If you have no problem with wildlife management when justified then we are in agreement.
The definition of an apex predator is an animal who, as an adult, has no natural predators in its ecosystem. Last time I looked we had no natural predators.
Jim,
Lions are classed as 'apex' predators as are Tigers. They kill to eat, we kill them to 'manage' them, or as you said before "for fun", so your definition is possibly tenuous. Both surely can't be apex. Do we 'naturally' predate Lions and Tigers ? I don't think so, we protect livestock and our own lives - they eat us ! I agree that, because we have shaped the environment (often to its detriment), then we are responsible for 'managing' it. However, I do not clearly agree with your ideas on that management, sorry.
I found and read that paper last night. It is a 'desk' scientist type paper based on counted seal numbers, often assumed, and assumed levels of predation and assumed level of consumption. I suggest you read the paper in detail especially regarding the scientists own admission of 'bias' in their results. Yes, the Moristion, based on their 'model', could increase by 17% by removing the one seal they assume is there all the time, so instead of an annual catch of 68 it would increase to a whopping 80 ! But on larger more normal rivers, the modelled effect of seal removal did not increase exponentially:
"a generalised model of seal removal illustrated that stocks and catches increased by (less than or equal to) 33% in rivers with monthly rod catches of less than or equal to 10 fish but declined to (less than or equal to) 10% with catches of more than 34 fish per month".
So, although the percentage increases look good, in reality the 'model' predicts that seal removal on a river where less than 10 fish are caught per month this would result in 13/14 fish per month. On a 'good' river, like the Dee or Don (!) we can expect a 10% increase in rod catches.
The paper also concludes that the impact of seals on stocks is worse in Spring. As the Ythan is not a 'spring' river for either Salmon or Sea Trout I would take it that the impact is lower than is being made out.
For what it is worth, I think it is a very useful paper to allow river managers and governing bodies to monitor policy and appropriate action on wildlife management.
But it is easy to extract 'sound bytes' and sensationalise figures, when in fact the whole picture needs to be rationalised.
I've said enough on this now, we will just have to agree to disagree
Cheers,
Lindsay