DOES SCIENCE CHANGE MINDS OR DO MINDS CHANGE SCIENCE?

The world is buzzing this morning about the release of the five year scientific study of the River Otter beavers. It is a solid piece of beaver science and deserves to be followed high and low .The report has a great executive summary for the lazy reporters that can’t be bothered to read.

The effect of beaver engineering and feeding has delivered significant ecological benefits with new areas of wetland habitat created and managed, with documented benefits for amphibians, wildfowl and water voles. The changes in scrub canopy structure and increased water levels have enhanced a wetland County Wildlife Site. There have been no measurable impacts on any statutory designated sites

You don’t say? I received several emails about this report, people who have been waiting for the science to weigh in and hoping it will tip the scales.

 Impacts of beaver dams on fish populations and habitats have been studied…total abundance in the beaver pool was 37% higher than the other three reaches surveyed, with highest total fish biomass and more trout than in either the upstream or downstream control sites. The shallow, swift-flowing conditions created where a previous beaver dam had washed away, provided good habitat for juvenile trout which were abundant. During the survey there was a notable reduction in bullhead in the beaver pool, whilst the number of minnow and lamprey were markedly greater in comparison with the other reaches.

There are even documented accounts of fish passage over the beaver dams. Not that science really changes minds but it surely helps.

A summary of the quantifiable cost and benefits of beaver reintroduction demonstrates that the ecosystem services and social benefits accrued are greater than the financial costs incurred.

Maybe I’m an old cynic. Maybe I’ve just been doing this too long. Maybe I didn’t get enough sleep last night, but that strikes me as funny. Not laugh out loud funny, but that kind of bitter laughter you grin through your teeth when Sisyphus makes his grueling path up the mountain, sweating bullets groaning in pain and barely saving his own life,  while the uncursed pipsqueak at the top of the hill remarks helpfully

“That looks really hard. Have you ever thought about using a smaller boulder?”

Maybe its the fact that I started my morning following a quote from a Minnesota trappers forum that was remarking on the ‘beavers in Ben’s saltwater’ article. One reader scoffed dismissively and said:

“That article is full of bunk. As soon as they referred to these “keystone species” as helpful for spawning salmon by creating ponds for them, I tuned out. The first thing fishery biologists do to improve a stream for spawning salmon is to get rid of the beavers. They have done this in the Western states in attempts to save endangered salmon species (subspecies).”

The thing is, in Minnesota and Wisconsin, he’s not wrong. The fish and wildlife folks there do believe strongly that beaver dams ruin things for fish. They believe that the beaver population is higher than its EVER been and killing them is the ONLY thing that can help save the waning fish population. They have their own research to prove it and do not care what anyone else says.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it THINK. The beaver argument isn’t really about insufficient data. Just ask the climate scientists.

It’s about the self-interest of those affected, which will never, ever run out. Self interest is our only renewable resource. The fishermen who are worried about easy access. The fossil fuel industry who wants to make as much money as they can for as long as they can; The farmer who wants his field unflooded so he can use every acre of his land.

No matter how good the beaver science is, there will always be reasons not to want them.

Which bring us to this friday’s CDFG meeting in Sacramento. You might remember back November we talked about a proposed rule change for beaver depredation filed by the environmental action firm E.P.I.C. who argued that since beavers were so good for California in so many ways that depredation permits should require that the party tried some non-lethal measure first.

The proposed regulations would impact the 700+ beavers killed each year because of conflict with the human environment, and would require individuals to exhaust non-lethal methods to deter or diminish conflict before a permit could be issued that would allow their lethal removal. It further codifies federal law prohibiting the removal of beavers if that removal would harm a species protected by the Endangered Species Act.  

At the time I called it a shot across the bow, and noted that all big changes start somewhere. I also observed that cosigners of the action included OAEC and Center for Biological Diversity but that for some reason Worth A Dam was not approached on the matter.

Well, far be it from me to resent good deeds just because I wasn’t invited, but the rule change is on the calendar for friday and Tom wrote yesterday saying that it seems like a very long way to drive for a three minute comment. And the other named parties can’t be there either.  Too bad. To my way of thinking you shouldn’t fire across the bow unless you’re prepared to follow thru. You can’t swing at the king a miss, right?

Or to put it in terms CDFW can understand. You can’t miss the bear.

Well here it is on the agenda for friday’s calendar. In addition to adding a hunting season for ravens and magpies. The recommendation from their staff is to let DFW decide. Which is bureau speak for saying, please don’t make us say anything nice about beavers, okay? Can’t this be someone else’s problem?

Since you come from Galilee then you need not come to me.