Fishermen shoot 2,000 cormorants

[Worms]

Any one who does not agree with him

Blimey, that many

 

On to more serious things though, a few points that we should remember regarding cormorants to start with. The increase in numbers of cormorants has, in fact, litle or possibly nothing to do with declining marine coastal fish stocks. In recent years we have seen a significant increase in the number of 'inland' cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis). This is a different sub-species to the 'coastal' Great Cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo carbo. The first is widely distributed across continental Europe to Asia (hence the name and the ID of the type specimen), the latter, more locally distributed in north western Europe.

 

The inland bird is the one that appears to colonise new waters more readily. It is not known how long this sub-species has been in the UK but cormorants have been recorded inland since mediaeval times. The coastal sub-species is more commonly seen at the coast but wil breed inland and colonies may be particularly more apparent during the winter months when weather conditions at the coast may make hunting more difficult.

 

Numbers of both species just so happened to increase during the 1960s and 70s........coincidentally as pond and wetland areas were restored/created and being stocked with fish!

 

Sorry for posting liberal 'greenie looney' information but as an 'eco-mentalist' I have to work with the facts as they are. I would get into serious trouble if I started manufacturing information to justify my sport of hooking wild fish, playing them to exhaustion and then releasing them.......before driving off in my gas guzzling V8 Chelsea Tractor! I've done about 30,000 miles so far this year as I find it impossible to live all over the country at one time....I suppose I could buy about half a dozen houses spread across the country and save fuel money that way

 

More on otters to come!

Edited November 8, 2010 by Worms

[Dales]

Thanks Worms, as usual very informative.

[Anderoo]

Thanks Worms

[watatoad]

Blimey, that many

 

On to more serious things though, a few points that we should remember regarding cormorants to start with. The increase in numbers of cormorants has, in fact, litle or possibly nothing to do with declining marine coastal fish stocks. In recent years we have seen a significant increase in the number of 'inland' cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis). This is a different sub-species to the 'coastal' Great Cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo carbo. The first is widely distributed across continental Europe to Asia (hence the name and the ID of the type specimen), the latter, more locally distributed in north western Europe.

 

The inland bird is the one that appears to colonise new waters more readily. It is not known how long this sub-species has been in the UK but cormorants have been recorded inland since mediaeval times. The coastal sub-species is more commonly seen at the coast but wil breed inland and colonies may be particularly more apparent during the winter months when weather conditions at the coast may make hunting more difficult.

 

Numbers of both species just so happened to increase during the 1960s and 70s........coincidentally as pond and wetland areas were restored/created and being stocked with fish!

 

ANSWER:

Sorry you statement is contrary to published scientific fact. Therefore your comment/statement is not as exactly true as you would like us to think. http://www.bto.org/birdtrends2009/wcrcormo.shtml As for the 'invading'['i] species, it would appear that they are far more localised and seasonal than you imply or think http://www.avibirds.com/pdf/A/Aalscholver1.pdf

 

 

Sorry for posting liberal 'greenie looney' information but as an 'eco-mentalist' I have to work with the facts as they are. I would get into serious trouble if I started manufacturing information to justify my sport of hooking wild fish, playing them to exhaustion and then releasing them.......before driving off in my gas guzzling V8 Chelsea Tractor! I've done about 30,000 miles so far this year as I find it impossible to live all over the country at one time....I suppose I could buy about half a dozen houses spread across the country and save fuel money that way

 

ANSWER:

As is the norm the liberal looney greenie statements and information are incorrect, misleading and lack factual foundation as usual.

 

As a crazy Toad I don't feel inclined to manufacture anything except fishing tackle and models for my other hobbies.

 

But if your really want I think I can comfortably fill several posts with pure and proven scientific fact...there is so much out there including the lack of research into the reason and alleged need for the breeding, reintroduction and introduction of Otters...Think back I have done this before so no problem.

 

You could change your job. Or use public transport more...sorry but this all is starting to sound like desperate hypocrisy to me.

 

I do not feel any need to justify myself nor my sport.

 

Nor do I feel the need to convert, browbeat or con others into thinking all greenie ideas and actions are correct. In my opinion they are lacking in provable scientific foundation and fact, dictatorial, non scientific, ill-considered, contrary to the general benefit and well being of society as a whole.

 

More on otters to come!

Edited November 8, 2010 by watatoad

[Worms]

ANSWER:

Sorry you statement is contrary to published scientific fact. Therefore your comment/statement is not as exactly true as you would like us to think. http://www.bto.org/birdtrends2009/wcrcormo.shtml As for the 'invading'['i] species, it would appear that they are far more localised and seasonal than you imply or think http://www.avibirds.com/pdf/A/Aalscholver1.pdf

Which statement is incorrect? I've read the two references you listed and they appear to corroborate what I was saying. Come on man if you want to bandy scientific articles then fine but be specific.

 

ANSWER:

As is the norm the liberal looney greenie statements and information are incorrect, misleading and lack factual foundation as usual.

 

which statements are "incorrect, misleading and lack factual foundation as usual."?

 

As a crazy Toad I don't feel inclined to manufacture anything except fishing tackle and models for my other hobbies.

 

But if your really want I think I can comfortably fill several posts with pure and proven scientific fact...there is so much out there including the lack of research into the reason and alleged need for the breeding, reintroduction and introduction of Otters...Think back I have done this before so no problem.

 

Can't recall any of your otter posts myself Toady.

 

You could change your job. Or use public transport more...sorry but this all is starting to sound like desperate hypocrisy to me.

 

Why would I want to change my job? Public transport? you are a wag!

 

 

I do not feel any need to justify myself nor my sport.

Neither do I, I was making a mildly sarcastic comment

 

Nor do I feel the need to convert, browbeat or con others into thinking all greenie ideas and actions are correct. In my opinion they are lacking in provable scientific foundation and fact, dictatorial, non scientific, ill-considered, contrary to the general benefit and well being of society as a whole.

 

Neither do I. The fact that you find it difficult to see past a bit of common sense or, that restoration of wildlife habitat and the creatures that benefit from it (including the fish that you like to catch) is seen by you as greenie looney is just a bit "80s builder speak".

 

Tarring anybody that sees the tiny number of otter re-introductions as good as a "greenie looney" is a little behind the times and rather sad to see in somebody who considers himself an angler of natural waters. don't forget, your inference that all "greenie looneys" should be vegans rather excludes them from angling.......hmm!.....Is KB back with a new ID?

[watatoad]

Questions Worms[/b]

 

400 migrating cormorants is hardly an invasion or is it?

 

Why does most of Europe feel the need for regular culls and close monitoring of cormorants?

 

Why did the otters die out?

 

Why should public money be spent to breed otters in captivity?

 

Why should they be reintroduced artificially?

 

Why should they be introduced by man where none were known before?

 

My personal definition of looney greenie a person or minority group of people who try to dictate or force their idea's and agenda's on the majority at the expense of the majority.

Edited November 8, 2010 by watatoad

[poledark]

Another of those discussions that will lead nowhere!

 

This is supposed to be a fishing forum, but seems to be used by some to argue the case for fish predators, and they will never concede an inch.

 

My main concern is the inflammatory article which started this off (again) .............."fishermen" have NOT shot 2000 cormorants.....................fishery owners and fish breeders may have done, in a legitimate attempt to protect their stocks/business'

 

I have watched a group of 20 or more take off from the trees where they were drying themselves, fly downwind and land on the lake, and simultaneously and almost in formation, work their way up the lake, many catching quality fish on the way. This was being repeated almost every 30 minutes all day and every day for about a month. This was a "big carp" water, so most of the anglers turned a blind eye to it.

 

I read a report recently regarding the R Stour in Kent relating the the Otter population. The conclusions were mainly taken from the number of "spraints" found. I found it laughable to be honest, there is no way anyone can say with any certainty (or even probability) that they have surveyed both sides and almost every yard of bank of that river. A simple glance will tell most people that large parts of the bank are innacessible to man, and so any "survey" will have to have been VERY limited in its scope. So limited as to be not worth the paper it was written on.

 

If that "survey" is the way that other surveys are conducted then I feel quite justified in dismissing the results.

 

 

 

Den

[Worms]

Hi, Den,

 

To a point you are right. I will never concede the point that fish predators do not eat fish. They do. Whilst native predators eat fish then, if stocks of native, wild fish are damaged by such predators then I would possibly see some justification for control. Until then I will sit and watch otters, kingfishers, herons, dippers, ospreys, polecats, foxes, blackbirds, pike, chub, perch, barbel, roach, brown trout, eels, dace, grass snakes etc. etc. eat the prey that they have evolved to eat.

 

If financially orientated fishery owners want to cull native wildlife doing what it does naturally so they can live the life that we would all like to lead then sorry, I have no sympathy. As a top predator we have endowed ourselves with laws that mean we cannot eat the majority of wild fish in our rivers but, where is the logic in applying the same ridiculous rules to wildlife?

 

As to otter surveys, you are right in that some banks are inaccessible (to Humans). However, slides, day-rests, common marking points (usually in obvious and accessible places) and holts can usually be spotted from one bank or another and, for the guys that actually do the surveys, waders and boats come in quite handy. As I've said many times before, the best natural fishing will be on rivers that have a natural balance. That will involve top predators.

 

Regards, Nick.

[watatoad]

Here yet again Den and I are in agreement...what's going on Den we are not suppose to agree...hehehe

[John S]

Odd, I thought this thread was about cormorants, yet after the third post it's almost all about otters. Want to get back on topic for a change?