Otters ? where will the Rivers Trusts stand?

The Angling Times this week has flagged up what many of us have known for some time – booming otter populations are starting to significantly impact on fisheries all over the UK.Anglers like to consider themselves conservationists, and I believe that the Rivers Trust phenomenon has largely been driven by anglers. But Rivers Trusts with their charitable status are, as I understand it, about conservation for everyone, not just anglers. So when otters start munching their way through stocks of river fish in rivers where rivers trusts are established, what position are the trusts going to take on otter predation?And it might also be asked what position the Salmon & Trout Association are going to take, with their new charitable conservation status?

There are huge numbers of otters in the rivers where I live. They destroy the fish stocks and then English Nature object to the stocks being replaced for species that weren't in the rivers hundreds of years ago. Ridiculous in my opinion as things move on. Otters died off for a reason and should not be reintroduced in vast quantities as this is against nature.

Dave,
Totally agree, can't see how otters can still be described as native when they haven't been present in some areas for over 100 years and then suddenly they want to reintroduce them - they keep talking about it in my local area in the Colne Valley.
Reintroducing otters causes as much harm to the eco-system as introducing a totally foreign predator.

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Dave Slater wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>

Otters died off for a reason and should not be reintroduced in vast quantities as this is against nature.</blockquote>
<blockquote class=quoteheader></blockquote>
<blockquote class=quoteheader>Gary Newman wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>Dave, Totally agree, can't see how otters can still be described as native when they haven't been present in some areas for over 100 years and then suddenly they want to reintroduce them </blockquote>

Yet you think it's OK to reintroduce fish stocks that died off for a reason?

Yes. The reason is f***ing otters !!!!!

/forum/smilies/surprised_smiley.gif

Anglers are very blinkered when it suits them aren't they?

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Matt,
From my own experience of fishing the Great Ouse for big barbel the only reason that they died out (including the record fish) in the stretches that i fished was due to otters being introduced.
I have nothing against otters in general, in fact as well as fishing I'm also keen on photographing wildlife, but things change, and just because a certain river was suitable habitat for otters in the past it doesn't mean that it is now. The same goes for any wild animal - we used to have wolves and bears in this country but it wouldn't necessarily be the best idea to reintroduce those either.

I agree Gary.

My point is related to the blinkered view of anglers when fish stocks die off "...for a reason"

We don't say "ooh, we should restock this river because the fish stocks died off for a reason"

Fish may be eaten by seals or cormorants - neither of which were introduced, nature put them there.

Fish may die of because of change in climate.

As you know, fish stocks may diminish for many reasons, but we never say they shouldn't be restocked beaused they died for a reason.

I'm not saying otters should be reintroduced (what are they for?/forum/smilies/smile_smiley.gif). I am just pointing out that anglers often make statements that make us look very blinkered.

Matt,
I can see where you are coming from in the way that many members of the general public will view it - if it is a choice between slimy fish and cuddly otters you know which they'd go for.
The only difference is that in many cases with fish their numbers may have declined but a population is still present, unlike with otters where they have not been present in many areas for decades. A comparison would be with the burbot, which hasn't been present in our waters for a number of years, but getting permission to reintroduce them would be difficult.
Other predators such as cormorants and zander have reached a balance in our waters - you only have to look at the way silver fish stocks are returning in waters that have been badly hit by cormorants in the past - but these don't specifically target big fish.
Otter shave such an impact because they can wipe out thousands of pounds worth of fish, including a shoal of double-figure barbel or group of 30 lb carp, in a very short space of time.
Plus you can get a licence to shoot cormorants, try the same with otters and you could easily end up in prison.

otters eat 15-20% of there body weight of fish a day.

hmmm.....what animal likes to eat 15-20% of its body in otters per day? Quick find that animal....

What are thenumbers of young barbel like in the Gt. Ouse currently? Otters and barbel have co-existed foruncounted thousands of years, assuming that there is a viable breeding population of thefishit shouldn't be an issue.

I can only speak for the stretch of the Ouse that i fished, but numbers of barbel in general were very low but the fish were of a very high average size, with a couple that topped 20 lb.
I can see that there wouldn't be such a problem if the otters have a plentiful supply of food, but when they have to resort to killing very big fish - such as the record barbel - then they are a real problem as these fish are irreplaceable.
You only have to look at what has just happened on Shefford ACs Willington Lake, where they have lost and upper 40 mirror and upper 30 common plus other fish. These are worth a lot of money, both in terms of what it would cost to replace them and also the revenue which they bring the club from people fishing for them.

The problem down our way is the sheer number of otters that seem to have been released. Unless you are out after dark the number is not apparent but there are a lot on both rivers. The chub and barbel population was very healthy before their introduction but seems to have declined greatly so what will they eat when all of the fish have gone? Presumably they will starve. Stocking of chub and barbel is not allowed as they were not in the Avon hundreds of years ago, presumably the people who released the otters are the in league with the lot who will not allow restocking. It just doesn't seem fair to me as the fish had been established for a very long tiome and were obviously happy with their environment.

I knowan otter or otters have been spotted on the Nenein the oundle area,as to what damage they`re doing to fish stocks i just don`t know.

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Gary Newman wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>I can only speak for the stretch of the Ouse that i fished, but numbers of barbel in general were very low but the fish were of a very high average size, with a couple that topped 20 lb. </blockquote>

That doesn't really sound like a viable population then to be honest, regardless of the exact cause of demise of one individual or another. If you're not getting recruitment through natural breeding or stocking (which would be ethically little different to the introduction of Otters to environments which might not sustain them over multiple generations) then what you have is a highly artificial situation on borrowed time.

Iknow about the carp, I don't think the emotionalreaction is helped by the fact that people name these fish (for that's all they are), but it's up to the club to protect those assets bylegal means in the face of changing environmental pressures.

Otters are atrue element of the UK fauna (unlike Wels, Zander, Orfe etc. etc. all of which are regarded as valid angling targets in the UK and eagerly promoted by many).In any programme to reintroduce a species within a former range you have to release larger numbers than you expect to have in the resultant population, this is due to natural wastage.

The cultural landscape for the sport might have to change slightly in coming years due to this change in predationpressure, but ashas beensaid elsewhere in this thread... <blockquote class=quoteheader><blockquote class=quoteheader>Gary Newman wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>things change
</blockquote></blockquote>

Are you aware just how much otter-proof fencing costs? Put it this way there are not many clubs who could afford it if they have several waters to protect. People will end up protecting their stock but by means that aren't legal - much like with cormorants.
The Great Ouse does have breeding populations of barbel and has also received stockings, but on the particular stretch where the record fish lived it was fairly low-stock, probably part of why they grew so big.
The problem for many club/fishery owners is that they have spent a lot of money on stock and if all that is suddenly wiped out not only will they not be able to afford to replace these fish but they will also lose their members - who is going to fish a water with nothing left in it worth fishing for?
Otters can go through a fisheries' stocks very quickly as they are very wasteful, tending to rip out the throat and eat the internal organs, often leaving the rest of the carcass.

I went out for a curry the other night.

The waiter asked me if I would like to try a chicken tarka.

"what's that I asked?"

"It' like a chicken tikka, but a littler otter"

/forum/smilies/embarassed_smiley.gif

Have heard the tarka dahl is pretty good as well, and there was me thinking it was made from lentils...

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Gary Newman wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>Are you aware just how much otter-proof fencing costs?</blockquote>

Roughly, yes, but if the fishing is valued enough then it will have to be paid, or it will have to be accepted that the fishing will change in nature. Otters have massive public recognition, legal protection and are the subject of a UK BAP. Anyone using illegal means to deal with them could causeimmeasurable damage to the overall public profile ofangling in the UK. It would be anact ofmindblowing selfishness and stupidity.<blockquote class=quoteheader>Gary Newman wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>who is going to fish a water with nothing left in it worth fishing for?
</blockquote>

Depends what you think is worth fishing for. I buy AM every week and always enjoy your articles, and so I'maware of your achievements in specimen angling, but large fish are not inviolate from the process of natural selection, nor are they everyone's focus. I do think AM is byfar the more editorially responsible of the weekly publications, and Ihope this continues.<blockquote class=quoteheader>Gary Newman wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>Otters can go through a fisheries' stocks very quickly as they are very wasteful, tending to rip out the throat and eat the internal organs, often leaving the rest of the carcass.</blockquote>

That's not wasteful, that just a predator targeting those fish which are easiest to catch and represent the greatest catch per unit effort. The trouble is with the highly artificial stock profiles that have been created. The fisherieseither have to accept that they are part of the natural environment, with the inherent unpredictability,or isolate themselves from predation pressures by legal artificial means.

If someone released their prize-winning chickens into a field, and they started to get nabbed by a buzzard (legally-protected and increasing innumber due to improved environmental conditions), who'd be at fault? The buzzard, the world in general or the chicken-owner?