Category: City Reports

Return of the Repressed

heidi08 City Reports, Creative Solutions, Massachusetts Trapping Law December 14, 2011

Freud believed that we push unpleasant things out of our awareness when we deem them unacceptable, but these unwanted impulses and thoughts come sneaking back around looking always for some other way in. These are usually things that are so horrible we can’t even tolerate their mere existence, like I want to kill my baby brother or I really want to have sex with my mother, for example.

And hey, speaking of the return of truly intolerable things, Herb Bergquist has written another letter to the editor about the Upton-beaver-dragonfly bru-haha.

I would like to respectfully provide a slightly different perspective to the one presented in the article: “Huebner: Out-smarting Upton’s beavers” (Dec. 9).

While the MSPCA & HSUS continue to claim that trapping is not a long-term solution to beaver (or coyote) related conflicts, they have inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophecy by restricting lethal trapping to last resort, desperate measure scenarios. For many, this simplistic black & white approach has resulted in the polarization of positions on both sides of the issue.

Those polarizing beaver protectors! You can read Linda’s letter here. You will remember that Mr. B is the former UFS employee who started the Committee for Responsible Wildlife Management in Massachusetts (no link on purpose although his website DOES have the delightful mistake of a “supporting wildlife organization” that links to porn….ahh…) He has been working day and night to overturn the humane trapping restrictions. (Back story: in 1996 the state passed a ban against using conibear traps UNLESS certain conditions were met, in which case all bets were off. In “typical” trapping situations, beaver must be live trapped ‘humanely’ and then shot in the head or gassed to death, whereas when property or roads or waterways are threatened, all manner of body crushing traps may be deployed.

Our state is in a position where rather large beaver populations exist in areas that eventually cause problems – which we can all agree upon. A reasonable, all inclusive approach would be to reduce those populations proactively, before problems occur and modify the current law to allow for this to happen. This is what wildlife managers do in a regulated way; it is not extermination. The current, status quo system forces these wild populations to naturally expand in size and then pushes the boundaries of occupying optimal natural habitat beyond what can support them comfortably.

How is it not extermination to kill something so that it doesn’t reproduce enough to make more of itself? Could this be a new slogan for Orkin? Every time Mr. B or anyone else complains that beaver can’t be adequately killed without enough cruelty they fail to mention that cruelty is entirely allowed with consent from the Health Department and no health department in the history of the world has ever been reported to NOT give consent. No matter. The real issue isn’t numbers or methods. It’s that hiring a trapper with a conibear costs a couple hundred dollars. Hiring a trapper with live traps costs more. And so property owners handle the problem themselves with a shotgun and nobody gets hired.

Especially not Mr. B which – makes him very unhappy.

The “Outsmarting Beavers in Upton” article touts the successful implementation of over 800 operational and maintained water leveling devices across the state. If we were to average the installation of these devices to just $1500 per device, that’s 1.2 million dollars – not to mention maintenance! And we still have perpetual problems and costs that dwarf that number! Should we just keep telling people to invest in flow devices and then decide if it’s the best solution? What the advocates of these devices don’t tell you is that they don’t work in all situations and some trapping must occur even in the best of locations. Ironically, the overuse of beaver flow devices may just be feeding the self-fulfilling prophecy that lethal trapping does not work! So, if flow devices are our only proactive solution, it makes sense to advocate for more of them. Where the overuse or inappropriate use of the devices occur, we are essentially creating “concentration camp” conditions for beavers – is that what we want? In this case, I would agree beaver populations are self-regulating… just like every living thing on earth. Long-term solutions require both lethal and non-lethal proactive approaches and work hand in hand. Creating a one-size-fits-all system has failed miserably at the costly expense to both people and wildlife.

Bonus points for invoking the “concentration camp for beavers” imagery! That’s quite a twofer. You’ll horrify huggers and jews very nicely! So his letter tramples over the “compassionistas” and anyone who installs flow devices and leaves a crumpled muddy trail through the good intentions the state may once have had. In the meantime we are asked to believe that solving problems using individually constructed flow devices is a one-size-fits-all solution while killing everybeaver in question is complex and layered.

For the record, I have read complaints this year that beaver populations are “higher than any other state” from Iowa, Texas and Oregon – (none of who have trapping bans and none of whom have any real idea whatsoever of how their state compares). We all know folks lie when it comes to beavers. That’s nothing new. It does seem that Mr. B’s lies have gotten a little more sloppy than usual, his metaphors a little more alienating, his common touch a little less common and a little more touchy.

Prompting the obvious question, is everything okay, Herbie?

Hands off our Dam!

heidi08 Beavers elsewhere, City Reports, Environmental December 12, 2011

One of our favorite gifts is stumbling upon a story where folks are FURIOUS because a beaver dam was removed! Instead of a lush pool filled with wildlife their home overlooks a muddy puddle in an empty landscape. Take this story from New Brunswick, Canada for example:

li-nb-moncton-wetland[1] — Residents say the wetlands behind their homes were destroyed when a developer removed beaver dams. (CBC)

Residents in a Moncton neighborhood want to know why a developer got permission to destroy wetlands in their backyards.

Earlier this week, Claude Gagnon removed beaver dams located behind homes on Fundy Street, near Harrisville Boulevard, which caused the marshland that hosts a variety of wildlife to drain away. The residents contend the area — which used to be a protected wetland — should continue to be protected.

“These wetlands means so much to the entire street, I feel like it’s just been taken away from us. One night and the life in this area is just gone,” he said. Giles said he chose to live in the area because of the wetlands, full of Red-winged Blackbirds, mallards and beavers. “It now looks like France in 1914, World War I, after it had just been pulverized by explosive shells and trenches.… It just looks terrible.”

I couldn’t agree with you more! You know some communities get so mad about this kind of thing that they take it to court. Like this case just decided in New Hampshire after 6 years.

MORRISSEY v. TOWN OF LYME

No. 2010-661.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued: September 21, 2011.

Opinion Issued: December 8, 2011.

Beaver dams located in the wetlands have historically controlled the water level of Post Pond and the Clay Brook wetlands. In the spring of 2004, the Town adopted a water release policy prohibiting the breaching of beaver dams and the lowering of the water level of Post Pond. In December 2004, DES determined that the natural mean high water mark (Water Mark) for Post Pond corresponds to a level of three feet on the local staff gauge. Subsequently, the Town modified its water release policy to permit the breaching of beaver dams only when the water level exceeds the Water Mark.

So the beaver dams maintained the water height. The city was nervous about the water height. But residents forced the city to ONLY mess with the beaver dams when certain standards were met. A flow device was installed. Over the years the city whittled away at the standards until in 2008 they disregarded them all together. Apparently they deduced that if the water level was lower they could add a few more feet to the sports field downstream.

In May 2009, the petitioners filed a petition in equity and writ of mandamus alleging that the Town’s actions adversely affected their properties and property rights and disrupted the entire Clay Brook wetlands ecosystem. They requested the court to find that the Town had violated RSA chapter 482-A, RSA chapter 483-B, RSA chapter 212-A, the public trust doctrine, the town zoning ordinance and a conservation easement. They also asked the court to find that the Town had trespassed on Sears’ and Rogers’ property, created and maintained a private nuisance by unreasonably interfering with the petitioners’ use and enjoyment of their properties and committed a taking. They requested that the court order the Town to comply with the relevant statutes, restore the water level in Post Pond to the Water Mark, remediate certain erosion and siltation problems, and cease its trespass, taking and nuisance activities. The petitioners further alleged that the State had failed to fulfill its statutory duties to regulate the Town’s actions. Consequently, they asked the court to find that the State had violated certain enumerated statutes and the public trust doctrine and sought to have the court order it to comply with the relevant statutes.

The town responded by demanding that the claim be dismissed saying basically, no one cares about your ol’ beaver dam, you don’t have the standing to challenge us and besides beavers are icky. The case kicked around appellate court for a good 2 years and then decided this week. The review was entirely sympathetic to the city, going so far as to say that having one’s wetlands reduced to a mudpuddle is only a minor inconvenience.

I only wish the petitioners had involved a beavers heavyweight to discuss what happens when wetlands are lost. Maybe Donald Hey from nearby Chicago? He testified in the appellate case down south and they won. Meaning the losers paid all attorneys fees to the tune of several hundred thousands of dollars. While you’re at it why not bring in Skip to say whether that ‘pipe’ installed was ever legitimate in the first place?

Well New Hampshire has a lot to learn about beavers. We’ll certainly do what we can. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King: “The arc of conservation is long, but it bends towards beavers”.

Napa Beavers: Genuine & Faux

heidi08 Beaver Behavior, Beaver News, Beavers, Beavers elsewhere, City Reports, Creative Solutions December 11, 2011

Looks like the wine country is giving up a few acres to take care of the river that feeds it. (Or for the publicity that feeds it). Still, I don’t begrudge them some free advertising in return for their shifting boundaries. Some folks are working hard to bring the salmon back to the streams and guess what is sneaking in to offer a hand?

It’s not just a drainage ditch anymore,” Piña said. “It’s amazing how the animals are moving back in. We have three or four beaver dams and the river otters are waiting for our first rainstorm because they know the salmon will start coming up. It’s changing rapidly, quite rapidly.”

That’s right. Wine tasting beavers! Which are apparently tolerated at the moment, although I wouldn’t place bets on them living through the season. This is the EPA we’re talking about here, and they are dropping millions of dollars to make offset channels, slow the water and establish deeper pools. They don’t want any beavers showing off and doing it for free!

We don’t know exactly where they are but the speaker in that article is from Rutherford so we can guess somewhere around those parts. I’m going to fantasize that they are offspring of the Martinez Beavers all grown up and trying life on their own. I don’t blame them. Which would you pick? Concord or the Wine Country?

Our wikipedia friend has already entered them on the records and we will work hard to track down the players and educate them about beaver management. In the meantime, I will mention that my parents were once in Calistoga wearing their Worth A Dam t-shirts and ran into a couple in the VERY SAME SHIRTS! So there are beaver supporters in Wine country and maybe when your company comes you should take them for a tasting wearing you-know-what.

sherri front — Sherri Tippie with kit and awesome t-shirt

Beaver Watch Alert!

heidi08 Beaver Behavior, Beaver News, Beavers elsewhere, City Reports, Creative Solutions, Recent Sightings December 8, 2011

This lovely website featured some local beavers the author is keeping an eye on this week. She’s on the East Coast and bravely went to the library for information on them where she learned that beavers are rodents and responsible for 20 million dollars of damage every year. I wrote her something about beaver benefits and she was very happy to have the information. You should go read the whole thing because its fun to watch another person unwrap beaver mysteries!

To my knowledge there is no dam on the pond we visit locally. It’s not really part of a stream; it’s a wetland that was once part of the river, till the curve of the river shallowed out and straightened. At one time a brick-making factory was located at the pond, manufacturing bricks from the mud at the bottom. The bricks rebuilt the town when the entire business district — then constructed of wood — was ravaged by fire in 1849. Now it’s a nature preserve where countless other forms of life make their habitations — including beavers.

Later in the day Brock Dolman sent me this landowner guide to living with beavers from Animal Protection of New Mexico. It’s a great resource about flow devices, wrapping trees and beaver benefits. APNM brought Skip out for a training and video taped it. Remember?

I wrote them that they should add some other resources including Sherri Tippie’s book and Mike Callahan’s DVD and the director wrote me back to say it will be added to the website along with our address. Excellent!

Last night, Jon and I took a visiting journalist working on a national beaver article around the dams. We met a scruffy character on the footbridge who explained helpfully that he had been watching these beavers for 5 years and they used to be SMALLER. Also that Moses knew everything about them and those “internet people” knew nothing! (Ahh, what a relief to finally find an expert!) And useful to show the journalist that every single stray person in the town has a dearly held opinion about these beavers. Our shivering efforts were rewarded by a some great sightings and a very unusual vocalization display that lasted nearly 5 minutes. Even though the weather was artic we were enchanted by the experience, which reminded me of the beaver-whining that got me involved initially lo these many years ago!

Oh and if you need one more really good thing, allow me to suggest you add this website to your favorites. It is either tear-streamingly funny or head-scratchingly inscrutable or both but it is brilliant in a way I cannot possibly describe. Of course I sent them a beaver picture and I’ll let you know if it says anything!

Are you now, or have you ever been, a beaver supporter?

heidi08 Beavers elsewhere, City Reports, Creative Solutions, Educational, Environmental December 4, 2011

When Brock was rooting for farming truffles, he unearthed this amazing report from ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). Allow me to preface by saying that the states display increasing amounts of beaver-stupid as you move farther down the pacific coast, so Oregon is smarter than California, but not as good as Washington. In what used to be called schizophrenogenic parenting, Oregon beaver are protected on public lands and listed as a predator so they can be killed without paperwork on private lands. There is clearly strife among the policy makers because that compromise is making no one happy. Oregon recently changed their policy to allow beaver relocation but they were frustrated that no one seemed to be doing it – (mind you it requires such things as getting permission from the neighboring property owners 6 miles up and down stream!) But still, they wanted to learn more about the attitudes towards beavers.

Many fish and wildlife biologists and land managers understand the critical role that beavers play in improving aquatic and floodplain functions, and have initiated reintroduction efforts to restore beavers to many areas in Oregon. Beavers are beneficial because their dams help to create wetlands and habitat for fisheries recovery, and some people enjoy the aesthetic value of seeing beavers. To realize these benefits of beavers, there is an urgent need to address current and potential future conflicts between landowners and this species. This is important if measures are sought to reintroduce beavers into unoccupied areas, especially on private lands.

Mark D. Needham, Ph.D. & Anita T. Morzillo, Ph.D.

Landowner Incentives and Tolerances for Managing Beaver Impacts in Oregon

So Oregon wanted to know how Oregon felt about beavers and they brought in Dr.’s Needham and Morzillo to do a massive survey and report on landowners. They sent 5200 questionnaires to all 4 regions of the state and received back 1512. (Which, if you were a grad student doing your dissertation, is a response rate you’d be pretty thankful about.) They asked questions about attitudes towards beaver, experience with beaver, problems with beaver, feelings about beaver and knowledge about beaver. Apparently people in Oregon on the whole feel better about beaver than people on our city council, because their general attitude seemed remarkably tolerant, even when it came to questions about what kind of problems justified lethal action.

attitudes — Landowner Incentives and Tolerances for Managing Beaver Impacts in Oregon

Pretty remarkable considering the news I cover about beavers every day. There were things in this paper I hadn’t ever considered, mainly that there’s a whole division of wildlife ecology that has to do with peoples attitudes towards wildlife. Whoa! Psychology and Ecology Combined! Maybe my life will make sense after all. Of course they also wanted to know who had seen one:I don’t know about you but I’ll eat a BUG if 43% of the 432 Eastern region folks saw beaver more than 10 times in their lives. That’s 185 people. For comparison, I’d bet there aren’t 185 people in all of Martinez that saw the beavers more than 10 times, and our beavers are the most visible creatures that ever ate willow. I have met a host of people that THOUGHT they saw a beaver when they actually saw a muskrat, or an otter or a turtle. I’m willing to believe 185 landowners in Eastern Oregon thought they saw a beaver more than 10 times. Does that count?

Interestingly the East had the most experience with beaver and historic damage from them. The glowing feel-good of Portland’s “hypothetical” beavers seems to give way when they were talking about “actual” beavers who gnaw trees and flood properties.

afraid — Landowner Incentives and Tolerances for Managing Beaver Impacts in Oregon

I’m just guessing but I believe these numbers would look very different in California. “Beaver damage is major” would probably top 70 percent in some areas, certainly 525 Henrietta St. It does seem like people are predisposed to ‘like’ beavers, from story books and cartoons and only find out they dislike them later when they cause problems. Hmm, that’s worth thinking about. Oh, and find me those three fellas that are afraid of beavers because we need to talk.

This is an interesting piece of the puzzle. I think the concerns to property are lower than they should be and the concerns for disease and pets are higher than they should be. People don’t really know what they’re dealing with do they? Beavers can cause serious problems. Look it up. People need to know what to worry about with beavers so they know what to do to prevent it. And they need to stop wasting time with stupid concerns.

An abysmal number of people have taken preventative action with beavers and an even fewer number have done so humanely. This was a stunning chart that must have made ODFW bristle. Note that they didn’t include “Shot the beavers” as an option I guess because that’s illegal and people might not want to get in trouble or feel spied on. But you know it happens.

Okay this is my favorite part of the whole survey.

Ahhh basic beaver 101. The authors called this “knowledgeable” about beavers. So 38% of these folks who have never wrapped a tree or seen a beaver, believe that beavers eat fish. Of course they do. Heck nearly HALF of the Portland population does!

Well, I guess it’s not so surprising. Shh, and brace yourselves, but I went to school for a long, long time and when the beavers first came to Martinez I can remember a conversation with Jon on the bridge where I speculated they must eat fish sometimes. I can barely remember thinking it, and I quickly learned otherwise, but it just seemed impossible they would spend all that time making “hatcheries” and never reap the rewards.

Well, beavers don’t eat fish. They don’t catch fish. They don’t have the stomachs to digest fish. I have sat on this video a long time because I don’t want to confuse anyone. But today you’re ready. You can remember that they are vegetarians BUT they aren’t stupid and some deals are too good to pass up.