Just a few days ago I wrote about it being the end of February which was the deadline for Wildlife Services to submit their preliminary report on whether killing beavers harmed salmon. If they agreed there were questions it would submit to undertake a formal assessment on the matter. I’ll let Ben Goldfarb‘s article say it better:
Wildlife Services consented to submit a biological assessment to the National Marine Fisheries Service by Feb. 28. If both agencies agree that killing beavers is likely to harm protected fish, they’ll undergo a formal consultation that could end with a biological opinion, a document specifying measures for reducing damage to salmon habitat.
To no one’s surprise, February 28 came and went with no report from Wildlife Services. Meaning they decided not to decide. And for the time remain in beaver-killing limbo. Obviously there were no ‘right answers’ to the question they wanted to hear. Kind of like when you father asks you at midnight if you know exactly what time your curfew is, young lady.
I suppose that means that their temporary hiatus on beaver killing will be extended? It’s a big world, they can always just focus on killing other things until they think the coast is clear. Or until we stop paying attention.
Now it’s up to the Center for Bioligical Diversity and the Western Environmental Law Center to force the issue. Which I assume they’re working on at the moment. The original letter of 60-day notice of intent to sue was served on November 2, which means with holidays and court calendar the deadline ran out some time in the last month.. Wildlife services sidestepped the deadline by saying they’d issue a report at the end of February and they instead chose to do nothing.
The next move to make is for the good guys to say TIME’S UP! We waited long enough for your input and now you just have to follow ours. Or let the judge tell you what to do. Maybe step in and impose some kind of fine or sanction for their failure to act and that will require them financially to move forward.
As recently as December 2016, NMFS articulated the importance of beavers to survival and recovery of the Oregon Coast coho in its Recovery Plan for the species (NMFS 2016a). Noting that beaver removal has degraded coho salmon habitat, these federal fish experts also point out that restoring beavers and their dams has proven effective at increasing salmon populations (NMFS 2016a, pp. 3-8, 3-28). In its plan, NMFS explicitly called for changes in“beaver management to allow beavers to build more dams in Oregon Coast coho rearing habitat”(NMFS 2016a, p. 4-16).
Given all the positive benefits of beavers to ecosystem health, it is not surprising that researchers have documented that removal of beavers harms salmonids, including populations listed under the ESA5 For example, Pollock et al. (2004),in a study of the Stillaguamish River Basin of Washington, found that the greatest reduction in coho smolt production capacity was associated with the extensive loss of beaver ponds. Removing beavers means fewer dams because of less dam-building and less maintenan ce of existing dams by beavers. In coastal Oregon rivers, beaver dams in small streams often wash out during high winter flows and beavers rebuild them the following summer (ODFW 2005).
If you look at the letter it all seems a pretty open a shut argument if you ask me, Little bit part players like us can just sit back and watch and wait what happens.
For the above stated reasons, APHIS-Wildlife Services has violated and remains in ongoing violation of Section 7 of the ESA. If these violations of law are not cured within sixty days, the Center for Biological Diversity and No rthwest Environmental Advocates intend to file suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, as wellas attorney fees and costs.
