Some friends of ours at the new “Beavers and Brush“ website wrote the head of CDFG to ask whether beaver policy was changing to keep up with the need for water and fire protection in the state. After being passed off to someone lower on the food chain (a well-spoken environmental scientist in the upland game program), they got a really interesting response which I have permission today to share so I can riff on the more affronting points and offer praise where it is due.
The original letter was written very respectfully and cleverly starts out by complimenting THEM for having the good sense to publish our paper.
Dear Director Bonham,
Thank you for your service and for reading this email. I’m writing to applaud your agency for the publication of 99(4):164; 2013 in conjunction with researchers who documented the historic range of the beaver in California. As I learned from your publication, beavers inhabited nearly all of our state prior to the fur rush and prior to their designation as a “detrimental species” based on the poor science of mid-20th-century researchers.
Like most Californians, I’m now being endangered by runaway wildfires which have resulted in loss of life for my neighbors including firefighters, as well as loss of property and health. I have been personally impacted. As your agency’s publication demonstrated, California was a wetter place just a few generations ago, with deep reserves of water and natural firebreaks in the form of rivers, ponds, wetlands and streams, all thanks to the beaver. However, because we’ve yet to correct the designation of this most vital missing keystone species, we still have regulation §463. Beaver which allows trapping instead of protecting the one species that will be our greatest ally in lessening and combating wildfire.
I am writing to ask what the California Department of Fish & Wildlife is currently doing to alter this regulation and change the status of beavers so that they can be protected and, in turn, protect all of us. Your publication was so important. Please let me know what is being done now to reflect our modern scientific understanding of the beaver as a beneficial native species. Given the hazardous drought and fire conditions that are leading to fatalities in our state, I fully support these changes and would very much appreciate your reply.
What a good letter! Polite, to the point, relevant, and full of just enough pressure to get a response. Which they did. And which interests me to no end. It starts out with the head-slapping dismissal that of course fish and game always knew beavers were native to the state. They were the one that reintroduced them, of course!
Thank you for your inquiry, your email was forwarded to me from the office of the Director.
As you may already know, beavers were nearly extirpated from California during the early 20th century. The fact that beavers occur over the majority of their native range in California today, is a direct result of reintroduction campaigns carried out by the then, Department of Fish and Game. This action, taken by our department, to reintroduce and re-establish beavers populations across California, is consistent with our current stated policy and objectives in Fish and Game Code §1801.
Never mind that the website we maintained up until just 5 years ago listed beavers as “INVASIVES“. That was just colorful language. Of course we knew beavers were native! We never granted depredation permits in the sierras to kill off “invasive” beaver. That’s crazy talk. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain!
Here’s a screen grab from their website in 2011.
Deep breath everyone. It gets better,
The determination of beavers as a “detrimental species” in Title 14 of California Code of Regulations 671 is not the result of bad science or a reflection on beaver’s intrinsic value to ecosystem function but rather an acknowledgement that beavers can have profound impacts on both agricultural interests and on human health and safety, as determined jointly by our agency and the California Department of Agriculture.
Beaver are not universally beneficial to the landscape. Nor are California’s landscapes universally suitable for beavers. Beaver are a unique species with great potential to affect significant changes to their local environment over short time periods. These changes may be positive or negative, depending on place and time, as well as the interests of all affected parties.
Humans are important and own stuff. Beavers can ruin our stuff. So we decided to call them “detrimental”. Never mind that all the species that depend on them like salmon and frogs think they’re vital. Just because the things we value need something to survive doesn’t mean we have to change our policy.
Near as I can determine “Detrimental” here means
to be detrimental or cause damage to agriculture, native wildlife, or the public health or safety.
I suppose for sure beavers can qualify. They can alter your irrigation ditches and eat your strawberries. But what if the good things they do for native wildlife (salmon) and public safety (fire prevention, statewide drought) outweigh the risk they pose to agriculture? Who gets to decide?
Given California’s diverse geology, biota, flora and its population of nearly 40 million residents, I am sure that you would agree that there are potential conflicts and limits to the public’s acceptance of beaver’s industrious activities, given prevailing regional land-use practices.
Hmm. How many of those 40 million residents drink water? How many of them would like for their homes not to be burned down? I’m not sure you’re seeing the big picture here. This is followed by a paragraph saying recreational trapping has dropped since the 70’s and in order to keep up with the demand for dead beavers we have to allow depredation.
In recent years, California Department of Fish and Wildlife has made significant updates to the process of beaver depredation permit issuance, to ensure that the unnecessary take of beavers is avoided. To this end, we require consultation with a department biologist in all cases before a depredation permit may be issued. Our biologist first offer information on mitigation strategies as alternatives to depredation and issue a depredation permit, only after other alternatives are exhausted. We have also greatly shortened the time “window” for beaver depredation permits and have limited the number of individual animals authorized for depredation on any single permit based on case-specific information.
I admit, this is my favorite paragraph. It practically has our name in the margins. What they really mean is that “a few years ago some crazy women started looking at our permit data and pointed out that we were irresponsible in how we issued permits” so we moved a few deck chairs on the titanic and now we’re floating comfortably. And we were going to do it all by ourselves just out of innate goodness. Because of how good we are. It has NOTHING to do with those dam women.
The available information does not suggest that beavers are currently in decline in California, in fact beavers have been increasing in California for nearly a century. Today, the occurrence of beaver over much of their range in California is based, in part, on the willingness of landowners and local communities to tolerate the landscape impacts of this species.
This is rich. The “we’re not running out of beavers” argument. How many times have you heard that! Maybe that’s true. Maybe we’re not running out of beavers. But are you running out of any of the things that beavers help with? I mean are you having any statewide droughts, for example? Or loss of steelhead and salmon? Are you seeing fewer frogs? Or noticing any more wildlifes?
You are missing the point. Pointedly.
Think of beavers as the front steps to where california needs to go. Sure you might not want to climb more stairs, and it’s not like there’s a stair shortage or anything, but you all want to get inside the building right? And if you can’t get inside the place you built and are committed to maintaining it doesn’t look so good anymore does it?
Beavers could take California where it needs to go Which the author kind of knows because he finishes with this ass-covering paragraph.
CDFW is currently not actively trying to expand or decrease the range of beaver in California but we are currently working to better understand the gravity and depth of beaver’s ecological relationships to our environment including their benefits to native salmonid species, water storage and management and fire-effects through Proposition 1 funded projects. We will continue to make recommendations for regulatory change whenever those actions are supported by the best available science.
When the science points the way, we’ll follow goddammit and not a minute before! Sure. Just like you did in deciding beavers were native? Meaning when you are dragged kicking and screaming to the inevitable conclusion you will say it’s what you were thinking all along and take credit for it? Grr.
I shouldn’t be too harsh on this paragraph. It has positive hints. I would love to know what prop 1 projects they’re currently running that look at beaver benefits. And I like the idea that CDFG is looking at the “Gravity and Depth” of beaver’s ecological relationships to anything. I hope it’s true.
I will end by saying that fish and game should get letters like this every week. Because they need to know the state is eager for beavers. Have you written one yet? It would help convince them that people are really paying attention and ready for a change.
Now that you have an idea of how it all works, why not add your voice to the discussion? Be polite, reference personal experience, and ask for recognition that beaver matter to a host of endangered and listed species, including the good people in California who drink water, and the agriculture industry that requires it. If you get a response we would love you to share it.
Only when we demand better conditions, and tell them how and why they matter, will we get to the beaver promised land.
DIRECTOR@wildlife.ca.gov
