A proposed ban on regulated beaver trapping in (of all places) “the beaver state” has pitted wildlife officials against animal activists, and science against social discourse.
Beavers have long been associated with the early history of Oregon’s settlement, bringing commerce and trade to the region during colonial times. Their pelts still hold value to a determined sector of the state’s citizenry today. The beaver even has its own place on the Oregon state flag, and is, of little surprise, the official state animal.
However, the activities surrounding the early success and colonization of Oregon (which includes the hunting and hide processing of the beaver) has been put to the test - as the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission mulls over a petition to eliminate regulated hunting and trapping from all of the state’s federal forest lands, according to a release from the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance.
The Beaver Lawsuits
Supporters assert that banning the hunting of beaver (Castor canadensis) on public lands may counter the environmental impacts of climate change and help protect resident species of Coho salmon. The mention of Coho salmon should come as no surprise, as Oregon found itself in a legal dust-up between USDA’s Wildlife Services, and animal rights groups threatening lawsuit action against the removal of nuisance beavers. USDA Wildlife Services, the branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture tasked with an array of wildlife-related projects and actions, such as managing problematic animals, removed 319 “problematic” beaver across Oregon in 2018.
The previous November, environmentalist groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity (which had also sued the agency in Idaho, California, Colorado and other states for alleged “failure to comply” with the National Environmental Policy Act) put the agency on notice in Oregon - planning to take USDA-WS to court over its beaver removal procedures, citing violations to the Endangered Species Act.
The primary catalyst - an alleged collection of threatened and endangered fish whom inhabit beaver-created wetlands; including - you guessed it - sockeye and coho salmon.
By December of that year, Wildlife Services had reportedly “ceased all aquatic mammal damage management activities in Oregon related to damage caused by beaver, river otter, muskrat, and mink out of an abundance of caution.”
Beaver Believers - A Cautionary Tale
Pouring over the pages upon pages of public commentary on the Oregon beaver proposal presents a glaring trend leaping from the swelling compiling of emailed testimony. The message is clear from ban-supporters: Beavers are beneficial to the environment.
While there is a great deal of public commentary pointing to the immense benefits beavers provide the environment - to which, I’ll add, you won’t hear any challenge to the beaver’s “keystone status” from this outdoor writer - the concept seems to be a tad oversimplified in this instance.
No doubt, the sub-aquatic rodent’s intelligence and undoubtedly admirable qualities of persistent ingenuity boost it’s importance on the landscape, that same ingenuity coupled with their successful breeding, makes them potential hazards to public safety and infrastructure when abundant offspring take up residence in an inconvenient locale.
Whether it’s clogged culverts, felled timber, flooded yards, or contaminated water from beaver excrement, so-called “beaver believers” - who sternly champion lethal take should never be an option - are quick to cite the animal’s immense benefits while negating their impact once carrying capacity is exceeded.
Another trend from supporters appears imminent - those who support a ban on beaver trapping in these riparian areas are desperately clinging to the questionable concept that beavers will actually inhabit areas they currently don’t.
The million dollar question is why aren’t beavers currently in these areas? If you ask the supporters of a beaver trapping ban, it may be because beaver trapping is prohibiting such residence to take place. However, supporters of the ban are negating one key factor - you can’t force beavers to live and propagate where they refuse to do so. All living species need integral elements to sustain life - food, water, and shelter.
A beaver dam slows the water of the Snake River, creating a pond in Grand Teton. (Photo | NPS/Adams)
In other words, beaver habitat sustains beaver activity; regardless of whether or not licensed trappers are taking a few beaver hides each season by way of steel trap.
The Oregon trappers themselves, who’ve spent a great deal in the beaver’s habitat, have noted in testimony that most beaver harborage in the streams and rives throughout Oregon’s federal lands are river banks - in contrast to the still ponds and swamps with castor-created lodges dotting the landscape. Many of these river systems are comprised of steep, rocky banks, which often times just aren’t ideal beaver habitat. To put it bluntly, beavers are most prolific where the habitat allows them to be - regardless of whether trapping and hunting takes place.
Furthermore, while it has been found that beaver habitat is sustainable for juvenile coho salmon, some reports have noted that beaver dams may actually impede coho salmon movements during periods of low water flow, thus hindering travel across natal streams.
And what of the seemingly endless pages of local testimony which contends, in the face of climate change, that beavers may hold the “key” to climatized “woke’ness”?
Beavers are said to be responsible for over 800,000 metric tons of methane per year, which scientists estimate is 200 times more than they generated in 1900. The source of all that methane gas is not from the rodent’s digestive system - but a result of building their dams.
“When (beavers) establish ponds, the flow of water is reduced, so organic plant material gets accumulated in the ponds and settles at the bottom,” says Colin Whitfield, a hydrologist with the University of Saskatchewan, who completed a two-year study on beavers and the emissions they generate in 2014. “The bottom of the pond is a low-oxygen environment, so when plant material decomposes, it becomes methane.”
Its important to note these findings are unlikely to be a big driver of climate change, as the methane generated by beavers is less than 1% of the emissions from fossil fuel. For the basis of context with regard to Oregon’s current beaver ban turmoil, however, its something to contemplate.
Science - In The Eye of the Beholder?
As supporters claim the “science” overwhelmingly “shows” that a trapping ban on beavers would benefit endangered species and climate change, the proverbial jury is still out on whether or not these findings are being properly applied to this particular topic. Does the “punishment fit the crime” so to speak?
While a substantial amount of hunters and trappers testified in opposition to the ban proposal, wildlife professionals and biologists truly “stole the show” of driving home key points. Professionals, like the staff at Oregon Fish & Wildlife themselves, who offered their commentary on the topic as part of the hearing package:
In the December 2019 ODFW Commission meeting, a member of the public presented a request to close beaver harvest throughout the Siuslaw National Forest (SNF) and on state lands within the Upper Nehalem watershed. The request included letters from various parties including the SNF Supervisor. Like all regulation changes, any proposal should have data and scientific evidence to support the use of a harvest closure to meet the determined goals and objectives. While this may be difficult to produce by some public parties, those expectations are especially true if the proposal comes from a science-based natural resource professional, group, or agency. As such, following the December letter, the Department spoke with SNF staff to collect that information to guide decision-making. Through those discussions and in other public comment received in support of the closure, no data nor scientific evidence has been produced regarding beaver presence-absence, beaver habitat condition and distribution, beaver mortality sources and indications of those sources being additive or compensatory, and no empirical connection between a requested ban and desired goals have been presented.
Louder for the folks in the back - “No data nor scientific evidence has been produced regarding beaver presence-absence, beaver habitat condition and distribution, beaver mortality sources and indications of those sources being additive or compensatory, and no empirical connection between a requested ban and desired goals have been presented.”
ODFW continues…
The SNF stated other National Forests with current beaver closures observed success with those closures and those situations served as a model for their request, but did not present any data from those forests. The Department contacted those five forests to request information and of their responses, either limited or no data was available to provide any insight on if these closures actually benefited beaver or improved fish habitat. No positive trends have been observed and in one review of beaver data (2011-2019) across numerous forests, beaver sign was documented four times as frequently in areas open to beaver harvest (n=100) than areas with beaver closures (n=23). This data highlighted that beaver presence does not guarantee dams as 72% of the time the Forest Service found beaver sign but no dams.
ODFW testimony reinforces the notion that sustainable beaver habitat is far more impactful on beaver abundance than actions of regulated trapping and take. Furthermore, the department notes that attempts to forcibly reintroduce beaver into beneficial areas has largely failed; due in part to both lack of ideal habitat and predatory mortality. The department points out that “recent work on beaver relocation documented high beaver mortality due to large predators” which include bears, cougars, bobcats, and coyotes. Department professionals conclude that “no data nor scientific findings have identified any areas warranting a harvest closure” and propose no changes to current beaver harvest regulations.
Independent biologists also seem to echo ODFW staff sentiments.
The Oregon chapter of The Wildlife Society, a conservation organization which boasts representation from nearly 10,000 wildlife professionals, also offered commentary on the proposed ban.
ORTWS does not recommend the adoption of either request based on our review of the best available science on current beaver populations and management strategies within the state of Oregon. A permanent ban on beaver trapping accross the Siuslaw National Forest and/or acrross all federal lands in the state lacks data to support claims that recreational and commercial beaver trapping are limiting factors to beaver populations.
(Beaver) value to the ecological health of riparian systems and their ability to improve habitat for other species cannot be understated. However, management decisions that limit sustainable use of wildlife resources must be evaluated based on biological science, and demonstrate effective strategies to accomplish ecological restoration goals.
ORTWS continues…
Permanent trapping bans would be in opposition to the well established practices of sustainable resource harvest and proven wildlife management strategies widely utilized in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
Given the lack of data on negative impacts of trapping, combined with harvest data showing recreational trapping harvest rates per unit effort have been consistent, there is little indication that trapping is having a negative impact. Trapping has long been recognized as an appropriate management tool for wildlife and habitats, and significant efforts have been put forward to implement and maintain appropriate management techniques and strategies. Statewide or even regional bans on recognized management tools must be supported biologically, be limited in scope both spatially and temporally, and allow for the resumption of sustainable use when appropriate.
Organizations like the Oregon Forest & Industries Trade Council, which protects over 5 million acres, tends to agree; adding that the ODFW “has long held to high standards of policy making based on strong science.” while pointing out that “Unfortunately, in this instance, the petitioned requests to ban beaver trapping lack demonstrable evidence to prove their need or alignment with the mission of the agency.”
Other substantial groups, including the Oregon Hunters Association, The Oregon United Sport Dog Association, The Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, Oregon Trappers Association and Fur Takers of America round out the plethora of professional groups opposed to the trapping ban.
Beaver ARE beneficial, as is management thereof
Supporters “command” that officials recognize “current science” that beavers are a beneficial cornerstone of the environment. To their credit, there is no question that the beaver is a vital component of watershed health, habitat creation for other organisms, and just an all around healthy stance of pristine wild beauty.
(Photo | McGill Library)
That said, the beaver, like most rodents, is a prolific breeder, problem-solver, and, in high enough numbers, public safety and conflict contributor. Additionally, proponents of a trapping ban are grasping to the illconcieved notion that trapping activities create full extirpation of local beaver populations. To the contrary, regulated trapping activities do not cause targeted species to become endangered, nor are these activities, in a “recreational” sense, geared towards full eradication of the target species.
The Furbearer Conservation project stands with the observations and conclusions put forward by ODFW staff, the Oregon Chapter of The Wildlife Society, and the countless professional working groups, conservation organizations, licensed trappers, wildlife professionals, and concerned land-owners, who feel the 2020 Oregon beaver trapping ban proposal is both reckless and primarily built upon a weak framework against regulated trapping and wildlife management endeavors. We implore the Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission to reject a ban on regulated beaver management, and, at the very least, request further non-biased research be conducted to further illuminate clarity on the topic of beaver abundance, and any potential impact on imperiled wildlife.
You may also like:
Amid the technology age of satellite mapping and swelling popularity of trail cameras, wildlife experts are still tapping the fur trappers’ knowledge to seek out important data on elusive predators. In Alberta, for example, biologists are looking to gain a better understanding of wolverine distribution across the Canadian province, and reaching back through decades of trapper reports and observations to do it.