Complex problems require complex solutions. This is a great opportunity to discuss Kim Royar’s response in the Vermont Digger. Earlier the paper published a letter from John Aberth asking “Why are we killing the one animal that could help us?” It was a nicely worded defense of beavers, and the response is a nicely worded rebuttal.
Kim Royar: There’s no silver bullet for beaver conservation, coexistence and management
As a 40+ year veteran of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, I take exception to the Sept. 13 “Why are we killing the one animal that can increase wildlife habitat” commentary’s oversimplification of the department’s beaver conservation, coexistence and management efforts.
The department recognizes and publicly promotes beavers as ecosystem engineers and a keystone species. That is why we successfully reintroduced beavers to Vermont throughout the early 1900s and established a “beaver baffle” program 22 years ago that continues to this day. Our beaver baffle program works with landowners, business owners and road crews to protect valuable beaver-created wetlands by installing water control structures.
Just as important, our program also advances a culture of coexistence with wildlife
But while installing water control structures can often help solve flooding issues, maintain habitat, and foster important conversations in our communities, it is not a silver bullet in all cases of conflict with beavers.
We need to stop right here and acknowledge that Vermont is the single state out of 50 where Fish and Wildlife actually installs flow devices to keep beavers on the landscape because they are so important to fish and wildlife. That should be true in every state, but only Vermont makes it happen It started years ago with funding from a duck stamp by FWS. Kim was kind enough to agree to talk to me about it when I was wondering why similar programs aren’t happening in Oregon or California. It is fair to say that Kim has gone out on somewhat of a limb for beavers. I’m sure there are plenty of voices in Vermont that don’t approve of her involvement in rodents.
But it;s perfectly reasonable to say also that it should happen more than it does. And that if installing 10 baffles helps a lot of wildlife installing 50 would help more. Not to mention that the vibes between beaver inventor Skip Lisle who has solved thousands of these problems in the state and Vermont Fish and Wildlife are hardly warm. They are downright unfriendly. Even though they have lbenefitted from his advances over the years they exist without any cooperation at all. They even call the ‘baffles’ instead of ‘deceivers’ like the rest of America.
Could they do better by letting themselves learn from Skip? Or even from Mike and the beaver institute? Of course they could.
Water control structures require regular maintenance and an indefinite commitment from affected landowners. They can also be expensive, making them inaccessible to some landowners and towns. And even with the full support of an affected landowner or town, water control structures are not effective in every case of conflict with beavers. Site conditions make each beaver conflict unique. Depending on water depth and velocity, topography, substrate, drainage area, and the persistence and abundance of the local beaver population, it may be challenging or even impossible to resolve some situations with beaver baffles alone.
This is why the department has relied for decades on regulated and ethical harvest to replace some of the natural predation by wolves and harvest by indigenous communities that influenced beaver numbers before European colonization.
We in Martinez know exactly how much maintenance our flow device required over the decade. And we know how much it cost and how much money it allowed us to save. We know that installing too few flow devices in a state is a thousand percent better than installing none. We know Vermont has done a lot right. But we still want more.
Our current beaver trapping season assists in sustaining and coexisting with Vermont’s healthy and abundant beaver population by minimizing the need to take beavers as a “nuisance” in conflict situations. This goal is especially important because animals taken outside of the winter trapping season are often wasted, rather than utilized as a local source of food and clothing.
Yeah. sure.
One of my favorite scenes in Ken Burns National Parks Series “America’s Best Idea” comes around the fourth episode when John Muir finally got president Roosevelt to Yosemite. The president and his people went out to see the park for himself. It was a huge Huge victory for Muir, The culmination of many years work. And that night John and Theodore slipped away by themselves to camp under the redwoods.
Think about that. Getting the most powerful man in the world to sneak away with you for a night in the redwoods where you can show him the most beautiful thing you care so passionately about with zero distractions. Yosemite will be protected. You are getting everything you want.
And that night as they lay in their bed rolls under the trees with the tiniest of stars peeping between the branches, John Muir said to the president of the united states,
“Are you still hunting? You should stop that. There isn’t enough big game anymore and it just destroys the population.”
Because that’s what advocates do. We push and push and push until we get everything we said we wanted and then we keep pushing for more. And that’s what it takes.
Endless Pressure. Endlessly Applied.
