Cormorant Licenses

Over the weekend I was thinking about the current state of play regarding licenses to shoot cormorants. It's my understanding that a fishery owner applies to shoot these birds by demonstrating the damage caused by said birds?

If his fishery has ten lakes he doesn't apply for ten licenses, does he? I assume he applies for just one that covers all his waters.

The principle of scarring birds away is flawed, it's a bit like gypsies, you simply create a problem for the next guy.

However, if we assimilated ALL fisheries under ONE umbrella organisation, what is there to stop the parent body then applying for one license to shoot the maximum number of birds laid down in the latest agreement?

Wouldn't that end a lot of red tape?

And maximise the license take up?

And prevent the problem from being pushed next door.

After all, if the criteria is loss, proving you suffer loss equates directly to the appetite of the birds, not the stocking level of your specific fishery, hence wherever they turn up the fishery owner has to suffer losses while the buraucratic nightmare of delays and stalling takes place.

Solution, one umbrella license to cover ALL fisheries, prove loss once, shoot until the culling limit is reached, then re-apply.

Too simple? Well, why not?

I can't see that arguement getting far at all.

There's lots of legislation that requires individual cases show that the action is necessary and proportionate.

I haven't seen the legislation that applies to shooting cormorants, but it's bound to require indivuals apllications, each specifying their individual reasons for wanting to shoot. You might say the reasons will always be the same, but that can't be taken as read.

Whilst most anglers would support this approach, it would get little support beyond angling.

Your suggestion would be seen as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I believe that to get the licence you must not only be the riparian owner, or leasee, but also own the freehold or have the freeholder's permission to shoot.

Many waters have public access or footpaths close by so no shooting would be permitted on them. Nice idea Bob but I think it falls at the first hurdle.

In the Colne Valley we have waters controlled by clubs, where some shooting is conducted, and some controlled by non angling interests where no shooting is allowed, for various reasons. So those waters would still be havens for cormorant populations and they would do what they do now, which is to move off in the morning to feading stations, other people's waters, and return in the evenings.

Similar problems of public paths near river headwaters must exist around the country.

Mike

A licence on mass would be hard to fullfill as they are talking of removing them now. Due to people not filling in the returns on how many have been shoot.

I think its best to quietly ignore it and let the wise fishery owner gently shoo them away with his 12 bore very early in the morning, a practice not uncommon and much more effective than bits of signed paper waved at them.

Here here !! well whispered Graham.

Cormorants shooting is a bit like rabbit shooting, if you don't shoot on all the fields , the ones you don't shoot on are used for breeding and bases for raids on the other fields.
Water Authorities own many such fields!
Colin