Ship of Fools: SOB! Save Our Beavers!

Thread: SOB! Save Our Beavers! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027160

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Wild beavers in Devon to be captured

A small group of beavers in the River Otter are to be captured and put into a zoo. Huh?? Instead of celebrating that an animal extinct in the UK has - somehow - reintroduced itself (and no-one knows where the beavers came from), the UK government is going to trap them and stick them in an enclosure.

I am appalled. There is no good reason for this, other than placating farmers (or, as it should be more accurately described, "saving our Tory votes"). This is a wonderful opportunity to see if the beavers can really establish themselves. They can be studied and the impact of their presence assessed. They could also become a tourist attraction to the area - you can bet that there are plenty of wildlife lovers in the UK who would love to pay to go on a beaver-watch expedition, with experts to ensure minimal interference and provide information. Heck - I would go to see that.

The beavers seem to be well established and very happy at the moment. They don't need "saving".

This amazing thing is being squashed by a government that has no soul and no imagination.
[Mad]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Who's afraid of beavers? (Actually, the plural of beaver is beaver.)

The European Beaver, which is a different species than the Canadian Beaver is not such a prolific dam builder so extensive flooding isn't a real concern. Fishermen should rejoice the beavers are back because beaver dams provide excellent spawning habitat. Fish populations generally improve in the presence of beavers and salmon especially benefit strongly from beaver ponds.

A few felled trees? That's the price of living near a river! Beavers chew trees; its a perfectly natural and healthy thing for the environment.

C'mon, it's nature, and beavers aren't really aggressive either (other than that mad beaver in Belarus). They're God's Engineers!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Tory government demonstrates a complete lack of, well, anything really. Morals, brains, sense, ears.

Leave them be, put some restrictions in place to protect their habitat, and let them be.

"But where's the money for us in that," they say.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Don't you love big government?

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Nope

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

They've been reintroduced into a river in mid Wales. [Smile]

They may find their way back to Devon given time. [Big Grin]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Tory government demonstrates a complete lack of, well, anything really. Morals, brains, sense, ears.

Leave them be, put some restrictions in place to protect their habitat, and let them be.

"But where's the money for us in that," they say.

That's the truth! It's not making money for them or their buddies, so they can't comprehend it. Bah! Next thing you know, they'll try and blame beavers for bovine tuberculosis and start shooting them.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Beavers are trapped, not shot. You don't shoot something that swims because the danger of ricochet is just too high.

You shoot ducks in flight for that very reason.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

The shooting reference is to do with the government's failed attempt to cull badgers by shooting them.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I have mixed feelings when the landscape is so altered and dominated by humans. The people are often the problem, not the animals. Putting the beaver in zoos is not the answer though. Moving the people to zoos might be, or to be more precise, moving the people away from areas which would be set aside for beaver habitat.

Beaver are incredibly destructive to residential areas, and my take on England is that it is all a residential area, with rural areas being only less dense city from a Canadian perspective. Having seen the results of beaver chewing on trees: none left on some river banks at all. Zero. Every tree down. I have also experienced the results of them taking trees from the front yard. The second issue is flooding. They will flood areas far larger than they inhabit, and this can be pretty difficult for humans living nearby. The usual answer on the Canadian prairies is dynamiting the damns. And we do shoot them, usually with 22s, trapping preserves the fur for sale. It is common for towns to have someone hired to keep them under control. A single pair can multiple incredibly. In the north, the person who is hired to shoot the beavers is usually also hired as a dog shooter too.

So I say, de-settle some areas if you want beaver, and leave the land to the animals, then it will work okay.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

I thought this was going to be some sort of feminist diatribe. or pro-prostitution rant.

bummer.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

Not so fast.

Beavers, charismatic megafauna though they may be, are still a species that has not existed in the area for at least 500 years, and, from reading the article Drifting Star provided, possibly longer than that. The ecosystem has evolved in that time—in some very significant ways, in response to every change we humans have made to our agriculture and industry. Think of every way in which British society and culture has changed since the Crusades. Those changes have had an environmental impact. The landscape these beavers are being introduced into is not the same one they lived in half a millennium or more ago.

Reintroduction is hard work. You have to know if the environment, as it now exists, can tolerate the new disruption to the existing order. The individuals being introduced need to be chosen for genetic diversity in establishing a new population, for adaptation to the existing wild environment, and for being free of pathogens and parasites that could unleash Hell on existing populations. These things shouldn't be left to chance; Britain doesn't need its own case of rabbits, cane toads, brown snakes, Yellowstone lake trout, sea lampreys, or zebra mussels.

Now, that being said, if the beavers turn out to be a once-native species, free from hitchhikers, suitable to the local environment, etc., then perhaps a reintroduction plan should be devised and implemented. For that matter, we should also find out how the beavers got there in the first place, since they presumably didn't just swim the Channel on holiday, but were probably released by some well-meaning busybody or other. There should also be a very clear understanding of the risks posed by introducing a new species of very large and potentially destructive rodent into an environment that has developed in their absence. I'm not saying that these beavers, or any beavers at all, shouldn't be introduced, just that we should have an understanding of what it is that we're getting into before we start plopping Castor fiber into rivers willy-nilly.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Egads. This is becoming like arguments about rights to ancestral lands, except with fur.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
I'm not saying that these beavers, or any beavers at all, shouldn't be introduced, just that we should have an understanding of what it is that we're getting into before we start plopping Castor fiber into rivers willy-nilly.

All you say is sensible (far too sensible for Hell). But for crying out loud! They're there; they've bred; they seem happy and they weren't noticed for some time. Surely the sensible (and simplist) thing to do would be to let them be and monitor them.

I agree that it is most likely that someone released them (or they escaped from a private collection). But they ARE a species previously native to the land, so comparisons with mink or cane toads seem invidious. There's no indication yet that they are going to be a "threat" to the local countryside. And they're not going to suddenly breed out of control.

This is pointless eco-management by a government which has, until now, shown no interest in the environment, other than to make it easier for its buddies to build and make money.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

You want me to cite the Supreme Court of Canada's recent Aboriginal Title decision? I'll give you a summary: British Columbia is fucked.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

In so many ways. Lots of good shit to get fucked with.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I thought this was going to be some sort of feminist diatribe. or pro-prostitution rant.

bummer.

Hell: destroying comet's dreams since 2005

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

No doubt Comet was thinking of this:

There was a young lady named Eva
Who filled up the bath to receive her.
She took off her clothes
From her head to her toes,
And a voice at the keyhole yelled, "Beaver!"

(or one of the several variations)

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

From the source in the OP...

quote:
"Depending on the source of the animals, they could be carrying a disease not currently present in the UK."

Yeah, good idea to leave them alone... not.

Honestly us Conservatives have to do all the thinking for you people and you are so ungrateful.

Now do be quiet.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

How to do it properly.

Don't you love the logo? With it's subliminal message of freedom - sort of Beavheart.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
(or, as it should be more accurately described, "saving our Tory votes").

Yes, because no other political party in the history of the world has ever enacted policies designed to keep their core support happy regardless of the effect on anyone/anything else. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
From the source in the OP...

quote:
"Depending on the source of the animals, they could be carrying a disease not currently present in the UK."

If it's a disease of beavers, then there's a fairly good chance there aren't any other animals in the UK they could easily pass it onto. It's not as if they could potentially wipe out the native beaver population, which is the usual reason for being concerned about the risk of imported disease.

Remind me again who's doing the thinking?

[ 01. July 2014, 10:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
I am appalled. There is no good reason for this, other than placating farmers (or, as it should be more accurately described, "saving our Tory votes"). This is a wonderful opportunity to see if the beavers can really establish themselves. They can be studied and the impact of their presence assessed.

Jeez Oscar, how much more bollocks can you cram into just two sentences?

1. It's not the local farmers who are behind this. As a matter of fact the farmer on whose land they have taken residence (and whose name is David Lawrence) is strongly in favour of protecting them.

2. The people who want them gone are the local anglers. Though whether DEFRA is responding to them or just doing this anyway I don't know.

3. I've no idea what the bloody hell any of these people vote and I'm willing to lay good money you don't either.

4. Actually the European beaver can carry a parasitic tapeworm which is pretty nasty for numerous other species including Homo sapiens. If this is to be a founding beaver population, the last thing you want is to introduce this at the same time.

5. As Firenze pointed out there are beaver in Scotland.

6. And more than a little ironically, Devon is where there is a properly run pilot study to consider the reintroduction of beaver. You could always go and look at the beaver there. Nothing to do with this appearance at Ottery St. Mary which is at the opposite end of the county. You can read about that study here. The Devon Wildlife Trust - who are supervising it - is tentatively in favour of leaving the Ottery beaver where they are, though probably subject to a health check.

(Declaration of interest - I am actually a member of the Wildlife Trust, and personally I too would like to see the European beaver back in England. But FFS let's do it properly.)

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I find it interesting that people with a certain political viewpoint are totally against GM crops on the basis that they are introducing an unknown into an ecosystem, but are fine with something cute and cuddly that might be carrying something unknown into an ecosystem!

A little cognitive dissonance there. Or maybe it's people who just like big-eyes and fluffy fur. Awww bless.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
From the source in the OP...

quote:
"Depending on the source of the animals, they could be carrying a disease not currently present in the UK."
If it's a disease of beavers, then there's a fairly good chance there aren't any other animals in the UK they could easily pass it onto. It's not as if they could potentially wipe out the native beaver population, which is the usual reason for being concerned about the risk of imported disease.

Remind me again who's doing the thinking?

orfeo - we crossposted on that one, but you can read about fox tapeworm (the infection in question) here (Wikipedia). It's pretty horrible.

The risk of introducing this parasite was determined as potentially a significant risk as recently as 2012 (Risk assessment report here) which frankly may have rather more to do with the current capture-and-hold plans than anything hitherto ventilated about.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I find it interesting that people with a certain political viewpoint are totally against GM crops on the basis that they are introducing an unknown into an ecosystem, but are fine with something cute and cuddly that might be carrying something unknown into an ecosystem!

A little cognitive dissonance there. Or maybe it's people who just like big-eyes and fluffy fur. Awww bless.

Or maybe introducing something that historically belonged to the ecosystem is not the same as introducing something with no historical precedent?

Honestly, I live in a country that has wrestled with changes to the natural order of things far more than yours has. We had an ecosystem utterly different from any European one, and filled it with European things, and wreaked havoc in a way that is utterly different from the relatively slight differences between the British Isles and continental Europe.

So forgive me if I don't feel especially inclined to think that a Brit with a couple of snappy one-liners has a lot to teach me about the issues surrounding reintroduction of a vanished organism, not when he can't distinguish it from introduction of a brand new one. Around here, we have lots of experience of introducing brand new organisms and it's precisely WHY we now have experience in reintroducing vanished ones.

(Honest Ron Bacardi, on the other hand, I'll listen to because there's actual knowledge there instead of a know-it-all.)

[ 01. July 2014, 10:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I thought this was going to be some sort of feminist diatribe. or pro-prostitution rant.

bummer.

While I thought it was going to be about boys aged 6-8 (or rather children, I keep forgetting that Scouting is open to girls in the UK).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
The ecosystem has evolved in that time—in some very significant ways, in response to every change we humans have made to our agriculture and industry.

With respect, I think this is a bit of a misuse of the word 'evolved'.

Changed, yes. But evolved? For example, I doubt that any plants that had anti-beaver defence mechanisms have lost them in the space of 500 years.

We are still likely to be a far more potent force for ecological change than beavers are. Any 'change' that results from the introduction of beavers now would, I think, in truth be a partial and limited undoing of the changes that we have caused.

I find it most unlikely that anything beavers now do would be deleterious from the standpoint of the natural ecology of Britain, of which they were part and for the development of which they were present. Any "damaging" of the ecology that beavers ever caused would have happened long before human beings were ever around to observe it, ie the "beaver-damaged" version of the environment is the one that we would have seen for thousands of years. Everything else native to Britain successfully survived that notional prehistoric "beaver damage", otherwise it wouldn't be perceived as "native to Britain".

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

It appears that the risk assesment report has been moved. Sorry that link didn't work - it used to.

Try this one.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I thought this was going to be some sort of feminist diatribe. or pro-prostitution rant.

bummer.

I for one would like a whole lot more beavers,

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It appears that the risk assesment report has been moved. Sorry that link didn't work - it used to.

Try this one.

Thanks. Interesting. So clearly, you shouldn't be importing red foxes from Germany...

It seems pretty clear from that document that the actual risk of a beaver being infected is quite low. The key point that alters the risk (whilst still not making it high) is that it's not known from which country these beavers originally came.

It seems to me that they must have been through the quarantine process, which significantly reduces the probability of infection, but against that is one case where quarantine apparently failed to catch a diseased animal, and the fundamental problem that no-one really knows how to test live beavers for this disease in the first place!

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
The ecosystem has evolved in that time—in some very significant ways, in response to every change we humans have made to our agriculture and industry.
With respect, I think this is a bit of a misuse of the word 'evolved'.

Changed, yes. But evolved? For example, I doubt that any plants that had anti-beaver defence mechanisms have lost them in the space of 500 years.

We are still likely to be a far more potent force for ecological change than beavers are. Any 'change' that results from the introduction of beavers now would, I think, in truth be a partial and limited undoing of the changes that we have caused.

No and yes. The ecosystem that now exists has adapted, or been adapted, to the current needs of humans. It's not that individual species have lost their anti-beaver defenses, but that we've basically destroyed the ecosystem that included beavers in it in a perhaps stable way and replaced it with one that doesn't include 'em, and might not be able to accommodate them.

For instance. Would the American Great Plains be able to accommodate the wide-scale reintroduction of bison herds, which were common less than 200 to 150 years ago? The answer, of course, is no. The tallgrass prairie ecosystem that sustained them is gone. Even in those areas given over to rangeland, the mix of grasses has changed completely, thanks to overgrazing, the Dust Bowl, and other anthropogenic causes. To quote one of my field ecologist friends, once you've fucked it, you can't unfuck it.

And the list goes on. What about species once native to the forests of the eastern US? The chestnut blight wiped out one of the most important species in that ecosystem within living memory; the environment you're introducing things into is not the one they once lived in. Rainbow trout to the Pacific Rim, cutthroat to the Rocky Mountains? Whirling disease has become established there—and is spread by people introducing infected fish, intentionally or unintentionally. It's even crossing species and genus lines, rather than just being a disease of rainbow/cutthroat trout, though I think it's pretty well confined in its most virulent form to the salmonids for now.

And speaking of chestnut blight and whirling disease, let's not forget that no organism exists on its own, but comes with a whole host of other parasites and hitchhikers. Beavers are a well-known reservoir for Giardia, which is especially problematic given their somewhat noted tendency to live near water. This is a problem, since we don't know their provenance—someone illicitly introducing beavers probably did not do an exhaustive quarantine and microbe study before letting them loose. People doing things illegally, especially when it involves freeing cute widdle fwuffy critters that evwewone wuvs, don't usually follow established environmental protection protocols.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the Everglades; I hear it's python season.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It appears that the risk assesment report has been moved. Sorry that link didn't work - it used to.

Try this one.
Thanks. Interesting. So clearly, you shouldn't be importing red foxes from Germany...

It seems pretty clear from that document that the actual risk of a beaver being infected is quite low. The key point that alters the risk (whilst still not making it high) is that it's not known from which country these beavers originally came.

It seems to me that they must have been through the quarantine process, which significantly reduces the probability of infection, but against that is one case where quarantine apparently failed to catch a diseased animal, and the fundamental problem that no-one really knows how to test live beavers for this disease in the first place!

I think the problem is that we have no idea where they came from. If they were legally imported as pets they would presumably have spent time in quarantine, but anyone can drive back from Europe with a few beavers in the back of the car. It's only going to get detected if they do one of the random spot checks to see what you've got, and the last time I had one of those was over 20 years ago. (I go to Europe at least a couple of times a year). So their origin is a mystery so far.

Yes, quarantine probably wouldn't pick up this parasite. As to screening, I don't know the current status of technology, but antibody tests such as ELISA works for humans and I'm sure could be extended to beavers if it hasn't been already. I'd need to do some reading on that.

The fly in the ointment here is that a few years ago one of the legally owned beavers in England died unexpectedly, and PM revealed the cause of death was this pathogen.

If this business went wrong (not a high risk but non-zero) you can imagine the backlash. As it is, the only people who seem against it are the anglers.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
For instance. Would the American Great Plains be able to accommodate the wide-scale reintroduction of bison herds, which were common less than 200 to 150 years ago? The answer, of course, is no. The tallgrass prairie ecosystem that sustained them is gone. Even in those areas given over to rangeland, the mix of grasses has changed completely, thanks to overgrazing, the Dust Bowl, and other anthropogenic causes. To quote one of my field ecologist friends, once you've fucked it, you can't unfuck it.

Yes, but that means that the bison would now fail. Not that the American Great Plains would now fail. The issue at hand was whether the existing British ecosystem could survive the introduction of beavers, not whether the beavers could survive in the existing British ecosystem.

[ 01. July 2014, 15:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I think the problem is that we have no idea where they came from. If they were legally imported as pets they would presumably have spent time in quarantine, but anyone can drive back from Europe with a few beavers in the back of the car. It's only going to get detected if they do one of the random spot checks to see what you've got, and the last time I had one of those was over 20 years ago. (I go to Europe at least a couple of times a year). So their origin is a mystery so far.

It's late. While I was reading this, my brain chose to come up with the truly dreadful "unexpected beaver in..."

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Let's consider some of the "arguments" for capturing these beavers, shall we?

We don't know where they came from
Their origin is a mystery. But who cares? If they had arrived undeniably under their own steam, would we be worried? Of course not.

We don't know what diseases they might carry
But if they had migrated to Devon on their own accord, would we still be concerned about diseases? Have we been concerned about possible diseases in otters that have returned to our rivers? Have we been concerned about possible diseases in ospreys? Have we been concerned about diseases in wild boars, who are FAR more numerous in the UK countryside than three beavers in a river in Devon?

We don't know what impact they will have on the local environment.
a) I refer to the wild boar point above. If we're really concerned about environmental impacts, we would be doing far more to control (and even eradicate) boars, mink, etc etc
b) Actually, we DO have a pretty good idea of what the likely impact will be. And it is minimal. Or perhaps I should say "most likely to be beneficial". And the easiest way to assess environmental impacts would be to JUST BLOODY MONITOR THEM! For God's sake, we're talking about a few beavers in one river. Is it really that hard?

We are concerned about their welfare
They have been there for some time. They seem to be very happy. JUST LET THEM BE! If the river and its surrounds are good for them, they will thrive. If not, they will die. That's nature.

They don't belong in congested England
The river Otter (& most of Devon) is not that built up or congested. Sure, I doubt that we'll ever see beavers on the Thames or the Mersey. But Devon could be an ideal location.

We're not talking about bears or wolves (although I think that there are grounds for arguing for the selective reintroduction of these in parts of the UK). This is a species that was once native to the UK, is very VERY unlikely to cause problems and could boost the local economy by extra tourism.

I seriously can see no valid reason for going to the bother (and possible harm to the animals) of capturing them and putting them in an enclosed space. It just doesn't make sense.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Interestingly enough, reintroducing wolves in Yellowstone turned out to be good for the beavers and restored the forest.

I agree that the beavers should be monitored. There's no need to move them out of the river and you're not going to figure out the ecological impact if you keep them in a cage.
If you want to cage the politicians until you can assess the damage they do, I could go along with that. [Biased]

[ 03. July 2014, 04:37: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

"It's just a few beavers."

"It's just a few rabbits."

"It's just a few mussels."

"It's just a few shiners from a bait bucket."

Invasive species and their microbiological hitchhikers are not to be trifled with or dismissed, no matter how cute and fuzzy.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
"It's just a few beavers."

"It's just a few rabbits."

"It's just a few mussels."

"It's just a few shiners from a bait bucket."

Invasive species and their microbiological hitchhikers are not to be trifled with or dismissed, no matter how cute and fuzzy.

Which would be relevant if beavers were an invasive species vis-a-vis the United Kingdom.

"It's just a few rabbits" is highly relevant in Australia because of our soils, the other creatures in the same ecological niche, and the lack of natural predators for rabbits. They can be called an invasive species HERE. Calling rabbits an invasive species in a location where they lived as part of the ecosystem for hundreds of thousands of years before human beings hunted them out would be complete nonsense.

[ 03. July 2014, 08:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

...actually rabbits are not native to the UK and were first introduced by the Romans... Hard to believe now, isn't it.

European beavers have more right to be here than the rabbits.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

^ I deliberately worded my post to say a location in which they were native, without asserting which locations they are, in fact, native to.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I don't think anyone is suggesting that beavers are going to rampage all over the place creating mayhem. In fact the re-introduction study has already demonstrated how beneficial they can be in their preferred sort of habitat, which is more upland than lowland watercourses. Their activities benefit the biodiversity enormously, and by the creation of braided watercourses they beneficially moderate river flows, tending to make floods less severe, and streams less likely to dry up in summer.

The general sentiment is generally pro- their reintroduction. The objections are not to their re-introduction, but either to potential risks associated with somebody making a DIY introduction using stock of unknown health and genetic status. Or - specifically in this case - by the local anglers, who have presumably paid money for the fishing rights on the River Otter.

[ 03. July 2014, 09:42: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

orfeo:

quote:
^ I deliberately worded my post to say a location in which they were native, without asserting which locations they are, in fact, native to.

<rereads original statement> Ah yes. But the implication (to someone who is not a legal drafter) is that your final paragraph refers back to the first sentence of your post, where you are talking about the UK.

European wild rabbits are native to Spain. They've caused far more problems in Australia than anywhere else, but they are the poster-child for invasive species. There are quite a lot of them this year in southern England and they are considered vermin by (unsentimental) people in the UK.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
by the local anglers, who have presumably paid money for the fishing rights on the River Otter.

I always find it amusing when human beings try to impose rules on the natural world in this way. Well, I don't find it so amusing when the attempt has tragic results, such as when Australians build their homes in the most fire-prone forest in the world and are surprised when it burns, or don't expect a flood plain to flood...

No-one thinking SENSIBLY would turn "a right to fish" into "a guarantee of catching fish". Are the anglers going to demand action if the fish die from some disease? What if the fish just decide to swim upstream/downstream away from their spot (which might happen, given climate change): are they going to demand that the government tow them back?

Does a person with the right to log a forest have any entitlement to demand the removal of woodpeckers that are changing the quality of the wood?

A right to access a natural resource inherently carries with it the risk that the natural resource will fluctuate in quantity or quality. An angler may well be able to take action against a human agent who affects their fishing, but saying to a beaver "Oi! You can't be here! You haven't got a permit!" is completely ridiculous.

[ 03. July 2014, 10:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
<snip> …they are considered vermin by (unsentimental) people in the UK.

Not just by unsentimental people, but also by the law

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Oscar - I presume we are returning to a more purgatorial sort of stance rather than a rant, so I'll try and respond in kind.

1.

quote:
Their origin is a mystery. But who cares? If they had arrived undeniably under their own steam, would we be worried? Of course not.

This is irrelevant. If they had arrived under their own steam they would have been from UK stock. The UK mammal population is free from echinococcosis. The mainland European population isn't. That's the reason for caring.

2.

quote:
We don't know what diseases they might carry
But if they had migrated to Devon on their own accord, would we still be concerned about diseases? Have we been concerned about possible diseases in otters that have returned to our rivers? Have we been concerned about possible diseases in ospreys? Have we been concerned about diseases in wild boars, who are FAR more numerous in the UK countryside than three beavers in a river in Devon?

See above. Otters have never been absent from the UK. The present re-colonization successes are due to natural re-colonization plus some local introduction help. If you are going to reintroduce a species that has died out locally, you need to know its genetic status (is it the right subspecies? Is there sufficient genetic diversity among the introduced individuals to ensure long-term breeding success?). Yes, these are and have been factors which have to be considered when reintroducing species back into habitats if you expect them to thrive. It's why the reintroduction of the white-tailed eagle has been made from several distinct locations in Europe.

The point isn't about animals getting sick. All animals do that. It's about which pathogens they may prove to be carrying and the consequences of introducing them.

3.

quote:
We don't know what impact they will have on the local environment.
a) I refer to the wild boar point above. If we're really concerned about environmental impacts, we would be doing far more to control (and even eradicate) boars, mink, etc etc
b) Actually, we DO have a pretty good idea of what the likely impact will be. And it is minimal. Or perhaps I should say "most likely to be beneficial". And the easiest way to assess environmental impacts would be to JUST BLOODY MONITOR THEM! For God's sake, we're talking about a few beavers in one river. Is it really that hard?

Well, people are trying to eradicate mink and control wild boar. The latter is more of a cull (like deer or red kangaroos) and needs to done if populations look like exploding locally. Mink is a classic example of what happens when uncontrolled release of alien species with no local predators occurs. See orfeo's comments on rabbits above.

I agree mostly with your second part above. Though Ottery St. Mary may not be the ideal place to try to let a beaver population establish - from my recollection of the place it's more lowland territory, but I may be wrong. Anyway, as outlined above it's not really the point. There may be local reasons to consider there - trees and shrubs are regularly used in lowland river management for bank stabilisation. There are flooding implications if that is so here. But these are just the sort of things that need to be looked at.

4.

quote:
They don't belong in congested England
The river Otter (& most of Devon) is not that built up or congested. Sure, I doubt that we'll ever see beavers on the Thames or the Mersey. But Devon could be an ideal location.

We're not talking about bears or wolves (although I think that there are grounds for arguing for the selective reintroduction of these in parts of the UK). This is a species that was once native to the UK, is very VERY unlikely to cause problems and could boost the local economy by extra tourism.

I seriously can see no valid reason for going to the bother (and possible harm to the animals) of capturing them and putting them in an enclosed space. It just doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure who is making this claim. I'm certainly not and I don't recall anyone else here doing so. Certainly nobody is going to give them free rein, but there are plenty of places where they could both thrive and also be beneficial.

So far as I can see both the strategies proposed by Natural England (capture them pro tem. - no decision on what happens in the long term) and the Devon Wildlife Trust (leave them pro. tem. pending determination of health etc. status) have some joined-up thinking behind them. Just releasing them in the wild is a selfish and irresponsible act, and I hope by now I've explained some of the reasons why.

We currently run costly veterinary and plant health laboratories whose job is to determine such risks. We are trying to cut back on the use of synthetic toxins in agriculture and horticulture, and year by year we rely increasingly on the control of pathogens by natural means. Random introduction is precisely and exactly the sort of selfish, unthoughtful and sentimental attitude that is likely to be the downfall of this approach, which I would be bold enough to describe as genuine progress, and why I am so anti- whichever fuckwit dumped these poor beavers in the R. Otter.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
by the local anglers, who have presumably paid money for the fishing rights on the River Otter.
I always find it amusing when human beings try to impose rules on the natural world in this way. Well, I don't find it so amusing when the attempt has tragic results, such as when Australians build their homes in the most fire-prone forest in the world and are surprised when it burns, or don't expect a flood plain to flood...

No-one thinking SENSIBLY would turn "a right to fish" into "a guarantee of catching fish". Are the anglers going to demand action if the fish die from some disease? What if the fish just decide to swim upstream/downstream away from their spot (which might happen, given climate change): are they going to demand that the government tow them back?

Does a person with the right to log a forest have any entitlement to demand the removal of woodpeckers that are changing the quality of the wood?

A right to access a natural resource inherently carries with it the risk that the natural resource will fluctuate in quantity or quality. An angler may well be able to take action against a human agent who affects their fishing, but saying to a beaver "Oi! You can't be here! You haven't got a permit!" is completely ridiculous.

The angling lobby is quite powerful in this respect in the UK. I am involved in bird conservation, and currently, some angling places have a licence to kill cormorants and herons. But it's no different from licenses to kill gulls, ravens, and even mountain hares and pine martens, although sometimes there is a good reason.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Honest Ron, how do you know anybody dumped the beavers? I seem to recall from the document discussing reintroduction that they succeed in escaping from enclosures reasonably often.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

orfeo -

quote:
A right to access a natural resource inherently carries with it the risk that the natural resource will fluctuate in quantity or quality. An angler may well be able to take action against a human agent who affects their fishing, but saying to a beaver "Oi! You can't be here! You haven't got a permit!" is completely ridiculous.

Sure. I'm just trying to enumerate where I understand the opposition is.

quote:
Honest Ron, how do you know anybody dumped the beavers? I seem to recall from the document discussing reintroduction that they succeed in escaping from enclosures reasonably often.

It's quite possible they escaped I guess, though people abandoning "exotic" animals in the wild is an ongoing problem. But if so whoever had them is keeping quiet about it, which is equally unhelpful. Just consider the potential class of recipients of my bile newly extended.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Hehe, fair enough. And yes, I did understand you were articulating someone's position rather than subscribing to it.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

If only one of the beavers was a famous personality and could sing songs about the beaver plight. Pop songs that are serious but fun, too. Of course, I can only be referring to that famous singer, teen sensation:

Justin Beaver!

Posted by Erik (# 11406) on :

I agree with Ariston. The ecosystem will have changed since the beavers were last here. For one thing there are no longer any natural predators. We currently have a situation with red deer where there has to be human intervention (in the form of culling) to keep their numbers down. Otherwise they will damage the ecosystem by over-grazing. With nothing to keep beaver numbers down how long would it be until they too would need human intervention.

I would love to see the reintroduction of once-native species returning to the UK, but I believe the way to do that is by well thought out study and planning (like the link Firenze provided).

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

Oh for fuck's sake. Was resurrecting this thread for another lame joke, if not as tasteless as your usual, really worth it to you?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0