• 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...

Otter petition.

It would be good if everyone saw it that way Shaun, unfortunately all these petitions do is show disgruntled anglers moaning about otters eating their fish.
 
Neil Blood wrote:
By the way, you can already get licencing to remove Otters from a fishery by non-lethal means, as I have a friend who is licensed to do so, following a training course he attended in Scotland last year. Only a handful of people in the UK are currently licensed to do so.
Click to expand...

Scotland eh? Something for the salmon rivers me thinks....
 
I too would like to understand how any of the wealth of non lethal options would make any difference. Unless we are sticking them all on a carriage at St.Pancras with a one way ticket through the tunnel, or we are placing them all into an induced coma? Sterilization would be my only suggestion of a successful non lethal policy.

I appreciate exactly what a lot of the more pro otter (well maybe not 'pro' but not believing they are the real problem) anglers on here are saying about the plethora of other issues that we are causing such as the recently re-popularised insecticide/pesticide issue, the on-going fertiliser and deoxygenation issue, abstraction, pollution, poor angling practices, taking of fish for the pot, and others we are not causing directly such as cormorants and other predatory birds, and I agree with them that these issues are also having a considerable negative effect on our fish populations.

However, what I would also like these anglers to explain to me is this: How come, despite the fact that the vast majority of these human created issues were equally as bad and in some cases worse 15 years ago (with the possible exception of abstraction but I doubt this has increased significantly enough to blame it solely), that there are now no barbel at all in the local stretches of tribs of the BA I used to fish, when the only significant difference to the catchment between then and now has been the colonisation by otters?

I think you would be extremely hard pushed to put that down to coincidence...
 
Joe Winstanley said:
As far as I know, the ‘class licence’ is only available in England - not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...

I can assure you that said training course was based in Scotland and he is now licensed to trap Otters by non-lethal means on English stillwater fisheries. He has already attempted to remove an Otter, from a club fishery, which was fenced; said Otter found a hole in the fence, which was repaired with the Otter still inside the fishery :)
 
Neil Blood said:
I can assure you that said training course was based in Scotland and he is now licensed to trap Otters by non-lethal means on English stillwater fisheries. He has already attempted to remove an Otter, from a club fishery, which was fenced; said Otter found a hole in the fence, which was repaired with the Otter still inside the fishery :)
Click to expand...

I don’t doubt that for a second Neil - often the training requirements for specific species related licences is out-sourced to specialist ecological consultants and there is a lot of big firms based in Scotland. I was replying to Anthony’s comment about Scottish salmon rivers.

It would be interesting to know where the otters get relocated to - although I suppose you would need an FIA request to get that info.
 
If my memory serves me right yes, I watched an interview with a chap who does it, he’s a carp angler. It’s on the fishery predation survey Facebook page

Shaun would be able too confirm... or not
 
Joe Winstanley said:
Can you outline some of these ideas and processes please Rich?
Click to expand...
I am not in that process Joe...... but I would think that every angle needs looking at. Any possible route that could be used to lower population...... there will be lots of possible things, from removal to sanctuaries to stopping the building of artificial holts to not releasing hand reared animals.
 
No Jason...... not involved apart from doing my bit to make people aware. As I have already said there are lots of possible options that can be assessed and that can take place later....in the first place a meeting to discuss the problem is the first task..... ?
 
Funny you know...... Blue Planet II didn't come up with any ideas of what to actually do...... simply making people aware of the problem...... not unlike this in principle is it. We all know the problems.... but those that matter don't.
 
George Maltby said:
I too would like to understand how any of the wealth of non lethal options would make any difference. Unless we are sticking them all on a carriage at St.Pancras with a one way ticket through the tunnel, or we are placing them all into an induced coma? Sterilization would be my only suggestion of a successful non lethal policy.

I appreciate exactly what a lot of the more pro otter (well maybe not 'pro' but not believing they are the real problem) anglers on here are saying about the plethora of other issues that we are causing such as the recently re-popularised insecticide/pesticide issue, the on-going fertiliser and deoxygenation issue, abstraction, pollution, poor angling practices, taking of fish for the pot, and others we are not causing directly such as cormorants and other predatory birds, and I agree with them that these issues are also having a considerable negative effect on our fish populations.

However, what I would also like these anglers to explain to me is this: How come, despite the fact that the vast majority of these human created issues were equally as bad and in some cases worse 15 years ago (with the possible exception of abstraction but I doubt this has increased significantly enough to blame it solely), that there are now no barbel at all in the local stretches of tribs of the BA I used to fish, when the only significant difference to the catchment between then and now has been the colonisation by otters?

I think you would be extremely hard pushed to put that down to coincidence...
Click to expand...

Interesting comment George, and I see where you are coming from, but does the idea that the water quality of England’s rivers is better, or even no worse than 15 years ago really stand up to any degree of scrutiny? I think not.

Whilst the EA keeps issuing self-congratulatory claims about our rivers based it's narrow range of cherry picked indicators - they are fooling nobody. The EA's claims were made to look fairly ridiculous by the 2015 Good Ecological Status Assessments where only 0.08% of England's rivers were considered 'high quality' and only 17% 'good quality'.

I think it’s fair to say, that on the whole there are now less point-source pollution incidents than in the past, and generally less high BOD pollutants and sewage from domestic sources, and very slight reductions in phosphate and nitrate levels (although you could argue that this hasn’t benefited some species like roach need high levels of ortho-phosphate to reach specimen sizes). The EA have completely taken their eye off the ball with lots of other insidious pollutants which they haven't been testing for.

Only now are we starting to discover just how damaging neonicotinoid pesticides which were introduced in the late 1990’s are to the aquatic environment, and then we have recent studies which are flagging up alarming levels of pharmaceuticals such as ibuprofen, erythromycin, diclofenac, mefanamic acid and propanolol in our rivers. I guess we can't say for sure if these pharmaceuticals are worse now than 15 years ago - but it's a reasonable assumption that is is a problem that will increase as the population rises (approx 6 million people in the last 10 years) and that conventional sewage treatments methods don't appear to effectively remove these pollutants.

The rate of soil erosion in many catchments is demonstrably worse than 15 years ago due to increased growing of high-risk crops like maize, degraded soils and changing rainfall characteristics (increased droplet size and rainfall intensity. As such in many catchments the rate of topsoil erosion rates of 3cm a year are being recorded. Then we have the spread of non-native plants such as himlayan balsam - the latter has spread at an alarming, almost exponential) rate in the last 15 years on nearly all of my local rivers.

And then there is the increasing trend of severe floods...

As with any ecosystem suffering from severe degradation, predation can have an acute impact on certain species - but is control (if indeed viable) of those predators really a long-term sustainable solution? For me it would just be nothing more than a short-term sticking plaster. And then there is the PR issue which a minority pursuit cannot afford to take for granted. I know others won't agree.

Needless to say, I won't be signing and whilst I don't agree with the petition, fair play to the Petitioner for doing something they believe will make a difference - rightly or wrongly. I have more respect for those that try to make things happen rather than just complaining.
 
Rich Frampton said:
Funny you know...... Blue Planet II didn't come up with any ideas of what to actually do...... simply making people aware of the problem...... not unlike this in principle is it. We all know the problems.... but those that matter don't.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the episode of Blue Planet when David Attenborough made the case for controlling predators as a means of restoring an ecosystem...;)
 
Joe Winstanley said:
Interesting comment George, and I see where you are coming from, but does the idea that the water quality of England’s rivers is better, or even no worse than 15 years ago really stand up to any degree of scrutiny? I think not.

Whilst the EA keeps issuing self-congratulatory claims about our rivers based it's narrow range of cherry picked indicators - they are fooling nobody. The EA's claims were made to look fairly ridiculous by the 2015 Good Ecological Status Assessments where only 0.08% of England's rivers were considered 'high quality' and only 17% 'good quality'.

I think it’s fair to say, that on the whole there are now less point-source pollution incidents than in the past, and generally less high BOD pollutants and sewage from domestic sources, and very slight reductions in phosphate and nitrate levels (although you could argue that this hasn’t benefited some species like roach need high levels of ortho-phosphate to reach specimen sizes). The EA have completely taken their eye off the ball with lots of other insidious pollutants which they haven't been testing for.

Only now are we starting to discover just how damaging neonicotinoid pesticides which were introduced in the late 1990’s are to the aquatic environment, and then we have recent studies which are flagging up alarming levels of pharmaceuticals such as ibuprofen, erythromycin, diclofenac, mefanamic acid and propanolol in our rivers. I guess we can't say for sure if these pharmaceuticals are worse now than 15 years ago - but it's a reasonable assumption that is is a problem that will increase as the population rises (approx 6 million people in the last 10 years) and that conventional sewage treatments methods don't appear to effectively remove these pollutants.

The rate of soil erosion in many catchments is demonstrably worse than 15 years ago due to increased growing of high-risk crops like maize, degraded soils and changing rainfall characteristics (increased droplet size and rainfall intensity. As such in many catchments the rate of topsoil erosion rates of 3cm a year are being recorded. Then we have the spread of non-native plants such as himlayan balsam - the latter has spread at an alarming, almost exponential) rate in the last 15 years on nearly all of my local rivers.

And then there is the increasing trend of severe floods...

As with any ecosystem suffering from severe degradation, predation can have an acute impact on certain species - but is control (if indeed viable) of those predators really a long-term sustainable solution? For me it would just be nothing more than a short-term sticking plaster. And then there is the PR issue which a minority pursuit cannot afford to take for granted. I know others won't agree.

Needless to say, I won't be signing and whilst I don't agree with the petition, fair play to the Petitioner for doing something they believe will make a difference - rightly or wrongly. I have more respect for those that try to make things happen rather than just complaining.
Click to expand...

Thanks Joe,

While I don't argue that the insecticide issue is a bit of an unknown at present, and certainly has the potential to decimate the fish population of a river. I would argue that general pollution in our waters, particularly since the collapse of heavy industry and improvements in legislation and policing since, say the 70s/80s (I think you would have to be very cynical to believe we have not gotten better since those days) has improved and on balance would say our rivers are cleaner now than then (even though the fish population has decreased quite dramatically). I understand your point, I wrote my dissertation on a similar topic. However, I think we are in danger of over thinking this issue slightly, for example, naturally/spring fed still waters in rural environments would also be susceptible to the issue of agricultural run off, maybe not to the same extent, but it would collect and concentrate as the water cycles far slower in a lake, however lakes that are unfenced tend to be in a far worse state than those that are fenced (granted most fenced lakes are not naturally fed, but you could imagine the exercise and I think you could be fairly certain of the results)...and you can guarantee the fence isn't nearly as effective at keeping neonicotinoids out as it is otters...while I do appreciate its a very simple observation and argument...and there are certainly many other factors at play...Ockham's Razor and all that...

I agree control of predator numbers is plastering over the cracks of a broken system with far more deep lying problems, however at the moment it may be our only short term option for a recovery in fish populations (which is, lets face it, the most important thing for us anglers), and is the first and easiest to address, everything else will have to come in time with a change in attitudes and practices (if possible, probably not with an increasing population already way exceeding the carrying capacity of the land). Hopefully then, once all others issues are in check, we can allow the predators to roam unchecked, but until that day they will continue to be the straw that broke the camels back, and unfortunately I (I am not alone) value my fishing more than otter sightings (agreed its not the right way of thinking, but it is my way and many other anglers would agree).
 
Last edited:
Joe Winstanley said:
I must have missed the episode of Blue Planet when David Attenborough made the case for controlling predators as a means of restoring an ecosystem...;)
Click to expand...
you know exactly what I was saying..... the programme has,rightly, been used to highlight the problems to people that can act...... the petition likewise.
 
It's interesting the differing attitude towards otters based on different angling disciplines. On the fly fishing forum, for example, I would say 90+% favour otters. I'd imagine a total reverse of that on carp forums, where as on here is probably around 50/50.
 
Rhys Perry said:
It's interesting the differing attitude towards otters based on different angling disciplines. On the fly fishing forum, for example, I would say 90+% favour otters. I'd imagine a total reverse of that on carp forums, where as on here is probably around 50/50.
Click to expand...
What do otters eat from trout streams/rivers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top