Otters Force Out Fishing Club

[Jeffwill]

I've read this post with some interest as I have personally had to deal with Otters on my fishery. Contrary to what has been said they are surprisingly large animals and will certainly eat in excess of 1lb fish per day. They also have a habit of selectively feeding, i.e. taking a bite out of a large fish! I have had to erect an Otter proof fence at considerable expense and this seems to have solved the problem, although just recently there was evidence of an Otter having climbed over! They will decimate a fishery, make no mistake about that. I had lost thousands of pounds worth of fish before I erected the fence. I don't think that a cull is either a good idea or realistic, given that my fishery is artificially stocked. after all, it's only natural that Otters see places like that as veritable larders! I suspect that part of the problem is that there seems to be a high number of Otters around at the moment and perhaps a population balance has not established itself. I have seen six Otters feeding together at one time on a Bream shoal in Loch Ken and I am constantly coming acrosss eveidence of them whilst at waters. Overstocking of fisheries means that the larder is basically even more attractive. My own fishery is not over stocked as I believe there are welfare issues involved in this. I don't know what the solution is and I don't think we fully understand the problem yet. All I could recommend is taking whatever measure you can (within the law) to deter them. I personally don't like the idea of looking for public money for the erection of fencing for a private business.

 

 

Hi Culshan, welcome to AN. What surface area (in acres or hectares) is your fishery? Thanks Jeff

Edited February 5, 2010 by Jeffwill

[poledark]

Culshan, difficult to find a fishery that is not some sort of "private business".. Every bit of water , whether a river or still water is owned by somebody, and in almost every case the owner makes money out of letting the fishing rights.

 

Den

[wunnus]

Such reports are always a source of interest to the public. Yet what ever we look at on a landscape is dynamic. There is no single ideal state of being for a river.

 

A healthy river is a dynamic system, some habitats (& species) increasing and others decreasing constantly. Predators will follow the increases in food.

 

Sudden introductions of any elements within these systems needs to be avoided, otherwise rapid displacements in the numbers of other species will occur.

 

But I was enthralled when the otter came through my swim, barely 1 metre away. The surrounding fish strangely did not appear alarmed, yet later the presence of a pike clearly changed behaviour.

I now note that the kingfisher is not seen as often in this stretch of river. This would suggest that there is now a decline in the numbers of smaller fish in this section of river. But are they eaten or are they migrating from a perceived threat? Cormorants are very rare in this bit so the battle is between the kingfisher/heron, the otter and the predatory fish.

 

One off subsidies/grants are not really a solution to predation problems. It will never to clear in the short term as to whether any changes in the habitat are due to specific species numbers. So we are left trying to react to the change as best as we can.

Fishing clubs will need to use appropriate data (refer to Water authority catch reports) to negotiate more realistic fees from the land owner. I am sure that most already do so.

Can Fishery owners face the need to balance the cost of protecting unnaturally high stocking levels with the income derived from the lake users (not necessarily just the anglers)? I note that some farmers in Wales already profit from encouraging natural scavengers ie Red Kites.

 

Sometimes managing a species does not mean confronting a species. It might be that tecniques to control behaviour could be more subtle. Most predators need to balance the fuel gained with the fuel expended by a catch. How might we use this new habitat?

[Guest Culshan]

Hi Culshan, welcome to AN. What surface area (in acres or hectares) is your fishery? Thanks Jeff

 

Hi Jeff,

 

The pond is about an acre in size.

[Jeffwill]

Hi Jeff,

 

The pond is about an acre in size.

 

 

Hi Culshan,

 

I bet even though its a 1 acre pond, it was still expensive to fence in. From your post about not agreeing for fisheries to receive financial help I guessed your water was not a lake.

 

Imagine if it was a lake....... and say 10, 20 or more acres. Or a fishery complex with a number of waters. Or a fishing club with a Lease and not enough members / money for fencing.

 

The sheer scale, costs and practicality of fencing in a large water, its almost absurd to expect fishery owners to have that kind of money lying around.

 

I advocate financially helping fishery owners as opposed to natural justice. Any fishery owner that has dealt with authorities, for example over cormorants, has probably already learnt that lesson.

[Guest Culshan]

Hi Culshan,

 

I bet even though its a 1 acre pond, it was still expensive to fence in. From your post about not agreeing for fisheries to receive financial help I guessed your water was not a lake.

 

Imagine if it was a lake....... and say 10, 20 or more acres. Or a fishery complex with a number of waters. Or a fishing club with a Lease and not enough members / money for fencing.

 

The sheer scale, costs and practicality of fencing in a large water, its almost absurd to expect fishery owners to have that kind of money lying around.

 

I advocate financially helping fishery owners as opposed to natural justice. Any fishery owner that has dealt with authorities, for example over cormorants, has probably already learnt that lesson.

 

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Yes it is an expensive business erecting otter proof fencing. I managed to do some of the work myself which helped. It's the fact that it costs so much leads me to believe that it is undesirable and impractical for the cost of this to be met from public money. Personally I would have higher priorities for spending public money. Anyway, do you think that the creation of so many over stocked 'commercial' fisheries has been a factor in the increased number of Otters?

[gozzer]

Hi Jeff,

 

Yes it is an expensive business erecting otter proof fencing. I managed to do some of the work myself which helped. It's the fact that it costs so much leads me to believe that it is undesirable and impractical for the cost of this to be met from public money. Personally I would have higher priorities for spending public money. Anyway, do you think that the creation of so many over stocked 'commercial' fisheries has been a factor in the increased number of Otters?

 

I'm certain that the increase in otter numbers in localised areas, is in direct proportion to the number of over stock fisheries, Culshan.

Wasn't it the film 'Field of Dreams' where they said, "Build it, and they will come?"

 

John.

[Jeffwill]

Hi Jeff,

 

Yes it is an expensive business erecting otter proof fencing. I managed to do some of the work myself which helped. It's the fact that it costs so much leads me to believe that it is undesirable and impractical for the cost of this to be met from public money. Personally I would have higher priorities for spending public money. Anyway, do you think that the creation of so many over stocked 'commercial' fisheries has been a factor in the increased number of Otters?

 

 

Hi Culshan,

 

Thats a fair question. Logic dictates that stillwater fishery managers are far quicker to see otter damage than unmanaged fisheries or rivers because they know their stock and they know their water, being on hand every day.

 

Otters are causing quantifiable problems on some stillwater fisheries (logic again dictates predation incidents will increase as otter numbers increase), whilst on rivers due to the unmanaged and transient nature of stocks......damage is usually unquantifiable.

 

Today I have been fishing a couple of stretches of the Wye, a regular winter haunt for me for the past 10 years. A couple of years ago (when me and a mate had always caught a number of chub) we first saw otters. To cut a long story short, we have fished there just two occasions this winter, first trip we had 1 chub between us and today none....but we have in the chub's absence caught more grayling than usual. (My best day was well over 100lb of chub but we are now looking for new stretches as the fishing is dire).

 

From what I can tell, the chub have been caught and eaten but the grayling, being smaller, narrower, faster, with almond shaped eyes aiding better peripheal vision, are eluding otters.

Must be something to do with chub being easier to catch, they move around less or perhaps simply have a larger "blind zone" behind them.

 

Therefore anyone who goes out and regularly catches bags of grayling, but no chub (or very few) when chub were once present in numbers, I would suggest they have otters for company.

 

I cant say I have seen my barbel catches reduce due to otters as I have fished stretches where there are usually other barbel anglers present (and otters wont feel so much at home) but there have been a number of reports of otters taking barbel. Maybe someone on the forum will know if barbel have a large "blind zone" like chub.

 

If they do, I would say barbel are on the menu just like chub.

 

Regarding fencing grants, as you say the costs are great but if fencing is "too expensive" for the collective public purse then its too expensive for private individuals. Thats exactly what I have been trying to say. And banks are not lending money either.....ironically our taxpayers money

 

Regards, Jeff

[Jeffwill]

I'm certain that the increase in otter numbers in localised areas, is in direct proportion to the number of over stock fisheries, Culshan.

Wasn't it the film 'Field of Dreams' where they said, "Build it, and they will come?"

 

John.

 

"Build it and they will come" - Tony Blair Millenium Dome

[Anderoo]

Lack of chub does not mean otters have eaten them all. At the risk of repeating myself repeating myself we have plenty of both here.