• 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.

We truly believe the petition is a great success, we predicted its outcome, but we would say that wouldn't we, over 11,500 anglers have signed it, hopefully that included you and remember the petition is still running and we need more signatures, strength is in numbers.

For years much had been promised by other organisations regarding the Otter situation, lots of talk, lots of writing, lots of meetings, with little or nothing being achieved for years and years, most especially on rivers, I mean how much time do you need?

The Barbel Society did something and in a matter of weeks had a response from the Government, they acknowledge us and our concerns, the petition carries on, the fight for anglers rights carries on, the fight for justice carries on.

We must stop knocking ourselves and talking things down with in fighting and division, we did good, the Government were never going to say, "Oh get on with it then and do what you like...".

The various Government past and present, Greenpeace, the EU, the EA, the various River Trusts, Natural England, Fish legal, the Angling Trust have all tried to clean the rivers up one way or another and by all accounts failed, they have much greater resources than the 600 members of the Barbel Society, so we needed to do something that we thought would have the greater impact and bring all anglers together, Carp, Barbel, Pike, Game, stillwater and river etc. and to create awareness.

We have been slaughtered and supported (as only the Barbel Society could be) by doing this, personally and as a whole, but we did it for the best reasons.

We are now at risk of taking more insults and derogatory remarks by posting here, so you will forgive me if I don't answer or take part in any debate that follows this post. The are meetings and communications taking place as we discuss the way forward with other stakeholders and partners, it will be a long hard road, its not going to be easy.

So its on to the next stages, as we discuss the way forward.

Remember we got the Government to acknowledge the sometimes devastating fish kills that are done by Otters, that includes Barbel, so if you can, support the movement where you can.

"The way forward is together" don't forget that that
 
Graham Young said:
Jason why do you think that anglers reasons for not joining the trust are "excuses" I was a member I no longer am a member and have valid reasons for not joining again, if you would like to hear those reasons please let me know and I will PM you, to list them on here will I feel only lead to a distraction from the thread.
Click to expand...

Graham, I am aware of some of your reasons for not supporting the angling trust and yes you feel they are valid for not joining. but I feel anglers who choose that way of thinking are cutting there nose off to spite there face.

I think the Angling Trust and fish legal do a good job with the limited membership and financial support they have, they have helped my local club out a couple of times and if we did not have them who would we go to when the sh*t really hit the fan with a major pollution incident. I know that club membership and individual membership are two different things but I can afford to join individually so I chose to because I believe it can only help angling on a national level where we need one voice that the like's of the EA, Natural England, CRT and Defra would sit at a table with and talk to.

And Joe not worked in what respect? just recently the barbel society decided to move more towards being a "pressure group" with the otter petition and if anything I would say it as damaged them by dividing anglers opinions and the very people you need to work with to improve rivers such as wildlife trusts that are taking over the running of catchment management plans from the EA would definitely not want to talk to a "pressure group".

So I'm happy with where I sit in what I can do to support angling as a whole and that sits ok with. me
 
Jason I was a member of the old ACA and would now be a member of fish legal if I was allowed to join that separately but its not possible in England although it is in other parts of the UK which I find very strange.

"Cutting my nose off to spite my face" possibly but I just cannot bring myself to forgive some of the antics that have taken place in the past one in particular was underhand and not fair on other anglers that had joined. One thing that the trust do that is a great deal for angling clubs is their insurance, well worth it.

I would love to see an organisation representing anglers that had a lot more members than the trust currently have but it would have to be one that stood alone financially but that's another story :)
 
I am sorry to sound so negative . My own personal opinion is that there is no way now or in the future we are going to get any kind of control on Otters numbers . I for one believe that public opinion would be totally against it . I believe the best way forward is to drop the issue we have with Otters and take on the water company's to make them stop what they are pumping in to our rivers . First step would be to form a single pressure group consisting off all the interested party's in the fight for cleaner Rivers and waterways . Greenpeace , Friends of the earth , RSPB , Natural England , Angling trust etc etc .
Then approach the BBC , Sky news and all of the national news papers . Get a film made as to what the water company's are doing our rivers and waterways to show what an impact it is having on our rivers . Raise public awareness in what is happening . Then start a crowd funding page to raise money to get a legal team to take on the water company's . Perhaps it sounds all a bit far fetched . For me that is the way forward if we all work together
 
I'm another that simply does not believe that anglers will make any headway in any kind of control of otters, non-lethal or not.
I believe that the general public will view any calls for such in exactly the same light as they do gamekeepers that would like to be able to deal with buzzards and red kites to protect grouse, partridge and pheasants. I very much that many anglers would support that. Would any angler support "controlling" ospreys because they take fish? I doubt that many would, and there's no way that the public would support it. I don't believe that the prospects for otter control are any better.
 
Joe Fletcher said:
I am sorry to sound so negative . My own personal opinion is that there is no way now or in the future we are going to get any kind of control on Otters numbers . I for one believe that public opinion would be totally against it . I believe the best way forward is to drop the issue we have with Otters and take on the water company's to make them stop what they are pumping in to our rivers . First step would be to form a single pressure group consisting off all the interested party's in the fight for cleaner Rivers and waterways . Greenpeace , Friends of the earth , RSPB , Natural England , Angling trust etc etc .
Then approach the BBC , Sky news and all of the national news papers . Get a film made as to what the water company's are doing our rivers and waterways to show what an impact it is having on our rivers . Raise public awareness in what is happening . Then start a crowd funding page to raise money to get a legal team to take on the water company's . Perhaps it sounds all a bit far fetched . For me that is the way forward if we all work together
Click to expand...
Take on the water companies Joe,you'll most likely end up with a horse's head on your pillow
 
Joe Fletchers post is the most sensible and least biased and hysterical that I have seen on this matter in a long time . A united strong voice to pressurise government to act on the scandals of water pollution and abstraction will be far more effective than petitions asking to ' control ' otters . Unity is strength
 
That's exactly what ive been saying Joe , and too some famous Anglers. The UK is breaking EU laws regarding pollution in our Riverine systems. The UK is going to be paying fines after not meeting the already extended time frame . These are facts and i strongly believe the predation problem is directly linked. This would benefit Angling by highlighting the problems of pollution and the linked predation problems. Singling out a species is definitely not the way forward. If you read my past posts fro years a go on here , you will see i have been saying this for quite some time . I even suggested the idea to a well known superstar in Angling , suggesting we need to join forces with all organisations on this matter including the Otter trust..
 
Chris Jones said:
I'm another that simply does not believe that anglers will make any headway in any kind of control of otters, non-lethal or not.
I believe that the general public will view any calls for such in exactly the same light as they do gamekeepers that would like to be able to deal with buzzards and red kites to protect grouse, partridge and pheasants. I very much that many anglers would support that. Would any angler support "controlling" ospreys because they take fish? I doubt that many would, and there's no way that the public would support it. I don't believe that the prospects for otter control are any better.
Click to expand...

Chris if any time in the future this or the next government were to agree to some kind of control over Otters . It would open up a whole can of worms . Would gamekeepers argue that if anglers are allowed to control Otters . Then why as gamekeepers not allowed to control birds of prey ?
Farmers could use the same argument to cull Badgers right across the country . Then you have the people who are fox hunters . Would they use the same argument to reintroduce fox hunting with hounds ?
 
Joe Fletcher said:
Chris if any time in the future this or the next government were to agree to some kind of control over Otters . It would open up a whole can of worms . Would gamekeepers argue that if anglers are allowed to control Otters . Then why as gamekeepers not allowed to control birds of prey ?
Farmers could use the same argument to cull Badgers right across the country . Then you have the people who are fox hunters . Would they use the same argument to reintroduce fox hunting with hounds ?
Click to expand...

I believe it's rather pointless to speculate on what ifs that are exceedingly unlikely to come to pass. The only real anomaly in your post is fox hunting. It's perfectly legal to "control" foxes, just not with hounds. Large numbers of foxes are killed every year. How exactly it is done is largely irrelevant.
 
Only just last month a company was applying to discharge more pollution into the river Itchen. This is happening on most if not all rivers. It seems to me most Anglers are not seeing the bigger picture , and i believe reintroducing Otters was a PR exercise to try and paper over the growing pollution problems and very stupidly try to show our Rivers have never been healthier. Otters would not of done so well if it was not for all the Lakes and pits that surround most Rivers , which they of course have pillaged due to low stocks on the rivers. The fact is the UK and its various agency's have failed in their duty of care and as stated before , the UK is now going to be fined by the EU. They are breaking the law , and that's where we should all begin. Perhaps a petition to the Government asking why this is happening would be a good start , and then all the other problems , such as predation , could also be looked in to ...Even our beloved Government and its Agency's are answerable to the law..
 
Chris Jones said:
I believe it's rather pointless to speculate on what ifs that are exceedingly unlikely to come to pass. The only real anomaly in your post is fox hunting. It's perfectly legal to "control" foxes, just not with hounds. Large numbers of foxes are killed every year. How exactly it is done is largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yes it is perfectly legal to control foxes by human means , But illegal to jump on a horse and chase a fox around the countryside and have it torn to pieces by a pack of dogs
 
Joe Fletcher said:
I am sorry to sound so negative . My own personal opinion is that there is no way now or in the future we are going to get any kind of control on Otters numbers . I for one believe that public opinion would be totally against it . I believe the best way forward is to drop the issue we have with Otters and take on the water company's to make them stop what they are pumping in to our rivers . First step would be to form a single pressure group consisting off all the interested party's in the fight for cleaner Rivers and waterways . Greenpeace , Friends of the earth , RSPB , Natural England , Angling trust etc etc .
Then approach the BBC , Sky news and all of the national news papers . Get a film made as to what the water company's are doing our rivers and waterways to show what an impact it is having on our rivers . Raise public awareness in what is happening . Then start a crowd funding page to raise money to get a legal team to take on the water company's . Perhaps it sounds all a bit far fetched . For me that is the way forward if we all work together
Click to expand...
Joe , a group named SAS ( surfers against sewage ) took on the Water companies and won. The Water companies paid millions in fines.
 
It’s very true that the Otter is a distraction tool. Can you think of any other ripain creatures that have had such success? Only this morning it was on national radio that water voles are in big trouble. Because that same pollution that’s apparently been halted and saved Tarka is responsible for killing off the voles.
There’s a serious issue and the public are being hood winked with a mammal, does an otter even psyically need a body of water or fish to survive? Preferably I’m sure but actually need...
 
So reading the above it seems the BS consulted with the AT but ignored their advice.
What was their advice and why was it ignored?
 
Hi men,
A post from Tim on facegeek.

So Hughsey pitched me a curve-ball just when I was suffering from a raging outbreak of flu, and I hesitated to reply. (Wimp.) What did I think of the petition? I disagreed with it, on two counts. One is that it was seeking something which, in theory, already exists. But most importantly I disgreed with it because it singled out a single predator to the exclusion of addressing the predation problem. The PAG is currently having a predation film made, and preparing Big Picture 2. I had input into the original story board outline for the film, which is on file, and which covers the following burgeoning historic predation lines:
Signal crayfish: a growing threat from the mid-70s onwards.
Mink: a growing threat from the mid-60s onwards.
Goosanders: a growing population/threat in England and Wales since 1970.
Cormorants: a growing threat since the increased incursion of carbo sinensis (the 'Chinese cormorant') in the mid-80s.
Otters: a rebirth from 1970 onwards, with the otter releases of the 1990s accelerating the spread and impact of otters on the already-over predated ecology.
Predation is impacting on the ecology, the rural economy, the rural food-supply chain, the multi-million £ tourist industry, the three-billion £ angling industry, and biodiversity.
To rule that a person with a liveihood to protect cannot take whatever measures are necessary to protect it is, in my humble opinion, unrealistic. The protection of certain predators is out-dated, and needs addressing. To attempt to narrow this down to predation of one species of fish by one species of predator is unrealistic because it excludes all the other influences and the interests of the other affected areas.
Prior to the BS petition my friend Des Taylor was talking about a March on Whitehall. OK, but either way we need to prove that there is a cumulative predation case for the authories to answer if we are to have any hope of reversing the current unrealistic situation. It is not simply an angling problem: it is an ecological and economic one. It took women, and their supporters, from 1866 to 1918 to gain the univeral right to vote. Politics and the law do not recognise urgency, or impatience, so we waste our time exhibiting either. We plod on in making the strongest possible case for change in the hope that ultimately we will be successful.
For the record I'm at the sharp end of cormorant and otter predation on a day-to-day basis, and it is heartbreaking. There are too many over-protected predators, and not enough natural prey. Why will the authorities not recognise that? Over to you, Rob.

Hatter
 
Some sound points made by Tim. However, the biggest problem is answering the “so what” question. Unless the consequences can be set out clearly and in a way that has a political dimension, then getting traction on effecting change is hugely difficult. If the whole issue is presented by anglers then it becomes purely about self interest and we are simply not important enough for people to take much notice. If “nature” takes it’s full course then the combined impact of predation and the various other issues affecting our waterways would lead to a profound impact on fish stocks meaning predation would largely sort itself out. The ecological disasters are just not tangible enough to the voting public and often you need species to be at the very point of extinction before action is taken.

If we took an extreme position and said that barbel were on the brink of extinction, would the wider public really care? The cure would simply be to stock them in ponds and lakes. And that’s part of the issue- there is, annoyingly, an alternative for anglers.

The case for changes that would benefit rivers has to be as broad as possible and spun in a way that makes society care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top