I Hate Beavers

[pharper]

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

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.

But I never finished...
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).

[Silver Creek]

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.

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,

[maodiver]

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.

[Mike Ormsby]

"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

[ducksterman]

----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

[Mike Ormsby]

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.....

[Silver Creek]

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.

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.

[Silver Creek]

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.

[JohnScott]

...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 -

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

[Silver Creek]

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.

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.

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:

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.

Here's the original unedited post with which I took issue:

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.

And truth be told, I think that if Pharper would make his statement conditional rather than absolutist, we would be in agreement.

I guess I pulled that fork out.