Perhaps the winning approach ?
[ame=http://youtu.be/w22I06c2dXs]Otters vs Cormorants - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://youtu.be/w22I06c2dXs]Otters vs Cormorants - YouTube[/ame]
That's the way to do it!
- Thread starter Fred Bonney
- Start date
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Thanks for the link - well worth watching
But do cormorants really eat 20'000 lbs of fish a day ?
But do cormorants really eat 20'000 lbs of fish a day ?
chav professor
Well-known member
Cheers for that Fred.... very balanced point of view from someone who understands natural environments more than most.
Even when it is put forward in such a fashion people still doubt the evidence it is a shame that it has to be this way. Hugh Miles has seen and been involeved with more wildlife and the way nature works than anyone I can think of. I f he cannot convnce people who can. The siver fish stocks in my lake are that low that float fishermen are a rarety and the grebs have taken to catching and eating crayfish. The little grebs or Dab chicks have not been seen for at least 5years because they are that small they feed on fry and that is not in plentifull supply anymore.But the cormorants come on the water every day to see what they can find.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Do you mean me Tinker ? i am not doubting evidence but there is none in this film.
But i believe the film to true on the whole and I would wholly admit that , of course ,Hugh Miles has a much better informed opinion on this than I do , I simply expressed an opinion the 20'000 pounds of fish a day seems a massive amount , maybe thats how many fish are in our rivers after all ? i an just suprised by the numbers involved is all.
He does the simple arithmetic of saying, there are up to 30000 of these freshwater cormorant coming from Scandinavia every winter, and they need to eat up to a pound of fish each day to survive !
If you were better informed on the matter you would not need to ask the question Benny. I just do not understand why you need to question what the man has just told you. My club and many others have been trying to deal with the problem of cormorants for years . we have built fish hides bought bird scarers even pop-up inflatable men non of these measures work for any amount of time. They have ruined the general fishing on our lake. The carp anglers do not mind because there is that much more food for the carp to grt fat on . But the general fishing is rubbish thanks to the cormorants.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
You misunderstand me
cg74
Well-known member
Exactly why shouldn't he be questioned?
Why don't you just share your knowledge/information and educate Benny?
When/how does a bird change its status from being a "foreign invader" to a seasonal migratory bird? Can they ever change their status?
If it was my call, then they'd all be fed one and one eight ounces each!
That's about the weight of Winchester's 12 gauge shot!
That's about the weight of Winchester's 12 gauge shot!
The only question I am interested in is how and when we can get rid of them not the whys and wherefores of the evidence I am prepared to accept expert evidence at face value as it has always served me well in the past and I would rather not try to teach anybody anything unless they ask. Iwould rather deal with the problem than discuss it.
cg74
Well-known member
A slight amendment if I may, you wrote: "I am prepared to accept expert evidence at face value as it has always served me well in the past"
When in reality you mean; you are 'prepared to accept expert evidence at face value as it has always fitted your opinion, even when no evidence has actually been presented. As is the case here!
A nicely made video but who is the target audience?
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Always questions your sources and the facts that was instilled in me early.
But in this case I wasn,t doubting at all that cormorants are an increasing problem I was simply saying that if cormorants are eating that many fish then I am amazed because I wouldn't have thought there were that many in the system to start with.
Its right to question everything , and to aim for precision in your thought processes. With something like this the you have the emotional response - protect our rivers , shoot em , but should also have a detached and objective response which would be to study the scientifically derived evidence surrounding the problem.
In the meantime I have no objection frankly to people shooting cormorants even if it simply makes you feel better.
Chris Hammond ( RSPB ACA PAC}
Well-known member
I've read Hugh's blog (I read it regularly.) but haven't watched the film yet. As others have underlined there are few people better qualified to pass comment on the subject.
I do find one aspect of all of the weight of protest against over predation of fish difficult to square though. I wonder if it is possible to open the point up to discussion from the position of Devil's advocate without becoming embroiled in a heated squabble? Oh well, hey-ho, I guess I'm going to anyway:
The clarion call from we anglers collectively seems to be the protest that none of the big hitting conservation groups, and the public generally, gives consideration to the place of fish in the grand scheme of things. There is little doubt that is true either. However what other wild creature that does receive that consideration is treated in the way we anglers wish to be free to treat fish? On the one hand we appear to be asking the public to make a distinction between cold blooded fish and other animals to the extent that we should be allowed to capture them for no other reason than recreation, yet on the other we are asking them to afford the same protective measures toward fish as birds, animals and plants receive.
Can we really expect non anglers to relate to a request which on the face of it ( I think) could be argued as being somewhat hypocritical? I will admit that my own feelings on the subject are ambivalent. as an angler I will gladly defend my right to fish to the death. As a wildlife lover I can see to some extent how others would see our philosophy as being skewed. After all, the obvious retort from those being lobbied would probably question how we can claim to care for fish whilst still wanting to fish for them. Yes we see ourselves as those oft mentioned 'guardians', but we could just as easily care for fish and their environments without trying to capture them with rod and line.
I think at the very least it is a viewpoint we need to have a counter-argument ready for
...heading for the shelter now.
---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:14 ----------
I'm puzzled by this response. are you expecting the general public to accept in blind faith the figures given? Surely there are going to be plenty of people questioning those figures other than we anglers? It seemed a perfectly reasonable question to me. And you have provided a reasonable answer.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something now?
I do find one aspect of all of the weight of protest against over predation of fish difficult to square though. I wonder if it is possible to open the point up to discussion from the position of Devil's advocate without becoming embroiled in a heated squabble? Oh well, hey-ho, I guess I'm going to anyway:
The clarion call from we anglers collectively seems to be the protest that none of the big hitting conservation groups, and the public generally, gives consideration to the place of fish in the grand scheme of things. There is little doubt that is true either. However what other wild creature that does receive that consideration is treated in the way we anglers wish to be free to treat fish? On the one hand we appear to be asking the public to make a distinction between cold blooded fish and other animals to the extent that we should be allowed to capture them for no other reason than recreation, yet on the other we are asking them to afford the same protective measures toward fish as birds, animals and plants receive.
Can we really expect non anglers to relate to a request which on the face of it ( I think) could be argued as being somewhat hypocritical? I will admit that my own feelings on the subject are ambivalent. as an angler I will gladly defend my right to fish to the death. As a wildlife lover I can see to some extent how others would see our philosophy as being skewed. After all, the obvious retort from those being lobbied would probably question how we can claim to care for fish whilst still wanting to fish for them. Yes we see ourselves as those oft mentioned 'guardians', but we could just as easily care for fish and their environments without trying to capture them with rod and line.
I think at the very least it is a viewpoint we need to have a counter-argument ready for
...heading for the shelter now.
---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:14 ----------
I'm puzzled by this response. are you expecting the general public to accept in blind faith the figures given? Surely there are going to be plenty of people questioning those figures other than we anglers? It seemed a perfectly reasonable question to me. And you have provided a reasonable answer.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something now?
In my view, the only counter argument we can have as anglers is that the balance of nature has been removed.
So, off the top of my head at least 3 questions need to be answered factually.
a) Are there now more predators within our freshwater fisheries system than ever before, and if so, are they causing the long term balance of nature to be damaged?
b)Are there other man made factors that could be affecting our freshwater fishery system ?
c) Are anglers causing problems to the freshwater fishery system with their very methods?
So, off the top of my head at least 3 questions need to be answered factually.
a) Are there now more predators within our freshwater fisheries system than ever before, and if so, are they causing the long term balance of nature to be damaged?
b)Are there other man made factors that could be affecting our freshwater fishery system ?
c) Are anglers causing problems to the freshwater fishery system with their very methods?
The bad one
Well-known member
Ok some meat on the bone for you here.
The invaders HM makes reference to are Carbo Synensis the EU inland birds that have over 30 years expanded it’s range to include the UK. The reasons for this are unclear, but thought in part to be because of the drop in fishstocks within the traditional home range.
It’s interesting that they first started to show up in the Uk when the impacts of Acid Rain (remember that?) were at their heights in the lakes in Scandinavia. For those that have forgotten or don’t know about this, many 1000s of lakes and rivers became biologically dead through acidification.
The British native bird is Carbo carbo and was again traditionally confined to the coastal/estuarine areas of the UK. Like Synensis they because of low sea fishstocks also started to come inland around the same time.
Distinguishing the difference between the two birds is very difficult even for the experts and there’s a suggestion the two may well be hybridising. HM’s reference to 30k birds is for the numbers of EU birds in the UK. Some of which are now resident and breeding here inland. Come late Autumn the numbers are swelled by migrant birds from Scandinavia making the numbers up that he gives.
Carbos the Uk natives also now come inland about the same time swelling the numbers of all cormorants to probably three times the figure HM gives. The difference with UK natives is they return to the Cliffs to breed between March and September giving some respite for the beleaguered fishstocks. The natives that don’t return to the cliffs are first year juveniles that are incapable of breeding. Once able to breed (3rd year) these birds also return to the cliffs and become first year breeders.
As to following the scientific evidence there are several studies that have been carried out over the last 20 years or so, the first comprehensive studies were done for MAFF in 1999 and headed up by Dr M Felton and has 4 volumes to it. The most recent appeared on here only the other day and was an EU study.
http://www.fishingmagic.com/index.php?news=16824
The amount of food each bird needs to survive according to the Felton study is nearly half as much again than the figure given by HM at 1.7 lbs a day.
The invaders HM makes reference to are Carbo Synensis the EU inland birds that have over 30 years expanded it’s range to include the UK. The reasons for this are unclear, but thought in part to be because of the drop in fishstocks within the traditional home range.
It’s interesting that they first started to show up in the Uk when the impacts of Acid Rain (remember that?) were at their heights in the lakes in Scandinavia. For those that have forgotten or don’t know about this, many 1000s of lakes and rivers became biologically dead through acidification.
The British native bird is Carbo carbo and was again traditionally confined to the coastal/estuarine areas of the UK. Like Synensis they because of low sea fishstocks also started to come inland around the same time.
Distinguishing the difference between the two birds is very difficult even for the experts and there’s a suggestion the two may well be hybridising. HM’s reference to 30k birds is for the numbers of EU birds in the UK. Some of which are now resident and breeding here inland. Come late Autumn the numbers are swelled by migrant birds from Scandinavia making the numbers up that he gives.
Carbos the Uk natives also now come inland about the same time swelling the numbers of all cormorants to probably three times the figure HM gives. The difference with UK natives is they return to the Cliffs to breed between March and September giving some respite for the beleaguered fishstocks. The natives that don’t return to the cliffs are first year juveniles that are incapable of breeding. Once able to breed (3rd year) these birds also return to the cliffs and become first year breeders.
As to following the scientific evidence there are several studies that have been carried out over the last 20 years or so, the first comprehensive studies were done for MAFF in 1999 and headed up by Dr M Felton and has 4 volumes to it. The most recent appeared on here only the other day and was an EU study.
http://www.fishingmagic.com/index.php?news=16824
The amount of food each bird needs to survive according to the Felton study is nearly half as much again than the figure given by HM at 1.7 lbs a day.
Last edited:
I've read Hugh's blog (I read it regularly.) but haven't watched the film yet. As others have underlined there are few people better qualified to pass comment on the subject.
I do find one aspect of all of the weight of protest against over predation of fish difficult to square though. I wonder if it is possible to open the point up to discussion from the position of Devil's advocate without becoming embroiled in a heated squabble? Oh well, hey-ho, I guess I'm going to anyway:
The clarion call from we anglers collectively seems to be the protest that none of the big hitting conservation groups, and the public generally, gives consideration to the place of fish in the grand scheme of things. There is little doubt that is true either. However what other wild creature that does receive that consideration is treated in the way we anglers wish to be free to treat fish? On the one hand we appear to be asking the public to make a distinction between cold blooded fish and other animals to the extent that we should be allowed to capture them for no other reason than recreation, yet on the other we are asking them to afford the same protective measures toward fish as birds, animals and plants receive.
Can we really expect non anglers to relate to a request which on the face of it ( I think) could be argued as being somewhat hypocritical? I will admit that my own feelings on the subject are ambivalent. as an angler I will gladly defend my right to fish to the death. As a wildlife lover I can see to some extent how others would see our philosophy as being skewed. After all, the obvious retort from those being lobbied would probably question how we can claim to care for fish whilst still wanting to fish for them. Yes we see ourselves as those oft mentioned 'guardians', but we could just as easily care for fish and their environments without trying to capture them with rod and line.
I think at the very least it is a viewpoint we need to have a counter-argument ready for
...heading for the shelter now.
---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:14 ----------
I'm puzzled by this response. are you expecting the general public to accept in blind faith the figures given? Surely there are going to be plenty of people questioning those figures other than we anglers? It seemed a perfectly reasonable question to me. And you have provided a reasonable answer.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something now?
What are you going to gain by arguing about it . Tell me that it is like nero fiddling while rome burns. Ido not believe in wasting time chewing the fat , listen to the people who know what they are taking about and get on with it.
Chris Hammond ( RSPB ACA PAC}
Well-known member
You've completely missed the point of my post.
What are YOU going to do to contest it? It doesn't matter a jot what you believe in. What the public, or the conservation groups believe is what IS important. They are the people we have to convince of the need to protect fish alongside other flora and fauna. If we just ignore the obvious arguments we are going to face then we are selling our sport short. in fact it would be downright irresponsible.
We'll worry about it when we get there is the language of failure.
We will see Nero.
Chris Hammond ( RSPB ACA PAC}
Well-known member
Then of course there's the language of defeat.