Residents of Calgary has joined the number of cities that would very much like to stop killing beavers please. City officials just aren’t so sure the can quit.

Calgary urged to adopt better co-existence program with beavers after animals killed

Over the summer, a pair of beavers were an attraction for people walking by a storm water pond just north of Country Hills Boulevard. However, in October, the City of Calgary hired a contractor to set traps that killed two beavers.

“When we found out they killed two beavers that we had been watching all summer, it was a lot for everybody to take in,” said Andrew Yule, president of the Nose Creek Preservation Society.

The city says the beavers had to be removed because they created a dam that was blocking an outlet that controls water levels in a storm water pond east of the community of Coventry Hills by Coving Road N. E. It resulted in high water levels in the pond, posing an increased risk of flooding in the area.

You know how it is. Beavers build dams and that just naturally leads to killing. It’s nothing personal you know.

“It was really neat to watch how beavers help wetlands but at the same time you don’t want that in your infrastructure … Understandably, something had to be done.”

He’s concerned that since the beavers were destroyed, it may make people reluctant to report them to the city or to citizen science apps, which help with conservation work.

“Having the concern that if you report a beaver, it’s going to get killed is counterintuitive to what we want people to do,” Yule said.

What do they know anyway! People want to save everything if you put a hastag by it.  These things have to be done by grownups.

The city says relocating beavers to other areas is not an option.

Alberta Environment and Protected Areas does not support moving beavers because there is a low rate of beaver survival and an increased risk of the transfer of diseases. Relocation can also upset the balance of ecological functions and can potentially create future human-beaver conflicts, a City of Calgary spokesperson explained.

Lets hope they get a few hundred residents like the one in the video a solid dozen of them know how to use the internet to look up tools for coexistence.

Because you know if they have to wait for city officials to figure it out there may not be any wetlands left.

Long ago, before the supreme court had decided rights were impermanent and could be snatched away at a moments notice, there was a general delicacy in how democrats protected the right to an abortion. They thought it was kind of important and kind of icky at the same time, and struck the hearty compromise of saying it was important to keep the procedure “Safe Legal and Rare.”

(That kind of thing wouldn’t hold its own weight anymore because women are pretty much done acting ashamed of their own bodily autonomy but it does happen to apply to my feelings about trapping beavers so I thought we’d discuss it today.)

In general I am sure you guessed that I’m of the mind that it is a better idea to cooperate with beavers than to trap them. I think trapping is icky, it’s cruel, and it’s a waste of a valuable resource that could have produced many benefits to the community. But even I begrudgingly admit that there are some situations and some places where it is sometimes necessary. Far Far Far less than it actually happens, mind you, but in some levees or sewer lines or crop lands maybe beavers can’t be saved. When that happens there should be rules about how the animal is treated so it doesn’t suffer and a record of the event so we can count how rare it is and everybody should realize that it was an expensive solution that costs the community for years to come.

Safe Legal & Rare.

In no way should it be glorified or sanctified or protected from scrutiny. Trappers are not heroes and they should not get a pass. But I continue to think of them as a foot soldier in a war whose commanders we need to fight more fiercely. They are a distraction from the real fight, I had a conversation yesterday with someone who was very upset about Beaverland because they felt it elevated and sanctified beaver trapping. Which I can understand . They weren’t wild about the author being the keynote speaker at the conference and they wisely argued that Ben’s book made people think in new ways about beavers and for the most part Leila’s book made people feel like it was okay not to.

I have noticed that there is a kind of attitude which implies that serious beaver advocates don’t fight with trappers and only crazy PETA people object because smart savvy people know that its necessary. I’ve heard this argument from some surprising people and places and from people that we think of as beaver heroes. I’ve seen it become a kind of litmus test where people try to find out if you are a serious or unserious beaver advocate by finding out how you feel about trapping.

Because there are so many “trapping chapters” in Beaverland, the author gets credited as producing a more serious and defensable book than Eager where Ben made them seem so cool. NPR and the NYT add weight to the argument. It’s almost like the world sighed with relief when her book emerged because Eager made them feel like they were doing something wrong before and she said, no go ahead. Keep right on trapping them.

Just so you know, I am serious as a heart attack. I try not to get distracted by trappers themselves either to vilify or glorify them. For the most part I believe that they are irrelevant. I am more focused on the failed SOLUTION trapping offers and the people that pay them to do it.

Because when it comes to beavers, I am pretty sure trapping needs to be SAFE, LEGAL & RARE.