Bit slow on this one - have only just got round to reading the full thread.
From my angle, maybe a few things worth considering? Probably not adding anything to what has already been said but here goes!
Firstly, as already pointed out - there are many fishermen who do care about the wildlife that they see around them every day. We must also remember that as birdwatchers that we don't operate in isolation and that some of the breeding and wintering waterbirds that we see in GM wouldn't be seen at these locations, if anglers weren't digging into their own pockets to stock these waters with fish. Man has always managed or interfered with every environment on the planet - so is it possibly a little naive to suggest that nature should be allowed to take its course? If that was applied to most stocked water bodies in GM then presumably what may happen is that the waters will be largely stripped of fish and then we wouldn't even be looking at Cormorants, Great Crested Grebes, Little Grebes, Kingfishers, Great Northern Divers etc - if so, then in much smaller numbers than we currently see. In my opinion, as usual with most matters surely it is a question of balance. However, balance is the difficult thing to "manage" - might one persons appropriate level of "control of numbers" be another persons "over-control" and another persons "under-control"? We do need other members of society, with interest in the countryside, on "our side" - including anglers, as some waters are very important to breeding birds - surely, like most things in life, it is a question of give and take?
One final point that maybe appropriate to another thread. Why is when bird conservation organisations practice "predator control" on their reserves that we possibly seem more willing to turn a blind eye to this practice?
I always think of them as the modern pterodactyl, and not seen one of them for ages.
keep birding.
You have not seen them Paul where do you go birding? I cannot think of a single site where comorants are not about. I see them evertime I go out wheres theres a lake or flash.
I've been doing the WeBs at Strinesdale for at least 10 years and never seen one; Goosanders every winter & plenty of fishermen on the lower res but never a Cormorant.
I don't have much to add on the subject as it seems everyone is far better informed than me, but it's interesting either way.
I can only agree with a sentiment John Tymon made earlier about fewer numbers certainly at Pennington Flash. The county record stands at 175 birds at Pennington in December 1995. There seems to be rarely more than 20-30 more recently. Could this be due to a reduction in fish stocks or something to do with Cormorant numbers themselves?I certainly don't have the answers but ask me about the identification of Double Crested Cormorant...
I always think of them as the modern pterodactyl, and not seen one of them for ages.
keep birding.
You have not seen them Paul where do you go birding? I cannot think of a single site where comorants are not about. I see them evertime I go out wheres theres a lake or flash.
Again, playing devils advocate (may or not be my own views);
(In reply to Henrys Post)
I shall also put on Mr Heatons hat for a moment and recommend reading around 'Gaia' - a theory proposed by James Lovelock, which he describes as;
"a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet."
Basically, if we mess things up, nature will find a way of sorting it all out. This could include species extinction etc. So do we need to be caretakers, the world has existed for a very long time and has always managed. Surely the laws of nature would dictate that we should look after our own survival first and worry about the rest later?
And after reading what Mark has just posted.....surely Henry......some of our species should be kept as far away as caretakers as possible
Dave
-- Edited by David Winnard on Wednesday 2nd of December 2009 12:38:17 AM
Indeed, one of my favourite books. If we mess things up and nature finds a way of sorting it out, it could be our own extinction that brings the balance and equilibrium back to the earth's biosphere, atmosphere and oceans. That is my worry. Yes, some form of life would continue on happily after we've gone but that's not in our own best interest. As Mark said, that Cormorant article is drivel, nearly all of those 'claims' wouldn't stand up for a second in a verbal discussion on the subject. Thank goodness the bodies that manage these issues, eg DEFRA, have a little bit better understanding on the subject than the fisherman who wrote that blurb.
Again, playing devils advocate (may or not be my own views);
(In reply to Henrys Post)
I shall also put on Mr Heatons hat for a moment and recommend reading around 'Gaia' - a theory proposed by James Lovelock, which he describes as;
"a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet."
Basically, if we mess things up, nature will find a way of sorting it all out. This could include species extinction etc. So do we need to be caretakers, the world has existed for a very long time and has always managed. Surely the laws of nature would dictate that we should look after our own survival first and worry about the rest later?
And after reading what Mark has just posted.....surely Henry......some of our species should be kept as far away as caretakers as possible
Dave
-- Edited by David Winnard on Wednesday 2nd of December 2009 12:38:17 AM
"Freshwater Fisheries cannot cope with or sustain cormorants.
The word cormorant is derived from the Latin words, "corvus marinus" meaning "sea crow". This goes to show that even the Ancient Greeks thought of it as a sea bird.
It does not belong on fresh waters in the UK, and we all know how much damage crows can do to wildlife.
In the bible cormorants are described as an abomination, so we have God on our side!
Cormorants bring nothing but destruction to our waters.
Five cormorants will eat a metric tonne of fish each year. There is barely a fishery in the country that could sustain this level of depletion.
Two cormorants can destroy a two acre fishery in one year, four birds will destroy it in six months and 16 birds in just six weeks! This is a far shorter time than it takes to get a licence to shoot them and even then you can only get a license to shoot ten percent of your problem. If one is granted at all.
If your water is an SSSI then you will find it almost impossible to get a cormorant controll licence. If you are approached by English Nature to have SSSI status on your property think very carefully before signing up
Phalacrocorax carbo carbo, (the British one) cormorants are sea birds not freshwater birds.
We are now getting large numbers of the continental bird Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis. These birds are an alien species and are also freshwater feeders, Therefore the argument that the decline in sea fish stocks is a reason for them being on our waters does not stand up. They are being encouraged to spread across the UK by the RSPB and various other so-called Environmental Organisations to the complete detriment and disregard for other very important aquatic wildlife.
Cormorants are protected, as are all wild birds by the 1981 wildlife and countryside act. This legislation however was no use whatsoever to the Ruddy Ducks that were all shot on the RSPB reserves recently. These ducks were doing no environmental damage and were not hurting anything but they were still shot. The RSPB's moral argument ends here!
The RSPB also kill numerous land crows every year but seek to prosecute anyone that kills the sea crows.
Cormorants have been persecuted for years right across Europe (WITH VERY GOOD REASONS,) these reasons are clearly set out on this site.
Cormorants will also feed at night.
All cormorants are extremely efficient fish killers.
The continental cormorant can be far more numerous and lives in large colonies, (check your local gravel pits).
From my own observations, cormorants will attack the rivers in the area first taking everything that is worth taking and harming the prospects of other fish eating birds. I am seeing a marked decline in the numbers of grebes, kingfishers etc in my local area.
Cormorants do not respect fishing club or landowner boundaries.
Each cormorant will eat £10.00 worth of fish (replacement value) per day.
Cormorants eat all fish and not just eels or immature ones (as the bird watchers often claim).
Many cormorants are infested with worms this causes a need to eat twice as much food a day than would normally be needed.
The average size of fish that is found inside a dead cormorant is 7cm, this means that each cormorant, on average has to eat 25-30 fish per day.
A 7 cm fish is about exactly the size of fish that I have seen the little grebes eating on the River Thames.
Cormorants are a serious threat to the little grebes.
There are many species of fish that are adult and fully grown at 7 cm.
Cormorants often take more fish than they can digest and because this can make it difficult to fly they will sometimes have to disgorge several of them before taking off, obviously these fish are dead. This is another example of cormorants killing fish that they don't eat.
A cormorant will swallow small fish without even surfacing. This fact has been observed by scientists who, by watching these birds are of the opinion that the energy being used by the birds to catch the fish was more than the energy that was contained within the bodies of the fish that they were diving for, if the birds surfaced in between catches. Also I have been told of pike fishermen catching cormorants on large dead herrings, these birds usually die because they have swallowed the fish under water.
An English Nature report no. 360 in 1998! concluded that there were expected to be 10,000 inland breeding cormorants in this country within the next 5-10 years if no action was taken,( this report was not published for two years.) In my opinion, this report was hushed up to allow these birds to establish colonies in land at the expense of our fish!
Juvenile cormorants travel on average 60 miles from home in order to find new nesting sites. This is within two months of fledging!
Cormorants are very difficult to approach and will not often come down onto a water if a person is stood on the bank.
Cormorant droppings are very toxic. The trees that they roost in WILL die because the cormorants land there. If this is what it does to trees then what must it be doing to the water?
If there are no small fish left (very common) then these birds will attack fish that are far too large for them to swallow, but injure and leave them dying.
Cormorants DO NOT only kill for food, I have seen and photographed fish that have been badly injured, that will die of their injuries. These fish are far too large for a cormorant to eat, some of the evidence is on this site.
Now we suspect that we know why divers saw many dead fish on the bottom of the River Trent a few years ago, when there was no detectable pollution present, they may have died of shock whilst being attacked.
Left alone your fishery will be decimated by these birds.
If you see only occasional cormorants on your river or lake this does not mean that you do not have a major problem with fish stocks. The cormorants may have already been on your river and left with your fish stocks, only to return just as the fish populations are trying to recover.
The cormorant invasion of our fisheries is an environmental disaster that is happening before our very eyes.
Cormorants will grab larger fish and shake them.
Cormorants attack all fish of the sizes that anglers fish for.
They can only swallow the smaller ones, but all fish were small once.
The cormorant is a very common bird and is not in anyway an endangered species - unlike our fish.
Cormorants NEVER have 'days off'!
Cormorants breed at three years of age and can live twenty years.
Cormorants have no natural predators in the UK to control their numbers.
Cormorants do not respect any 'closed season'.
If fish that are left in a water do manage to find each other in order to shoal up and breed, one strike by a cormorant would be enough to break up the shoal and severely interfere with the fishes' breeding cycle.
All of these facts point to the results of an alien species being present, this is what happens when a non-native creature becomes established. This is still the case weather you have the European cormorant nesting in a colony or if you have the sal****er cormorant (sea crows) on your waters stealing your fish.
Quite soon the only waters worth fishing on will be the ones that are patrolled early every morning by somebody with a shot gun.
If you disagree with any of this then simply invite the environment agency on to your fishery to survey it and find out for yourself. This is why our fisheries cannot sustain these birds. The bird watchers will try and minimize these facts because they do not want to see any birds shot, but our fish are still wildlife which deserve better protection.
Questions to bird watchers?
1. Do you consider fish to be wildlife?
If your answer is yes then the fish have as much right to exist as your beloved birds.
If your answer is no then you are a narrow minded bigot!
2. Would you like it if a family of thieves, (encouraged by others) that were immune to prosecution moved into your street?
3. With the 1998, English Nature report no. 360 declaring an expected extra 10,000 inland birds (which are an alien species to the UK) within the next 5-10 years, in addition to the 4-5,000 that we get every winter flying up from the coasts, what do you think that these birds are going to eat, because all of the unprotected waters that I know of have already been stripped of fish?
4. Why should anglers, through fish replacement costs subsidize your hobby? Bearing in mind that most of you dislike us intensely.
5. How many cormorants do we need in this country? 50,000? 100,000? 500,000? A million?
6. If the RSPB can spend money buying wheat to feed geese at the Loch of Strathbeg and no doubt on other reserves. Then why do they expect us to feed their cormorants?
7. I and many other people would very much like to see some proof that the freshwater cormorant has existed naturally within the UK previous to the last 25 years as the birdwatchers claim, if you can produce it then please do so and forward it to the Angling Star. If, as we all suspect you can't produce any then you must stop making this ridiculous claim
I look forward to your answers but I wont be holding my breath!
Or do we just let nature take its course. After all we are just another species, anything we do is surely natural, other creatures control which species can and can not live in their area so we are no different.
-- Edited by David Winnard on Tuesday 1st of December 2009 10:49:50 PM
Good points Dave. On this one, it seems to me that as the only species with the unequaled level of control we've gained over the globe at every level plus the great ability to take time to think about future impacts and to coordinate efforts, we should not consider ourselves as 'just another species', as that would be a rationalisation for us to be irresponsible in the future and to unquestioningly accept changes inflicted upon the world by our species. This line of justification leaves the human as caretaker of the world, an ethic I believe in. Afterall, we so often define who we are by how we are not natural, to the extent that we are the opposite from natural, ie the human and the natural; culture and nature etc which offers us the potential for a position of authority to care for nature. An intruiging thought is where the line should be drawn on taking responsibility for our actions when we learn we are considerably affecting the driver of the natural; evolution. The problem (as you rightly mention) is finding acceptable definitions for things like, native species, species impacts and even 'a species'! Too often decisions are taken without widely acceptable or learned definitions at their heart and we are left with issues like the Mink.
-- Edited by Henry Cook on Wednesday 2nd of December 2009 12:02:40 AM
-- Edited by Henry Cook on Wednesday 2nd of December 2009 12:03:37 AM
The lower reservoir at Castleshaw is rented from United Utilities by Oldham Anglers.
I was talking to the bailiff at Castleshaw and he told me that DEFRA had advised them to stock larger fish (4inches or over) as the Cormorant's prefer smaller fish. The fry from the breeding fish would still be eaten by Cormorants and Goosander but there would be larger fish available for the anglers.
He also stated that it was better to have more larger fish as they were harder to catch and were more sport. The smaller more inexperienced fish "throw themselves on the fly's".
Is one of the problems the fishermen themselves. There are 2 types of fishermen, one wants to pick his wits against the fish and uses skill and technique to catch them, the other pays his money and expects to catch fish. When he doesnt, the birds get the blame.
He also told me that Canada Geese cause more damage as they graze on the water margins and eat all the submerged weed and grass which is the nursery of the young fry leaving them with nowhere to feed............. now thats another topic, Canada Geese...........
According to the bailiff, the biggest problem at Castleshaw is Eastern Europeans who set long lines in the water in the dark and return the next night to retrieve their lines. The fish they "catch" have died a horrible death by drowning
The local fishing water near me (Near to Healey Dell) put lines across the water, this is to stop Goosander (I assume would work for cormorant) being able to land (or take off) so they can not come down onto the water. Fishermen can still fish, fish don't get eradicated, birds don't get heads blown off. This method may not be applicable on bigger waters though.
Whilst i have my own opinions to the native non-native, which are in which are out thing, I think all native species should have more protection.
Just on another note and this may warrant a new thread, but didn't it mention on the Audenshaw thread about getting rid of the midges around the res (If i have got my wires crossed with this i apologise)? Again a native species, vital to the food chains. Next thing people say, where have the swallows, flycatchers etc gone? They wonder why they had Alpine Swift and Red-rumped Swallow last year
the world of conservation seems ridiculous at times, unless your cute and cuddly of course.
"If you are referring to the American Mink, brought to the UK by humans, then how can that be compared?! The American Mink should be controlled as should any human-introduced species that has a detrimental effect on native species (like Gey Squirrels and those American Crayfish for example!)!"
Where do we begin Rob?! Whats native? whats detrimental to native species? There are soooo many species to list we would run out of bullets. I think its a very grey area to define this and one i do not want to get dragged into, just thought i would put these thought across (may not be mine but i will play devils advocate for Ian);
1) If grey squirrels are not native then are Rabbits, Pheasant (who doesn't love a pheasant, i know Paul cliff does), Little Owl, Ruddy Duck, Himalayan Balsam...in fact probably at least a qaurter of the british flora, Muntjac Deer etc etc
2) Sea Eagles being re-introduced eating native wildlife, these birds were brought to the U.K by man so they would be on the list?
3) When the first grey squirrels went into the countryside, did anyone realise what would happen? Do we sit back and wait to see which animals become a problem or wait until its too late? Or do we just eradicate all non-natives?
Or do we just let nature take its course. After all we are just another species, anything we do is surely natural, other creatures control which species can and can not live in their area so we are no different.
Like i say just playing devils advocate but the trouble when ever you try and define native and pest species is full of pit falls. My girlfriend did an interesting dissertation on the re-introduction of 'native' species back into the U.K, so Beaver, Wolf etc. It is something i am interested in.
Anyway, carry on.
Dave
-- Edited by David Winnard on Tuesday 1st of December 2009 10:49:50 PM
Is it really fair that a fishing club funded by members donations can lose water entirely without any protection?
is it really fair that wild birds should be killed because people have donated money?
Pete Astles wrote:
To give you an extreme example I am a member of Woolston Eyes and they have a problem with mink predation. They trap and kill the mink. Is that wrong should the mink (now a successful naturalised animal) be allowed to thrive at Woolston. Should we celebrate its success as it preys on Black Necked Grebe chicks in May?
If you are referring to the American Mink, brought to the UK by humans, then how can that be compared?! The American Mink should be controlled as should any human-introduced species that has a detrimental effect on native species (like Gey Squirrels and those American Crayfish for example!)!
Best solution is what the chinese do in the advert on telly. Teach the cormorants to catch the fish and bring em back to the boat. Retriever Cormorants
Maybe this isn't the place to discuss such things (and if so then I'm sure Big McBrother will censor it ) but I have to say I have a problem with sport fishing in general. Fair enough if you are catching fish to eat, after all we are part of the foodchain. But when people are sticking a hook through a creature's face just for the thrill of it, then making that creature stuggle as you try to pull it out of the water, that isn't a good thing! I mean if I was trapping birds, not for scientific ringing purposes etc, but just to have my photo taken with it before releasing it, then I think people would have something to say about that!
Just eating fish understates it somewhat. Whole fisheries can be decimated and its worth noting this is not wholesale shooting. Licences are only issued by Defra after all alternatives have been explored. Even then they are very limited to specific defined situations. Is it really fair that a fishing club funded by members donations can lose water entirely without any protection? I can understand it if a cormorant was rare and it in isolated situations but they are not and its not.
The bird of prey argument I cannot accept when whole species were almost wiped out by pesticides and persecution. This is not the same at all and its sensationalist to suggest it is.
I can see what you are sayings its nature and should be left to its own devices but thats a fallacy.
Almost all bird and nature reserves to my knowledge are managed, as are fisheries. In terms of bird reserves they are managed for the benefit of some species by definition then others will lose out. This is not nature its the hand of man they all do this at Martin Mere, Leighton, Pennington, Wigan flashes more or less all of them, the habitat is managed. To give you an extreme example I am a member of Woolston Eyes and they have a problem with mink predation. They trap and kill the mink. Is that wrong should the mink (now a successful naturalised animal) be allowed to thrive at Woolston. Should we celebrate its success as it preys on Black Necked Grebe chicks in May?
I hate to see any animal harmed but its right they are trapped in this instance because that reserve has to be managed and a fishing lake or river is just the same. Few fishing lakes are completely natural and hardly any nature reserves are.
int it strange that goosanders never get put in the same basket as cormorantsbecause when it comes to eating fish they rock
Be careful John, don't go giving those wan... Oops, I mean anglers, any ideas!
don't worry they are already onto emall im showing is this big fish small fish buisness is nuts,little grebes eat tiny fish,great crested little bit bigger fish,and so on until you have pelicans which eataccording to the life documentary baby gannetsin the end there are a lot of good birders that will never fish,and a lot of good fishermen that will never be birders,but somewere in between there are many fishermen who love the countryside and wildlife just as much as us,and i know because im afraid,ive got 5 rods set up in the garage,not used for 5 years,but since fishing with my dad when i was 5 ,ive always had fishing in my blood. so don't always assume every fisherman is a cormorant hating moron,he could just as easy the following week be sat next to you in horrocks hide,giving ya tips on merlin identification.As in every walk of life there are the extreme people,i hate about 50 % of the so called birders i meet,who seem to be only interested in the next rarity.There are many good people in the fishing comunity.
Fish (of the modern bony kind) have survived about 395 million years (according to Wikipedia) without us having to control their predators' populations! So why start now? The culling of any native creature just because it eats stuff is completely unjustifiable! Look at what happened to the UK's birds of prey!
Rob - I guess they do move on eventually but after wiping a water out. For a fishing club they can either write the place off entirely or restock. If they restock the comorants are back. I am a member of a very large angling club and I can tell you the members hate comorants with a vengence. The club are very responsible though and try all means to scare them away starter guns and the use of underwater fish cages rather like a squirrel proof bird feeder. When all else fails they apply for licence to cull.
Its a big problem for fishing clubs not so commercials who watch 24 x 7.
But (I feel I must be missing something here cuz this seems obvious to me!) surely once all the cormorant meal sized fish have been eaten then the cormorants will go elswhere... This culling nonsense needs to be stopped, cormorants are not an introduced species (unlike the mice on those albatross islands!) and have evolved to catch fish, and the fact that they are successful should be celebrated not feared. In an age where so many species are being pushed to the edge of existence by the greedy and selfish acts of humans, this "increase" in cormorants can only be a good thing!
-- Edited by Ian McKerchar on Tuesday 1st of December 2009 07:58:57 PM
Regarding the previous thread,there is no doubt Comorants are stripping some fisheries of vast numbers of fish.Pennington Flash has several "year classes" of fish almost completely absent,the ones that are missing are the ones that are most suitable sizewise as food for the comorants,and have undoubtedly all been eaten.This makes for a severe inbalance in fish stocks as you end up with very young fish which are too small to make a meal for Comorants and probably are too young to breed,and very old fish which are too big for them to eat,and are quite likely too old to breed.Fisheries can apply for a licence to cull Comorants and I'm certain many cull them without even bothering to apply.They are referred to in some fishing magazines as"The Black Plague"which gives some idea of the feeling of fishermen against them. Unfortunately due to the obscene overfishing of our coastal waters the Comorants have no alternative but to come inland to find food,especially when many modern day fisheries are overstocked with the right size food for them,as quite a number of fisheries are privately run on a commercial basis,and fishermen who are paying good money expect to catch plenty of fish.
etc - if so, then in much smaller numbers than we currently see. In my opinion, as usual with most matters surely it is a question of balance. However, balance is the difficult thing to "manage" - might one persons appropriate level of "control of numbers" be another persons "over-control" and another persons "under-control"? We do need other members of society, with interest in the countryside, on "our side" - including anglers, as some waters are very important to breeding birds - surely, like most things in life, it is a question of give and take?
because when it comes to eating fish they rock
all im showing is this big fish small fish buisness is nuts,little grebes eat tiny fish,great crested little bit bigger fish,and so on until you have pelicans which eat