I was pretty pleased with my ‘death and the beavers’ so I sent it around to the usual places, including to the chief executive of the Scottish National Heritage who’s authorizing the exciting beaver-capture on the Tay. Believe it or not I hesitated. I figured this kind of poking the dragon could result in some serious scalding, (or at least scolding). In the end, I was too proud of the evocative image to avoid sharing.
I added the message, “Still waiting for Scotland to do the right thing. This is an opportunity for study, not stealth. Any country smarter than a beaver can keep beavers in the wild. I believe at some point you will decide this is easier to do well than allow to be done badly. We’d be happy to connect you with real solutions if you need them.”
I’m glad I did. The same morning this article was the front page of the BBC I received this.
Dear Dr Perryman
I absolutely agree it is important to do reintroductions well rather than badly. Indeed that is precisely my point. I think you maybe need to know what is actually happening in Scotland before making your mind up. In Scotland there is a legal, licensed, monitored experimental reintroduction of beavers going on in Argyll. The licensees are the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland – people who I think are both smart and know a bit about zoology. I would have hoped the whole Scottish conservation movement would have got behind them, but apparently there are some who won’t. Wonder why? The Argyll project complies with Scottish law, European law and IUCN guidelines. I hope it will be successful. To my mind that is what ‘doing it properly’ involves. Why not come across and see, or speak to SWT and RZSS and find out? Compared to this I can’t see that illegally allowing a few captive beavers of uncertain origin to escape is anyone’s idea of the right thing!
Dr Ian Jardine
Hmmm. No scolding. An attitude of reason. Obviously, he wants to appeal to a ‘colleague’. He clearly thinks he’s doing the right thing, and is going to need help finding the tools for redefining ‘right’. Of course I would change the words “uncertain origin to escape’ to “uncertain origin to exist” but that’s not worth writing back yet. I wrote
Dr. Jardine, thanks so much for taking the time to write back. I appreciate your efforts to protect the trial and its value and I respect your thoughtfulness regarding your role. My primary concern is the razor-thin footbridge of public trust you have secured for this effort – threatened on all sides by anglers who don’t believe the research proving that beavers help salmon, and farmers who are suspicious about beavers raising the water table and can’t ‘see the forest for their missing trees’….
The question I would ask myself is whether trapping ‘feral’ beavers broadens or narrows that footbridge. Without faith in SNH, the official beaver trial is functionally useless – even if it produces good data no one will respect it and ultimately no one will believe it. You have the science and data squarely behind you but the truth is that public good will is the only real tool you have for learning about reintroducing beavers in Scotland, and I would ask yourself seriously whether trapping ‘the wrong beavers’ hurts or helps that.
You can probably guess what I think already.
Heidi
Footbridge of public trust. I like that image. Maybe, just maybe I could nudge him towards the realization that the The Scottish beaver Trial isn’t trying out how beavers will do in scotland – we have the Crannogs of history to tell us they’ll do just fine (thank you very much). It’s to see how beavers will do in the attitudes of the Scottish people. How will people do sharing their land and waterways with beavers? Wouldn’t some citizen science be helpful in that? Maybe a watchdog group that runs parallel to the formal beaver trial? Say a group recording progress of the untagged free Tay beavers?
Dear Heidi
Thanks for this. As you say it’s a tricky one and it comes down to judgements about science, politics and public perception and mood.
My judgment is that public opinion is behind the beavers at the moment. What I don’t want is a section of society getting a toe hold to say ‘you said you would do this properly but you’ve broken your promises’. On balance I see that as a bigger political risk – remember our last Government refused a trial introduction so this one gave promises to justify changing that decision. We may not agree on this one, but I think we’re on the same side in the long run!
Ian
On the side of beavers. (Excellent book title.) Not exactly accurate here though. We might both be on the side of ‘beaver-kind’ being a benefit to the watershed, and I’m really grateful for that, but Its hard for me to see how being on the side of beavers means trapping and separating family members and sending them to live in zoos. I think we’re on different sides for as long as these beavers lives run, lets say the next ten years under ideal conditions.
I’m glad for the contact. He sounds fairly set in his thinking that getting rid of the extraneous beavers will protect the good name of the study, which, btw, was pretty much my point in the graphic. I’m fairly certain that this is going to look like a necessary evil to Ian until it becomes an impossibly bad idea in the public eye, and that’s unfortunate. In protecting the ‘good study’ by getting rid of the ‘bad beavers’ SNH will ultimately tarnish the reputation of the good ones as well, and beavers will pay the price for it.
Sigh.
If you need a little good cheer after that exchange, I’m posting a photo of a nighttime visitor from my friend in England. Is that the cutest non-beaver face you ever saw?
