Angling Trust acts to relocate seal to protect Severn fish stocks

[Guest 1lastcast]

As this seal is on my patch well up the road you can imagine the amount of local interest from anglers and non anglers. I have read of eye accounts that 'Sammy' the seal formally known as Keith, scoffs as much as 80 lb of fish a day, or in real terms about 10 barbel and the rest is made up of quality roach.

So the dilemma is that anglers are witnessing 'their' stretch being cleared of Barbel, and due to the sensitive nature of the public at large and in that the local school kids have given the name Sammy, they cannot utter a word in support of mere fish stocks, or of course Angling, and Anglers.

So probably the best thing to do is bite one's lips and hope the thing will move back to the sea once all the fish have been eaten.

[Anderoo]

As this seal is on my patch well up the road you can imagine the amount of local interest from anglers and non anglers. I have read of eye accounts that 'Sammy' the seal formally known as Keith, scoffs as much as 80 lb of fish a day, or in real terms about 10 barbel and the rest is made up of quality roach.

So the dilemma is that anglers are witnessing 'their' stretch being cleared of Barbel, and due to the sensitive nature of the public at large and in that the local school kids have given the name Sammy, they cannot utter a word in support of mere fish stocks, or of course Angling, and Anglers.

So probably the best thing to do is bite one's lips and hope the thing will move back to the sea once all the fish have been eaten.

 

It's going to eat all the fish?

 

I think the current reactions to anything that happens to eat fish is angling's legacy from decades of making fishing more and more artificial, to the point now where 'we' think if fish aren't in a fenced and patrolled pool somewhere, it's inevitable that they're going to be wiped out by fish-eating monsters that have only just sprung into existence.

 

Our ultimate goal seems to be getting ourselves ridiculed in the first instance, then hated, then banned. Funnily enough all this seems to have gathered speed under our new governing body.

 

Remember all those posts, articles and reports 5 years ago about otters, saying if 'we' didn't do something NOW there'd be no fish left in 5 years' time?

 

Otters, seals, herons, kingfishers, predatory fish, non-predatory fish - all part of the natural world. The artificial side of angling aside, we dip in and out of the natural world for our own amusement. If we do have to have a governing body, it should be one that has a bit of intelligence and understands what is actually in angling's best interest - and that isn't wiping out anything that has evolved to eat fish.

[Guest 1lastcast]

It's going to eat all the fish?

 

I think the current reactions to anything that happens to eat fish is angling's legacy from decades of making fishing more and more artificial, to the point now where 'we' think if fish aren't in a fenced and patrolled pool somewhere, it's inevitable that they're going to be wiped out by fish-eating monsters that have only just sprung into existence.

 

Our ultimate goal seems to be getting ourselves ridiculed in the first instance, then hated, then banned. Funnily enough all this seems to have gathered speed under our new governing body.

 

Remember all those posts, articles and reports 5 years ago about otters, saying if 'we' didn't do something NOW there'd be no fish left in 5 years' time?

 

Otters, seals, herons, kingfishers, predatory fish, non-predatory fish - all part of the natural world. The artificial side of angling aside, we dip in and out of the natural world for our own amusement. If we do have to have a governing body, it should be one that has a bit of intelligence and understands what is actually in angling's best interest - and that isn't wiping out anything that has evolved to eat fish.

Well you see I am with you on this one albeit with some reservations. However there seems to be an Elephant in the room here and of course in natures scheme of things in that the predators that predate in smaller venues such as inland Rivers are of a sustainable type, as you outlined Otter, Herons, Kingsfisher, et all, BUT a Seal is not a inland River predator very much costal, and is 100 miles or so 'off side'. and it is not sustainable.

 

When you think that as Anglers we have to accept the Otter as an apex predator taking fish, which by and large we have, and have been gracious too, to tolerate a 300lb seal is something you might want to consider selling to the local Anglers in Bewdley, perhaps you might convince them of the merits of your arguments regarding Intelligence and Angling's best interest?

 

I can book you if you wish.

[Latimeria]

I bet that if the seal had been hitting the wild bird population, the RSPB would be wanting the same done. Don't forget, they were the organisation that lobbied for and got a cull of the Ruddy Duck some years ago. Twice....

 

I'd expect a moderator to be a bit better informed about a subject before commenting like this, to be honest. There's plenty of material out there on the valid reasons for that cull. There's no comparison between that and the occurrence of a native mammal slightly outside it's natural range.

[John S]

I'd expect a moderator to be a bit better informed about a subject before commenting like this, to be honest. There's plenty of material out there on the valid reasons for that cull. There's no comparison between that and the occurrence of a native mammal slightly outside it's natural range.

 

Yes, it was because the Ruddy duck was doing something naughty to some other ducks in Spain.

 

I used to be a Fellow of the RSPB at the time (mid to late 90's), but left because of the cull (which incidentally was condemned by many members of the group). Soon they will be extinct in England, so well done that conservation group.

 

And what's being a moderator got to do with it? We're not all-knowing

[Elton]

And what's being a moderator got to do with it? We're not all-knowing

 

Moderator school isn't what it used to be. I still remember packing your dinner every day, making sure you'd tucked your shirt into your shorts and done your laces up properly, giving you 10p for the tuck shop and seeing you through the gates.

 

And for what?

[Dales]

There is a page about it in the Mirror today "Kill Keith the Seal, anglers claim animal is eating all their fish"

 

"Angling Trust chief executive Mark Lloyd said the shooting would be a last resort, he added although this option will clearly be highly unpopular with the crowd of people who have come down to watch the seal it may be the only course of action available to save the fishery from being irreparably damaged by this predator which has got stuck above several locks and weirs"

 

Mr Lloyd said " We will try everything possible to remove it humanly but more drastic action may be the only option"

 

Do the Angling Trust really believe they speak for all anglers? This is just another episode where they have dragged the reputation of angling through the mud. What do they expect the outcome to be?

 

It would be nice to open a newspaper some day and find an article about fishing that does not contain the words KILL or CULL when they talk about anything that does not have fins.

[Latimeria]

Yes, it was because the Ruddy duck was doing something naughty to some other ducks in Spain.

 

I used to be a Fellow of the RSPB at the time (mid to late 90's), but left because of the cull (which incidentally was condemned by many members of the group). Soon they will be extinct in England, so well done that conservation group.

 

And what's being a moderator got to do with it? We're not all-knowing

 

The Ruddy Duck isn't native to the UK, and isn't in any immediate danger in its natural range, so what's the problem? Indeed, well done, the species is no longer here. The cull was judged necessary to protect the genetic integrity of a threatened European species, doesn't matter if a few people who didn't understand objected.

Got nowt to do with being "all knowing", more about having the judgement not to make nonsensical statements.

[Steve Walker]

Mark Lloyd thinks the fishery could be "irreparably damaged" - you couldn't "irreparably" damage it with a ton of rotenone.

[Phone]

Lat,

 

You're making a case for "two sides to any story". If you "won" why are you condemning the loosers. The winners always write history as "factual".

 

However, I agree, Mods. have no business having an opinion. USE YOUR DELETE KEY!

 

Phone