Thanks Thanks:  12
Likes Likes:  186
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 118
  1. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FloatinglineNelly View Post
    Dave why didn't you tell us earlier you knew Orri.
    Good thread lads very informative..
    Keep up the good work MIK, some of us appreciate it.
    Seems to know everything.. We should all bow down

  2. #82

    Default A few queries and observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxie View Post
    If killing 30 goosanders split up the large clocks and move them away from vulnerable areas, usually man made obstructions, during the smolt run then a great deal of good will be done for salmon. You do not seem to understand the principle licences are issued on: as part of a management plan in order to reinforce scaring and not as cull.

    Equally on a river like the Barle with an annual production of 10 to 15,000 smolts, the 20 or so goosanders we count each year are each doing very serious damage. If we can shoot 2 or 3 to help reinforce scaring to keep them off the vulnerable parts of the river we would see very real benefits.

    There are not many Tweed sized rivers down here but there are some severely impacted salmon rivers that need help. Predators have become sacred cows in this country with the packamisation of Wildlife, management in the eyes of the mainly urban population is a dirty word. This is putting political brakes on sensible solutions to achieve a proper balance between predators and prey that gives the maximum benefit to people.
    'Large flocks': Really - on a upper tributary of a moderate sized river in the South West of England?
    'Vulnerable areas': Do you mean man-made mill weirs/dams/hydro's?
    'A great deal of good': How great? Do you mean at a level that would be measurable?
    'We would see very real benefits': What do you mean by that? (See above)
    '..doing very serious damage': How serious? (See earlier post re a question about the 'benefits' of shooting one FEB).
    'Severely impacted salmon rivers' (Devon): It's not clear what you mean here. Do you mean severly impacted by the combination of Abstraction, Sewage outfalls, Agriculture, Forestry, Hydro, trout farms etc ...or just FEBs?
    'Balance': Again, it's not really clear what you mean by this. This concept gets bandied about a lot. Do you mean equal 'shares' or the even distribution of the resource, ...or perhaps some other kind of 'balance'?
    'Sensible solutions': I all for a sensible solution to the decline in the numbers of returning salmon - preferably based upon a defendable argument. Yet despite all the comments posted so far, it appears that nobody is prepared to state what the 'benefit(s)' of shooting a FEB (or number of) might actually be - in terms of juvenile salmon numbers in rivers; smolt numbers and subsequent numbers of adult salmon that will return as a result.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    edzell
    Posts
    1,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepwading View Post
    'Large flocks': Really - on a upper tributary of a moderate sized river in the South West of England?
    'Vulnerable areas': Do you mean man-made mill weirs/dams/hydro's?
    'A great deal of good': How great? Do you mean at a level that would be measurable?
    'We would see very real benefits': What do you mean by that? (See above)
    '..doing very serious damage': How serious? (See earlier post re a question about the 'benefits' of shooting one FEB).
    'Severely impacted salmon rivers' (Devon): It's not clear what you mean here. Do you mean severly impacted by the combination of Abstraction, Sewage outfalls, Agriculture, Forestry, Hydro, trout farms etc ...or just FEBs?
    'Balance': Again, it's not really clear what you mean by this. This concept gets bandied about a lot. Do you mean equal 'shares' or the even distribution of the resource, ...or perhaps some other kind of 'balance'?
    'Sensible solutions': I all for a sensible solution to the decline in the numbers of returning salmon - preferably based upon a defendable argument. Yet despite all the comments posted so far, it appears that nobody is prepared to state what the 'benefit(s)' of shooting a FEB (or number of) might actually be - in terms of juvenile salmon numbers in rivers; smolt numbers and subsequent numbers of adult salmon that will return as a result.
    Is this another new era of questions?

    Cheers

    Mows

  4. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepwading View Post
    'Large flocks': Really - on a upper tributary of a moderate sized river in the South West of England?
    'Vulnerable areas': Do you mean man-made mill weirs/dams/hydro's?
    'A great deal of good': How great? Do you mean at a level that would be measurable?
    'We would see very real benefits': What do you mean by that? (See above)
    '..doing very serious damage': How serious? (See earlier post re a question about the 'benefits' of shooting one FEB).
    'Severely impacted salmon rivers' (Devon): It's not clear what you mean here. Do you mean severly impacted by the combination of Abstraction, Sewage outfalls, Agriculture, Forestry, Hydro, trout farms etc ...or just FEBs?
    'Balance': Again, it's not really clear what you mean by this. This concept gets bandied about a lot. Do you mean equal 'shares' or the even distribution of the resource, ...or perhaps some other kind of 'balance'?
    'Sensible solutions': I all for a sensible solution to the decline in the numbers of returning salmon - preferably based upon a defendable argument. Yet despite all the comments posted so far, it appears that nobody is prepared to state what the 'benefit(s)' of shooting a FEB (or number of) might actually be - in terms of juvenile salmon numbers in rivers; smolt numbers and subsequent numbers of adult salmon that will return as a result.
    I think the key problem is that there are very few rivers where there is any quantifiable measure of Smolt production at all. Then we have ocean mortality, which also varies and so it is very hard to measure the effectiveness (or otherwise) of any measure; be that improved passage, reduced pollution, reduced abstraction or shooting non native birds. There is no quantifiable evidence that any single conservation measure is either positive or negative towards salmon populations although looking at history it would appear that complete barriers to migration (including pollution) in the lower reaches do have the ability to effectively destroy Salmon populations in particular river systems.

    I suspect you probably haven't been Salmon fishing or following Salmon conservation very long if you're looking for conservation informed by measures of effect.

    The problem of quantifying the effect of FEB predation is something which at least a couple of river boards are trying to wrestle with, albeit a wee bit too late.

    On the other hand, I don't think anyone can quantify what harm to the species or indeed to biodiversity and the countryside as a whole would be caused by shooting 75% of the non-native FEBs.

    If being unable to quantify the benefit is a barrier to action, then surely the converse must be true when we can't quantify the harm.....i.e. It should be fine

    I think the point Loxie is making is that the degraded environment we currently have is not able to support both the numbers of juvenile Salmon required for viable fisheries and the numbers of non-native predators which we are now used to. If the environment was pristine (Kola), then the situation may be different, but it is not and that isn't going to change overnight. What could, in theory change overnight is the population of FEBs.

    I personally don't see the problem with running a couple of trials where the FEBs are removed, reduced by 25, 50 and 75%, some basic measures of effect are applied and the results scrutinized for subsequent application nationwide.

    We're an odd bunch, happy to kill off all the wildlife under the sun as long as we don't have to actually see it. On the other hand if anyone raises the prospect of actually shooting something and it's the worst thing ever. Hypocrisy at its worst, mind you, so is all the 'save the salmon, I never kill a fish, but please shoot that Cormorant' stuff.
    Last edited by Grassy_Knollington; 17-05-2018 at 02:22 AM.

  5. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepwading View Post
    'Large flocks': Really - on a upper tributary of a moderate sized river in the South West of England?
    'Vulnerable areas': Do you mean man-made mill weirs/dams/hydro's?
    'A great deal of good': How great? Do you mean at a level that would be measurable?
    'We would see very real benefits': What do you mean by that? (See above)
    '..doing very serious damage': How serious? (See earlier post re a question about the 'benefits' of shooting one FEB).
    'Severely impacted salmon rivers' (Devon): It's not clear what you mean here. Do you mean severly impacted by the combination of Abstraction, Sewage outfalls, Agriculture, Forestry, Hydro, trout farms etc ...or just FEBs?
    'Balance': Again, it's not really clear what you mean by this. This concept gets bandied about a lot. Do you mean equal 'shares' or the even distribution of the resource, ...or perhaps some other kind of 'balance'?
    'Sensible solutions': I all for a sensible solution to the decline in the numbers of returning salmon - preferably based upon a defendable argument. Yet despite all the comments posted so far, it appears that nobody is prepared to state what the 'benefit(s)' of shooting a FEB (or number of) might actually be - in terms of juvenile salmon numbers in rivers; smolt numbers and subsequent numbers of adult salmon that will return as a result.
    I think my post is perfectly clear, tbh. Maybe if you reread it with reference to what has been posted before it will make more sense to you. The answers to your questions are all in there already.

    You are looking for a very naive answer to what is a very complex problem, in short your question makes little sense in a real world context.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    West Sussex, UK
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eminem View Post
    FYI gents, a PM from Dave Wilkinson just received in my Inbox....

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.


    Shame really. Seems a fairly knowlegeable chap with many a good point to raise.

    I have edited this last post to make sure I am not in breach of Forum Rules.
    Not really a fan of individuals "hiding" behind said rules however.
    Just a quick note on this issue of posted PMs - thanks for deleting it Eminem as despite the content, it is against the rules to share PMs. BUT if anyone ever receives an abusive PM that is definitely not OK and you are encouraged to report those to us directly please via the Contact Us button at the bottom of the page (or PM myself or a moderator) so we can consider any appropriate action. Thanks, Paul.
    ---------------
    Paul Sharman
    Editor-in-Chief
    Fish and Fly Ltd

  7. #87

    Default

    Is that fun time davy away on a ban ?

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Scotland.
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rrrr View Post
    Is that fun time davy away on a ban ?

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
    Hope it's a short one if so....even the contentious stuff sometimes brings out pearls of wisdom.

  9. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rrrr View Post
    Is that fun time davy away on a ban ?

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
    I'm all for a bit of eccentricity and passion, but there really is no need for silly name calling and the rude and aggressive manner of some of his posts, especially on this thread. It doesn't do much to encourage debate and understanding when you just have a tantrum whenever someone disagrees with you and is likely to be a real put off for new posters. If Dave does continue to post I hope he will do so without the totally unnecessary nastiness.

  10. #90

    Default

    Aye its good to have a bit of debate but you cant just throw your toys out of the pram when someone dissagrees.

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •