvious problem?

Maybe with Brexit and the reviewing of European Laws, the various groups with powerful lobbyists can get the protection of all cormorants reduced to the particular species it was originally designed for. That would be beneficial for all rivers in the long term.

On a different note, one of our members lost his hens to an otter. He caught it on CCTV climbing over his fence to get to them! This was about three years ago but sadly he didn't keep the footage. Now that would have made for interesting reporting on today's media platforms!
Click to expand...

Re the WT & RSPB - I'm not sure what their response was back when cormorants first started to come into conflict with anglers, I was still at school boy back then.

Their view on cormorants and habitat management is pretty clear now though, as you would expect, both organisations are against cormorants being placed on the general licence and both organisations are committed to improving wetlands through positive habitat management - worth looking some of there current projects up, particularly the Wildlife Trusts, there is some good work going on across the country. The Shrops Wildlife Trust is currently working with me to improve a glacial mere by providing funding to restore the mere back to something like its natural water level - as well as hopefully improving water quality, I'm hoping it will help provide much more stable spawning areas for the natural fish population. It's work that probably wouldn't happen without their financial contribution to the total project costs.

Cormorants were given legal protection under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, this is domestic legislation not EU law.
 
Otters don't decimate barbel stocks on small rivers, they do far more damage than that. That's an irrefutable fact. There's countless eye witness accounts of actual attacks, photographic evidence of carcasses left on the banks, large numbers of barbel carrying attack wounds, and rapidly declining anglers' catch reports. If anyone can think of a small river where otters are present that has healthy barbel stocks, I'd like to know about it. Honestly, what more do the non believers want. Do they eat barbel exclusively, obviously not, they may only eat them very occasionally, but the numbers of adult barbel in any river is relatively small compared to adult silverfish, so it doesn't take that many to disappear for stocks to crash. Are otters responsible for poor recruitment ? Absolutely not, that's down to many other factors such as over abstraction, signal crayfish, poor habitat etc, etc. Otters are the apex predator on our rivers now that we have abdicated that role, and as such the natural balance is now tilted in their favour which means lower numbers of barbel relative to the numbers previously enjoyed. Do we really need a scientific study to confirm the above ? Isn't that a bit like commissioning someone to confirm the earth is a slightly lumpy squashed sphere ? Echoing Howard, I think things will have to get significantly worse before anything is done, you only need to look at where the planet is heading generally to know that. I think the best option is to focus on the things we can improve, such as habitat restoration etc because otters are here to stay, at least for my angling life.

Nick C
 
Joe wrote:
Cormorants were given legal protection under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, this is domestic legislation not EU law.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that this was as a consequence of the Directive 79/409/EEC in April 1979.

From what I have been told (and this could be an urban myth) the EEC wanted to protect a particular endangered species of cormorant but the Latin name used in the directive encompassed all European species...hence the problem.
 
I was under the impression that all wild birds are protected under EU law, but any member country can apply for any restrictions to be lifted regarding culling numbers.
 
This has been an interesting topic and unlike some other social media outlets has not been disrespectful to individuals, which can only be a credit to those who post on here regardless of their veiw point.
Years ago a long serving NRA regional fisheries manager/officer told me that anglers are their eyes and ears of the riverine environment. He wasn't being patronising, just stating the obvious, as who else sits on the bank observing and realising any changes in what's going on over long periods of time?
Unfortunately, we cannot see all the invisible threats to our rivers just the long term affects.
I saw my first cormorant eat a barbel on Throop 30 years ago, and remember being naively surprised how it managed to swallow a fish of that size, then proceed to eat an eel for afters.! For me that day, the writing was on the wall for our rivers, unless we were able to control cormorant numbers.
Since then, despite begrudging limited lethal licensing the problem is worse, but unlike the RSPB bird counts, we can't undertake 'fish counts' to prove population decline, so our decades of observation get tagged as ' allegedly '.
The RSPB don't seem bothered about culling deer which seems to tie some members in knots, just as the Ministry quite happily sanction culling badgers to public outcry because they can make a case for it.
We as anglers are always going to struggle with providing tangible evidence of a population decline in river species because to be frank the public don't care and the ' out of site out of mind' syndrome.
Even if the survey's otter spraint analysis had turned up 100% barbel remnants what difference would it have made?
Surprised a few?, .. I doubt,... Joe Public would say so what.
 
I wouldn't bold out much hope of any help from the bird 'protection' organisations. There is a wonderful wetland area , complete with viewing hides, a tea room, car parking, information boards etc. on the river Meon in Hampshire at Hill head. This wetland area, sponsored by one of the birdy organisations, is totally artificial, made by damming the river where it flows into the harbour, there are some gate's which hold the water back and open for an hour or so at high tide. The sole reason for this act of environmental vandalism is to provide a convenient place for birdy types to gawp at wading birds. Why wading birds are so revered who knows but it would seem money is no object when it comes to improving or constructing habitat for them.
I'm not one to cast aspersions but in years gone by, prior to the wetland construction, there was a run of Salmon and sea Trout in the Meon, it died out. It could be due to all sorts of reasons. Severely reducing the flow of the river into the sea, meaning that returning fish can't 'smell' the river could be a factor.
The signs are that things are improving slightly, there was obviously very little thought as to the impact of the bird sanctuary on the migratory fish population, if it was considered it was ignored.
 
Anthony Pearson said:
Joe wrote:


I think you'll find that this was as a consequence of the Directive 79/409/EEC in April 1979.

From what I have been told (and this could be an urban myth) the EEC wanted to protect a particular endangered species of cormorant but the Latin name used in the directive encompassed all European species...hence the problem.
Click to expand...

The two species of Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) and Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis, and Shag cormorant Phalacrocorax aristotelis are all protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, additionally, the Shag is also listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive.


Re the Wildlife and Countryside Act, yes your right. It was implemented to comply with the directive you quote, but it is enshrined in UK law not EU law. Every member state has its own equivalent, they are often very different, the French for instance are quite fond of shooting skylarks, whilst in the UK skylarks are fully protected and some countries like Malta pretty shoot everything.

As the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is fully enshrined in UK law, it won't be one of the many acts of EU Environmental legislation which will be transposed into UK law under the Great Repeal Act. Directives such as EU Birds Directive, Water Framework Directive, Nitrates Directive and Habitats Directive all come under this heading. Particularly apposite to this thread is the fact that Otters are protected under article 12 of the Habitats Directive.

As an aside, the EU Habitats Directive was drafted by Stanley Johnson, Boris's sire. It is widely expected that the EU Habitats Directive, once transposed, will be the first area of EU law to be torn apart. The irony...
 
Terry Simner said:
Well said Paul ...and that'll teach you to have a week away from BFW:p
I think the wisest thing that any of us can say is "I/we don't know" ...for that IS the truth of it. Ok it's natural to have opinions, but when we start to believe our opinions are 'hard facts', without having the 'hard and unarguable evidence', then we are being foolish.
Overall my own opinion is that otters must have had some impact, and on balance I think that impact will have been a negative one. My thinking behind this is ... how can you have an 'eco system' that's working reasonably ok, then add thousands of apex predators to it, and not expect a high level of predation? But that is not excluding any other (additional and negative) factors from said 'eco equation'...I simply believe that the addition of otters is bad news for barbel (etc).
Re. "bad science" (the phrase I used earlier which Joe took exception to). The blog was about a study that could be seen as somewhat 'scientific' in its nature. Overall I'd say it amounted to a bit of data collection, and some surmising (scientific guessing?) If I was generous (like, late Friday night generous) I'd call it 'scientifically technical in nature', except that, having a title containing the word "truth" makes it bad science at best,...the kind of 'science' the Sun or Daily Mail might lap up.
I don't know....but I DO know that YOU don't know either. And that IS an "inconvenient truth":eek:
Click to expand...

That's the best thing I have read on this subject on here and social media.......
But there is one thin I do know ... A "scientist" sifting through otter droppings on the Hampshire Avon has absolutely nothing to do with the damage otters caused on the ivel......and is it any coincidence that now the barbel and chub have gone from that prolific stretch of the ivel..the otters have disappeared too
 
Having fished for over 60 years and enjoyed my barbel fishing for 50 of those, I can honestly say that I have never seen the remains of an otter kill of any kind let alone a barbel and I have regularly fished several rivers including the Dove, Trent, H. Avon and Dorset Stour. I have also not seen and heard (from sensible anglers who are not emotively driven to the degree that they are very tunnel visioned) of enough evidence that convinces me that the otter is a major problem to the barbel population of any river. I know people will say "tell that to the guys who have fished the Cherwell, Ouse, etc, etc, etc", but I don't believe they have been the main cause of the rapid decline on some rivers. Yes, there is no doubt that some fish have been taken by otters but not to the extent that some believe to be the case. I do believe though that it was irresponsible to release otters into the wild in great numbers before more research was done. But...

As most anglers are aware, many rivers, including the the Cherwell and Ouse were quite heavily stocked with barbel from, I believe, the late 70's through the 80's, possibly with same year class fish, and it stands to reason that the survivors of these stockings were always going to expire within a few short years of each other. If there there were no further regular stockings, which I don't believe there were, it was always going to be inevitable that there would be a big reduction in numbers of fish over a very short period, unless of course there was strong natural recruitment which there never has been to my knowledge. In fact, any barbel angler around my age will tell you that the only places to go were either the Yorkshire rivers or the two southern heavyweights of the Avon and Stour, the latter now suffering very poor recruitment since the spawning gravels were ripped out in the late 70's which is probably the main reason of the low numbers now, not that they have all been ottered. Most other rivers either didn't have them or they were very few in numbers. The exception was probably the Kennet but this river is sadly now suffering from poor recruitment due to canalisation, colour and lack of weed leading to poor recruitment.

The only answer as I see it, certainly in the short term, is as some others have said and that is more stockings, but this has to be on a very regular basis, if affordable and practical, so that we do not have a similar situation as described above.

As stated in previous posts, we as anglers must be like minded if we are to approach other relevant bodies in our cause for a better riverine environment but I fear we are a million miles away from this, especially when I read and hear of posts from anglers who are so emotively driven that they are not prepared to look at the whole picture. Even worse, some of these anglers are at a representative level for societies and angling clubs and before I finish I am perhaps going to spoil my manners now and say that one of these people is a new committee member of the Barbel Society, who's only qualification is that he caught a big barbel on a can of luncheon meat from the Severn many years ago. He has gone on record on social media calling otters 'vile creatures' and accusing Pete Reading of 'bleating the cause....a duplicitous act against all barbel and river fisherman', when referring to the H. Avon report and the MS blog.
So much for a bit of science and a measured opinion! Not much chance of him reasoning this post then is there? I can well imagine him sitting around a table with the Otter Trust debating the decline of barbel on his beloved Severn, you couldn't write it could you! Is it any wonder that that several decent, hard working people resigned from the BS committee, and not for the reasons that Steve Pope put out in the latest newsletter.

Dave Taylor - apologies if this goes against the first sentence of your recent post but I feel strongly that it had to be said.

Regards
Steve Derby
 
Steve, nail on the head. One of the most measured posts in the whole debacle. I'm not going to bother sharing my thoughts again, they'll make about as much difference as the BS will on it all. I know I'll be spending my 30 odd quid on carp bait though this spring rather than renewing my membership...
 
Steve.
Well I have seen many otter Kills. On the Kennet and the Wye.

And you are simply another apologist that cannot see the wood for the trees. In fact your view is damaging to so many of us that actually care for our fishing.

The fact that you decide in your post to attack one individual who simply wants to help Us understand the problem from his perspective is a shame on you. Simply a political assasination.

Let me say here and now.

Otters have affected many waterways to the detriment of our sport. Especially the smaller rivers. And that will lead to reduced spawning potential.

Also IMO the lack of spawning grounds / silt etc is a total waste of resources and pure conjecture on specialist wannabys.

There are serious issues.

Predation including crayfish
Phosphates
Inhibitors in the chemical discharges
Pollution.

You simply wanted to score a childish point.

The Barbel Society will continue to lose members, lose Commitee members until it stops trying to satisfy all and develops teeth. Simple.
Thats the only way it will grow back to 1000+ members from a paltry few hundred.

Your diatribe does it no favours
 
And Steve.
You know nothing about the Kennet.
Its been canalised for more years than you've lived.

The most affected areas of the river are boat free. Loads of clear, clean gravel stretches. Bunkum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top