For the introduction of non-lethal means of control of the Otter

[thecrow]

The bad one, you are on my ignore list and will stay there, the only time I see any of your posts is when they are quoted by other posters I wish I didn't but that's how the forum works unfortunately. I will not engage in any debate with you about anything until the constant rudeness and name calling stops, I don't expect that to be any time soon though which is a shame as you have some valid points at times that are wasted amongst those of us that are unwilling to debate in such a manner.

This interesting thread has been spoiled by drunken posts and rudeness one trying to wind people up another being unwilling to accept that other members views are just as valid to them as his own are to him.

:focus:

The petition that was the start of this thread has achieved what it set out to do that being the wider appreciation of the damage done by otters to wildlife and peoples valuable property, did anyone that signed it expect the government to start the process of changing the law because of it? of course not that was never imo the aim of the petition but every law change has to start somewhere just as the legal trapping of otters from fenced fisheries and the shooting of cormorants did, because a target is a difficult one to hit I don't believe that change shouldn't be aimed for.

 

[The bad one]

The bad one, you are on my ignore list and will stay there, the only time I see any of your posts is when they are quoted by other posters I wish I didn't but that's how the forum works unfortunately. I will not engage in any debate with you about anything until the constant rudeness and name calling stops, I don't expect that to be any time soon though which is a shame as you have some valid points at times that are wasted amongst those of us that are unwilling to debate in such a manner.

This interesting thread has been spoiled by drunken posts and rudeness one trying to wind people up another being unwilling to accept that other members views are just as valid to them as his own are to him.

:focus:

The petition that was the start of this thread has achieved what it set out to do that being the wider appreciation of the damage done by otters to wildlife and peoples valuable property, did anyone that signed it expect the government to start the process of changing the law because of it? of course not that was never imo the aim of the petition but every law change has to start somewhere just as the legal trapping of otters from fenced fisheries and the shooting of cormorants did, because a target is a difficult one to hit I don't believe that change shouldn't be aimed for.

I see you are still ignoring me mg:mg: I think you need to look up what that word means! Do you really think you are that important to me or this site that I care whether you ignore me or not? Nooooooooooooo I don't give a flying about it, you're an irrelevance that spend most of his time bleating on how innocent and hurt you are, whilst doling out to others precisely what you accuse others of and have done since you joined this site.
As to your view on the petition and what its achieved.... you keep deluding yourself of that, wiser heads than gobs on sticks know it's set back any serious attempts to tackle what localised problems there might be? years with Government and its officials as it made angling look like a bunch of idiots.

 

[The bad one]

the video will not be for your blinkered viewing because I feel whatever facts you are presented with , you will choose to ignore

Are you having a series of private views for selected people then that only agree with your point of view? Now I don't know how to put this to you, but I think your claim of otters taking lambs is made up to bolster your claim, as only you have ever claimed it. Never once have I heard any farmer (and I know and talk to few) on the Ribble catchment make such a ridiculous claim.

 

[thecrow]

 

[Neil Maidment]

There's probably still a fair bit to be discussed on this threads original topic and I think it's worth keeping open. But from now on please stop the personal attacks and keep it civil.

 

[thecrow]

There's probably still a fair bit to be discussed on this threads original topic and I think it's worth keeping open. But from now on please stop the personal attacks and keep it civil.

Yes Neil I agree there is still mileage in this thread but debate can only take place when all parties take part, I will not debate amongst insults and name calling from anyone that's the reason I used the ignore facility instead of being reduced to doing the same thing.

 

[Philip]

Crikey this thread just keeps getting Otter & Otter:flame:

 

[The bad one]

Agree Neil but there's to many people playing the victim whilst perpetrating it! Crying I'm offended for being offended whilst offending........

 

[thecrow]

I had a PM today about a very well run hard working club who have been the victim of an otter attack on one of their waters (it was captured on a motion detecting camera) the water in question is a long way from any river, knowing the hard work put in by the club committee and members it must be heartbreaking for them to see this damage.

This water being a long way from a river backs up previous posts about otter visiting small tributaries off larger rivers doing a lot of damage to the limited fish stocks of the tributaries, I just wonder if otters are not doing a lot of damage to waters near where they live why they are travelling so far to feed considering that their territories are large surely if they are not doing what a lot of anglers think they are doing there would be food nearer to home?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

It is always a shame to hear of any club losing valuable fish stocks due to whatever cause


Do you know if the venue protected by fencing?

 

[sam vimes]

How many anglers would support gamekeepers if they sought to "control" buzzards and red kites because they scoffed pheasants, partridge and grouse? How about ospreys because they make a meal of fish from the waters they visit? I doubt too many would support either option, and I'm convinced that there would be very little public support. I believe that exactly the same issue arises when anglers call for the ability to legally "control" otters. We are viewed in exactly the same light by the public as gamekeepers wanting to control various birds of prey.

 

[no-one in particular]

How many anglers would support gamekeepers if they sought to "control" buzzards and red kites because they scoffed pheasants, partridge and grouse? How about ospreys because they make a meal of fish from the waters they visit? I doubt too many would support either option, and I'm convinced that there would be very little public support. I believe that exactly the same issue arises when anglers call for the ability to legally "control" otters. We are viewed in exactly the same light by the public as gamekeepers wanting to control various birds of prey.

Its a question of rarity, when they are rare and heavily protected, shooting and culling is not an option but Buzzards are common now since the recovery from the myxomatosis outbreak. Although I believe they are mainly carrion eaters or rabbits which can be a pest, would the public complain if in some cases where they were seen to be eating game chicks, would the complaints be loud if politicking was not an issue in this particular example of course. Ospreys are still rare as are some Harriers.
The thing is if its common it seems OK to shoot or cull them were and when they are considered to do harm to peoples living. Thinking of wood pigeons, deer, rooks which are all fairly common and do harm to crops and trees etc, the public do not complain when these are shot or at least I have not heard of it. If they were rare then it might be a different story. Looking at it dispassionately, its a numbers/rarity /harm being done equation were you pitch control, culling and protection legislation. Cormorants were once quite rare, confined to remote sea cliffs for breeding and subject to protection, still are I believe except for license etc but in the numbers game is it necessary. But of course its not only a numbers game its human sensibilities as well which is were the Gov often seem to pitch their stance to me, maybe they have to.
The EA report on otters states they are at saturation point in some areas and expect all areas to reach saturation point in the next 10-20 years. So were could the Government pitch the control/culling/protection of otters now based on the numbers equation? That's if they could look at it dispassionately which of course they cannot.

One day we will have the same problem with beavers, not everyone is going to want them cutting trees down and building dams, while there are very few of them, lovely, once they start spreading everywhere....

 

[no-one in particular]

I
I just wonder if otters are not doing a lot of damage to waters near where they live why they are travelling so far to feed considering that their territories are large surely if they are not doing what a lot of anglers think they are doing there would be food nearer to home?

They have territories Crow but they can turn up anywhere, young otters have to roam to find territories of their own, sometimes older ones are pushed out and have to roam looking for new territories. Its natures way how they spread. Not all otters will find suitable territories and keep roaming.

 

[nottskev]

Re. Buzzards, it didn't take long to google up a case where a landowner was issued with a license to kill up to 10 buzzards to prevent damage to young pheasants. For some , this is the thin end of a wedge; for others, a sensible decision in a case-by-case approach, where the license issued was time-limited, came with strict conditions, was merited by evidence and other approaches had failed. There isn't a direct comparison, and in a case which turns on safeguarding a commercial interest, I'm rather with the buzzards. Nonetheless, it's an example where it's allowed that some control of a protected species can be justified by particular circumstances, and that strikes some as a sensible model. You might think that the status in law of a creature might depend on how rare or endangered it is, and that that status might need to be reviewed if it becomes more common and widespread and if its presence in these changed circumstances becomes a nuisance or a threat to other wildlife which, you might argue, has its own case for protection. I'm not advocating any particular action re otters, but I'm pointing to a case where "protected status" hasn't been held to be unquestionable, and that may seem reasonable as the distribution of a creature and what we come to know of its actual impact - as opposed to our predictions - grows clearer. I've not forgotten, going back a while, how shocked I was when I saw what cormorants - a different kettle of fish, I know - were doing to some waters and discovered they were a protected species. As far as I could see, the cormorants were thriving - it was the fish that needed protection.

 

[thecrow]

It is always a shame to hear of any club losing valuable fish stocks due to whatever cause


Do you know if the venue protected by fencing?

So far as I know only one of their fisheries is fenced, others are owned by the council and the club are waiting on a decision from them on permission to do it.

 

[thecrow]

They have territories Crow but they can turn up anywhere, young otters have to roam to find territories of their own, sometimes older ones are pushed out and have to roam looking for new territories. Its natures way how they spread. Not all otters will find suitable territories and keep roaming.

You could be right Mark although I believe that it was on a wander for food because where it lived prey was more difficult to find/catch.

 

[peter crabtree]

Government dismisses Otter Petition but Trust continues to press Natural England over otter releases - The Angling Trust

 

[thecrow]

This from the trust release bothers me as it looks as if anyone with a licence to care for injured otters can just release them wherever they want without any thought for other wildlife, imo injured otters should not be rehabilitated but allowed to die if that is what would have happened without intervention.

However, the Trust has committed to press Natural England to take action to end the unregulated release of otters which have been ‘rehabilitated’ after sustaining injuries from cars or fighting between themselves. These animals are currently released into the environment without any consultation or consideration of their impacts on nearby fisheries.

Then this

“The Government’s rejection of this petition was entirely predictable and it, along with many of the comments about it on social media, will have damaged the reputation of angling in the eyes of the public and politicians. We very much regret that the Barbel Society acted without any consultation with ourselves or any other organisation with expertise in fishery management or political lobbying. We were consequently unable to support the petition. Even the most pro-angling MP in parliament told us that the petition would achieve nothing.”

how has this damaged the reputation of anglers amongst the public, most of the public couldn't care less about anglers and why should the trust who have sat on the fence so long their backsides are full of splinters be consulted.

The trust are in the financial pockets of the EA who were part of the releases in the first place and imo are not going to rock the boat with them.

 

[tigger]

Re. Buzzards, it didn't take long to google up a case where a landowner was issued with a license to kill up to 10 buzzards to prevent damage to young pheasants. For some , this is the thin end of a wedge; for others, a sensible decision in a case-by-case approach, where the license issued was time-limited, came with strict conditions, was merited by evidence and other approaches had failed. There isn't a direct comparison, and in a case which turns on safeguarding a commercial interest, I'm rather with the buzzards. Nonetheless, it's an example where it's allowed that some control of a protected species can be justified by particular circumstances, and that strikes some as a sensible model. You might think that the status in law of a creature might depend on how rare or endangered it is, and that that status might need to be reviewed if it becomes more common and widespread and if its presence in these changed circumstances becomes a nuisance or a threat to other wildlife which, you might argue, has its own case for protection. I'm not advocating any particular action re otters, but I'm pointing to a case where "protected status" hasn't been held to be unquestionable, and that may seem reasonable as the distribution of a creature and what we come to know of its actual impact - as opposed to our predictions - grows clearer. I've not forgotten, going back a while, how shocked I was when I saw what cormorants - a different kettle of fish, I know - were doing to some waters and discovered they were a protected species. As far as I could see, the cormorants were thriving - it was the fish that needed protection.

Can you believe the government issue licences to kill bull finches ?....beyond belief imo.

 

[The bad one]

God somebody break that cracked record about the Trust
And as a matter of fact, not fake news, the EA only came into being in 1996 the Otter releases started in 1982 and finished in 1999. Even the NRA 1989-96 wasn't responsible for agreeing to the releases, it was the ten regional water authorities, pre 1989 and the JNCC