The good news involves one branch of government telling another that beavers are good for fish and other things, and a whole wing admitting this might well be true. We’re pretty happy about the Center for Biological Diversity’s outcome. Except for a few parts that aren’t that happy.

Legal Action Forces Trump Administration to Curb Killing of California Beavers

SACRAMENTO— The federal wildlife-killing program known as Wildlife Services has agreed to stop shooting and trapping California beavers on more than 11,000 miles of river and 4 million acres of land where the killing could hurt endangered wildlife.

Native salmon, southwestern willow flycatchers and other highly imperiled animals use habitats created by beavers.The agreement came yesterday in response to a threat of litigation from the Center for Biological Diversity.

Wildlife Services, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, also agreed to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to analyze the impacts of killing beavers on threatened and endangered species.

Ho Ho Ho…no more USDA trapping of beavers in California in most places. Which places? The Eleven Hundred Rivers and Protected areas that they have agreed to seek advice from the Marine Fisheries Commission.

I just read through their list of exceptions and am less excited than I once was. But still its a step in the right direction.

In accordance with Section 7(d), pending the completion of the consultation and out of abundance of caution, WS-California has ceased the following aquatic mammal damage management activities that have potential to affect water abundance or habitat character at fish rearing sites within ESA listed salmonid habitat (i.e., designated critical habitat or other habitat occupied by the above-listed salmonids, sturgeon, and eulachon):

1. Lethal beaver damage management in natural rivers and streams, except as noted below in subparagraphs (e), (f), (g), and (i);

- E) THE LEVEE EXCEPTION: Aquatic mammal damage management, including lethal removal, in response to public safety incidents declared by a regulatory or enforcement agency. In situations where human health and safety is at risk, such as levee burrowing, road flooding, or animal aggression
- F) THE PLANTING TREE EXCEPTION: Beaver damage management, including the lethal removal of beaver, for the protection of T&E species and at conservation and habitat restoration sites at the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), CDFW, or other land manager.
- G) THE NO DAM NO MA”AM EXCEPTION: Beaver damage management, including the lethal removal of beaver, in locations where beavers cannot build dams, either due to topography or recurring removal of debris by another entity (i.e., lakes, rivers too wide to be dammed, and leveed rivers or channels managed for continuous water flow by resource managers/owners).
- I) THE FISH PASSAGE EXCEPTION: Beaver damage management, including the lethal removal of beaver, at locations where beavers have blocked culverts, water control boxes, or other transportation crossings, to the extent that fish passage is prevented.

Hmm. So basically APHIS will still be killing beavers in the Delta, where the water is too wide to build dams and an where folks are planting trees to help restore habitat. All those big beaver killing reserves up stream are still open for business. And if a beaver blocks a culvert it better leave space for a salmon to get through or its curtains.

Because if we have to save beavers to save salmon we’re not saving any that are hurting salmon. And we’re not doing the math here. Never mind that even a beaver that doesn’t build a dam might produce offspring that does and ultimately helps salmon, and never mind that a beaver that doesn’t build a dam might dig channels or holes that affect the invertebrate population enough that salmon get more to eat.

We Wildlife Services and we have SPOKEN.

Based on the analysis above, it is my determination that that WS-California’s continued aquatic mammal damage management activities do not make an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation and implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures for the listed salmonids, sturgeon, or eulachon, or their critical habitats

So basically we’re going to continue what we do in lots of places until Michael GODDAMN Pollock himself tells us to stop. Have a nice day,

Which I suppose is better than nothing.

Wildlife Services Memo signed - FINAL

Of the list of exceptions I’m mostly concerned about F Because everyone could say they’re planting trees to restore the creek, the city of Martinez could say it, and has, and there is zero requirement that says you need to try protecting trees before you kill beavers.

And as we know from years of depredation analysis, F is the most common reason for beavers to be killed in the first place.

I’m not sure we should break out the bubbly just yet, but baby steps. For Babies.

Here’s something to sooth our spirits as we see a kit get some early education in log handling from an adult in downtown Napa