This video (see link below) showing a beaver dam being blasted sky high by Wisconsin Wildlife Services in the name of “improving habitat for trout” left us speechless. This particular detonation took place on the upper reaches of Wisconsin’s Wolf River, a National Scenic River. We’re interested to know what readers think of this strategy for managing wildlife and natural resources.
Beaver ponds such as this one in British Columbia represent biologically rich, exceptionally diverse, constantly changing micro-habitats within the larger forest.The many snags (dead trees) in this pond represent feeding opportunities for woodpeckers as well as potential cavity nesting sites for a variety pf species of birds and mammals. Eventually, this pond will become silted in, the beavers will leave, and a beaver meadow will replace the pond. These meadows, free from the shade of the forest canopy and with a bed of thick, fertile soil create places where unique species of flowers and other plants thrive. Black bears are among the many animals that visit these meadows to graze on the grasses and berries that may not exist elsewhere in the forest. The meadow itself will eventually be replaced by mature hardwood forest. So it has been in North America for thousands and thousands of years, with trout, beavers, bears and berries co-evolving.
The setting is a small stream in a Wisconsin forest. The water has been dammed by beavers. Because the pool of water created by the beavers may become too warm for healthy brook trout populations and because beaver dams can block the migration of these native trout, fishermen complained. Enter the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the United States Forest Service, the Wisconsin Wildlife Services and several pounds of explosives. Although government officials occasionally remove beaver dams in order to prevent flooding of roads, make no mistake, most of these dam removals in Wisconsin are for one reason and one reason only: “The purpose of our work is to create a free-flowing stream for the benefit of the trout to be able to migrate up and down.”
See video at: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/government-blasts-away-beaver-dams-475081283719
In a recent three-year period, Wisconsin Wildlife Services removed over 2,000 beaver dams. According to the NBC News report cited above, government officials in Wisconsin use explosives on about 150 dams annually. The beavers are trapped and the dams are destroyed in order to …”(maintain)… one of the natural resources we’ve got for the public to enjoy, trout fishing…”
Barbra and I watched this video and listened to these comments with our jaws hanging open. Speechless. After about two minutes, the video came to an end.
“Wow,” was all we could manage to articulate at first. And then again, “Wow.”
For the past day, we’ve been researching this issue as thoroughly as we’re able to, reaching out to Trout Unlimited groups in Wisconsin and kicking our own thoughts around between each other. We haven’t reached any conclusions. But we do have a few observations.
If… if… the chief or only goal of environmental stewardship were to improve brook trout habitat, Wisconsin’s beaver management strategy might deserve a round of applause. Brook trout thrive in cold, free-flowing streams that feature clean, silt-free rock and gravel bottoms. Temperatures in beaver ponds can hit 70 degrees or more under the summer sun, near the upper limits of what these native char can tolerate and well above their preferred temperature range of 55 – 65 degrees Fahrenheit (12 – 18 degrees C). And because brook trout have very specific requirements for successful spawning – small, clean gravel where upwelling from springs occurs – it’s critical that they be able to access these areas during the fall spawning season.
So just blow up the beaver dams, right?
Not so fast.
After a long winter in Alaska, this young moose finds a meal in the upper reaches of a north country beaver pond.
Beaver ponds represent dynamic, ever-changing micro-habitats that foster some of the greatest species diversity in the forests where they are found. We’re for biodiversity. As much as we enjoy trout fishing, we would never wish that our desire to catch a particular species of fish be placed above the overall health of an ecosystem.
During the life of the beaver pond, it can provide vital habitat for all kinds of animals. As trees are drowned, they become snags. (One Wisconsin DNR report stated simply that “beaver dams kill trees” – an example of how a statement can be both completely true and completely misleading. Dead trees are part of every healthy forest.) Pileated woodpeckers and other woodpeckers utilize these snags as forage bases and nesting sites. The cavities woodpeckers create in turn become nesting sites for flying squirrels, owls, wood ducks, and host of other mammals and birds. Meanwhile, these ponds become important stop-over or seasonal habitat for a variety of waterfowl and often attract shore nesting species. Tree swallows, flycatchers and similar passerines thrive in the edge habitat created by the beavers’ activity. Again, the snags provide nesting sites, and the cleared airspace above the insect-rich pond creates excellent feeding opportunities for insect eating birds as well as for bats.
The pond itself becomes one the most biologically rich systems in the forest – perhaps the most biologically rich. Everything from burrowing mayflies to dragonflies and damselflies to a variety of aquatic beetles inhabit these waters. Amphibians such as newts, salamanders, toads and frogs depend on these these ponds as well, which provide vital nurseries for their young. Aquatic and semi-aquatic snakes take advantage of the smorgasbord, and in turn may provide a meal for a hawk. Deer, moose, turkeys and grouse are among the frequent visitors to the edge habitat found along the shores of beaver ponds.
Silt prevented by the dam from moving downstream eventually creates a rich bed of mud which in turn fosters the growth of aquatic vegetation. This vegetation may provide a meal for a moose or a migrating duck, a nursery for the young of certain fish species, a place for a tiger salamander to attach its eggs, or an ambush post for a predacious diving beetle. What’s best for trout is not necessarily best for the countless other species that depend on the habitat created by beaver ponds. Healthy stream and forest systems feature a variety of habitats.
One of several stunning flowers we photographed last summer along the shores of a beaver pond.
Moreover, because these dams cause water to pool, some of that water percolates down into subterranean aquifers. This should be an important consideration in a state that is rapidly pumping its aquifers dry. The particular stream in question, the upper reaches of the Wolf River, becomes vital lake sturgeon spawning habitat further down river. As the underground aquifers beaver dams contribute to resurface in the form of springs further downstream, these springs cool the main river, which helps ensure that lake sturgeon spawn successfully. Take away the beaver dams upstream, and you take away a piece of a complex system which countless species have evolved to thrive in.
Eventually these ponds become overly silted, increasingly shallow and the beavers move on. Over time, the dams break up, the stream cuts a familiar channel, often finds a rock bed again. What’s left behind is a beaver meadow – a place with thick, rich soil capable of supporting an incredible variety of trees, flowers and grasses. For the overall health of the forest, it’s a good thing that these dams retain forest soil. Butterflies take advantage of the abundance of flowers, deer and bears come for the grass, and the snags – the trees that died when they became flooded – continue to provide nesting sites for a variety of animals till the day they fall to the earth and become nursery logs.
It’s important to keep one other fact in mind. Salvalinus fontinalis, the native char most fishermen refer to as the brook trout, has been co-evolving with beavers and beaver dams for longer than humans have been on the North American continent. This sudden need to “manage” wildlife is an outcome of an ongoing series of humankind’s mismanagement of this planet.
All this being said, it may appear that we’ve made up our minds on this issue.
We haven’t.
Between the absence of sufficient natural predation and insufficient economic incentive for more beavers to be trapped for their pelts, we understand that it is entirely possible that Wisconsin’s beaver population is out of balance. This would seem to present three options:
- Reintroduce predators and foster the growth of their numbers. Predators? That would be wolves. The problem with that strategy is that wolves historically have been more interested in ungulates such as deer and moose (and even in voles and mice) than in beavers. Prior to European settlement, the population of beavers in North America is estimated to have been between 60 and 400 million. There were lots of wolves back then, too. They apparently weren’t eating many beavers.
- Continue the present strategy. Where beaver dams appear to be negatively impacting brook trout habitat, kill the animals and tear out their dams. If the dams can’t be broken up by hand, employ explosives.
- Do nothing. Let it go. Enjoy the biodiversity beaver ponds foster. If the natural activity of beavers temporarily (or permanently) makes a stream unsuitable for brook trout, rest assured that the habitat is probably becoming just right for other species. Find another stream to fish, or tie up some Clousers and go bass fishing.
- And if anyone is really concerned about rising temperatures in streams, maybe consider getting rid of your air conditioner, installing double-paned windows in your house, and locating in a place where you can leave your car at home and walk to work, to the grocery store, and to your friends’ homes.
We’re sure there’s more to the beaver situation in Wisconsin than we currently realize. We’d love to hear what others think. Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Jack & Barbra
CutterLight 
For what it’s worth, I would go with letting it be as in your #3 solution and letting nature take it’s course. It is a proven thing that when humans get their hands on the naturally evolving environment they always screw it up even more. Cass
That’s where we’re leaning, too. We just can’t think of very many short-term mitigations like this that haven’t ended up proving to be a waste of time, money and effort in the long run – and detrimental to the overall health of the environment. It wasn’t so long ago that Americans were going all over the country building dams to “improve” the environment. Most of that worked out notoriously poorly.
Wisconsin’s beaver dam policy reminds me of a Naval Sea Systems Command policy from the 1990’s: “Pull up the tree to see how the roots are growing.”
Thanks for the laugh! Apparently a few years in Michigan, the state department of environmental regulations issued a strongly-worded citation along with a threat of a $10,000 per day fine for an “unauthorized” dam some guy had supposedly built on his property. Turned out the state bureaucrats who issued the citation had never seen a beaver dam and thought the landowner had built the dam “out of wood and debris.”
A well-researched, thoughtful analysis. I’ve observed that human “management” of other species tends to be done through a filter of commodification: What’s most valuable to us (usually in the short term)? We would do well to manage our own population with the same vigor.
Beautiful blog; thanks for stopping by mine and giving me the chance to find yours.
Thanks Cate. Part of what makes this case in Wisconsin appear to be so disturbing is that all the entities involved should be looking at the overall health of the ecosystem – not just trout fishing. We’re trying to figure out how this one-species-for-the-benefit-of-humans management emphasis is any different from slashing and burning a forest in order to “enhance habitat for cows.”
Thanks for shedding light on this. I had no idea! It’s always sad to me when people destroy natural habitats because they are simply inconvenient (whether true or not). What happens when human populations become inconvenient? Good post!
Trish
Thanks for reading and commenting, Trish. Your question about “what happens to human populations” is one we hope people will think about. A number of sources are speculating that even as Wisconsin is over-using it’s ground water resources, these beaver dams could be part of the solution to help restore that groundwater.
Hi Jack;
How are you and Barb doing? Sounds like having a blast in Alaska. Here in CA I’ve been pushing the relocation of beavers instead of depredation permits being issued. TU and others are working on/with CDF&W to alter their policy on this.
Obviously, the drought has caused a huge issue for us in CA: How to keep water in the streams and meadows throughout the dry summer months. Beaver dams hit the mark squarely by not only holding back the flow downstream; dams cool the water within the dam by allowing it to percolate into the subterranean natural flow and resurface after it’s been cooled, and what’s left in the ground recharges some of our depleted groundwater supply. The dams provide a nursery for the young fish and also allow the holdovers to grow to trophy size. The negative side of beaver dams failing can be addressed if managed properly. Funding for maintenance seems to be the big issue here.
I’ve had speakers (at our State Council meeting and one coming up at our Chapter meeting in Oct.) presenting the positive side of beavers as they relate to a more productive fishery and am working on a webinar by NOAA to be presented in the near future. You’ll both get a heads up when that happens. In the meantime, I’m cc’ing some folks who may want to engage in your research and discussions. If you want to set up a blog page to coordinate all interested folks that may not be a bad idea. Not sure how you do that, just an idea. Will keep in touch on this….Thanks..John
John Sikora
El Dorado Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Special Projects Coordinator
http://www.eldoradotu.org
(916) 502-2433
Hi John, Good to hear from you. We are currently in Mongolia and enjoying life here, though we miss Alaska.
Thanks for your insights on this issue and for providing a perspective from another TU chapter in another state. For all the reasons you mention and more, we’re having a tough time understanding Wisconsin’s policy on beaver dam removal except to conclude that it seems to suffer from both tunnel vision (creating a policy to benefit just one species at the expense of a plethora of others) and short-sightedness (what is best for the long-term health of these streams, Wisconsin’s underground aquifers, and species diversity.
Thanks for the suggesting regarding reaching out to others who may be interested in/knowledgeable about this matter.
Jack & Barbra
Nicely done. I applaud your digging into the details. It often happens that people blame animals for conditions that humans are responsible for. Here in the Pacific Northwest US Fish and Wildlife are killing cormorants and harassing sea lions to save salmon that we have endangered. Shooting barred owls (that we likely facilitated) that are about to out-compete and prey on endangered (oh- us again!) spotted owls.
Perhaps there are some interest groups in the region like Audubon, the Leopold Foundation in Wisconsin, or American Rivers that could start some education and advocacy?
Thanks for commenting, Taylor. I (Jack) lived in Astoria, Oregon for a number of years and became very interested in salmon management issues while there. There seem to be a number of parallels between Wisconsin’s management of brook trout and the Northwest’s management of salmon, starting with the hyper-focus on one species or species group (Brook trout in Wisconsin, Onchorhynchid salmon and trout in the Northwest) at the expense of other species. Just as brookies co-evolved with beavers, West Coast salmon co-evolved with the very terns, cormorants and sea lions humans are now blaming for the demise of these species. One gets the impression that some of the “wildlife management specialists” won’t be satisfied until they’ve reduced biodiversity to about 10 animals – the ones we eat, and the one’s we keep as pets.
Yes, sad things. Sometimes it is a matter of funding – if it can be listed, then there is money available for restoration work. But there are also positive developments. I just got a link to a brand new Beaver restoration document/guidebook for the PNW! People like them here! At least in Oregon. http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=145bdf3c2e41f0d6cbce9a374&id=f90f39f9d6
Jeanie
Yeah, we saw that report. Encouraging stuff. Also got a note from the president of a Trout Unlimited chapter in California that is also working on behalf of beavers. Cheers!
I’m with you. wow.
You guys were right. I am interested. And, as you so rightly point out, It’s complicated. I will do my best to not make this a novel, for I have some Thoughts. I will likely fail.
I, personally, am of the Let Nature Take Its Course school of thought, and think many trout fishers here are a bunch of whiners. There are a gazillion trout streams in the western/southwestern portion of the state, where the streams tend to be in small, narrow valleys, and where there are beaver, but fewer of them. The thing is, many of these streams are silting in for reasons related to agriculture, and I ain’t hearing much of a peep about it. Or if there are peeps, they are quickly made mum, because honestly, this is the Midwest, and Corn and Soy rule the roost. And in WI, dairy cattle are a close third. No one is even suggesting destroying farm fields or cow pasture.
The WIDNR has never been known to have great priorities, to be honest. Setting beaver dams and trout streams aside momentarily, let’s look at the deer population. I’ve mentioned in my posts that in the years preceding the 2014 season, there were a lot of tags up. 3 for archery (2 anterless, 1 buck), 3 for gun (ditto) with bonus tags a mere $3. Ostensibly, to control the population and mitigate the spread of CWD (chronic wasting disease). However, insurance companies also lobby here to keep deer populations down to cut down on deer-car accidents. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/wisconsin-deer-kill-lowest-in-30-years-b99401459z1-284534621.html
Much like the individual goals re: maintaining trout streams, none of these goals in and of themselves are necessarily bad. However, taken in concert? I mean, doing all of the goals at once leads to, you know, rock-bottom deer populations and taking out dams with dynamite.
Now, about the beaver population itself. There are a lot of them. Enough that there are no bag limits statewide on beaver for trappers, they can be trapped without license by landowners, as well as shot. The incentive for trappers is the price we can get for the furs, and beaver was down, at least this past season. Coyote, fox, and even muskrat were way higher, and this is driven by demand in places like Siberia and, well, Mongolia. Much of the fur used in these places actually comes from the US. I’m fine with trapping, as well as humans “controlling” the populations of given species. We are, sadly, part of the ecosystem. It’s part of the deal, such as it is. I will, however, nitpick the reasons for the control.
Note- Wisconsin, particularly northern Wisconsin, *has* wolves (approx 800 in 2011, now many more http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/wolf/facts.html ) ( http://www.outdoornews.com/June-2015/Wisconsin-wolf-numbers-continue-to-climb/ ). And coyotes, and foxes, and bear, and hawks, and eagles, and plenty of predators in addition to a higher proportion of the human population that traps. Not to mention expanding human habitation endangering their habitat The beavers are probably being pretty well controlled within biological parameters, and it’s not as if landowners (those usually cited as having their land flooded) and municipalities have no recourse. It just is “ruining” the streams these people like to chase trout in.
Here’s the thing- Wisconsin is just. lousy. with water. Streams, lakes, rivers. Lakes Michigan and Superior. Both Great Lakes host lake trout and several salmon species. There are lots of trout streams everywhere. Plus, lakes everywhere you look, especially up north. They don’t HAVE to only fish for brookies. There’s muskie, pike, bass, panfish, walleye, you name it. Trout have prestige, presumably due to rarity of their habitat, and the tags and corresponding equipment cost more.
I’ll also note, my admittedly limited and biased observations as an outsider to one particular part of N WI (the northeast corner up near the UP). This is the reddest red part of the state. I will tell you right now that they are not really concerned with warming water temperatures due to rising global temps. Not that they *could* walk too many places- it is isolated up there, and the ones I know would rather stick their fingers in an electrical outlet than move to say, Madison or Milwaukee (we get pity and headshakes for living here), or, Maude forbid, Chicago. Neither are many of them really concerned about biodiversity. It is a Man-As-Master-Of-His-Domain kind of a place- Matt’s grandad has busted up dams himself. And you should hear their hatred for wolves. Often, these kinds of holistically better solutions are seen as impositions from liberal urban eggheads who don’t REALLY know the land, etc etc.
Amber, much appreciation for your thoughtful read and reply. Everything you said jibes with what we know about Wisconsin in general and the northern parts in particular. There’s lots of water, there’s lots of good fishing, the predators are there and before people point irony-laced fingers at wild animals for messing up wild places, they might want to look at agriculture, urbanization, logging and other human-driven impacts first. In researching this article, we came across a quote by Aldo Leopold warning against managing the environment through the lens of special interest groups (such as hunters and fisherman) and he specifically warned against funding state wildlife departments through hunting and fishing license fees; he believed funding should come from a revenue base that includes all citizens, so that all citizens have a voice and a stake in these matters.
Like you, we’re hunters and anglers, and we support trapping… but we emphatically do not want the DNR managing resources solely for whitetails and brook trout, gerrymandering the “scientific evidence” along the way to justify expanding the populations of species that fill the wallets of wildlife agencies while ignoring, “controlling” or extirpating others. And yet, in state after state, this is more or less what happens.
This – and many similar matters – seem to be reducible to this: We would like to see people move away from a hyperfocus on their preferred, boutique species (such as brookies on the very southern edge of their viable range) and take a broader view of what is best for the whole environment.
Aldo Leopold lived here. Taught at my university, and lived just up in Baraboo. Sadly, since DNRs, especially ours, are funded by tag sales, etc, hunters and anglers here are the head honchos. This provides some neat benefits to us as hunters, such as the fact that anti hunters (Madison has them) can’t legally harass us as protest, or easements for access, and lots of public land. However, it does give our wildlife management tunnel vision, and many, many hunters could do with the nuance of thought that comes with having to defend their ideas, as well as being introduced to the idea that sometimes they need to shut up and listen to other people. Particularly up north.
Most of the reason folk hate wolves is because wolves kill deer, and wolves are still listed and thus can’t (any longer- brief 2014 season on them) be killed themselves. Never mind that one of the main reasons cited for hunting deer in the numbers we do is to control their population because we took out their natural predators. Which turns into pretty circular logic once we re-establish some small groups of predators, because then people who got used to huge deer harvests want to reduce the number of wolves to make the deer population surge in an area so they can then harvest the deer to control the population because we got rid of their biggest natural predator. Rinse and repeat.
My opinion is that a lot of attitudes about the superiority of (a certain kind of) man are linked to our mistreatment of other humans, animals, and the planet. I often wonder what our world would look like if we could begin to dismantle that.
Hi Amber. Barbra and I were talking just yesterday about the hypocrisy you describe among many hunters regarding wolves (and mountain lions). Both of those species have been extirpated in the East, in large part because… wait for it… they are deer-killers. Never mind all the combined practices humans were engaging in that were driving down deer populations in decades past. And out in Idaho, they have their “wolf culls” to keep elk harvests high for hunters.
What troubles us is that these attitudes and practices among hunters are part of what turns off the non-hunting public toward hunting. And, in our view, you and Leopold are correct: wildlife decisions should be made with all stakeholders in mind, not just license-purchasing anglers and hunters. Whether we’re talking about wolf culls in Idaho, reactionary attitudes towards predators of all descriptions among many hunters in most states, or blowing up beaver dams to create trout fishing opportunities for some anglers, the logic of the DNR and the hunters and anglers taking part in this kind of thinking does deserve to be scrutinized and challenged by the larger public.
The other thing is this, as Trout Unlimited members, when the Wolf Creek, Wisconsin, chapter of TU engages in and supports this kind of behavior, all TU members potentially get painted with that brush.
I must wonder about the idea that the brookies may not do as well with beaver dams as without. First, surface water temperatures do increase, however, once the ponds acheive a certain depth (depending upon lattitude), the bottom of the ponds are cooler. This coolerwater discharges downstream through upwelling currents known as hyperheic flow, which can keep the stream cooler.
Other than some studies that were done in the 1970s and without complelling statisitical results, I am unaware of a scientific study that demonstrates that beaver negatively affect brook trout populations.
Finally, during a recent public comment period that allows WS to expand their beaver extermination policies, some Wisconsin trappers reported that beaver had been completely exterminated from several drainages in Northern Wisconsin, vitually eliminating their State right to harvest beaver.
My belief is that Wildlife Services has become an agency desparate to find a valid mission; they must justify huge budgets and over-amplify signficantly the need to exterminate many speices, many of them endangered or taken incidentally.
One prudent course is to contact Wisconsin’s US Senators and Representatives and request they defund Wildlife Services.
Mike Settell
Exectutive Director
Watershed Guardians, Inc.
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your insights. We received an email from a well-know biologist who made a similar observation about the positive cooling effect beaver dams have on downstream upwelling, which cools water. The river in question provides critical spawning habitat for lake sturgeon in its lower reaches, and these sturgeon very likely depend on that upwelling for successful spawning.
The one longitudinal study I’m aware of that proponents of beaver extermination cite appears to be so thoroughly flawed it should be discarded. The researchers didn’t even attempt to create controls. So, between the beginning of the study and its end, basic trout stocking and trout harvesting practices changed. Toward the end, larger, hardier trout were being stocked; meanwhile, the harvest limit was reduced. At the end of the study, the researchers reported more trout biomass in the stream, and concluded that it was because beaver dams had been removed!?!
We appreciate your interest in this issue. Please feel free to share this article with others.
Sincerely,
Jack Donachy
Hello Barbara and Jack. I would like to weigh in on the beaver and brook trout issue. I am the guy who supervises the USDA-Wildlife Services program in northern Wisconsin covered in the news story about trout habitat and beaver dam removal. The goal of my comments is to provide some background information so that your website followers can make informed decisions. The stream shown in the news story was the Little Deerskin River, not the Wolf River. The Little Deerskin is a cold water tributary to the Deerskin River, one of northern Wisconsin’s best trout streams. As your piece states, to survive and reproduce brook trout have a very narrow range of habitat requirements – cold, free-flowing water and gravel stream beds. In fact, brook trout are seen as an indicator species where their presence and population health indicates high quality cold water ecosystems.
I fully agree that beaver are amazing animals and beaver ponds provide a wealth of benefits for many species. Beaver are doing very well these days. With their high reproductive rate, great adaptability, and ability to alter the environment to improve the quality of their habitat, they occur in every state from Florida to Alaska and number in the millions in North America. No doubt beaver and beaver dams in the intermountain west, such as the British Columbia stream shown on this website, can have positive dynamics but the situation in Wisconsin is quite different. Most northern Wisconsin trout streams are small, narrow and have a low to moderate gradient, which means a beaver dam system floods hundreds acres of low land, basically inundating the original stream channel. Consequently, dams on these systems may have a much greater impact on flow than a dam in the west where the gradient is much higher (flow is aided by elevation). So this very real impact on stream flow can result in warmer water, increased siltation and turbidity, and actual water chemistry changes. These impacts are documented by DNR fisheries biologists. DNR also has documented significant increases in trout numbers due to beaver management efforts. While beaver and brook trout may have occurred in the same North American regions for millennia, it does not mean trout have any evolutionary adaptations to survive in warm water environments or to overcome the blockage of a beaver dammed stream.
Also, cold water stream ecosystems are not just about brook trout, they can be very complex systems rich in species diversity. A study in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association looked at species diversity in headwater streams (trout streams in Wisconsin are typically headwaters to larger systems) and found that headwater streams are extremely important for the entire system’s biodiversity. They often provide refuge for many species from higher temperatures, flooding, and predators. They provide habitat for many unique species, including insects, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians and fish. Unfortunately, these cold water systems are declining in the United States and in many areas the sustainability of native brook trout populations are in jeopardy. Hudy et al. reported in 2008 that 68% of brook trout habitat in the eastern U.S. (representing 70% of the U.S. portion of native brook trout range) surveyed in their study was reduced or degraded. True, beaver are not the primary issue across the region – land use changes, habitat fragmentation and exotic species are key factors. However, northern Wisconsin is graced with some of the best trout streams in the eastern U.S. and beaver dams do have a negative impact here. This program is not about controlling beaver but rather about preserving free flowing cold water streams. Beaver are given free rein on 85% of Wisconsin’s 10,000 miles of designated trout streams (plus the all of Wisconsin’s lakes ponds and warm water streams). Wildlife Services work is carried out on only 15% (1,500 miles) of the highest quality trout streams where state and federal fisheries biologists make maintaining free flowing cold water ecosystems a management priority.
Our program has little impact on the viability of the state’s beaver population, which is estimated to be over 50,000 just in the northern part of the state. Work is conducted in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the state’s new beaver management plan. The state just completed a multi-year process to develop this plan, which included a task force composed of over 20 stakeholders and numerous public meetings. Check it out at:
http://fyi.uwex.edu/beaver/task-force/
This information may not change any attitudes about Wisconsin’s beaver and cold water ecosystems but I do appreciate the opportunity to post on your website.
Hi Robert,
Thanks for taking the time to write and provide the correction, additional perspective and further insight into this issue. What we’re coming to understand is that the issue in Wisconsin is not so much about beavers dams per se, but beaver dams in already marginal trout habitat.
As the climate continues to warm and habitats change, wildlife officers and other environmental stakeholders will be faced with difficult decisions. Because anglers have a tradition of taking a lead role in environmental issues, and because revenue from fishing license sales represent a substantial portion of funding for state wildlife offices, trout will be a centerpiece species as many of these challenges are grappled with.
An emerging question is this: Should environmental policy be based on preserving species that have become marginalized due to changing habitat, or should policy be more broadly focused on ensuring the overall health of the environment so that natural processes of natural selection, adaptation and evolution can take place?
Muddying these issues is the fact that, according to a 2013 report by the Wisconsin Legislature, “The primary source of revenue to the fish and wildlife account is the fees charged for hunting, fishing and special licenses and stamps.”
This narrow revenue base can’t help but lead to a narrower perspective than we (and the people in these agencies) might hope for.
Robert, thanks again for writing. As beaver populations in Pennsylvania (my home state) and other locales in the East where they were once extirpated continue to grow, it will be interesting to see what types of management strategies are set forth. And if localized eradication of beavers proves to be the short-term solution we suspect it is, it will also be interesting to see how trout fisherman – not just in Wisconsin but in other states – adjust to diminished opportunities to pursue their favorite species.
Sincerely,
Jack