“The rain it raineth every day”

Winds picked up again last night and there were more evacuations in Santa Rosa. The death toll now is 40. Things slowed a little in Napa and the Atlas fire, where it all started, is now 50% contained. Here in Martinez the air was actually pleasant enough to risk going outside for a bit. Allowing us to see the fine layer of ash all over our deck furniture. The red flag warning for fire conditions in Napa will continue until the afternoon.

In the meantime I am happy to be catching up on some actual beaver news. The next installment will be an old favorite as poor Massachusetts struggles to eliminate the will of those pesky voters once again.

Massachusetts May Centralize Beaver Population Control

A slew of hunting and wildlife-related bills are under consideration this legislative session in Massachusetts, including one that would transfer control of the state’s beaver population to the state division of fisheries and wildlife.

Last month, the state’s environmental committee, which is chaired by Rep. Smitty Pignatelli from Berkshire and Sen. Anne Gobi from Worcester, took a look at close to two dozen acts addressing everything from crossbows to beaver traps. Dave Wattles, the black bear and furbearer biologist with the Massachusetts division of fisheries and wildlife, says wildlife-related bills tend to come up in the legislature on a somewhat annual basis.

Currently, local governments have the authority to regulate beaver trapping and determine if an emergency permit should be issued to eliminate an animal. But Wattles says the data on how many beavers are trapped through the permits is inconsistent, which makes gauging the population size difficult.

“Right now, we are handicapped in terms of our ability to [manage the population],” he says. “So giving us, at a minimum, that reporting, or giving us regulatory authority over it would enable us to manage the population to the best of our ability.”

The terrifying thing is that I actually recognize Ann Gobi’s name because she’s been hurling herself at this legislation for so many years. There are parts of this that actually make sense. It would be helpful to know some actual data about the beaver population rather than just make wild accusations saying that it has exploded. But I don’t understand why you’re saying this is going to come by counting the number of beavers killed? How would you possibly infer the number of living beavers from the number of dead beavers statistic? I mean we don’t say there were 365 deaths by gunshot in America this year so our population must be around 323,000,000 right?

I can already see that you’ll go back in time before the 1996 change and say “We used to trap 50% of our beaver population at a rate of 500 beavers a year.” (Never mind that you didn’t actually have population numbers back then either. I’m sure it felt like 50%) “And now we have issued 1000 permits so that means our population has quadrupled!”

Mike Callahan says that there is a provision in this change to include an actual beaver census. Which would be a very good thing if it actually happened. In the meantime they are talking about all kinds of sporty environmental changes.

And while the state is looking to assert more oversight over the beavers, a separate bill aims to increase the freedoms afforded to hunters. Massachusetts is one of 11 states that bans or restricts hunting on Sundays, but the legislature is looking to repeal that Puritan-era “blue law.” A number of past efforts have been mounted to do so, and those backing the current rollback want the state’s division of fisheries and wildlife to regulate the practice. Advocates who support the ban, however, say it should be preserved for families looking to spend time outside.

Also on the agenda is a proposal to allow hunters to use crossbows, which are currently prohibited by the state, except for people with a disability that prohibits them from using other archery equipment. If passed, the new law would allow hunters to carry equipment complying with specific weight and design requirements.

Gobi told the Telegram she was optimistic that the crossbow bill would diversify the population of archers, which would no longer be limited to those strong enough to pull back a traditional bow.

“I don’t know of a single instance involving a bow hunter during archery season when someone was hurt in the woods,” Gobi said. “I take my dog for a walk in the woods every day…and we’ve never had a problem.”

Oh well then, I guess it’s safe. I mean if it never happened to you personally it must never happen right? And it’s not like your state is the most populated in New England or anything, or the third most densely populated in the nation, so I’m sure carrying around crossbow or shooting on Sundays won’t cause any problems for folks. Right?

Honestly, that is the stupidest thing I have read in a long time. And you think adding crossbows is going to diversify the hunting population? I can’t understand why you think that’s a persuasive argument that makes sense. I suppose handing crossbows out to terrorists or hungry children would diversify it too. Is that really the goal?

I’m not the only one who thinks this is crazy. Here’s a nice letter to the editor this morning on the subject.

Letter: Let hunters go out on Saturdays, leave Sundays to non-hunters

Managing beavers and other wildlife doesn’t mean that we need to open up the state to fur trapping and Sunday hunting (“Bills introduced would allow hunting on Sunday,” Tuesday 10/10).

Sen. Gobi contends that some sportsmen don’t get licenses because they can only hunt on weekends. As a working mother, the only time my family gets to enjoy the outdoors together is on weekends as well. If hunters are given one day during the weekend to enjoy their recreation I think it’s only fair that families also have one day to take their dogs and little ones out in nature without worrying about wearing orange, explaining gunshots, or coming across hunted or trapped animals.

We enjoy seeing animals in their natural habitats, including beavers, which are an important keystone species. As expert engineers, they create habitat for other species and help improve water quality.

For those rare situations when humans and beavers come into conflict, there are plenty of humane, non-lethal, and cost effective solutions such as trunk guards, sanded paint, and fencing around tress as well as piping systems, fencing systems, and flow devices.

Trapping beavers is a temporary solution, removing one beaver from a desirable area only opens up that habitat for the next migrating beaver to occupy. In these instances, the trapping and killing of beavers must be repeated, ad nauseam.

Rather than trapping and killing beavers over and over again, as Sen. Gobi and others advocate, let’s pursue and continue to invent creative and humane solutions.

Margaret Mulcahy

Excellently said, Margaret. You made so many excellent points in such a short space that I am happy to share your letter. And you did it all while being much more polite than I was. Of course Ms. Gobi won’t change her position, because obviously her opinions aren’t vulnerable to actual facts or the concerns of voters or anything. But I am proud of you, and beavers unanimously agree.

This special seal of our disapproval is reserved for the Massachusetts Committee for Responsible Wildlife Management. It is a powerful lobby that wheedles and nags politicians into agreeing that the only way to protect voter interests is to kill beavers in the most cruel and uncomfortable manner possible. We are new to this beaver advocacy scene, but the struggle to overturn humane trapping standards is older than the standards themselves. The president of the association is Herb Bergquest, who has been busily nudging moderate politicians into extreme positions. Just check out this op-ed from 2009.

It was agreed that radical animal rights organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society for the United States (HSUS) just to name a few, are falsely influencing public opinion to a point were they are impacting wildlife management activities and traditional animal/human relationships that have been fostered for 100’s of years throughout North America and beyond.

Laying aside the obvious inflammatory association of PETA and HSUS as being the same kind of association, let’s just examine his sentence on its own terms. Bunny-hugers are ruining animal/human relationships that have existed for hundreds of years. I assume Herb is saying these relationships should not have changed in 100s of years? Even though the ratio of humans/animals has violently changed? Even thought every wild space we have encroached upon creates the opportunities for more conflicts? We have new problems, but according to Herb we should solve them the old way. A wild west solution to complex inner cities. It was good enough for Clint Eastwood. Why not for Massachusetts?

Just as our police across the country are on the frontlines and stand between order and chaos in our society, modern day sportsmen — hunters and trappers — are proactively maintaining order and balance between wildlife and our own ever expanding population.

This is definitely not to say we are in a “battle” with wildlife, even though some people in the trenches may disagree with that. Hunters and trappers do not participate because they want to win a war, they do so because of a complex desire to be closer to the land and benefit from its bounty.

A complex desire to be closer to the land? Really? I have to pause for a moment. My sarcasm nodes are firing on overload and the smoke from my ears is blurring the keyboard. Apparently trappers want to be close to a land where wildlife is as easy to take out as weeds are to pull from the garden. What am I saying? Sorry. As weeds are to kill in the garden with a generous dose of Round-up.

So this newest effort to kill beavers easier is a smarter one. It is from the old school of combo politics. This is a Machiavellian technique where you combine very popular legislation, like “cheaper gas prices” with more controversial measures like “Invading Saudi Arabia”. Here’s a report on the latest.

Regular readers of this blog should note that there was no mention made of the 9 already established exceptions to humane trapping standards. There is a good reason for that, since the goal is to make the problem seem unsolvable without more brutal measures. Just like the goal of slandering HSUS is to render these reports untrustworthy. Fair enough. This is war, and he has an eye on the enemy. Rumor is he has even familiarized himself with this website which makes sense, as we have been watching Massachusetts closely since the petulant New York Times article.

While our North American conservation management approach has been fostered through intensive scientific study, driven by dedication, a love for the natural world and an intense need to conserve our natural resources for the future, there is a threat to it’s foundation by animal rights organizations, hiding behind seemingly well meaning agendas that has not yet been met with a unified, formidable opponent.

Maybe humanity is too much work for Massachusetts. I’m told that Herbie the love-bug might just be successful this time. I wrote this to Representative Gobi and the committee yesterday, but you might considering sending your own words of wisdom.

Dear Representative Gobi

It is dishonest to say that the current effort to overturn Massachusetts trapping restrictions has anything to do with public safety, and transparently deceptive to combine this legislation with dam safety in general. It seems that at least once a year, representatives are persuaded that humanity is too much work in your state and current trapping regulations are insufficient to control beaver problems – even though there has never been even simple statistics to prove that appeals for traditional trapping are ever turned down. Someone should remind Massachusetts that its current trapping restrictions offer no fewer than 9 exceptions to the need for humane traps. If any one of these conditions are met traditional trapping can be used. It is high time someone in the state house reviewed them. I challenge you to identify a current or historical threat that would not have qualified for traditional trapping methods under these broad standards. I attach them for your review. and encourage to look at this situation realistically.

I’m sure you’d agree that there are enough dam lies in politics already.

Heidi Perryman, Ph.D.

President & Founder

Worth A Dam

www.martinezbeavers.org/wordpress

The above provision shall not apply to the use of prohibited devices by federal and state departments of health or municipal boards of health for the purpose of protection from threats to human health and safety. A threat to human health and safety may include, but shall not be limited to:

(a) beaver or muskrat occupancy of a public water supply;

(b) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of drinking water wells, well fields or water pumping stations;

(d) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of a public or private way, driveway, railway or airport runway or taxi-way;

(e) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of electrical or gas generation plants or transmission or distribution structures or facilities, telephone or other communications facilities or other public utilities;

(f) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding affecting the public use of hospitals, emergency clinics, nursing homes, homes for the elderly or fire stations;

(g) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding affecting hazardous waste sites or facilities, incineration or resource recovery plants or other structures or facilities whereby flooding may result in the release or escape of hazardous or noxious materials or substances;

(h) the gnawing, chewing, entering, or damage to electrical or gas generation, transmission or distribution equipment, cables, alarm systems or facilities by any beaver or muskrat;

(i) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding or structural instability on property owned by the applicant if such animal problem poses an imminent threat of substantial property damage or income loss, which shall be limited to: (1) flooding of residential, commercial, industrial or commercial buildings or facilities; (2) flooding of or access to commercial agricultural lands which prevents normal agricultural practices from being conducted on such lands; (3) reduction in the production of an agricultural crop caused by flooding or compromised structural stability of commercial agricultural lands; (4) flooding of residential lands in which the municipal board of health, its chair or agent or the state or federal department of health has determined a threat to human health and safety exists. The department of environmental protection shall make any determination of a threat to a public water supply.