This could prove interesting.
- Thread starter cg74
- Start date
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Doesn't have a leg to attend on really shouldn't he have installed a fence especially if he has that much money to spend on fish
itsfishingnotcatching
Well-known member
While not wishing to take advantage of another's hard luck, it seems strange with all the publicity surrounding the re-introduction of otters, a businesman would not take steps to either check locations where they would be introduced or as Benny has already said, install fencing. It's almost like saying, "I never knew they were building a motorway there when I moved into my new home"!
22,000 Carp between six lakes, one lake with 8,500 fish and he never knew there were no carp left until it was netted, I would have thought the lack of paying customers might have aroused some suspicion :wh
22,000 Carp between six lakes, one lake with 8,500 fish and he never knew there were no carp left until it was netted, I would have thought the lack of paying customers might have aroused some suspicion :wh
dangermouse
Well-known member
Judging by the article he wasn`t aware that his stock was under threat from otters. If he had been he would have taken action to protect the fish, at least that`s what his lawyers will be arguing.
richiekelly
Well-known member
I hope he wins his case but doubt that he will, otter numbers were recovering on their own without the ill thought out scheme for reintroduction.
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
Not really. When you buy a property, your solictor will have conducted local searches to warn of any impending building works planned for the area. That's not the case with the introduction of otters, the EA do not have to inform any authority of their plans to do this. They might have consulted local stakeholders first though.
I'm a bit confused with the statements - "Mr Dodson is seeking £2.5 million to cover the loss of income he believes he would have recouped from anglers using his fishery."
and - "Mr Dodson said his business never quite got off the ground and he decided to sell some of his stock in 2008 – but found that he had none."
If his business "never quite got off the ground", how can he claim any damages except for the loss of fish stocks, i.e. £250,000 - possibly?
I hope this gets sorted once and for all.
Fishery owners have reported losses and there have been lots of moaners in the fishing press, now we can see some of the evidence tested in our highest Court.
A question.
Anglers are on the water at all hours of the day and night throughout the year, but has anyone ever heard of anyone seeing Otters being released or witnessed such a thing themselves?
Fishery owners have reported losses and there have been lots of moaners in the fishing press, now we can see some of the evidence tested in our highest Court.
A question.
Anglers are on the water at all hours of the day and night throughout the year, but has anyone ever heard of anyone seeing Otters being released or witnessed such a thing themselves?
benny samways
Well-known member
Couldnt Fish Legal help with this one?
paulvjwhite
Well-known member
i think this article states all we need to know about the introduction of otters in areas that cannot sustain them.
itsfishingnotcatching
Well-known member
Sounds more like a case of "Otter lawyers for you":wh
cg74
Well-known member
If otters hadn't been present in that area for 30 years, why would he presume they'd be reintroduced?
He's saying that otters were reintroduced without him being notified or consulted and so he never installed anti-predator (otter) fencing.
Had he been consulted, he may have been eligible for an EA grant to assist with the costs involved with erecting otter fencing.
I know this isn't the best analogy but....
If you owned a livestock farm inside a proposed site for a wolf reintroduction programme, would you expect to be consulted?
IMO the case looks very tenuous but who knows, what with the likelihood of inept journalism, he may actually have a good case?
And even if he fails in his case, it might open up a whole new avenue for better constructed cases....?
Like I said: "This could prove interesting."
itsfishingnotcatching
Well-known member
Agree, but I think you would miss 8500 animals if they went missing
cg74
Well-known member
Yeah I do wonder how the fishery owner had not noticed the fish stocks being reduced. Which actually makes me question the standard of the journalism.
The bad one
Well-known member
Going to be very interesting this case to say the least. Assuming it isn't laughed out of court.
The Welsh Otter report from 1978 to 2002 clearly shows continued presence of otters in the area during this time. And the press report and his claim is there hasn't been otters in the area for 30+ years.
Think he's going to get a kicking off the EA lawyers defending the EA position., if they can stop laughing to do it.
Hope he's got pockets stuffed with tenners as he makes his way to the door, coz he's going to need them for the costs of the case.
The Welsh Otter report from 1978 to 2002 clearly shows continued presence of otters in the area during this time. And the press report and his claim is there hasn't been otters in the area for 30+ years.
Think he's going to get a kicking off the EA lawyers defending the EA position., if they can stop laughing to do it.
Hope he's got pockets stuffed with tenners as he makes his way to the door, coz he's going to need them for the costs of the case.
Jim Crosskey 2
Well-known member
With the evidence presented in this article - this is utter tosh and SHOULD be laughed out of court.
22,500 fish - WIPED OUT - not a single survivor - with no actual evidence of an otter on the site (no sightings, no tracks, nothing). Nothing in the article expect for "bones stripped bare". Which doesn't happen when an otter takes a carp!!
That just doesn't ring true to me.
22,500 fish - WIPED OUT - not a single survivor - with no actual evidence of an otter on the site (no sightings, no tracks, nothing). Nothing in the article expect for "bones stripped bare". Which doesn't happen when an otter takes a carp!!
That just doesn't ring true to me.