Sir, - The feature by Sheila Dixon (D&S Oct 6) "The otter gains a staunch ally" begs a reply which is a little more critical than your reporter's story.

Whilst agreeing that the glimpse of any secretive form of wildlife can enhance a day's fishing, we would say that great care must be taken if, as we are to understand, the otter is to be systematically introduced to the river Wear catchment.

Our main concern is the lack of science that seems to accompany this scheme. For example Mr Priestley says "that the threat to fish stocks could be worked around", "that otters take out weak and sick fish", "that anecdotal evidence suggests that otters displace mink". All told more of a wish list than fact. Mr Priestley later admits "that not much is known about their ecology."

How can a project that casually introduces an apex predator into the environment of threatened species - the salmon - be credible? The salmon has been identified by the Environment Agency as under threat and is subject to a blanket restriction on capture. The results of a brown trout population survey on the river are not yet known. Perhaps Mr Priestley will tell us that an otter can gauge the difference between a trout and say, a spring salmon smolt?

A recent report in the Fish Farmer points to the difficulties being experienced by fish farms in the upper Thames catchment who are suffering from the effects of recently released otters on their livelihoods. These animals, true to nature, have found an ample food supply and are staying on the farms. There is no other predator, save man, above them. They cannot by law be shot or trapped and the farmers are to stand the loss.

The same can be said of the river Wear where many angling groups enhance the trout population by stocking the river at their own expense. There is little doubt that a good head of fish attracts predators. Herons, kingfishers, goosanders, and cormorants are all given a living that is gifted not by a wildlife focus group but by the anglers of the Wear.

If otters are being introduced in an irresponsible way they will add to the pressure on fish stocks at a financial cost to the riparian owner and fisherman.

We do not object to a natural re-colonisation of the river, without the construction of artificial holts. However if otters are being systematically introduced we would ask the following questions:

Why not include the 2,000+ anglers who use the river in the decision?

Why not first establish the environmental impact that release of wildlife would have on the river and agree methods of removal if things go wrong?

Why not compensate the fishery, by stocking?

Why is the Otter Trust having a free ride at the expense of the Wear fishery?

PETER STEPHENSON

Hon Secretary, Frosterley Angling Club

Western Hill,

Frosterley.

Sir, - Your issue of October 6 had an interesting account of an interview with Mr Stuart Priestley and his work to encourage otters. He mentions complaints from fishermen about the depredation of their fish stocks, saying "that could be worked around".

Before the last war I rented a small stretch of the river Swale where there was an abundance of wild trout. Most of the fish were in a long pool, part placed, part rough.

My brother and I had many happy hours there, until, in the season before war service claimed us both, an otter favoured it too. His mate produced four cubs, and he had another mate down stream with three. They cleaned out my fishery of all trout (I do not know if it ever recovered as it was my last season there).

In those days there were plenty of trout and I suffered no pecuniary loss apart from my rent.

Today, it is a different story. Wild trout are scarce, and fishermen have to keep up the fish stock by buying them from trout farms. The cost of one trout is now £2.30, so an order of 1,000 fish during a year costs anglers £2,300, possibly every year.

Anglers are happy to share their fishing with the odd otter (and heron), but when the otters breed the strain on fish stocks can be heavy. When Mr Priestley says the problem "could be worked around", has he in mind compensating the anglers for their loss of stock fish, caused by his efforts to bring more otters to our rivers? Incidentally, they are already clean rivers where trout and grayling can exist.

Wildlife trusts must be wealthy, with 325,000 members, and they have added to their ability to employ full time otter project officers over many years by attracting funds from water companies and other supporters. The result is an expenditure running into millions of pounds on only one species.

Would it be better to concentrate this fund on the reduction of pollution and the excessive abstractions of water from the rivers?

Otters will find their way to clean rivers with inadequate fish stocks, and all species, not one, would benefit, as would the flora and fauns, insect and bird life.

R C DALES

Church View,

Brompton,

Northallerton