Fishermen shoot 2,000 cormorants

[watatoad]

I know, tiresome isn't it.

 

 

 

A bit like otters and cormorants eating fish.

 

 

At last someone is getting it...sighs with relief

 

Exactly...The otters should have been left to their own devices survival or extinction it is irrelevant...They should never have been bred in captivity nor re-introduced. Under the false claim of It's the right and only thing to do. Let nature and natural law dictate the outcome if and when man is found to have worn out his welcome on the planet I have no doubt that nature will come up with a way to remove humanity or at least severely reduce the numbers of mankind.

 

Do it and say we are doing it as we want to see more otters around the country and don't give a toss for the businesses running commercial lakes or club and business failures or job losses, unless the looney greenies[/b] want to put their hands in their personal pockets to compensate those businesses and clubs who have suffered at their irresponsible actions...

 

...Though there may be a case under law for compensation from those reintroducing the otters by the businesses and clubs that have lost out because of their actions...I personally see no difference in breeding and reintroducing otters than animal experimentation and genetically modified whatever.

 

...Cormorants they come inland they get shot by the dominate predatory species man, that's nature the top of the predatory chain removes those below, just don't moan, accept it. The tiny minority of the looney greenies keeps expecting others to accept their dictates so they better get some practice in and start accepting the dictates of the vast majority.

 

I do not see the United States of America, China, India, Russia or wherever doing much to reduce the damage it is claimed they are causing nor do I see many signs that large corporations give a damn unless there is money to be made or saved.

[chesters1]

"The RSPB said fisheries can find ways to deter the birds by putting in place nets or scaring them off, rather than killing cormorants."

 

I've said "boo" to a goose on the odd occasion, but have never tried it with a cormorant.

the rspb haven't a clue (about anything) cormorants scare ? not ones i'v come across once they see man they lose their fear very quickly.

nets will cause more harm than good especially in a fishery if ofcourse their not nicked first night

and we do put tapes across the pond but i'v see them take of (landings easy) with ease if theres room to flap.

 

young corms will not land on taped lakes if theve never come across them but quickly learn watching older birds that do it with ease

Edited November 8, 2010 by chesters1

[watatoad]

What you have described in your above post, (apart from stating the obvious that is), is modern life on this little planet of ours.

 

What would be King Rodneys solution to all the 'evils' of modern day living? Not including the mass elimination of all the people you don't like.

 

Oh, and two little points. The depletion of marine fish stocks is down to much more than "too many mouths to feed". Pollution, habitat loss, localised climate change, and of course the loss through ill thought out 'fisheries policies', plus many more factors, have contributed to the problem.

Would you agree that anyone with real concern about the planet, would not have a line of gas guzzling cars lined up outside their house?

 

John.

 

I totally agree with you. I have simply reminded everyone of the obvious something always lacking from all looney greenie comments and statements.

 

A solution is not possible and cannot happen as it would require a worldwide agreement which included multinational corporations and religious interests as well as Governments and the general public.

 

My point is simple all the looney greenies should put their house/lives/person in line with their ideas and policies before they start telling the rest of us what we should do and in the meantime just learn put up with what the rest of us do.

 

Then and only then will the looney greenies become a minority truly concerned with the environment and nature and then they may deserve some respect and might be listened to. Although I doubt multinational corporations nor most Governments will give more than lip service to any talks concerning the environment or nature.

Edited November 8, 2010 by watatoad

[Dales]

Exactly...The otters should have been left to their own devices survival or extinction it is irrelevant...They should never have been bred in captivity nor re-introduced. Under the false claim of It's the right and only thing to do. Let nature and natural law dictate the outcome if and when man is found to have worn out his welcome on the planet I have no doubt that nature will come up with a way to remove humanity or at least severely reduce the numbers of mankind.

 

Do it and say we are doing it as we want to see more otters around the country and don't give a toss for the businesses running commercial lakes or club and business failures or job losses, unless the looney greenies[/b] want to put their hands in their personal pockets to compensate those businesses and clubs who have suffered at their irresponsible actions...

 

If I follow your logic and "they" should not have bred Otters in captivity and left them to their own devices, then is it the same for fish? We should not breed them and introduce them to fisheries? Maybe we should have left the fish to there own devices? If we had left the fish to there own devices, then no one would need to seek compensation as any one running a commercial fishery or club would not have had an outlay on stock and need any compensation

 

If a fishery or club feel the need to shoot Cormorants or any other species, then so be it. But it should not be hidden in any excuses about preserving a natural balance or any other kind of enviromental smoke screen. It is a purely a business decision and should be presented as such.

 

No one needs compensation unless they have interfered with the natural order of things in the first place.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Dales

[watatoad]

If I follow your logic and "they" should not have bred Otters in captivity and left them to their own devices, then is it the same for fish? We should not breed them and introduce them to fisheries? Maybe we should have left the fish to there own devices? If we had left the fish to there own devices, then no one would need to seek compensation as any one running a commercial fishery or club would not have had an outlay on stock and need any compensation

 

ANSWER:

I think most on here know that I do not approve of the overstocked puddles. You nearly have what I am trying rather badly to get across. Yes to the first part concerning the breeding and reintroduction of Otters.

I believe that would have been the best thing to do.

However man in his natural desire to hunt which has been extremely limited in the United Kingdom he has evolved and developed a way to hunt withing the bounds of modern society and is now which means he stocks lakes and ponds and even rivers, however he also removes and or eventually kills that which he has introduced, a bit like fishing in a goldfish bowl or a garden pond.

I may not like commercials but I have to accept that there is a need for them and a majority demand for them, that being to allow the natural instincts of man to grow, develop and evolve.

END ANSWER:

 

If a fishery or club feel the need to shoot Cormorants or any other species, then so be it. But it should not be hidden in any excuses about preserving a natural balance or any other kind of enviromental smoke screen. It is a purely a business decision and should be presented as such.

 

ANSWER:

I totally agree.

END ANSWER:

 

No one needs compensation unless they have interfered with the natural order of things in the first place.

 

ANSWER:

Again I totally agree, but if otters have been reintroduced or in some cases introduced, then there is and must be the possibility of compensation.

 

I also accept that I do play the Devils advocate on certain issues.

[watatoad]

What you have described in your above post, (apart from stating the obvious that is), is modern life on this little planet of ours.

 

ANSWER:

Pity more do not think of it. Yes I do know I am duplicating my response.

END ANSWER:

 

What would be King Rodneys solution to all the 'evils' of modern day living? Not including the mass elimination of all the people you don't like.

 

ANSWER:

To the best of my knowledge we have not had a 'King Rodney' Yet...hehehe...If it ever happens and it is King Rodney aka Toady...then pray to whatever you feel the need to worship...For there would be some very dramatic changes and I would not be very popular with multinational corporations nor those experimenting on animals for mankind's alleged benefit for veterinary reasons yes I can understand and accept but not for any other reasons. I am also and this will suprise many of you in favour of renewable energy sources...However luckily for you all...I am not going to give out my manifesto here but I will somewhere else if more than 100 anglers vote for it but I am also not putting up any votes...ONE TOAD ONE VOTE...hehehe

 

 

Oh, and two little points. The depletion of marine fish stocks is down to much more than "too many mouths to feed". Pollution, habitat loss, localised climate change, and of course the loss through ill thought out 'fisheries policies', plus many more factors, have contributed to the problem.

 

ANSWER:

That's the same as I was saying too many people equals more pollution, etc.

END ANSWER:

 

 

Would you agree that anyone with real concern about the planet, would not have a line of gas guzzling cars lined up outside their house?

 

ANSWER:

Yes I would agree with that and add I am not telling the majority to accept what I do as right and the only way. Nor am I saying I am a Greenie with greenie ideals and policies...although looney[/] well probably, I don't think that I can deny that although not proven ...as yet...hehehe

 

Incidentally my total mileage last year was under 1,500 miles and of that only a few hundred miles were done in my extremely efficient and very well maintained gas guzzling cars.

END ANSWER:

 

John.

[Anderoo]

Worms, any chance you could copy and paste some otter facts onto this topic please...

 

While we're at it, Watatoad, any chance you could link to some credible sources backing up your opinions on otters?

[Dales]

But it is not only commercial "mud puddles" that receive stockings of fish, even the more natural ones that we praise for there stocking policy would at some point in time have received an initial stock of fish. When rivers get polluted we restock with fish, so why not with Otters? or any other species of flora or fauna for that matter.

 

As I said in an earlier post, it just looks like all we care about is the fish stocks. Which is fine if that is the most important thing to some people but lets be honest about it and not dress it up as some kind of enviromental argument for calling for culls to protect some imagined natural balance.

 

I just find it hard to critise the introduction of Otters and see the introduction of fish as ok. It would smack of double standards to think one is fine and the other is wrong. The only reason for thinking stocking fish is ok would be purely selfish and for my own benefit and the reason to wish to block the introduction of Otters would because the perceived impact they would have on fish stocks and again for my own self interest.

[Worms]

Worms, any chance you could copy and paste some otter facts onto this topic please...

 

While we're at it, Watatoad, any chance you could link to some credible sources backing up your opinions on otters?

Oh, and I was so enjoying this little bit of banter

 

By the way Toady, what's your definition of a "greenie looney"?

[Dales]

By the way Toady, what's your definition of a "greenie looney"?

 

Any one who does not agree with him