New Team of Advisors to Help Fisheries Tackle Cormorant Predation

This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: New Team of Advisors to Help Fisheries Tackle Cormorant Predation

Sorry - but I feel this is a very weak article. What I and most people would be looking for is a clear lead about the 'way forward' as promised when this was heralded the other week!

Anglers and Fishery Managers have been told for ages that we needn't worry about predation from cormorants, goosanders, mergansers, etc - it was being addressed - yes - How?

No new reporting line - No new measures - No new anti-vermin licenses.

I know fishery managers who will be thrilled to find out that they will be given guidance on how to educate their fish to not get eaten - and to use the new refuges!

Are the new Advisors regionally-based? How are they contactable?

Will they be travelling round the country - spreading the good word? - or cooped-up in an office down south producing newsletters?

Lets have a bit more concrete information for starters please!

I presume the "none lethal" methods they will be advising on will be to frighten them from one water only for them to land on another, there are perhaps 2 ways of controlling them, destroy their eggs or kill them, I favour the latter.

Is a catty-pouch of gravel an approved non-lethal deterrant?

I don’t envy these 3 guys their job because they will be dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t!

Last week I meat 2 of the 3 at the NW ATr Forum, which was open to anyone to attend not just ATr members. (I’m not a member btw but my club is) So yes they will be travelling the country to the regional Forums. Sadly for the 2 guys as far as my club is concerned and others present, they were trying to teach their grandmas to suck eggs. The NW arguably has more licenses for lethal measures than any other region nationally. And in the room that night were some real knowledgeable members regarding the licensing as it stand and some very awkward questions as to the new system to come in.
Not least the catchment based approach (CBA) to licensing.
One of the problems regarding this approach is that many clubs haven’t even bothered to apply for licenses under the old system or report they are having problems with cormorants/gooseander (other than whinging amongst themselves) to EA, NE, the Minister, etc. Apathy rules OK!
So the proactive club who have are most likely to be hamstrung by the CBA on the grounds that NE will say “Well there’s only you having the problem on your water(s) as no other clubs are reporting the problems to us in that catchment!” So no we won’t grant a catchment licence for lethal control to you or the catchment. Whereas under the old system they would, providing you had fulfilled and ticked all boxes the criteria required.
Basically the proactive club(s) is going to have to drag the apathetic clubs kicking and screaming along with them to get a CBA for lethal measures. In other words, the proactive clubs will have to do all the work for those that don’t give a toss. As it stands the proactive can just get on with it, get the licence to get rid on their waters.

So in my view the CBA is a retrograde step for the proactive clubs.

Re Gooseander and why there’s only two areas sanctioned for the trial. One of which is Cumbrian based. The reason is, one of the clubs that control a lot of waters up there have done their homework very well regarding surveying the gooseander numbers.
In sort they sent members out on a given day at a given time on all their waters to count them. That gave them both quantative and empirical data that NE or the RSPB couldn’t argue with, without recreating the same surveys. And that was never going to happen was it!!!
Now there’s a lesson there for ALL including the ATr to the disputed cormorant figures put at 30,000 nationally. Recreate the survey nationally to get the quantative and empirical data. After all that’s how the RSPB do it and they don’t have access to as much water and land angling has. Once gathered, it would be the biggest weapon you could have when the review of this new system is up.

Hi Phil,

All this is old hat surely? None lethal measures, whilst all well and good on paper, simply move the problem onto other fisheries if done properly? And as we both know the vast majority of angling clubs didn't adopt them anyway.

Same thing with shooting licences isn't it? Again the vast majority of angling clubs did not apply for them?

Apathy? I'm not so sure. The Trent Valley and the river Trent in particular have BIG cormorant populations yet the river is stuffed with fish. One would assume that given the numbers of cormorants present in the Trent Valley fish stocks would have suffered along the river but that is not the case.

Regards,

Lee.

the CBA is a retrograde step for the proactive clubs.

Click to expand...

Well explained response to the position - giving some of the details behind the current problems - and why they will continue to be there!

There seems to be deafening silence from the commercial side - or haven't they been canvassed yet?

My initial 'rant' was against the article itself - and the lack of substantial detail in it - this has largely been overcome by subsequent posts - which is I suppose the whole point of the forum! I must be getting older - i'm starting to mellow! :w

Hi Lee up to a point it might well be. None lethal means is a precursor to lethal and to show you have tried to rid yourself (your water) now catchment of the problem. Which in turn creates a problem elsewhere. As the birds have wings, a point NE don't seem to have grasped. Dead cormorants though don't fly anywhere
As part of the role, the 3 guys I think is to convince the club doing nowt about it and there's lots of them, that by joining with others (the proactive) their waters will get protection if lethal force is used. But to get there they'll have to do the hoop jumping first.

The Trent Valley mid and lower is a bit of an anomaly with its stock levels and number of birds. As to why this should be I don’t have an answer for.

What I can say with some confidence is the upper and tributaries are suffering quite badly from predation by them. There’s very poor small/medium sized silver fish stocks in them. Likewise it’s the same story on many of the stillwaters on the tribs and upper river.

That’s not good news from a sustainable river’s point of view over the long-term as it will over time impact on all the river.

Let me share two case studies I know of on two stillwaters in the NW. Both reservoirs. One was 50 + acres the other 7. The resers were drained down for essential work to be done to less than a metre deep and what fish in them were removed either by the EA fisheries team or professional private fisheries teams.
The big Reser which had up and until the cormorants arrived in the late 80s been noted as one of the best match water in the NW. Even in the depth of winter you need 10-15 lb of silvers to frame in the match, which were large opens, 100 peggers.
On netting it fully they got out of 1700 lb of fish, mainly large cormorant proof bream and hybrids. The numbers of small silvers was estimated to be around 300lbs. This reser is biologically quite rich and easily capable of support under normal conditions 300-450 lb of fish per acre. Based on the lower figure of 300 the water should have produced 15,000 lbs of fish right throughout the size range. What is quite clear is that through cormorant predation over the last 30 years they have suppressed the stock level down to 34 lb per acre.

The smaller reser as I said was also drained down and netted and out of that the figure was 900lbs of fish. What’s interesting about this one is the controlling club only 3 years before stocked 1000 lb of medium sized roach in it. Again the numbers of small silvers were very low when it was netted, as were the quantities of roach over all. Given this water had measures to keep cormorants off, which weren’t wholly successful and its fertility isn’t quite as high as the bigger one, it should have produced around twice the amount of fish it did.

So if anyone else can supply me with reliable figures of other waters where the same process; draining, netting and the known quantity of fish removed, I'd like to know about it.