For the introduction of non-lethal means of control of the Otter

[Peter Jacobs]

One of the main things to remember when contemplating raising a government petition is to see the rules on the official website.

It is clearly stated that:

"Petitions which reach 100,000 signatures are almost always debated. But we may decide not to put a petition forward for debate if the issue has already been debated recently or there’s a debate scheduled for the near future.

Even providing that the rules are met then it is still very difficult to muster MP's interest . . . . . a classic example being the "debate" yesterday by MP's on the petition that received 137k signatures regarding the instant "walking away" from the EU.
Not a single MP spoke in favour . . . . .

I still fail to see what other measure might be contemplated, and have asked those connected on FB but as yet have not received any answers.

I will repeat however that I'd have personally preferred not to have seen the reintroduction of the Otter in our rivers without prior consultation with the anglers bodies and the riparian owners,

 

[flightliner]

Just playing devils advocate here and slightly off topic but if a predator such as a wolf as been absent for several centuries there must be a good reason for it and, like a friend said to me the other day if it's reintroduced after all that time shouldnt it be veiwed as an alien species?

 

[mikench]

Usually the actions of man either by increases in their( human) population, shooting/trapping creatures to extinction or by ruining their environment! The lack of natural predators tends to create an over abundance of other creatures to the detriment of either other creatures, flora and fauna or again, the environment! Deer are a classic example but bringing back wolves or lynx are not necessarily solutions!

 

[john r stockburn]

One of the main things to remember when contemplating raising a government petition is to see the rules on the official website.

It is clearly stated that:

"Petitions which reach 100,000 signatures are almost always debated. But we may decide not to put a petition forward for debate if the issue has already been debated recently or there’s a debate scheduled for the near future.

Even providing that the rules are met then it is still very difficult to muster MP's interest . . . . . a classic example being the "debate" yesterday by MP's on the petition that received 137k signatures regarding the instant "walking away" from the EU.
Not a single MP spoke in favour . . . . .

I still fail to see what other measure might be contemplated, and have asked those connected on FB but as yet have not received any answers.

I will repeat however that I'd have personally preferred not to have seen the reintroduction of the Otter in our rivers without prior consultation with the anglers bodies and the riparian owners,

I would have liked not to see its RAPID re-introduction and that act alone tells how far this is going to go , the "so called protectionists" have already decided what is going to happen and do not care less about fisheries , just a larder for their current pet project and silly ba5tards who fish have funded and provided these larders
in other countries they have a right to protect what is someones property but here you just have to suck what you have been told to suck
the loonies are running the asylum and now that's life

 

[flightliner]

One of the main things to remember when contemplating raising a government petition is to see the rules on the official website.

It is clearly stated that:

"Petitions which reach 100,000 signatures are almost always debated. But we may decide not to put a petition forward for debate if the issue has already been debated recently or there’s a debate scheduled for the near future.

Even providing that the rules are met then it is still very difficult to muster MP's interest . . . . . a classic example being the "debate" yesterday by MP's on the petition that received 137k signatures regarding the instant "walking away" from the EU.
Not a single MP spoke in favour . . . . .

I still fail to see what other measure might be contemplated, and have asked those connected on FB but as yet have not received any answers.

I will repeat however that I'd have personally preferred not to have seen the reintroduction of the Otter in our rivers without prior consultation with the anglers bodies and the riparian owners,

Peter, I watched the very same discussion you refer to earlier and from the very start , before 5he first speaker had said more than a few hundred words it was clear the way it was going to go --- nowhere---- .
I was under the impression that the petitions that acheived the requisite numbers to initiate a debate would be "in the house" not in a room attended by so few.
I was dissapointed, not at the result but the way these petitions are conducted , certainly not as I expected, a process that seemed rather dismissive of issues that cause concern enough for folk to sign for.
Some few months ago I sighned one regarding HS2 that is going to trash the village setting where I live, a real tragedy for me and others as its destructive path will destroy ancient woodland, homes,farms and fields where in summertime is nothing short of "skylark city" along with a skyline that allows me to see all the way to Lincoln on the right kind of day (multiply that a few hundred times).
Seeing the way these petitions are dealt with earlier I just feel it's all a bit of government ploy to give us the impression that they are "listening" to the concerns of the voters.
I wish all who sign a petition the very best of luck with their concerns but right now I just feel it not worth my trying at this moment in time.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I was under the impression that the petitions that acheived the requisite numbers to initiate a debate would be "in the house" not in a room attended by so few.

Many others are under the same impression Mick.

The truth of the matter is that these petitions are only discussed in the Westminster Hall (in the first instance) and not in Parliament.
Furthermore, attendance is voluntary and not mandatory.

 

[mikench]

You are not wrong Mick; a cynical ploy by government! HS2 is such a waste of time and money and will blight so many areas! Such a train only makes sense in a large country where traversing the place involves a journey of at least 1000 miles not 180 or less! For me I could save 20 Minutes on the journey time to Euston but have to spend double that in going north to go south and vice versa as it will not stop at my station! I suspect many others will be in the same boat!

 

[flightliner]

Mike, if they said I could get to London twenty minutes later instead of the twenty minutes earlier like they say I could be persuaded to support it .

 

[Molehill]

This petition has popped up all over and I had my say elsewhere so not going to repeat myself. Personally I don't see any good coming out of it for the reasons already given by others above.
No I won't be signing, I have no idea what " non lethal control" means or how anyone plans to go about it. Someone might actually explain it? Presuming the troublesome otters are trapped, who is volunteering to have them?

There is continual talk by anglers of the "reintroduction of otters". Making it sound like an extinct species being returned, they were always here. Unfortunately from the 1950 - 80s their population was decimated by pesticides (now mainly banned) and their numbers crashed. Their recovery is quite natural, I'm sure it's been helped by a few releases in areas but basically they've just done what they do - breed and spread.

 

[108831]

Either sign it or not,its not a matter of conjecture,opinions are emotive.

 

[The bad one]

And here is a classic example of the myth building

I would have liked not to see its RAPID re-introduction and that act alone tells how far this is going to go , the "so called protectionists" have already decided what is going to happen and do not care less about fisheries , just a larder for their current pet project and silly ba5tards who fish have funded and provided these larders
in other countries they have a right to protect what is someones property but here you just have to suck what you have been told to suck
the loonies are running the asylum and now that's life

There was only ever 138 animals ever breed and release by the Otter Trusts over an 18 year period 1982 - 2000 as I’ve stated Ad nauseam on here over the last god only knows years.
All others released since the year 2000 when the breeding programme stopped are rehabilitated and/or orphaned animals of which the number varies between 5 - 15 animals per year nationally. Again something stated many, many times before.

The landmass of England and Wales is -England 130,279 km² Wales 20,735 km² that’s a total of 151.014 km² . It therefore equates to one captive breed animal per 100.094 km² ever released. Hardly a rapid re-release programme!

What is true is that the otter population was recovering naturally and nationally but had large gaps in certain areas of the country where population radiation wasn’t taking place. The powers that be agreed to fill them. Oh and before you say they didn’t consult anglers, they didn’t have to, as the law of the land at that time had no provision in it that they had to. To suggest otherwise is just BS and an untruth, usually spun by PAG.

 

[thecrow]

How the hell can non lethal means control a wild animal. What alternative to death could ever work

Contraception after trapping and releasing could be an option as could neutering of trapped males.

 

[thecrow]

the ability to carefully remove persistent Otters from a fishery to be relocated elsewhere.

How can that control numbers? it merely moves the problem.

 

[thecrow]

All others released since the year 2000 when the breeding programme stopped are rehabilitated and/or orphaned animals

Isnt that just another example of man interfering? these animals would possibly all have died without the unnatural interference of man, imo when it comes to injured animals nature should be allowed to take its natural coarse, its one of the ways that nature itself controls numbers.

5 to 15 do those figures include any of the suspected unofficial releases Phil?

 

[thecrow]

Oh and before you say they didn’t consult anglers, they didn’t have to

Imo that's part of the problem, we as anglers can never agree as angling has so many different branches while organisations interested in otter have only the one aim.

Some anglers sport has suffered others has not I guess it will be those that have suffered who will sign while those yet to suffer will not but might in the future wish they had signed this petition.

 

[thecrow]

No I won't be signing, I have no idea what " non lethal control" means or how anyone plans to go about it.

I would imagine as the definition of lethal is to do with killing that it would be the opposite.

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

This petition has popped up all over

That's ironic coming from someone called Molehill.

 

[Molehill]

I would imagine as the definition of lethal is to do with killing that it would be the opposite.

Non lethal control:
I know what the individual words mean, but the phrase is meaningless without some explanation.

It's simply a few words that mean nothing on their own or could be interpreted to mean anything anglers choose.

 

[thecrow]

I know what the individual words mean, but the phrase is meaningless without some explanation.

There are methods of controlling mammal numbers as I have posted before contraception and male neutering are just 2 that could be used but that's only my thoughts as I am not part of the petition.

 

[Molehill]

Contraception and neutering will never happen, development and testing will take years and immense finances ( from somewhere). The problems to overcome are enormous, here's a short section from a paper on badgers to give you an idea. Bearing in mind badgers have had millions upon millions of £££s chucked at the problem over the years.

Developing an effective oral contraceptive has also proved difficult, and testing the contraceptive without distressing the badgers by taking blood samples to verify whether they are pregnant has led to some innovative ideas of measuring the hormone progesterone in other bodily fluids, that can predict pregnancy with surprising accuracy.

If these drugs are successfully developed, how can they be introduced to the wild without other animals eating them? Containers designed to be opened by badgers have been developed, but would they stand up to an inquisitive squirrel? What about a child? That’s not to mention any potential environmental impact from releasing these drugs into a wild badger population.