|
|
Post by victor on May 29, 2011 19:42:59 GMT
Here is something to cause a bit of discussion.
The Tay beavers have been in the headlines for the past 6 months or so. Scottish natural Heritage (SNH) want to capture them all. Many people locally (including myself) think they are causing no problems at the moment, and that we could learn a lot from them, more so that the official Scottish Government trial in Argyll. There is a proposal to retain them and monitor them at arms' length through to 2015, the end of the official trial period.
What do you think?
Should they stay or should they go?
A year ago I was dead against them, but have been amazed at the number of farmers/ landowners/ fishermen who are quite tolerant and curious about them.
Have you seen beavers on a late night fishing trip? Do you think they add to the river?
Heard all the jokes before by the way..... ;D
There is National Species Re-introduction Forum meeting on 9th June at Battleby which I will be attending. It would be good to go armed with some up to date perspectives on this.
Grateful for any comments on here.
Regards,
VC
|
|
|
|
Post by madkeen on May 29, 2011 19:50:06 GMT
Victor as long as they're not blocking access to any of the spawning habitat I personally can't see a problem with them but if they're damaging trees etc then the landowners might want them removed I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by victor on May 29, 2011 20:01:47 GMT
Thanks madkeen,
There is a difference east and west. In the west of the system the tributaries are short. steep and very fast flowing, not really possible for beavers to block them, most spawning takes place in main rivers, and trees of very little value.
Further east, tributaries are longer and slower moving, more potential for getting blocked. Trees not so plentiful, but farmers more likely to resent them being felled. SNH say landowners can kill beavers if they want/ need to. In this situation, is there really a problem? Those that want them can have them, and those that dont can do something about it. The legal position is not as clear cut as this, and needs clarified better. I think the Tay beavers will put this on the agenda big-time.
VC
|
|
|
|
Post by force10 on May 29, 2011 21:04:14 GMT
Beavers were present when our rivers had millions and millions of Salmon running them. I dont see what harm they can do if anything they are a part of the natural environment that man made an arse off. The smaller Dams made by the European Beavers are easily washed away when a river is in spate. The plus side is the dams hold water back when theres a lack of rain/drought and they create nurseries/shelter for juvenile fish, insects, etc.
Too many times i have seen people making a fuss about huge dams blocking rivers. North American Beavers make the big dams the European Beaver makes small ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by underghillie on May 29, 2011 21:09:29 GMT
Victor,
I agree totaly with madkeen, but at the same time think it was a stupid idea to reintroduce them, i think in the years to come they will become a problem to our smaller spawning streams, after all thats what Beavers do they build Dams and will stop any migration of fish to valuable spawning areas.
Imagin if they built a dam or two on the Shochie or Ordy!!
Tony
|
|
|
|
Post by perthshirefisher on May 29, 2011 21:21:56 GMT
They done some damage on the little isla in a short time,but were moved on,not caught! they are very mobile and get about fast. If the numbers got so that they were a problem? it wouldent be easily/cheaply sorted.
Whare would the funds be taken from to pay for it?
There was one caught in the burn of Alyth in the town the other week.
|
|
troot
Forum Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by troot on May 30, 2011 7:08:44 GMT
The Morphie Dyke makes life difficult for the North Esk fish. Obstacles + low water = diseased fish. Maybe if there were millions and millions of fish these days we could afford to have beavers as well. Unfortunately there aren't.
River keepers should be allowed to remove the dams where necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by victor on May 30, 2011 10:10:14 GMT
OK.
So here is a proposition. In Bavaria, there are two people designated to deal with beaver "problems" across the country....which can involve removing dams or removing/ culling beavers. They have a derogation from EU legislation which allows them to do this and this level of input is all that is required. If there was some-one employed to do this on Tayside (lets say at ScotGov expense but could be from elsewhere, private trusts etc) and landowners had sufficient confidence in the structure that was employing them, could people live with that? Especially if they were an extra pair of eyes/ ears on the river and could probably fulfill other functions at the same time as well?
I agree, it is burns like Shochie/ Ordie that would be vulnerable to blockage. I think landowners are not so much concerned about beavers than the probable gold-plated implementation of legislation that might accompany them. This applies to other species as well....a more pragmatic approach (which is entirely possible) would have advantages elsewhere as well.
This is why I think it is important to have a good discussion on this, and learn what we can from the situation we have at the moment.
VC
|
|
|
|
Post by force10 on May 30, 2011 13:54:46 GMT
The Morphie Dyke makes life difficult for the North Esk fish. Obstacles + low water = diseased fish. Maybe if there were millions and millions of fish these days we could afford to have beavers as well. Unfortunately there aren't. River keepers should be allowed to remove the dams where necessary. I think your missing part of the point. It would be far harder for millions of fish to run a blocked up river but in the past they did so very well. As for obstacles and low water read what i already typed above. I think theres more benefit in having Beavers back as part of what was a natural balance than not having them. Ignorance is bliss! |
|
troot
Forum Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by troot on May 30, 2011 16:59:42 GMT
Maybe we should concentrate on keeping the species we have (eg salmon, capercaillie, black grouse) before introducing new (old) ones like wolves, bears, bison, beavers, sea eagles etc. Lots of nut jobs out there though.
|
|
|
|
Post by salmonshrimp on May 30, 2011 19:30:16 GMT
If they don't belong naturally to the UK or have survived naturally in the UK then they should not be introduced or reintroduced. hic!
|
|
|
|
Post by force10 on May 30, 2011 19:57:36 GMT
Maybe we should concentrate on keeping the species we have (eg salmon, capercaillie , black grouse) before introducing new (old) ones like wolves, bears, bison, beavers, sea eagles etc. Lots of nut jobs out there though. Re-introduced from Scandanavia. If they don't belong naturally to the UK or have survived naturally in the UK then they should not be introduced or reintroduced. hic! They did survive naturally in Scotland they were hunted to extinction by man. They have already been re-introduced in Scotland do keep up. So what about polluted rivers that have had their Salmon/Sea Trout re-introduced by releasing Parr etc? |
|
|
|
Post by salmonshrimp on May 30, 2011 20:05:45 GMT
Maybe we should concentrate on keeping the species we have (eg salmon, capercaillie , black grouse) before introducing new (old) ones like wolves, bears, bison, beavers, sea eagles etc. Lots of nut jobs out there though. Re-introduced from Scandanavia. If they don't belong naturally to the UK or have survived naturally in the UK then they should not be introduced or reintroduced. hic! They did survive naturally in Scotland they were hunted to extinction by man. They have already been re-introduced in Scotland do keep up. So what about polluted rivers that have had their Salmon/Sea Trout re-introduced by releasing Parr etc? It's not a matter of keeping up the subject is of no interest to me hence the use of the word If  Polluted rivers are not natural |
|
|
|
Post by perthshirefisher on May 30, 2011 20:48:03 GMT
What authority is in charge of rentroducing them? how is it regulated?
I know of a report of beaver activity being reported and was not taken searously atol, infact they dident even bother to come and look!
There is a 100+1 posible problems in trapping/catching problem animals,that has been made clear already, 1st one and main one being they are water bound.
Extincsion is part of evoloution, and MAN is part of it aswell,funny how some think mother nature hasent accounted for us.
I am not 100% against it,but i do think there are lots of other problems that should be tackled before introducing another possible one.
|
|
|
|
Post by goosander on May 30, 2011 21:00:56 GMT
Plenty of other creatures that need our help before beavers.
Have been watching them on another river and the amount of willows they bite through and leave lying about is a lot. Have seen them swiming twice [throught at first they were otters] and can not see how they could be controled if there were to get to plentyfull
Bob
|
|
