• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Cormorant Cull Petition (2 Viewers)

Re wanting some birders to do more... one could perhaps petition to set up a licensing policy, such that if you want to go birding (or own binoculars, or birding books... etc) you need a permit. Sales of permits could then be used to fund habitat/resource maintenance specific to birding. This is a model that is used for other nature -recreational activities such as sport angling, off-roading, and hunting.

BrightIdea - that certainly ain't one!!
 
Re wanting some birders to do more... one could perhaps petition to set up a licensing policy, such that if you want to go birding (or own binoculars, or birding books... etc) you need a permit. Sales of permits could then be used to fund habitat/resource maintenance specific to birding. This is a model that is used for other nature -recreational activities such as sport angling, off-roading, and hunting.

A bird book permit? Now there's an idea whose time will never come!
 
My post was a bit tongue in cheek. The recent commentary was that anglers "do" more, birders resent others use of resource and such.

So, if licensing and whatnot is requisite for one group's outdoor activity, why not anothers?

How much do YOU (generic you, no one specifically) really support the resources that facilitate your hobby?

Incidentally, If you knew me on a personal level you would know that I am NOT for anyform of new tax at all.
 
one thing i do find utterly hilarious in this conversation is the suggestion that angling ploughs vast ammounts of money and angler hours into conservation,

try speaking to any club secretary who is organising a work party to tend their section of river, about how massive the response is, they might get the odd person if they're lucky.

as for revenues, angling gets less money from licence revenue that the rspb does from subscriptions, the ACA which fights legal cases against polluters has been nigh on bankrupt for years, the rspb mobilises more volunteer labour to help conservation in one weekend that angling manages in a year.

the average british angler falls into one of 2 camps, either they will turn up for a weekend, sit in a tent and throw 5 lbs of bait in, while trying to catch a carp, except for in the evening when they get either pissed, stoned or both.

the second type is the faux match angler, who will fish for 5 hours on the side of a muddy hole, with a 12 meter pole using up to 10 kilos of trout pellets and trout pellet derrivatives, then dragging the hybrid carp out of the water by the skull, which results in very bad facial deformities to the fish, such as having their lips torn off of deforming the front of their face once the lips have gone to a shape which resembles a parrots beak.

their might be lots of money being spent on the passtime, but it's not being used to conserve the fish
 
That approach would obviously be unsustaineable given that Cormorants breed in colonies and could be mowed down with ease by hunters - I would certainly not support a weakening of the current protections to that extent.
Does anyone know what the the terms and conditions that come with a licence under the present culling system??, in terms of number of birds that can be killed and who carries it out??

the british cormorant population is around 22000 birds the annual cull is around 2200 birds, or approx 10% of the population annually,

anglers think that the correct population of cormorants should be as it was in the 1970's i.e. around 2200 birds total population (but preferably zero) with zero inland which is what they are pushing for.
 
the british cormorant population is around 22000 birds the annual cull is around 2200 birds, or approx 10% of the population annually,

anglers think that the correct population of cormorants should be as it was in the 1970's i.e. around 2200 birds total population (but preferably zero) with zero inland which is what they are pushing for.

What is the correct population?
 
one thing i do find utterly hilarious in this conversation is the suggestion that angling ploughs vast ammounts of money and angler hours into conservation,

...

their might be lots of money being spent on the passtime, but it's not being used to conserve the fish

That is a very sad picture, and bears no semblance to the situation I am familiar with "across the pond".
 
That approach would obviously be unsustaineable given that Cormorants breed in colonies and could be mowed down with ease by hunters - I would certainly not support a weakening of the current protections to that extent.
Does anyone know what the the terms and conditions that come with a licence under the present culling system??, in terms of number of birds that can be killed and who carries it out??

From experience Natural England will perform a site visit following an application to shoot, and if agreed issue a licence to shoot a limited number of Cormorants between September and March. The key thing to remember is the licence is issued as an aid to scaring and as an example when I had over 20 birds visiting a lake daily, once several had been shot; they quickly learned and moved on elsewhere. You are also only permitted to shoot then with a shotgun (steel shot only), which is more difficult than you may think as they are tough buggers! In extreme cases Natural England may grant a direct culling licence where high powered rifles may be used.

You are required to submit a Cormorant return in December and March, and Natural England may increase the number of birds you can shoot if predation problems persist.

In terms of who does the shooting, it is up to the person submitting the request to cull, to name up to 6 listed shooters, all of who have to declare that that they have no previous convictions under the Wildlife and Countryside act.....
 
Last edited:
one thing i do find utterly hilarious in this conversation is the suggestion that angling ploughs vast ammounts of money and angler hours into conservation,

try speaking to any club secretary who is organising a work party to tend their section of river, about how massive the response is, they might get the odd person if they're lucky.

as for revenues, angling gets less money from licence revenue that the rspb does from subscriptions, the ACA which fights legal cases against polluters has been nigh on bankrupt for years, the rspb mobilises more volunteer labour to help conservation in one weekend that angling manages in a year.

the average british angler falls into one of 2 camps, either they will turn up for a weekend, sit in a tent and throw 5 lbs of bait in, while trying to catch a carp, except for in the evening when they get either pissed, stoned or both.

the second type is the faux match angler, who will fish for 5 hours on the side of a muddy hole, with a 12 meter pole using up to 10 kilos of trout pellets and trout pellet derrivatives, then dragging the hybrid carp out of the water by the skull, which results in very bad facial deformities to the fish, such as having their lips torn off of deforming the front of their face once the lips have gone to a shape which resembles a parrots beak.

their might be lots of money being spent on the passtime, but it's not being used to conserve the fish

I find the above to be unhelpful and not constructive in the slightest, and it appears that you have your own agenda? Yes there are anglers who fall into these categories, but they are the minority, and it doesn’t represent the vast majority of anglers. Your description of 'the average British angler....' is just plain stupid!

In terms of Angling and Conservation, the club I'm in has a good track record with some recent examples being:


  • A Barn Owl group were invited to erect a couple of nest boxes on one of our waters (which we paid for), and fingers crossed we hope to have nesting owls very soon.

    We applied to the English Woodland Grant Scheme to obtain a 5 figure sum to remove Rhododendrons from a woodland which we own (work recently completed).

    We have 2 schools currently building nest boxes which will be erected on our waters.

    We have sent volunteers to working parties run by one of the River Trusts to help with the removal of invasive weeds (Japanese Knotweed, Giant Hogweed and Himalayan balsam).

    We work with the local Wildlife Trusts to improve habitats i.e. we lease land to them at no profit to us.

    We have an on-going project with Natural England to improve a SSSI which is currently listed as being in a deteriorating state.

    Myself and the current club Concervation Officer hope to go out with a local bat group over the summer, in order that we can learn more about helping bats on our many waters, where we have prime habitat.

The above demonstrates what a well run angling club can achieve, and I'm not suggesting that all anglers are 'chomping at the bit' to help, but we don’t do badly when we need help. Personally I am also running 2 working parties over the coming weeks and both are fully booked.

Neil
 
Last edited:
I find the above to be unhelpful and not constructive in the slightest, and it appears that you have your own agenda? Yes there are anglers who fall into these categories, but they are the minority, and it doesn’t represent the vast majority of anglers. Your description of 'the average British angler....' is just plain stupid!



Neil

yet everything i have stated is founded on more than 35 years experience of angling in england,

i absolutely do not recognise this eutopia which you describe. in any way other than an extremely small minority of clubs in britain in fact i can probably tie you to either prince albert or possibly but less likely WAA by what you write and your location.

my description of the average british angler is entirely accurate..

can you also explain to us who leave all the empty beer cans, boilie bags, sweetcorn tins. plastic circles used to connect 6 packs, plastic bags, clear plastic pots used to store maggots in tackle shops, yards of discarded nylon line, discarded fag packets, and other such detritus in the swiims once they are vacated as the banks of many of our rivers and lakes are covered with them
 
can you also explain to us who leave all the empty beer cans, boilie bags, sweetcorn tins. plastic circles used to connect 6 packs, plastic bags, clear plastic pots used to store maggots in tackle shops, yards of discarded nylon line, discarded fag packets, and other such detritus in the swiims once they are vacated as the banks of many of our rivers and lakes are covered with them

My sons and I fish 8 or 9 spots regularly, an even split between rather urban settings along the lower passaic river area, 2 small suburban ponds, and several mountainous watershed lakes and ponds. All of our spots are used heavily. There is heavy daily and weekend traffic through all of these fishing spots. Your description above doesnt match a one of them. In fact, the worst mess and problems, at least in the suburban ponds, is from the canada geese due to bread-bag feeders (which is illegal but still frequent).

Yikes... Is the angling scene in the UK really that bad?
 
Last edited:
Ahh Canada Geese, we shoot them too as on some waters we have no fringe weed growth, as they eat the lot. Crap everywhere too, which doesn't help water quality.

The SSSI I mentioned above has fringe weed growth mentioned in its citation, and Natural England agreed with us that Canada Geese needed to be culled on the water, both to improve water quality and the number of water plants.

As for litter, it's not just a minority of anglers, but a blite on the UK nation as a whole and one that makes my blood boil!
 
Last edited:
But certainly not 2200 birds?

that was the british cormorant population in the 1970's which is anglings target.

and yikes yes british angling is that bad in large part. on the other hand there are anglers who clear every swim they go to and wouldn't dream of leaving rubbish
 
My sons and I fish 8 or 9 spots regularly, an even split between rather urban settings along the lower passaic river area, 2 small suburban ponds, and several mountainous watershed lakes and ponds. All of our spots are used heavily. There is heavy daily and weekend traffic through all of these fishing spots. Your description above doesnt match a one of them. In fact, the worst mess and problems, at least in the suburban ponds, is from the canada geese due to bread-bag feeders (which is illegal but still frequent).

Yikes... Is the angling scene in the UK really that bad?


Its not the angling scene, the anglers are part of the Great British UK public. Many of whom have lost any respect for anything or anyone, and think nothing of tossing out their takaway litter out of the car window whilst driving along and dumping rubbish anywhere they think they can get away with it rather than making the effort to despose of it properly.:-C
 
that was the british cormorant population in the 1970's which is anglings target.

Which may well be a realistic target, no?

You appear to disagree w/ anglers on what you said was their stated goal of reducing populations to 1970's levels. That implies you feel the number is incorrect. Hence my point in asking what the correct population size would be. If its Y now during a state of great flux or possibly even disruption, how can you know if .1Y or 0Y would be wrong ? And if you KNOW, then what is right?

Your answer was essentially to let nature take its course and see how breeding/food availability influence the carrying capacity. I laud letting nature take its course, however for a few thousand, and certainly a few hundred years, the humans in the UK are an integral part of that ecosystem. Letting it takes its course sans humans in a pristine setting is one thing... doing so in an urban or suburban setting really is quite another. Just my opinion, of course, but we're part of the puzzle.

I think the answer is you have, for whatever reason, a bias against anglers and/or angling. Which is your choice, of course.

Back across the pond, It doesnt appear we in the US are in the same situation as is the case in the UK, but if cormorant populations here get to the levels that the (nonmigrant/resident) canada geese population have, i'd consider the possibility of roast cormorant, BBQ cormorant, cormorant-caesar-salad...
 
Last edited:
Its not the angling scene, the anglers are part of the Great British UK public. Many of whom have lost any respect for anything or anyone, and think nothing of tossing out their takaway litter out of the car window whilst driving along and dumping rubbish anywhere they think they can get away with it rather than making the effort to despose of it properly.:-C

Sorry to hear that. It starts with the family and grows with the kids, of that I have no doubt. Dont get me started on eroding family values.


Being that I live in the northeast US, there are a lot of people moving in with diverse backgrounds, cultures, and origins. I'm in the proverbial melting pot, which on a whole is one of the strengths of the area. I do a fair bit of cleaning up when I hit the parks & ponds, so its not pristine. I do notice that the tendency to litter varies depending upon which national or ethic area we are in. For example, and I'll risk an alarmist calling me a bigot, I have noticed that areas predominated by japanese or indian/pakistani are quite consciencous, whereas those from russians, albanians & koreans tend to be less so. Socioeconomically, those areas in wealthier neighborhoods are "cleaner" of minor litter than those not. Based on annecdotal observations obviously, but it'd be neat to have someone do a more controlled scientific study on this.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top