• 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...

Matt Hayes reckons rivers are had it - your views

David Gauntlett said:
MY post was disrespectful Ash :eek: Did you actually read the post's I was replying to? it is against the forum rules to make personal remarks against other members...which I admit I have done in the post you are referring to...but only in response to the ever increasing number of posts from Neil doing exactly that.

Many of my posts are possibly contentious, make points that I feel passionately about, and are not to everyones taste...which is why they frequently give rise to healthy discussions on the subject matter. I do NOT normally break forum rules by attacking other members in this way...and I need to be pretty angry to lower myself to that level. To date, Neil is one of the very few members whose attitude lowers me to that level.

If you are GENUINELY upset by my remarks, rather than using this as a devious method to support someone purely because they share your opinions on the subject of otters, then I apologise to you, and anyone else who found them offensive. However, I would advise that you read Neil's comments on this and many other threads recently, and reconsider your opinion as to who exactly is in the wrong here.

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...

Dave my 'attitude' as you put it is that I don't go along with all the anti Otter folk subscribe too, now if that is where you think I am being in the wrong here and worthy of being in your cross hairs then so be it, but to say that I have a history of being a problem on here is news to me, I have not had any mod warnings comments nothing....I do have an attempt at being light hearted at times, and can give as good as I get, what do want?
If I upset you so much try the ignore function.
 
I may be barking up the wrong tree Neil but some times your posts have bite. But don't take it too ruff and let's hope the mods don't collar you
 
Ash Gould said:
Water abstraction, Habitat destruction, Comorants, Hormone disruptors, Cray-fish.

Their at the tip top of my list Stuart, and thats with 10 tons of sand on my head apparantly.
Click to expand...

Ash, I agree with you on your comment that you and I would probably get on well together in real life...believe it or not, I have enjoyed a great many of your post's in the past and thought much the same thing. And yes, I was very angry when I made my comments to Neil, which you took exception to...and yes, there is 'previous' as you guessed, and a lot of subdued anger that I have kept down, as a result of other comments made by him. As I say, this reaction from me was an exception, and I have already apologised to you if you are genuinely upset by my remarks.

As for your observations above...again, I am in complete agreement with you, on the first bit. However....might I ask one question? If we do win the fight against the evils of abstraction, pollution, habitat destruction and so on, and return our rivers to pristine, healthy loveliness....what....apart from water skiing , sailing and so on...will we do with them? We won't be fishing in them, that's for sure. Unless we manage the urgent and NOW disasters of Cormorant and otter predation, BOTH of which are ONLY disasters because they are predators occurring in unnatural numbers, through man caused changes and lack of natural predation on themselves....then there won't be any fish left to enjoy those far distant pristine conditions will there?

Due to the huge human population explosion in this country (which very shortly will get very much worse) which in part at least was forced onto us (as are many other ludicrous evils) by the EEC....and the massive downturn in our economy (don't start me on that one) then the ever increasing demands for housing, and the massive pressure that brings to bear on our water supplies, sewage disposal and so on...and the lack of funds to deal with those monster issues....is going to mean that the problems you mention above are going to get worse in the short term. Neither we, nor anyone else in this present climate, can do anything to stop that happening. So, the nirvana you wish for will necessarily be VERY far in the dim, distant future....if ever. And I find that every bit as distasteful and regrettable as you do. However, I do think that our fish are tough enough to survive the oncoming horrors...they have done it before...but ONLY if they are given every chance we can give them.

With that in mind, do you not think that it might just be a rather splendid idea to try to safeguard those fish that are surviving so far, in the hope that some may even manage to get through the inevitable onslaught on their habitat that human demands will inevitably bring in the near future? If we allow unmanaged carnage, brought about by unnaturally large numbers of predators, to decimate our already depleted fish stocks....then pollution will no longer be an issue, will it? We will have missed the opportunity to do something about the dire problems fish and other riverine residents are facing NOW, something that IS manageable, something that WILL work and is NOT inevitable and beyond our control....if we so wish.

We absolutely need to deal with all the evils you describe...but that is an ongoing, long term battle that many good people are already fighting. Unnatural numbers of predators such as otters and cormorants (brought about by OUR actions...and lack of actions) are a clear and present danger NOW. Unless we tackle those dangers NOW, there is no future for fish, and thus fishing....whether or not we eventually deal with the longer term issues.

What do you think Ash...total doom mongering? Or perhaps something to think about, rather than dismiss out of hand because it doesn't fit in with your current take on things? I take in, think about and consider everyones opinions on this issue (apart from the downright rude ones) and as a result my feelings have become modified more than once. I invite you to try the same :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
Last edited:
Blooming hell what a difference a day makes.

Can we all calm down a bit and stop bickering ?, as the instigator of the thread I would like it to get back on track as I don't like to see personal stuff creeping in. It does seem to be a trend in that the longer a thread runs the more likely it is that the ****e will start flying. Not good chaps for the thread, BFW or for angling.

I started a thread sometime back that ended in this exact way, I said then I was unhappy with the way it went and considered just being an onlooker and not contribute to the site, something which I now feel the same about.
 
Nick, I sympathise to a degree, but if you start off a thread about otters...a subject you are fully aware is one of the most talked about and contentious issue currently around....and ask for opinions on it....then what exactly did you expect to happen????

Cheers, Dave.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Nick, Im coming across stroppy but its only my limits with the written word.

I agree with most of what you have put there Dave. If we get the pristine eutopia then I suppose it’s a chicken (fish) and egg situation. But I think we both know that aint happening anytime soon (now whos doom mongering:D)

Eventually and unfortunately I think the Otter will suffer the fate of most river dwelling creatures and that is a real struggle for survival. Fish cant breed because they are all jaffers and the otter will go the same way, IMO.

I can only speak about my own river and all I know is the Ouse has been on the decline for a long, long time and the seemingly good specimen fishing seemed to paperover these problems. So from my view point to hanker over or pine for the loss of specimen fishing isn't really right; I should be pining for the healthy mixed fishing of the late 80's and early 90's (if that makes sense). Even with without Otters, the specimen fish would still be dying out right about now and therefore we have to look at what is the real root cause of the problem: non-sustainable fisheries. As it stands I think comorants will always be a problem in freshwater and that they are THE significant factor in our inability to produce sustainable river fishing.
 
Ash, it's pure conjecture to assume all the big fish would be dying out without the otters anyway. How do you know that? I keep reading that the otter is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, pollution, abstarction, cormorants etc and there is no doubt these are all contributing factors. But take my local river, the Cherwell, as an example. Ten or twelve years ago it was a fabulous river. Big barbel with plenty around the four or five pound mark- some were even caught under a pound- to back up the big fish. Big chub, medium sized chub, plentiful nursery areas like Heyford where many chublets thrived etc. Now the river is almost barren. The Windrush, full of mainly small barbel. Go spinning for trout and it was a two pound chub every other cast. Now all you get is stocked trout. The Teme, full of barbel; I haven't fished it for years but from what I read it has declined massively. What do all these rivers have in common? The decline began with the appearance of otters. The rivers weren't in decline before that, quite the opposite. Now I know all the factors, crayfish included, have contributed to the decline of these rivers but if the otter is just the tip of the iceberg then it's a bloody big tip! I don't particularly care whether they have a right to be there, that is another argument altogether. What is not in question, at least on the Thames tributaries, is that the damage they have done far outweighs any other factors. Unless of course, these rivers declining rapidly when the otters appeared is just an unfortunate coincidence..
 
Conjecture, yes, but common sense based conjecture and one that most experienced Ouse anglers agree on.

There wont be any 10lbers if there isnt any 1lbers to grow that big in the first place. EA scale analysis has shown that the youngest barbel coming out in fish surveys to be over 10 (cant specifically remember) so there is 10 years worth of missing barbel for a start.

Its only my view point and Im more than open to the idea of me being wrong. Otters never died out on the Ouse, their numbers declined but they were always there even during the good angling days.
 
Right gents, lets not let this thread descend any further please !!
This is a gentle reminder/warning from the Mods/Andy F.
Most of what can be said, has been said here !! If you have nothing constructive to say then please don't drag things down.
If you really do have such a difference of opinion or have taken offence at each other please feel free to e-mail/PM each other and keep the forum as friendly and happy as possible !!
Thank You !
Paul M.
 
Alex Gowney said:
Ash, it's pure conjecture to assume all the big fish would be dying out without the otters anyway. How do you know that? I keep reading that the otter is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, pollution, abstarction, cormorants etc and there is no doubt these are all contributing factors. But take my local river, the Cherwell, as an example. Ten or twelve years ago it was a fabulous river. Big barbel with plenty around the four or five pound mark- some were even caught under a pound- to back up the big fish. Big chub, medium sized chub, plentiful nursery areas like Heyford where many chublets thrived etc. Now the river is almost barren. The Windrush, full of mainly small barbel. Go spinning for trout and it was a two pound chub every other cast. Now all you get is stocked trout. The Teme, full of barbel; I haven't fished it for years but from what I read it has declined massively. What do all these rivers have in common? The decline began with the appearance of otters. The rivers weren't in decline before that, quite the opposite. Now I know all the factors, crayfish included, have contributed to the decline of these rivers but if the otter is just the tip of the iceberg then it's a bloody big tip! I don't particularly care whether they have a right to be there, that is another argument altogether. What is not in question, at least on the Thames tributaries, is that the damage they have done far outweighs any other factors. Unless of course, these rivers declining rapidly when the otters appeared is just an unfortunate coincidence..
Click to expand...

You say the decline of the Rivers you mentioned coincided with the appearance of Otter, but there is no facts to back this up, these Rivers have always had Mink predating on the fish so why would would the Otter replacing the Mink be the reason?
I however I think there are indeed other factors to consider, and we have had a series of floods in much the same period of time the rivers have declined. Of course it's all conjecture there is no solid evidence, and there does need to be studies undertaken to at least throw some light on as to why the Windrush, perhaps the most startling decline of all has suffered.

But I do think we need to look at the natural food that is generated in these rivers, do we understand enough about larvae that fish rely on? Are they in decline, have the floods influenced this, warming, pollution, but one thing I suspect is that Otter is taking a huge rap for something that cannot be attributed to him evidentially, we just might be missing the real cause.
 
Ash Gould said:
Conjecture, yes, but common sense based conjecture and one that most experienced Ouse anglers agree on. There wont be any 10lbers if there isnt any 1lbers to grow that big in the first place. EA scale analysis has shown that the youngest barbel coming out in fish surveys to be over 10 (cant specifically remember) so there is 10 years worth of missing barbel for a start. Its only my view point and Im more than open to the idea of me being wrong. Otters never died out on the Ouse, their numbers declined but they were always there even during the good angling days.
Click to expand...

I accept your views on the Ouse, Ash, it's a river I haven't fished for many years. The rivers I have experience of are the ones I mention, Thames tributaries. On these rivers there was a very healthy stock of young barbel along with the bigger fish, so from my experience the rivers were not in terminal decline at the time the otters appeared,
 
Neil Smart said:
You say the decline of the Rivers you mentioned coincided with the appearance of Otter, but there is no facts to back this up, these Rivers have always had Mink predating on the fish so why would would the Otter replacing the Mink be the reason? I however I think there are indeed other factors to consider, and we have had a series of floods in much the same period of time the rivers have declined. Of course it's all conjecture there is no solid evidence, and there does need to be studies undertaken to at least throw some light on as to why the Windrush, perhaps the most startling decline of all has suffered. But I do think we need to look at the natural food that is generated in these rivers, do we understand enough about larvae that fish rely on? Are they in decline, have the floods influenced this, warming, pollution, but one thing I suspect is that Otter is taking a huge rap for something that cannot be attributed to him evidentially, we just might be missing the real cause.
Click to expand...

There are no hard facts to back up my opinion Neil, but I am offering that opinion based on my, and many others, first hand experience of these rivers. My findings were that the decline coincided with the appearance of otters. Other anglers may have come to different conclusions. Mink also do not carry off double figure barbel unless of course they do it as a group exercise! Not only that, throughout these rivers best years mink were present. Otters weren't.

You are right Neil, there does need to be more serious and in depth study undertaken, my opinion does not make me right and I fully realise this. But neither does it make me automatically wrong either. I am not the only Cherwell angler who holds this view, many very well known anglers feel the same.

I am not sure whether the Windrush decline has been more more startling than the Cherwell, though thinking of it, I think you may well be right. It seemed more sudden, somehow. And yes, many rivers have not been the same since the 2007 floods with no real good explanation for that either. I suppose everyone has an opinion, and without solid proof, as you say, it's all just conjecture. :(
 
Last edited:
Neil Smart said:
But I do think we need to look at the natural food that is generated in these rivers, do we understand enough about larvae that fish rely on? Are they in decline, have the floods influenced this, warming, pollution...
Click to expand...

A valid point. The most critical are the organisms the baby barbel (and other species fry) need to feed on in the first few weeks of their existence, when the small size of their mouths mean that a very specific diet needs to be plentifully available in order for them to survive.
 
Any one on here who has fished on the Lower Severn and the W/Avon before and after the floods of 2007 will know the dramatic decline in fish being caught after the floods compared with what was being caught before the floods and I wonder how many other rivers have suffered over the years due to the number of heavy floods we have had .
How many fish have been stranded and perished when the levels have gone down .
If memory serves me right . It was last year at Upton on Severn when the the river burst it banks and large numbers of Bream and Carp as well had to be rescued and put back in to the river .
Had the fish not been found and returned to the river .
I wonder would anglers fishing the stretch have blamed the Otter for the disapearance of such a large number of fish had they of not been returned to the river .
 
Although 2007 were exceptional floods Joe, they weren't the first we've had. As a regular on the W Avon as well as a previous regular on the Cherwell and Windrush, I feel the Avon has not deteriorated anywhere near as bad as the other two rivers, at least in my experience. In fact, 2008 was one of my better years. But I know a lot of regulars said it wasn't the same river and we can only comment as we find. Also, I suppose the bigger rivers seem able to cope with various problems better than the small ones.
 
Last edited:
Again, we are all agreed that there is not a huge mountain of concrete evidence to support our various theories, one way or the other. However, there IS a small and growing mound of evidence that DOES point towards predators being the major problem at this time. I honestly believe that the destruction wrought by otters and cormorants IS provable and undeniable in certain (and growing numbers of) instances, and has far more evidence going for it than any other possible 'unseen' reason.

On the one hand, we have folk saying how many fish seem to thrive on a certain level of pollution. The tiny river Gade, a river well known and previously fished by Keith Speer, Graham Elliot and myself is testament to that. There was a large paper mill on that river many moons ago, which used the rivers water for it's processes, and discharged evil looking effluent back into the river in exchange. This resulted in a vile, pink, snot like slime coating the weed, the river bed....and every item of tackle (bait included) that you cared to chuck into it. At times, you literally couldn't see your hand if you placed it in the river up to your wrist :eek: And the result? some of the finest roach fishing I have ever experienced. And now? The mill was demolished many years ago, and was replaced with housing. The river now runs fairly clear...but the fishing (in most respects) is not a patch on what it once was.

Ok, there is no denying that serious toxic chemical pollution (rather than reasonable levels of the biodegradable, organic type that I and others are referring to) can be massively harmful, and without a doubt there ARE invisible nasties going into our rivers. However, pollution has been with us since man decided that living next to rivers was a very sensible idea....WAY before the Vikings came and peed in them....and so far, with the exception of certain obscene examples of mans destructive nature (mainly in the industrialised midlands of the last century and before)....the fish have seen it all...and have survived it all.

So...are we really to believe that despite that....and despite the sudden influx of Cormorants to our rivers (both native and from other parts of Europe) in unheard of numbers (that is fact)....and despite the sudden and sadly coincidentally timed resurgence of otters, many of which are seen to be acting brazenly and VERY untraditionally....and despite many reports of small lake fisheries being TOTALLY wiped out by otters (with no possibility of pollution being the cause)...and of course, not forgetting the tiny matter that the otters and/or cormorants were seen doing their worst in many cases....and despite ALL the other verified reports of otters seen, and proven to be causing mayhem to other protected species, bird and mammal alike....despite ALL the other evidence that has been gathered.....that the sudden and cataclysmic decline of some small rivers, and the lesser but equally upsetting decline of some other rivers, which has coincided exactly with the uncontrolled influx of these creatures....has NOTHING to do with these dire happenings :eek: That it is more probable that it is all down to some unknown nasty in the water, something that the water companies constant testing doesn't detect...an imagined POSSIBLE, and as yet undiscovered SOMETHING in our water that MIGHT be the REAL problem :eek:

In fact, ANYTHING that isn't an otter or a cormorant is the thing we should blame...just as soon as we find it...................:rolleyes:

Cheers, Dave.
 
Last edited:
Alex the floods of 2007 were exceptional and I wonder with all the floods we have had since .
How much of an impact has that had fry ? and can they survive in that kind of environment ?
Nearly six years on from 2007 are the fry now growing in to the specimens of tomorrow or did they perish ?
 
And yet all the mayhem the Otter has been blamed for some chose to ignore the fact, this is one fact I think we can use, is that the Mink has declined in numbers with the return of the Otter, and as we all know the Mink is a very capable hunter of fish.

Again on a positive note the Water Vole has recovered a little due to it being not on the Otter menu, both are indigenous of course so it's a start.

I wish someone could explain merely by replacing one apex predator with another, Otter vs Mink that a swap of a very similar predator type could have a profound impact on fish stocks? OK the Otter is a larger beast but that doesn't seem to be a valid reason in itself.

I can't help but think the problem of declining fish stocks should not be put solely at the feet of the Otter, I think we need to look a little deeper.
 
Joe Fletcher said:
Alex the floods of 2007 were exceptional and I wonder with all the floods we have had since .
How much of an impact has that had fry ? and can they survive in that kind of environment ?
Nearly six years on from 2007 are the fry now growing in to the specimens of tomorrow or did they perish ?
Click to expand...

It is a valid point Joe, certainly the Teme took on a different look after 2007, and pre 2007 it fished very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top