This was a blast from the past.

It showed up on my beaver news feed which means someone must have recently published this comment submitted in 2020. You’ve heard the expression I assume, “Tossing out the baby with the bathwater” which, when imagining it’s origins, has always alarmed and amused me in equal parts. Well it looks like ODFW has revised their positions and done nothing to address the really difficult one. Big Surprise, (Just so you know Suzanne Fouty USED to be on the beaver working group but when they decided to ignore all the good parts of advice and just pick the stupid ones she polietely told them to find a new chump to pretend to listen to.) ‘m guessing they’re still choosing the stupid ones.

Comments Beaver Management Working Group (BMWG)
Recommendations 2020

I welcome this opportunity to give testimony concerning the beaver
Management Working Group (BMWG) recommendations. I speak from one
who has broad land management and coho recovery experience and someone
who works with broad coalitions to effect positive change. I am also the Chair
for the Midcoast Watersheds Council which was formed 26 years ago. The
Council deals with about 1 million acres from Cascade Head to Heceta Head.
Our Council is just one of about 65 watershed council around the state and
about 300 around the region that are trying to improve water quality for their
communities as well as well as working to recover ESA listed salmon
population in their watersheds.

While there are number of valuable recommendations identified in the
BMWG document I find it lacking in a number of ways. The BWMG did not
truly deal with issues that are pertinent to key challenges facing Oregon now
and into the future—namely coho and other ESA salmon recovery recommendations, Clean Water Act implementation, drought, fires and investments in restoration as well as the potential economic and ecological benefits of robust beaver populations.

This is the thing about be on the front lines in shaping policy. You have to always be politely manipulating and massaging egos so that you can inch a little closer to the right answer. You have to appear at all times interested in their stupid opinions. You have to appear to be constantly re-evaluating yours. Allow me to be the first to tell you It is BEYOND EXHAUSTING. My three months on the beaver subcommittee scarred me for the rest of my adult life and lead to this snarky spirited website where I can say whatever the heck I feel like to nobody in particular.

Remember I have worked in prisons. With child molesters. In a psych word of angry teenagers. But nothing, NOTHING is worse than a policy discussion about beavers with people that are motivated not to have beavers. It is true my persuasive powers ultimately lead to success but it was SOOO HARD.

I feel you Paul.

The BMWG recommendations does not acknowledge the issue of 82 Strategy species that would directly benefit from having beavers fully utilizing their former range. The ecological ripple would be undeniable. We know beavers and their dams can provide many ecosystem benefits including migratory bird habitat in our beaver ponds, wetlands, a nd the wet meadows they form.

We know that their work creates a complexity and diversity of riparian habitat conditions across a watershed which increases food sources, and expands rearing areas, including snags, for cavity nesting species. These habitat features help multiple, sensitive, and declining species identified in the Conservation Strategy like the Willow Flycatcher, Yellow Warbler, Belted Kingfisher and other neotropical migratory birds.

3)We know there is a link between water quality and water quantity and the work of beavers. We also know there is a link between salmon recovery and beavers. There are 11 ESA listed salmon stocks with federal recovery plans and that improved water quality and stream complexity are just a few of several key factors identified for recovery of those stocks.

Go Paul! You remember how when you were a kid and there was something you didn’t want to hear you’d stick your fingers in your ears and start singing loudly to yourself so that the noise blocked it out? Well I think ODFW was doing that.

Again, robust beaver populations would work in Oregon’s streams –improving water quality and quantity. And of course this keystone species would work for natural storage in the upper basins on federal lands. And they work for free.

Oregon can beneficially influence all these issues immediately by ending trapping on public lands by revisiting OAR 635–050–0070 to protect the ecological benefits of beaver in Oregon watersheds on public lands. This does not preclude the tool to trap beavers if deemed necessary by the agencies involved, but we would encourage the agencies to first try non–lethal controls first given its effectiveness and benefits to fish, wildlife, water quality and water quantity.

The opportunity to implement a significant change for climate is within your
power. The time for action is now – this issue is challenging for sure but all
Oregonians would benefit from the leadership of the Commission.

Paul Engelmeyer,

There he is. Giving them every chance to look like they thought of the right answer themselves. He attaches videos and research to back up his points. But this is NOT the kind of argument you win by being right. Paul.

It’s the kind of argument you only win when it is delivered in a crowded auditorium filled with 500 third graders dressed in beaver tales. With the evening news camera rolling. N

This is war Paul. You have to be willing to use the right weapons.