It should be noted in the (Jan. 15, 2020 Register Citizen) article in regards to beaver trapping in the state of Connecticut that the citizens of the state of Connecticut have two choices in regards to the control of beavers. And looking slightly to our North will prove my points.
Now probably you’re thinking, like me, oh good two ways? Trapping or exclusion? But sadly we’d both be wrong. He means trapping OR trapping.
Either trappers will pay the state of Connecticut to trap beavers, or the taxpayers of Connecticut will pay professional Wildlife Control companies to trap beavers.
In the state of Massachusetts, where two forms a very effective traps have been banned, most trappers gave up and stopped trapping, which everyone who is opposed to trapping feels they have had a success in the ban in “saving” beavers.
Ahhh he’s writing this letter to complain about the change in 96 that outlawed conibears in Massachussetts unless one of nine exceptions have been met. Oh, a trapper will never miss the opportunity to complain about that change.
But what they have actually done is force the state and private citizens to hire private wildlife control companies to trap the beavers anyway.
The same will happen here in Connecticut. Beavers are prolific breeders, and will clog Connecticut’s waterways with dams, quickly.
So unless the concerned citizens of Connecticut would like another cost to come out of everyone’s pocket, (yes, even the anti-trappers pockets) rather than having the trappers actually pay the state, go ahead and ban trapping in Connecticut.
There will still be trapping in Connecticut. Excess beavers will be harvested, nothing will change in that regard. So the real question is, do they want the state to pay to have a professional trapper remove the beavers, or do the taxpayers want to be paid to trap the beavers?
Either way….the beavers will be still be trapped…that part will not change. It is the only effective way to keep their numbers in control.
So philosophical Jim. Either way the beavers will die, We all do eventually. Why not get on with it and stop complaining about things?
Not sure that an an animal that breeds once a year and raises its young for two years should be characterized as a ‘prolific breeder’ but okay. Whatever you say Jim.
On a hunch I went searching for Mr. Gilbert and found this photo at the Northwestern Conneticut Sportsmen’s Association. Jim looks like a swell guy. I’m sure he knows all about beaver ecology.
Do trappers really pay the state to trap beavers? I guess theoretically they buy a license, which seems kind of beside the point. Apparently a trapping license Connecticut is a whopping 34 dollars a year or .09 cents a day for a resident of the state. You can kill a lot of animals for .09 cents a day.
No word on how Jim will repay the state for the lost fish, birds and game animals or the increased risk of flooding or drought. But I’m sure he’ll figure it out.
For her research she compared large fires across 5 states (including California) and found that in areas that there were beaver dams the vegetation was lusher before, during and after the fires. Part of the reason was the many complex dams they maintained making ponds and part of it was the canals they dug spreading water around the landscape. She argues persuasively and with all the right statistics that we need to let beavers do their thing more often.
Now it appears to be working again, but if for some reason it stops just know I will work to bring it back. It begins with the facilitators voice and then cuts to Emily. I would listen all the way through if you have time.
Sure, it’s not the longest and most informative clip in the beaver world, but I ask you, how many times have you heard good things said about beavers from Missouri???
