Every now and then I am stopped at the farmer’s market by someone who mentions a story they read about the South American beavers. I always correct them instinctively that they must mean another species. Beaver range doesn’t even extend as far south as Mexico. Maybe they’re talking about capybara? Still, when Dr. Stack mentioned it again I figured I’d go google hunting, and lookie what I found! 45 breeding pairs of Castor canadensis (our beavers) introduced into Tierra del Fuego Argentina in 1946 for the purpose of starting a fur industry.
(Never mind that the very fur you are pursuing makes beavers a bad candidate for the temperatures there. Who cares if the beavers overheat as long as they breed and make nice felt for hats. Brilliant plan. How could it possibly fail?)
Now of course, they are complaining that the beavers are “wreaking havoc” on the ecosystem, have crossed the straights of Magellan into Chile and threatening the trees at Torres del Paine National Park, a UNESCO reserve. Hoards of angry beavers whose numbers have sky-rocketed because they have “no natural predators”, chomping their way towards the rainforests. How can they ever be stopped?
As if this wasn’t scary enough, the story goes on to describe that these uniquely destructive beavers have moved away from their traditional herbivore diet and are now eating fish! Their new diet makes them larger and ever more destructive with dams that stretch more than 100 meters! Super-beavers!
Where to begin?
Lets start with “no natural predators”. I understand since they are 5000 miles away from their natural predators they are not likely to get eaten by a bear. But hmm I wonder if there are any predators in Argentina and Chile that might like a little exotic beaver meat? Let me just check what’s around there, “87% of South America’s carnivore population occur in Argentina”. The maned wolf for one, and a variety of others. This book outlines seven species of carnivores living in the Pampas. Not to mention a dozen different kind of Caiman (crocodiles) that can be found anywhere there’s water. I guess no “natural predators” but a host of “unnatural” ones. And It’s not like beavers can offer much self defense.
Now for this “beavers eat fish” nonsense I went to the experts. I wrote our friends Skip Lisle, Sharon Brown and Jake Jacobsen. Is it possible? Have they talked to anyone who saw this? Here are their responses:
I wouldn’t be surprised if beavers eat a piece of carrion occasionally, but they don’t typically make a habit of eating fish, on any continent. I haven’t heard any Argentina beaver discussions with anybody for a few years.
Skip Lisle
The part about eating fish is not credible. We’ve heard other stories though that they’re downing trees in a reserve etc. All that needs to be balanced with the planned human devastation of that area—perhaps we’ll do an article about it in the next issue.
Sharon Brown
The wrecking havoc part is correct. Biology of the animal does not support the fish eating scenario. Beaver wreck havoc wherever they go. They are ecosystem engineers. That’s what that means. They change environments. The environment complains, but then adapts, and is improved (but only if you value wetlands). People are less adaptable.
Jake Jacobson
HOLDING, JOHN
Until retirement in 2002, John Holding, of Schomberg, practiced civil litigation with Borden & Elliot (later Borden Ladner Gervais). He currently practices mediation at ADR Chambers. Mr. Holding is former Director and Treasurer of the Advocates’ Society and Chair of the Committee on revision of rules of civil procedure. He is the author of the Canadian Manual of International Air Carriage, and an active member of the McMichael Gallery Volunteer Committee. Mr. Holding attended the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall Law School. He was called to the Ontario Bar in 1959, and subsequently called to the Bars of Alberta and Yukon. In 1971, he was appointed as Queen’s Counsel.
And R. Garth Kidd? The other name in the article? Also an attorney at McTague Lawfirm in Ontario Canada. Hmm. Well okay, maybe they got lead astray by the beavers eating fish story and the “no natural predators” line, but they’re right about the “wreaking havoc on the trees” aren’t they? I mean beavers must be the most important threat to the trees of Argentina and Chile, right? It’s not like large money is cutting out forests everywhere to plant soya and other biofuel crops?
Oh.
And there you have it. Alarming lies about beavers told by attorneys to an obliging media who performs its steno-sue function and dutifully prints the unexamined story as it is explained to them.
I’m sure glad that never happens here!
