RSPB Survey

[Bob Roberts]

Just dropped in on the Pride Of Derby website to get an address and spotted a piece about the recent netting of one of their waters.

Numbers of emaciated pike discovered but hardly any silver fish. Lots of evidence pointing to cormorants, droppings under trees, half roach, etc.

The pike were removed from the water so they didnt starve to death.

Not bad work for a sub-specie, eh? How can you maintain your stance on cormorants, Mark. It's genocide.

Antony Burgess wrote a book called 1985. It parodied Orwell's 1984. In the opening chapter the fire brigade is on strike and they picket a fire where people are dying in a burning building.

Well, RSPB supporters, the angling building is a raging inferno and all you want to do is prevent the fire brigade from putting out the fire.

When will you see the light? What does it take to change your minds. You are no better than the gaurds at Auswitch, "Only following orders, Sir."

Well it ain't good enough.

Give us one convincing argument that says the wholesale sacrifice of native fish is a price worth paying. Convince me that the situation is not set to get worse - very much worse in the coming years.

We're waiting...

 

[Ian "snotman" Foden]

Spot on Bob, but I don't expect many twitchers are on the fishingmagic website, do you?
This message needs making direct to the RSPB and in the national press but as swordsy correctly states, the Angling fraternity are too fragmented, we are like being at an Irishman's wedding,..everybody talking, nobody listening!

Matt...I'm told that each mature cormorant eats on average 1.5lb of fish per day, but for every fish they eat they mortally wound another 5 to 10. I'm sure you have seen many fish with the classic marks across the back by the dorsal fin, I know I have and the EA have too in many NW waters where there are still fish left in the 4oz to 3lb range.

Mark..Whilst I respect your views you dont seem to acknowledge the massive, potentially long term damage cormorants are doing, or am I misreading your comments? How would you suggest Anglers get their views better understood by the bird lobby?

 

[Ian "snotman" Foden]

I'm sure somebody within the new FACT Angling body is addressing this issue, I certainly hope so.

If so, does anybody on FM know who they are and could we have some real feedback on the current attitude of FACT and the RSPB et al?

 

[mark williams 4]

"I'm not sure you are an angler Mark, certainly not a serious one because you can only see the fluffy feathered side of things. You are actually debating for their right to be here at any cost to fish."
Now, now, Bob, and others. I'm not denying that cormorants are damaging fisheries. It may surprise you to know Bob that I'm as concerned as you are, not least because I've landed a fair few speared spotties on Rutland and elsewhere, and I've seen what's going on. They are a real menace, particularly on stillwaters.
What I was trying to say was that anglers won't get anywhere with the 'hang 'em high' gibberish - Imagine you're a Government minister. On the one hand, you have ?500,000's worth of science saying: let's be cautious and examine the evidence to see why this is happening. On the other you have:"We need to get proactive not reactive and the most effective way is to shoot them on their nests, thus eradicating parent and brood in one go." Which argument do you accept?
Angling needs science. Angling needs organisation. Angling needs inspirational leaders. But most of all, anglers need to shake off their apathy and, for once, make some attempt to take the future of fishing in their hands.
Ian and a few others should re-read my comments; I didn't deny that damage is being done to fisheries by cormorants (and I do go fishing now and then, Bob, so I see it first-hand) but mink, herons and, for that matter, pike and zander eat coarse fish. It's a question of degree, and until we have good science - not anecdote - to show that the outcome of cormorant predation is fisheries which cannot bounce back, we'll lose the battle.
Maybe that evidence exists. If so, where are our glorious leaders to take it to the Commons?

 

[Ian "snotman" Foden]

Mark. I'm glad to note that you accept that cormorants are damaging fisheries.

I also accept that good science is important especially in the arguments with the bird lobby and in presenting Angling's case to government. Your points are well made.

Where your comments fall short of mine and many other contributors to this thread, (and this may be due to where you live or your own experiences), is THE SHEAR DECIMATION OF FISH STOCKS GOING ON NOW in many areas of the country and on many waters.

Whilst the science is nicely investigated and checked, Angling is being ruined, in some places irrevocably, and this will impact LONG TERM in many ways.

When you are up to your arse in Aligators, it is easy to forget that the initial objective was to drain the swamp!

If this issue was decimating a bird species do you think the RSPB would be asking for more science? Ruddy Ducks come to mind :0)

How do we get this message over to the bird lobby and Government?

Fish need protection NOW!!!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Ian,

Maybe slighly off topic, but I hope that when FACT become fully operative that they choose at least 2 positive subjects for their initial campaigns.

I would hate to see the reaction if FACT's first forray into this "political" areana were to be on the perceived negative topic of cormorants.

As most clubs already know it is possible to obtain a licence to cull Cormorants, providing that previous "scare" measures have been implemented and can be shown to have failed.

As a point of interest I'd like to know from the above contributors if your club or syndicate actually have a licence?
We don't need to publish on these pages the results of any controlled culling, I'd just like to know if your club is doing anything "active" about this problem,

 

[Jim Gibbinson]

One of the clubs with whom I am involved is having the devil's own job trying to get a licence to shoot cormorants. Trouble is, DEFRA don't seem to give proper attention to points made in the application - via correspondence they are asking for issues that have already been addressed to be addressed...if you see what I mean.

I can't give further information because I don't want to prejudice the club's chances of success - they have already been involved in a long, drawn-out beaurocratic nightmare and I don't want to say anything that might inadvertently undermine their efforts.

Maybe other clubs have had greater success? But to judge from my experience, obtaining a licence involves a long, hard slog.

 

[swordsy]

good point peter,

youth recruitment and habital creation and maintainence/improvement.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Jim,

I fully understand your club's problem.
It only takes a cursory glance at the application notes to see that this is a long process that may (will) involve consultation with outside agencies, e.g. English Nature.

Maybe it would help if someone took it on themselves to discect the application process and offer straight forward, easily understandable notes for the guidance of clubs wishing to apply for a licence.

Lee,
Either of your suggestions would make good subjects for FACT to make a start with.

 

[Bob Roberts]

Yes Mark, I'm probably blaming you for everything which is a bit unfair but when passions flare this is what happens. And you did dare to stand up for the RSPB, didn't you?

We've had science, bucketloads of it and frankly it has been bad science not good science.

How many years were spent studying cormorants when the problem was tiny compared to what it is today? For five years the scientists observed at a cost of more than a million pounds and they couldn't even work out that cormorants swallow fish under water.

According to these boffins a cormorant does little damage because it dives many times, mostly unsuccessfully, because it seldom come up with a fish in its beak.

The problem isn't lack of science or lack of evidence. We know that cormorants are wiping out our fish populations and will continue to do so until there are no fish left.

And so do the RSPB.

How do you ban fishing when the majority of the voting public are happy for it to continue? Easy, remove the fish. No fish equals no angling. No marches, no lobbies, no violence, no lost votes. Angling simply dies out. That's the chilling truth. Forget the anti-brigade, forget hunting's gone will fishing be next - that's just a smokescreen.

Mark my words, if we stand by and do nothing today angling will die out in two generations.

Posters on this site mock and ridicule commercial fisheries yet without them angling would already be in its death throes. There are few matches of any significance on natural waters. There are few 'pleasure' anglers on them either, only die-hard specialists who are prepared to put up with a lot of blanks. But when they give up, or die, are there enough youngsters coming through to take their places? No.

There will only be fishing on commercial waters soon. And that will be for carp - which is an alien specie for which a high premium is charged if you wish to fish for them, so you can easily argue that even big carp fishing is commercial water fishing.

Trouble is, as the numbers of participating anglers fall, the industries that supply tackle and bait will implode. Revenue drops, banks and the inland revenue move in and receivership follows. No buyers? Then liquidate the stocks through the travelling car boot angling shows that currently tour the country.

But they will suffer from a lack of customers so it's a vicious cycle.

Need I go on?

The RSPB's attitude will kill off angling not the wolly headed tree huggers or PETA. Would they do that? Just listen to their leaders...

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

Bob, I admire your passion on the point but declining fish numbers cannot solely be laid at the door of the Cormorant.

The natural freshwater environment is under threat from a variety of causes & anglers need to be as active in averting these threats as they do dealing with the cormorant issue.

 

[Terry Comerford]

'Mark my words, if we stand by and do nothing today angling will die out in two generations.'

Not in the Midlands Bob, I'll take a guess and say there's approx 200 commercial fisheries within a 40 mile radius of where I live.

60 to 80 of those only opened up in the last 12 months.

Angling will simply evolve into a commercial venue only, sport.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

Peter, just to put you right for a change, shooting cormorants under a licence is NOT a cull. It is referred to as scaring them by means of shooting them.

And according to the bod I listened to the other Saturday you no longer have to have tried all other methods. What you should provide is photographic evidence of these fish we say have been attacked by cormorants and bear the scars. You no longer have to prove financial loss even, just the threat that the BD will wipe out your fish stock.

The stumbling block for many clubs is where to shoot them. You can do it along the Thames because we have the Thames Path, a public right of way and shooting would be a hazzard to health (and not just to the cormorants health). The clubs no longer have to have tried all other scaring tactics because of noise and environment.

He said (the DEFRA guy) that a licence shoudl take no longer than 4 weeks to acquire PROVIDING there were no stumbling blocks. Some of those applications might have to go off to English Nature and then they take their time, but they can be hurried through now.

One tip, don't even think about applying for a licence NOW. It's too late, wait until September and then get them in. The more that apply (even though you might consider it a waste, which it isn't even if it fails) the more DEFRA will know that we are bloody serious! That is the strongest measure you can send to Government.

 

[Bob Roberts]

That's what I said, Terry. And all those who knock the 'muddy puddles' will either eat humble pie or stop fishing.

Nigel, I agree, only the commercials will survive. However, anglers are already bored with them. The growth is unsustainable and the increase in waters means more amateurs in the fishery management game, which means more demand for carp and a higher risk of imported stocks and diseases.

What percentage of commercially run waters are owned by clubs and associations? One per cent? The clubs are dying, replaced by businesses who care nothing for fishing, their goal is profit.

And what's the point in worrying about the other threats if there are no fish left to benefit from beneficial environmental changes.

First we have to stop the rot and save our remaining fish but the RSPB don't accept there is a declining fish problem in the first place. We are being asked to prove that and even the bleeding obvious is igmored.

I organise a very lucrative competition each season devoted wholly to club match anglers. I'm talking of a prize pool valued at some ?6K plus. Last night I met with half a dozen very active club secretaries who talked fondly of the good old days of coach trips to the Trent and Witham, Welland and Nene. Not one of them will be organising a single match on a natural water next season.

They'd love to but no-one will turn up. Been there, done that. Too many dry nets.

I'll no doubt post again tomorrow on this subject by which time another 20 tons of fish will have been eaten or killed by cormorants.

This sort of level of predation is not sustainable. No doubt someone will say, "Nay, Bob, it's not nearly as bad as you make out, they'll have only eaten about 10 tons." At which point I'll probably burst a blood vessel.

Overstocking (while stocks are available), de-oxygenation and the relentless spread of disease will sound the death knell for commercials. Those that don't have a "you fly, you die" policy will succumb to the black plague. You mark my words.

Where do the stock fish come from to sustain 200 fisheries local to you come from, Terry? How many new anglers have entered the market place to support 80 new businesses?

Quick sum. 120 venues + 80 new venues divided by same number of anglers = average reduction in ticket income of 40% plus sales gap in merchandising, food, etc.

Option one - increase ticket price. Effect - even less customers.

Option two - cut back on fish stocks. Effect - even less customers.

Option three - purchase more fish - but the price has risen astronomically due to supply and demand - see option one.

Option four - cut staffing costs. Effect - poorly run fishery, increased predation, litter, untidy banks, lack of security - even less customers.

Option five - run match series to promote fishery. Everyone else has same idea - even less customers.

Option six - increase customer base by bringing new anglers into sport - good in theory, trouble is the existing customers die quicker than new ones can be recruited.

Option seven - drain lake, use site for landfill - make loads of money.

Simple ecconomics - rapid, unsustainable expansion is inevitably followed by a crash.

Rome is burning but nevermind, old Nero plays a lovely tune on that fiddle of his.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Jeff,

I used the word "cull" as you never know who is reading these pages :-0

I was told by DEFRA that it was only the "one off licence" that could be obtained within 4 weeks whereas the "period" licences were subject to the full scrutiny of not only DEFRA but also English Nature as well, and that only after you have proved:
1. Actual Damage to Fish Stocks,
2. Other scare methods have been employed and failed
Plus a whole screed of other conditions.

The guidance notes are on Form WCA 10A

That said, you have to remember that you are dealing with a government organisation so the procedure that your application is subjected to will be very much at the handling agents discretion.

 

[Terry Comerford]

'The clubs are dying, replaced by businesses who care nothing for fishing, their goal is profit.'

Sorry Bob, but clubs in this part of the Midlands are thriving, as they transfer all their matches onto the commercial fisheries.
Membership numbers have gone through the roof in the two clubs I'm in.

Toilets, caf?'s, restaurants, tackle shops, licenced bars.
21st century angling.

Commercial fishery owners are also providing a huge service to the local community.
They baby sit thousands of juniors each school holiday, while their parents are at work!
Even tradesmen, lorry drivers, and reps, are using the facilities at these fisheries.

Non of these types of fisheries have problems with cormorants, most of the anglers on other types of fisheries are targeting large specimen fish, (rivers/lakes) again these anglers are not affected by cormorant predation.

Loads of new anglers Bob, junior licence sales up again.
I'll guess the over 50 age group licence sales, are up again.
They will all fish commercials though!

I'd guess most of the two largest sections of the angling community are both now fishing commercials exclusively, over 50's and Juniors.

I don't think the problem is just cormorants, it's anglers apathy towards silver fish, they simply don't care anymore unless they are specimen sized.
How can you get anglers up in arms about something they are just not bothered about?

Carp, carp, carp, carp, carp.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

You're right Terry and Bob's right. There is some common ground between you. You're both singing from the same hymn sheet, but are on different verses perhaps. Or as Eric Morecambe put it in a sketch "I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in
the right order." )

You're also fortunate in the Midlands to have good blokes like John Williams working for you.

And even Lee (take a pat on the head) put in a good remedy suggestion - research into habitat, I'll add - breeding grounds. I've often wondered why they tell me the Thames is cleaner and healthier than ever before and yet we have to beg the EA to stock it with extra barbel? The river has always held a natural stock of barbel so why in the last 20 years has that changed? And what's happened to all our natural stocks of brown trout?

Cormorants are another piece of the complex jigsaw, but we can now start to tackle that one legitimately to some extent.

 

[mark williams 4]

I'm pleased to see this is a thread going somewhere. Cormorants are part of the problem, but the biggest problem is poor recruitment, I believe. In Spring, I used to be able to run my carp landing net under the sedge on the welland and come up with a handful of swimming eyes. These days, I don't see them. I've no doubt cormorants have caused some serious damage; my suspicion is that, when the water cleared as the pollution dropped, it just made their fishing more successful.
We need a complete pocture, though, to begin to tackle the decline of rivers. Surely there are some fisheries scientists out there who have an inkling of what's going on?
In the meantime, a vocal campaign along the lines of: We, the undersigned, are concerned that the Environment Agency does not devote the resources to arrest the serious decline of Britain's natural watercourses and stillwaters. We demand a full study of the situation and proposals from central Government to improve fish stocks in Britain.
Don't forget, there's an election coming up!
(Maybe Graham will start a an on-line petition. Let's register www.saveourfish.org and crack on!)

 

[Matt Brown]

Cormorants are a huge problem on some waters.

I was at Collingham on the Trent at teh weekend and there were hundreds of the things. They were diving in repeatedly throughout the morning. In the past they would have been spooked by anglers on the bank. Not any more.

I fished a Maggot feeder for 4 hours through the day without a bite or even a burst maggot. There's something wrong there.

Terry, you said;

"Non of these types of fisheries have problems with cormorants, most of the anglers on other types of fisheries are targeting large specimen fish, (rivers/lakes) again these anglers are not affected by cormorant predation."

Very wrong. Where do the next generation of fish come from? I know of people who fish the Kennet and 1 in 3 fish is a double and many of them haven't caught a Barbel under 7lb for years. Without new year classes of fish coming through there will be very no specimen fish in the future. Specialist anglers are very aware of this and many are campainging for a balanced fishery.

I think the fact that Calverton fish farm won't be supplying river stock through 2005 will compound the situation even further.

Bob, If commercial fisheries increase in number to beyond a sustainable threshlod (aren't we there already?) it won't be that the spoils will be divided up. Instead, many of these 'businesses' will go bust and the remainder will do well.

Also, I wouldn't agree that all commercial fishery owners care about the money only. They have to care about their customers (anglers) and their stock (the fish) or there business will suffer.

 

[Bob Roberts]

I thought I made it clear that the real problem with commercials will come from the 'jump on the bandwagon Johnny brigade'. But I'm not going down that route just now because I'm fuming again and ready to vent!

And this post will have to be split in two because it's a but long - sorry!

Got home from work last night, switched on the box and what comes on but a 10-year-old Screaming Reels programme. First topic covered - bloody cormorants! Nick interviewed a fish farmer who put a price on the cost of each living cormorant based on 1.5lb of fish per day times the then going rate for buying those fish. It worked out at ?1,000 per year, per bird, and he had 150 on his lake! So, add inflation, rectify the 1.5 figures, multiply by, what, 20,000? and we come up with something like ?50 million a year and growing. And still we have to prove loss. It's a scandal.

Angling's new governing body FACT should address this issue as priority one. We shouldn't have to prove individual loss, we should demonstrate collective loss. If FACT don't act they'll be FUCT and very quickly. Unfortunately they'll be eating volovants at parliamentary briefings, listening to bull and licking backsides. Salmon will top their agenda and most of that will be on their plates, mark my words.

Sorry if I sound cynical but I don't see any new faces in the frame nor any new funding, so what will change over the current and previous adminstrations?

Anyway, to further enrage me I find in my mail that the RSPB are inviting me to join them, offering 3-months free membership! They want me to support them financially as they try to save songbirds. They're worried about the linnet, turtle dove and sparrow. They have provided me with pretty graphs charting the decline of the bullfinch, song thrush and sparrow since 1975 (graphs which actually show the population has been more or less static since 1984, but how can you trust the RSPB to count tiny birds? They can't even count the thousands of great big black things in the sky, can they?).

You know, if I didn't know better I'd be tempted to join, fooled into believing they care for the environment, but they don't. They are charlatans. They trick the public into funding fat cat salaries for political activists who are blind to the needs of the wider environment.

Still, it's another day and thousands of cormorants will now be drying their wings in the sunshine after an evening and morning spent filling their bellies with a few tons of fish. Mind you it's getting tough for the cormorants because they have to search a wider area and fish for longer because food is getting short and it'll get shorter when they start hatching chicks in a few weeks time.

Of course the fish they ate overnight will not spawn this year or ever again, nor will the fry they would have provided. Is there any wonder you can't find fry in the margins of the Welland?

Continued....