Jeff Baldwin – Page 2

Problematizing Beaver Habitat Identification Models for Reintroduction Application in the Western United States

Jeff Baldwin Sonoma State University

Dr. Jeff Baldwin is assistant professor at Sonoma State and heads the Waters Collaborative there. He has been a long-time friend of Worth A Dam and is a student of Suzanne Fouty’s from way back in Oregon. He recently published an excellent paper in the Association of Pacific Coast Geologists on the inadequate way would-be beaver relocators currently assess where beavers could be transferred or HSI (Habitat Suitability Index). And guess what? It turns out that just because you get all scientific-sounding and apply acronyms to your ideas, they still might not be worth the paper they’re printed on!

Seems one of the problems isn’t that beavers chew trees or block roads, but that folks go through all the expense and trouble of moving them, even buildling them a little lodge they have to chew their way out of and when they come back to see how they’re doing they’re dead or gone. (And I’m looking at you Methow Project with a success rate of 50%!) Jeff concludes that factors like gradient slope and browse material might not be the most important considerations in where beavers can thrive.

Humans are not the only species that kill beaver. Bear, wolves, coyotes, and cougar/mountain lion are all natural predators of beaver, and in the Western U.S. the populations of each have been rebounding over the past few decades. These predators are particularly relevant to relocation efforts because beaver are most vulnerable to predation at times and in places when they do not have pooled water in which they can cover reasonably safely. In small streams this requires a natural pool, or a pool created by a beaver dam. Thus, the presence of human and nonhuman predators may have as much or more to do with beaver absence than any of the environmental attributes identified in HSIs.

As importantly, because the HSIs used for beaver relocation fail to include causes (human and other) of mortality and extirpation, their results are likely to continue to disappoint.

Yes because lots of things can’t wait to kill beavers. We know that in Martinez. Hey, I’ve got a great idea for deciding where beavers can live. Let them colonize the area on their own and move wherever the hell they want to! Teach every beaver relocator how to install a successful flow device instead and let the beavers settle where they chose and teach the people to adapt.

Am I Crazy?

Mapping beaver habitat amenities and dis-amenities: Spaces of human-beaver predation in Oregon

One of my favorite presentations at the conference was this from Sonoma State’s own Jeff Baldwin. Jeff is a member of the California working beaver group, and worked with Suzanne Fouty on his doctorate. He attended my Valley of the moon lecture in Sonoma and is an all around great guy. His talk was about identifying specific sites where beaver would thrive, and contributing factors to understanding why certain places were inhospitable.

Remember that, (in what my line of work would call a ‘schizophrenogenic policy’) Oregon beavers are a protected species on public lands and classified as a ‘predator’ on private lands so they can be killed with out permits or records. Relocation is legal in Oregon but in its early stages, and the requirements involve getting permission from land-owners up and down stream for 5 miles in both directions of where they were introduced. Also, it is not legal to ‘hold beaver family members’ while the entire colony is being trapped to aide in relocation of the family unit, so family members get separated and the corresponding survival rate isn’t great.

He appropriately mentioned that cougar, coyote, and bear habitat were not great places for beavers to thrive, but then added that certain human-populated areas were actually much more dangerous (“Unless, he said, you had a guardian angel like Heidi there“). (Nice!) He pointed out that the unique Oregon laws that allow un-permitted killing of beavers on private land includes leased lands as well. This includes some government lands, regional parks, all soil and gas sites. He took the time to map out just how much of Oregon was beaver-killable and how much was safe. And safe was a very small portion.

It’s hard work being a beaver.

Add to this the fact that only a limited portion of ‘safe’ includes water access and you can see that beaver numbers are going to be limited. Which is why certain regions always seem to have beavers and certain places, which could have beavers don’t have any safe passage for beavers to get there, so they never seem to have them. Which is why, by inference, the beavers continue to come back to Martinez even though we have dam washouts and train whistles and garbage.

Specific Oregon question: I understand that land can be privately held but aren’t waterways and submersible lands public? And, by extension, don’t the beavers that live in those waterways belong to the state? And why don’t you have to get permission from landowners 5 miles up and down stream to be allowed to trap beavers?

What is the Public Trust Doctrine?

This doctrine of law provides that the State of Oregon holds submerged and submersible land in trust for the benefit of all the people. The general public has a right to fully enjoy these resources for a wide variety of public uses including commerce, navigation, fishing, and recreation.

And beavers.