Otter Damage... Awful!

[Peter Jacobs]

Peter my point being that only a tiny number 117 were reintroduced so I have no idea why everyone keeps saying "it was ill advised to introduce an apex predator" ( not quoting you Peter ) the introduced numbers were so small as to not make any difference , that is why they were stopped.

It was certainly ill advised, hardly researched properly and without much more than an iota of consultation with the Angling Groups, Associations and Organisations.

Let's get it straight, I am not in favour of an out-and-out cull of Otters, at least not yet.

What I am totally convinced of however, is that another similar exercise should never ever be allowed to happen until and unless full and proper prior consultation has taken place, and with consensus of opinion on the possible outcome, and then only in areas where minimal damage would be envisaged.

If it is proven in years to come that a cull is "necessary" then I will weigh up the pros and cons accordingly before making my opinion known.

 

[The bad one]

Down the years on this site alone I must have written over 100,000 words on this subject and lord know how many in total on the bloody internet!
Read well over a couple of million words for and against and close on a 150 scientific papers on otters and whether they fart, dump, do a jig before they eat or after it.

But despite my endeavours, the same old nonsense keeps coming up, releases! The numbers were totally insignificant, (total of all releases 138 see post 32) as half of them did not get through the first year of freedom. The native otter population was by natural means rising throughout the project anyway.

So for those that didn’t read it last time here’s the link to my last instalment
http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/general-fishing/341312-case-culling-otters.html

Posts 32, 36, 46, 53, 70, 84

And Peter in it is an explanation of why there was little consultation, if any, the fact is simple THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO DO IT! It’s no good looking back with today’s eye on yesterday and complaining it wasn’t done. It was not a requirement and therefore not necessary so it wasn’t carried out! That’s history and no amount of harping on about it will change that.

Whereas today it is and we must make sure in the event anything similar is proposed again, it is carried out to the letter.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The native otter population was by natural means rising throughout the project anyway.

If that was the case then why was this reintroduction project deemed to be so necessary or important?

And Peter in it is an explanation of why there was little consultation, if any, the fact is simple THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO DO IT! It’s no good looking back with today’s eye on yesterday and complaining it wasn’t done. It was not a requirement and therefore not necessary so it wasn’t carried out! That’s history and no amount of harping on about it will change that.

Phil,

That there was no offical requirement to do so is hardly any defence. To release an apex predator into the wild for crying out aloud, common sense should have prevailed in absence of any "requirement"

There is every necessity for looking back and highlighting errors and mistakes and that is, very simply, to ensure that we never make the same ones again.


“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”

Edmund Burke 1729-1797 Philosopher, Statesman, Poet and Author.

 

[reeds]

If those hundred-odd animals hadn't been released in the 90s, things now would be exactly the same. The 'reintroductions' are a total red herring. What you are complaining about is nature recovering. Given the right conditions, this is inevitable.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

If those hundred-odd animals hadn't been released in the 90s, things now would be exactly the same. The 'reintroductions' are a total red herring. What you are complaining about is nature recovering. Given the right conditions, this is inevitable.

That statement is totally unsupportable either in fact or evidence.

Here is what the EA have to say :

"During 2009-10 more than 3,300 sites were surveyed. Sites showing evidence of otters have increased from 5.8 per cent in the first survey of 1977-79, to an outstanding 58.8 per cent in this survey"

(taken from: Environment Agency - Otters)


Now, part of that increase was obviously as a direct result of reintroduced Otters, unless of course the introductions were of sterile animals?

Again, all I am saying is that we need to learn from history, and not to get involved in knee jerk schemes particularly where "nature" is involved, and to be sure that new schemes (of whatever variety) are fully and scientifically investigated before the event rather than after it.

 

[The bad one]

If that was the case then why was this reintroduction project deemed to be so necessary or important?



Phil,

That there was no offical requirement to do so is hardly any defence. To release an apex predator into the wild for crying out aloud, common sense should have prevailed in absence of any "requirement"

There is every necessity for looking back and highlighting errors and mistakes and that is, very simply, to ensure that we never make the same ones again.


“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”

Edmund Burke 1729-1797 Philosopher, Statesman, Poet and Author.

Peter you are being ridiculous with those comments as I think you know.
Read post 32. and add Otters protected early 70s, critically endangered species classification EU Habitat Directive, latterly the advancement of scientific techniques, DNA profiling in particular. Poor or none existent of Population Density Modelling over the lifetime of the project and you’ll get the answer.

Peter you of all people know and the industry you work for has used the same argument time and time again, "That there was no official requirement to do so!" Source for goose and all that! I am not arguing it was right or wrong, I’m pointing out those are the facts as your industry does on historical events.

Yes Burke is right and why my last sentence was thus! Whereas today it is and we must make sure in the event anything similar is proposed again, it is carried out to the letter.

PS Peter you are not fully understanding what those figures are saying. Haven't the time just now as the the Otterhound needs walking later

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Phil,

Both arguments cannot be correct then, either the reintrodiced Otters have made a terrific recovery and are breeding profusely, or there was sufficient remaining Otters in the natural population as to make the reintroduction unnecessary.

More likely some mixture of the two I would assume.

I didn't think it would be too long for someone to bring out the tired old cliche argument about the industry that I work in as if it were some magical, yet albeit somewhat cynical reposte.

I illustrated Burke as I use that quote in many of the seminars that I hold on "Lessons Learned" and was actually agreeing with you.

I fully understand those figures Phil but in keeping with the majority of statistics they can be used to support whatever argument one wishes to make, at the time.

Ironically enough the Otterhound is considered by the Kennel Club as being a Vulnerable Native Breed, with only around 1000 animals worldwide.

With tongue firmly in cheek I would have to wonder if there might be the need for a resurgance of the breed?

[insert tongue in cheek icon > > > > HERE in case some nutter believes i'm being serious in the closing comment]

 

[bennygesserit]

That statement is totally unsupportable either in fact or evidence.

Here is what the EA have to say :

"During 2009-10 more than 3,300 sites were surveyed. Sites showing evidence of otters have increased from 5.8 per cent in the first survey of 1977-79, to an outstanding 58.8 per cent in this survey"

(taken from: Environment Agency - Otters)


Now, part of that increase was obviously as a direct result of reintroduced Otters, unless of course the introductions were of sterile animals?

Again, all I am saying is that we need to learn from history, and not to get involved in knee jerk schemes particularly where "nature" is involved, and to be sure that new schemes (of whatever variety) are fully and scientifically investigated before the event rather than after it.

Actually the spraint method is unreliable no one knows how many otters there are in the UK.

Knee jerk should also include culling.

But in a sick eco - system without the right recruitment ( i assume tnat means succesfull breeding ) then the otter will and has had an effect , less I think than cormorants , crayfish, extraction , cyclic weather change but that is just my subjective view.

There appears to be an assumed change in the nature of the size of fish , in areas where otters are introducing themselves, that the pro otter lobby should consider , even if it is to create a sustainable eco system that will continue to support otters.

If its not introductions therefore why have otters had more of a percieved effect down south or is that perception confined to places where otters are new ?

 

[sam vimes]

If its not introductions therefore why have otters had more of a percieved effect down south or is that perception confined to places where otters are new ?

Benny,
from my angle, having a local river that has long seemed to have a relatively healthy population of otters, even if those that should know it didn't, it's not as simple as north/south. However, I suspect it might be as simple as few/no otters compared to those that already had otters.

My local may have had an existing population, but many anglers didn't realise it or refuse to acknowledge it. You don't have to go far to find rivers/areas that were perceived to have no otters. I feel that those that believe that there were previously no/few otters, whether it's true or not, invariably believe that their patch has suffered. The part of the country or specific river is largely immaterial. There's little doubt in my mind, considering the steady increase in my own sightings, that otter numbers are increasing. Whether that is significantly impacting on fish stocks is another matter altogether. Easy to say, very difficult to prove, even if you don't catch as much as yesteryear. Common sense would suggest they must be having an impact though. However, there are plenty of other factors to consider even if you could prove that fish stocks were decreasing. I couldn't prove it if I tried, but I often wonder if truly wild otters are less tolerant of intruders and have larger territories than those from (or descended from) captive breeding programs. That might explain why some places appear to be harder hit than others.

Otterhounds might be a dwindling species, blamehounds most definitely aren't.

 

[The bad one]

Well I'm back as the Hound couldn't pick up on any sent, but as he says, “no bloody wonder living in an urban jungle” So he just had a dump…..which I picked up, but didn’t smell sweet like otter poo J

Right where to start? Your industry, yes I could have used others but as you know it inside out, it’s failings and success it seemed appropriate somehow.

So to add a little balance Peter and not to tweak your tail too much, I’ll use the railways and Japanese Knotweed, which it has to be said is enemy No 1 for everybody, so its more hated than otters. The railways had a policy from the Victorians to about the 1950s of planting it on the embankment to stabilise them and stop them collapsing. In doing this, they consulted “no one,” not even the neighbours of the properties next to where it was planted. The resulting effect is, some houses now have it coming through the walls and into the livingrooms. The defence of Network Rail being it’s historic planting and the effects of it damage were unknown at the time. In sort Peter it’s the "That there was no official requirement to do so!" defence.

Whilst the figures suggest there has since the first report been undoubtedly an increase in otters nationally, what they are saying, and only saying is the sites checked are showing a positive increase in spraints in each transect. Not that the population has increased by X percent.
The only way that could be established is by DNA testing each spaint and Id it to each animal and that would be financially prohibitive without Govt funding for it.

Otters can’t reproduce profusely Peter and again I explain why in the posts I’ve referenced. In the reports you quoted the explanation is given why it was felt necessary to release otters into certain parts of the country.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

Just from what i have read on this thread and others i am convinced that the present numbers and distribution of otters is clearly supported by natural recruitment and population growth. But i would agree that the reintroductions had a big effect - larger than their number alone - by kick-starting recovery in lots of river catchments in the south and east.

As i recall, the last otters in East England were in the upper Wensum (down to one pair and i thought even they died out) and otters were absent all the way down to the Thames - infact down to the south coast as far as i was aware. Not that i was "in the know" - i just understood them to be extinct outside of western and northern England by the early 1990s.

Left unaided, i think it would have taken longer than 20 years to reach the situation where we are now, where they are in 55% of river sites surveyed for them. It would have got to this point sooner or later as the DDT and otterhounds are no longer restricting numbers. I dont think enough is made of how damaging DDT was - look how widespread and abundant birds of prey are now. A reminder that green campaigners are not lunatics but bang on the money sometimes when they call for action.

 

[reeds]

Otters have been in Britain for 1.8 million years and made it until the 1950s until their numbers crashed. They are now recovering and settling back to a natural and sustainable level. I would take some comfort that if they haven't managed to eat all the fish in 1.8 million years, they probably won't now

Humans have only been around for 200,000 years and only left Africa about 70,000 years ago. Unwise to think the fish belong to us

 

[bennygesserit]

Otters have been in Britain for 1.8 million years and made it until the 1950s until their numbers crashed. They are now recovering and settling back to a natural and sustainable level. I would take some comfort that if they haven't managed to eat all the fish in 1.8 million years, they probably won't now

Humans have only been around for 200,000 years and only left Africa about 70,000 years ago. Unwise to think the fish belong to us

Thats an idealistic point of view , I think , that ignores the fact that many anglers are seeing depreciated stocks, no amount of rhetoric will persuade otherwise , the EA acknowledge the concern. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Otters_the_facts.pdf

So what is different about those rivers ?

Maybe the anglers are mistaken
As far as I can tell fish populations often fluctuate
Is their a breeding issue caused by habitat
Is it cormorants ?

I think anglers fears have yo be acknowledged if anything , even an otter thread , is going to move forwards.

 

[reeds]

The otters are coming back into a world where there have never been so many fish. Why? Because we have put them there. An otter neither knows nor cares whether a fish was born wild or tipped in with a thousand others. It's an apex predator, their numbers will increase until there is no longer enough food for them. Put simply, our artificially high stocking rates will support a larger population of otters than a natural and balanced environment. From the unemotional point of view of nature, there has never been so much food.

Apex predator numbers fluctuate wildly depending on the amount of food available. Culling and ignoring this basic fact just creates a gap that will soon be filled. To try to fight it is like trying to catch the wind.

 

[bennygesserit]

The otters are coming back into a world where there have never been so many fish. Why? Because we have put them there. An otter neither knows nor cares whether a fish was born wild or tipped in with a thousand others. It's an apex predator, their numbers will increase until there is no longer enough food for them. Put simply, our artificially high stocking rates will support a larger population of otters than a natural and balanced environment. From the unemotional point of view of nature, there has never been so much food.

Apex predator numbers fluctuate wildly depending on the amount of food available. Culling and ignoring this basic fact just creates a gap that will soon be filled. To try to fight it is like trying to catch the wind.

So the reason there is a fish shortage is because there are so many fish ? Sorry I don't mean to be facetious but that is how your text reads.

 

[Paul Boote]

's a bit like one of those sweated-up closed-loop nightmares I'd occasionally have at ages five to eight, before the doctor came round sometime late in the night, felt my brow, stuck a mercury thermometer into my parched mouth, pronounced "The boy has a very high temperature...." to my folks, opened his big black leather bag then administered early-version Penicillin....

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Right where to start? Your industry, yes I could have used others but as you know it inside out, it’s failings and success it seemed appropriate somehow.

We own up to our failings Phil, but it is a real shame that our successes are only met with scoffing and scornful comments aboutd profitability.

Take a look around your own home and see if you can identify the doubtless dozens of materials and devices that have been as a direct result of the oil and ga industry.

So to add a little balance Peter and not to tweak your tail too much, I’ll use the railways and Japanese Knotweed, which it has to be said is enemy No 1 for everybody, so its more hated than otters. The railways had a policy from the Victorians to about the 1950s of planting it on the embankment to stabilise them and stop them collapsing. In doing this, they consulted “no one,” not even the neighbours of the properties next to where it was planted. The resulting effect is, some houses now have it coming through the walls and into the livingrooms. The defence of Network Rail being it’s historic planting and the effects of it damage were unknown at the time. In sort Peter it’s the "That there was no official requirement to do so!" defence.

The same argumet ad nauseam then, so my answer would be the same as well, just because there was no regulation didn't mean that carte blanche was instigated, common sense and logic should still have been employed.

Whilst the figures suggest there has since the first report been undoubtedly an increase in otters nationally, what they are saying, and only saying is the sites checked are showing a positive increase in spraints in each transect. Not that the population has increased by X percent.
The only way that could be established is by DNA testing each spaint and Id it to each animal and that would be financially prohibitive without Govt funding for it.

So it was only the 3,300 sites tha twre checked that showed a huge increase of 58% which was up from their own point of comparison of 5.8% in 30 years, if so then I would still suggest that shows a profound increase brought about by natural breeding if we are to believe the "official" figure of only a few over 100 reintroduced Otters . . . . . .


Otters can’t reproduce profusely Peter and again I explain why in the posts I’ve referenced. In the reports you quoted the explanation is given why it was felt necessary to release otters into certain parts of the country.

As far as I can find the gestation period is between 60 and 86 days and a female reaches sexual maturity at around 2 years of age.

Now, I am no mathematician but to see an increase in the order of a facotr of 10 shows a huge survival rate even when taking into consideration your own quoted roadkill numbers.

You and I will never agree, I am sure, about the reintroduction programme, its effect of our fishing or the potentail problems to be faced in years to come.

If nothing more than the knowledge of learning lessons from our mistakes comes from these debates then personally I will be a lot happier.

However, you and I both know that whenever man decides to play God (or mother nature for non believers) that there is always a price to pay, and sometimes that price is horrendous.

 

[no-one in particular]

Predator numbers usually decline when the predator can no longer find territories with enough food resources that will support raising a family. So, the percentage of breeding adults start to decline as food resources decline. I think that will happen with otters in the long run. For a while there will be a lot of adult otters around but, they will not all find breeding territories. Only about 40% of some predators breed each year when their numbers become large. I believe this is true of Buzzards which have increased in numbers over the last 20 years. It will be the same for Red Kites possibly and possibly otters.

 

[tiinker]

For the life of me I cannot see what the argument is about will what one side or the other says make one iota of difference to the situation that exists at this time. If either side can show me one concrete item that will alter the situation with the otters please show it. Because from what I have seen over the last few years each side of the argument is still where it was when it first started . All one can do is deal with it as you see it personally effects you.

 

[anglerpaulm]

Typical Barbel waste... You don't see Autumnwatch reporting photo's like this do you?

This topic is always going to be fraught with arguments. Personally, I believe if the river is big enough to support otters then they could be introduced, if it's not then they shouldn't regardless of how nice they look. There was talk some time ago of them being introduced on the River Rumney in South Wales. This is my local river and it is tiny. You stick an otter in there and everything will get hoovered up. It has just about reached an equilibrium with the local mink population which were introduced many years ago, illegally. Funny that. Rivers like the Wye, Avon, Severn have such massive fish stock that an equilibrium could be reached quite quickly, but I have no idea why people are obsessed with introducing them EVERYWHERE.

I tweeted something very similar to the BBC recently after watching Autumnwatch. Otters were milling around and everything coming from the presenters seemed overly rose tinted. I sent in a picture of a Barbel which had literally half eaten and left on the bank (I'll try and find it). You would not believe the amount of people who went absolutely mental, and not about the half a fish... It must have been a mixture of keyboard heroes and people who actually know their stuff, either way, I gave up arguing. I would advise treading carefully where the brown and furry fish eaters are concerned, we may be being watched right now...

Found the image...Attached at the top.