Total And Otter Bull?

[Sportsman]

Well I don't know. I regard otters, cormorants and foxes as pests that must be controlled. I don't want to eradicate any of these species to extinction, but the way the otters have taken hold in East Anglia should be a salutary lessen. They are very adapdable creatures that have taken advantage of the fact that most of our waterways are boardered by lakes which are artificially stocked with an unnatuarally high biomass of fish.

 

'Manage' the predaters is my view.

 

Given the choice I think that most members of the general population would rather "manage" the anglers.

[Steve Walker]

Well I don't know. I regard otters, cormorants and foxes as pests that must be controlled.

 

Most of the voting public regard them as wildlife that must be protected.

[gozzer]

They are very adapdable creatures that have taken advantage of the fact that most of our waterways are boardered by lakes which are artificially stocked with an unnatuarally high biomass of fish.

 

'Manage' the predaters is my view.

 

Exactly Andy, an unnaturally high level of prey, eventually equals unnaturally high level of predators. Stock to a more 'natural' level, and eventually you have less of a predator problem, they will "manage" themselves. It's called 'natural balance' and worked well enough before anglers decided that they wanted 'easier' fishing, and the creation of 'the angling industry'.

 

John.

[chesters1]

lets introduce otter predators that'll cure it ,a few crocs or marsh liking tigers etc

Edited May 21, 2010 by chesters1

[barry luxton]

lets introduce otter predators that'll cure it ,a few crocs or marsh liking tigers etc

 

There's plans afoot.

 

http://anglingtrust.forumotion.net/what-sh...up-t119.htm#938

 

bit i like in this one is that they blame the cormorants for the otters targetting other fish, with the choice word of concensus, this time in place of facts.

 

It's as if they liken the demise of the freshwater stocks by the preds, simular to a fleet of trawlers clearing out the stocks.

[andy_youngs]

There's plans afoot.

 

http://anglingtrust.forumotion.net/what-sh...up-t119.htm#938

 

bit i like in this one is that they blame the cormorants for the otters targetting other fish, with the choice word of concensus, this time in place of facts.

 

It's as if they liken the demise of the freshwater stocks by the preds, simular to a fleet of trawlers clearing out the stocks.

 

There's a lot of politics in this sure enough.

 

But I still don't understand what's wrong with the old established ways ... bring back the otter hounds and fox hounds so that country people can can control these species selectively in the areas where they are a problem. There was reason in our grandparents methods, and it's our loss if we ignore their legacy.

 

I agree that this is probably unpalatable to many people, especially those who grew up in the towns. But they're not the ones who have to live with the consequences.

 

Sure, some people will be upset by the implications of contolling preditors. It's a regrettable business, but the environment has to be managed in a sensible way.

 

The present approach is irrational, and designed to pander to politically correct section of the population who do not have to actually deal with the problem first hand.

[Worms]

There's a lot of politics in this sure enough.

 

But I still don't understand what's wrong with the old established ways ... bring back the otter hounds and fox hounds so that country people can can control these species selectively in the areas where they are a problem. There was reason in our grandparents methods, and it's our loss if we ignore their legacy.

 

I agree that this is probably unpalatable to many people, especially those who grew up in the towns. But they're not the ones who have to live with the consequences.

 

Sure, some people will be upset by the implications of contolling preditors. It's a regrettable business, but the environment has to be managed in a sensible way.

 

The present approach is irrational, and designed to pander to politically correct section of the population who do not have to actually deal with the problem first hand.

The problem with it is that hunting with hounds etc. whether for foxes or otters is largely carried out by the more wealthy members of the 'community' who can afford horses and the time to chase animals that spend most of their time eating farmer's pests and blackberries.

 

In this day and age the requirement for gangs of people hurtling across fields with a pack of hounds to kill a native predator that does farmers more good than harm is rather outdated. It may be seen as a bit different if you have laid down several thousand pheasants for some even richer blokes to shoot but, therein lies the rub. I don't support the killing of a native predator that kills and eats the easy pickings (non-native species) inserted in our environment for commercial gain.

 

I have worked for and shot with a pheasant shoot. That shoot charged ridiculously large amounts of money for wealthy wannabes to shoot pheasants on driven shoots. The money received from one day would have paid for the installation of high fences, electric fencing and other deterrents. Instead they paid one 'gamekeeper' and assistant a paltry sum to use illegal and/or inhumane methods to keep 'pests' away from the birds. The local hunt also got involved and spent a lot of time scaring the sheep (and pheasants!) and flattening the crops whilst the foxes looked on.

 

Modern stocked pool fishing is, in my view, no different. The otter population has increased largely naturally in most parts of the country because the wild fish stocks can support the expansion and, as an extra, man has provided easy to catch fish in small pools. Easy, fence the ponds.

 

Farmers spend vast amounts to fence their stock in why don't fish 'farmers'?

 

Perhaps anglers have it too easy. As I keep saying, I fish wild waters that have a healthy otter population (and have had otters even through the dark days of otter disappearance). The rivers are not stocked and the fishing is the best it has been in my memory of the past 40 odd years.

 

The environment 'needs' managing because Humans interfere (the re-introduction of a few otters is largely irrelevant when compared with the hundreds of thousands of fish, native and non-native that get put into UK waters every year) with it. A natural predator succeeds because of sensible management of water, fisheries and habitat and a commercially based sport gets up in arms based on the unscientific ramblings of a few uneducated journalists and non-native fish fanciers!

 

Tough!

[andy_youngs]

The problem with it is that hunting with hounds etc. whether for foxes or otters is largely carried out by the more wealthy members of the 'community' who can afford horses and the time to chase animals that spend most of their time eating farmer's pests and blackberries.

 

In this day and age the requirement for gangs of people hurtling across fields with a pack of hounds to kill a native predator that does farmers more good than harm is rather outdated. It may be seen as a bit different if you have laid down several thousand pheasants for some even richer blokes to shoot but, therein lies the rub. I don't support the killing of a native predator that kills and eats the easy pickings (non-native species) inserted in our environment for commercial gain.

 

I have worked for and shot with a pheasant shoot. That shoot charged ridiculously large amounts of money for wealthy wannabes to shoot pheasants on driven shoots. The money received from one day would have paid for the installation of high fences, electric fencing and other deterrents. Instead they paid one 'gamekeeper' and assistant a paltry sum to use illegal and/or inhumane methods to keep 'pests' away from the birds. The local hunt also got involved and spent a lot of time scaring the sheep (and pheasants!) and flattening the crops whilst the foxes looked on.

 

Modern stocked pool fishing is, in my view, no different. The otter population has increased largely naturally in most parts of the country because the wild fish stocks can support the expansion and, as an extra, man has provided easy to catch fish in small pools. Easy, fence the ponds.

 

Farmers spend vast amounts to fence their stock in why don't fish 'farmers'?

 

Perhaps anglers have it too easy. As I keep saying, I fish wild waters that have a healthy otter population (and have had otters even through the dark days of otter disappearance). The rivers are not stocked and the fishing is the best it has been in my memory of the past 40 odd years.

 

The environment 'needs' managing because Humans interfere (the re-introduction of a few otters is largely irrelevant when compared with the hundreds of thousands of fish, native and non-native that get put into UK waters every year) with it. A natural predator succeeds because of sensible management of water, fisheries and habitat and a commercially based sport gets up in arms based on the unscientific ramblings of a few uneducated journalists and non-native fish fanciers!

 

Tough!

 

Thanks for the post Worms. Well argued Sir.

 

That said, it's probably an issue that we're never going to agree on. There are real divisions out there in our society on this issue, and it's therefore natural that this should be reflected on the net.

 

First of all, I do not subscribe to your notion that bringing back the fox hounds and the otter hounds is akin to "gangs of people hurtling across fields with a pack of hounds to kill a native predator that does farmers more good than harm"

 

Done properly, I see it as a perfectly legitimate way of controlling a pest species. Out here in the wilds of provincial Norfolk we still control rats and mice with dogs, and I'm afraid I don't really see any difference between that and controlling foxes and otters with dogs. They're all pests that eat into human endeavours to make a living out of the countryside.

 

Like you Worms, I have worked on, and participated in pheasant shoots. I really don't have a problem with it. As far as I'm concerned it's a perfectly legitimate way of harvesting food, and a damn site more ethical than Bernard Matthews method. Sure, the wealthiest members of society get the best pheasant shooting, just like they also get the best salmon fishing. That's just the way of the world, and it aint gonna change, especially not through the politics of envy.

 

I also disagree with you that it's easy to fence in ponds. It's not easy, it's very difficult, and very expensive. Sure you can try to push as much of this cost onto landowners as possible, but the reality is that many of them simply haven't got the money to pay for it.

 

So who ends up footing the bill? ... inevitably it comes down to the taxpayer, and from the noises coming out of Whitehall at the moment, they ain't got any money either. And anyway, why should the taxpayer have to pay for fencing in ponds and lakes when a bullet between the eyes or a bite on the back of the neck from an otter hound will do the job just as effectively at a fraction of the cost?

 

You tell us that you fish wild waters that have a healthy otter population. Lucky you.

 

However what we're discussing here are managed waters that have a healthy fish population, and an even healthier predator population.

 

Finally, I suggest that you sum it all up very succinctly by saying that "the environment needs managing because humans interfere"

 

I agree. We interfere, so we should deal with the consequences in a rational way.

[Worms]

You're right, we probably never will agree on the subject but good natured discussion such as this does no harm (and lets off a bit of steam!).

 

The main issue with "managing" any predator by killing it whilst the prey species are unprotected is that you create a void that will shortly be filled by another predator. The efficiency of this method is then called into question and the ethical debates start.

 

Lieutenant-Colonel Cholmondley Asquith Nobdodger (retd) claims that it's all in a days fun and nobody gets hurt and the bally old fox/otter/deer loved the chase through the estate.

 

On the other hand Jemima Hardballs of the 'save the squidgy things' claimed it was awfully terrible and distressing to see grown men chasing poor little balls of fluff and then mashing them into the ground with their heels as they guffawed, farted and drank their way back to "Pinky" Furtlehythe's for another 8 bottles of port and a damned good bu**ering.

 

That's when the politics starts. All sense goes out of the window and public outrage will automatically be directed at anybody who suggests killing the predator, regardless of any knowledge of the subject.

 

I base my views on the fact that a correctly managed fishery i.e. managed to be as natural as possible will strike a predator prey balance very quickly. This will be sustainable.

 

If the fishery is not managed in as natural a way as possible I would want to know why not. Talk of profit margins doesn't enter into it for me I'm afraid and, whilst anglers may suffer fish losses, the general public will feel (rightly) pi**ed off that a bunch of stupid fishermen catching fat fish in ponds are causing otters to be killed. It's a no brainer to me.

[andy_youngs]

OK Worms, we'll have to agree to disagree on the ethics of hunting with dogs.

 

On just about everything else, I think we could probably reach a consensus.

 

I certainly agree that anglers would be treading a very dangerous path if they decide to openly call for otter and cormorant culls.

 

My earlier statements are based purely on of my own personal convictions, and I would very much hope that "angling plc" presents a much more sensitive and politically acceptable policy to the public at large.

 

The adverse consequences of a public backlash would hurt anglers and angling far more than otters ever could.

Edited June 3, 2010 by andy_youngs