Twenty days ago CDFW released the two year summary of their highly acclaimed “beaver relocation plan”. It was hailed with a reception of cheer and inspiring footage of Mr, Bonham himself saying we were better with beavers on the land. Our beaver friends around the state high-fived each other and drank in the success.
I was not among them.
I carefully viewed and reviewed the report, talked to colleagues and researched details, then I wrote a two page review of their report. I carefully sent it it to all the right places and gave them time to respond. I heard nothing back so I waited.
And waited,
Two weeks later I’m assuming they tossed my remarks in the circular file and I’m instead going to share them here. I cannot guess whether they will ever be read, but I can no longer keep them silent. I can only hope that one of the reasons Molly Alves was hired to direct this team is because at some level folks saw this was as much of a clusterf*ck as I did.
The painting was a special favor by Erika and I thought of it later but may still send it If I don’t talk myself down from the ledge.
Advice is a dangerous gift, even from the
wise to the wise, and all courses may run ill.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
One can read this quote and easily replace the word “Advice” with the word “Beavers”. Because even when translocation is done in the best way for the best reasons things can still turn horribly wrong.
Reading your April report on the beaver releases proves the point: the high mortality rate of “40-60” percent and perceived lack of clarity on beaver biology and behavior is disappointing, I realize this project is a work in progress and you are learning as you go, but the effort is using limited taxpayer dollars and finite human goodwill so of course everyone wants that learning curve to be as brief as possible.
The best parts of the report focus on restoration and hydrological gains attributed to the beavers. This made the mostly hopeful minds that reviewed it feel cheered by the projects success. However, since my perspective is wholly beaver-centric I am much more alarmed.
Other than stating that the beavers in question were “causing depredation” on municipal state or conservancy land you do not clarify who did the trapping. I assume they were not very good at it because it took them 561 days to trap 30 beavers. And one was so traumatized that he died of a heart attack.
At a rate of a single beaver every three weeks we can assume your trappers were mostly doing something else on those 561 nights, maybe even lethal trapping. Their success rate suggests that the skill sets for the two are very different.
In the maidu release you say that “7 members of the same family” were taken including
an adult breeding pair, one subadult, and four kits from two litters; three were larger, early-season kits and one was a small, late-season kit.
Kits born to the same family are all from a single season. Female beavers enter estrus only once a year and all their litter is born at the same time. The only way there could be two litters is if there were two females. Certainly over the 10 years we closely observed our family of beavers we occasionally saw a litter with beavers of very different sizes but they were still from the same season, as all yours were unless you accidently ‘kitnapped’ a beaver from another family.
When tagging the beaver for data collection the burden on the animal must be weighed against the usefulness or value of the data given. Certainly providing an animal with different color eartags that will never be visible on night cam (which since beavers are nocturnal is the only time they’ll ever be filmed) is of limited value. Tail monitors, while convenient, are cumbersome and often torn loose by an animal that is constantly moving and removing brush.
Of course any reader Is likely to be alarmed by the high predation rate. it is neither humane nor cost effective to reintroduce beavers solely to enrich the diet of black bears. It is concerning that you were so unaware of predator population in the selected release sites. Moreover, the photo provided of the perhaps well meaning ‘temporary lodge’ reflects a deep ignorance of beavers and the purpose of a lodge in the first place.
Obviously in order to provide safety of any kind the entrance of that lodge must be UNDER WATER, The report indicates you stopped offering lodges because
we ultimately found that these likely increased the risk of predation by attracting predators
No kidding!
Maybe the lodge in the photo was pre-manufactured before you knew the depth of the water. As a result it sits neatly on the soil and means that any beaver can get in but is ruthlessly trapped in the lodge if pursued. The notion that you would include this photo in your report suggests that even now you don’t understand why its so inadequate and you assume no one reviewing the report will understand it either.
I saw this summary covered in the news in celebratory tones and watched my creek-restoring colleagues high-fiving at the successful dams and water storage. To my reading that means that the dislocated beavers that were lucky enough to avoid predation did an excellent job adapting to their new surroundings and forcing their new surroundings to adapt to them.
However, the educated professionals paid by the state of California were less successful. You are charged with protecting the public interest in wildlife, preserve natural resources that benefit our streams and woodlands, improve biodiversity and restore beaver presence on the landscape in a way that benefits their repopulation and our own interests in sport fishing, duck hunting, and fire resilience. This report indicates that to date you have not yet got it right.
It is my strongest recommendation that you have this report reviewed by beaver relocation experts in both Washington state and Oregon where this work has been well understood for decades. I recommend Alexa Whipple who runs the beaver reintroduction program at the Methow Project and Vanessa Petro with Oregon forests who did beaver relocation research under Dr. Jimmy Taylor at USDA. I also advise that you bring an experienced rehab practitioner to both wildlife holding facilities to evaluate the best ways to minimize trauma during capture and housing. Both Sonoma Wildlife and UCDavis have extensive experience rehabilitating beaver and can help improve your efforts.
The state of California has come a very long way in a very short time in recognizing why our state deserves and is benefitted by a healthy beaver population. We still have a long way to go and years of catching up to do.
Keep trying and do better.
And just in case you have a hard time remembering the original, here it is in all its scientific gory glory.
