I'd agree with you there, but DEFRA has publish quite a long consultation on how to protect a fishery from otters where they are a problem.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.u...water_fisheriesv4_080501_FINAL_PRINT-CGS3.pdf I realise that this involves spending cash and not every business would cope with this but TBH tough they wouldn't be the first or last groups of businesses to go under because of environmental issues, and they do get grants to cover some of the cost of this. Of course there are other issues, firstly you can't really be advocating eradicating a native species to the benefit of only one (relatively small) group of UK business and secondly if you do that then it follow follows you'd advocate the eradication of every species that causes an issue to any UK business. Localised culling is a very short term solution......
Totally agree that on privately-run fisheries the owners do have to take responsibility towards protecting their stock but when the threat can be contained at the source, so to speak, then why not look at that route instead?
I'm not advocating eradication. I'm advocating a structured plan of action that maintains a balance of nature that sits alongside a massive industry that exists, whether you like it or not. Fisheries of the commercial variety are here to stay and they have to be figured into the balance of nature but not hung out to dry because they haven't been around since the year dot. As I've said, fisheries will not be the decision-makers but they will put their side of the story across to make sure they are represented fairly and not looked down on as a niche industry, which they most definitely are not.
.....I'm not sure how the recovery of a population of native animals, largely organically, and the improvements to the river environment that have helped this can be described as a problem, but that just semantics. I'm not naive enough to think that fish appear from thin air and waterways maintain themselves, but by the same count its not just fishermen who maintain the waterways, theres a whole heap of leisure industry around our rivers and I'm sure most of the others won't support a cull......
I didn't suggest you were naive, just that many members of the general public don't quite understand how anglers contribute greatly to the maintenace of waterways.
My other point is canoeists, boaters, powered watersports users and those on the towpath don't rely on water quality and fish stocks to participate in their pastime. Anglers do. Anything that can threaten that sport has to be dealt with by the relevant authorities in the appropriate manner. If that means a cull, backed up by the data to support that decision, then fine. If not a cull, but a movement of population, then again, if the data supports it then that's how it has to work.
...I struggle ( & correct me if I'm wrong) to believe waterways, some widely fished, outside of managed fisheries are stocked intentionally by those commercial fisheries. Those commercial (and thats the key word) can take effective measures to protect there businesses. Like every animal at the top of the food chain, you don't see over population......
Yes, commercial fisheries by their very nature as a commercial enterprise, stock and manage their stock carefully and with mortality rates figured into their economic year, although when unwanted predators make the fishery their home then obviously financial strains are placed on the fishery. But natural waterways, or those not run as a commercial enterprise (canals for example) receive stocking but in the cases of clubs (of which there are many, albeit with generally small memberships) they have limited funds to maintain a level of stocking and if stocks diminish through predation then they are looking for finances where there are none.
....if they catch a large fish then maybe, but as a non fisherman, its equally shocking to see a keep net full of large and obviously distressed fish held by an angler.....
I debate the distress angle. But I fear by your stance as a non-angler (and mine as a life-long angler) we'd be wasting our time if we covered that subject. I'll leave that to the scientists.
....TBH, as a non angler I can understand you're love of the sport, but at the same time I also think its s kind of weak argument that some anglers want instant gratification. Thats there problem and if they aren't prepared to put effort in why should they be able to influence what happens to the environment around them?.....
It's not a weak argument, it's just a sign of the times. I can remember when I started angling there was no way on earth I could experience sport that can be had today. I did my apprenticeship and I'm proud that I love angling as a whole, and not just for the catching of fish. Unfortunately, those who want a quick fix exist and but they play a big part in keeping the angling industry going. When the rivers took a nosedive thanks to pollution back in the 80s and 90s, commercials played their part in keeping anglers interested when rivers were all but dead. Without them the UK angling industry wouldn't be where it's at now. I'm grateful for that and if that keeps people coming into the sport, especially kids who may be doing other less wholesome activities, surely there's a case for giving it a helping hand once in a while?
....The last I read it was about £3.6bn and about 16,000 jobs. In all seriousness though, are you seriously suggesting that and industry of that size can't manage to fund protecting itself, and there are effective ways. Its a business, albeit it one run for sportsmen, but if your costs go up, and you need to do what every other business does and put your prices up, or go under, I know some will. I know that sad, but at the end of the day lots of other businesses will go under as a result of environmental and legislative changes. Just because its fishing doesn't make it special in that way. I remember the change from lead shot in fishing some years ago, and I also remember a fair number of economic arguments then. The industry survived didn't it?.....
It did survive, no arguing about that, but the use of lead shot wasn't eradicated (it's still in use today) and to be fair, lead shot isn't one of the major financial incomes of the angling industry nor one that's required by all anglers. All it meant was we (anglers) moaned about having to use alloy shot that A) was harder, so therefore more difficult to cut and remove, and B) it wasn't great to move on the line because it damages it more (among other reasons). Plus, using alloy shot was just something we had to do - there were still fish to be caught, unlike these days in certain waterways.
....The angling industry is the only body thats suggesting any form of cull. From a non angling perspective its just another daft call from a sport, that has shown little consideration for it environment beyond its very narrow needs. I do agree that something needs to be learned from whats happened with cormorants, but I think some searching questions need to be asked about the causes of their inland population explosion, and I certainly think that simply saying overstocked fisheries are by the by isn't any way forward. Even if you could just shoot every one on an inland waterway if you didn't do something about the causes then in 20 years they'd be a problem again. I grew up about 3 miles down the road from Holme Pierrepont and I know how much damage they've caused there, but if you sit in my folks garden watching the river 3 miles upstream you may see the odd one, but its not stocked of course so a far more normal level of fish. To my mind the simple answer lies just there. You could just fish lakes fenced to keep the otters out, under nets to keep the cormorant out but it would be very sterile. .....
There have been culls suggested because it's the only industry that relies on fish stocks to be available. It's not daft, it's important to the longevity of a sport that is part of British culture for many millions.
Of course, overfishing of the sea hasn't helped in the case of cormorants, but why do UK fishery owners and anglers have to bear the brunt of EU policies miles out to sea?
As for Holme - it was the 1994 world champs that made people sit up and realise that there could be a problem. It was in decline running up to the event but even with additional stocks, it fared no better; the cormorants came in their droves and ate their fill. These days the Trent is in reasonable shape - more fish (big fish anyway) and it's cleaner - but the cormorants have moved to the fisheries and to be fair, they don't favour large conurbations like Nottingham so I don't expect the embankment to be awash with them.
....no your straying very close to politics
.....
...and that's somewhere I am not going
H[/QUOTE]
