I’ve been a bad beaver advocate. I have been so busy practicing my speech and packing for Oregon that I haven’t had time to sit down with the Pennsylvania beaver plan fully. I made it through the first ten pages and challenged the comment about beavers never stretching. I still want to correct the mistaken expectation of zero beaver mortality and beavers not having trouble with parasites. I want to set the record straight about estimating beaver populations based on the number of dams or lodges.
There just hasn’t been enough time.
Tom Venesky’s article prodded me yesterday, and maybe I’ll bring the 90 page management plan along to the conference and have everyone weigh in on the important points! Tom is a sports reporter for the Times Leader who wrote the excellent article describing how not trapping beavers can allow a wetlands to rebound and make better wildlife to trap down the line. Not exactly the point of view I usually champion, but very smart persuasion. We exchanged friendly emails and I wrote him to make sure to weigh on the new plan in his state.
His recent article highlights that part of the plan is to broaden trapping restrictions to reflect all of the state. Currently there are regions where trapping cannot occur “within 15 feet of a lodge or a dam” and in places where those rules are in place the population of beavers is stable.
The first is a regulation preventing trappers from setting traps within 15 feet of a lodge or dam. The restriction is in place elsewhere in the state, Hardisky said, and it does give some protection to young beavers and adult females because they don’t venture far from the structures.
You see why I need to go through the entire report line by line? Let’s assume that our kits never go more than 14 feet from the lodge (they do), and only pesky Dad and GQ travel more than 15 feet away from them. And then the adults get killed. Who cares for the young? What if the beavers have built a bank lodge and no one knows it’s there? What if there in a wide body of water with no dams? The statement that female beavers stay close to home is completely bogus (and bordering on wishful sexist thinking). Research tells us that female dispersers actually travel FARTHER than males in their effort to find their own habitat.
As far as maintaining healthy populations, Hardisky pointed to a study in Ontario that found when trappers remove one to two beavers each year from an area, that colony will last 20 to 30 years. If left unchecked, the beavers will exhaust their food supply and eventually move on. As a result, the dam wouldn’t be maintained and will eventually wash away, eliminating the wetlands that was created.
“Not trapping a beaver pond is a mistake because they will eat all their food supply, move on and then you’ll lose that pond,” Hardisky said. “That dam will wash out and the wetlands will drain.”
Apparently he is suggesting that killing one or two a year will prevent over feeding and the development of those pesky meadows that are formed in drying beaver ponds. I have to scratch my head at this, since we can assume four kits are born and 2 yearlings disperse every year. I can’t imagine which one or two they are trapping that keeps things stable? Mom or Dad? clearly not if the colony continues for 30 years. A couple yearlings? Most likeley, but that means there are fewer to disperse and carry beaver benefits to another area. Remember the mortality rate for dispersal is already 50%, so if you start out by killing half your dispersers you’ll be lucky if a single beaver manages to make it.
Hardisky also advised trappers to pull their sets from a location when the catch rate starts to slow down.“That’s when it’s a good idea to move on and not try to get every last one,” he said.
Wow. Apparently the beaver management policy of the great state of Pennsylvania is ‘always leave some orphans‘.
