Natur i ubalanse?

[bjorni]

Muligens jeg ser spøkelser på høylys dag, men er faktisk litt bekymret. Stusser på en del observasjoner i naturen:

1. Før så regnet vi med lemen år hvert 7 år. Etter å ha vært borte i årtier så var det endelig lemenår i fjor høst. Men, i år kryr det av lemen i Telemark om våren også. Det har jeg aldri opplevd før.

2. Stadig mere skarv observeres innover i landet, en fugl vi aldri så tidligere

3. Nå har til og med havørna etablert seg langt inne i Telemark. den har vi ikke sett her før.

4. Før så vi ett og annet måkepar her. Nå kryr det av måker og det blir stadig fler.

5. Synes vel egentlig det er lite fisk å få i sjøen. Det burde være mye mer å få.

Hva skjer? På tide å tenke litt mer grønnt snart politikere??

bjorni

[Gjest staffan@epost.no]

vi har misten bufferevnen til naturen....alt er menneskeskapt!

[Ruffen]

Skarven har jo tatt helt av bare på få år. Jeg har også lurt på hvorfor fuglene skifter habitat.

De snakker om det er pga mennesker etterlater seg søppel og mat som grunn til at måkene i stadig større grad etablerer seg innover i landet. Jeg vet ikke om jeg helt tror på det. Det har jo bodd folk der en liten stund før måkene trakk innover for alvor. Dette har jo også økt så lenge jeg kan huske.

[Gjest staffan@epost.no]

dyra har måtte bytte beiteplasser pga at det orginale er forringet!

[Eirik Rusten]

Koyaanisqatsi med andre ord

Det er mye som endres, men at aboslutt alt er menneskapt har jeg ingen stor tro på. Joda, vi setter helt klart våre merker i naturen. Men ting går opp og ned, og har gjort det siden tidenes morgen. Ikke dermed sagt at vi kan peise på som vi vil, selvsagt

Eirik

[Gjest staffan@epost.no]

dersom man tar landsdelen til bjorni så vil jeg påstå at det er bare er mennesket som står bak problemene.

[Hermann]

Et stort problem her er sauen, som jo finnes i et enormt antall i utmarka vår. I hvertfall når det gjelder lemen og de dyra som har lemen som bytte. Når lemen spiser gress/planter som finnes i leveområdet danner planten et giftstoff neste sesong som ikke lemen tåler. Vi får da lemenvandringer etter nye beiteplasser. Sauen spiser de samme plantene som lemen i skogen og på fjellet. Problemet er bare at sauen tåler gifta som planta produserer og kan derfor spise de samme plantene hvert år. Det er nok hovedårsaken til mer og mer sjeldne lemenvandringer og til dels vandringer som strider mot normalen. Dette gjør også næringstilgangen til hauk, ørn, rev og mange fler høyst usikker. Så, få sauen på inngjerdet beite så fort som råd er.

[Gjest Erik Eikre]

Punkt 2:

Link => Cormorants in Europe – Development of Breeding Pairs & Total Population Trends per Country - EN

La spesielt merke til kommentaren på side 64.

According to Wetlands International total number of Carbo was ca. 52.000 Breeding Pairs, about 10.000 more than in year 2000 (BirdLife Factsheet). As Ireland and UK were recorded to be "stable", most of this growth was estimated to have occurred in Norway. As data for Norway are there (just not published) this should be clarified in near future.

[Gjest Erik Eikre]

Sikkert noen som har mer oppdatert info, men jeg poster nå dette uansett jeg da.

Expert meeting on Cormorants

29 January 2009

DG Environment, Room BU5 0C,

Av. de Beaulieu 5, 1160 Brussels

PARTICIPANTS

Member States: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, UK.

Commission: DG Environment, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

SUMMARY RECORD

(1) PURPOSE OF THE MEETING

Following the population increase of the Great Cormorant during the last 20-30 years and the consequent rise of the damage, the European Parliament adopted on 4 December 2008 a resolution on the adoption of a European Cormorant Management Plan to minimise the increasing impact of cormorants on fish stocks, fishing and aquaculture.

Apart of the institutional answer, prior to the meeting of 29 January 2009 the European Commission conducted an informal inquiry with Member States through a telephone survey. The main purpose of this meeting was to discuss the results given by the Member States on the cormorant issue and exchange views on the actions needed to manage the situation at EU level. A second meeting will be held on 31 March 2009 with the Member States and the stakeholders.

A summary of the main issues and views discussed during the meeting is presented in the following chapters.

(2) SITUATION OF THE CORMORANT POPULATIONS: STATUS, MONITORING AND TRENDS

In addition to monitoring carried out at national level, by initiative of Wetlands International Cormorant Research Group, Cormorant census are done at an international scale: (a) wintering census 2003, Pan-European count, including Israel and North Africa; ( breeding census 2006; © new wintering census January 2009.

All Member States considered important to continue collecting data concerning all European countries and to improve knowledge concerning migration pathways and new colonies within Europe and beyond, dealing with different distinct metapopulation and races distributed and moving over a wide geographic range within the Western Palearctic region. All Member States trust Wetlands International work on Cormorants as this organisation provides basis enough for monitoring cormorants. No Member States considered necessary to establish a new process to generate information. A number of Member States also suggested that the process should be facilitated by EU financial support.

However, there was a common agreement that in further census various stakeholder groups as well as NGOs are welcome to participate again, with the aim to develop a mechanism for collecting statistics on Cormorant population that is reliable and not controversial. Taking into account the organisation details and need of cooperation, the modalities for how this should happen should probably be left to be decided and coordinated at national level.

There has been and there is already good cooperation between different stakeholder groups (bird conservation and fisheries) taking place during the past census actions as well as the recent count actions, but this varies according to Member States involved and depends at least on national based dialogue building possibilities and agreements.

(3) DAMAGE AND HUMAN-CORMORANT CONFLICTS

The information reported by Member States supports the view that Cormorants present a problem, which is mainly specific to fisheries due to predation of fish species of commercial importance (including recreational angling). Although a few conservation issues were also mentioned, which relate to the competition of Cormorants with other birds in mixed colonies, their impact on fish species of conservation concern and on vegetation, this type of interaction does not have a comparable impact at this moment.

According to the information available, the impact of Cormorants on coastal and inland fisheries, aquaculture and angling is variable across different regions. Whilst in some places the impact seems to be locally intense, in others it is reported as moderate, minor or not important. However, knowledge of the extension of the interaction between Cormorants and fish has still to be improved. There is in general a lack of solid information demonstrating a single ”one-way” causal relationship as impact and reference situations are missing in several regions. Besides, it appears that the impact is not always directly related to the size of the Cormorant populations; the main damage may occur in an area where only a small part of the population is present depending on the environmental conditions /environmental parameters or status of the aquatic system. The effect of mild winters on the population size is unclear but at the same time flocking in big concentration during hard winter may lead to bigger issues in terms of damage.

Some Member States referred also to the fact that the Cormorant is not the only factor affecting fisheries, but it is an additional pressure for the sector among others such as pollution, modification of river beds, fish habitats and ecosystems and a number of economical constraints. Moreover, in some cases, fish population increase due to fishery management options (stocking, locally high biomass) as well as eutrophication may be a complementary reason for the Cormorant population increase. The improvement of these other factors, which are independent from the control of Cormorant populations, could be beneficial for fisheries and for the environment.

Damage to fisheries is not only related to fish loss but also to the potential abandonment of extensive fisheries areas, frequently of high ecological value. In some areas damage is difficult to address as land and water features are res nullius, not related to ownership status. Nevertheless, impact in general or severe damage is perceived as a problem at different levels in some EU countries only. Although certain rivers and extensive systems can be particularly exposed to predation by Cormorants, solutions to reduce damage have been found in a number of cases and regions. The outcome of the Intercafe project should provide a good contribution to this problem.

(4) CRITERIA, APPLICATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF DEROGATIONS

There is a common understanding that the question of serious damage would need some guidance including a certain degree of flexibility. Currently, there is variability in the use of derogations and the evidence to provide is not always clear. The capability to demonstrate derogation needs in one country based on serious damage in another has to be assessed.

Most Member States underlined that control has to be a combination of all measures by putting pressure in the whole life cycle, taking into account that population dynamics are related to both breeding and wintering conditions. However, it will be difficult to reduce the population as long as food supply remains as large as it is.

Although the use of derogations may still increase in countries that are not in overcapacity, some Member States mentioned difficulties to maintain the regularity in the action and reported that shooting quotas are often not reached. The question of efficiency of eggs culling also exists especially in terms of cost-effectiveness and some difficulties in controlling populations were already encountered with breeding culling. Some Member States had concerns that an extensive use of derogations may affect the image of wildlife protection and have an impact on conservation policies. The use of derogations has to go along with monitoring schemes to check its effect.

(5) EXISTING MANAGEMENT PLANS (INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL, SUB-NATIONAL AND LOCAL)

Generally there is no national management plan described as such, except for some countries with a long tradition of Cormorant management and some more recent ones in the area of the Baltic Sea. In certain countries, management plans have been established at regional level with different solutions adapted to local situations and impacts.

While some of these management plans are too recent to assess their effectiveness, they try to ensure that the size and structure of the Cormorant populations do not cause unacceptable nuisance to fisheries while ensuring the good conservation status of the Cormorant populations. However, there is a risk that the lack of visible results could lead to a lassitude in the implementation.

The question of adding the Great Cormorant to Annex 2 of the Birds Directive was raised by very few Member States, but most did not show any support for such measure. Besides, hunting for recreation and species management are two different concepts and FACE together with BirdLife have already published a position against this solution. Even if this possibility would still be considered, some complex issues would have to be faced such as hunting seasons and the fact that derogations will always be needed to control the population during breeding season. Moreover, the relation between hunting and private property are not always the perfect scheme for pest control. At last, hunting does not seem to produce by itself the intended result and there is no demand on this in some countries.

(6) EU COORDINATED ACTIONS

Some Member States consider that the Cormorant issue is symptomatic of issues related to conservation success. This gives rise to a number of questions, such as those regarding limits and balance of long-term sustainable populations, or the possibilities and extent of loss compensation.

There is consensus among Member States that a European minded approach is needed with a concerted action. However, the appropriate level of response should take into account that the problem does not occur at the same level in all Member States. Framing the problem at EU level could help find solutions at local level, even if it takes time.

In this sense, Member States generally considered that coordination of national management actions could be more effective than the implementation of an EU wide management plan that would take much time to be agreed on and would be difficult to follow to a large extent and probably not all Member States want to use it. Besides, some Member States referred to the fact that there is more need for regional cooperation, which did not take place to a large extent up to now. This approach could be even more adequate than EU concerted action. Some Member States indicated the need to meet site-specific expectations with respect to environmental conditions and economic constraints through local relevant solutions. The need of flexibility within regions could hardly be achieved or guaranteed by a more common EU wide strategy. Graduated solutions might also improve consensus building among stakeholder groups as well as help in often controversial public discussions.

There was a strong support for a coordinated approach to the derogation system. Guidelines on Article 9 of the Birds Directive should promote interpretation of legal provisions and include examples of good practice of prevention and mitigation. The derogation process could also be simplified. General principles could be considered to make derogations easier by addressing serious damage and indicating what actions could be compatible with the Birds Directive.

The Member States underlined that the results of Intercafe should be communicated, as all parties concerned are eager to have the results as soon as possible. It is expected that the outcome of this project will show that there are different views and solutions and that it is not a problem everywhere.

There is also a strong belief that it would be beneficial to keep frank dialogue in a stakeholder forum, in order to tackle different perceptions and reach consensus on common grounds. A platform for facilitating bilateral or multilateral arrangements between countries and regions should be developed and it could be based on a permanent working group under the EC umbrella. The EU could offer such facilitation for the exchange of experiences, good practice and information on Cormorant populations and fisheries across the EU and to deal with regional issues in order to reduce conflicts on a long term basis.

[.JB]

Oldefar var fisker, og fatter'n var ofte med ham i sommermånedene på 50-tallet. Da fantes det knapt skarv langs østfoldkysten. Skarv var et svært sjeldent syn! Sel langt opp i brakkvannsområdene ble sett på som en umulighet pga det lave saltinnholdet. I dag er skarven helt vanlig å se hele året, og sel svømmer langt oppover i munningen av Glomma. Det er skremmende hvor mye som endres på få tiår. På slutten av åttitallet var det dessuten en massiv seldød i ytre Oslofjord, men etter få år var bestanden høyere enn noen gang tidligere registrert. I mine barneår var selvfisket torsk obligatorisk rett i romjulen. Eksemplarer på 5-10 kilo var ikke unormalt etter noen timers innsats med svenskepilken. I dag hørte jeg om en fra mine hjemtrakter på Kråkerøy som har hatt garn ut flere ganger på rad uten å ha fått en eneste torsk. Og dette er folk som vet hvor garna bør settes... Jeg er bekymret.  

http://www.njff.no/portal/page/portal/hordaland/nyhet?element_id=80191854

PS! Har både jaktet og spist skarv, men den fuglen er så sky etter noen dagers jakt at den ikke er enkel å få has på. Ser den noen som ligner på en båt som ligger fortøyd på en holme eller menneske, så er det full brems eller rett opp utenfor skuddhold. Tipper skarven slår svartendene glatt i sjakk, for å si det sånn.  

[nils49]

Når det gjelder lemen, så var det i tusenvis av dem på Møsvatn i april en gang på  begynnelsen av 1980. Så det har hendt før. Men jeg har aldri sett det siden.

[Rodswinger]

At det kryr av lemen om våren tyder på voldsom smelting som fører til at gangene under snøen blir fyllt med vann. Enkelt.

Alt det andre er menneskeskapt. Og er selvfølgelig et politisk ansvar.

Og litt vårt,det er bare å se langs med veiene om våren hva vi slenger ut av bilen når vi kjører(som vi også burde gjøre litt mindre av?).Det har med holdninger å gjøre.

Og så lenge vi har politikere som prioriterer arbeidsplasser foran våre etterkommeres framtid,og har holdninger som dette :

http://www.nrk.no/nett-tv/indeks/259967/  ...særlig den siste kommentaren er interesant,og den nye Senterpartistatsråden er nok ingen Messias,for å holde seg til tiden,

så må det gå galt,og ut av balanse.

[bjorni]

Hmmm, syntes det stod Strøm-tørrlagte elver tidligere, nå står det Strøm-tørrlagte veier?? Den endringen er i alle fall menneskeskapt uvisst hvilken grunn...

Greit å høre at lemenvandring i april er obeservert tidligere. Men, området rundt Møsvann hører vel til lemenets naturlige habitat. Lemen har vel naturlig tilholdsted på snaufjellet\bjørkebeltet. Disse vandringene har alltid forundret meg. Fra at du ser ett og annet tilfeldig dyr, som alltid er veldig sky, så ser du dem overalt og adferden er totalt endret.

Blir spennende å høre mer om dette. Det er mye vi ikke vet.

Det som bekymrer meg mest er det som kan se ut som en del sjøfugl arters matflukt innover i landet. Dette skjer samtidig som at mer spesialiserte arter forsvinner. Å skyte skarven og måkene er jo mulige tiltak. Men, det gjør ikke noe med årsakene til problemene.

Tenk om vi skulle få en transport krise i fremtiden forårsaket av mangel på drivstoff. Høres jo sykt ut i et land som Norge, men oljen tar også slutt en dag, i alle fall med dagens forbrukstakt. Greier vi i Norge å produsere vår egen mat, med tomme hav og fiskeløse innsjøer, eller må vi ete skarv, lemen og måker?

bare undres

bjorni

[.JB]

Litt på siden, men dog: Riktig tilberedt er skarv et veldig godt måltid... 

[Rodswinger]

Ja,men ikke lemen,de er giftige. :-\

[Rodswinger]

Hmmm, syntes det stod Strøm-tørrlagte elver tidligere, nå står det Strøm-tørrlagte veier?? Den endringen er i alle fall menneskeskapt uvisst hvilken grunn...

bjorni

Der ser du prioriteringen..........og holdningen....:Veier er viktigere enn elver vettu !

[bjorni]

Tror også jeg skulle være usedvanlig sulten før jeg åt lemen Willy. Du får invitere på en skarvemiddag JB

bjorni

[Øyvind T]

Koyaanisqatsi med andre ord

Kudos. Regner med du har sett filmen også.

[Knut Adolfsen]

Tror vel ikke lemen i sør oppfører seg helt forskjellig fra i nord og der var det lemen både vår og sommer. Grunnnen til at for eks flere rypeunger overlever bedre i en lemensommer er kort og godt fordi rovfuglene kan frotse i lemen og la kyllingene være.

Skarven har invadert oss fra sør og er en fremmed art. Det er også mårhunden men mens skarven ønskes velkommen bruker vi millioner på å kverke enhver mårhund.

Havørn og måker i innlandet kan komme av matmangel i havet. Vi ser at de få ternene vi har i Horten har reir på holmer i saltvann men henter nesten all maten i ferskvann.

Dyr og fugler må tilpasse seg for å overleve og det er lettere for måker å hente maten sin på dynga kontra i havet.

Fisken har vi effektivt fjernet med større og mere effektive fiskebåter og trålere. Stor torsk som en etterlyser og som var vanlig for bare få år siden har de mye av i Øresund hvor tråling er forbudt. Jeg tror ikke det er tilfeldig.

Vern er det eneste som nytter men da får yrkesfiskerne hetta. Ingen vet bedre enn dem hvordan man høster bærekraftig.

Friluftsfjorden!! Med et langt rikere biologisk mangfold

[Eirik Rusten]

Kudos. Regner med du har sett filmen også.

Selvsagt. Jeg har dog ikke sett de to andre....

Eirik