Angling and Piscivorous Predators

Fish have far more predators than just otters than cormrants - they are just the ones we happen to see fishing and happen to take some larger fish, there are far more predators beneath the water that also prey on fish - predominantly other, larger fish such as pike but also the various amphibians and invertebrates that thrive on fish fry and eggs.  The otter reintroduction is irrelevent - most of the otters comeback is under it's own steam and they would have reached the reintroduction area if they had been left to spread naturally anyway.  The otters and cormrants wouldn't be around if there wasn't enough for them to eat, and their absence would just leave larger fish free to prey on the smaller ones anyway.  

It is always very easy to point at a predator and blame that, it is much more difficult to look beyond the predator (and people also need to be counted in that!) and look for the causes, the habitat changes and other things that lie behind it.  Do the fish have safe spawning grounds, what is their food supply like, where do the young fish go, is there safe places for the adult fish, has the flow of the river changed, sediment levels, development along the river, flood defences, illegal dumping and pollution, illegal fishing...  Predators can only exist where there is prey - and there has to be a certain level of prey for them to survive otherwise they have to look elsewhere or starve.  

Ecology is much more complex than "X is eating Z so X must be responsible for Z's decline".  It is like blaming blue tits for the decline in butterflies and moths because they eat caterpillars (and are also numerous).  

There are no pike in the small stretches of river im talking about, illegal fishing is not an issue as it is routinely bailifed. Its cormorant predation that is the issue. As stated the habitat or water quality is not to blame this has improved as I had already stated. I watch them eat fish on a daily basis, a large quantity, I have documented findings and photographs which are being reported to the environment agency. Deal with it, the cormorant population is affecting the natural balance of this countries rivers. I love birds and wildlife as much as the next person and im raising these points as most people (as shown on this thread) just consider one side of the argument.

I see blue tits eating caterpillars so therefore I guess I am right to assume they are responsible for the decline in butterflies then?

Just because you see the habitat as improving does not necessarily mean that it is providing adequate protection and habitat for the fish that live there - all wildlife needs a varied habitat and habitat "improvements" don't necessarily do that - in fact sometimes it is more about making a pretty appearence rather than considering what would actually benefit wildlife.  Perhaps it is these so-called habitat improvements that are actually responsible for the decline of the fish.  You also have no idea what smaller predators lie under the water that will eat the fish eggs and the young fish to see what impact they might be having - this includes the trout  themselves as they will prey on smaller members of their species.  I doubt you will be witnessing predatation such as that to add to your findings.  As I said earlier - it is not natural for a (wild) predator to wipe out their prey, this has only ever worked in highly simplistic laboratory experiments, in a complex environment predators have more work to do as the prey have places to hide away.  To simply blame a predator without looking deeper into the problem is just taking the easy way out because for a predator to have a major impact on their prey is simply not natural, it would be easy to cull a predator but solving the problems behind it is what is needed to really make a difference.

When there is a license issued to cull predators such as Cormorants there is a limit on the number to be killed but who checks on the numbers and how can they check?.

If the cormorants were to be culled on that strech of the river more cormorants would move in.

If you decimate the population then other fish eaters would move in,

The problem has to be studied independently or between two parties of which both have differing agreements on the matter and all accounts have to be concidered and studied,

H

"the cormorant population is affecting the natural balance of this countries[sic] rivers".

So in what way is this natural predator of freshwater fish that has colonised our waterways of its own volition and is doing what it has to do to survive not part of this natural balance that you clearly value so highly?

Heads in sand, im trying to show another point of view which you dont seem to understand. If you had observed the reduction in the population of fish over the past 10 years, that myself and a number of others who frequent the rivers due to cormorant predation you may appreciate my point. I give up, time will tell who is right on this subject.

Dave not sure what river you are on but there are three rivers around us,fish stocks are low and a Cormorant almost warrants a twitch.There has never been a large number of avian predators reducing the fish stocks in what were good rivers when I did a spell as water bailiff,the decline seemed to start when Mink moved into the river,predators that were released from fur farms a number of years ago.

isn't an angler a preditor.

Its just like feeding birds in the garden, a healthy population attracts sparrowhawks.

A well stocked lake or river will attract Cormarants.

Most lakes contain fish that man has stocked for fishing and have seen pike killed on bankings becouse they kill other fish.

I have done a bit of angling and enjoyed seeing all wild life while fishing. inluding preditors like the kingfisher or doesn't he count becouse anglers don't catch small fish

  Ray