• 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...

RIP River Colne.

Stuart Prescott said:
this has to be THE most condescending sentence ive ever seen on these boards:eek: :D
Click to expand...

Richard , in your last post you make some valid and cogent comments , but Stuart does have a point . If we are going to have a sensible exchange of views on the otter situation , and maybe acheive a greater understanding of this emotive subject then we do need to treat each other with some respect .

As an aside , your post mentions ''tweed clad landowners '' . Far from being a thing of the past as you hint , these people exist , perhaps not sporting tweed as much , they still employ folks to 'sort out' vermin , and I bet the Otter is still on many a keepers hit list
 
Last edited:
Stuart Prescott said:
this has to be THE most condescending sentence ive ever seen on these boards:eek: :D
Click to expand...

Stuart,

You will find such a sentence in quite a few of my posts. They are there for a reason, some people have already tuned into their purpose and some have not..........give it time.............
 
Alex Gowney said:
understand your points Neil, but this is a common concern. If we continue to put our public perception first, will it do us any good? If the general public suddenly see us for caring conservationists, will it do us any good? The answer is alomst certainly no. The public at large are indifferent to anglers and love otters. Is anything going to change if they are hostile to anglers and love otters, or friendly to anglers and love otters? Does having such a big concern about our public image really help at all? Personally, I don't think it does and angling needs to stop being so meek and apologetic in a vain attempt to curry favour with the non angling public.
Click to expand...

Hi Alex
I think again how the public see us is important, however it always seems to me to be a mystery as to what they do actually think of us, apart from those stupid anti's they don't seem to have much of an opinion I guess. However I think perhaps they think of us as harmless by and large, but if we started killing loveable furry things that the BBC has gone out of it's way to promote as such then we might viewed as less than harmless but more like those Fox killer types.

Again, I don't think the majority of the public really care about conservation, what they see is a cute Seal in a Town and Otters on the Telly and that's about it. Of course the WWF employ Panda's as their poster boy's because it has cute appeal, much the same as the Otter has I am afraid, we have no chance not even if we ask Keith Speer to head up any campaign. and he's cute and as popular as Jesus :)

So what can be done? If shooting 'em and hanging the carcass on a barbed wire fence as a lesson cant be done, then we will need the EA to step in and help, by at least making sure that numbers are kept to a acceptable level. Of course I guess by lobbying and lobbying in the end someone will have to listen, after all it is impacting on our liberties, businesses, and as license fee payers we should to have some say with some of our most beautiful rivers being stripped of fish.

Surely the humble fish has to be protected too, along with the vole, lamprey, mussle, and of course Otter, but there does seem to be a huge imbalance at the moment in favour of the Otter, and do you know what I reckon the EA know it too, we need to push 'em a bit harder.

I will.
 
Richard Hamlyn said:
Neil,

Thanks for saving me the task of writing a response. We all need to start thinking smarter (no pun intended) if we are ever going to move forward and adapt to change.
Click to expand...

Richard thanks for the support, we Anglers do need to be a bit more smarter I guess,come on guy's start lobbying cajoling the people that can make it happen.:)
 
Richard, I swore to myself that if this thread did turn in the direction you and one or two others have taken it, I would take no further part in it....but sadly, I don't have the will power to stick to that after reading your latest post. You are clearly an intelligent and articulate person, and you state your case well...and I for one do not deny the truth of some of what you say. However, what I will never understand about folk with your attitude is why you think that everything and anything that happens in our lives and world, however much it saddens and affects us, must be accepted with a meek smile and put down to the inevitability of life. It seems that to challenge anything, to refuse to accept, to voice sadness or concern about things that upset us....is wrong and damaging to us as anglers, and society as a whole. One of the favourite and most frequently voiced (and most galling) platitudes put forward by many to support such opinions is that anything that brings about change, anything that worries or upsets us as individuals, anything we see as a threat....should not only be unquestionably accepted, but should actually be viewed as 'a valuable addition and enrichment to the diversity of our lives'. The oddest thing about that statement is that those who spout such....stuff....not only manage to utter it with a straight face....but actually expect those who hear it to keep a straight face as well.

The basics of your views and others that think the same way seems to be that we must always silently accept the inevitable. In the case of otters, it seems that because they are indigenous to this country, because they have returned, because they have a right to be here....then it is job done....so shut your mouth, smile....and spend your next leisure session trying to decide what hobby you would like to have a bash at next. What you must NOT do is say anything on a forum that just might just reach the ears of Joe public, because he/she has been manipulated by the media to see life in an entirely different and cosy way...and do not want that view challenged. To question why that particular animal should be viewed in that way, whilst lord knows how many other animals have been eradicated at the whim of the 'society' at that time....seems unclear. The reason for 'society' once again being on the verge of culling thousands of badgers, with no real scientific evidence one way or the other to prove that this action would be beneficial, or why the fact that the alternatives available would most likely be more effective is being ignored....seems unclear as well.

I should state at this point that I am NOT in favour of wiping out otters....I just question the view that in some way these animals are different, that they in particular are 'untouchables'. I Have wondered, when I have heard the idea muted before, whether otters could be controlled, as in the case of many other wild animals. However, I really am not sure on that point, I must admit it worries me. I recognise that my views are coloured at present by the impending disaster on my much loved local, and will put that one in abeyance until my thinking is clearer.

In your last post, you are once again scathing and sarcastic when referring to those who voice concerns over the EE situation, so I assume (as it would be in character with your 'accept and shut up' attitude) that you are happy with the issues around the current immigration situation as a whole...and the disaster that is quite possibly about to happen? I would happily debate that with you elsewhere if you wish, but not on this thread....that is WAY beyond the scope of this discussion.

Lastly, you say that "Society no longer tolerates many aspects of the relationship that it had with animals and nature a century ago, this is a fact so get used to it; and anglers are members of society whether they like it or not. Therefore it is imperative that we educate society as to what we are about so that they view us as a benign force for the good of nature and the countryside as a whole". Why do you feel that because 'society' no longer tolerates something, that this 'fact' must be accepted by all? Does the fact that 'society' has been led by the nose to think this way at this moment in time seem to you to be necessarily a good thing Richard? Do you seriously feel that this current cuddly attitude will be sustainable if we are to feed the frightening world population figures predicted for the near future? Again, something to be discussed elsewhere in my view, but just my response to your words.

Again, if you seriously believe we must accept whatever views are current in society....how do you justify this statement (and I quote) "Therefore it is imperative that we educate society as to what we are about so that they view us as a benign force for the good of nature and the countryside as a whole." That doesn't seem to lay well with your call for 'acceptance' of established social views does it? Quite frankly, the general public see us anglers (on the rare occasion when we come into their thoughts at all) as bizarre weirdies who spend their spare time indulging in an utterly pointless pastime....and they are not sure, but they think it MAY be cruel, because they think they heard that somewhere once. They don't usually hold very strong views about us one way or another, not least because fish are cold, slimy things that make them shudder just thinking about them, so not really sure what the cruelty thing is all about anyway....especially as East Enders is just about to come on. Apart from the silliness about East Enders, that attitude has held true for as long as men have angled for pleasure....so whilst I don't like accepting things 'just because they are'....I do accept that the chances of changing that attitude any time soon are vanishingly small. I would also wager that YOU know that to be a fact too, and just typed that sentence because it sounded good at the time. The animal rights lobbyists and anti angling brigade are an altogether different kettle of fish of course (pun intended)....but they will do what they do, for political and umpteen other reasons, if they can spare the time required to attack the local abortion clinic or ban this or that bomb, or can undo the chains attaching themselves to a tree somewhere, in time to get to the latest hoot they have organised to harass anglers on the local cut.

Enough....I could ramble on forever, but it wouldn't get either of us anywhere because we are what we are, and neither of us is likely to change the way the other thinks. I just needed to put a tiny fraction of the thoughts and emotions your post managed to set in motion in my brain...what little is left of it.

Dave.
 
Thought provoking post that David . With regard to the Otter debate , I think you are spot on with regard to the public / societys view of angling . Most people regard us fisher folk as harmless perhaps sad eccentrics who sit around on bleak river banks , motionless in the driving rain . The rub comes when angling gets tied in with something that Joe public does care about [ or something that they are told they should care about it ] in this case cuddly otters . Anglers getting steamed up about otters and talking of culls etc , is meat and drink to the mainstream press , and as with the recent seal debacle , anglers don't come out of it smelling of roses .We are then perceived by many as people who want to kill lovely innocent creatures for our own selfish ends , and we are cruel to the fish as well , a double whammy .

This is why I think we do need to be careful about what we say and how we say it . Remember fox hunting ? Not so many years ago , it was seen as a load of toffs prancing around in fields ,'' the unspeakable chasing the uneatable '', but no great shakes . Then ,with a strong anti hunt lobby , some very entrenched views from the fox hunters being widely expressed, and some astute vote catching from some canny self serving politicians , bish , bash , bosh and it was banned . Food for thought ...
 
Last edited:
Well siad Mike. I don't think rod and line angling will ever suffer a total ban simply because it is an environmentaly friendly way of catching fish for the pot but we might end up in a situation like other european countries where catch and release is banned - pleasure fishing in other words.
 
Andrew Boyne said:
Well siad Mike. I don't think rod and line angling will ever suffer a total ban simply because it is an environmentaly friendly way of catching fish for the pot but we might end up in a situation like other european countries where catch and release is banned - pleasure fishing in other words.
Click to expand...
that will suit some then, catch and release is banned in Germany i think.
catch and release is the governments criminal policy so it would fit.
 
There are 60 odd million of us on this little rock, there is always going to be conflict and nothing is going to stay as it was.
The otter battle is lost imo and we need to move on.
I do have sympathy for those who have lost their amenity but if fishing is that big a part of your life the answer is simple, move to an area where the environment is not so fragile and the introduction (natural or otherwise) of an apex predator is better tolerated.

As for change, it was Heraclius (500bc) who is attributed with the phrase, "Change is the only constant".
 
Another Otter Post

Hi,
Apologies first and foremost, I have read the first post, and tried to follow the rest. There is not a lot of fact to go on-Otters have been seen.... Small river etc. It is a small stream amongst a large body of water-gravel pits etc, and only a short swim from the Thames. If it is doom and gloom, is it because the Barbel have reached the top end of their potential and not recruiting? I sat outside a mates house on the Colne-we fed Dace (4-8 oz) and Chub (4-4LB), though no small Barbel. Any fish carcass I have seen in a picture is a large fish (of any river), never a 1lb or less. I wonder if our Barbel angling is reaching its natural equilibrium? The Teme is not a good recruitment river-not because of Otters (Abstraction etc), gone are the days of 10+ barbel, though reports at Upton on the Severn are exceptional-which is rammed with Otters. One overnighter 1 year ago-8 barbel, 3 Otters seen (same otter-no idea), The Barbel catches are on the up on the Lower.
We as a group (fishermen) are very reactive (please-I have found fish killed and eaten by Otters), but balance this against what the real issues are-multi factorial/complex, and more often then not caused by man. We also seem to think we are the only stewards/stakeholders of the river(s). We have a lot of work to do, and solution finding-outside of shooting Otters. I am secretary of a Club, and we are always underwhelmed by the attendance at bankclearing/habitat improvement meetings-but never the same with bitching. Should we re-word our aims eg bank clearing to habitat improvement. Because at the time being our main aim must be to maintain stocks/suitable environment.

This is my opinion


Keep smiling

DT
 
I think Adrian sums it up pretty well - it's already a lost battle in most cases. Or where it is still playing out, one we can't win. The proof of the pudding will be in the fishing - if it seriously declines over the next few seasons on the Colne it will be time to find somewhere else to wet a line. Sad, but I can't think of any other response. I fish the Colne regularly. It has given me some of my best fishing memories. It is still fishing well at the moment (and I fish stretches nearer the Thames) so until it is ruined, I think the best response is to carry on enjoying all it has to offer. You might be surprised how long the doomsday scenario takes to unfold ...
 
I just think that the numbers should be controlled thats all. Not for them to be wiped off the map i have nothing agaist otters but to keep the rivers healthy there should just be a number of otters on rivers not to let them be over runned by otters thats my oppinion any way. I think mink are a bigger problam than otters on my local river any way there are alot of mink about.
 
Alex, i totally agree.

What good has it done going around being over cautious and over concerned about what other people are going to think? Do the otter lovers care about the fishermans, or most importantly, the fish's point of view or welfare?

No, they haven't given it a thought, and they just don't give a damn. So the fish die, so what. But thats ok to have that view isn't it.

As for the not posting your views? Oh really? So what do we have to do? Do we have to talk in secret and in whispers, so as we don't offend?

If anglers came out a bit more, and actually stuck together once in a while, they may make something happen. Three million anglers is a pretty big voice when its used. But we get caught up in the "im a barbel angler/ match angler/carp angler" etc frame of mind and forget we all pay for a rod licence the same and could stand up the same.

Then it's not so much a worry as to what other people think of our views, becauise we are allowed them, they are allowed to be public and we can put forward valid views that have to be listened to, rather than ignored and brushed under the carpet, or spoken in whispers in the corner of a pub or a quiet riverbank.

I have a view, i'm entitled to it, and i can talk about it anywhere where it isnt banned and not be afraid to do so!
 
Richard Hamlyn said:
There is a very true saying that states that “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat itâ€. Very often if you want to know the best course of action going forward then your first port of call is to look backwards in history to see which strategies have been effective and which have not.
History is the management of change, and change is constant. Everything is constantly evolving around us and yet the bulk of people want everything to stay the same. Worse still there are those who want to turn the pages back to an earlier time, even though in their heart of hearts they know such a thing is impossible. Already I can hear the thoughts of readers thinking “What has this got to do with ottersâ€, so for them please do not read further as you will not understand the content.

Angling, and more importantly anglers, need to change. We are no longer tweed clad landowners able to employ gamekeepers to shoot what they consider vermin. We no longer have packs of otter hounds, and we no longer set bear traps for poachers (EE’s of course) nor do we send our native poachers to the colonies for stealing a rabbit. Some ignorant folk still poison birds of prey and they are too stupid to realise that all they really poison is the attitudes of the bulk of people against them. There is something of the Luddite in all of us but history does not record this as being a successful strategy. When change occurs the best strategy is to “accommodate†not to “annihilateâ€. It is better to accept, and most importantly, manage change than to rail against it.

Society no longer tolerates many aspects of the relationship that it had with animals and nature a century ago, this is a fact so get used to it; and anglers are members of society whether they like it or not. Therefore it is imperative that we educate society as to what we are about so that they view us as a benign force for the good of nature and the countryside as a whole. However on open forums like this all we get is kill anything that eats fish, the EA are a bunch of idiots, send non-nationals home because they take fish for the pot, ban this, stop that, shoot seals and above all fight among ourselves. A few years ago they would have been reading about the spread of Zander being the death knell for angling in this country and that they should be immediately culled, based on nothing more that emotive outburst rather than evidence. The reality of their introduction has turned out to be rather different don’t you think?

Just stop for a minute and imagine you were a non-angler and you spent some time reading this forum, would you come away from it thinking that anglers were a nice bunch of people and that you might even like to try a bit of fishing as it sounds fun?

If people were educated as to the beauty and wonder of the fish that populate our waterways then they would be more inclined to be sympathetic to the fish and the environment that they live in. As long as they are blissfully unaware as to the realities of our situation then we will not be masters of our own destiny and will continue to act in a reactive, and usually hostile, manner to whatever society throws at us.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I think people are fine with change, provided it is "safe" and that generally means evolution and not revolution. Commerce is almost entirely dependant on change.

Secondly, it's ludicrous to suggest that the answer is to educate non-anglers as to the wonder and majesty of our sport. At best, I suspect the view of anglers is neutral. What would compel them to engage in any programme of education? The area where this does have some merit is kids. I think most non-angling parents would prefer their children to spend time fishing than dealing drugs outside One Stop (their prices are ridiculous by the way). But that needs time, effort, organisation and infrastructure.

As a group we do need to be mindful of what we say and how we present ourselves but I have seen a little too much sensitivity to this. I really can't see many non-anglers spending more than a nano second on this site if they happened to stumble across it (a bodybuilder with spelling difficulties for example looking to buy some new weights).

I think the only approach, and one that I think would resonate with the general public, is the broader question of conservation and the need for balance. I have no idea what balance would look like in this context and I haven't seen or read anything here that offers up a robust and well researched model. I think the general public respect the need for intervention of some kind, including culling, where its context is well understood. Any other approach just looks like self interest which seldom triggers a supportive response.

I think this means that as a group, we need to find a positive way to play our part. That might just be the submission of raw data, experience and insight. Who this would be provided to and how that connects with the political system is outside of my area of expertise.

Sadly, things often need to get quite bad before political and organisational systems kick into life to actually get something done. I am confident though that in general, people do ultimately want the countryside, the waterways and river systems to be healthy and sustainable. What maybe lacking right now is a big picture analysis and forecast, capturing all the related elements. That said, I am not ignorant of the fact that there can be many commercial and other self interest agendas that can make the journey a difficult one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top