Predation Action Group, August 2015

At the latest meeting of the Predation Action Group (PAG) on 19th August, progress was made in terms of making our presence felt, and moving forward. The PAG now has a number of initiatives to action and report on: trail cameras, the legal initiative, and a proposed ‘fenced waters’ survey. In previous press releases we have already mentioned the legal initiative, designed to examine, and possibly challenge, the current laws on the protection of predators. Legalities are for the experts, and legal eagles, can’t be hurried, so all we can do on this aspect is sit on our hands and make encouraging noises from time to time. As soon as there is anything further to report we will make the news available.

Board member Joss Faulkner has suffered predation from otters over a period of time and sets great stall on the filming of wildlife by the popular remote-control trail cameras he has installed on his waters. At the recent meeting it was agreed we would buy an initial supply of 50 of these cameras and make them available, free of charge, to anyone who has cause for concern regarding the predation of their water(s). There is still scepticism in some quarters that otters are responsible for the damage anglers claim they cause, so the trail camera initiative is with a view to gathering more solid evidence regarding otter predation. If you have an unfenced water where there is a real threat of otter predation, get in touch with us and we will consider your application for a free trail camera. Please only get in touch if you think you can monitor the results the camera produces, and, if necessary, make them available to us.

Trail camera

We feel we need more solid statistical evidence to present to the powers that be concerning not just cases of predation, but also the financial losses, and the damage to the economy, incurred as a result of predation. Financial losses come under three main headings:
1. Loss of fish, and the necessity to replace them, due to predation.
2. The cost of fencing a water where there is little or no funding available.
3. Loss of, or impact on, a livelihood or community asset (e.g. a local club closing or going bust as a result of predation on its waters) through predation.

One of the main aims of the proposed fenced waters survey will be to try and arrive at a figure for the number of waters it has now been necessary to fence because of the threat from, and the impact of, otters. Those of you familiar with our document The Big Picture (available via our website) will be aware that John Wilson MBE for East Anglia, Mark Holmes for Yorkshire, and Adam Roots for the South West, painted vivid pictures of the impact of predation in their areas. For the record, the number of fisheries covered by these reports totalled almost 130, just from three areas, information dating back four years to a period when otter predation wasn’t having the nationwide impact that is now being felt. PAG board member and Bradford AA No. 1 chairman Mark Holmes was able to put an estimate of over £2,700,000 on Yorkshire carp losses to predation. The spread of otters and the impact of predation have proliferated since that information was compiled and we need to update it.

Otter damage

Total licence income from angling for 2013/14 was £21.59m. Carp, coarse and specialist anglers contribute approaching £400m to the tackle and bait trade annually. Their contribution to the landowners and farming community by way of syndicate and day ticket fees on the 10,000 still-waters in this country is inestimable, and certainly runs well into numbers of millions. The contribution to the income from waters and the tourist industry from the game sector is equally impressive. (In our The Big Picture assessment for the fisheries’ income from angling activities we suggested a conservative figure of £250m, which no one has disputed.) The travel undertaken by the majority of anglers contributes significantly to the economy of the country. And yet the quotes coming out of the EA give the impression that these furry creatures, which produce little or no revenue for the economy, and which the public very, very rarely sees in their natural environment, are of far greater concern than the welfare of fish stocks and angling activities.

In a recent article in the respected Times newspaper, a spokesman for the EA defended otters:
‘If you look at rivers that never lost otters they have healthy fish populations containing a good age range of fish. It has not resulted in fish being wiped out. Large specimen fish tend to dominate rivers, which is not a healthy state for a river. This wouldn’t have occurred when otters were more numerous and would have eaten the larger fish. Specimen fish aren’t immortal. As much as anglers love to fish for large barbel, sooner or later they will die.’

To suggest that the comment is debatable is an understatement. It is totally divorced from reality. The EA spokesman rather gave the impression that the incident reported regarding the loss of the big River Ivel barbel was a one-off, inevitable occurrence that we just had to live with. In fact, we have numerous file shots of seven different species of fish – carp, barbel, salmon, grayling, perch, eel and pike – showing clear, typical otter damage to the area of the vital organs. The EA must surely know how far-reaching the impact of predation by signal crayfish, cormorants and otters is on fish stocks in both rivers and still-waters, and that rivers are failing to meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive because of failing fish stocks. The EA spokesman’s attitude does not sit well with the overall fishery responsibilities of the EA, or the noises coming out of Government and the Angling Trust about predation.

Otter damage to an eel

Nearly 75% of our rivers are failing to reach good ecological status and many of these are failing because of poor fish populations. Angling Trust Press Release, May 2015.

‘I know of successful businesses that have been badly damaged by excessive predation by cormorants and we must give our inland fisheries the protection they need to remain healthy and productive.’ Owen Paterson MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, October 2012.

The Angling Trust will call for Defra and the EA to stop referring to otter numbers as successful restoration of river systems when the majority of rivers are failing to reach good ecological status and many fish populations are seriously depleted. Angling Trust Press Release, May 2015.

How does otter predation manifest itself? The ‘typical’ damage is to the vital organs, usually at the back of the gill covers, as pictured. An otter rarely returns to its prey once it has eaten the vital organs, but badgers, foxes and other predators will quickly dispose of the rest of the carcass. Therefore, finding typical otter damage is down to ‘luck’ and timing, because in the wild partly eaten carcasses don’t lie around for long. Many waters don’t realise they are being predated until there is a noticeable shortage of fish in their waters. Most of the damage to the vital organs occurs when the fish is still alive. Trail cameras don’t lie, so the more images we can obtain of otter predation the stronger our case for a more realistic approach to the impact of predation will become. The impact of predation on fish tends to be far greater during the colder months than it is in summer and autumn.