Quote Originally Posted by maodiver View Post
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.