Predation Action Group Formed

Paul Boote on 08/02/2012 12:00:19

Hmm. Steady now, Paul ... keep your powder dry ... wait till you see the whites of their eyes... http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/barbel-fishing/278495-you-lot-bunch-nutters-3.html#post1105777

richard bowler on 08/02/2012 14:02:27

Had a look at the website, don't see anyone on the comittee who is qualified to undertake such research. Unless someone carries out research that will be listened to by the powers that be it will just be a load of hot air. Anglers don't seem to get it that in this day and age no one will give the green light to cull otters whatever the right and wrongs. I don't think anyone disputes our waterways are in a shocking state but we will have to find answers to this problem without killing stuff. Freshwater is one of the most precious resources on the planet and prehaps a good start would be to put as much effort into campaigning about the abuse that goes on in or rivers. Our rivers are running dry through over abstraction and we use or rivers as sewers. Without clean water there can be no healthy environment. All the best Richard - Home

cg74 on 08/02/2012 17:24:09

Am I missing something, as wasn't the PAG "formed" back in May 2010: http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/general-fishing/101994-predation-action-group.html So is this just a re-hash of the same group? Out of curiosity is there a reason why the slide slow on their website showed no Cormorants or mink and only one picture of a signal crayfish yet plenty of otters; was this a deliberate move on their parrt, showing their target species?

geoffmaynard on 08/02/2012 19:20:48

Divide and conquer will always be an excellent tactic. So let's not muddy the waters. Here we have a group of anglers passionate about protecting angling who have launched a website to raise awareness about predation issues. If they were covering abstraction or pollution my response would be the same: WELL DONE! If it was all about otters I think they would have called it the otter predation group or something - instead they call it what it is - and I think every angler should support them and their efforts because they are fighting for your interests. Just a personal view.

jasonbean1 on 08/02/2012 21:32:07

geoff...own veiw or not, you don't half speak some **** ---------- Post added at 14:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:20 ---------- and after watching john wilson for far too long on telly you can'y help but feel sorry for martin bowler...now brain washed into thinking that this is the way we'll save our fisheries? pag's thoughts might be part of the big picture.... but to raise it as "The" one and only issue just shows there own self interests ? sad, very sad... thought they had got bored of it last time i'll bother to read anything by martin now

john m h on 08/02/2012 22:02:16

Nice web site but... I seem to remember that the last combined meeting of the ATr Specialist Angling Freshwater Group and the PAG had to be cancelled because insufficient of those invited thought it worth responding/replying to :rolleyes:

amushroom on 09/02/2012 07:52:21

folks as everyone knows, we've got all sorts of problems anglers track record in solving any of these problems is appalling conclusion, non anglers support is needed wot you dont do is get £50k, and spend it on demonising furry or feather critters you alienate those that are needed to bring about change, fail to bring about change because you haven't previously dipped the non anglers toe in the shallow end, you lob'em in at the deep end, and fail miserably as always to get the message further than to someone who holds a rod wots neede is £50k towards promoting anglers standing in the community we rely to heavily on organising events to raise money for various charities, dont give them the money, give them your time, push their wheelchair, let them hear the opinions of an angler, and you'll be pleasantly surprised 30,000 of our soldiers fighting in afghanistan have been maimed, crippled and suffered life changing injuries, go tell one of 'em, we cant turn the clock back, but we can thankyou for your sacrifice NUFFIN IS MORE PRECIOUS THAN YOUR TIME

Fred Bonney on 09/02/2012 09:06:48

folks as everyone knows, we've got all sorts of problems anglers track record in solving any of these problems is appalling conclusion, non anglers support is needed wot you dont do is get £50k, and spend it on demonising furry or feather critters you alienate those that are needed to bring about change, fail to bring about change because you haven't previously dipped the non anglers toe in the shallow end, you lob'em in at the deep end, and fail miserably as always to get the message further than to someone who holds a rod wots neede is £50k towards promoting anglers standing in the community we rely to heavily on organising events to raise money for various charities, dont give them the money, give them your time, push their wheelchair, let them hear the opinions of an angler, and you'll be pleasantly surprised 30,000 of our soldiers fighting in afghanistan have been maimed, crippled and suffered life changing injuries, go tell one of 'em, we cant turn the clock back, but we can thankyou for your sacrifice NUFFIN IS MORE PRECIOUS THAN YOUR TIME Well said that man !:thumbs:

geoffmaynard on 09/02/2012 10:16:21

geoff...own veiw or not, you don't half speak some **** But it looks like I'm in good company Jason :)

MarkTheSpark on 09/02/2012 10:39:37

Any group which claims to want to find out the truth but launches with wild conjecture like that does not get my support. Otters have all but wiped out specimen barbel? That's just rubbish. Lets examine the current river records: Bure 15.4, set in 2010; Ivel 17.15, 2010; Avon 16.11, 2010; Nene 15.14, 2010; Thames 15lb, 2010; Ure 11.10, 2010. In 2011, records were set on the Dearne, Dove, Exe, Goyt, Itchen and Kentish Stour. And already this year, new records have been set on the Anker and Rother. Most, if not all, of which have both cormorants and otters on them, This is a sideshow to the main issue of reducing abstraction and improving the river habitat, both of which would nurture more fish. If anglers can't fight for these common issues - the only issues on which we are almost unanimous - we're in danger of not being heard at all.

Fred Bonney on 09/02/2012 11:03:48

It's happening too regularly Mark, but Well said that man :thumbs:

geoffmaynard on 09/02/2012 11:26:44

This is a sideshow to the main issue of reducing abstraction and improving the river habitat, both of which would nurture more fish. Perhaps it is a sideshow Mark, but "with John Wilson rationalising that (cormorants) account for up to 58,000,000 irreplaceable small fish per annum" it's a damn big sideshow. It doesn't matter which one of the big issues that affect angling is the 'most' important - they are all important. Dismissing the actions of a group who are trying to do something about one of the major threats to angling, just because it is not what some perceive to be the 'main' threat is not helpful. We are all on the same side, looking for the same end results.

Jeff Woodhouse on 09/02/2012 11:48:33

We are all on the same side, looking for the same end results. Well said that man :thumbs:

itsfishingnotcatching on 09/02/2012 11:58:42

We are all on the same side, looking for the same end results. If only that were true :(, we wouldn't be facing half of these problems, we would be tackling them already.

richard bowler on 09/02/2012 12:18:09

I'm not saying that otter's and cormorants are not a problem. God knows I've seen enough otters and fish carcasses on the Ouse to know that it is. What will never happen is for the government giving a green light to a cull. Look at recent cases of culls and the public uproar, take the SRSPB's cull on hedgehogs on the Uist islands to protect ground breeding birds eggs, the RSPB's cull on the Ruddy duck to save a Spanish duck, let alone the proposed cull on badgers to help cattle farmers and yet we think we'll get granted permission to cull otter's so we can catch fish, don't think so. To get a team of qualified scientist to research the problem of predation of fisheries will certainly cost more than £50,000 and at the end of the day it will be for nothing. In my opinion we need to highlight the problems the freshwater environment and how it affects all forms of life, that way we may be able to work with other conservation groups to improve the riverine environment for all. I've read on the internet recently statements like "what's the point of otter's",and "otter's weren't native to the places where they've been introduced" statements like this make anglers look a joke and while we have prominent members of the angling community calling for a cull we will never get co-operation from any conservation groups in the fight to improve our rivers. Also I feel the biggest threat to recruitment of fish, certainly on the Ouse is the enormous populations of the Signal crayfish, £50,000 spent towards removing these would have greater effect on fish populations than anything else. All the best Richard - Home

cg74 on 09/02/2012 12:48:55

Perhaps it is a sideshow Mark, but "with John Wilson rationalising that (cormorants) account for up to 58,000,000 irreplaceable small fish per annum" it's a damn big sideshow. It doesn't matter which one of the big issues that affect angling is the 'most' important - they are all important. Dismissing the actions of a group who are trying to do something about one of the major threats to angling, just because it is not what some perceive to be the 'main' threat is not helpful. We are all on the same side, looking for the same end results. And here you go Geoff: Colin Gordon "rationalising" John Wilson's Cormorant statement: An adult (female) carp can produce over a third of a million eggs, so by my maths, it potentially only requires 174 adult carp to produce enough food to sustain the Cormorants annually. How many carp are there in our country, or even our rivers where they don't belong. If this group want to gain any level of acceptance, they need objective scientific evidence, not some disgruntled anglers hearsay.

Lord Paul of Sheffield on 09/02/2012 12:55:11

how many of those carp eggs reach the stage where they are even fish - let alone fish of the size commorants eat?

cg74 on 09/02/2012 13:01:34

how many of those carp eggs reach the stage where they are even fish - let alone fish of the size commorants eat? How long is a piece of string...... It obviously depends on many factors, from water temp to food availability and of course predation.:omg:

Lord Paul of Sheffield on 09/02/2012 13:03:17

How long is a piece of string...... It obviously depends on many factors, from water temp to food availability and of course predation.:omg: just putting a bit of perscetive on the quote about how many carp it takes to feed the commerants

Jeff Woodhouse on 09/02/2012 13:13:46

how many of those carp eggs reach the stage where they are even fish - let alone fish of the size commorants eat? Lord Paul is right, eggs don't add up to fish of edible size, even 2" ones. You quote 333,000, but I'll wager the fish themselves eat a great many of them (maybe a cull on carp then?), maybe ¾ of them, this sometimes comes down to survival of the fittest as (in my pond) I've not seen any fish eating eggs it either laid or fertilised. So if around 80,000 actually hatch, they still have to find food and survive the onslaught of other predatory fish, pike and perch. You'd be lucky to get 25-35 actual swimming 2-3" fish out of a batch of which only 3 or 4 will make it over 1lb at best (unless under farm conditions). I've heard it said that of 10,000,000 roach eggs only 1 will make it over 1lb, what chance a 2 lber?

Lord Paul of Sheffield on 09/02/2012 13:15:56

my point exactly Jeff

cg74 on 09/02/2012 14:22:04

my point exactly Jeff You missed the point; figures can/do get contorted to suggest what ever you please (within reason). I mean in most rivers you'd be lucky if from 174 female carp, you got more than 3-4 fish a year to make adulthood, mainly due to the water temp. John Wilson's figure of 58,000,000 small fish is pure conjecture, to turn this argument around, if stripping carp spawn and raising them in an artificial environment would bring a yield of 2.5% survival, therefore necessitating 7000 carp, how many do our rivers now contain; none of which are ever going to be indigenous. It could even be argued that Cormorants are a newly acquired indigenous species; they did after all get here unaided!! All that aside, my point is simple; to gain any credibility this group needs to learn very fast, they must substantiate their claims, cos if I can pick holes in what they say, rest assured others will and in doing so negate their efforts.

Lord Paul of Sheffield on 09/02/2012 14:28:32

You missed the point; figures can/do get contorted to suggest what ever you please (within reason). I mean in most rivers you'd be lucky if from 174 female carp, you got more than 3-4 fish a year to make adulthood, mainly due to the water temp. John Wilson's figure of 58,000,000 small fish is pure conjecture, to turn this argument around, if stripping carp spawn and raising them in an artificial environment would bring a yield of 2.5% survival, therefore necessitating 7000 carp, how many do our rivers now contain; none of which are ever going to be indigenous. It could even be argued that Cormorants are a newly acquired indigenous species; they did after all get here unaided!! All that aside, my point is simple; to gain any credibility this group needs to learn very fast, they must substantiate their claims, cos if I can pick holes in what they say, rest assured others will and in doing so negate their efforts. Well put - I misunderstood the position of your post:)

geoffmaynard on 09/02/2012 15:12:13

John Wilson's figure of 58,000,000 small fish is pure conjecture, I'm sure the maths can be found to support it. (I agree with you that we can do anything with statistics). If a pair of cormorants eats 1lb fish each per day and successfully breeds twice a year, over 25 years....compound that... I think JW's estimate is extremely conservative :(

Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 09/02/2012 15:47:16

What are the most important species - Wild Otters or Carp in commercial fisheries?

beerweasel on 09/02/2012 16:06:08

Why have the Cormorants come inland ? Is it because we have over-fished the sea in the most wasteful/unsustainable way or is it the over-stocking of commercial lakes ?

MarkTheSpark on 09/02/2012 16:59:52

Dismissing the actions of a group who are trying to do something about one of the major threats to angling, just because it is not what some perceive to be the 'main' threat is not helpful. We are all on the same side, looking for the same end results. No, I think you'll find I'm not on the side that thinks our rivers will be saved if, by some miracle, we annihilate predators. Because I wasn't born in 1857, but 1957. I'm on the side of a mixture of common sense and science, both of which seem to indicate that, as both otters and coarse fish were once common, they are not mutually exclusive. If anglers are ever to make their voices heard, we must unite behind one, common cause, not pick lost causes over which we have bunfights. If angling goes down this road, it will find its way barred by the million RSPB members, several million other wildlife enthusiasts, science and the popular media. If we chose restoring the river environment as our platform, we'd have their support, not their opposition. ---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:32 ---------- Why have the Cormorants come inland ? Is it because we have over-fished the sea in the most wasteful/unsustainable way or is it the over-stocking of commercial lakes ? Yes, and yes ---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:34 ---------- "Whilst the otter cannot help being a giant predatory, aquatic rat with Doberman like- teeth, the last government together with Natural England, both of whom were responsible for releasing them into already badly- depleted upper river systems, from the mid 1990’s have a lot to answer for. With the lowest eel runs in living memory,[ a reduction of 90% has been suggested] and vast stocks of small to medium-sized silver shoal fish simply not there, what on earth did the do-gooders think otters were going to prey upon." This is the emotive claptrap which the PAG thinks will win hearts and minds; it's puerile and incendiary. This organisation does not speak for me, and if it does not speak for you either, write a letter through its website to say so, or they will all occupy their ivory tower mutually back-slapping like old communist dictators, thinking they have won the war because they can't see any soldiers. See. We can all do emotive claptrap.

geoffmaynard on 09/02/2012 17:39:56

I'm on the side of a mixture of common sense and science, both of which seem to indicate that, as both otters and coarse fish were once common, they are not mutually exclusive. Common sense and science are what gave us the Moran Committee's findings Mark. Read them and find any common sense! :( If as you suggest we are to unite under a common cause then we must accept that others are going to have a different perception on some issues from ourselves. This predation issue (like most issues) is a shade of grey, it is not black and white. It must be dealt with the same as pollution and abstraction - not treated as some special untouchable item. It is a major threat to angling. It must not be ignored.

MarkTheSpark on 09/02/2012 19:38:06

Common sense and science are what gave us the Moran Committee's findings Mark. Read them and find any common sense! :( If as you suggest we are to unite under a common cause then we must accept that others are going to have a different perception on some issues from ourselves. This predation issue (like most issues) is a shade of grey, it is not black and white. It must be dealt with the same as pollution and abstraction - not treated as some special untouchable item. It is a major threat to angling. It must not be ignored. There's plenty of common sense in the Moran report. What irked anglers was that the committee didn't give the answers anglers wanted. For example, how many fisheries have installed 'fish refuges' as Moran suggested - places where fish can escape cormorants (and other predators)? Answer: almost none. It's scientifically proven to work but then the reactionary element in angling was never interested in science or even debate. And you seemed to have missed the point of what I was saying about predators v abstraction/ecology. The point is that there is nobody sane who would say: "No, I don't want more wildlife on rivers." It is a very real problem, and doing something about it unites everyone. Conversely, I'd guess 90% of the population other than anglers would march on Westminster (figuratively speaking) if it proposed culling otters. So what's the point of pursuing a policy which doesn't just divide the populus, it divides angling? The point is this; mentally, we have put 'fighting abstraction and improving river habitat' into the too-difficult-to-do file. So much easier to barrel a few otters. Even if it's facile, lazy and pointless. I'm really, really angry about the state of our rivers. I would happily organise and take part in a march on Westminster to fight for things to change. Sadly, most anglers are happier vegging on their computers and waging a totally ineffective keyboard war.

geoffmaynard on 09/02/2012 19:58:16

And you seemed to have missed the point of what I was saying about predators v abstraction/ecology. The point is that there is nobody sane who would say: "No, I don't want more wildlife on rivers." It is a very real problem, and doing something about it unites everyone. Well I don't want foxes in the henhouse, it's true, so does that make me insane? Call me old fashioned but there's a thread of PC nonsense going on these days that I can't get a grip on, and that is, this obsession that introducing wolves into a sheep-pack is going to improve things for both the sheep and for the shepherd. It won't. Defending excessive predation is just plain silly in my eyes. It makes as much sense to me as breeding slugs in a lettuce patch. Now this may not be your opinion, but it is mine - and thousands of other guys feel exactly the same way as me. You are absolutely right in your critique of abstraction and pollution - but that does not negate any of the points made against excessive predation. ---------- Post added at 20:58 ---------- Previous post was at 20:54 ---------- I'm really, really angry about the state of our rivers. I would happily organise and take part in a march on Westminster to fight for things to change. Sadly, most anglers are happier vegging on their computers and waging a totally ineffective keyboard war. And that's the attitude we all admire about you.

richard bowler on 09/02/2012 20:16:35

The thing is, is that the rivers are not our hen houses and there just for anglers. Surely putting the water back into our rivers and cleaning them up so that fish can reproduce and be self sustaining would be the way forward before asking to cull the predators. In my opinion the crisis facing our rivers are too much for anglers to deal with on their own and the only way anything meaningful is achieved will be if anglers, conservationist, and scientist all work together. I fear the blood lust in some of us will do nothing but alienate us. All the best Richard - Home

MarkTheSpark on 09/02/2012 23:48:40

I take your points, Geoff, and I have great sympathy with fishery managers who have lost valuable fish to otters, as they undoubtedly have. But for many (not all) fishery managers that is a problem of animal husbandry, and is part of the management of a business, like any farm. We cannot legally shoot otters and cormorants (the latter without a licence) so otter fencing and the provision of shelter for fish from cormorants are the current options. I am more than a bit fed up with commercial waters not investing cash in their businesses and protecting their stock with the tools they already have. But the core of what I am saying is that excessive predation, if it happens, happens because we have too few fish. The solution is not fewer predators - that's just a race to the bottom - but more fish. In improving the river environment for fish, we will also improve it for other wildlife, and we can make allies, not enemies, of environmentalists who have the power to help us make these changes. We need to ensure there are more fish to share with indigenous species. That means significantly reducing abstraction, removing chemical pollution, and returning rivers to their natural state. It's the nettle we have to grasp, and it's a big problem to try to solve. But it is, make no mistake, the main problem.

Fred Bonney on 10/02/2012 00:15:42

I'm n ot goin to say it again, it'll look toady!:thumbs:

cg74 on 10/02/2012 00:30:02

I'm sure the maths can be found to support it. (I agree with you that we can do anything with statistics). If a pair of cormorants eats 1lb fish each per day and successfully breeds twice a year, over 25 years....compound that... I think JW's estimate is extremely conservative :( All I'm saying; with PAG its going to be a very slow route to improved fish stocks if it took JW over one and and a half years to calculate his figure of 58,000,000 fish consumed per annum by Cormorants....:omg: Has the group worked out anything else in the last 20 months?:confused:

Peter Jacobs on 10/02/2012 07:05:31

Conversely, I'd guess 90% of the population other than anglers would march on Westminster (figuratively speaking) if it proposed culling otters. So what's the point of pursuing a policy which doesn't just divide the populus, it divides angling? Well Mark, I don't see 90% of the population marching on Parliament protesting the shooting of Badgers (albeit in a pilot project) in fact you see or hear no one other than those connected with the Badger Trust doing or saying anything at all, do you? From past experience I'd say that marching on Parliament does no good whatsoever, it didn't help us stop the stupid Fox Hunting Bill going through, did it.

amushroom on 10/02/2012 07:19:53

nice one fred markthe spark, as you say m8, everyone would triumph an improvement in the environment and apparently thats the goal, sorry a goal is something you achieve, I mean aspiration whether its otters, cormorants, signal crays or canoeists dont matter wot matters is what are the powers that be doing choosing topics that divide and alienate the resources and effort wasted on devisive topics only encourage more failure and fatigue from those that have taken part, but even more perversely, the resources and effort are witheld from what will unite wots needed are topics that have few variables, are easy to understand, and affect everyone there aint none better than water, so target the resources at those that control the water they are easily identifiable and have appaling track records the EA cant even get roach included in enviromental assessment studies every water company pollutes, and kills billions of fish with insufficient abstraction screening SO GO FOR THE WATER COMPANIES explain to the general public that there inability to co-operate amongst themselves is resulting in more floods and droughts, how this lack of co-operation is affecting their insurance premiums publicise who owns these water companies, their number of employees, turnover, profits generated etc list the pollution incidents by each water company in chronological order compare the cost of suitable screens at abstraction sites and endochrine filters at outflows with executives salaries list improvements completed since privatisation and compare with turnover list the assets sold of with their selling price and loads more besides in a nutshell, they've been digging themselves a hole since privatisation, and we're all numb nuts for not taking advantage please please please, anglings movers and takers, give us all some leadership, somewhere to focus all of our efforts, something that we can all unite behind

jasonbean1 on 10/02/2012 08:26:26

mr mushroom...certainly takes some beating that and thats the point, nail on the head. Geoff you were saying i'll support them because they are doing something and all problems are equal? well do you not see it will be a waste of time? do they not see it? on the news this morning, already planning how to avoid closing the kennet and avon canal this year, one things for sure part of that planning will be how they can squeeze enough water out of the rivers, streams and from where ever just to keep the increasing commercialism of the canals moving forward. and the ea wont stop them

Lord Paul of Sheffield on 10/02/2012 08:48:35

If you were to set a trap for a mink and by accident an caught an otter legally you would have to release it. But suppose you were to release it on say a well known and expensive salmon stretch of river or a river where the rich and famous pay a fortune to fish for trout, then see how much fuss would be caused. Not legal I'm sure so please don't do it :wh;)

MarkTheSpark on 10/02/2012 09:23:27

Well Mark, I don't see 90% of the population marching on Parliament protesting the shooting of Badgers (albeit in a pilot project) in fact you see or hear no one other than those connected with the Badger Trust doing or saying anything at all, do you? From past experience I'd say that marching on Parliament does no good whatsoever, it didn't help us stop the stupid Fox Hunting Bill going through, did it. Of course you're right, on both counts; the poor old badgers will still get culled and marches on Parliament (and I was one of the million protesting Iraq War II) do not ALWAYS have any effect. But the poll tax protests worked. And the Libyan protests worked (after a fashion). Protests can work if they have the majority backing and people understand the issues. More importantly, they force the public to think about the issues. What definitely doesn't work is not bothering to do anything; rolling over so you can be shafted again, and again. ---------- Post added at 09:23 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ---------- nice one fred markthe spark, as you say m8, everyone would triumph an improvement in the environment and apparently thats the goal, sorry a goal is something you achieve, I mean aspiration whether its otters, cormorants, signal crays or canoeists dont matter wot matters is what are the powers that be doing choosing topics that divide and alienate the resources and effort wasted on devisive topics only encourage more failure and fatigue from those that have taken part, but even more perversely, the resources and effort are witheld from what will unite wots needed are topics that have few variables, are easy to understand, and affect everyone there aint none better than water, so target the resources at those that control the water they are easily identifiable and have appaling track records the EA cant even get roach included in enviromental assessment studies every water company pollutes, and kills billions of fish with insufficient abstraction screening SO GO FOR THE WATER COMPANIES explain to the general public that there inability to co-operate amongst themselves is resulting in more floods and droughts, how this lack of co-operation is affecting their insurance premiums publicise who owns these water companies, their number of employees, turnover, profits generated etc list the pollution incidents by each water company in chronological order compare the cost of suitable screens at abstraction sites and endochrine filters at outflows with executives salaries list improvements completed since privatisation and compare with turnover list the assets sold of with their selling price and loads more besides in a nutshell, they've been digging themselves a hole since privatisation, and we're all numb nuts for not taking advantage please please please, anglings movers and takers, give us all some leadership, somewhere to focus all of our efforts, something that we can all unite behind Well said, mushroom.

Peter Jacobs on 10/02/2012 09:34:59

Protests can work if they have the majority backing and people understand the issues. More importantly, they force the public to think about the issues. You know, I really don't think that they do Mark. In fact, the vast majority of the great British public are about as apathetic as the vast majority of our anglers. Unless something physically interferes with their bread, their booze their 'reality TV' or their footie then typically they don't give a monkeys toss! The same would be the case with an Otter Cull (if ever it gets around to that) the only people who will claim an interest will be wildlife groups and the ill-advised idiots who reintroduced them without any prior thought as to their impact as an apex predator on our rivers and our sport!

MarkTheSpark on 10/02/2012 09:51:14

You know, I really don't think that they do Mark. In fact, the vast majority of the great British public are about as apathetic as the vast majority of our anglers. Unless something physically interferes with their bread, their booze their 'reality TV' or their footie then typically they don't give a monkeys toss! The same would be the case with an Otter Cull (if ever it gets around to that) the only people who will claim an interest will be wildlife groups and the ill-advised idiots who reintroduced them without any prior thought as to their impact as an apex predator on our rivers and our sport! The problem with the above is that it leaves us with the 'let's do sod all' option. And I'm afraid that's not how I feel. I'm surprised that it's the way you feel. And let's forget the 'apex predator' cobblers. The apex predator is us, humans, with power over the ecology which is degrading it, whether negligently or in the pursuit of money. Great campaigns always hold a mirror up so we can see ourselves; we need to hold a mirror up to the water companies, the Environment Agency and the public.

geoffmaynard on 10/02/2012 09:53:57

All I'm saying; with PAG its going to be a very slow route to improved fish stocks if it took JW over one and and a half years to calculate his figure of 58,000,000 fish consumed per annum by Cormorants.... Has the group worked out anything else in the last 20 months? Rant mode How about if we all stop having a pop at people who are only trying to raise awareness (they have no other powers that I can see) and address the real problems. Otherwise the water just gets muddied again. The 3 main offenders we are listing here are abstraction, pollution and predation. This thread addresses predation. True, IF the rivers were allowed to return to a 'normal' and 'natural' condition, we'll have a lot more fish so the predators would not be as big a problem. But, let's get real, that's never going to happen is it? Since the Industrial Revolution the rivers have been important tools of industry and the needs of Industry will always triumph over a soppy pastime - which is how Joe Public views angling. The best we can hope for is damage limitation; to manage the rivers, treating them as gardens, pulling out the weeds and destroying the slugs. Someone said something like 'our needs as anglers are not the only consideration'. No? Well they are to me. We have to be aware of who's corner we're going to get behind - you can't have a foot in two camps when it comes to excessive predation. Breeding fish merely to feed a starving population of cormorants (and otters) comes WAY down my list. I want those fish for angling purposes first and foremost. Only when there's enough to share will I accept there's room for more predators. Because humans are the top of the food chain. And THAT is the law of Nature. Rant mode :)

Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 10/02/2012 10:06:20

Looking at this from a none angling point of view - if it boiled down to it then what species has more right to be resident in the UK, carp, barbel, zander and catfish or the indigenous otter?

MarkTheSpark on 10/02/2012 10:16:00

Rant mode How about if we all stop having a pop at people who are only trying to raise awareness (they have no other powers that I can see) and address the real problems. Otherwise the water just gets muddied again. Because they are raising awareness of a problem many of us feel is part of a biodiverse, inclusive ecology, and have started a battle they cannot possibly win. The 3 main offenders we are listing here are abstraction, pollution and predation. This thread addresses predation. True, IF the rivers were allowed to return to a 'normal' and 'natural' condition, we'll have a lot more fish so the predators would not be as big a problem. But, let's get real, that's never going to happen is it? It certainly won't happen if that's our attitude. The old ACA proved something could be done, and I believe that, as the UK is now well behind its European targets for the river environment, it can be brought to book. Since the Industrial Revolution the rivers have been important tools of industry and the needs of Industry will always triumph over a soppy pastime - which is how Joe Public views angling. The best we can hope for is damage limitation; to manage the rivers, treating them as gardens, pulling out the weeds and destroying the slugs. If you want to fish in a garden, Geoff, get down your local carp puddle and fish in glorious isolation from the natural world. But you can't manage gardens with poor soil, as I know only too well. If your nurture natore, many problems resolve themselves. Someone said something like 'our needs as anglers are not the only consideration'. No? Well they are to me. We have to be aware of who's corner we're going to get behind - you can't have a foot in two camps when it comes to excessive predation. Precisely, Geoff. It's what I've been saying all along. It's the wrong battle, divisive and pointless. Breeding fish merely to feed a starving population of cormorants (and otters) comes WAY down my list. I want those fish for angling purposes first and foremost. So why not fight river degradation for that reason? In my youth, there were loads of predators and loads of fish. Left to its own devices, nature finds a balance. Only when there's enough to share will I accept there's room for more predators. Because humans are the top of the food chain. And THAT is the law of Nature. Rant mode :) So, the law of nature is that man determines the fate of all other animals? Yes, I'd go along with that. So we can equally determine that there will be more fish, and by reinstating the quality of the river environment, ensure that they have a better chance of survival. If that was angling's campaign, the wildlife groups would sign on the bottom line tomorrow....

geoffmaynard on 10/02/2012 10:21:26

Looking at this from a none angling point of view - if it boiled down to it then what species has more right to be resident in the UK, carp, barbel, zander and catfish or the indigenous otter? Don't you meant the "recently re-introduced" otter versus the now indigenous zander, carp, catfish and barbel. Semantics... :) ---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ---------- So why not fight river degradation for that reason? In my youth, there were loads of predators and loads of fish. Left to its own devices, nature finds a balance. ??? a) I don't! I'm right behind you. b) Not compared to prior to the IR. c) No it doesn't. See the Grand Banks, the North Sea etc etc

Paul Boote on 10/02/2012 10:22:03

I very much suspect, Mark, that you might be arguing with people for whom "The Owners Reserve The Right To Expel or Exterminate Anybody or Anything That, For Reasons Known To Ourselves, Inconvenience Us In Any Manner" mindset is sacrosanct. Why spend a fortune and huge amounts of time addressing and putting right the real problem - degraded environment and waters - when, after a bit of media demonizing, you can stiff a scapegoat and have a bit of fun doing so...?

Peter Jacobs on 10/02/2012 10:26:16

The problem with the above is that it leaves us with the 'let's do sod all' option. And I'm afraid that's not how I feel. I'm surprised that it's the way you feel. And let's forget the 'apex predator' cobblers. The apex predator is us, humans, with power over the ecology which is degrading it, whether negligently or in the pursuit of money. Great campaigns always hold a mirror up so we can see ourselves; we need to hold a mirror up to the water companies, the Environment Agency and the public. It is not the way "I feel" Mark but purely my comment on the vast mass of the British public. They simply don't care! Regardless of your definiton of the 'apex predator' as far as our coarse fish are concerned it is not human beings who are chomping our way through them, but the recently re-introduced Otter. It was those same 'human beings' who reintroduced these creatures in the first place, and without any proper studies being undertaken, no cooperation with riparian owners and certainly without any consideration for those who make their living from providing commercial fisheries. Eco-Crime? Too blooming true it was! In my opinion Mark, those people are the 'predators' and certainly not us anglers who now face the problems from their stupidity!

Peter Jacobs on 10/02/2012 10:26:16

Ops, duplicate post ? ? ? ?

geoffmaynard on 10/02/2012 10:58:05

I very much suspect, Mark, that you might be arguing with people for whom "The Owners Reserve The Right To Expel or Exterminate Anybody or Anything That, For Reasons Known To Ourselves, Inconvenience Us In Any Manner" mindset is sacrosanct. Why spend a fortune and huge amounts of time addressing and putting right the real problem - degraded environment and waters - when, after a bit of media demonizing, you can stiff a scapegoat and have a bit of fun doing so...? No Paul. He's putting forward a very reasoned argument, the fact it is insufficient to sway the views of some of us neither negates nor detracts from either point of view. The only demonising is coming from parties who are more comfortable attacking personalities rather than viewpoints.

Paul Boote on 10/02/2012 11:10:35

I am with Mark wholly on this one, Geoff, and totally agin those who believe that with a bit of media grandstanding, scaremongering and smokescreening (and talk of mass public apathy) they can shoo in their own little narrow point of view. No dissing of personalities or individuals, just a forensic dissection of what they're selling.

Peter Jacobs on 10/02/2012 12:10:11

I am with Mark wholly on this one, Geoff, and totally agin those who believe that with a bit of media grandstanding, scaremongering and smokescreening (and talk of mass public apathy) they can shoo in their own little narrow point of view. No dissing of personalities or individuals, just a forensic dissection of what they're selling. Points of view are obviously as we each perceive them I supose, forensic dissection notwithstanding. Others may labour under the misaprehension that by dint of repetition that their argument will assume some (spurious) air of authority - alternatively they may simply like to repeat themselves ad nauseum. Regardless, I would readily agree that there are more than one set of problems facing todays anglers, which in itself is a sad state of affairs and one that was not lessened by the unthinking reintroduction of the Otter! That this group has been formed is, to my way of thinking, a step forward and not one backwards.

Paul Boote on 10/02/2012 12:17:14

We shall see, dear boy, we shall see. PS - Note the repetition.

cg74 on 10/02/2012 13:19:25

Rant mode How about if we all stop having a pop at people who are only trying to raise awareness (they have no other powers that I can see) and address the real problems. Otherwise the water just gets muddied again. The 3 main offenders we are listing here are abstraction, pollution and predation. This thread addresses predation. True, IF the rivers were allowed to return to a 'normal' and 'natural' condition, we'll have a lot more fish so the predators would not be as big a problem. But, let's get real, that's never going to happen is it? Since the Industrial Revolution the rivers have been important tools of industry and the needs of Industry will always triumph over a soppy pastime - which is how Joe Public views angling. The best we can hope for is damage limitation; to manage the rivers, treating them as gardens, pulling out the weeds and destroying the slugs. Someone said something like 'our needs as anglers are not the only consideration'. No? Well they are to me. We have to be aware of who's corner we're going to get behind - you can't have a foot in two camps when it comes to excessive predation. Breeding fish merely to feed a starving population of cormorants (and otters) comes WAY down my list. I want those fish for angling purposes first and foremost. Only when there's enough to share will I accept there's room for more predators. Because humans are the top of the food chain. And THAT is the law of Nature. Rant mode :) Ok Geoff, well done all involved with PAG, in 20 months you've calculated a sum that shouldn't even take a minute..... Hmm, anything else gone on since the first launch? Here you go, re-read this; promised so much, yet.... http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/general-fishing/101994-predation-action-group.html

geoffmaynard on 10/02/2012 13:23:08

Ok Geoff, well done all involved with PAG, in 20 months you've calculated a sum that shouldn't even take a minute..... Hmm, anything else gone on since the first launch? Here you go, re-read this; promised so much, yet.... http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/general-fishing/101994-predation-action-group.html I refer m'learned friend to the initial para of the 'rant on' post ;)

cg74 on 10/02/2012 13:33:41

Don't you meant the "recently re-introduced" otter versus the now indigenous zander, carp, catfish and barbel. Semantics... :) "Semantics" No I'd say its your (deliberate) misinterpretation of the definitions of a certain word: Definition for indigenous - Oxford Dictionaries Online (World English)

Lord Paul of Sheffield on 10/02/2012 13:42:53

We shall see, dear boy, we shall see. PS - Note the repetition. Duely noted sir, duely noted

geoffmaynard on 10/02/2012 14:07:04

"Semantics" No I'd say its your (deliberate) misinterpretation of the definitions of a certain word: Definition for indigenous - Oxford Dictionaries Online (World English) "originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native" : If these fish are 3 or 4 or even 10 generations down from parents which spawned here, I think they are native. If you don't agree, then that's a matter of semantics in my book.

cg74 on 10/02/2012 14:27:46

I refer m'learned friend to the initial para of the 'rant on' post ;) This one: "How about if we all stop having a pop at people who are only trying to raise awareness (they have no other powers that I can see) and address the real problems. Otherwise the water just gets muddied again." I'd "stop having a pop" if they were to aim at the 'real' problems, by this I mean not the few (and yes it is only a few) fisheries affected by issues of otter predation (and lets be honest, that's their main target) and objectively looked into the harm done by Signal crayfish. Though even with the S.crayfish the main issue is NOT predation of spawn and/or fry but bank erosion, eating all bottom dwelling insect life and destroying vital weed growth. And before you ask; I believe Comorants are the biggest predation issue regards fish stocks, but what exactly does freshwater angling as an entity do about them; very little, in fact verging on ****** all! ---------- Post added at 14:27 ---------- Previous post was at 14:15 ---------- "originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native" : If these fish are 3 or 4 or even 10 generations down from parents which spawned here, I think they are native. If you don't agree, then that's a matter of semantics in my book. PMSL, Yes Geoff, if you say so.... Either way native doesn't constitute being indigenous. And your list of fish are all invasive alien species, simple as that! So should we now happily embrace the signal crayfish, mitten crab, grey squirrel, munt jac deer, mink, giant hogweed and himalayan balsam as natives? Oh no they don't meet our selfish criteria. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the basis that took JW 20 months to do a simple bit of mathematics, this group will IMO achieve jack. So I can't be bothered to post on the subject anymore, over to you Geoff to post up a poignant surmisal.

Paul Boote on 10/02/2012 14:32:30

America - well, Vermont at least - is a foreign country, they deal with predators differently there - DID YOU KNOW…… You can shoot Northern Pike in Vermont!!!! | Ultimate Outdoors Radio

geoffmaynard on 10/02/2012 18:54:23

Yes Geoff, if you say so.... Either way native doesn't constitute being indigenous. Well - it was you who provided the link that said it was! :) Interesting point it raises though and worthy of a new thread.

MarkTheSpark on 10/02/2012 23:51:57

Regardless of your definiton of the 'apex predator' as far as our coarse fish are concerned it is not human beings who are chomping our way through them, but the recently re-introduced Otter. No, no, Peter, it is us. We are watering the garden with drinking water and flushing a pint of wee with two gallons of drinking water; we are diverting and dredging waterways, straightening rivers and filling them with subtle chemical filth. OK, we don't leave the corpses on the bank. Luckily for us, our actions merely mean that fish which once bred successfully no longer do. It's invisible so it doesn't make great TV. Ours is a less obvious but much more pervasive form of predation.... we hardly know we're doing it. But you and I know we are doing it.

Paul Boote on 11/02/2012 00:00:07

But the "it's never us" - "me, mate?", newcomer scapegoat is always sold more easily to an "apathetic [and privately despised] public" by the age-old power-players, as you certainly know, Mark. Remember that old gay-bashing saying - "It takes one to know one"? Well, it also takes a well-schooled sort to know just what his old-school chums are capable of.

Predation Action Group Formed

By the Same Author

Rate this article

Comments (62 posted):

Tagged as:

More from News

Follow FishingMagic!