fenboy

Den, I agree entirely with the last sentence of your last paragraph: "Otters have a place in nature, but not on man-made fisheries." As has been expressed elsewhere in this debate, it is up to the owners of man-made fisheries where the balance of nature has been distorted in some way (eg over-stocking with carp) to deal with the situation by either investing in otter-proof fencing or allowing the balance of nature to be restored. Now I wouldn't want to appear politically incorrect, but I can imagine that otter-proof fencing could easily double up as security fencing to keep undesirable humans out, too. And by that I mean the wave of immigrants from Eastern Europe who use every means possible to catch and eat coarse fish. They are a much bigger menace to fish stocks on our lakes and rivers than otters ever could be.

Hi Budgie... thanks for the welcome. Re burbot, I'm old enough to remember when the last couple were caught on the Fens -- including one immediately below Denver Sluice on the Relief Channel (to an eel angler fishing a small deadbait, if I recall correctly). I would dearly love to see them re-introduced, but it would probably be pointless due to habitat destruction and a trend for warmer winters in recent decades. As I understand it, burbot breed in winter below ice (probably all right this iwnter, though!).

Many thanks for your views, Den. Needless to say, I you're wrong on just about all of them. However, I will limit my reply to just two of the points you make which are aimed directly at me: 1. You twist the fact that I have seen two otters on my local river to accuse me of being "I'm all right Jack". Nonsense. I am disappointed that I have not seen many more otters. 2. You say that my post is "full of hate for carpers/barbellers any specimen type angler". No, not hate, Den -- but I would admit to feelings of pity/derision for certain elements of the modern big fish scene. I don't know how old you are, Den, but if you are younger than 50 then I can assure you that I was catching big fish while you were still at primary school. I come from an era when we made our own tackle (it wasn't possible to buy specimen tackle from the shops) and targeted natural fish in natural surroundings. Many hadn't been caught before: none had names. My specialist subject in those days was pike. And the biggest problem for the pike angler back then -- the 1970s -- was that most anglers didn't like pike and many killed them. (Please bear with me, this angling history lesson is very relevant to the otters argument and all will be revealed in a minute or two...) In those dark, unenlightened days, many roach/bream/chub/barbel/dace/carp anglers killed pike because they considered that pike, as a predator, killed the fish they wanted to catch and therefore should be exterminated. We were, therefore, "treated" each week in Angling Times and Anglers Mail to pictures of proud captors holding DEAD 20 lb-plus pike for the camera, often in their back yards. Back then, match anglers who accidentally caught a pike would often throw it -- still alive -- into the bushes behind their pegs. Among the noted pike-haters was the late (and otherwise great) Dick Walker. Even Fred Buller, who is about to receive the MBE for his services to pike fishing, KILLED big pike, including a 32-pounder, from Ireland to appease the salmon and trout anglers. Obviously this sort of thing wouldn't happen today, would it, Den? You wouldn't get a selfish minority of anglers deciding to kill a natural predator because it affected their sport, would you? The parallel to be drawn is obvious. Certain anglers think THEIR sport is threatened by predators and therefore demand to be allowed to kill the predators concerned, regardless of the feelings of others. They're selfish morons, Den. I do hope I'm not describing you. Incidentally, otters are indigenous to all rivers in the British Isles. Carp are not. And nor are barbel in rivers like the Wensum, Severn, Wye, Warwickshire Avon, Hants Avon, Bristol Avon, Dorset Stour (too many to list here, in fact). I could make a better case for the removal of these alien species than the anti-otter brigade can for killing a natural predator that has every right to be there. So think on.

Many thanks for the kind words. It's gratifying to know there are like-minded people out there who can see the whole picture. Oh yes... and it's good to be back.

It's such a long time that I've contributed to this forum that I'm not sure I'm doing this right. If my post comes out as a series of strange symbols as if submitted by an alien, please forgive me. If, however, you are reading this, then I've cracked the new technology yet again. Whoopee. When you get to read what I've got to say, however, you may feel that my views are somewhat alien to most anglers. You see, I don't go along with the tendency in recent years to get hysterical about perceived threats to angling by natural predators like otters. I can understand the argument against cormorants, because their arrival at our fisheries is an unnatural situation, caused by the depletion of their natural food source elsewhere. But otters? As a countryman all my life, I can tell you that otters were, within living memory, much more commonplace than they are today. The destruction of their environment by dredging and bankside clearance plus the possible side-effects of intensive agriculture after World War II saw their numbers crash catastrophically... to the point in the early 1970s when they were virtually extinct in lowland England. I can well remember a local newspaper story (Lynn News & Advertiser, West Norfolk) in 1975 or 76, reporting that the local otterhounds on the River Wissey (a tributary of the lower Great Ouse) had been disbanded because there were no longer any otters for them to hunt. I welcome the return of otters to the countryside, just as I welcome the return of birds of prey, which were also reduced to pitifully small numbers through toxic farming chemicals after WWII. These days I live in Northamptonshire, where red kites (once extinct) and buzzards (once very rare) are now plentiful. Watching them is a great source of pleasure when the pike are being unco-operative. It was with great displeasure that I heard recently of red kites being shot and killed at a location a few miles away. Unfortunately, there still remains a diehard ignorant old breed of keepers and shooters who regard any predator as vermin -- and destroy it accordingly, regardless of the law. So far, I have only seen two otters in the Nene valley, where I live. However, I can honestly say that those sightings gave me every bit as much pleasure as landing my one and only 20 lb-plus pike from the river... and rather more than the 20 lb-plus carp I used to catch from the Nene before unscrupulous, thieving scum caught and removed them to various stillwaters in the area. I digress, but not a lot. You see, I have this rather old-fashioned notion of predatory mammals that eat fish to survive being perhaps a little more important than anglers worrying that their over-stocked lake is being naturally reduced to an acceptable stock level. If your lake is over-stocked with fish, then it will attract predators. That is called nature trying to address an imbalance. If you don't like it, invest in anti-otter fencing. If not, relish the challenge of catching of fooling a wily fish in a lake with a natural stocking density. The hysterical stuff we're hearingf rom some quarters is, frankly, laughable. Claims that lakes or rivers have been "emptied" by a marauding otter is simply ridiculous. Even if it was true that a family of otters had move din, it would soon move on once stocks were depleted and therefore became harder to catch. Also, how many fish do you think an otter eats? The otter is a small mammal, about the size of my pet dog (a miniature schnauzer, Herbie. Now Herbie is a greedy little bugger, but let me assure you that he couldn't get through 1 lb of food a day. So, a couple of otters move onto your lake... and eat an average of a couple of pounds of fish a day. That would be a lot less than the lake's perch or pike population. And that's if they arrive in the first place. Anglers everywhere are getting all worked up on this otter thing, but I'd wager that the vast majority of anglers in England have never seen an otter in the wild. The "problem" is not that otters eat fish, of course, but that they sometimes, apparently, attempt to eat big fish. Fish with names. And big fish with names are worth money. That's what all this is really all about. The truth is that the general public -- that's the vast majority of the people in this country, not a handful of selfish and blinkered specimen hunters or profiteering fishery owners -- love the idea of otters being reintroduced to the wild. They like the idea of our rural environment being restored so that future generations can enjoy the wildlife that their parents and grandparents knew. It is their ideal that will prevail. And anglers kicking up a stink and demanding licences to cull etc will put the sport in a very poor light, which is the last thing we need. We'll be seen in the same light as the dinosaurs in the hunting and shooting fraternity. PS: I had to laugh at the latest Angling Times, where perceived threats to angling from predators included BEAVERS. Perhaps somebody should tell them that beavers are vegetarians. They eat bark.

Newt, I think you'd recognise me if you met me face to face. I'm not an "expert" but I do know a little bit. Please don't be condescending or dismissive, because I fear I can do it rather better. This forum is in danger of becoming a clique of old pals doing the boring old pals' act. Fine. Go ahead. It's your choice. You're the moderator, Newt. You can wipe this post off the face of the planet. But in doing so you'd be doing angling a grave disservice. The fact that you don't want to listen to what you don't want to hear isn't very clever.

I would suggest that Paul B is real, but his postings aren't. And if we ever need evidence of why angling is so disparate and will never be organised, the postings so far are all the evidence anyone would need. Frankly, we don't stand a chance.

Agree with Budgie. Countless recaptures over 40 years suggest pike unhooked off the ground suffer no harm. However, pike prodded and poked by beginners on the mat will usually suffer if the process takes too long.

Thanks, Budgie. There would be an outcry, and rightly so, if would-be pikers were to take risks with pike (which just happen to be my favourite species). Therefore I would be very hypocritical if I was to take short cuts and risk a (lesser) species like carp... even if all the stuff I've heard over the years is just fallacy. I won't risk it none the less. But the big point here - and I'm almost bored with repeating it - is that long-soaked stinky particles are FANTASTIC baits. No, even better than that. They'll beat even the sacred boilies. But if nobody is willing to give them a try, that's their loss. You know what I'm saying, Budgie. So, here it is for one last time... Boil and soak all particle baits because: 1. You could be saving the lives of carp 2. You'll catch a lot more That's fact. Why bother to argue?

Thanks ofr the advice, Bruno, but I go along with teh fish farmers who soak it first. Why risk getting it wrong? Secondly, and I repeat, the flavour of particles soaked for a VERY long time works better than artificial flavours. Better than sythetics. Period. Just try it.

Newt, I agree that raw maize isn't poisonous to humans... but several seeds are. Better to be safe than poisoned, eh? There were reports of carp dying in the 1980s when raw peanuts were used as bait. Tales of carps' guts splitting asunder. Never witnessed, just read about it. Incidentally, food poisoning from certain seeds - like rice, for example - is very serious indeed. So it's best to err on the side of caution. Remember: soak, boil briskly for 20 mins... and if you want to catch a lot of carp leave to soak for a long time. Even if raw baits DO catch carp and (probably) do little or no harm, why risk them when it's so much easier to make them safe and CATCH MORE FISH??

Maize never softens to the extent of sweetcorn, which is basically immature maize (ie harvested green, or before it's fully ripened). Don't worry about it still being hard - it's great to mount of the hook (or hair) won't get disintegrated by smaller fish and carp will make short work of crushing it in the throat teeth. Incidentally, leaving ANY particle soaking for a week or so is a brilliant idea. When it starts to ferment (look out for bubbles) or even goes sticky and slimy, it is a fantastic bait... I have had huge catches of big carp on maples in that state (in the days when I used to be keen on carp). I understand it is because certain enzymes are being released, according to the expoerts. I'm no expert in such stuff, I just know it works brilliantly.

Big problem with any uncooked seed/pulse is that it swells up inside the stomach of the fish. And that can kill. Please note that one of the tortures the sadistic Japanese inflicted upon Allied PoWs during WW2 was to force-feed them dried rice, which caused agony when it swelled up inside their stomachs. And Peter is right about toxins - particularly in uncooked nuts and some beans. All should be soaked first and then boiled for 20 minutes before simmering. And, yes, those same toxins can poison humans. Kidney beans, for example, if not properly prepared. Hope that helps.

Chesters, I'll try to dig out my old Abu Tight Lines catalogues from the late 60s. Can't lay my hands on them right now, but I think the Lill Oringen was known in the UK as the Little Wiggly and was one of the Abu "Must" lures for perch. I believe it was a small spoon with a bit of a twist in it. I'm sure I had one (copper finish)and lost it in a snag circa 1969. And I think it was still sold in the early 70s.

I have a Dave Swallon pin, since new about 1987, used only a couple of times, in original cloth bag, absolutely immaculate. Anyone interested?