Beavers are dangerous to wildlife (1 Viewer)

[AlfArbuthnot]

I get that Beavers have been largely absent from many of these ecosystems for a several hundred years, but a couple of hundred years is nothing in geologic time. It's not like local ecosystems have diverged that much from ecosystems on the continent.

Maybe not, maybe so, but human society and economics definitely have.

 

[lewis20126]

Yes, their land, your house, your car, your garden. Personal ownership is how this country works. Dig back long enough and I suppose you'll find some skulduggery regarding the ownership of the land on which your house stands, and I bet you're not so keen on common ownership when it comes to people in your living room. So let's try and deal with reality. Whether you object to land ownership or not doesn't matter at all - most other people do agree with it, so that's the arena you have to work in. Until your revolution comes about

As far as I am aware and apart from the Common Swifts nesting in my loft, there are no species of conservation concern in my house, car or my (very modest) garden, most of which is not owned my me but by a large financial orgnisation, thus owned in part by weatlhy shareholders, some of whom would surely enjoy salmon fishing on your beaver free rivers.

Reality eh? The reality is that wealthy landowning elites are decimating Hen Harriers, limiting Golden Eagle popluations and you would like to help them control Beaver populations. Well done.

cheers, a

 

[lewis20126]

Yellow-necked Mouse in your cornflakes is a native species in its native range. I want to sit here, in London, and know that there are Yellow-necked Mice living in your food cupboards, wherever that may be, because it pleases my sense of aesthetics just to know. I'll never come and see them, but I feel warm inside knowing that they're there. What's your problem with that?

None at all. That is why I said I might be wrong to cull it!

cheers, a

 

[lewis20126]

Culling a beaver within its (expanding) range does not eliminate beavers, in the same way that culling a fox does not eradicate foxes from that range. But that's a very woolly notion - first you'd have to define 'range' (at what scale), 'significantly' (at what threshold) and 'population' (at what measure). Which are all completely variable concepts, so you could argue that until the beavers come home - therte is no right or wrong answer. So you're back to square one on that.

This is not a "wooly notion". All of those variables are quantifiable, at least some extent and form the basis of "Conservation Science", as someone desrcibed it on a recent thread. Indeed your favourite SNH beaver research team will have done just that in preparing the case for the/any formal reintroduction attempt.

cheers, a

 

[lewis20126]

Culling a beaver within its (expanding) range

"Expanding range"? I think it is a recovery of a historical range and you would like to limit that. I can't help but imagine you tutting as you glance skywards at those Red Kites and all the adverse impacts that they cause.

cheers, a

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

and you would like to limit that. I can't help but imagine you tutting as you glance skywards at those Red Kites and all the adverse impacts that they cause.

cheers, a

Now I think you're projecting your own prejudices upon me. Where did I say that I'd like to limit the beaver range? What I'm saying is that illegal reintroductions are very wrong and counter-productive, and we as conservationists shouldn't tolerate them even if they chime with our ultimate goals. Secondly, I think that we should engage with the people who live in the areas where beavers are, and where we want to put them, and listen to their concerns and make compromises. That might include local control where there's an adverse impact on a livelihood that's already there, and I'm fine with that. What I don't think we should do is pretend that there are no people there, or hold them in contempt for any reason, and especially for political reasons. Go down that route, turning them into our (and beavers') enemies, and you'll just waste vast amounts of scarec resources fighting against them and trying to work in spite of them to achieve ultimately similar goals. Other people can have legitimate concerns, and legitimate voices. Illegal reintroductions railroad all that, which is partly why I think they're so damaging.

 

[lewis20126]

What I don't think we should do is pretend that there are no people there, or hold them in contempt for any reason, and especially for political reasons.

I'll reserve my right to hold those grouse moor owners who mandate the destruction of Hen Harriers in comtempt, just as I hold Maltese and Cypriot hunters who shoot protected bird species in contempt. I guess you could call that a political position.

cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

Now I think you're projecting your own prejudices upon me. Where did I say that I'd like to limit the beaver range? .

Eh? I'm not a Beaver ecologist but reckon that removing dams might not encourage them, since that might hinder creation of lodges and thus successful breeding. Just a guess mind you.

cheers, a

 

[Farnboro John]

Now I think you're projecting your own prejudices upon me. Where did I say that I'd like to limit the beaver range? What I'm saying is that illegal reintroductions are very wrong and counter-productive, and we as conservationists shouldn't tolerate them even if they chime with our ultimate goals. Secondly, I think that we should engage with the people who live in the areas where beavers are, and where we want to put them, and listen to their concerns and make compromises. That might include local control where there's an adverse impact on a livelihood that's already there, and I'm fine with that. What I don't think we should do is pretend that there are no people there, or hold them in contempt for any reason, and especially for political reasons. Go down that route, turning them into our (and beavers') enemies, and you'll just waste vast amounts of scarec resources fighting against them and trying to work in spite of them to achieve ultimately similar goals. Other people can have legitimate concerns, and legitimate voices. Illegal reintroductions railroad all that, which is partly why I think they're so damaging.

Just suppose, for a moment, that Scotland decides to keep its Beavers, all of which have, contrary to your suggestion above, been proven to be European. Whither English Beavers? Whither southward expanding Scottish Beavers? This island of Great Britain is a single ecological entity, and if the Scots have Beavers England will - unless they are deliberately culled along the border. So, frankly, trying to separate the issues of Scottish and English (or Welsh) Beavers is crap. Once the Scots say yes - if they do - thats it, England is going to have Beavers. No need (or point) in trials. Its going to happen. And quite right too.

But quite honestly, the current trial is a farce and a sham, anyway. Anybody can keep Beavers in a zoo, behind fences. But the real point is that Beavers lived across the UK for thousands upon thousands of years, alongside salmon, Otters, trout and everything else. Beaver dams don't stop salmon. Why do you think they jump? In addition, there is successful experience of reintroducing Beavers to their former range across Europe. Only those intent on delaying reintroduction would possibly wish to believe that experience wouldn't read across to Great Britain. Why is that your constituency? I understand it among the ignorant and prejudiced.

You argue really hard against doing anything and conjure up all sorts of doomsday scenarios that already aren't happening in the place where the Beavers are. And you vastly exaggerate the difficulty of seeing them: I know because I have practical experience, which you lack. Given a site, you can see them quite easily. The local Beaver-watchers are very helpful (and knowledgeable.) The Beavers' reliance on watercourses makes them an ideal subject for a stakeout in the same way as various Badger hides across the UK. Beaver tourism is coming. Of course it won't be the right sort of chaps - is that your issue? Are you the Honourable Alfred Arbuthnot, champion salmon fly man of the Tay basin? :-O

John

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

contrary to your suggestion above, been proven to be European.

Do you have a source for that? The Tay Beaver Study Group website says it is still being looked into.

Beaver dams don't stop salmon. Why do you think they jump?

The studies I linked to prove you categorically wrong. Beaver dams can and do stop salmon. Not totally, but significantly.

In addition, there is successful experience of reintroducing Beavers to their former range across Europe. Only those intent on delaying reintroduction would possibly wish to believe that experience wouldn't read across to Great Britain.

But do any of those countries have commercially important salmon fisheries?

And you vastly exaggerate the difficulty of seeing them: I know because I have practical experience, which you lack.

How the hell do you think you know that?! But, again, you're categorically wrong, and I wouldn't want to stop you in full rant, so...

Of course it won't be the right sort of chaps - is that your issue?

What is it with this class warfare?! It's really a little pathetic. Inverse snobbery is just as revealing as the usual kind.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

You argue really hard against doing anything

Have you actually read anything I have written? I am arguing for the structured trial. For the umpteenth time, what I am condemning is the illegal releases.

By the way, apparently the Tayside and Kent beavers have no legal protection. So any landowner would be within their right to remove them in any humane way they see fit. So it's possible that your ever expanding scenario wont get the chance to happen.

 

[Farnboro John]

Have you actually read anything I have written? I am arguing for the structured trial. For the umpteenth time, what I am condemning is the illegal releases.

By the way, apparently the Tayside and Kent beavers have no legal protection. So any landowner would be within their right to remove them in any humane way they see fit. So it's possible that your ever expanding scenario wont get the chance to happen.

I also condemned the illegal releases and joined you in wishing as successful a conclusion to the police investigation of the offence as occurs in most of the cases of illegal raptor persecution by lawless throwbacks to feudalism.

I did however point out that it was the Scottish authorities that took the entirely rational decision to leave the Tayside European Beaver population alone at least until the zoo trial is over and a decision is taken on the overall way forward. Of course, that will be influenced by economic considerations (cf Trump's desecration of the Aberdeenshire dunes) so if you wish to further the cause of this reintroduction I suggest you should get off your sofa, put away the laptop and go see some Scottish Beavers. You can get accommodation in Rattray/Blairgowrie, feast on deep-fried everything (perhaps not Beaver) and repeatedly mention that you are there to see the Beavers. Having scored you can celebrate with some Tennants Extra.

I can give you directions, PM me.

John

 

[Jos Stratford]

For one thing, beavers are very hard to see - tourism wont take off.

Beavers are only very hard to see if you have no idea what to do and think a midday stroll along the riverbank will have them jumping up and down in front of you.

With very minimal effort, Beavers are easy to see - they have predictable routes, tend to be fairly sluggish on those routes and often linger at the water's edge for quite some time when emerging from water. Overall, a far easier mammal to see than many.

 

[chris butterworth]

Its pointless arguing with Alf when he's got his "retain the status quo, knuckle your forehead, it's their land, pity the poor landowner...... err, I meant ghillie" head on. If you follow the argument that landowners shouldn't be forced to accept reintroduced Beavers expanding onto their property argument, as it may impact on their bank balance, then it's a short, but logical, step to supporting the "culling" of raptors on Grouse moor, or Otters and Cormorants on both coarse and game fishing waters. By the way, this has nothing to do with "class war", it is about modern conservation strategies versus outmoded, unscientific feudalism.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Its pointless arguing with Alf when he's got his "retain the status quo, knuckle your forehead, it's their land, pity the poor landowner...... err, I meant ghillie" head on.

Quite besides from anything else, I'm not.

If you follow the argument that landowners shouldn't be forced to accept reintroduced Beavers expanding onto their property argument, as it may impact on their bank balance, then it's a short, but logical, step to supporting the "culling" of raptors on Grouse moor, or Otters and Cormorants on both coarse and game fishing waters.

But hang on, that argument is already well entrenched and accepted for foxes vs lambs, woodpigeons vs crops and crows vs gamebirds. So don't try and turn this into a point of principle. The principle of wildlife control for economic gain is already accepted by all mainstream conservation bodies. What we allow to be killed is quite arbitrary, based on a lot of things other than science. Beavers are inherently no different.

By the way, this has nothing to do with "class war", it is about modern conservation strategies versus outmoded, unscientific feudalism.

Strange then, because lewis20126 thinks it's wrong for some people to buy and own land, but it's fine for him to aspire to it by taking out a mortgage to buy and own land/property. 'All property is theft', eh?!

 

[lewis20126]

But hang on, that argument is already well entrenched and accepted for foxes vs lambs, woodpigeons vs crops and crows vs gamebirds. So don't try and turn this into a point of principle. The principle of wildlife control for economic gain is already accepted by all mainstream conservation bodies. What we allow to be killed is quite arbitrary, based on a lot of things other than science. Beavers are inherently no different.

If you are unable to tell the difference between species (i) which need assistance (a minimum of no direct persecution) in a human modified landscape, such as hen harriers, beavers, red kites on the one hand and (ii) species which thrive in such landscapes, such as foxes, wood pigeons and magpies on the other, then you are not the conservationist that you repeatedly claim to be.

cheers, a

 

[lewis20126]

Strange then, because lewis20126 thinks it's wrong for some people to buy and own land, but it's fine for him to aspire to it by taking out a mortgage to buy and own land/property. 'All property is theft', eh?!

Read the posts again. My point related to ancestral "theft"! How can purchase of a property at market rate be equated by the historic acquisition of great swathes of Britain by the royals and their associates?

cheers, a

 

[Sangahyando]

Read the posts again. My point related to ancestral "theft"! How can purchase of a property at market rate be equated by the historic acquisition of great swathes of Britain by the royals and their associates?

cheers, a

Well if we follow this line of argument, all land on this planet was at some time seized forcibly by one group (tribe, family, company, etc.) or another, and often successively by different groups. I don't think that this'll get us anywhere.
You or I may not agree with the current distribution of wealth and real estate (too much of it is in the hands of idiots and criminals), but in a modern, civilized country like Britain, you'll have to follow the rules.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

If you are unable to tell the difference between species (i) which need assistance (a minimum of no direct persecution) in a human modified landscape, such as hen harriers, beavers, red kites on the one hand and (ii) species which thrive in such landscapes, such as foxes, wood pigeons and magpies on the other, then you are not the conservationist that you repeatedly claim to be.

cheers, a

How about Lesser Black-backed Gull and Cormorant? Riddle me that!

 

[lewis20126]

You or I may not agree with the current distribution of wealth and real estate (too much of it is in the hands of idiots and criminals), but in a modern, civilized country like Britain, you'll have to follow the rules.

The important conservation point is not about land ownership per se, it is about applying laws and policies over all land, without fear or favour, to maintain viable populations and ranges of native species. As is pointed out above, some large land owners in Britain, frequently DO NOT "follow the rules".

cheers, a