Vandals On The Ozark National Scenic Rivers.

[Al Agnew]

They were extinct because of human actions, not evolutionary processes. I think we have a responsibility to fix it if we broke it.

Having said that, by re-introducing them, we did the same thing as introducing a new predator to a vacant ecological niche. The prey (fish in the Ozark streams) had been without otter predation for long enough that they had lost a lot of their survival strategies, and so were particularly vulnerable. It didn't help that there were two things different from when otters were here before. One was the deteriorated condition of a lot of the smaller streams, with few big, deep wintering pools. Warm water fish like bass are particularly vulnerable to otters in the winter, and if they don't have big, deep pools with lots of cover, the otters have a very easy time of it. The other thing was the proliferation of farm ponds, which are a ready made smorgasbord for otters, and gave them more food than they'd ever had before.

But otters aren't universally bad. It seems to depend upon the stream. I know a lot of small to medium size streams that have otters and also have excellent fishing. In them the otters don't seem to be bothering the overall fish population much. But in some small creeks there's no doubt that otters have really decimated the game fish population.

I have hopes of improvement, however. Usually when a new predator is introduced like this, they eventually get into balance with their prey. The prey develops (or redevelops) strategies for survival. The otter population gets in equilibrium with their food sources.

There are lots of places where otters and their prey coexist very well, places that aren't much different from the Ozarks. There aren't many otter predators anywhere. So some mechanism keeps the populations in balance. Hopefully the Ozarks will eventually be a place where the otters and fish coexist very well.

[eric1978]

Not really, they don't "deserve" to be there. They were extinct because they could not hack it, and man decided to reintroduce them.

Couldn't hack it...LOL! They were hunted and trapped to local extinction...by man. They "deserve" to be here as much as you do. We just don't like them because they eat some of our fish. Sucks for us. Get over it. They've been here longer than you and your family.

[jdmidwest]

Its not only the fish that they take, it is the frogs and crayfish they devour. Frog populations and Crayfish have been on the decline lately also, some are thinking the Otters and Herons are to blame for this also. Before, there were larger predators that kept them in check. Whether they were hunted out of existence or man fished them out of existence I am really not sure, but they were gone. And Stream Ecology did not suffer. Now they are back and are causing problems on alot of streams and ponds in certain areas. Could they fish out the Mississippi, no. Could they fish out the Castor, Jacks Fork, or other smaller streams, possibly.

I don't think that they are all that cute either, kinda like fat furry snakes in the water.

As far as couldn't hack it, they did not adapt to evade the predator, man, so they become extinct. What makes you think their prey species will be able to adapt to the new form of predation?

[eric1978]

As far as couldn't hack it, they did not adapt to evade the predator, man, so they become extinct. What makes you think their prey species will be able to adapt to the new form of predation?

They've done it before, haven't they? Otters and fish have lived in equilibrium in the Ozarks for thousands of years before we got involved, no? It bothers me far more to see a meat angler eating a smallmouth, who could have gotten dinner in a hundred other places, than an otter doing what an otter does. Who are we to say he can't eat the food for which evolution gave him the skills to hunt?

Are you really so naive to think that ANY species of animal could adapt fast enough to evade the ferocity of human exploitation? If we deem an animal valuable for consumption, or dangerous, or worst of all, if we discover a part of an animal is profitable, and we go about harvesting said animal unchecked, we will invariably, in our greedy and unrestrained nature, deplete that species' populations to endangerment or extinction. We've done it time and time again.

I suppose the American Bison couldn't hack it either, eh? Or the wolves, or the Cougar or the Jaguar or Brown Bear or Bighorn Sheep. How about the Bald Eagle and the California Condor? They just didn't adapt fast enough to evade DDT, right?...They couldn't hack it.

Ah forget it. I realize that your ideal vision of the natural world is one which conforms to man's convenience, instead of one in which we live harmoniously and symbiotically. For being a religious man, you sure don't have a problem playing God.

Just for the record, I do agree that since we eliminated the otter's natural predators, there is a need for us to control their populations. Maybe we are failing at that task, but that's what happens when we tinker with nature.

Oh, and I do think they're cute, but that's moot. It's a matter of right and wrong, regardless of what they look like.

[Trevor K]

If they were controlled by larger predators before, then maybe we should bring back the larger predators as well. But nobody wants them around either. It's sad that people only want the animals around that are desirable for them. Man is the worst invasive species of them all if you ask me. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that though.

[id10t]

Its not only the fish that they take, it is the frogs and crayfish they devour. Frog populations and Crayfish have been on the decline lately also, some are thinking the Otters and Herons are to blame for this also. Before, there were larger predators that kept them in check. Whether they were hunted out of existence or man fished them out of existence I am really not sure, but they were gone. And Stream Ecology did not suffer. Now they are back and are causing problems on alot of streams and ponds in certain areas. Could they fish out the Mississippi, no. Could they fish out the Castor, Jacks Fork, or other smaller streams, possibly.

I don't think that they are all that cute either, kinda like fat furry snakes in the water.

As far as couldn't hack it, they did not adapt to evade the predator, man, so they become extinct. What makes you think their prey species will be able to adapt to the new form of predation?

Nothing is going to hack it against man the ultimate predator. (well maybe the Snakehead & asian carp)

We are very good at destroying ecosystems while trying to solve a single issue. I am by no means a tree hugger nor do I believe in the kill em all let god sort it out crowd. There has to be a balance. As humans we tend to make knee jerk reactions to every problem and go all the way to the right or all the way to the left on trying to solve them. In most cases we don't spend enough time thinking about the best solutions to problems just the quickest solution.

The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone 15 years ago have has had a huge impact on the park. Unforeseen good has come from it as well as a better understanding of how ecosystems work. Below is an excerpt from the full story which is on on the National Geographic website with pictures.

Hunters who were worried the wolves would take the Elk populations down have found the wolves have had little impact. Since the wolves kill the weak & Sick animals first they have actually made the Elk herds stronger. Thinning the herd by natural selection seems to be a good thing. It has also done wonders for the plant & water life in the park. Because the wolves patrol the water sources for prey, the prey have shy ed away from the easy pickings on the riverside. The riversides have begun to come back which in turn helps the fish populations have cover etc.

What intrigues me about the process is that a lot the outcomes to the ecosystem were or seem to be unforeseen to the scientist. Which leads me to believe we really know very little in the grand scheme of things. Even the folks who are supposed to understand seem to be surprised at the effects on the whole ecosystem.

Good reading.

The Wolf Effect

Where elk fear predation, an ecosystem returns

It seemed obvious. Because wolves prey on elk, and elk feed on plants, the wolves' reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park in 1995 should have led to a decline in elk numbers. That would then explain why some plants elk eat are suddenly thriving.

But when Robert Beschta and William Ripple of Oregon State University began to study plant recovery in the park, they found a different twist. "What we're actually seeing is that the size of the elk population hasn't changed significantly," Beschta says, "and isn't the biggest factor" in the revival of certain plants—plants that impact the health of the entire ecosystem from bugs to birds to mammals.

Instead, it seems that fear of predation, not elk numbers, is driving floral recovery—by changing the ungulates' behavior. In some areas where wolves now prowl, "elk no longer hang out at streamside, browsing," Beschta says. "They're more cautious and spend less time where there's a high risk of predation. In those areas, river-loving woody plants like young cottonwoods and willows, once overbrowsed by elk, are taller than they've been in decades. Some are going gangbusters."

This suggests, Beschta says, that the extermination of wolves from the park nearly a century ago—creating an Eden for wild ungulates—may have led to the long-term decline of certain plant species. And while wolf reintroduction wasn't done to improve forest health, putting wolves back in the ecosystem may prove key to the survival of riverside plant communities, which in turn strengthen stream banks and provide shade and wildlife habitat.

"How often do you get to connect wolves with warblers?" asks National Park Service biologist Doug Smith, who has headed up the wolf reintroductions. "Here you can: Wolves are, indirectly, helping to bring back nesting habitat for songbirds. As the willows recover, beavers create new aquatic habitats around which life just skyrockets." To regulate the ecosystem and maintain biodiversity, Smith says Yellowstone needs its top dog to keep the elk on their toes.

Beschta agrees. "It's one thing for us to put wolves back into Yellowstone because we took them out," he says. "It's another to put them back because the ecosystem requires it." Without wolves in the park today to scare the elk off overbrowsing, "the clock would be running out on remaining cottonwoods," he warns. "They'd eventually disappear. Probably aspens too. Bringing the wolves back has been an incredible plus."

Further research should tell whether climate and fire history are also affecting floral revival, but some scientists believe they've already found the key—and not just to the Yellowstone ecosystem. "Wolves seem to have an inordinate impact here, and I'm sure the same is true of top predators that have been lost elsewhere," says Beschta. "Perhaps now we can start to appreciate just how important a role these kinds of carnivores play."

—Jennifer S. Holland

[eric1978]

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that though.

You're not.

Hunters who were worried the wolves would take the Elk populations down have found the wolves have had little impact. Since the wolves kill the weak & Sick animals first they have actually made the Elk herds stronger. Thinning the herd by natural selection seems to be a good thing.

That's a very interesting point, and I wonder how much of it is applicable to smallmouth in our streams. Obviously, a bunch of hungry otters on a small creek could do a lot of damage to the fish population, but on some bigger streams, I wonder if they might actually have a net gain effect over the course of several generations by plucking the smaller, weaker fish for meals...a kind of slot limit of sorts. Large male otters can reach up to 30 pounds, but I wonder how many 18" plus smallmouth they get their paws on. I suppose it depends on their vulnerability, as Al mentioned earlier.

[ozark trout fisher]

River otters are a natural, native predator. They are not vandals, just a part of the ecosystem. I would suggest you re-read your post and see if it makes any sense to you-it sure doesn't to me.

Human beings are the ones who threw the ecosystem out of balance in the first place, and so it is our place to try to put it back into balance. That applies to otters and all the other native species that we have extirpated. It really seems pretty cut and dry.

[Al Agnew]

Otters really have few natural predators. Because they spend most of their time in and around the water, they simply aren't very vulnerable to even the best predators like cougars, wolves, bobcats, and coyotes. No other predator in North America can handle an adult otter. We have enough bobcats and coyotes to do the kind of ineffective predation that otters get in other parts of the country, where they are in balance with their food.

Like I said, that's why I think this otter problem might be a short term thing. Eventually the fish and other food will develop better survival strategies. That doesn't help much if your favorite creek is being hammered by otters right now, though.

[exiledguide]

Eric thinks that River Otters "deserve" to be there, what about the coyotes, skunks, and other varmints that lived in what is now St Peters MO but was farmland 50 years ago when St Peters was a town of 500 people? Should these critters be put back in peoples back yard? Every stream that goes through private land goes through someones back yard. Even worse peoples farm ponds are not only for recreation. Two of my brothers kids live in Texas county and both have small farm ponds where they grow catfish for food. Texas county was one of the places where farm ponds were hit hard by the River Otters. Just because its not hurting the fishing on youre waters doesn't make it right. How many of you who float woud like to see beavers on those streams and have the beaver dams protected because they were there first.