• 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...

The fishery predation survey

Joe Fletcher said:
If we as anglers are concerned about the predation of our fish stocks on our rivers and lakes ? We talk about Otters , Cormorants and Goosander's and how they are having a impact on our fish stocks .

One predator that has not been talked about that was introduced illegally many years ago to our rivers and waterways is the Zander .

I assume Zander just like Otters , Cormorants and Goosander are having a impact on our fish stocks .

So the question I ask is . If we as anglers are concerned about the impact of Otters ,Goosanders and Cormorants are having on fish stocks . Then why are illegally stocked non native Zander that were introduced many years ago not on the list of predators that we as anglers should be concerned about ?
Click to expand...

Joe , a fair few of The UK's rivers were illegally stocked with barbel , bet they eat a few fish eggs , but they are a native species so we can let them off, and as for them pesky kingfishers , how many fish do they eat a day ? :D To be serious, I recall back in 70's a lot of fuss about Zander and the threat they posed to indigenous species however it would seem that they didn't decimate the indigenous fish population so they are safe now .Catfish , have they had an negative impact on indigenous species ?

One or two folks have got there danders up about this predator survey , I still feel that the issue is not identifying the problem but doing something about it in terms of redressing the balance
 
Joe Fletcher said:
If we as anglers are concerned about the predation of our fish stocks on our rivers and lakes ? We talk about Otters , Cormorants and Goosander's and how they are having a impact on our fish stocks .

One predator that has not been talked about that was introduced illegally many years ago to our rivers and waterways is the Zander .

I assume Zander just like Otters , Cormorants and Goosander are having a impact on our fish stocks .

So the question I ask is . If we as anglers are concerned about the impact of Otters ,Goosanders and Cormorants are having on fish stocks . Then why are illegally stocked non native Zander that were introduced many years ago not on the list of predators that we as anglers should be concerned about ?
Click to expand...

You can add catfish to that Joe...plenty of them swimming around. Any specimen guy catching one out of a river would weigh it, photograph and be very happy. They would not turn round and say this is an invasive species and is eating my big barbel and chub so I'll knock it on the head. There lies the hypocrisy.
 
Howard Cooke said:
Wasn't it generally believed that at speeds of over 30 mph people would die- from suffocation or something. Its a good job Mr Ford and others didn't listen to that background noise.

I'm sorry Jason but I just don't see the merit in demolishing an initiative which doesn't appear to have any downside. I am not sure I would class submissions as "hearsay" although I sort of get where you are coming from. We have to apply a bit fo faith and trust that the majority of people would submit something that is accurate without distortion that suited a particular agenda. That's why the more anglers that engage and do so over a long period of time, the more any such distortions are smoothed out. As I said previously, the value isn't necessarily in a snapshot view of predation-its' changes over time. The entire debate around fish stock levels/the state of our rivers is certainly starved of the oxygen of meaningful scientific analysis. But there is no either or here- data derived from this sort of initiative can happily run in parallel to scientific analysis and help inform the debate.

It takes no time at all to submit something-I did it last week after encountering a crayfish and whilst you and others may feel its pointless, I actually felt like I was helping a bit- contributing in some small way to a cause that all anglers should be united over. I have no idea ultimately what value will be derived from this work. But I am more than happy to support an angler who is prepared to do something practical and of course everyone has the choice to do the same or ignore it. Its just a bit depressing when initiatives such as this get the "what's the point" treatment.

I don't know how many anglers will be arsed to do the survey, and in terms of apathetic anglers, aren't you simply committing the same crime in your response to this?
Click to expand...

Howard..I'm really not having a go at the lads doing it or the effort they are putting in and I hope so thing comes of it.

The website is informative and shines a light on predation and other angling problems. But after reading through it twice I still come to the conclusion of what's the point? In that I mean it's aim seems disjointed, unclear and unacheivable....and in all honesty 15 years too late.
 
Joe Fletcher said:
If we as anglers are concerned about the predation of our fish stocks on our rivers and lakes ? We talk about Otters , Cormorants and Goosander's and how they are having a impact on our fish stocks .

One predator that has not been talked about that was introduced illegally many years ago to our rivers and waterways is the Zander .

I assume Zander just like Otters , Cormorants and Goosander are having a impact on our fish stocks .

So the question I ask is . If we as anglers are concerned about the impact of Otters ,Goosanders and Cormorants are having on fish stocks . Then why are illegally stocked non native Zander that were introduced many years ago not on the list of predators that we as anglers should be concerned about ?
Click to expand...


Arrrr, but, that one pulls back on rod and line, Joe - so it's fine :D
I do like Paul's angle and how he's presenting himself, the project etc. But coupled with the divisive, horrendous guff coming out of certain anglers and groups, I do fear no good will come of it.
 
I`m sure no ill will come of it either BB..
Firstly I`d like to say a huge THANKS to all those who do take the time out to contribute their observations (now and over the past years), they are being logged and do form a basis of factual actual information from the riverbank, which believe it or not, is more than many who are higher up in the "say so" department, actually have. Scientists and researchers need some of the wealth of knowledge gathered from such studies. It is from such things that the Angling trust were able to make authorities aware of the Cormorant problem in the first place and get the extra rights which they have done. and this is not finished and the predation page is going towards helping further action regarding these and the other predators. The site provides a good deal of information and help for how to manage the various predation issues, this may not be useful or interesting to some individuals directly, but can be very helpful for others, and their various angling clubs etc.
I`m really not sure what there is to question....? It is a collection of unique information and data, which can only be a positive, it costs nothing but a few moments of time to report, and of course (as mentioned above) you are not obliged to help your fellow man/angling community and natural environment at large, but if you can it is welcomed. If you cannot, well need you throw negativity at it? Probably not.
 
Ah mate, you'll get used to questioning and criticism! Grow numb to it possibly Especially when presenting facts and figures. God 'elp you both. I wish you all the best with it.
 
Jason Bean said:
You can add catfish to that Joe...plenty of them swimming around. Any specimen guy catching one out of a river would weigh it, photograph and be very happy. They would not turn round and say this is an invasive species and is eating my big barbel and chub so I'll knock it on the head. There lies the hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

As you say Jason their lies the hypocrisy . We moan and complain when Otters were reintroduced to our rivers and then turn a blind eye when it comes to non native invasive species like Zander and Catfish .

I remember a couple of years ago a very large Catfish was caught by some one fishing for Barbel at Ripple on the Lower Severn . He weighed it and took photos and returned it .
Had he of culled it and not returned it, anglers would of been up in arms about it

Where ever man has stepped forth on this planet he has interfered with nature for his own personal gain
 
I don't think that's what Shaun or Paul intend it to be, James. Problem is when you attach yourselves with folk, who are so hell-bent on vilifying the otter and making it the main culprit for declining fish stocks, the project tends to be seen that way by those looking in. Having spoke to Paul on the phone this afternoon, it seems that's not the case. And both Shaun and Paul are level headed chaps, funny looking, but level headed :D They just need to be careful for the sake of the project, and anglers as a whole, otherwise it could backfire... and become an otter hunt as you say. Or at least look like it. I have faith in them though.
 
Shaun Nurse said:
I`m really not sure what there is to question....? It is a collection of unique information and data, which can only be a positive, it costs nothing but a few moments of time to report, and of course (as mentioned above) you are not obliged to help your fellow man/angling community and natural environment at large, but if you can it is welcomed. If you cannot, well need you throw negativity at it? Probably not.
Click to expand...

Shaun, I don't think it is a question of throwing negativity at it....its just an individuals observation of the reality of what it will possibly to come to. So like bobby says you will definitely need a thick skin.

Has to ways of helping my fellow angler as you put it I work pretty much every week in practical ways on a small Thames tributary that has been affected terribly by predation and invasive species..if we hadn't started habitat improvements and stocking 14 years ago there would have been no barbel left in it by now. Fortunately now the river is recovering and are main problems we face are turbidity and lack of water due to abstraction.

But its all part of the mix in the way we perceive/want to help and I wish you and Paul the best of luck.
 
I think there is some well wishing somewhere there Jason (Anything can "possibly" come to nothing, as well as something) So thanks.
Stocking and habitat improvement, good luck indeed with that if you have to contend with turbidity and lack of the actual h2o needed. It`s a big problem on many rivers and tribs.
 
otters kill the big fish 1st, then work harder to catch the smaller ones thus getting fitter, otters kill so we should get rid of the otters again before the damage is completely repeated as was with cormorants, dont wait for after act now and get rid of them:mad:
 
dear or expensive is the right word mike, expensive for the tackle dealers, expensive for less fish to fish for if any at all and expensive for us anglers to find river stretches that haven,t yet felt the impact of otter killed fully grown barbel:mad:
 
John Walker said:
otters kill the big fish 1st, then work harder to catch the smaller ones thus getting fitter, otters kill so we should get rid of the otters again before the damage is completely repeated as was with cormorants, dont wait for after act now and get rid of them:mad:
Click to expand...

Blimey..


That reads like a blue print for the abolishment of angling...:rolleyes:
 
John Walker said:
dear or expensive is the right word mike, expensive for the tackle dealers, expensive for less fish to fish for if any at all and expensive for us anglers to find river stretches that haven,t yet felt the impact of otter killed fully grown barbel:mad:
Click to expand...

Hello John . Clearly you are not a fan of the Otter, however blaming them for the demise of the tackle dealer seems to be stretching it a bit . As for your claim in a previous post that Otters kill the biggest barbel first then move on to the smaller ones gaining in strength and vitality as they go along . On what evidence do you base this observation ? Your '' kill em all '' approach to the Otter problem seems to me to be incredibly short sighted . Back in the 60's and 70's when we humans had managed to wipe out 99% of the otter population were the rivers a haven for Barbel ? I think not ...If you want to kill predators have a go at the mink and Cormorants which you can do with impunity .
 
I believe that all should be able to air their views on here as John has done, if others don't agree fine they are only opinions but I see no reason for the holier than thou comments.

My opinion is that otters were the straw that broke the camels back and bear a large part of the blame for the demise of barbel in so many rivers, is it right who knows but I will take some persuading that it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top