Apathy rules yet again

[poledark]

Fair enough John, but that has nothing to do with the topic. Once again I preceive apathy,"all this fuss over 3 or 4 fish"........

 

John, if it were only 3 or 4 fish then no problem, but otters eat every day, they have young which need feeding, and these young will grow up and multiply...2 becomes 6 this year, assuming equal sexes, then the following year there will be 18, Imagine the carnage they will inflict on the river.

 

Surely it does not take much imagination to see that they could wipe out a fishery in the space of a couple of years.

 

Den

[Charlie Bettell]

Fair enough John, but that has nothing to do with the topic. Once again I preceive apathy,"all this fuss over 3 or 4 fish"........

 

John, if it were only 3 or 4 fish then no problem, but otters eat every day, they have young which need feeding, and these young will grow up and multiply...2 becomes 6 this year, assuming equal sexes, then the following year there will be 18, Imagine the carnage they will inflict on the river.

 

Surely it does not take much imagination to see that they could wipe out a fishery in the space of a couple of years.

 

Den

I agree with every word of what you have said Den.

 

I have seen the dog otter three or four times in one day carrying/eating fish.

 

That one otter alone probably kills in the region of a dozen fish per day - if not more.

 

Otters use a lot of energy petrolling their range - that energy has to be replenished!!

[gozzer]

Fair enough John, but that has nothing to do with the topic. Once again I preceive apathy,"all this fuss over 3 or 4 fish"........

 

John, if it were only 3 or 4 fish then no problem, but otters eat every day, they have young which need feeding, and these young will grow up and multiply...2 becomes 6 this year, assuming equal sexes, then the following year there will be 18, Imagine the carnage they will inflict on the river.

 

Surely it does not take much imagination to see that they could wipe out a fishery in the space of a couple of years.

 

Den

 

Hi Den.

I'm not apathetic I assure you, I am just trying to put this in perspective.

 

I don't know the stretch of water, just what I've read, and, I don't claim to be an expert on otters, but I think I'm right in saying that if a water won't support a family, or food is short, then the young are chased off, and forced to move on to pastures new, or the young starve because the parents can't feed them. So they could never wipe out and entire stretch of water, because there must be enough fish to support them. This not the case with the pollution incident I mentioned, everything is wiped out in a case like that, even the plant life and the food that lives in it.

 

One thing that does puzzle me though, maybe you can enlighten me if you know the water. It appears from the reports that I've read that it's only the barbel that are being targeted. This seems strange to me. I would have thought that in a balanced fishery, that there would be easier food, that needed less energy to catch. Unless that is, the barbel in question were sick or old, and made easy pickings for the otters, if indeed it was otters that killed them.

 

John

[Charlie Bettell]

Hi Den.

I'm not apathetic I assure you, I am just trying to put this in perspective.

 

I don't know the stretch of water, just what I've read, and, I don't claim to be an expert on otters, but I think I'm right in saying that if a water won't support a family, or food is short, then the young are chased off, and forced to move on to pastures new, or the young starve because the parents can't feed them. So they could never wipe out and entire stretch of water, because there must be enough fish to support them. This not the case with the pollution incident I mentioned, everything is wiped out in a case like that, even the plant life and the food that lives in it.

 

One thing that does puzzle me though, maybe you can enlighten me if you know the water. It appears from the reports that I've read that it's only the barbel that are being targeted. This seems strange to me. I would have thought that in a balanced fishery, that there would be easier food, that needed less energy to catch. Unless that is, the barbel in question were sick or old, and made easy pickings for the otters, if indeed it was otters that killed them.

 

John

Your post shows a definite lack of understanding of the aquatic environment John.

 

Do you honestly think big fish are on the move all the time and have loads of energy to shoot off as soon as a predator larger than themselves comes into view?

 

Big fish are usually the most inactive of all fish present in a water - making them an easy target for an otter, mink, seal, etc.

 

To conserve energy, large fish will lay motionless on the bottom for hours on end - and often go into a deep state of torpor.

 

When large fish are in a deep state of torpor, they are fairly easy to catch - even with a landing net (!)

 

An otter would have no problem at all catching/grabbing a large lethargic/torpid fish.

 

Why chase loads of small fish to make one decent meal, using up loads of energy in the prosess, when you can grab one large fish and conserve energy.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Charlie Bettell

[chevin]

Your post shows a definite lack of understanding of the aquatic environment John.

 

making them an easy target for an otter, mink, seal, etc.

 

Ah, of course, a seal - I never thought of that!

[Bob Bradford]

What words are those Bob? Otters eat fish? Don't need a picture to tell us that.

 

[/quote)

 

Charlie Bettell wrote;

"The last time I did a thread on otters, I had people PMing me with regard to otters they had hooked, but did not want to go public about it - and who could blame them!!

 

If you don't think it's happening, that's your choice."

 

I was just nailing my colours to the mast John and responding in an economic way to Charlie's post, but if you want me to put more meat on the bones of this issue I will say this;

 

If our rivers could sustain a large Otter presence they would already be doing so, breeding and releasing Otters into the wild is a nice idea, but the consequences of this are badly thought out, the end result will be specimen fish killed and eaten while stocks last and then Otters starving to death, so whats the point?

[Leon Roskilly]

• Anglers in Suffolk are being terrorised by an otter as they reel in catches

 

• The male stalks fishermen as they cast their lines and lurks in reeds waiting for fish to take the bait

 

• As the anglers attempt to land their fish the otter rushes to snatch the catch

 

• One member of the Bungay Cherry Tree Angling Club spent three weeks trying to catch a 8lb tench. When he succeeded the rod was wrenched from his grip as the otter struck

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...2525854,00.html

[poledark]

Probably one that was used to being fed by man/woman before being released

 

Den

[Cranfield]

Otters tend to devour all of the fish they kill (unless disturbed by photographers, or fishing guides ) and will hide and return to a carcass.

 

The kill, one bite and then move on to the next fish, is more the habit of the mink and thats only where fish are plentiful.

Like most predators, the otter expends a lot of energy in trying to catch its food and hunts to eat, so it doesn't willingly waste food.

 

Just about every running water in the UK held otters in good numbers, right up into the '60's early '70's, none of these waters were emptied of fish.

 

Every one is entitled to their own opinion, but I can't understand how the population/distribution of otters in 2006/7 is causing a panic, when the far, far, greater population/distribution in the years pre mid '70's didn't.

[gozzer]

Every one is entitled to their own opinion, but I can't understand how the population/distribution of otters in 2006/7 is causing a panic, when the far, far, greater population/distribution in the years pre mid '70's didn't.

 

Neither can I Cranfield.

 

Your post shows a definite lack of understanding of the aquatic environment John.

You will have to pardon my ignorance Charlie. I too have watched fish lying stationary for long periods, (I get almost as much pleasure watching fish as I do catching them). But, unless the fish were sick, old or the water was an unusual temperature, then any unusual movement from myself, another angler, cattle, sheep or even a large bird flying over, sent them off into deeper water or under cover. This I stress, is just from my own experiences. As for catching them in a landing net, I have never tried except when rescuing them. If you have personal experience, or have witnessed this under normal circumstances, then, why, isn't it illegal?

 

"

The last time I did a thread on otters, I had people PMing me with regard to otters they had hooked, but did not want to go public about it - and who could blame them!!

 

If you don't think it's happening, that's your choice."

 

I was just nailing my colours to the mast John and responding in an economic way to Charlie's post, but if you want me to put more meat on the bones of this issue I will say this;

 

If our rivers could sustain a large Otter presence they would already be doing so, breeding and releasing Otters into the wild is a nice idea, but the consequences of this are badly thought out, the end result will be specimen fish killed and eaten while stocks last and then Otters starving to death, so whats the point?

 

Bob, I didn't say I thought it didn't happen. I said that, IMO more anglers baits were taken by wild foul than otters. Which can be down to people feeding them, as Den stated with otters not being afraid of man, but sees them as a source of a free meal.

The otter population dwindled because of pollution, persecution and loss of habitat, all these things caused by man. To reintroduce them into our waterways is just an attempt to atone for that mistake. As Cranfield said, there were many more otters around pre the 1960/70s. Whats changed? IMO it's angling and anglers. Though I don't agree with all your posts Bob, you have said that a lot of the motivation behind your thoughts on conservation is for selfish reasons, in that you want more fish available for anglers to fish for. I applaud you for your honesty, I wish more were as open about their motives. We appear to differ in our thoughts on what a 'fishery' is. To me it's a stretch of water, from which I attempt to catch fish, and enjoy the full 'package', ie, the fish I catch, as well as the wildlife that share the water with me. The modern view of a 'fishery' seems to me to be, a stretch of water where anglers have the monopoly on the catching of fish, where fish are valued by their size, their monetary worth, or their value to the ego or fame of certain anglers, and, anything that comes in the way of that must be dealt with.

 

 

As to the behaviour in the links provided by Leon. Most of that can also be attributed to the behaviour of pike. In fact a Mr Nudd said so in a recent article and was rightfully shot down for doing so. But maybe that doesn't count? After all pike have a value to the angler where otters and the like do not.

 

 

John

Edited January 2, 2007 by gozzer