Otter (Lutra lutra)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > terrestrial mammal > Carnivorous mammal |
| Red List Status: | Least Concern (Not Relevant) [LC(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | Eurasian Otter |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Lutra lutra |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Mathews & Harrower, 2020 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Populations in England have recovered to a great extent (since declines 50s-70s), and have returned to most of historic range. However - the species remains near threatened on IUCN Red List; populations remain vulnerable due to the sensitivity of the species to pollution, prey base depletion and habitat degradation. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | Largely not - key threats are likely at ecosystem level, i.e. pollution, prey availability, and could be managed as such. Some additional threats e.g. wildlife roadkill (main cause of death) could be managed via improved wildlife passages which are not necessarily species specific, but design considerations do have sp specific elements. Some suggestions that availability of breeding holts may also limit recovery, but this also potentially manageable as part of wider habitat management (conservation of riparian habitat) rather than necessarily species specific. Worth noting that research evidence linking putative threats to population densities / trajectory is weak, due in part to limitations in monitoring data (lack of specificity re otter population density, lack of data providing sufficient spatial and temporal resolution with regard both to otter population density, and relevant measures of habitat quality e.g. fish populations). |
| Question 3: | At a landscape scale, would the species benefit from untargeted habitat management to increase habitat mosaics, structural diversity, or particular successional stages? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Directly, via conservation of habitat suitable for breeding holts; also via improved wildlife passages under/across roads to enhance connectivity. Indirectly, via improvements in water quality and structure of freshwater ecosystem to enhance prey base (e.g. diversity and abundance of fish populations). |
Species Assessment
Not relevant as no Key Actions defined.
Key Actions
No Key Actions Defined
Acknowledgment:
Data used on this website are adapted from Threatened species recovery actions 2025 baseline (JP065): Technical report and spreadsheet user guide (Natural England, 2025). Available here.