Otters?

[Peter Jacobs]

So 137 otters made that much difference ?

. . . . . Well, If those 137 have now turned into 10,000¹ then I'd say . . . YES, a huge difference



¹ - remembering that there were (may have been) some indiginous creatures remaining as well as those reintroduced . . . . .

 

[no-one in particular]

Before these ill thought out reintroductions Otter numbers were increasing naturally, it was a slow increase that was possibly controlled by what our rivers could sustain but an increase just the same, not satisfied with that these "conservationists" who were only interested in conserving creatures that they thought needed helping along interfered with that natural pace of increase that was taking place without a thought of the whole of the river ecology, the results on some rivers are very obvious.

I think Chris Packham and Mr Baldy are less "interested in conserving creatures" than playing at being God and a very needy appetite for appearing to be wonderful to the general public. They just use the guise of conservatism to that end.

I would apply that to most of them, these reintroductions are just self serving and selfish actions to satisfy some innate need to play God without any serious consideration of any serious benefits to mankind or the effect they might cause..

 

[bennygesserit]

. . . . . Well, If those 137 have now turned into 10,000¹ then I'd say . . . YES, a huge difference



¹ - remembering that there were (may have been) some indiginous creatures remaining as well as those reintroduced . . . . .

They have't given that otters only produce Cubs twice in their lifetime and assuming all 137 otters found each other making 68 pairs and that none of them starved ( strangely given this thread that is a common cause ) and that none of them killed each other in territorial fights ( a big factor ) and that every cub survived ( doubtful especially over winter ) then I make that a maximum of 2500 otters but I'd be happy for someone to check the maths.

 

[cg74]

They have't given that otters only produce Cubs twice in their lifetime and assuming all 137 otters found each other making 68 pairs and that none of them starved ( strangely given this thread that is a common cause ) and that none of them killed each other in territorial fights ( a big factor ) and that every cub survived ( doubtful especially over winter ) then I make that a maximum of 2500 otters but I'd be happy for someone to check the maths.

Oh Benny, you've got so much to learn...

Fish become torpid in cold water (as do crayfish), this especially affects cyprinid species such as barbel, tench, bream etc
Then bear in mind, the prey fish are often big old fish which tends to mean slow fish and no longer part of a shoal dynamic...

..This all equates to an easy meal!

As for your maths, you need to establish your boundaries better; many places in the UK have always maintained a sustaining otter population, like the Shetland Isles which holds between 10 and 15% of the UK's otters, so the experts tell us.

 

[bennygesserit]

Oh Benny, you've got so much to learn...

Fish become torpid in cold water (as do crayfish), this especially affects cyprinid species such as barbel, tench, bream etc
Then bear in mind, the prey fish are often big old fish which tends to mean slow fish and no longer part of a shoal dynamic...

..This all equates to an easy meal!

As for your maths, you need to establish your boundaries better; many places in the UK have always maintained a sustaining otter population, like the Shetland Isles which holds between 10 and 15% of the UK's otters, so the experts tell us.

Peters implication was that most of the ten thousand otters are directly descended from the 137 I am disputing that. The rest of what you say doesn't seem relevant to my post , Colin if I have so much to learn perhaps I could teach you clarity of thought ?

Have a smiley coz you are a mate

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Peters implication was that most of the ten thousand otters are directly descended from the 137 I am disputing that

I am more closely diputing the orinigal numbers that were reintroduced to be honest given the vast disparity in the mathematics; not forgetting that I also noted that "¹ - remembering that there were (may have been) some indiginous creatures remaining as well as those reintroduced . . . . . "

Given the birth rates and even the most rough of survival criteria then the statistics simply don't add up . . . . . . either:

1. There were a hell of a lot more surviving Otters than were first thought (in which case why were proper surveys not done in the first place)

2. Maybe it takes a lot less than 3 years for an Otter to become fertile? in which case why were proper studies not undertaken prior to experimenting with nature

3. That there were a lot more than the circulated number of 137/138 Otters reintroduced, either by fair means or foul

4. Or indeed a combination of all 3 above!

Either way, as Marcellus said to Hamlet: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

 

[itsfishingnotcatching]

Mindless selfishness and sod the consequences

I don't think I've decided yet who you're talking about Mark, the ones who believe that as an indigenous species it has every right to exist or those who would see it killed off. Strikes me where otters are concerned the NIMBY factor is prevalent.

Anyone got any evidence to suggest that, if only 130 or so were released, over many years, then the ones that were successfully breeding would not have spread to these areas where they had been previously exterminated.

 

[The bad one]

I think Chris Packham and Mr Baldy are less "interested in conserving creatures" than playing at being God and a very needy appetite for appearing to be wonderful to the general public. They just use the guise of conservatism to that end.

I would apply that to most of them, these reintroductions are just self serving and selfish actions to satisfy some innate need to play God without any serious consideration of any serious benefits to mankind or the effect they might cause..

Based on this statement Mark why are we reintroducing Crucians then? And are we not doing the same thing?

Peter still peddling the same myth.... fair means or foul! And the figure is 138 total releases over a 15 year period. I challenged anybody to come up with credible evidence to the country, given that the Predator Action Group and the National Wildlife Crimes Unit has looked for it and found none. But none has been put forward has it?
Both of the above bodies (one more grudgingly than the other) accepting that that was the figure released, because there was no evidence they could find of clandestine breeding or releases by anyone anywhere!
But yet you and others persist in mislead the readers with no evidence whatsoever that it did. You do yourselves no justice at all or any contention you put forward by peddling the busted Myth.

Bob Horngood what poor attempt at obfuscating the question I asked you by going into a rant about having no truck with Environmental Anglers, what ever they are?

So for clarity perhaps you answer where your ethos and agenda is regarding returning all rivers back to truly sustainable system that supports all life-forms that live in it and on it?
So in easy words to understand, do you support it or do you not?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

As eloquently stated as ever Phil, but even you have to see that the numbers (all of them) simly don't appear to add up.

You ask for evidence that is not possible to gather; unless of course any illegal releases are/were recorded, which by definition, they simply wouldn't have been . . . . .

I firmly believe that we (man that is) shouldn't be interferring with nature, that Otters died out due to chemicals or whatever other reasons had an effect on our rivers and still waters, and that new balance shouldn't be experimented with.

You and I will never, ever, agree on this topic, so I will bow out of the discussion as unconvinced as ever before as to the efficacy of the reintroduction of an apex predator into our waters.

 

[Bob Hornegold]

Bob Horngold ..

The Otter is a NATIVE to the country unlike Carp the Otter has every right to be here Unlike Carp , Maybe just maybe the rivers you quote ( i dont know any of them) are not quite as good and healthy as people would have us believe if they are unable to withstand an amount of predation then there is a problem .

Thinks the one problem is the way they are run they are no doubt money pumps so when Mr Otter arrives money gets the frighteners put up it that i suspect is the biggest single reason for the anti Otter screams ..


PG ..

Funny, but I thought Barbel, Chub and Perch were native to this country ?

Anti -Otter ?

No anti the Otter Trust and the " so called anglers " who support their reintroduction !!

It's about time anglers who are seeing the destruction on rivers around the country stood up and be counted.

A half dozen Otter supporters on sites like this, make a lot of noise in support of the reintroduction of Otter whilst the rest of us who have seen rivers systematically destroyed by these animals.

And high profile anglers who dare to state the glaringly oblivious effects of these animals are vilified, as being animal haters and worse !!

Get real, it happening on many rivers in this country and it's going to get worse.

Bob

 

[no-one in particular]

Based on this statement Mark why are we reintroducing Crucians then? And are we not doing the same thing?

That's a totally different kettle of fish- Crucians are a great benefit to mankind. And apart from that; I am only half way up mine, Chris Packhams totally up his and I have more hair than Mr Baldy. Have you learnt nothing in life Bad One !

Seriously though, I am not in favour of any introductions, especially on rivers where there is no control on how far things can spread especially alien species. Otters in effect have become alien species in areas they have been extinct for a number of years. Crucians, well that's a difficult one-depends a lot on the circumstance but, I generally feel waters are best left alone to develop their own natural balance. In waters where Crucians have disappeared or any species come to that, is the reason they disappeared still prevalent, would reintroducing them just happen again. If they were the losers in a ecological battle, would they just be the loser again. If they found their way back into a water naturally and thrived, then all well and good, same I would say for otters and all other creatures. I am not a expert on the subject, just a general gut feeling when I see what goes on.

 

[thecrow]

One things for sure, the organisation that takes millions from anglers every year wont help anglers, indeed it seems that angling comes well down their list of priorities, below is taken from the Daily Telegraph.

A spokesman for the Environment Agency defended otters, saying that waters dominated by large coarse fish did not make for a healthy eco-system.

He said: "The Environment Agency does not see the return of the otter as a cause for alarm or a major threat to fish numbers. If you look at rivers that never lost otters like in Scotland, they have healthy fish populations containing a good age range of fish. It has not resulted in fish being 'wiped out'.

"Large specimen fish tend to dominate rivers, which is not a healthy state for a river. You need diversity in age, not just big fish. This wouldn't have occurred in the past when otters were more numerous and would have eaten some of the larger fish.

"Specimen fish aren't immortal. As much as anglers love to fish for large barbel, and even given them names, sooner or later they will die from disease, in a flood event or be eaten by an otter or other predator.

"Otters also eat 'pest' species such as the signal crayfish, an invasive species that has caused a crash in numbers of our native white-clawed crayfish."

 

[no-one in particular]

One things for sure, the organisation that takes millions from anglers every year wont help anglers, indeed it seems that angling comes well down their list of priorities, below is taken from the Daily Telegraph.

A spokesman for the Environment Agency defended otters, saying that waters dominated by large coarse fish did not make for a healthy eco-system.

He said: "The Environment Agency does not see the return of the otter as a cause for alarm or a major threat to fish numbers. If you look at rivers that never lost otters like in Scotland, they have healthy fish populations containing a good age range of fish. It has not resulted in fish being 'wiped out'.

"Large specimen fish tend to dominate rivers, which is not a healthy state for a river. You need diversity in age, not just big fish. This wouldn't have occurred in the past when otters were more numerous and would have eaten some of the larger fish.

"Specimen fish aren't immortal. As much as anglers love to fish for large barbel, and even given them names, sooner or later they will die from disease, in a flood event or be eaten by an otter or other predator.

"Otters also eat 'pest' species such as the signal crayfish, an invasive species that has caused a crash in numbers of our native white-clawed crayfish."

That seems a daft statement-I haven't noticed rivers dominated by specimen fish, plenty of small fry in them coming along to replace these fish and I am sure Otters will eat White Clawed Crayfish as well, whats left of them. Hows that going to help.

 

[bennygesserit]

I firmly believe that we (man that is) shouldn't be interferring with nature, that Otters died out due to chemicals or whatever other reasons had an effect on our rivers and still waters, and that new balance shouldn't be experimented with.

Peter you have made this statement before and to be honest I really can't get my hat on, to such an extent that half of me thinks it's a wind up. Are you really saying that the inability to survive pollution is the otters fault ?

Man should not interfere too true but we did and the otter very nearly went extinct let alone what other damage we have done to ourselves and the rest of the environment.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Peter you have made this statement before and to be honest I really can't get my hat on, to such an extent that half of me thinks it's a wind up. Are you really saying that the inability to survive pollution is the otters fault ?

No, not at all a wind-up.

What I am saying though is that having got to extinction then a whole new ecosystem resulted, i.e. Otter free, and for man to then interject afterwards might not be the best way forward.

As for reintroducing other extinct species, well, why not Wolves or Bears? After all, both were indiginous once upon a time in the UK.

Now, that really is my last contribution on the Otter topic . . . . . . . until the next time someone brings it up maybe?

 

[The bad one]

One things for sure, the organisation that takes millions from anglers every year wont help anglers, indeed it seems that angling comes well down their list of priorities, below is taken from the Daily Telegraph.

A spokesman for the Environment Agency defended otters, saying that waters dominated by large coarse fish did not make for a healthy eco-system.

He said: "The Environment Agency does not see the return of the otter as a cause for alarm or a major threat to fish numbers. If you look at rivers that never lost otters like in Scotland, they have healthy fish populations containing a good age range of fish. It has not resulted in fish being 'wiped out'.

"Large specimen fish tend to dominate rivers, which is not a healthy state for a river. You need diversity in age, not just big fish. This wouldn't have occurred in the past when otters were more numerous and would have eaten some of the larger fish.

"Specimen fish aren't immortal. As much as anglers love to fish for large barbel, and even given them names, sooner or later they will die from disease, in a flood event or be eaten by an otter or other predator.

"Otters also eat 'pest' species such as the signal crayfish, an invasive species that has caused a crash in numbers of our native white-clawed crayfish."

And the problem with what he states is precisely what Crow?
At the risk of “Here we go round the Mulberry bush again!”

 

[thecrow]

The problem with that statement is this part.

He said: "The Environment Agency does not see the return of the otter as a cause for alarm or a major threat to fish numbers. If you look at rivers that never lost otters like in Scotland, they have healthy fish populations containing a good age range of fish. It has not resulted in fish being 'wiped out'.

Comparing Scottish rivers to English ones that have suffered from Otter predation is imo daft, Scottish rivers with natural Otter populations that have sustained both fish and Otters have not and do not suffer from the other problems faced by small rivers in England, there can be no comparison as they are 2 different countries and mostly different environments.

 

[bennygesserit]

No, not at all a wind-up.

What I am saying though is that having got to extinction then a whole new ecosystem resulted, i.e. Otter free, and for man to then interject afterwards might not be the best way forward.

As for reintroducing other extinct species, well, why not Wolves or Bears? After all, both were indiginous once upon a time in the UK.

Now, that really is my last contribution on the Otter topic . . . . . . . until the next time someone brings it up maybe?

Peter otters were driven to extinction , in some areas , by pollution and are now making a natural return , supplemented in small numbers by a minor introduction of 137 animals.

But you are suggesting that having driven them to near extinction ( not an actual one like Wolves or Bears ) we should then maintain that extinction in order to protect a few fish.

We didn't get a whole new eco system - otter free , we got an imbalanced system caused by pollution and a system that is still suffering.Even without the introductions the population would have made a comeback.

Is that what you say when there is an oil spill - Oh well that's Darwin's law if an animal can't endure a few chemicals then it wasn't fit to be there in the first place ?

 

[wes79]

otters guys, where we at

 

[thecrow]

While I agree with your sentiment, would it be perhaps because the "Environment Agency" is a multifaceted entity that considers all environmental factors?

I think that's the problem with the EA Wes, they try to serve to many masters and end up serving none the way they should.