I Hate Beavers

[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.