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

[lutra]

To take your example - how should we "kick off" about pollution? Do we have any effective channels? Any influential organisations? I'm asking, quite literally, what can we do, since so far in this thread we've been debating, according to authoritative -sounding posters, a dead-end idea.

It would be less depressing to hear about some better ways to put our shared frustrations about "sick rivers" to some effect.

I 100% agree with you. We (that's anglers and its governing bodies) need to stop seeing otters as the problem and see them as an indicator of the mess our rivers are in. I'm just not sure we can get our heads around that.

The need for cleaner rivers is one thing most anglers agree on, but its a massive problem and outside angling there isn't much will to spend the money it would need to try and do things to sort it out. It would cost billions. Easier and Cheaper to get anglers to pay for the EA to keep chucking more fish in and hide the problem.........

The Angling trust was a great idea, but It hasn't worked IMO.

 

[mikench]

We must address the wider issue of pollution of our planet with plastics, pesticides, chemicals, household waste etc. If we ( the world) cared more then our rivers, lakes and oceans might improve and thus the natural habitats for life would too!

The reality would be however that with such improvements would be an increase in both predators and prey! That's nature for you! But at least if our oceans and seas held more sandeels , as an example, and other prey species , cormorants would not feel the need to visit our rivers and lakes.

 

[steve2]

In order to address the wider issues facing angling we would all have to come together as anglers.
The days this happens will be when pigs fly past my window.
We would much rather fight each other .

 

[thecrow]

We must address the wider issue of pollution of our planet with plastics, pesticides, chemicals, household waste etc. If we ( the world) cared more then our rivers, lakes and oceans might improve and thus the natural habitats for life would to!

The reality would be however that with such improvements would be an increase in both predators and prey! That's nature for you! But at least if our oceans and seas held more sandeels , as an example, and other prey species , cormorants would not feel the need to visit our rivers and lakes.

Couldn't agree more Mike, unfortunately governments do not have the will to do much other than give these problems lip service.

In the natural world predators and prey numbers have always been in a state of flux more predators = less prey= less predators but the situation we have now is not a natural one, perhaps if the natural recovery of otter numbers had been allowed to continue instead of being interfered with by man for what I believe were totally selfish reasons the natural prey predator flux would have settled down to something approaching what it should be.

 

[rayner]

Can anyone please tell me how many signature have been collected.

 

[thecrow]

Can anyone please tell me how many signature have been collected.

8000 + in under a week.

 

[rayner]

Doesn't appear popular does it, I reckon the Otter is even more safe then.
The online petition against the proposed new Leeds United shirt badge achieved nearly 70000 in a couple of days.
On the whole anglers have more brains than I give them credit, that also includes me even though I refuse to sign.

 

[thecrow]

The online petition against the proposed new Leeds United shirt badge achieved nearly 70000 in a couple of days.

And the average Leeds crowd is nowhere near that figure is it which only goes to show that those that signed the badge petition spent no time thinking about it merely jumped onto a FB bandwagon.

This petition may go nowhere but its anglers trying to improve thing for other anglers affected by what has happened to their waters, anglers that are not affected by any problem on the waters they fish will never stick their head above the parapet for others its just how society is an "I'm alright Jack" attitude if you like, like I posted previously sign don't sign its up to the individual.

You think the otter is more safe? at what cost to other wildlife?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The current numbers mean that another 2,000 are needed before the government are required to even give an official comment . . . . . if and when they do, and noting the ambiguity of the wording of the petition, the reply is more than likely to be . . . . .

"you already have non-lethal" means of control and defence"

On another forum it has been noted that another way of looking at this is that it is a petition complaining about the artificial introduction of otters that is having an impact on their artificial introduction of . . . . Barbel and Carp (?)

 

[The bad one]

Its very easy to criticise what someone is trying to do but its a bit more difficult when it comes to idea's of how to get something done about the others things that affect our rivers.

It needs to start with baseline data, covering the known and suspected problems, collected from many types of rivers across the country. A standard of "total purity" for all rivers to be reach/agreed and implemented within a set period, with milestones that must be reached at a given point. Backed up with strong legislation for those charged with bringing it about.

This could well be incentive driven... reduction in taxes (from milestone to milestone) for meeting a milestone early. Punitive penalties for failure to reach those milestones on time. Nothing focus the mind of big business more than money given or taken away.

Interestingly, the EU Water Framework Directive was based on something similar for nation states, minus the tax reduction element.
But we've chosen to walk away from all this and into a brave new world. I wait with baited breath to see whether there’s a diminishing or strengthening effect on environmental regulation/legislation after 2019.

So how do we get momentum to bring this about? We do have tentative friends that have local and global experience in campaigning on such matters. River Trusts, WWF, FoE and ‘some’ wildlife groups who see the common cause we each share.

And the Babel Society want to put at risk these tentative alliances by blaming otters for all the ills of the river systems nationally. Hey the picture is a big canvas and you are seeing only the small bit of the corner you’re painting in!

By harnessing these alliances, we can make the total river pollution issues the next Plastics bombshell, forcing Government to do something to address and make a start to tackle them!

 

[Graham Elliott 1]

Regards many of the problems.

I'm afraid the BS and others are now using a hammer to crack a nut. After years of head in the sand and naysaying to many that tried to wake them up.

They should have planted that nut many years ago. With a clever, rather than a too aggressive marketing approach we may have gained a lot more of the public sympathy on our side.

 

[thecrow]

It needs to start with baseline data, covering the known and suspected problems, collected from many types of rivers across the country. A standard of "total purity" for all rivers to be reach/agreed and implemented within a set period, with milestones that must be reached at a given point. Backed up with strong legislation for those charged with bringing it about.

This could well be incentive driven... reduction in taxes (from milestone to milestone) for meeting a milestone early. Punitive penalties for failure to reach those milestones on time. Nothing focus the mind of big business more than money given or taken away.

Interestingly, the EU Water Framework Directive was based on something similar for nation states, minus the tax reduction element.
But we've chosen to walk away from all this and into a brave new world. I wait with baited breath to see whether there’s a diminishing or strengthening effect on environmental regulation/legislation after 2019.

So how do we get momentum to bring this about? We do have tentative friends that have local and global experience in campaigning on such matters. River Trusts, WWF, FoE and ‘some’ wildlife groups who see the common cause we each share.

And the Babel Society want to put at risk these tentative alliances by blaming otters for all the ills of the river systems nationally. Hey the picture is a big canvas and you are seeing only the small bit of the corner you’re painting in!

By harnessing these alliances, we can make the total river pollution issues the next Plastics bombshell, forcing Government to do something to address and make a start to tackle them!

Don't we already have that baseline or how are our rivers judged to be clean or not? A baseline that this country has failed to get anywhere near with around just 17% of our rivers meet the very modest "good" target of the WFD 17% in 17 years not much of an achievement imo.

In her speech on the environment a couple of weeks ago the prime minister affirmed that all environmental measures from the EU will be kept, I take that to include the water framework directive although without the will to improve our rivers to the WFD standard it means nothing.

I don't believe that the government have the will to force water companies to clean up the water they put back into our rivers nor will they change the law allowing raw sewage to be pumped into the rivers at times of flood, they have had many years to change this and haven't.

Some of the organisations you mention do have experience in campaigning on these types of matters, if they are so good at campaigning why are our rivers still polluted? I believe its because the general public have no idea what is in our rivers and if there are no votes to be had why bother should government bother doing anything about it?

I don't think that the BS have blamed otters for all that ails our rivers they will be just as aware of all the other problems, problems that all the campaigning has all but failed to rectify since WFD in 2000, if any government took the state of our rivers seriously they would have reached better than 17% although they did reach 29% at one time for it only to drop back to 17%. to believe that anglers only see part of our rivers problems is to suggest that they are not informed enough to see the big picture, I think that most are well aware of the problems.

I don't think this petition is putting anything at risk, we anglers are far to afraid of others and what they think of us and remember this petition is calling for none lethal methods of control which is very different to the Badger culls that took place with thousands of Badgers slaughtered ( they are just as protected as the otter) that the public soon forgot about not that the petition is calling for a cull it isn't.

Alliances with other organisations could be a good thing apart from the fact that most will have their own agenda's just as anglers have. They have failed to force the government to take action to clean our rivers up since WFD came in why should government bother now?

If this petition achieves one thing that being the wider realisation by the public of the state of our rivers it will have achieved something, it may fail to get anything done about controlling otter numbers but at least they will have tried which imo is a lot more than some are prepared to do and better than doing nothing.

River pollution will never become the "next plastics bombshell" the reason for that I believe is because all the public see is a clear river they think its clean they haven't a clue about all the diffuse pollution in our rivers and their drinking water whereas plastic is tangible it can be seen it can be touched, diffuse pollution cannot.

 

[thecrow]

Peter: I don't see the relevance or the appropriateness of the AWM comment. Perhaps if you could explain your use of the term I - and others - might feel better informed.

Deleted...................

 

[108831]

I talk to quite a few people walking along the river,not one wasn't shocked when I told them that when rivers reach a certain level,the EA release millions of litres of untreated sewage,let's be honest on a river like the Gt.Ouse how many sewage works release untreated sewage along its length,even worse on rivers like the Thames,Trent etc,our rivers are receiving a bombardment of our diluted medications,god only knows what the end result of that is,that's without the toxins normally in our waste.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Has there been any movement on this request?

The abbreviation is widely used these days . . . . . and stands for "Angry White men" as a testament to the many and different petitions that seem to breed like the measles these days.

If you watched the Taylor broadcast then you'd see how apt it can be . . . . . "if you aren't with u then you are agin us" attitude is not likely to win and favours from most right thinking individuals . . . .

Nothing that has been written so far on this topic goes any way to changing my mind over my position . . . the petition is poorly worded, ill-conceived and will do nothing positive
as far as he relevant government authorities are concerned.

 

[thecrow]

The abbreviation is widely used these days . . . . . and stands for "Angry White men" as a testament to the many and different petitions that seem to breed like the measles these days.

If you watched the Taylor broadcast then you'd see how apt it can be . . . . . "if you aren't with u then you are agin us" attitude is not likely to win and favours from most right thinking individuals . . . .

Nothing that has been written so far on this topic goes any way to changing my mind over my position . . . the petition is poorly worded, ill-conceived and will do nothing positive
as far as he relevant government authorities are concerned.

The abbreviation is something that in my opinion has no place on here, in fact I viewed it as insulting and slightly racist. What on earth has it got to do with the topic of this thread?

No I didn't view the "Taylor Broadcast" I have no idea what you are on about and even if I had there is no way I would have used such an abbreviation on here or anywhere else for that matter. Because you believe that it is widely used doesn't make it any more acceptable than other insulting abbreviations such as

I keep posting this "sign don't sign its up to the individual " you have your view I have mine, the government may not listen but that wont be anything new will it? just what has been achieved concerning the state of our rivers by doing nothing?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Graham, I noted at the very beginning that this was my personal view and not an official FM view, nor was I speaking for or on behalf of FM

If there is something you don't like, well, I am sorry about that but it is the way I see it and the way this comes across.

As I said, another way of looking at this is a bunch of angry chaps complaining that the reintroduction of the otter is having an effect on their reintroduction of Barbel.

As for fencing still waters that is a very good idea, and should be mandatory as least that way it might stop the hundreds of Carp escaping into nearby rivers when there are floods . . . .

 

[thecrow]

Graham, I noted at the very beginning that this was my personal view and not an official FM view, nor was I speaking for or on behalf of FM

If there is something you don't like, well, I am sorry about that but it is the way I see it and the way this comes across.

As I said, another way of looking at this is a bunch of angry chaps complaining that the reintroduction of the otter is having an effect on their reintroduction of Barbel.

As for fencing still waters that is a very good idea, and should be mandatory as least that way it might stop the hundreds of Carp escaping into nearby rivers when there are floods . . . .

Personal or not Peter there is imo no place on here for insulting abbreviations.

I look at it not as a you do but as a group of anglers that care about whats happening to our rivers and are trying to do something about it.

Its also not just about Barbel as I have already posted on here, as I said doing nothing achieves nothing.

You honestly think that every still water fishery has the finances to fence the fishery? Should all hens be fenced in to stop foxes getting to them? its just not viable.

 

[108831]

Biggleswade and Hitchin Daa have recently spent £50,000 on otter fencing,an obscene amount for an angling club to pay,if farmers were asked to pay the same to keep badgers out there would be hell of a row,these farmers are calling for the culling of one of the most loved mammals in Britain and its happening,without any definitive evidence of the animals actually spreading TB,we live in a strange society where many things are done that shouldn't have been and not done when they should have.Us as human beings want to feel we're doing our bit for the natural world,but do countless things to destroy it...

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Personal or not Peter there is imo no place on here for insulting abbreviations.

I look at it not as a you do but as a group of anglers that care about whats happening to our rivers and are trying to do something about it.

Its also not just about Barbel as I have already posted on here, as I said doing nothing achieves nothing.

You honestly think that every still water fishery has the finances to fence the fishery? Should all hens be fenced in to stop foxes getting to them? its just not viable.

There was nothing intended as a racial slut whatsoever Graham, but it us worth noting that those who are so easily insulted are those who want to be . . . . that is my last comment on this.

The materials for otter fencing for a typical venue cost around £12 per metre, and considering the vast sums of money invested in stocking (both barbel and carp) then the cost of fencing pales into insignificance . . . . . . back in 2010 there were grants available from the EA as well to help cover the costs.

As for chickens, even the "free range" birds have a safe place to roost at night time and the vast majority of commercial farms are totally enclosed.