Beavers are dangerous to wildlife (1 Viewer)

[locustella]

http://rss.feedsportal.com/c/266/f/...oo0Eby0Egovernment0E95747510Bhtml/story01.htm
First wild beavers spotted in England for 800 years could be trapped and put in zoo by Government
The Independent - Nature RSS Feed

 

[angusmcoatup]

The quote from the Angling trust is a little one sided. This is one of their members on Zander.

http://zanderanglersclub.yolasite.com/angling-trust-on-zander.php

 

[Robin Edwards]

I'm a casual part-time fisherman and I have friends who are taken in by the unbalanced sport-fishing media and have developed an unhealthy attitude to anything that predates fish whether bird or mammal. It's not unlike sporting industry wanting to maintain a lucrative business of grouse shooting and then advocating such as conservation, if only of their habits and commercial interests.

I know one guy who advocates illegal killing of local Otters because of the damage he believes they do to to their highly prized specimen fish that stock the local gravel pits.
Sadly there will be those out there who believe that redressing some of the persecutions of the past to be simply meddling with nature. Maybe Scotland can prove the English wrong on Beaver reintroduction.

 

[Mysticete]

ugh...someone needs to advocate the illegal hunting of angling trust members

Here in the states, ponds created by beavers often have some of the best fishing!

 

[Bird_Bill]

When River Otters were re-introduced here back in the mid '80's, opposition from some sport fishers and commercial fishers were heard. Density of the otter population did apparently explode at first. After few years, those numbers stabilized. All at the same time Asiatic carp, Silver and Big Head especially, were working their way up the Mississippi valley.

Symbiosis in wetlands, as a result of Beavers is staggering. I've fly fished catch & release for 40 odd years and have seen it first hand. Opposition to beaver here, are from logging and agriculture. The logging interest seems nonsensical. Essentially eliminating beaver altogether, for stands of hard wood, that beaver do not rely on much, to begin with. Agriculture simply erasing any and all wetlands.

 

[Robin Edwards]

this might be of interest - I just signed

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petiti...f-england?bucket=&source=twitter-share-button

 

[locustella]

Beavers have lived from thousands or millions of years and they have never drown fish to extinction. But fishermen certainly affect fish populations.
More beavers --> more water
Fish like water --> fish like beavers !!
Beavers probably increase counts and diversity of water invertebrates and plants important to fish, amounts of sediments. And even sometimes their dams are barriers, this effect most likely is insignificant.

Besides so called dead wood plays rather positive role in water ecosystems (except heavy logging):
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr292/1986_harmon.pdf
M. E. Harmon, J. F. Franklin, F. J. Swanson, P. Sollins et al. Ecology of Coarse Woody Debris in Temperate Ecosystems
http://coweeta.uga.edu/publications/3092.pdf
J. Bruce Wallace, Jack W. Grubaugh, Matt R. Whiles: Influences of Coarse Woody Debris on Stream Habitats and Invertebrate Biodiversity.

 

[Farnboro John]

http://rss.feedsportal.com/c/266/f/...oo0Eby0Egovernment0E95747510Bhtml/story01.htm
First wild beavers spotted in England for 800 years could be trapped and put in zoo by Government
The Independent - Nature RSS Feed

Why not trap them, check them for harmful parasites and release them again after having either (a) removed parasites or (b) found none? The removal proposal is just rubbish of the first order from an anti-science and anti-environment Government.

John

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Why not trap them, check them for harmful parasites and release them again after having either (a) removed parasites or (b) found none? The removal proposal is just rubbish of the first order from an anti-science and anti-environment Government.

John

Because it's an illegal release, flouting the scientific trial in Scotland, which has not yet even reported (just like the Tayside fiasco). If the conservation lobby cannot even play fair by its own rules, and shifts the goalposts to suit our own agendas while railroading everybody else's concerns, then can we really expect landowners to listen to us about grouse moors and the like? We can't have one rule for what we like and another for everything else.

I'm all in favour of beavers, but even I think it's arrogance 'of first order' that people have taken it upon themselves to do their own illegal releases, without any safeguards, monitoring or analysis. We don't even know if these animals in Devon and Tayside are pure European Beaver or full of disease/parasites - they could jeopardise any official reintroduction, and have already ruined relations with the landowners on which such a project would rely.

Anyway, if you trap them to check for parasites, it would then be illegal to release them again.

 

[nicklittlewood]

Because it's an illegal release, flouting the scientific trial in Scotland, which has not yet even reported

For interest, there have been a number of progress reports including, most recently: http://www.snh.gov.uk/publications-...rch-the-catalogue/publication-detail/?id=2146

Nick

 

[locustella]

Here in the states, ponds created by beavers often have some of the best fishing!

http://www.albergstein.com/cao/Best Available Science/Fish/Beaver dam effects paper final.pdf
Hydrologic and Geomorphic Effects of Beaver Dams and Their Influence on Fishes

And about i.e. beavers and some fish in Kawuneeche Valley (headwaters of the Colorado River):
http://publiclands.colostate.edu/do...nmentalhistoryfinalreportcollatedoct62011.pdf
An Environmental History of the Kawuneeche Valley and the Headwaters of the Colorado River, Rocky Mountain National Park

The native Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) coexisted with beavers in the past and suffers not because of this animal. It seems that rather people are responsible for that - introducing brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri), building Grand Ditch which enabled fish to swim between drainage basins of Pacific and Atlantic and to mix previously isolated gene pools of greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) and mentioned Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) ...

 

[Farnboro John]

Because it's an illegal release, flouting the scientific trial in Scotland, which has not yet even reported (just like the Tayside fiasco). If the conservation lobby cannot even play fair by its own rules, and shifts the goalposts to suit our own agendas while railroading everybody else's concerns, then can we really expect landowners to listen to us about grouse moors and the like? We can't have one rule for what we like and another for everything else.

I'm all in favour of beavers, but even I think it's arrogance 'of first order' that people have taken it upon themselves to do their own illegal releases, without any safeguards, monitoring or analysis. We don't even know if these animals in Devon and Tayside are pure European Beaver or full of disease/parasites - they could jeopardise any official reintroduction, and have already ruined relations with the landowners on which such a project would rely.

Anyway, if you trap them to check for parasites, it would then be illegal to release them again.

I don't for once disagree with some of what you say (about illegal releases at least). However, once such a thing has happened, the question is how best to manage it and there the Scots have proved themselves both restrained and intelligent. Its a bit sad that England can't match those qualities.

I wonder on what grounds you describe the Tayside European Beaver population as a fiasco: clearly the animals themselves are succeeding, and the authorities have incorporated them into their study data which seems quite intelligent - given the lack of restraints on the Tayside animals, the data is probably more valid!

I would like to know what sort of safeguards you think are required for reintroduction of native animals, apart from quarantine periods? They are only going to carry parasites that European Beavers carry, and that must have been studied to death in Europe already. Its clearly not a hindrance to them or other wildlife anywhere in their natural or already reintroduced range, so what need is there for more study? None I would suggest. You are far too conditioned to think that everything everywhere requires study, rather than read-across. Hide-bound, in a very negative sense! You are falling for the authorities' standard delaying tactics.

As for landowners, your mention of grouse is a good pointer: the only thing to do when reintroduction or protection of animals is required is roll right over the b*****ds.

John

 

[Stuart Goodwin]

There are Beavers at a Kent Wildlife Trust reserve in East Kent. They seem to be doing a good job of reclaiming an area that was a fen.

 

[Farnboro John]

There are Beavers at a Kent Wildlife Trust reserve in East Kent. They seem to be doing a good job of reclaiming an area that was a fen.

I seem to remember recent evidence that their Kent range is a good deal wider than that.....

John

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

However, once such a thing has happened, the question is how best to manage it

But that is just a green light for anyone else to do the same in the future. there has to be consequences, and zero tolerance of such illegal activities. We can't have it both ways - if we don't enforce wildlife laws and keep our own shop in order, then it's a PR gift for e.g. Angling Trust and an invitation to pick up the shotgun. After all, why should they obey the law if we can't, and when we just accept the illegality by adopting the illegal releases?!

I wonder on what grounds you describe the Tayside European Beaver population as a fiasco

Hundreds of animals living and breeding in the wild is a fiasco, after the decades of consultation, compromise and planning that went into the official trial. If I had a salmon fishing business I'd be furious at how I've been duped, and any good will that I originally had would turn to shotgun rage. After all, whoever released them knew what they were doing, did it on a fairly big scale, and has got away with it scot free and achieved all of their goals. They must be delighted. But they have made sure that persecution and obstacles will be with us for the forseeable future, by destroying any credibility of the conservation lobby, and any reason that salmon fishermen or famers should give them the time of day.

I would like to know what sort of safeguards you think are required for reintroduction of native animals, apart from quarantine periods?

Don't ask me, ask SNH. It's all set out in the official experiment, based on the IUCN protocols. My opinion is that we should have stuck to that.

You are far too conditioned to think that everything everywhere requires study, rather than read-across. Hide-bound, in a very negative sense! You are falling for the authorities' standard delaying tactics.

Nope, for me it's all about some incredibly selfish and arrogant people who think that laws and protocols don't matter. They give the rest of us a bad name. can you imagine how difficult it will be now to try and get landowners on board for anything similar in the future? Can you imagine approaching a Tayside landowner and asking if they'll let you do some conservation work or surveys on their land? And what happens if the Tay beavers are Canadian, or hybrids? It will all have been a waste, as we have yet another alien species to deal with, expensively, and as non-natives they'll be fair game.

As for landowners, your mention of grouse is a good pointer: the only thing to do when reintroduction or protection of animals is required is roll right over the b*****ds.

So if I want to reintroduce cholera, for any reason I fancy, I take it you wont mind if I decide that your garden is a nice place for it? Maybe some wild boars to dig up your lawn. It's the attitude of doing what you like on other people's land and playing around with other people's livelihoods, while at the same time having total contempt for them, which is why most of the landowner and farming associations don't just dislike conservationists, they hate us. But unfortunately for us, we need them if we want to do any kind of conservation on anything other than tiny nature reserves.

 

[locustella]

Fortunately beavers don't know what is law and borders and sooner or later will spreed everywhere.
People who try to command nature should hire themselves in a cabaret. Or rather become objects of cabaret jokes, because their own cabaret would be awfully sad and stupid.

 

[chris butterworth]

I agree that any reintroduction schemes need to be monitored and be based on scientific data but, while the conservation sector spends money, gathers data and jumps through all the required hoops to achieve their objective the most vocal opponents to such reintroductions continue to release alien fish to our waterways, alien birds into the countryside ( no matter that Pheasant and Red-legged Partridge are viewed as 'British' species, they are still aliens ), invasive molluscs are sold in garden centres with no thought of the possibility of escape. Until all sides adhere to the same conditions then I, and I suspect, many others, will view such opposition by those such as The Angling Trust and others as hypocritical Ludditeism.

 

[Farnboro John]

But that is just a green light for anyone else to do the same in the future. there has to be consequences, and zero tolerance of such illegal activities. We can't have it both ways - if we don't enforce wildlife laws and keep our own shop in order, then it's a PR gift for e.g. Angling Trust and an invitation to pick up the shotgun. After all, why should they obey the law if we can't, and when we just accept the illegality by adopting the illegal releases?!



Hundreds of animals living and breeding in the wild is a fiasco, after the decades of consultation, compromise and planning that went into the official trial. If I had a salmon fishing business I'd be furious at how I've been duped, and any good will that I originally had would turn to shotgun rage. After all, whoever released them knew what they were doing, did it on a fairly big scale, and has got away with it scot free and achieved all of their goals. They must be delighted. But they have made sure that persecution and obstacles will be with us for the forseeable future, by destroying any credibility of the conservation lobby, and any reason that salmon fishermen or famers should give them the time of day.



Don't ask me, ask SNH. It's all set out in the official experiment, based on the IUCN protocols. My opinion is that we should have stuck to that.



Nope, for me it's all about some incredibly selfish and arrogant people who think that laws and protocols don't matter. They give the rest of us a bad name. can you imagine how difficult it will be now to try and get landowners on board for anything similar in the future? Can you imagine approaching a Tayside landowner and asking if they'll let you do some conservation work or surveys on their land? And what happens if the Tay beavers are Canadian, or hybrids? It will all have been a waste, as we have yet another alien species to deal with, expensively, and as non-natives they'll be fair game.



So if I want to reintroduce cholera, for any reason I fancy, I take it you wont mind if I decide that your garden is a nice place for it? Maybe some wild boars to dig up your lawn. It's the attitude of doing what you like on other people's land and playing around with other people's livelihoods, while at the same time having total contempt for them, which is why most of the landowner and farming associations don't just dislike conservationists, they hate them. But unfortunately for us, we need them if we want to do any kind of conservation on anything other than tiny nature reserves.

I have agreed with you about illegal releases, of which the landowning fraternity are guilty over and over and over again - start with pheasant species other than European Pheasant being released for shooting and go on from there. One might also want to think about the number of British waters that now hold Zander, Wels, Rainbow Trout and so on. I'm still waiting for the application of suitable sanctions such as wholesale electro-fishing of aliens (as opposed to removing native Pike from waters to facilitate growth of carp populations and other nonsense.)

Perhaps under it all you are a born-again Christian and think we should just turn the other cheek. I think sauce for the goose, myself. BTW I nearly laughed at your use of "scot free", I do hope it was deliberate. :t:

Of course there have to be consequences, as soon as a full police investigation has determined the human culprits and the full court process has resulted in a guilty verdict based on properly obtained evidence (just like we expect in gamekeeper prosecutions: I entirely agree with you about due process.) Surely our law-abiding landowners will applaud that.

For the record: cholera, probably not, although you will be aware of my opinion of human population levels and that pathogens are the last remaining biological controls standing between the rest of Earth's wildlife and total annihilation. Wild Boar: not a problem for me, lawns are as unnatural as anything I can think of and Wild Boar are a splendid prospect as a control on uncontrolled dogs and humans in woodland. They are also a native species, in case you had forgotten.

However, I agree with you that official blessing is better. I'm growing old waiting for it for perfectly simple straightforward matters, though, and Beaver reintroduction is exactly the sort of thing that does piss me off a treat. We are part of Europe: we are former Beaver habitat: we are signed up to reintroductions: the science the experience the monitoring and the consequences are all known and the faffing should be OVER.

I don't agree with you that co-operation from landowners has to be voluntary and requires pussy-footing around them. Government increasingly strong-arms its individual citizens (look at the prospect of HS2 and Heathrow 3rd runway compulsory purchases) and I would like to see it happen more to the rich ones and for a much better reason. I would also remind you of the Kinder Scout mass trespass: sometimes even our mother of democracies requires a boot up the arse from its grass roots authorisers.

Only a dupe of the anti-science huntin' shootin' and fishing fraternity would imagine that salmon fishing would be negatively affected by Beavers. Salmon and Beavers lived together on all the rivers of Europe until Homo sapiens learned metallurgy and medicine, and wrecked the water quality, annual flooding cycle, ruined river ascent with dams etc. Man, not Beaver, is the big risk to salmon fishing interests. You know this really, you are not such a dupe.

John

 

[Sangahyando]

I think conservation agencies and NGOs should make it very clear (via a statement of sorts in the mass media) that unauthorized (re-)introductions of any species for whatever purposes are off limits and are actually detrimental to conservation efforts.
For the record, Germany now has 4 ssp. of (Eurasian) Beaver, only one of which is really native. That, and Canadian Beaver.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Chris and John, you arguments boil down to 'everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we'. Mine is 'we should be setting the best example, taking the moral high ground, and trying to get others to follow'.

After all, these reintroduction rules are OUR rules, set down by conservationists, and not even our own team can abide by them! How can we then preach to grouse moor owners or salmon fisheries, or anyone else who has a hankering for willy nilly releases? The Tayside Twunts have made things much harder, by dragging us off the moral high ground. And we should accept it, or wash our hands of it.