Government sanctions cormorant cull to appease anglers (1 Viewer)

godwit said:

So secondhand data from a gang of nutters with a twisted agenda counts as good evidence does it?

Click to expand...

You tell me Dave, you'd know.

But suggesting anglers are "nutters with a twisted agenda" says far more about you, your ignorance of the subject matter and your narrow-mindedness than it does about anglers.

"But suggesting anglers are "nutters with a twisted agenda" says far more about you, your ignorance of the subject matter and your narrow-mindedness than it does about anglers."

Er, who said anything about anglers? I was talking about the Songbird Survival Group!

Dave

godwit said:

Er, who said anything about anglers? I was talking about the Songbird Survival Group!

Click to expand...

Someone really has to streatch things to read your statement as an attack on Anglers, was pretty clear it was the SSG you were talking about.

You said

secondhand data from a gang of nutters

Click to expand...

That reads just as well as meaning: second hand as it came from the SBS, therefore first hand from the "gang of nutters" - the anglers.

Apologies if I misunderstood - but it was rather easy to do so.

Anyway - I'm not doing this one: it's old news, I've heard it all before, and unless one has actually seen first hand what cormorants can do to a water, it's impossible to speak with any authority.

I have, incidentally.

Twice.

But it's just another pointless "my agenda's bigger than your agenda" thread, and I can't be bothered.

No...

Songbird Survival are the nutters....aint no doubt about it.

Dave's posts on this topic and the Ruddy Cull show a good appreciation of all major facets of the 'argument'

Unfortunately the anti RSPB side seem to rely on very poor science (see above - is that the best that can be done?......prove me wrong!

Even the government's own advisor (as quoted on the Today programme) advised against the Cormorant cull.

Think about this: oppose the Ruddy Cull AND support the Cormorant cull and you end up with possibly no White-headed Ducks and far fewer Cormorants (which are just building up to historic levels). Support the Ruddy Cull and oppose the Cormorant Cull and you end up with a healthy Cormorant population (and a few folk lose money on financial ventures, hey that's market vagaries) and a healthy population of the WH Duck?....

So why are birders anti Ruddy Cull and Pro Cormorant cull?

beats the hell out of me!

New Measures Announced To Control Cormorant Population From Damaging Fish Stocks

From the DEFRA web site:

NEW MEASURES ANNOUNCED TO CONTROL CORMORANT POPULATION FROM DAMAGING FISH STOCKS - BRADSHAW

Ben Bradshaw, Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries today announced changes to the licensing system for the control of the cormorant population which has grown significantly and whose feeding habits are damaging fish stocks and recreational fishing activities.

Announcing the new measures, Ben Bradshaw said:

"For a long time, Defra has accepted that cormorants can and do cause damage to certain habitats. To help solve this problem we have undertaken scientific research into fish refuges and other non-lethal techniques. Research findings to date show that procedures such as creating safe environments for fish from cormorant predation are not the solution to all problems."

The new system will presume that where significant numbers of cormorants are present at a site and it is clear that these are feeding on fish stocks, serious damage is occurring or there is a risk of serious damage. However this will continue to be confirmed on a case by case basis and non- lethal solutions will have to have been considered first.

The revised licensing system to control cormorants will be further streamlined in the following ways:

Licences will be issued for a period of two years, between 31 August and 15 April;
There will be provision to extend to protect salmon and sea trout smolts or other vulnerable fish stock in designated spawning sites such as gravel shallows in rivers, licences to kill birds may be issued during the smolt run up to 1 May;
Licences may be issued in advance to prevent problems occurring;
A new application requires a Defra assessor's visit;
All sites will be visited every two years;
Renewed licences where there are no material changes do not require a further visit outside of the biennial visit;
Licences can be amended by telephone, fax or email;
Procedures within Defra's agencies will be aligned to the new system;
All licence holders must provide annual returns on the actual number of cormorants taken - failure to do so will mean immediate revocation of the licence.
Mr Bradshaw concluded:

"We must continue to look for non-lethal methods of managing the cormorant population. But it is clear that they do not address the problem in all areas. The new system will be carefully monitored to ensure the conservation status of the cormorant population is not threatened. The mathematical modelling suggests the cormorant population will fall somewhat before stabilising well above its historic level."





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes for editors

1. The consequences of these new measures will be assessed on an annual basis, allowing Defra to adjust the number of licences issued, or even cease to issue licences, should the population not respond in the manner predicted.

2. The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 which implements the Birds Directive, prohibits the deliberate killing of all birds, unless certain requirements are met.

3. Scientific research information on cormorants will soon be available at www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/reports.htm.

4. Licence applications may be obtained from: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/forms.htm. Advisory leaflets are available at www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/leaflets.htm.

5. The number of cormorants estimated in England is approximately 17,000 - a rise since 1989 of nearly 70%.

6. The mathematical modelling suggests that the new procedures may permit up to 2000 cormorants annually to be culled with a possibility of up to 3000 annually in the short term without threatening the sustainability of the English cormorant population.

Tim Allwood said:

So why are birders anti Ruddy Cull and Pro Cormorant cull?

Click to expand...

Ho hum - so much for me leaving this thread alone...

But It is a good question Tim.

Personally (FWIW) I'm not anti the RD cull - I just don't think it'll work, and that's my issue with it.

And - although I absolutely believe that anglers have the right to protect their interests as far as cormorants are concerned - I also don't think (except on a very narrow, case by case basis) that there's much point in a cormorant cull either.

On a given waterway it might make an appreciable difference, but it will just move the problem somewhere else: and it's pretty clear that if a niche is opened up, "new" birds will just come in and exploit it.

But I understand at the most basic level, why anglers feel the need to do something to protect "their" fish: take it from me - most anglers (like me) relate to fish in the same way that birders (like me) relate to birds.

And the reality is that the number of cormorants put at risk by this change in government position is miniscule: despite what the RSPB might suggest, we've been able to get licences to shoot them for a few years now, and more easily than you'd think ...

Chris, thanks for posting the official press release - far less inflammatory than the RSPB nonsense.

BASC welcomes plans to improve cormorant control

BASC press release:

BASC welcomes plans to improve cormorant control

Embargoed……………………………… to 1p.m. Thursday 16th September

A decision to implement a significant increase in the species management of cormorants has been welcomed by the UK’s largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC).

DEFRA plans to ease the conditions surrounding licences to control cormorants, which pose a significant threat to fish stocks, after studies showed there are approximately 23,000 birds wintering in Britain.

Tim Russell, Director of Conservation at BASC, said “This is an important step in conservation management and we are pleased that the Government has recognised the key role that shooting can play. Many people who shoot are also keen anglers and have seen at first hand the devastation which a colony of cormorants can cause to inland fisheries and waterways. DEFRA’s proposals will help to maintain the cormorant population within sustainable levels whilst providing a viable means of restricting the damage they can do. This decision will be welcomed by conservationists, anglers and shooters alike.”

Licences are currently issued to remove between 200-300 birds per year. DEFRA plans to increase that number to up to 3000 in the first place, before maintaining an annual control of 2000 birds. Each application for a licence will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but the standard of proof required before a licence is issued will be relaxed. DEFRA will provide more help for applicants, increase the number of birds on each individual licence and extend the duration of licences to two years.

BASC has been in discussion with bodies such as the National Federation of Anglers and DEFRA for some time in an attempt to address the problems caused by cormorant predation on inland fish stocks.

Tim Russell said “It is important that management of cormorants is carried out legally, humanely, safely and responsibly. One of the most effective methods is to control them by shooting. BASC, with 120,000 members, is able to help fisheries and angling clubs to comply with the terms of their licences and we will continue to be work with angling bodies to achieve that.”

ENDS.

Note to Editors: The impact of Defra’s proposals will be a ten-fold increase in the annual cull of cormorants from between 200 and 300 to between 2,000 and 3,000.
The measures will initially apply to England - it is thought similar provisions will be introduced elsewhere in the UK in due course.

For more details call the BASC press office on 01244 573031.

WHT




BASC Services

And I have no idea whay the shooters feel the need to go to press on this - unless it's because they think they'll have more to shoot at...

Just what is the 'conservation' angle on shooting the increased numbers of Cormorants? What will be 'conserved' as a by-product of shooting cormorants? Which native fish are at historically low population levels? Protecting income of fisheries is fair enough but has absolutely zero to do with conservation.

Obviously no coincidence that this news comes one day after the hunting with hounds ban was announced. A small sop to the country sports lobby I guess. It will make not one jot of difference to the size of the fish stocks it is supposed to protect.

Dave

Aye, this isn't a conservation issue except at a very local (pond by pond) level: but then again, does conservation have to be only about preventing extinction?

It is partly about business, there's no doubt: but it's much more than that.

Most angling waters are controlled by clubs full of very ordinary men and women who pay their dues and love their fishing and - I know - these aren't business propositions.

I can't explain it well, but your average, "Joe Public" angler love his little ponds, and the fish (and the frogs, toads, reed buntings, swans, moorhens, mallards, water voles... you get the picture) in it with an absolute - almost irrational - passion: it's the whole package of peace, solitude, nature, challenge, satisaction...

That's the driver for trying to deal with the cormorant threat, believe me: these aren't cruel, vindictive people, they're just people who love their way of touching nature, and want to protect that.

godwit said:

It will make not one jot of difference to the size of the fish stocks it is supposed to protect.

Click to expand...

Oh dammit, just when I've made my mind up about you, you go and write something I agree with!



Joking apart though, you're partly right.

At a local level, removing cormorants as a predator does make a difference: for a while, and sometimes (if you're lucky) permanently.

But in the wider view, the problem will just most likely move somewhere else and eat someone else's fish.

And I've realised: that's the difference in mindset between people who are "only" birders and those who are "only" anglers.

Birders see the bigger picture, by and large: you might not be getting as many tree sparrows in your own garden, but you know that doesn't automatically mean there's a problem in the great scheme of things.

Anglers can't have that mindset, because even though there might well be loads of roach in the country as a whole, if your roach are gone, they're gone...

(Yep, a crap way of making the point, and I know it! )

But isn't there room for both perspectives?

Blythkeith wrote

"There will be rigorous, strictly enforced controls over shooting, and licences will only be granted where anglers can provide clear and unequivocal proof of the damage being done by cormorants"

This is how the law works at present but the new announcement makes it quite clear that such 'unequivocal proof' will no longer be needed.

Ben Bradshaw, the minister responsible, is quoted above as saying:

"The new system will presume that where significant numbers of cormorants are present at a site and it is clear that these are feeding on fish stocks, serious damage is occurring or there is a risk of serious damage."

This is THE key change in policy, guilt will be assumed. Bradshaw does go on to say that alternatives to shooting must be considered first but with an estimated ten fold increase in the numbers of birds to be shot it is quite apparent that alternatives are not expected to be found (probably due to cost considerations in the main) in most cases. This is further reinforced by the fact that licenses will even be issued in advance of a problem occurring!

It is a poorly devised and doubtfully legal change in policy and the RSPB are quite right to oppose it.

Dave

It should come down to this: if the cormorants are native then live with it: you've only yourself to blame for increasing their food source. Introduced species can really skew the ecosystem. Cull them.

great Lakes brutality

We have a sport fish in Ohio called the walleye.A type of pickerel.The double crested cormorant has made a dramatic recovery on the great lakes in the past 15 years.According to the sport fishing industry the DC cormorant is wiping out the walleye stocks and killing the charterboat business A group of these brave charterboat captains invaded alargel cormorant rokery in Lake Ontario two years ago with shotguns and exterminated the coloney.The DC cormorant has been shown to be a predetor of many invasive fish from overseas that are introduced from ballast water discharge from freighters entering the St Lawrence Seaway.I frequently remind my fellow fishing countrymen that the bald eagle and osprey are also fishing birds and in the spirit of fair play they should also be eliminated .The ultra-patriotic American fisherman usually flinches at the thought of the national symbol being destroyed.I hope it won't take a barren great lakes for us to learn.
Sam

"So Godxwit ridicules the writer above for confusing races/subspecies with species? I bet Godwit can't tell a male from a female tench, or a silver bream from a bream.... Since he's obviously not an angler, we wouldn't expect him to possess that competence. But we wouldn't ridicule him for it, or suggest that it invalidates his argument."

If I was going to go into print on the subject I'd make damn sure I knew what I was talking about in order for my argument to carry any weight.

Dave

"neither of the responders have addressed the basic contention that ALL anglers are well aware of the damage Cormorants do, that both ignore the copious evidence that it is the depletion of North Sea white fish that has brought about this situation (NOT some .natural range expansion) and that the collateral effects on other bird-eating fish is inarguable."

Cormorants are just scapegoats and, quite literally, easy targets. The fact that they are visible means they are bound to attract the attention on anglers keen to seek reasons for a perceived fall in fish stocks. Far more insidious is the effect of pollution, for example, that caused by run off from intensively cultivated land but I don't see the angling lobby calling for the culling of farmers. I can't believe you are still banging on about a relationship between the depletion of marine fish stocks and an increase of inland Cormorants - there is none.

"They don't seem to have any feelings at all about the potential extinction of loaches, eels, gudgeon and other species of freshwater fish that reputable authorities have warned of as a result of the 'range expansion' of Cormorants"

Far from it, if the situation is as grave as you indicate (without any hard evidence) I'd want to know what the real cause was rather than jumping on the first available bandwagon. As far as I'm aware no species has ever been brought to extinction by the activities of 'natural' predators.

Dave

PS. we are waiting for your reference on the vagrancy of Ruddy Ducks to the Azores in aanother thread David.

David Bryant said:

Evidence mounts ...

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't read your post. There's no need to shout.