Chris Turnbull
Senior Member
And that ain't just in the world outside of this forum!
-
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...
Otters and the Angling Trust.
- Thread starter Lee Fletcher
- Start date
And that ain't just in the world outside of this forum!
Hi men ,
Why should that be thoug Chris ?. One view or no view is not a happy state of afairs is it ?, as it means that discussions dont take place .
hatter
Why should that be thoug Chris ?. One view or no view is not a happy state of afairs is it ?, as it means that discussions dont take place .
hatter
Jason Hersey
Senior Member
Hi Hatter
I think thats life in general mate and why society is so divided compared to 30 years ago, most accept life the way it is nowadays rather than unite and tackle a problem by discussing to resolve an issue.
Cheers
Jas
I think thats life in general mate and why society is so divided compared to 30 years ago, most accept life the way it is nowadays rather than unite and tackle a problem by discussing to resolve an issue.
Cheers
Jas
David Parker
Senior Member
Very interesting article by Dave Steuert.
I'm not an apologist for otters, but I do think the media fight that would take place over this issue is one we can only lose, and at a high cost.
Much of the confidence people feel about having this debate out in the open, and many of the comments hinting that in our all too Politically Correct world we shouldn't be afraid to speak out, must be based on a rock solid assumption about the moral right we all have to go angling. An assumption that when you boil it down to the bare essentials the public will pause and think about our sport and weigh all the pros and cons up against the interests of otters. Then (for some reason I really cannot fathom) the logic suggests that the public and the politicians would come down on the side of anglers. Why would they? To be frank, where is the first class moral argument to defend angling in the face of instinctive behaviour by a wild creature?
But, let's consider an alternative for a second...
What if in taking this issue to the mainstream, to the TV and the popular press, say, what if the tables are then turned and the problem is seen to be angling itself rather than otters? What would we do and what might we say if angling was subjected to a bit of primetime TV moral scrutiny? And what if a really articulate (i.e. not PETA) person got the newspaper and TV platform to say why the otter's interests should come first and that for once the monetary and free-time pleasures and preferences of anglers should take second place. Maybe they'd use the angler v otter saga as a neat metaphor for the environment in general,making the point that sometimes it is 'us' who should take a hit, and deservedly so....
I happen not to agree with any of that because like all of us I love to go fishing, but I can just imagine how the argument would pan out under the glare of the media spotlight. And we would be made mincemeat of in my view.
Personally, I would rather get on with my fishing, tolerated by a society who pays us little attention, even if it is on waters with fewer fish in them thanks to our furry friends...because once a real wide ranging interest in us IS taken, in this topsy turvey modern world, we may not like the outcome.
I'm not an apologist for otters, but I do think the media fight that would take place over this issue is one we can only lose, and at a high cost.
Much of the confidence people feel about having this debate out in the open, and many of the comments hinting that in our all too Politically Correct world we shouldn't be afraid to speak out, must be based on a rock solid assumption about the moral right we all have to go angling. An assumption that when you boil it down to the bare essentials the public will pause and think about our sport and weigh all the pros and cons up against the interests of otters. Then (for some reason I really cannot fathom) the logic suggests that the public and the politicians would come down on the side of anglers. Why would they? To be frank, where is the first class moral argument to defend angling in the face of instinctive behaviour by a wild creature?
But, let's consider an alternative for a second...
What if in taking this issue to the mainstream, to the TV and the popular press, say, what if the tables are then turned and the problem is seen to be angling itself rather than otters? What would we do and what might we say if angling was subjected to a bit of primetime TV moral scrutiny? And what if a really articulate (i.e. not PETA) person got the newspaper and TV platform to say why the otter's interests should come first and that for once the monetary and free-time pleasures and preferences of anglers should take second place. Maybe they'd use the angler v otter saga as a neat metaphor for the environment in general,making the point that sometimes it is 'us' who should take a hit, and deservedly so....
I happen not to agree with any of that because like all of us I love to go fishing, but I can just imagine how the argument would pan out under the glare of the media spotlight. And we would be made mincemeat of in my view.
Personally, I would rather get on with my fishing, tolerated by a society who pays us little attention, even if it is on waters with fewer fish in them thanks to our furry friends...because once a real wide ranging interest in us IS taken, in this topsy turvey modern world, we may not like the outcome.
Last edited:
Chris Turnbull
Senior Member
You're not wrong there Mark. I appreciate all the arguments and I enjoy seeing wildlife as much as anyone. I just can't help worrying that we are generally underestimating the full cost to angling of having otters return to our fisheries. Time will tell I guess?
John Walker
Senior Member
dont argue, just hammer em...j.w
Hi men ,
Chris , you must of entered you discussions knowing you were on a sticky wicket with they subject?. That did not stop you with trying to improve your area . What are the perceptions of anglers now at the meeting you attend ?.
Hatter
Chris , you must of entered you discussions knowing you were on a sticky wicket with they subject?. That did not stop you with trying to improve your area . What are the perceptions of anglers now at the meeting you attend ?.
Hatter
Jason Bean
Senior Member
I think the poll on here shown it to be very devided on opinions...the few local meetings i've been to show the same. A freind of mine who hates what they are doing however would not like to see them moved or harmed....even though they are damaging our waters and inevitably the club with fewer memberships each year.
We go around in circles with this and if otter culling was allowed or moving them to the naughty otters home was allowed who would do it and would it have any affect?
The cormorant situation has never gone away even though you can be licenced to cull them and otters will never go away either. a bit of reality is needed. More groups like that new Thames one need to be formed and direct local pressure to resolve identified local issues need to be addressed only then will thing start to happen in this ever expanding country of ours.
I do not feel the AT will have much local impact for any of us( unless your river gets polluted and your a member) local anglers in the end will be the ones that will shape the future of the rivers and the angling trust.
To wait for others to improve your local bit of river is a folly even though they say they are going to do it and to believe otters are going to go away and the big barbel will be back is a very blinkered view.
Better get on with some work now
Cheers
Jason
We go around in circles with this and if otter culling was allowed or moving them to the naughty otters home was allowed who would do it and would it have any affect?
The cormorant situation has never gone away even though you can be licenced to cull them and otters will never go away either. a bit of reality is needed. More groups like that new Thames one need to be formed and direct local pressure to resolve identified local issues need to be addressed only then will thing start to happen in this ever expanding country of ours.
I do not feel the AT will have much local impact for any of us( unless your river gets polluted and your a member) local anglers in the end will be the ones that will shape the future of the rivers and the angling trust.
To wait for others to improve your local bit of river is a folly even though they say they are going to do it and to believe otters are going to go away and the big barbel will be back is a very blinkered view.
Better get on with some work now
Cheers
Jason
Hi men ,
Beany , I was thinking of France
. They will prob eat them over there .
Hatter
Beany , I was thinking of France
. They will prob eat them over there .Hatter
Pete Marshall
Senior Member
There were and are first rate moral and conservation arguments to support hunting with dogs...didn't do hunters much good. Logic does not come into political arguments these days. Individual freedom has little weight in a society where anything disliked by enough people gets banned. Presently few people actively dislike angling, this could change in a completely pointless battle against otters.
There are commercial interests behind a lot of this. There is a desire in the "angling industry" to commercialise as far a possible angling. This is even reflected in many involved as spokespeople for what is too often described as "our sport". I attend consultation meetings with the EA and other bodies (where unlike some I always state clearly that my views on angling are personal and do not represent or seek to represent other anglers) and hear angling spokespeople continuing lobbying for government money and support for angling in a way that points to a commercialised still water controlled environment, complete with secure car parks, disabled access and toilet facilities. These can only be achieved in a commercial environment and not in the "wild" environment of the river bank. Nor should they. If we wish to be able to fish rivers that are as wild as possible then we must make a case as environmentalists rather than as hunters. The threat is not to angling itself, but to where and how the art is carried out.
River angling is already a minority interest within a minority community. It would suit many people to restrict angling to certain locations and methods that do not "interfere" with the wild world. Ponds designed for angling, stocked with fish breed with no other purpose than to be caught. This is the route down which much of the angling so called community seeks to go and a battle about otters will only result in angling being restricted to such places, fenced against the otter...it will not result in otters being removed from the river bank, but anglers.
If we wish to angle in wild places we must learn to accept that we must share those places with other animals that have as much right to be there as we do. If it effects our ability to catch fish then so be it, the alternative of fishing commercial ponds is there in much the same way as drag hunting is there for the fox hunt. I have absolutly no interest in fishing commercial ponds. I am realistic enough to know that what I do cannot be defended according to the present societies rules and won't seek to defend it in that way. Rather I defend angling in wild environments as part of an environmental movement that protects those environments for all the various species that live there...that includes otters.
Conrad Farlow
Senior Member
I've never entered this debate before but I have to say that David Parker is absolutely spot on. We cannot win this under public scrutiny.
Conrad
Conrad
Hi men ,
What I trying to say that during talks / discussion / meetings about problems with our rivers that the "o" word should aloud to be spoken ?. As Chris says we may not know what the impact otters will have on the river inviroment , and its a no win situation against public opinion . The otter has in many cases highligted the poor spawning , fry recruitment , spawning beds , survival of year class fish of some ( most ) rivers , by taking a batch of fish out of the targets of anglers . If this leads to people improving these specific areas , then something has come out of it .
Personally , I would not have minded if they had not found their way back into our fishing , but to get rid of them is a non starter .
Beany , divided opinion ?, not on my bit of the Ouse mate. At the end of the day , we are a small section of many sections of angling , and small fry really .
As for problems , I went out for a drink in Luton the other night . Its like Kabul without the dust , walk around there in the dark , and you will get a whole new meaning of trouble
Hatter
What I trying to say that during talks / discussion / meetings about problems with our rivers that the "o" word should aloud to be spoken ?. As Chris says we may not know what the impact otters will have on the river inviroment , and its a no win situation against public opinion . The otter has in many cases highligted the poor spawning , fry recruitment , spawning beds , survival of year class fish of some ( most ) rivers , by taking a batch of fish out of the targets of anglers . If this leads to people improving these specific areas , then something has come out of it .
Personally , I would not have minded if they had not found their way back into our fishing , but to get rid of them is a non starter .
Beany , divided opinion ?, not on my bit of the Ouse mate. At the end of the day , we are a small section of many sections of angling , and small fry really .
As for problems , I went out for a drink in Luton the other night . Its like Kabul without the dust , walk around there in the dark , and you will get a whole new meaning of trouble
Hatter
Last edited:
Chris Turnbull
Senior Member
Mark.
I think that on a national level the EA and NE are to some extent in denial about the impact of otters, though the recently won battle on the Wensum to restock barbel due to the social/economic effect of otter predation shows that they are beginning to comprehend the extent of the problem. I don't have any answers, certainly I don't see that we could ever win an argument to have otters removed or controlled, however, I am concerned that this level of predation is unsustainable on various rivers that are already in a crisis condition due to the environmental pressures being put upon them.
Possibly, given time, otter numbers will find a balance in the environment, though I'm sure that they will destroy many good fisheries and then move on to others before this happens. Like I said I've no answers.... I'm also not sure that undertaking fishery habitat improvements to sustain a river fishery is still an economically viable option on various rivers facing high levels of otter predation.
I think that on a national level the EA and NE are to some extent in denial about the impact of otters, though the recently won battle on the Wensum to restock barbel due to the social/economic effect of otter predation shows that they are beginning to comprehend the extent of the problem. I don't have any answers, certainly I don't see that we could ever win an argument to have otters removed or controlled, however, I am concerned that this level of predation is unsustainable on various rivers that are already in a crisis condition due to the environmental pressures being put upon them.
Possibly, given time, otter numbers will find a balance in the environment, though I'm sure that they will destroy many good fisheries and then move on to others before this happens. Like I said I've no answers.... I'm also not sure that undertaking fishery habitat improvements to sustain a river fishery is still an economically viable option on various rivers facing high levels of otter predation.
Jason Bean
Senior Member
Didnt know you'd been fishing the Cherwell ?
Colin Gordon
No Longer a Member
Jason, I re-edited Ians post to suit the Cherwell.
After speaking with a few very prominant environmentalists / ecologists of late. They all sing out of the same hymn book.
Otters will develop their own "natural population balance".
Oh and 'ALL' failed to answer my question, "Why were otters re-introduced artificially when if food sources were abundant they could easily spread by themselves naturally and completely unaided?"
This despite having long in depth exchanges (friendly) with a couple of them.
The term Ostrich's springs to mind. All very to talk of how successful the re-introduction programme has been but NONE wishing to discuss any pit falls this programme maybe / is having.
Speaks volumes really on this subject. Going to get a lot worse!
Culls, forget it!
Resiting, where to?
My honest opinion is go with Jason Bean and Chris Turnbull's approach, pushing the EA into taking action.
Make them live up to their legal obligation to maintain fish stocks and when funds run short or out the pro-otter groups will by then surely be just slightly in agreement that there is a genuine issue of poor fish stocks in our rivers.
Chris Turnbull
Senior Member
You'll go round in circles with the restocking argument too. Plenty of anglers are against it saying all you're doing is providing fodder for otters, which is true to some extent. I dislike the idea of constantly restocking rivers, but if we want to preserve any river fishing, there may be no other option on various rivers.
Pete Marshall
Senior Member
A number of captive breed otters were re introduced following the near extinction of the otter population caused by the use of chemical fertilisers that rendered the native population sterile. Once the chemicals that caused this problem where removed and banned the existing population of wild otters was both very small and largely sterile so could not return to its previous number.
The reintroduction programme ceased in 1999 and the spread since then has been entirely by natural means. The provision of large larders for otters by the building of commercial fisheries without any planning for how to protect themselves from Otter predation (all entirely predictable) has speeded up this process. Many environmentalists (my self included) strongly opposed the massive growth in commercial fisheries near to river systems for this (and many other reason) and were of course ignored my those with an eye to a quick buck. The same people who now want compensation from the tax payer! Just like the bankers who create a financial melt down and then expect to get bailed out by the taxpayer.
If the environmentalists you talked to were not able to explain this then I am rather sorry for them.
otters like any other top level predators will achieve a balance with their prey species...this cycles in a way demonstrated time and time again. Presently the overstocked fisheries do provide a large and easy source of food for otters causing a growth in numbers that may be higher than can be sustained for any period. If the commercial fisheries either go out of business or protect their resources in the responsible way any business should, then initially this will force Otters on to the river systems, causing problems until the prey and predator balance returns to a decent balance.
Hi men ,
Lots of talk of commersial fisheries on here ,but there aint just rivers and commercials !.What about natuaral lakes , owned by clubs that have historic fish in them ?, some of which cant afford to fence , or to late to fence them ?. As an example the water near Sandy with a 40lb fish that has gone ( along with alot of others ?. Blame cant be laid at the door of lakes that are set up to cater for a branch of angling that poss has more fishing them than us.
Hatter
Lots of talk of commersial fisheries on here ,but there aint just rivers and commercials !.What about natuaral lakes , owned by clubs that have historic fish in them ?, some of which cant afford to fence , or to late to fence them ?. As an example the water near Sandy with a 40lb fish that has gone ( along with alot of others ?. Blame cant be laid at the door of lakes that are set up to cater for a branch of angling that poss has more fishing them than us.
Hatter
Last edited:
Pete Marshall
Senior Member
That is the point Mark. There is a very limited amount of public money, mainly from the angling budget, that the EA has to help with protection measures. Presently it is the commercial set ups lobbying to get there hands on this cash. I think this is wrong. Any public money should be spent on helping voluntary organisations such as angling clubs and not on aiding commercial ventures. If people want a commercial service then they should pay the full costs of this and that includes the costs of protecting their stock from predators. Voluntary organisations are a different matter and deserve some support from the EA for the work they do in maintaining and improving the environment not as a business but as a commitment to angling.
Presently this debate is being led in the media by those with a financial interest in angling. They have every right to make money out of angling (I sell angling photographs on occasions so do it myself) however they should not be in receipt of public money to do so.
Presently this debate is being led in the media by those with a financial interest in angling. They have every right to make money out of angling (I sell angling photographs on occasions so do it myself) however they should not be in receipt of public money to do so.