andy_youngs

So is Salter going to be there between 10am and 3pm? Quite frankly, it's not very convenient for me. I've got a board meeting to deal with on the 23rd. But if Salter insists ....

Well done. That's 50 metres improved. Only 71,950 metres to go

Jeremey Paxman ... plus Martin Salter ... plus myself, all squeezed into a compact swim so we have no option but to discuss politics whilst we're angling

I wasn't aware that chub were native to the waveney

Sorry Phone, but I think you should. I don't think it's right to go quoting statistics about an otters diet being 73% crayfish, without being able to back it up. No, I haven't looked on google yet. I don't have to, kirisute has already done it : http://www.ivb.cz/folia/55/2/167-174.pdf

Is it? I agree it's diverse. Maybe even challenging. Also perhaps, worthwhile?

I've no doubt that you've canoed a few waterways. The signal crayfish infest the lower reaches, and invade the upper reaches. The notion that otters would clean out the signals is fanciful. Why would they when they've got all those big juicy carp and barbel to feast on in the upper reaches?

Is there any back up for the 73% claim? I just think that otters eat whatever's in front of them, and it depends where the sample comes from. After all, if its taken from a river in which the signals have eaten all the fish eggs ... not sure whether 'scat' is an offensive word, but would suggest we employ it in the capacity of the word s**t in future.

Yes it would be a nice solution, but I don't think it's going to happen. The problem being that don't think JV44 really understands the sort of habitats that signals thrive in. As most know, I canoed the Waveney from source to mouth several years ago. On the second leg, we set about 4 crayfish traps along the way the night before in order to harvest the signals on the way down. Traps were set at : Bungay - river averages 20ft wide, slow flowing and clear: 3 signals caught Wainford 3 bridges weir pool - river averages 25ft wide, downstream runs are still slow flowing and clear: 4 signals caught Geldeston - navigation limit. River averages 30ft wide. 1ft tidal influence immediately downstream of this location: 6 signals caught immediately upstream of the tidal limit. Worlingham - River averages 45ft wide. 2 - 3 ft tidal influence, fast, muddy flow. 12 signals caught close to a pumping outlet We dined well that night, but we didn't see a white clawed crayfish on the whole trip. To be fair, I think they tend to favour the upper reaches, and we put in at the mid point of the river. But the lower and middle reaches are infested with signals, and no amount of otters is ever gonna clean them out. I'm sure it's a similar scenario on the Yare and the Bure

Also true, is that otters don't leave the big ones. Like any preditor, they target the easiest prey, which is invairably the oldest and the youngest.

It's also increased the price of the basics. I buy most of my fishing tackle from America now, cos even after you've paid for the shipping costs and the VAT, it's still cheaper. And I think you get better choice. Similarly, I could go to any highstreet supermarket, buy a tin of catfood for 59p. Go home and re-lable it as high protein carp bait, and then knock it out for £3.59 a shot. I've long suspected that there's a bit of a cartel going on when it comes to the price of fishing tackle. And the biggest racket of them all is the price of 'high protein carp bait'

You bought the subject up ... Sure.

Yeah, I was disappointed with Wilsons stand on this as well. Now he is a Director of the Angling Trust, one of the magnificent seven in fact. And the local barbel fishermen on the Wensum did unceremoniously fire him from his role as a President of their local angling club for an alleged minor breach of the lead shot rules .... FACT, there's no love lost there ....

Nah, separate issue mate. But I will plead guilty to enjoying arguing a controvercial case. Damn, I should have been a lawyer.

It'll never happen ... that would be far too sensible.

In this country? probably none (apart from me). But that doesn't mean that the Americans, the Canadians, the Scandinavians, the Chinese, or the Russians share those sentiments. And it doesn't make the UK public right. OK, I'm sure you're being true to yourself. But that's all I'm trying to do also. I'm sure you're not scared of the public. But sometimes I think it is necessary to stand up to them because the hypocracy of it all leaves a bad taste in the mouth..

Don't agree with that Worms. I think it is remarkable how the otters have managed to re-establish themselves. Don't get me wrong, I think that is a very good thing. But there comes a time when you have to accept that nature has reclaimed her natural territory. I'm not calling for a cull, I'm calling for 'sustainable harvesting'. I agree that there are plenty of tree/bird/mammel/fish huggers out there, and they need to be challenged. After all, most of them are quite happy to go to Tesco's and buy a Bernard Matthews reared chicken that spent it's short, sad life in appalling, squalid conditions. But don't be so scared of the public.

Yes, I think in certain catchments, otters are plentiful enough to withstand limited harvesting. I use the word 'harvesting', rather than 'hunting' advisedly, because it is less emotive and more accurate to my beliefs as to what should be happening. I did say that licenses should only be granted on a 'catchment by catchment' basis. That's what they do in Canada. The EA should be appraising what's happening, and granting a 'take' license based on the resident populaton levels. And I really do believe that certain catchments have exceeded their natural saturation limit of otters due largely to the abundance of artificially stocked lakes in many river valleys, and the artificial stocking of the rivers themselves.

Blimy. Seems there's been a hell of a storm blowing on this thread which has pretty passed me by because I've been preoccupied elsewhere. I've read the first half of this thread, and watched the BBC West report of the fascist barbel fishermen who do not wish to tolerate otters on the Bristol Avon because they have decimated the non native, artificially introduced barbel population. Good, I'm glad the otters are eradicating the non native barbel from the Bristol Avon. But it annoys me that the otters cannot be harvested on a sustainable basis, because the pelts are worth serious money. I resent the fact that the Americans, the Canadians, the Scandinavians, and the Russians are all selling pelts on the international market, but we're not able to harvest our own natural resourses on a sustainable basis in return. As long as it's done in a humane manner then what's the problem? I feel the same way about foxes. I don't wan't to hunt any species to extinction. But hunting has never seriously threatened either of these species, and I don't see why we can't recognise that these species are established, therefore they can harvested in a sustainable way. I think the Govt should allow the Environment Agency to issue trapping licenses on a catchment-by-catchment basis

A public vote is an interestering idea Bob. I think what we've got to bear in mind is that as a result of the legislative framework, a large number of freshwater anglers are convinced that canoeists have no right to access our inland rivers (many thanks to Salter and Lloyd for that constructive state of affairs). But there is a greater proportion of the freshwater angling community that are fairly ambivilant. There are many that would simply prefer to reach an accommodation with canoeists. Then of course, we've got the Recreational Sea Anglers. It seems that there's no love lost between them and the Angling Trust at the moment. On top of all that, we need to bear to bear in mind that the total number of anglers in the country is probably not that different to the total number of canoeists. As I told Salter, I'm happy to have a fair public debate.

Bob / John, I suspect this thread is probably nearing the end game now. Unless someone else revives it, then I'll be happy for it to slip to the bottom. John, I agree that we will probably just have to agree to disagree. As a parting shot, I would just leave the thought that if the default legal position was to shift in anglers perception towards a right to roam, then you may well find that the canoeists would be quite amenable to identifying certain stretches of river where the quality of the angling was such that they would agree to restricted access at certain times of the year, and a hell of lot of agro would be avoided. From the canoeists point of view, the biggest problem at the moment, is that they can never be sure when and where militant anglers are going to show up on the riverbank shouting abuse. In any event, thanks for the discussion guys, it's been interesting and informative. Thanks also to the mods for allowing the thread to run without blocking it or banning anyone.

Thanks for the info Worms, that's good to know. Glad they're present on the Teme (that river holds a few fish that need thinning out). I've got a lake in Norfolk, and I've issued instructions to the gamekeeper that if any any goosanders show up then they're not to be touched.

I'm not so sure that Barry's dragging this thread off topic. I'm also not so sure that I fully understand the dynamics of the differences between you and Barry, so please correct me if I'm wrong Bob. It seems to me that Barry would rather the RSA tell the AT to go and get stuffed, whereas you would rather affiliate the two organsations. If that's the case then I'm with Barry. As one recreational sea angler to another, please tell the AT to stick it where the sun don't shine. I can assure you, you will get far more out of it in the long run if the RSA aligns itself with Canoe England. The management of the AT at the moment is fundamentally flawed because it is run by a small clique of puddle bashers that doesn't give a sh$t about the environment or the recreational interests of their fellow human beings.

The reality is that the only way to get a test case is for a landowner to apply for a court injunction to stop someone from paddling a particular river on a given day. Believe me John, I've done my done best to provoke an injunction. In fact, I've handed it to them on a plate. I've not only paddled through a contested stretch on the Wensum, but I actually videoed myself doing it and added a rider that I intended to do it again and to encourage others to do likewise. That video has now been on You Tube for nearly 2 years. But it seems there's no political will there on the part of either the Country Landowners Association or Fish Legal to actually challenge those actions in a court of law. Both organisations seem to prefer the present situation to prevail whereby landowners and anglers stand on the riverbank shouting abuse at canoeists, and canoeists ignore them and do it anyway pretending that they're having a good time. I object to your objection to a freedom to roam. In case you hadn't noticed, canoeists are already doing it (albeit that they're not taking their kids out with yet for fear of verbal assault). My stance hasn't changes one jot over the course of this thread. It's not canoeists that are unwilling to bring a test case, it's anglers and landowners that are the reluctant parties. I think you would find that canoeists would welcome a test case. It would certainly be a hell of a lot cheaper than negotiating access agreements across the length and breadth of the land.

A license to cull cormorants isn't difficult to get. Touch wood, haven't experienced goosander's in Norfolk yet, but it seems they'are just another permutation of an invasive species, so I can't believe it would be rocket science to get a license to cull them.