Otter Devestation??

[Neil Smart]

They will always prefer to take an oily fish, eels for example
How many eels you lads fishing the Bristol Avon caught recently?

Paved with the blighters in the Severn catchment.

 

[Neil Smart]

You know it would n't be half as bad if they actually ate all of what they catch, but they don't, they eat the insides and a little flesh, they have to catch 4 or 5 fish to eat the equivalent of one whole one.

Such a destructive predator, these are Swale fish on a Leeds DASA stretch.

It's difficult to not 'humanise' creatures I guess, 'If you don't eat all of your dinner then you can't go out to play'

Otters have evolved in a way that they select the most beneficial parts of a fish to eat, the parts we humans throw away, perhaps we might learn something, or maybe we have just forgotten that a spoonful of cod liver oil was a 'cure all' remedy when I was a kid.

Truth is Otters are better at fishing than us and have a far better diet...respect.

 

[Jim Foxall]

Dave, what the hell are you on about!? Your obsession with political correctness is pushing you over the edge! You use the phrase five times in that meaningless rant! What's any of it got to do with otters!?
Otters never really had any natural predators, the live mostly in water, what exactly would have preyed upon them so much that we had to take their place?

And calm down!

Probably the boom you have witnessed in fishing in general (specimen,and match) is probably because of the relatively low numbers of predators. With the burgeoning numbers of cormorants and otters you have probably seen the best of it. Yes, I agree water quality has gone up which will have restored the balance of fish numbers to some degree. Perhaps we shall have to make some decisions whether we allow uncontrolled predation with a decline in fishing or exercise some control. Maybe it is the time to turn your back on fishing, sell the gear whilst there is still some demand for it and take up golf.

 

[Rhys Perry]

You are right Rhys, I do need to calm down. However, I only go into a 'meaningless rant' as you put it, because I care. As to your two 'meaningless' points, try bears and wolves for size as far as previous 'apex predators' go, both of which enter water, and will kill otters given a chance...and would find otter cubs roaming the bank a very tasty snack. Lynx would have stalked and killed them on the bank, and a sea eagle would make short work of swimming cubs. No doubt there were numerous others historically, but they will do for now.

I mention 'political correctness' numerous times because that is what is wrong with our country at this time in my opinion. If I mentioned it a thousand times, it still wouldn't be enough. This creeping evil that is destroying our country is so pervasive and insidious that folk are anaesthetized by it, they read the newspapers every day, watch the news on the box and STILL can't see what is happening. The recent revolt in European voting has shown that at least some people are waking up. I wouldn't want Farage or Le Pen running Europe any more than I would the present numpties...but the protest vote that has brought then to sudden prominence shows a growing wave of discontent with the madness that rules currently.

If you can complain about my post by asking 'what has any of it got to do with otters'....then you haven't actually read it Rhys...and have little understanding of what brought about the 'total protection' of otters, and the harm that is doing to our riverine ecology.

No matter Rhys, you have your opinions, and I have mine...which is as it should be for democracy to work. Not that democracy WILL work for much longer....if the planned 'Federal State of Europe', ruled from Brussels, comes to be. Good luck with that Rhys...you will need it.

Cheers, Dave.

Do you honestly think such predators would have made any significant effect on otter numbers? They may be able to enter the water but I'd love to see a bear or wolf that can out maneuver an otter! There's been a massive increase in raptor numbers in recent years which may well take a few cubs, and of course one of the biggest killers of otters nowadays is the car, so I'd say they're more in danger now.

As for political correctness I'll leave that for another more relevant thread, but a "creeping evil that is destroying our country"? Get real. I'm surprised you leave the house you're that paranoid. First world problems eh?

 

[Rhys Perry]

Probably the boom you have witnessed in fishing in general (specimen,and match) is probably because of the relatively low numbers of predators. With the burgeoning numbers of cormorants and otters you have probably seen the best of it. Yes, I agree water quality has gone up which will have restored the balance of fish numbers to some degree. Perhaps we shall have to make some decisions whether we allow uncontrolled predation with a decline in fishing or exercise some control. Maybe it is the time to turn your back on fishing, sell the gear whilst there is still some demand for it and take up golf.

Just about sums it up, we've had it easy with predator free, fish a chuck rivers and lakes, unnaturally over sized fish fed on unnatural, high protein baits with records being broken left right and centre, now you've got to work for it everyone's screaming 'it's not fair!' like spoilt teenagers.

 

[David Gauntlett]

You may have it right there Jim, though golf my not be a good bet as an alternative. It is now estimated that we need to build 250,000 new homes a year, for the foreseeable future, to house our rocketing population. They have got to build them somewhere mate

Cheers, Dave.

 

[David Gauntlett]

Rhys, there are none so blind as those who cannot see, and the barrage of brainwashing propaganda the people of this country has been subjected to for the last twenty years or so has produced an awful lot of folk who cannot see.

You say that the predators I mentioned would have no significant affect on the numbers of otters many centuries ago, when the countryside was in balance, as nature intended (before mankind came along and mucked it up) Rhys, you worry me, you really do. I am not paranoid dear chap...I am a realist.

We are a fair way along the path to the destruction of the world as we know it Rhys. Anyone who has watched the terrifying documentaries and news items showing the devastation mankind is wreaking on our rain forests and other fragile ecologies in places like Brazil...in fact the whole of South America, Indonesia...and practically anywhere else you care to mention, will know that.

We have always bent our world to suit our wants...the problem is, advances in technology allow us to do that now on an industrial scale. We have actually destroyed the entire ecology of numerous smaller countries, and are heading towards achieving that on a continental level. Our coral reefs are now predicted to disappear in the next twenty years. Deforestation has already turned once fertile countries into barren wastes...13,000,00 hectares of rain forest are lost every year. It is estimated that we have now lost two thirds of the worlds wildlife due to OUR actions, and that loss is escalating at scary rates. Want to know the truth about Madagascar Rhys? About how many of the cute lemurs we see on 'Watch with Attenborough' actually remain in the tiny area of wild forest now left there? About why the Chinese government are artificially inseminating pandas to create the appearance that all is well there? The list is endless and soul destroying.

And yet you insist that it would be wrong or cruel to try and redress at least one of the wrongs we have done in this country recently. That at least trying to achieve a natural prey/predator balance, to save the many species of OUR wildlife that will otherwise be wiped out....would be 'unkind'?

And you tell me to 'get real' ?

Cheers, Dave.

 

[Ash Gould]

Tragic irony.

Just when will we get the imbalancing act just right. Its almost as if 'balance' is just a subjective arbitrary term.

 

[Darren Scott]

Just about sums it up, we've had it easy with predator free, fish a chuck rivers and lakes, unnaturally over sized fish fed on unnatural, high protein baits with records being broken left right and centre, now you've got to work for it everyone's screaming 'it's not fair!' like spoilt teenagers.

Otters are stripping rivers of Barbel, that's fact, first it was the Gt Ouse, now you can name half a dozen rivers they have and are having a negative impact on, they need to be controlled, in many cases too many were released.

I have no doubt Otters have a place in the food chain and rightly so, none of us want to see them extinct on our local rivers, but its the numbers on certain rivers that is tipping the balance and getting out of hand.

They are no longer an endangered animal, as an Apex predator, they need to be put in the same bracket as Foxes now.

 

[David Hall]

Do you honestly think such predators would have made any significant effect on otter numbers? They may be able to enter the water but I'd love to see a bear or wolf that can out maneuver an otter! There's been a massive increase in raptor numbers in recent years which may well take a few cubs, and of course one of the biggest killers of otters nowadays is the car, so I'd say they're more in danger now.

As for political correctness I'll leave that for another more relevant thread, but a "creeping evil that is destroying our country"? Get real. I'm surprised you leave the house you're that paranoid. First world problems eh?

Poor otters, we need to ban cars.

 

[Rhys Perry]

Rhys, there are none so blind as those who cannot see, and the barrage of brainwashing propaganda the people of this country has been subjected to for the last twenty years or so has produced an awful lot of folk who cannot see.

You say that the predators I mentioned would have no significant affect on the numbers of otters many centuries ago, when the countryside was in balance, as nature intended (before mankind came along and mucked it up) Rhys, you worry me, you really do. I am not paranoid dear chap...I am a realist.

We are a fair way along the path to the destruction of the world as we know it Rhys. Anyone who has watched the terrifying documentaries and news items showing the devastation mankind is wreaking on our rain forests and other fragile ecologies in places like Brazil...in fact the whole of South America, Indonesia...and practically anywhere else you care to mention, will know that.

We have always bent our world to suit our wants...the problem is, advances in technology allow us to do that now on an industrial scale. We have actually destroyed the entire ecology of numerous smaller countries, and are heading towards achieving that on a continental level. Our coral reefs are now predicted to disappear in the next twenty years. Deforestation has already turned once fertile countries into barren wastes...13,000,00 hectares of rain forest are lost every year. It is estimated that we have now lost two thirds of the worlds wildlife due to OUR actions, and that loss is escalating at scary rates. Want to know the truth about Madagascar Rhys? About how many of the cute lemurs we see on 'Watch with Attenborough' actually remain in the tiny area of wild forest now left there? About why the Chinese government are artificially inseminating pandas to create the appearance that all is well there? The list is endless and soul destroying.

And yet you insist that it would be wrong or cruel to try and redress at least one of the wrongs we have done in this country recently. That at least trying to achieve a natural prey/predator balance, to save the many species of OUR wildlife that will otherwise be wiped out....would be 'unkind'?

And you tell me to 'get real' ?

Cheers, Dave.

Sounds like you're ranting aimlessly again Dave. I'm well aware of such things thanks (I'm a fully paid up member of the WWF), I grew up watching Attenborough and still watch him and many other such programs, I don't need an education on mans destruction thanks.

The otter was endangered, has it's reintroduction endangered anything? I'm not talking individual waters here but the ecology as a whole, have you or anyone else proved this to be the case? Are barbel and carp, the main 'victims' in this otter witch hunt, in danger of becoming a threatened species? many rivers thrive perfectly well with otters and have done for years, as I've said countless times now it's the other issues facing our rivers that need sorting out, otters can live in balance with everything else in our watery environments, as they do in many areas. But they are an easy target, why go to all the effort to sort the other, admittedly harder and more complex issues out when we can just kill all the otters again.

It's a cheap trick to try and make out that you and others on here are only concerned with the 'balance of nature' when it's just that you're p***ed off because you're not catching as many fish. Sounds very much like you're trying to brainwash me with your own self serving propaganda!

 

[Rhys Perry]

Otters are stripping rivers of Barbel, that's fact, first it was the Gt Ouse, now you can name half a dozen rivers they have and are having a negative impact on, they need to be controlled, in many cases too many were released.

I have no doubt Otters have a place in the food chain and rightly so, none of us want to see them extinct on our local rivers, but its the numbers on certain rivers that is tipping the balance and getting out of hand.

They are no longer an endangered animal, as an Apex predator, they need to be put in the same bracket as Foxes now.

Again, why are otters having such a negative effect on such rivers but not others? Because these rivers are a mess and have been for years, but that's been ok because of the wonderful big specimens they produce for people! Is it not obvious? The waters where otters are causing the biggest problems are waters full of nothing but a few big specimens, and because these are the type of waters that many anglers want they've done nothing to readdress this.
If a water is full of all sizes and year classes of many species of fish then there is plenty of food for the otter and plenty left for us to catch.

 

[Alex Gowney]

Well Rhys, the Windrush was certainly not a river full of specimens, in fact six pounds was a big fish. But there were a great many fish, a bit like the Teme I suppose. You are quite right to suggest other issues need addressing but the barbel in the Windrush disappeared with the arrival of the otters, as did the barbel on the Cherwell and upper Thames. Both had big fish but a good population of average fish too. The otter can't be blamed for every rivers demise but they have had a big say in the rivers mentioned, I'm afraid.

 

[Rhys Perry]

Fair enough. What about the other fish in these rivers? Was there a good balance of smaller species? Did the otters just target the barbel or was it that they had no choice to?
At the end of the day unless there's definitive proof that otters are an ecological disaster across the country you can forget any hope of a cull/control or whatever you want to call it, quite simply the only hope is to address the other issues so they no longer pose a problem on these certain waters.
There's always the illegal culling approach but when they start disappearing the finger pointing will only be in one direction and that's not going to do fishing any favours.

 

[Jim Foxall]

Sounds like you're ranting aimlessly again Dave. I'm well aware of such things thanks (I'm a fully paid up member of the WWF), I grew up watching Attenborough and still watch him and many other such programs, I don't need an education on mans destruction thanks.

Rhys, I can see no reason why you cannot take a measured approach to comments posted on this forum. All you have to do is either ignore a post or make your point. You are clearly an intelligent fellow and have no need to make personal remarks. In my posts I have never belittled an individual's views, that to me is rude. But there again I am "Old School".

 

[Rhys Perry]

His entire post was condescending Jim, that to me is rude.

 

[Shaun Nurse]

Hi Rhys, it does seem that you trying to play Devils Advocate is sending you a little out of your depth here. You have got personal with Dave and are refusing to take anyone else`s points on board (from how I see it). I don`t think anyone else mantioned Culling Otters legally or illegally, you have mentioned that. As for just certain rivers for certain few inept anglers, unable to catch their large quarry. I am afraid it is not just a few, Yes there are lot`s of rivers in various states of health, some of which are - at present - sustaining fish and Otter but it remains to be seen for how long....

 

[Rhys Perry]

Shaun, controlling their numbers has been mentioned numerous times, both legally and illegally, which effectively counts as culling does it not?
How exactly am I out of my depth? And how exactly have a bunch of anglers suddenly become experts on ecology? Only anglers have concerns about otter populations, why so?

Dave and I have fell out before on this subject, I'm sure neither of us are about to lose any sleep over it!

 

[Graham Young]

A perfect example of how political correctness is affecting this country is what has been going on at some schools in Birmingham, teachers and parents afraid to voice their concerns for fear of being labelled racist or an islamaphobe.

Rhys the rivers that you fish may at this time be fine with plenty of fish and a good predator/prey balance, if this is the case you are very lucky, lots of others are not fortunate enough to be in that situation their river fishing having been decimated by the foolish actions of a few who thought they knew better than nature ( a seemingly common trait in man) .

Your point that there are other thing wrong with our rivers is correct unfortunately these "other things" were not taken into consideration by those that thought they knew best, hence the situation we now have.

I have seen catches fall over the last couple of years as have others, these anglers are good anglers with lots of Barbel fishing experience, they cannot catch what is not there, why cant you accept that fact? if an angler sometimes has a bit of fishing that's on the easy side where is the harm? God knows there are plenty of hard days mixed in.

I just hope that the rivers you fish don't go the same way as lots of others already have.

 

[Graham Young]

]Shaun, controlling their numbers has been mentioned numerous times, both legally and illegally, which effectively counts as culling does it not?[/B]
How exactly am I out of my depth? And how exactly have a bunch of anglers suddenly become experts on ecology? Only anglers have concerns about otter populations, why so?

Dave and I have fell out before on this subject, I'm sure neither of us are about to lose any sleep over it!

No there are other ways.