laguna
Well-known member
Otters are indeed indigenous to the UK as are many other fish-eating predators, and many fish species are not. That includes carp which I think were first brought here by the Romans to be reared in ponds for food. But the problem today is not which animal has the right to exist (they all do), its to do with the severely reduced fish stocks and increased predation by the reintroduction of Otters and others proposed if the tree huggers and bunny kissing fraternity get their way. Don't get me wrong, I love nature and all wildlife but conservation needs careful management. Not too many years ago there were literally thousands of us paying anglers fishing the banks at weekends all paying into the big pot, now there are far, far less doing so today and fish stocks on rivers in particular are at critical levels in many parts of the UK. Less money paid in by anglers, means less money to replenish those stocks to feed the newly reintroduced predators.
I'm not a carp angler, I fish for all species. My original point was as to the cost of replacing fish stocks from the reintroduction of those cuddly looking predators and suggested that fish are largely ignored because they are beneath the water, and not seen as say; an otter or a beaver. I raised the issue regards cost of a big fish like a carp as an example, informing an anti that a thirty pounder may cost the owner £3K to replace.
Beavers present an indirect threat Imo. They don't eat fish but can cause localised flooding and pools upstream from dams where fish may become trapped and easier prey, reduced flow downstream and fish passage, gnawing at healthy waterside trees and vegetation eroding banks etc. He didn't care, he simply likes the idea of re-wilding - at ANY cost!
If we had more fish, we could have these predators back and in larger numbers, no problem. The situation at the moment is dire and unsustainable. Soon when the fish will have all gone, the predators will starve or turn on the waterfowl.
I'm not a carp angler, I fish for all species. My original point was as to the cost of replacing fish stocks from the reintroduction of those cuddly looking predators and suggested that fish are largely ignored because they are beneath the water, and not seen as say; an otter or a beaver. I raised the issue regards cost of a big fish like a carp as an example, informing an anti that a thirty pounder may cost the owner £3K to replace.
Beavers present an indirect threat Imo. They don't eat fish but can cause localised flooding and pools upstream from dams where fish may become trapped and easier prey, reduced flow downstream and fish passage, gnawing at healthy waterside trees and vegetation eroding banks etc. He didn't care, he simply likes the idea of re-wilding - at ANY cost!
If we had more fish, we could have these predators back and in larger numbers, no problem. The situation at the moment is dire and unsustainable. Soon when the fish will have all gone, the predators will starve or turn on the waterfowl.