http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ris/damdam.jpg
Found this NEW dam from last fall on one of my favorite streams.
Have already forwarded a photo to the local warden.
Printable View
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ris/damdam.jpg
Found this NEW dam from last fall on one of my favorite streams.
Have already forwarded a photo to the local warden.
I've caught a lot of nice fish in beaver ponds.
so have I. This one is new and I caught 5 behind it this morning.
Long term they are bad for the stream. This is brookie water and
the dams mess with the stream temperature eventually and it needs
to come out better sooner than later.
Len
Thats nature for ya!
I agree with Spinner. In Wi, beaver dams are trout stream killers. In high grade mountainous area streams they can create good water but not in our state.
Great looking water, and even more amazing that a creature can even build that. Maybe contractors should hire some beavers to do some building.
Thanks for sharing!!!
Mike
Agreed. My only point is that you might as well take advantage of it while it's there.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinner1
I like beaver dams and I think in the long run they are very beneficial to trout habitat, especially brook trout habitat.
They remove sediment.
They moderate flow and temperature.
They raise the water table.
They provide over wintering areas plus cover.
They build riparian areas.
They crreate healthy floodplains and wet meadow habitats.
They provide aeration at the dam.
They also raise the water temperature, which, in my part of the world is the primary difference between trout streams from non-trout streams. They also release a lot of sentiment when they collapse, as they inevitably do.Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
A dam is a dam whether man made or beaver made. Very few dams are beneficial to trout and beaver dams are not bottom draw. They raise water temps and do not lower temps.Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
They kill trees in the flood plain by drowning their roots. This happens in a little as 6 months. This removes overhead shade, further warming the water.
They prevent upstream migration of trout to their spawning areas in feeder creeks. Less spawning areas = fewer trout. Any increase in trout biomass is temporary until thermal pollution and spawning losses take over.
They build riparian areas? If you mean by "riparian" a pond then yes. If you mean a river, then, nope! What they do is widen the and destroy rivers. Dams increase still water not moving water.
They do build a flood plain - great for ducks and water fowl, bad for trout in the long run.
The improve aeration at the dam? Really? Does that make up for the aeration lost over the expanse of the dam? Nope. There is a net loss in aeration when running water is replaced by still water.
Only in high gradient (mountainous) flows or where the average water temperature remains too cold (high altitudes) are there benefits to a beaver dam. Here they can form areas of trout water where there is little and delay runoff to even out the runoff. At high altitudes the warming of ice cold runoff by a beaver dam can benefit trout by increasing insect life in the pond and the water below. But in Wisconsin and the eastern USA, beaver dams are a net negative as the following body of research shows.
See the following Cold Water Fisheries research from the Wisconsin DNR and the University of Wisconsin College of Natural Resources on the effects of beaver on trout streams:
Research paper by Ed Avery of the Wisconsin DNR Cold Water Fisheries Research Center:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/pub..._RS_731_91.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/temperatures-n.../dp/B0006DBYD8
"Much of Wisconsin's current trout stream habitat management focus on implementing in-stream structures and bank stabilization, beaver dam removal, and streambank debrushing even though these activities have resulted in questionable success rates in trout habitat improvement."
http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wicfru/Research/Cross.aspx
"Beaver (Castor canadensis) dam building activities create many longtern affects on stream ecosystems. Beaver dams may negatively influence trout fisheries by creating physical barriers to spawning areas, increasing sediment retention, and increasing water temperatures. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Animal Damage Control (ADC) program in Wisconsin, entered into cooperative agreements with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on the Nicolet National Forest from June through September,b1988, to remove beaver and beaver dams from priority classed trout streams."
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...context=ewdcc4
"One of the biggest challenges facing stream restorers now is the overabundance of the beaver. With trapping rates lowering over the past few years, the beaver population keeps growing, as do their dams.
Monitoring is really helpful is getting information reported about beaver dams, which devastate the trout streams, Hlaban said. I'm sure there are a number of dams we wouldn't have discovered if it wasn't for stream monitors being in there and understanding what to look for."
Trout Unlimited Chapters receive special written permission from the state DNR to trap on public land or permission from the owner of private lands to trap beavers during the offseason."
http://watermonitoring.uwex.edu/pdf/...utdoorNews.pdf
http://www.wisconsintu.org/LinkClick...bid=58&mid=372
"Since the trout stamp began in 1978, the DNR has restored more than 750 miles of trout stream, kept more than 700 miles free of beaver dams and maintained the good condition of many miles of trout streams throughout Wisconsin."
http://dnr.wi.gov/news/DNRNews_Artic...kup.asp?id=459
"Beaver dams cause trout streams to become silted and warmed. Dams prevent trout migration and result in a lowered trout population."
http://www.timberwolfinformation.org...web/beaver.htm
I believe that beaver baffles can be a solution -- years ago TU and Credit Valley Conservation Authority built one on a branch of the Credit in response to concerns over beaver dam and the effects on the resident brook trout, specifically the change in water temperature.
Here's some links to more on beaver baffles:
http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmej/9804/rm980401.htm
http://www.loudounwildlife.org/HHBeaverBaffles.htm
http://www.westhillbb.com/photos.htm...9696043975&s=2
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/regions/reg5/2005/feb0705.htm
http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/urban_w...h_beavers.html
http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newsle...7/article5.htm
http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermai...08/012903.html
http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/lib...Newsletter.pdf
http://northernwoodlands.org/outside...ss_of_beavers/
Don't kid yourself, beaver dams are temporary partial barriers, they don't compare to a real dam. They actually increase subsurface flows and moderate temperatures in the whole system, but yes summer water temperatures, especially in the sun, can be increased... offset by other benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Creek
Dead trees add habitat critical to trout. There is more water available to surrounding trees and edged with vegetation.Quote:
They kill trees in the flood plain by drowning their roots. This happens in a little as 6 months. This removes overhead shade, further warming the water.
Beaver dams are temporary. I doubt there are any population effects- trout upstream of the dam can still spawn and those that are downstream and can't pass; they spawn elsewhere. They are rarely complete barriers anyways.Quote:
They prevent upstream migration of trout to their spawning areas in feeder creeks. Less spawning areas = fewer trout. Any increase in trout biomass is temporary until thermal pollution and spawning losses take over.
The deposition of sediment and organics in the slow moving areas of beaver dams creates excellent soil material. Perfect meandering channels form through filled in beaver ponds creating lush streams with stable banks. And the process continues.Quote:
They build riparian areas? If you mean by "riparian" a pond then yes. If you mean a river, then, nope! What they do is widen the and destroy rivers. Dams increase still water not moving water.
They do build a flood plain - great for ducks and water fowl, bad for trout in the long run.
Have you measured the O2 above, through, and below? Depending on the gradient of the stream, water trickling over and through a dam or series of dams can have a very positive effect on oxygen levels. My point is that it is not always a bad thing.Quote:
The improve aeration at the dam? Really? Does that make up for the aeration lost over the expanse of the dam? Nope. There is a net loss in aeration when running water is replaced by still water.
Trout stream management does not mean doing what is best for the trout, it is a balance for landowners, rec users, wildlife, and sportfish. Reread the last line... "even though these activities have resulted in questionable success rates in trout habitat improvement".Quote:
Only in high gradient (mountainous) flows or where the average water temperature remains too cold (high altitudes) are there benefits to a beaver dam. Here they can form areas of trout water where there is little and delay runoff to even out the runoff. At high altitudes the warming of ice cold runoff by a beaver dam can benefit trout by increasing insect life in the pond and the water below. But in Wisconsin and the eastern USA, beaver dams are a net negative as the following body of research shows.
See the following Cold Water Fisheries research from the Wisconsin DNR and the University of Wisconsin College of Natural Resources on the effects of beaver on trout streams:
Research paper by Ed Avery of the Wisconsin DNR Cold Water Fisheries Research Center:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/pub..._RS_731_91.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/temperatures-n.../dp/B0006DBYD8
"Much of Wisconsin's current trout stream habitat management focus on implementing in-stream structures and bank stabilization, beaver dam removal, and streambank debrushing even though these activities have resulted in questionable success rates in trout habitat improvement."
This is a 20 year old document for an wildlife damage control conference.Quote:
http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wicfru/Research/Cross.aspx
"Beaver (Castor canadensis) dam building activities create many longtern affects on stream ecosystems. Beaver dams may negatively influence trout fisheries by creating physical barriers to spawning areas, increasing sediment retention, and increasing water temperatures. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Animal Damage Control (ADC) program in Wisconsin, entered into cooperative agreements with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on the Nicolet National Forest from June through September,b1988, to remove beaver and beaver dams from priority classed trout streams."
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...context=ewdcc4
This is a newspaper articleQuote:
"One of the biggest challenges facing stream restorers now is the overabundance of the beaver. With trapping rates lowering over the past few years, the beaver population keeps growing, as do their dams.
Monitoring is really helpful is getting information reported about beaver dams, which devastate the trout streams, Hlaban said. I'm sure there are a number of dams we wouldn't have discovered if it wasn't for stream monitors being in there and understanding what to look for."
Trout Unlimited Chapters receive special written permission from the state DNR to trap on public land or permission from the owner of private lands to trap beavers during the offseason."
http://watermonitoring.uwex.edu/pdf/...utdoorNews.pdf
http://www.wisconsintu.org/LinkClick...bid=58&mid=372
"kids only zone" on a website.Quote:
"Since the trout stamp began in 1978, the DNR has restored more than 750 miles of trout stream, kept more than 700 miles free of beaver dams and maintained the good condition of many miles of trout streams throughout Wisconsin."
http://dnr.wi.gov/news/DNRNews_Artic...kup.asp?id=459
"Beaver dams cause trout streams to become silted and warmed. Dams prevent trout migration and result in a lowered trout population."
http://www.timberwolfinformation.org...web/beaver.htm
Much peer reviewed research today will tell you that beaver dams increase fish species richness, especially in slow water streams. They are temporary and partial barriers, they do have some negative effects, but a net positive impact on the fishery... the biggest issue is that they have to be left to fill on their own. In areas where beaver dams have been managed, you'll have to keep managing the dams... you've created a man made issue that can only be fixed by letting nature take its course- beaver dam succession.
You will see a false positive when dams are removed- you've temporarily increased flows (flushing flows), you've instantly changed the temperature, you forced forge fish (fish food) into marginal habitat> increasing prey availability to trout, you uncover coarse stream beds (flushing downstream and up), and you've forced trout to redistribute in the stream. But to get that affect you have to allow beavers to build a dam and then remove it. A stream not allowed to change will stagnate, diversity will drop, and anglers will leave.
I'm not saying it is all bad, I'm just making a point, that, there can be a net benefit if the system is allowed to naturally grow.
We tried to stabilize banks here with log cribs... now it is a worse problem because they are all failing. We have had (and still have) beaver dam removal programs... those streams are starting to stagnate.
1955 Rupp (AFS- BEAVER-TROUT RELATIONSHIP IN THE HEADWATERS OF
SUNKHAZE STREAM, MAINE) found:
1955 and those aren't bad results, especially considering the increase of food to brook trout.Quote:
ABSTRACT
The effect of beaver, Castor canadensis(Kuhl), on an eastern brook trout,
Salvelinus fontinails( Mitchill), population was studied in the vicinity of five
beaver dams in the headwaters of Sunkhaze Stream. The beaver dams were found to present a serious obstacle to trout movements but they were not a complete barrier. Estimated unit-area production of bottom organisms was poor in the beaver ponds but the beaver had so increased the bottom area that total production of the stream section was probably more than doubled. Forage fishes appeared to be somewhat more abundant in the beaver ponds than in the open stream and constituted an unexpectedly high percentage of the food of 6- to 10-inch brook trout taken in the ponds. Measurable but not serious waterquality reduction was found in and below the beaver ponds.
In North Dakota SCHLOSSER and KALLEMEYN (2000) found that(sorry I don't have an electronic copy).Quote:
The presence of a productive and diverse fish assemblage in headwater streams
of north-temperate areas requires the entire spatial and temporal mosaic of successional habitats associated with beaver activity, including those due to the creation and abandonment of beaver ponds.
And the 1998 paper by Snodgrass and Meffe from S. Carolina>(INFLUENCE OF BEAVERS ON STREAM FISH ASSEMBLAGES: EFFECTS OF POND AGE AND WATERSHED POSITION-sorry no electronic copy either)Quote:
beavers have a positive effect on fish species richness in low-order, blackwater streams, but maintenance of this effect requires preservation
of both spatial and temporal dynamics of beaver pond creation and abandonment
A paper from Sweden showing the benefits of beaver ponds to Brown trout:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...168d01fb2404f1
(Effects of beaver dams on the fish fauna of forest streams. H?gglund and Sj?berg 1999)
Hey Mike,Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Ormsby
Baffles work to control water level, but they are barriers to fish movement.
(A good thing on the Credit... prevent the upstream movement of rainbows and browns into the brookie beaver dam habitats.) There are some baffles that are supposed to pass fish, but not sure if they actually work (no attraction flows, not sure of fish swim velocities).
I worked on the Credit (and other Rivers in S. Ontario) for a couple of years... was amazed with the fish in your neck of the woods... We had piles of brookies living in "agricultural drains" that were considered ditches by most. Its amazing what those upwellings will support on the landscape!
Very cool helping stock Atlantic salmon a few years back too!!
If you want to check out some great brookie streams, head out with the Hamilton Area Fly Fishers and Tyers... they've done some good work on brookie streams.
Pharper,
I am pleased to engage you in a discussion. My opinion is that you have overstated a position and now feel you must defend it. Obviously, you probably think I am wrong in this view.
Also let me state from the beginning that, although I disagree with you on this subject, that we may indeed agree on many other subjects. I truly appreciate your civil reply to me. Thank you.
Actually trout stream managment to remove beaver dams is doing what is best for the trout, so dam removal does apply. The point is that you said that beaver dams were good for trout; therefore your statement that trout stream management is not about what is best for trout is a bit puzzling to me. Frankly, I do not understand it in the context of this discussion. It is a red herring .Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
These are both articles published by the Wisconsin DNR.Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
You did not deal with the fact that the DNR considers beaver a threat to trout. Your position is that they are not a threat, but a benefit. Therefore, you need to show where the DNR is wrong and you are right. You cannot discount it by saying it is "newspaper article", when it was actually published in the Quarterly Magazine of the Wisconsin DNR.
Although, you may not have intended to, that's another red herring attempt to change the subject.
Remember when you criticized me for quoting:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
Then you quote this an article from 1955, that is 54 years old.;) You cannot have it both ways, criticizing me for the age of my reference and then using one that is almost 3 times older.
I read the abstract. I don't know how the serious obstacle to trout migration, water warming vs an decrease in food density (per area) although total food was greater and a "somewhat" increase in forage fish is a good trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
I take it you think, according to the article you present as a positive for beaver dams, that a modest increase in food is worth increasing thermal pollution and a high grade blockage preventing migration during spawning. I disagree.
I would be nice to know how high these dams were and the gradient and whether they were above the major spawning areas. High dams in headwaters benefits do not mean dams are beneficial to middle or lower sections of streams, as you well know.Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
This is really a form of hasty generalization, implying that what is good in a special situation applies to most or all situations. I already mentioned some exceptions (cold and high gradient areas) where dams are beneficial. They have also been found to benefit juvenile salmon and enhance survival. But these are special situations so the above article does not counter what I stated previously.
I believe the crux of the issue is your original post below. This is why I say that you overstated your position. I would not have disagreed if you said that sometimes beaver dams can be beneficial or if you had somehow qualified your statement.
However, your original contention was that beaver dams are beneficial without stating any exceptions or qualifications:
Your statement above places a steep burden of proof upon you because it requires a level of proof showing by a predominance of the evidence. This level of proof, in my opinion, cannot be met and has not been met.Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
Here is what your article actually says:Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
"The beaver (Castor fiber) was exterminated in Sweden, but now, after re-introduction, again occurs in high densities. The activities of beaver ? felling of trees and construction of dams ? are important ecological factors in forest streams. The proportion of wetlands and open water in the forest landscape is increased, and new stream sections with slow-running water are created. This change of habitat characteristics is predicted to have consequences for the composition of stream fish communities. We studied the fish fauna in seven small to moderate-size streams with beaver in central Sweden, using electro-fishing. Beaver ponds and adjacent riffle sections were compared to unaffected reference sections. The two most common species were minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus) and brown trout (Salmo trutta). Three additional species occurred in lower numbers: Bullhead (Cottus gobio), burbot (Lota lota) and pike (Esox lucius). Brown trouts were more common in reference sections than in beaver-affected sections, while the opposite tended to be the case for minnows. The numbers of brown trouts and minnows in separate sections were negatively correlated. The size composition of the two species also differed between sections. Brown trouts captured in the ponds were larger than those in the riffle sections, while the opposite was true for the minnows. Shallow areas of the beaver ponds were important habitat for minnow fry. Beaver ponds are likely to serve as habitat for larger trouts in small streams during drought periods. Minnows appeared to spread from ponds to surrounding riffle areas. We conclude that beaver-mediated habitat changes have important effects on the relative abundance of fish species in Swedish forest streams, and that they may enhance fish species diversity."
So basically the article says that diversity of fish species increases, e.g. more minnows but fewer trout. Trout that are present in the pond are bigger. No mention of actual lbs. of trout per lineal foot were greater in reference or pond and the article totally ignored the effects of stream blockage (this was not a stated purpose of the study)
No where in the abstract did it say that the beaver pond "benefited" brown trout as you state. It said in the pond there were fewer but larger brown trout.
The study title shows that they were studying only the population changes of fish and fauna due to a pond and not whether it was better for trout or not.
Remember when you criticzed me for the age of my article? Would it be fair to say that at least it was from the midwest of the USA and not from a far northern scandanavian county bearing little resemblence to the topography of the midwest or the east coast of the USA.
When you criticize the the references of those with whom you disagree, it is not even more incumbent upon you then to make sure your citations are above the same reproach? I'm just pulling your chain a bit here. Please forgive me.
I've tried to fairly evaluate your reply, and if I have misstated or misinterpreted what you said, my apologies in advance.
Take care, tight lines, and good fishing!
Thanks for the response... I love arguing about beaver dams. Excellent reply, thanks for not taking offence to anything.
The in my last post I was limited to 10000 characters, but I did have a few more things to say.
The bulk of my reply was in this
But I never finished...Quote:
Much peer reviewed research today will tell you that beaver dams increase fish species richness, especially in slow water streams. They are temporary and partial barriers, they do have some negative effects, but a net positive impact on the fishery... the biggest issue is that they have to be left to fill on their own. In areas where beaver dams have been managed, you'll have to keep managing the dams... you've created a man made issue that can only be fixed by letting nature take its course- beaver dam succession.
You will see a false positive when dams are removed- you've temporarily increased flows (flushing flows), you've instantly changed the temperature, you forced forge fish (fish food) into marginal habitat> increasing prey availability to trout, you uncover coarse stream beds (flushing downstream and up), and you've forced trout to redistribute in the stream. But to get that affect you have to allow beavers to build a dam and then remove it. A stream not allowed to change will stagnate, diversity will drop, and anglers will leave.
I'm not saying it is all bad, I'm just making a point, that, there can be a net benefit if the system is allowed to naturally grow.
We tried to stabilize banks here with log cribs... now it is a worse problem because they are all failing. We have had (and still have) beaver dam removal programs... those streams are starting to stagnate.
I am actually realy busy right now getting ready to leave for my flight to Washington DC in a few hours.
When I get back to this computer I will post a reply that actually states my position and backing better (I just need to go through my report folder).
I actually think that we will come to the agreement that there needs to be a balance. By that I mean that in Wisconsin, with the drop in fur prices and the loss of natural predators, beaver have taken over many of our prime feeder creeks and even the main sections of trout streams. They have dammed up the outlets of natural spring ponds that feed into and cool our rivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
I can accept that there are instances where they are beneficial. I will need some convincing that with the decrease in trappers and natural predators, they are on balance beneficial.
I look at this as an opportunity for us to learn from each other. Thanks for taking the time and I look forward to learning under what conditions they are beneficial.
Very sincere thanks,
my only question:
Are/were beavers and/or trout native to the watershed?
If in historical times, trout and beavers co-existed then the trout will survive, after all, that was the plan.
If the trout weren't there, but the beaver were, then keep the beaver. After all, the trout are planters or descendents of them, and the beaver are just fulfilling the plan. Don't let fishing get in the way of that.
If the trout were, but the beaver weren't, by all means get rid of the dam, and let the native trout fulfill the plan. Don't let a love of beavers get in the way of that.
"Dammed if we do and dammed if we don't" I suppose is the lesson here -- and pharper, there are some excellent brookie watrs here in southern Ontario -- and Hamilton Area Fly Fishers and Tyers are an incredible group too -- a beaver baffle was used in the example I cited to allow for the flow of water to continue with less impediment thus allowing the water temperature to remain cooler -- yes, the dam and baffle would prevent the fish from moving -- and are both barriers perhaps -- but the main concern was the water temperature rising in waters dammed up
The baffle is just one tool that can be used -- and the beaver and trout have co-existed for centuries -- but sometimes it is beneficial though if man "interferes" in a positive way -- like reintroducing Atlantic salmon into waters that they haven't been in for years -- or helping to regulate the water temps of valuable brook trout habitat
----Reply Letter---- Dear Mr. Price: Re: DEQ File No. 98-20-0006; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Hamilton County Your certified letter dated 06/20/98 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response. First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Gray Road, Westfield, Indiana - I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Cool Creek Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials "debris." I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic. As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Cool Creek Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Indiana Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Indiana Compiled Laws annotated. My first concern is - aren't the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Cool Creek Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation - so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Cool Creek Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names. If you want the dam stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition - contact the dam beavers - but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter-being unable to read English) - be sure you read them their dam Miranda rights first. As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers - be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this dam State - I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy - or once again both I and the Cool Creek Pond Beavers will scream prejudice! In my humble opinion, the Cool Creek Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Cool Creek Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 8/31/98? The Cool Creek Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem; bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office. Sincerely, Jerry Bayne Owner of Cool Creek Pond cc: PETA
Like I already said "Dam if we do or dam if we don't"!!! And ducktersman thanks for sharing -- funny stuff -- and those "dam" beavers.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by maodiver
The answer is yes, beaver and trout coexisted but that was in undisturbed prehistoric times before man intervened. Beaver and trout coexist in Yellowstone park where major predators have not been removed (other than wolves and mountain lions) in the past. The topography is different in Yellowstone than in most of the USA which is less mountainous and at a lower elevation.
In Wisconsin, beaver were actually almost wiped out during the era of the fur trading Voyageurs and the Hudson Bay Company. Even in the mid 20th century, in the 40's and 50's beaver were kept in check by high fur prices. Now how many trappers and furriers are there? When was the last time any of your friends bought a beaver coat?
With the loss of natural predators, beaver have no natural enemies other than human fur trappers. So is that "fulfilling the plan"?
So it is about "managing" our limited trout waters for trout. If trout waters are to remain productive and beaver degrade trout waters, then beaver need to be trapped and the dam removed to maintain the trout fishery. That is what "management" is about. It is as simple as that.
Look, don't we "manage" fisheries by setting size and harvest limits? Wasn't the "plan" for man to capture and eat all the game and fish they could? If that was the "natural plan", why do we now set limits?
It's pretty obvious that it is to maintain and protect the fishery as a recreational resource. The "nature's plan" argument is invalid when man has already changed his natural environment to benefit himself.
I posted data from Wisconsin but I was curious about how other state DNRs handle beaver.
Minnesota DNR:
"Beaver Control on Knife and Blackhoof River, St. Louis and Carlton counties.
Beaver dams can block the movements of trout as they migrate to spawning areas on the Knife and Blackhoof rivers. These rivers comprise over one-half of Minnesota?s anadromous trout waters. This project located and removed 13 beaver and 18 beaver dams.
Beaver Control on Duluth Fish Management Area Trout Streams.
A beaver dam can block trout migration to spawning areas and cause warming of impounded water. Duluth area trout streams were walked to locate beaver dams. One beaver and two dams were located and removed."
See: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheri...outstreams.pdf
Here's a typical data from a county survey of trout habitat in a Minnesota county. Over 50% of the streams have beaver damage and the two best streams (Hay Creek & Little Hay Creek) remain the best because of vigorous beaver control measures.
"1)Bangs Brook This stream, which flows into Crooked Creek just above Highway 48 near St. Croix State Park, has numerous beaver dams which have impacted trout habitat. No trout were found in a stream survey conducted in 2000. Although Bangs Brook still has potential trout habitat, purchase of easements on private land would be necessary to conduct any work to restore this stream.
2)Barnes Spring This is a short tributary that serves as a feeder spring to West Fork Crooked Creek. A long history of beaver activity has made this stream channel more marshlike than streamlike. The land around Barnes Spring is owned by DNR Fisheries. Recent stockings of brook trout have so far failed to reestablish a brook trout population in Barnes Spring; more extensive habitat work will be required.
3)Bjorks Creek. Habitat is currently ]b]degraded by beaver dams.[/b] Brook trout have used this stream as a spawning and nursery area in the past.
4)Cons Creek. Important as a feeder tributary to Bangs Brook, Cons Creek has undergone the same habitat degradation by beavers. A stream survey in 1995 found no trout. Cons Creek is surrounded by state trust land, but there is no road access.
6)Crooked Creek (West Fork). This upstream reach has maintained a small naturally reproducing population of brook trout, however numbers have declined in recent surveys. High water temperatures, low flows and beaver activity have contributed to the decline.
*9)Hay Creek and *10)Little Hay Creek are currently the best trout streams in the Hinckley management area, with good populations of native brook trout. Hay Creek is accessible at a road crossing in St. Croix State Park, road crossings outside the park, and several angling easements.Map of angling easements on Hay Creek Little Hay Creek is accessible from the main entrance road to St. Croix State Park. A stream restoration project in 1998 removed 39 beaver dams in Little Hay Creek and restored the stream channel and substrate. Little Hay Creek project An ongoing program of beaver control and dam removal helps these streams maintain good conditions for brook trout. Fishing these streams may be difficult in areas due to alder and willow brush overhanging the banks.
11)Larson Creek east of Kerrick is a tributary to the Willow River. Habitat is currently degraded by beaver dams.
14)Mission Creek near Hinckley currently does not contain trout. Beaver activity and impoundment of a key feeder tributary have raised stream temperatures above lethal limits for trout. Purchase of easements and extensive rehabilitation would be necessary to restore suitable conditions.
18 )Spring Brook. Habitat is currently degraded by beaver dams; no trout were found in a 2002 stream survey.
21)Wolf Creek has a small population of brook trout present, but beaver dams remain a threat to suitable trout habitat. Wolf Creek runs mostly through private land."
See: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fis...eams/pine.html
Michigan DNR:
"There are three management problems on Spring Creek......Third, the activities of beavers in the system (since at least 1978 ) may be elevating water temperatures and limiting trout survival. There appeared to be evidence of beaver activity during the 1991 survey, as several areas had very deep, slow water, which the technicians did not recall from previous surveys."
See: http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATI...rbody/93-7.htm
Michigan DNR finds that failure of a beaver dam caused the failure of a year class of trout due to sediment:
"To explore reasons why young-of-the-year (YOY) habitat remains degraded nearly a quarter century after experimental sand additions were discontinued."
"The catastrophic failure of a beaver dam upstream of the control zone in June 1993 was the apparent [/b]cause of a weak year class[/b] in the control zone in fall 1993. The beaver dam was rebuilt, but it again failed in November 1996. The dam was not rebuilt after 1996. Sediment released from this beaver impoundment may be the cause of lower recruitment of YOY in the control zone during the past four years (Figure 1)."
See: http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATI...3/Study507.pdf
Beaver control is not limited to the midwest as we see from this Official South Carolina DNR beaver management program:
"Beaver Management
Due to the severe damage to coldwater stream resources caused by beavers (Barnes, 1994; Taylor, 1994), it will be necessary to manage beaver populations through various means to maintain viable coldwater trout habitat. Control methods will primarily involve land (forest) management practices to discourage beaver colonization of trout streams. This generally involves managing stream-side management zones, particularly in [i]low gradient areas,]i] in mature or old-growth timber (Burriss 1997). Beaver trapping may also be needed in some cases."
See: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/managed/wild/j...anagement6.htm
Beaver frustrate US Fish & Wildlife Service Fish Passage Program:
"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem Team, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation partially funded construction of a fishway on the Podunk River in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the Connecticut River Watershed Council. Project planning was completed and additional funding sources were secured. Unfortunately, an exploding population of beaver downstream of the dam later scuttled the project since long-term river herring access to the fishway through the many existing downstream beaver dams could not be guaranteed.
See: http://www.fws.gov/r5crc/Habitat/fish_passage.htm
In summary then, many state fisheries agencies have an active beaver removal program. This is current policy and the result of [b]knowledgeable state agencies[b] that have no reason to spend state and national funds unless it was needed for the preservation of a fishery.
I'd still like to know when there are reasons to leave a beaver dam in a trout fishery, but for the main discussion of whether beaver dams are mostly beneficial or non-benficial to a trout fisher, I think the evidence is overwhelming.
I'm done. Stick a fork in me.
Silver Creek -Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Creek
Don't have a fork.
Just wanted to observe that a few midwestern states and a couple in New England and one in the South hardly constitute a survey of "many" states that have trout fisheries.
If you talked to some folks from the Intermountain West, those folks being trout fishermen who fish for wild and / or native and wild trout regularly, you might get a whole different slant on this subject.
John
I can believe that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnScott
Mountainous terrain, natural predators, high elevations of steep gradient = fits the profile of where beaver and trout coexist well.
My point is that no one has yet presented data that state fisheries experts transplant beaver to improve a fishery. I know of instances where they have done exactly that and that is why I mentioned the conditions where beaver are beneficial.
See this paper:
"Past surveys indicated that a loss of beaver might have contributed to the decline of stable functioning streams in some drainages."
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/caribou-targ...ninventory.pdf
And this case of using beaver to repair a damaged creek:
"Three beaver, an adult, one yearling and a kit, were moved from Bates Creek by the Miles cabin to the confluence of Bolton and Camp Creeks in early September to repair the incised channel of Bolton Creek below the confluence......The site will be revisited next summer to determine whether more beaver need to be relocated. Having served its purpose of providing immediate cover to the transplanted beaver, the trash catcher will be removed next summer."
http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/...AN05Casper.pdf
My point yet again is with the contention that beaver are almost always beneficial. Specifically when that comment was directed at a post that shows a beaver dam on a low gradient trout stream. See photo below and how flat the gradient is and how narrow the natural stream is compared to the wide long flat "pond" that results from the dam.
Look at the trees along the right side of the stream and how white they are compared to the ones above the water line on the left sided steeper bank. Those are mature trees that are now dead, which removes shade and cover from the stream. Look at how far back those dead trees go around the right side of the bend.
The pond extends well over 200 yards from a dam that is less than 2 ft high. That is a gradient of less than 2/600 or <.0033 gradient. The less the gradient, the greater the area that a given dam will flood, and the more trees it will kill.
My original post stated the conditions that I knew about where beaver are benficial.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinner1
My argument is not against beaver per se and it never has been.
I believe beaver need to be evaluated on the basis of specific effect rather than a general statement that they are invariably of benefit so lets leave them alone.
Here's my original unedited post:
Here's the original unedited post with which I took issue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Creek
And truth be told, I think that if Pharper would make his statement conditional rather than absolutist, we would be in agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
I guess I pulled that fork out. ;)
You got to love a beaver's attitude. Here's a pic of their handiwork trying to dam the South Fork of the Snake.
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...009_edited.jpg
Seriously, the beaver's knock down enough trees on the South Fork to contribute to the annual changes in the structure and flow of the river. A few trees like the one above, along with other trees that end up in the river from bank erosion, for example, can cause remarkable changes, some of which create better holding water for trout and other fish, and some of which alter existing habitat.
It's not evident in this photo, but the great holding water immediately in front of me was created by several trees that hung up on a shallow gravel bar in the middle of the river last summer. The bigger trees ended up in the river because of bank erosion, but some of the smaller stuff creating the effect may well have been in the river because of beaver.
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...012_edited.jpg
This cutthroat, another one just about the same size, and the 21" brown in the last photo were all caught in a small stretch of water that did not exist, could not hold trout, before last summer.
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...004_edited.jpg
This holding water only exists for a few months out of the year, when flows are at about 3000 CFS ( as I recall from when the pics were taken ). But I think this spot will be quite productive at those flows until something happens to again alter the structure of the river - and it will take something really remarkable to do that.
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...014_edited.jpg
Like I said, give 'em credit for trying.
John
I admire beavers. Next to humans, I don't know of many other animals that can change their environment as much to suit them. "Busy as a Beaver" didn't become a catch phrase by accident.
One of the TU Chapters north of us raised money with a wild game feed, including beaver stew. I hope this doesn't offend anyone because that is not my intent. A fellow named Wally had some bumper stickers made up that said, Wally sez, "Save a Trout, Eat a Beaver" with a photo of a beaver on it. I thought it was pretty clever, but I was't brave enough to put it on my car.
I do not agree with your following statement;"So it is about "managing" our limited trout waters for trout. If trout waters are to remain productive and beaver degrade trout waters, then beaver need to be trapped and the dam removed to maintain the trout fishery. That is what "management" is about. It is as simple as that."
Whats this kra##- If trout waters are to remain productive???
I beleive you are looking at the short term of things. Nature has a way of taking care of things. In the words of a friends father;"Time Cures All".
Fishin' Jimmy
I've always liked a good beaver.
Bob
Please tell me what you would do, why you would do it, and the scientific evidence to support your decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishin' Jimmy
A statement without evidence is just an opinion. In the words of a friend's father, "Like a$$holes, everyone's got one."
Do you have any source other than the DNR??? Wisdom from age by observation of life is valid. Like I said "time cures all", just look how nature is restoring the balance here in WI.
Example record floods last year and the return of the Mt Lion and bear activity below Hwy 10. I agree with you that man as interfered with nature.
I've always liked a good beaver. I think it is time for man to walk,run, drive or fly away and let nature have it's way for awhile.
That is MY opinion!
Fishin' Jimmy
Look Jimmy. I don't know you. I just disagree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishin' Jimmy
Rather than make open ended statements like "just look how nature is restoring the balance here in WI" can you show an example how this occurs with beaver dams in WI, the specific situation that is being discussed?
Secondly, I think you may be inconsistent on how you apply this "time cures all" belief in your life.
For example, are your consistent and do you apply the same criteria to what is most important to you, which is your own personal health and that of your family?
Do you, or have you or you family ever seen a physician to be treated for an illness or have you let "nature have its way" with you. If you have ever intervened in your own health, but refused to allow the same criteria to be applied in other areas, that is inconsistent behavior. A stronger word would be hypocirtical, but I think perhaps you have not considered that a trout stream also has a level of healthiness.
So my question to you is, if you don't let nature take its course with your own health, why do you think it is alright to do this with a trout stream's health?
See you on the other side.
OK I'm not sure whether I should wade into this discussion -- I've watched this thread go from interesting to the point where now it seems starting to becoming personal -- obviously there are lots of opinions out there -- and everybody is entitled to theirs -- there's been some interesting info cited in many posts -- kind of both sides of the "dam if you do and damed if you don't" argument -- just wonder if we can keep the discussion on "topic" -- and not get caught up in "beaver fever"
Keep it to myself again
I like the one about "anadromous" waters in MN. didn't know atlantic salmon made it that far. If we are talking about silvers, kings, or steelies, then the beavers win.
as far as no natural predators...if we are unwilling to allow preds. back due to the safety of ourselves or our domestic animals, then it behooves us to thin the herd ourselves. Beaver makes good dubbing, and I have read many accounts of pioneers ecstatic over the taste and texture of the tails. Open a season.
Silver -- let's keep this discussion on track! We are talking about four things, recreational fishing, cold water resources, trout and beaver correct? The differences we have are that you want man to intervene and get an instant resolution to the problem, mine is that man not intervene and let nature take its natural course. We are both hoping for the restoration of a natural flow of water, correct? What we disagree on is the time, it would take to resolve the problem of a natural flow of water.
Not you, the Dam DNR or Bullwinkle the Moose and Rocky the Flying Squirrel are going to change my mind about nature. I just do not think the instant (breakfast) fix for something
as complex as a trout stream is an appropriate solution.
I further disagree with the thought of the destruction of a naturally buildt beaver dam for recreational fishing, creating a habitat for an exotic species(Brown Trout) is appropriate.
I, for one can fish elsewhere!
Fishin' Jimmy
Let's agree to disagree on beaver dam removal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishin' Jimmy
I knew before we began that I could not change your mine. At this point, it is really not about changing each others minds, is it? It is about those that have not made up their minds. What do they think once they consider both of our views?
I assume you favor brook trout (char) to brown trout given your comment about brown trout. Again this seems to be a contradiction to your view on beaver dams.
I disagree with your belief that destroying a beaver dam somehow favors brown trout. In truth, beaver dams make the stream more advantageous for brown trout because brown trout can tolerate warmer temperatures and do better in still water than brook trout. A brown trout in a beaver dam is like ringing the dinner bell. A brook trout cannot compete. You think they have trouble competing in flowing water? Put both species in a beaver pond and see what happens.
That is why the study quoted by Pharper showed that brown trout grew larger in the beaver pond and why that study is somewhat flawed. It is skewed to show a perceived advantage to a beaver dam since they studied brown trout. That is a preselection bias.
Study rainbow trout that favor running water and it would have turned out differently.
The only advantage of a beaver dam is if there are no brown trout already above the dam. Then they can act as a barrier to the upward migration of brown trout.Quote:
Originally Posted by pharper
You apparently have not read the references I post in previosly about beaver dams and brook trout. Beaver dams destroyed or damaged over 50% of the brook trout streams in a single Minnesota county that did a survey of all beaver dams on their trout streams. Here's the reference.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fis...eams/pine.html
On balance, beaver dams are not the brook trout's friend in any fishery where there are both brook and brown trout. Again this is a disconnect between your belief and fact. Beaver dams not only favor the brown trout because of the still water effects, but also because beaver dams warm up the water downstream. Both effects of a beaver dam tilt the stream ecology toward a brown trout fishery.
Again I will keep it to myself.