Wire Wrapping: Cheap, Easy, and beaver friendly.
One of the most notorious conflicts between humans and beavers is horticultural: humans plant trees and beavers take them. Beavers eat leaves and the inside layer of bark, and use remaining wood for lodge and dam building. This causes considerable friction, and in many places beavers are eliminated simply because of the damage of tree removal. This is an unnecessary solution to a problem that is easily and cheaply solved. I wrote the city nearly a year ago about the recommendations of the Haw River Assembly http://www.hawriver.org/index.php?contentid=38 for wire wrapping of trees.
In a fantastic article entitled “Peaceful coexistence with Beavers” Kim Willis writes “Protect individual trees by wrapping them with heavy wire fencing 2” x 4” in size and 3 feet high. The fencing should be placed 6 to 12 inches from the tree so that the beavers can’t get their teeth on the tree. The fencing needs to be rugged enough to withstand forty or so pounds of hungry beaver flesh pressing on it. In addition, you need to anchor the wire fencing to the ground to prevent the beavers from crawling under.”
Here in Martinez the trees between Ward and Green street have been wrapped since October, and some trees between Main and Escobar are now wrapped as well. Dr. Bruce Baker, who wrote the chapter on beavers in Feldhamer’s “Wild Mammals of North America”, wrote me about an alternate technique of painting the trees with bark-colored sand, since beavers do not like the feeling of grit in their teeth. Despite these readily available and simple solutions, beaver-phobes tend towards the extreme response:
Just recently the city of Bakersfield made a determination to remove beavers based on tree felling. I wrote the following letter which was responded to in this editorial. http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/18979
As a member of the Martinez,CA subcommittee on beaver management I wanted to respond to your article regarding concerns of beavers taking trees near the bike path. Although the article didn’t specifically mention extermination/depredation, this will most likely be the solution offered by DFG, which doesn’t allow relocation of beavers. Why not take advice from the real experts and address the issue of tree cutting directly? Trees are easily wire-wrapped to prevent cutting, and specifications for successful protection are readily available. Perhaps the city of Bakersfield should review the appelate decision on Friends of Lake Skinner vs. the Department of Fish and Game et al, which found that killing beavers in response to tree removal was a discretionary action that required an Environmental Impact Report to meet the standards of CEQA. This turned out to be an expensive and long battle for the city which they ultimately lost. Beavers improve habitat, encourage other species, and change their environment for the better.
Smart cities learn to see the forest for the trees….
Killing beavers to protect trees is the equivalent of impounding cars to stop traffic accidents. Yes, it works but at what cost? The obvious solution is to install a “traffic lights” that can regulate use. We determine where the beavers are allowed to feed, protect the trees we can’t live without, and enforce commonsense rules for ongoing safe use of the “road”.
