Anglers must call for realistic cormorant management

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Bruno,

 

Thanks for the predictable reply. Well predictable the reply given to me anyway.

 

I have probably read nearly as much as yourself concerning aspects of cormorant predation, and; have been watching the efforts as made by the "bird group" etc etc etc into infinitum.

 

Of course I know the relaity surrounding these licenses and the overal reality concerning cormorants. That was my point actually.

 

Political correctness?? Who knows. But more to an alarming point now a days, who cares??

 

I also note your legal arguments. You are of course in this technical instance to some extent correct. However Bruno, when one is talking about a "national" resource or treasure, surely the legal point concening wild fish stocks is one that the "nation" owns them (administered over by the government of the day)

 

You see Bruno, my whole point is that our wild fish stocks DO actually belong to us all. Angler and none angler alike "AS THEY ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR MOST ANCIENT NATURAL HISTORY" as much as anything else is. So the legal points you make dont actually hold much water on a wider aspect if they were brought before any court or tribunaral hearing specifically dealing with the protection or preservation of wild habitats.

 

Even so, I take your points within the remits and mandates you have been working within. However, my point still stands. NOTHING has changed and cormorants are still predating on our wild fish stocks. My post did deal specifically with wild fish stocks and I never once mentioned privately owned stocks.

 

The trouble is Bruno, a national treasure is being threatened. And of course if the case becomes proven absolutely, the government of the day will have no choice however politically incorrect but to deal with it. This will result in cormorant numbers being culled. But what of all the talk, all the "effort" leading up to this possible scenario? Wasted time? Wasted effort? Possibly. But my concern is NOT for the talking or wasted efforts. It is for the national treasure which belongs to us all and our rivers and the creatures that live within them.

 

Fenboy and Bruno's double act is obvious and I will take it in the way their posts are written. Well thought out and extremely viable no doubt. I actually understand the sarcasm. But not the patronizing way things are penned towards the angling majority that angling politicians are supposed to be representing. Just in case it ever slips angling politicians minds, the "angling majority" "DO" actually want these creatures effectively deal with so that "OUR" interests, namey the fish and the fishing environments we enjoy are protected.

 

Clever patronising posts are one thing, but they do serve to illustrate just how wide the gulf is between angling politicians and the angling majority that is claimed to be getting represented.

 

Bradford Angler tells it how it is and reiterates the deapth of feeling out there in angling land for these birds and the damage they inflict on their favourite fisheries. Our angling politicians now appear to be telling "US" how it is and what "WE" should be doing about the problem. And theres me thinking that angling politicians were supposed to be sorting this problem out to "OUR" satisfaction.

 

This thread serves perfectly to highlight why I have absolutely no confidence in some of our angling politicians getting the cormorant problem effectively sorted once and for all. And if supporting our angling politicians means I have to endure patronising replies, then it's no surprise that most in angling dont support them. I certainly don't.

 

Nice post Leon.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[fenboy]

Lee, my post wasn't "well thought out" nor orchestrated with Brunos's. I came back from the pub and checked in on the forum, horrified at what well-meaning anglers had said.

Hopefully I disguised it with a bit of humour. Sorry you find that patronising, but it wasn't intentional: it's the only way I'm able to cling on to a degree of sanity when I'm confronted with complete prats.

Leon, I eat fish too. Does that mean I should be culled?

Get real, boys. I'm not an apologist, but I do have the ability to step backwards and see what damage the anti-cormorants brigade are doing to angling's image by demanding culls.

 

HOINESTLY... if you believe cormorants have done enough damage to affect your fishing results ... then I have to say that you're a crap angler.

 

I REPEAT: there are a lot of cormorants in my neck of the woods.But the fishing is the best it has been in living memory.

[peter mccue]

I REPEAT: there are a lot of cormorants in my neck of the woods.But the fishing is the best it has been in living memory.

 

Flaming Heck Fenboy, how lucky can you get...vegetarian Cormorants!!!!!!

[Bradford Angler]

how about this to some it up in a couple of lines . .

 

Cormorants, Otters and Red Squirrels . . now for a quick hit which is the easiest band wagon to jump on ! supporting and policing one law where you need to inforce the word no or two other options where some graft, expense and professionalism is required at a national level . .

 

pure unadulterated "well if I need to keep me self a job, am gunna get on that gravy train dead sharp, it's got to much momentum to stop before I retire !" . . maybe it would be a different scenario if someone pointed out the ministery we started to tag the cormorants . . then I guess with work involved on their part they would become more sympathetic . .

[Jon Hedges]

Cormorants eat fish. I think we are all agreed on that. What you have here is a problem that clearly only affects specific locations. On the one hand is Bradford Anglers terrible situation - watching his silver fish wiped out annually. On the other is Fenboys local area fishing better than ever.

 

So it appears than that this can only be managed at a local level.

 

With respect to Bradford Angler, I fail to see how securing a nationwide cull of these birds (cos lets face it a cull is a NATIONWIDE call, not a local one) will help ANGLING. Sure it will help individual areas, but in securing the mass destruction of a specific group of birds, we put our reputation as a NATURE loving, HARMLESS bunch of eccentric right in the firing line (excuse the pun).

 

Whilst these birds have a devastating effect on CERTAIN fisheries, it is clearly not the case on ALL

 

Its like calling for the destruction of moles throughout Great Britain cos they dig up a few Golf Courses ...

 

I hope this post doesn't come across as patronising or unsympathetic to those calling for action (I truly understand the frustrations)

[Leon Roskilly]

fenboy:

Leon, I eat fish too. Does that mean I should be culled?

er, I don't remember ever suggesting that cormorants (or anyone else!) should be culled.

 

I was just pointing out a false argument, which I tend to do whether it be on the part of the prosecution or defence, in any discussion.

 

To be truthful, I largely keep out of cormorant debates in angling circles because most participants are seeking to define a simple problem, with a simple solution.

 

Spend anytime reading the facts and the science, and you quickly realise that the situation is a whole lot more complex than most who enter the discussion and who are able or willing to comprehend.

 

Sitting back and watching your fishery being destroyed is too much to ask.

 

Yet, take out that human problem and nature easily absorbs the relatively short term damage and recovers well.

 

On the other hand, shoot the birds and more just keep coming, filling in the temporary but satisfying vacuum - read the research!

 

My club has a lake that had a shallow weedy area, generating food for all the lake's creatures, providing habitat for others, a safe refuge for fish fry, and a refuge from cormorants.

 

(It's interesting to see how fish leap clear of the water when a pike attacks, never when a cormorant attacks, they head for cover or shallow water).

 

The fishing in the weedy shallows was good too, but only for those that had the skill to fish the area.

 

But of course the majority just saw an 'unfishable' area with room for an extra 4 or 5 'proper' swims, so it was dredged and platforms put in!

 

Shooting birds out of the sky is a simple effective solution, that is no long term solution at all, and doesn't help the image of angling one jot.

 

But by and large, we anglers are simple folk, wanting to see a simple problem, with a single simple solution.

 

Unable to get our heads around our experience of why some waters are devastated, and others thrive in the face of 'the invasion', or what we can do to turn one situation into another, when there are many complex issues to be considered and addressed.

 

For those who like solving complex puzzles, go do some serious reading, and thinking.

 

For others, there's easy second hand opinions readily available, and some catchy labels for those that have difficulty in even that.

 

Tight Lines - leon

[ridgeacre]

Go to the B.B.C. News page and type in deer in the search box.

And they wont let us pop a few cormorants off

[StuMac]

How many anglers can actually identify a cormorant let alone asses how many are in a region?

 

In my expererience a lot of anglers have strong view on this issue without having a clue what one looks like. I've seen grebes, divers, tufted ducks (yes tufted ducks!!!) and canada geese (!!!) all identified as 'cormorants'.

[StuMac]

How many anglers can actually identify a cormorant let alone asses how many are in a region?

 

In my expererience a lot of anglers have strong view on this issue without having a clue what one looks like. I've seen grebes, divers, tufted ducks (yes tufted ducks!!!) and canada geese (!!!) all identified as 'cormorants'.