Southern Utah officials nix beaver transplants

Garfield County questions motives of program, tells state to take rodents elsewhere.

Beavers may be good for the land and water, but one southern Utah county is saying “thanks but no thanks” to the state’s offer of web-footed transplants.

Garfield County, stretching from Panguitch past Boulder and including the lush streams on Boulder Mountain and the Aquarius Plateau, is historic al beaver country and therefore a target area for the state’s beaver recovery plan. Environmentalists had high hopes for naturally restoring wetlands there, but this month the Garfield County Commission told state biologists to take their rodents elsewhere.

Wow, the Salt Lake Tribune is doing an excellent job on the ‘slow bleed’ of this story. First we had two gentle op-eds on the topic and now we have a fantastic hard cover of the issue from Brandon Loomis, who isn’t afraid to go into detail about the fact that they are saying ‘no’ to beavers because they are environmentalist-phobic.

It’s not that they dislike beavers, commissioners say. They’re just suspicious of the motives.

“We’re not against the beaver,” Commission Chairman Clare Ramsay said, “but we’ve been down that road before on a lot of different issues over the years. We know that it might become a tool for the environmental community to use against cattle.”

Thanks for clearing that up for us Clare. “I’m not worried about beavers, its people we can’t trust!” Hey, could that be the next bumper-sticker for Utah?  Hmm,  there might be copy right issues though, it reminds me a little bit of this

I don’t know why a county would choose to broadcast its paranoia in the press so vociferously, but they certainly did a number on themselves with this decision. The article even reviews the financial benefit of beavers put together in the economic report commissioned by the Grand Canyon Trust. And just in case the reader still wasn’t sure who the ‘white hats’ are in the article it ends with this flourish

State biologists will honor the county’s request but seek to reopen talks later in hopes of gaining permission to stock beavers in some high-elevation streams, where they can’t damage irrigation canals or other structures, said Bruce Bonebrake, southern Utah regional supervisor for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

“We’d very much like to transplant them there,” Bonebrake said. “They’re great riparian managers. You really can’t get a species that does better management as far as wildlife habitat and sediment control.”

I would say the press is playing for the beaver team and you can set a timer to see how long the commissioners are able to hold out against them. It’s obvious which side has done its homework in this debate. Congratulations! Even the comments to the article are mostly pro-beaver. Take this one for example from an ex-trapper Jim Bridger:

I did more than my share to exterminate beavers in these here parts. Now I repent! I’ve come to see that what I did was wrong. I won’t trap another beaver ever again, or a mink, bear, bobcat, coyote or wolf. And I will help return beavers to their historic homes. Now if an old curmudgeon like me can learn something new and change his ideas and his ways, why can’t those darned cow boys? Maybe I’ll take to trapping and relocating them to Antarctica.

Good work Mary O’Brien!

Reformed trappers interested in relocation! Fatted calf time! But no hamburgers for the commissioners unless they admit that they are scared of the wrong things and agree to come back to the table.