Reports have just reached us that the Beaver Company, engaged in the 'conservation' of rare flora and fauna at the British Waterways reservoir, high above Cairnbaan in the Knapdale Forest, Mid Argyll, have breached the dam releasing many thousands of litre of water onto, and flooding, the newly built residential area of Cairnbaan.
The Main contractors for the project, Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, who have admitted that they know little about the local environment, declined further comment.
No, the above is not a true report but the probability of the happening is extremely high and has not even been thought of by the perpetrators of this latest scheme to introduce an alien species, the European Beaver, to Argyll. Having experienced serious flooding, due to nothing more than normal rainfall, no resident living below this small area of many lochans would wish to be at the mercy of any 'water manager' other than that under the direct control of British Waterways, Crinan Canal Authority.
Peter Slann
Knapdale
Saturday 27 October 2007
Thursday 25 October 2007
Doomed Lochan
This beautiful place has been selected by The Scottish Wildlife Trust and The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland as a release site for the proposed introduction of the beaver. Note the mats of the rare 'LeastWater-lily' (Nuphar Pumila) - beaver are particularly fond of eating water-lillies. Imagine the devastation as a family of beaver systematically strips the vegetation from the banks, foraging and felling up to 50 metres into the surrounding landscape.
Recent Press Release - Beaver - Away
BEAVER - AWAY
The Scottish Wildlife Trust was instructed to remove their display boards and advertising material from the entrance to the Co-op, Lochgilphead, Argyll, on Tuesday. A member of the public complained that it was misleading and presented a distorted view of the proposed beaver trial. An SWT spokesperson claimed that were just canvassing opinions, but it was felt that they were exerting undue influence.
The anti beaver-trial group, Voices of Reason, said they regretted they were not given an equal opportunity to present the public with facts opposing the introduction. Dr. P. Hamilton, a member of the group says the public should “visit the Blogspot http://beaverboycott.blogspot.com to see how the introduction of this now-alien species could adversely affect our beautiful landscape.”
The Scottish Wildlife Trust was instructed to remove their display boards and advertising material from the entrance to the Co-op, Lochgilphead, Argyll, on Tuesday. A member of the public complained that it was misleading and presented a distorted view of the proposed beaver trial. An SWT spokesperson claimed that were just canvassing opinions, but it was felt that they were exerting undue influence.
The anti beaver-trial group, Voices of Reason, said they regretted they were not given an equal opportunity to present the public with facts opposing the introduction. Dr. P. Hamilton, a member of the group says the public should “visit the Blogspot http://beaverboycott.blogspot.com to see how the introduction of this now-alien species could adversely affect our beautiful landscape.”
Danger - beaver ahead
The ancient landscape of North Knapdale, was forged and folded by gigantic elemental forces and left to slumber through time as wind and weather carved and eroded the land. Early man lived his life governed by the seasons, his impact on the landscape a fugitive collection of rock elements so discrete they are still being discovered. The only way we know he was here. There followed an aggressive assault by later settlers, with de-afforestation for the making of charcoal, debarking for tanning, ground clearing for crops, then re-afforestation for pit props, woodchip and pulp, leading to acre upon acre of spruce, such that the form of the land was lost. Settlements were abandoned and shattered by the relentless march of the conifer. Until the day someone realised what was being destroyed, and the slow, slow reversal of that short-sighted planting policy brought about a recognition of the value of mixed woodland, and the ecological importance of Atlantic oakwoods for the survival of many species. Natural regeneration was encouraged and the landscape emerged from the conifer shroud. People stood amazed at what they had reclaimed and it became a precious and wonderful thing in their lives, a cherished and protected part of their very existence. Large and small organisations laid claim to different parts, different elements, and saving the landscape became a business and experts appeared and became the most common and irritating life form in the land. In spite of this, thousands of people continued to visit, to live, love and die there. To many people the world over, Knapdale is their spiritual home. The tranquil beauty, the rugged hills and soft hollows, the rainshine on rock face, the baking heat of summer days, the gold, rose and russet of autumn, the fierce winter storms, the manic dashing rain – sights such as these slip secretly into ones’ soul and memory, to be savoured at more stressful times.
Man has learned at last to lift his heavy foot and tread softly, at last learned that the land can heal itself if left to its own devices. Oh dear Lord, if only this were so.
For reasons wholly bureaucratic it is proposed that one of the most destructive animals in Europe – an animal reviled widely where introduced, an animal that costs its host country thousands upon thousands of pounds-worth of damage – be deliberately released into a few hundred acres of North Knapdale. Released into a chain of secluded lochans that lie jewel-like in the folds of the hills above Barnluasgan. These small lochs support resident populations of fish, amphibians, reptiles, insect life and aquatic plants; many of them are protected, such as the Adder, some of them are rare, like the Least Water-lily. It is into these thriving ecosystems that men, driven by an imperative they refuse to explain, intend to release beaver, just to see what it will do and how it will do it. The subsequent irreversible destruction of existing habitat is dismissed as of no consequence in the pursuit of quota-driven objectives.
If you love wildlife, if you love the countryside, if you love Knapdale, if you love Argyll, if you love Scotland, please write to your MSP or MP, write to Mike Russell the minister responsible and in favour of this ludicrous endeavour, write to them demanding that the application for this introduction be thrown out.
Thank you.
Man has learned at last to lift his heavy foot and tread softly, at last learned that the land can heal itself if left to its own devices. Oh dear Lord, if only this were so.
For reasons wholly bureaucratic it is proposed that one of the most destructive animals in Europe – an animal reviled widely where introduced, an animal that costs its host country thousands upon thousands of pounds-worth of damage – be deliberately released into a few hundred acres of North Knapdale. Released into a chain of secluded lochans that lie jewel-like in the folds of the hills above Barnluasgan. These small lochs support resident populations of fish, amphibians, reptiles, insect life and aquatic plants; many of them are protected, such as the Adder, some of them are rare, like the Least Water-lily. It is into these thriving ecosystems that men, driven by an imperative they refuse to explain, intend to release beaver, just to see what it will do and how it will do it. The subsequent irreversible destruction of existing habitat is dismissed as of no consequence in the pursuit of quota-driven objectives.
If you love wildlife, if you love the countryside, if you love Knapdale, if you love Argyll, if you love Scotland, please write to your MSP or MP, write to Mike Russell the minister responsible and in favour of this ludicrous endeavour, write to them demanding that the application for this introduction be thrown out.
Thank you.
Wednesday 24 October 2007
Letter to national papers written by Alexander & Polly Hamilton, Knapdale residents
The Editor,
cc. The Scotsman, The Herald, Scotland on Sunday, The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph, Oban Times, Argyllshire Advertiser, The Times, Scottish Field, Country Life, FWAG (Lucy Sumsion).
Dear Sir,
On Friday 19th October I attended a risible presentation at Cairnbaan near Lochgilphead, Argyll, by SWT & the RZSS about the introduction of beaver into Scotland and specifically into North Knapdale. The event was time limited by themselves, so it was evident that they were indulging in a box ticking exercise for the Executive and weren’t really interested in the concerns expressed by those attending. It is an emotive and contentious issue in the locality and it behoved them to deal honestly and openly with those concerns. Sadly almost the same half truths, evasions and prevarications that so sullied the SNH exercise were trotted out yet again only this time with the Chairman of the event chanting “European Directive” as though it were a divine revelation. There were people who arrived pro-beaver, but because of the failure of the panel to answer properly, felt there must be something to hide and so left anti-beaver.
The Cavalier fashion in which the two bodies are going about this exercise mirrors almost exactly that of SNH who also didn’t care about the legitimate concerns of those opposed to them. In 2003 when asked about damage to the microcosm, SNH said they didn’t know anything about it and didn’t think it would matter - Friday’s meeting evaded the issue completely. Neither SWT nor RZSS have done an audit of the existing flora and fauna, nor did SNH, so they have no idea what will cease to exist as a consequence of their actions. Their suggestions as to the new species that might benefit from the inevitable habitat destruction are limited to a dragonfly or a demoiselle.
SNH spent thousands of pounds of Public Money on their failed bid, apparently finding nothing morally ambiguous about being advisors to the government and promoters of the scheme. The same shabby set of ethics and morals appears to be alive and well in their successors, who, as charities, say they are not using public money. I wonder where they think it comes from? I do hope that people who support SWT will realise that they will be funding the wholesale destruction of an existing habitat by a now-alien species, and stop subscribing.
The landscape of North Knapdale has evolved through time without benefit of beaver. It is rich in all forms of wildlife, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds insects, fish, fungi and flowers, many of which are rare and protected. But it is not without its problems: mink have devastated seabird colonies; as a result of habitat destruction by SNH the red squirrel is having a hard time; and that most iconic of Scottish animals, the wild cat, is on the edge of viability. It is astonishing that neither SWT nor SNH appear to be concerned about any of this. The Gadarene rush to be the first to introduce beavers into the wild seems to have driven any sense of responsibility or obligation to existing species and problems out of their minds.
Mike Russell has already said he’s minded to grant the licence. As a former journalist one would have expected a more rigorous questioning of the proposal instead of conniving with SNH, who are now in Brussels trying to get the legislation reinterpreted to give them carte blanche to do as they please. For fairness’ sake the Minister should provide funds so that those opposed to the introduction can call upon the equivalent expertise, with the same funding, the same time scale and the same opportunities to present their case, and then set up an independent review to assess both arguments impartially.
There may well be an argument for introducing Beaver where their evident terraforming abilities would be of benefit, but that is not North Knapdale, where a balanced eco system is working very well, endangered only by SNH SWT & the RZSS.
Yours faithfully,
Alexander Hamilton
cc. The Scotsman, The Herald, Scotland on Sunday, The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph, Oban Times, Argyllshire Advertiser, The Times, Scottish Field, Country Life, FWAG (Lucy Sumsion).
Dear Sir,
On Friday 19th October I attended a risible presentation at Cairnbaan near Lochgilphead, Argyll, by SWT & the RZSS about the introduction of beaver into Scotland and specifically into North Knapdale. The event was time limited by themselves, so it was evident that they were indulging in a box ticking exercise for the Executive and weren’t really interested in the concerns expressed by those attending. It is an emotive and contentious issue in the locality and it behoved them to deal honestly and openly with those concerns. Sadly almost the same half truths, evasions and prevarications that so sullied the SNH exercise were trotted out yet again only this time with the Chairman of the event chanting “European Directive” as though it were a divine revelation. There were people who arrived pro-beaver, but because of the failure of the panel to answer properly, felt there must be something to hide and so left anti-beaver.
The Cavalier fashion in which the two bodies are going about this exercise mirrors almost exactly that of SNH who also didn’t care about the legitimate concerns of those opposed to them. In 2003 when asked about damage to the microcosm, SNH said they didn’t know anything about it and didn’t think it would matter - Friday’s meeting evaded the issue completely. Neither SWT nor RZSS have done an audit of the existing flora and fauna, nor did SNH, so they have no idea what will cease to exist as a consequence of their actions. Their suggestions as to the new species that might benefit from the inevitable habitat destruction are limited to a dragonfly or a demoiselle.
SNH spent thousands of pounds of Public Money on their failed bid, apparently finding nothing morally ambiguous about being advisors to the government and promoters of the scheme. The same shabby set of ethics and morals appears to be alive and well in their successors, who, as charities, say they are not using public money. I wonder where they think it comes from? I do hope that people who support SWT will realise that they will be funding the wholesale destruction of an existing habitat by a now-alien species, and stop subscribing.
The landscape of North Knapdale has evolved through time without benefit of beaver. It is rich in all forms of wildlife, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds insects, fish, fungi and flowers, many of which are rare and protected. But it is not without its problems: mink have devastated seabird colonies; as a result of habitat destruction by SNH the red squirrel is having a hard time; and that most iconic of Scottish animals, the wild cat, is on the edge of viability. It is astonishing that neither SWT nor SNH appear to be concerned about any of this. The Gadarene rush to be the first to introduce beavers into the wild seems to have driven any sense of responsibility or obligation to existing species and problems out of their minds.
Mike Russell has already said he’s minded to grant the licence. As a former journalist one would have expected a more rigorous questioning of the proposal instead of conniving with SNH, who are now in Brussels trying to get the legislation reinterpreted to give them carte blanche to do as they please. For fairness’ sake the Minister should provide funds so that those opposed to the introduction can call upon the equivalent expertise, with the same funding, the same time scale and the same opportunities to present their case, and then set up an independent review to assess both arguments impartially.
There may well be an argument for introducing Beaver where their evident terraforming abilities would be of benefit, but that is not North Knapdale, where a balanced eco system is working very well, endangered only by SNH SWT & the RZSS.
Yours faithfully,
Alexander Hamilton
Tuesday 23 October 2007
BEAVERS Letter to SWT from Robin Malcom local resident
Since speaking to you on the telephone, I have received your leaflet. To be taken seriously, a consultation must be conducted by an independent individual or organisation, who ensures both sides have the same resources and opportunities. One carried out by the initiation of a project lacks credibility.
Your leaflet is more pro-beaver propaganda, mostly unsubstantiated facts which destroy your case. There is no mention of Dr Kitchener’s research on their former UK distribution, based on carbon-dated remains. He showed they were once plentiful in the South of England, becoming scarcer as one moved northwards. A few occupied the upper Tweed 7000 years ago. Just one in the west about 1500BC near the Ayrshire coast. None what so ever in Argyll. To use words like “return” and “reintroduction” in the context of this country is misleading. “Dump” or “inflict” would be more accurate language.
There were, of course, beavers in the S.E. of England 60 years ago ….. the South American (coypu), which are not dam builders. Yet the damage they did was still so great, they had to be exterminated. Which is why that is no plan to release beavers in the old heartland of East Anglia and the Thames Valley. Instead they are to be foisted on Scotland.
Today, throughout Northern Europe and the Americas on land vulnerable to beavers, damage worth millions of dollars and Euros is caused every year by these pests. As importers of these creatures you will be morally and legally liable got centuries to come. The claims will be few to begin with, but will multiply thereafter in size and number. The recent escape from a supposedly secure sire in Central Scotland showed how many cherished young trees could be savaged almost overnight. In time, there could be a human death ….. possibly from giardia (“beaver fever”) related illness, or a driving accident. Or the spawning beds of a major salmon river spoiled. Then the amount would be huge.
I can think of no species introduction, planned or unplanned, which has not proved costly. Rabbits, grey squirrels, sika deer, Canada geese, ponticum, Japanese knotweed. Recently hedgehogs in the Hebrides. Mink too.
The UK & Eire are presently beaver-free. Most countries of Europe are not. We should learn from their experience. There is no need to slavishly follow their example. We should be proud that we have the good sense not to harbour these pests, and therefore do not have to suffer the consequences of their depredations.
Your leaflet is more pro-beaver propaganda, mostly unsubstantiated facts which destroy your case. There is no mention of Dr Kitchener’s research on their former UK distribution, based on carbon-dated remains. He showed they were once plentiful in the South of England, becoming scarcer as one moved northwards. A few occupied the upper Tweed 7000 years ago. Just one in the west about 1500BC near the Ayrshire coast. None what so ever in Argyll. To use words like “return” and “reintroduction” in the context of this country is misleading. “Dump” or “inflict” would be more accurate language.
There were, of course, beavers in the S.E. of England 60 years ago ….. the South American (coypu), which are not dam builders. Yet the damage they did was still so great, they had to be exterminated. Which is why that is no plan to release beavers in the old heartland of East Anglia and the Thames Valley. Instead they are to be foisted on Scotland.
Today, throughout Northern Europe and the Americas on land vulnerable to beavers, damage worth millions of dollars and Euros is caused every year by these pests. As importers of these creatures you will be morally and legally liable got centuries to come. The claims will be few to begin with, but will multiply thereafter in size and number. The recent escape from a supposedly secure sire in Central Scotland showed how many cherished young trees could be savaged almost overnight. In time, there could be a human death ….. possibly from giardia (“beaver fever”) related illness, or a driving accident. Or the spawning beds of a major salmon river spoiled. Then the amount would be huge.
I can think of no species introduction, planned or unplanned, which has not proved costly. Rabbits, grey squirrels, sika deer, Canada geese, ponticum, Japanese knotweed. Recently hedgehogs in the Hebrides. Mink too.
The UK & Eire are presently beaver-free. Most countries of Europe are not. We should learn from their experience. There is no need to slavishly follow their example. We should be proud that we have the good sense not to harbour these pests, and therefore do not have to suffer the consequences of their depredations.
Unanswered Questions Asked by Jane Allan Knapdale resident
Questions
1. What is the difference between this application and the previous application by SNH? Why, given their status as the body charged with the protection of Scotland’s Natural Heritage and the publicly funded work which went into the previous application, are they apparently being excluded from this proposal?2. If the beavers survive, what is the population likely to be at the end of three years, five years and ten years?
3. Why has a three year trial been chosen to assess the impact of the beaver?
4. What is the area of water and land required to sustain one family group? How long does it take to exhaust one area and require the beaver to move to another site?
5. Will the project proposers produce a map which will clearly show the likely range of the beaver within 3, 5 and 10 years?
6. Will areas of the forest which have hitherto been open to the public, now become inaccessible?Will there be an exclusion zone around the release site and what area will this encompass?
7. Will the local angling club still be able to fish on Loch Linnhe and Seafield Loch?
8. What are the criteria for judging the success or failure of the project?
9. If the trial is a ‘failure’, how will it be terminated (assuming that failure is judged by disruption of the local landscape, existing flora and fauna and land use rather than a failure of the beaver to thrive)?
10. If it is a ‘success’, how many more beavers will be introduced and in which areas?
11. Private Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2006 requires risk assessment and upgrading of private water supplies. This is a costly business. What measures would be put in place to protect water supplies in the area and what area would be covered by such measures?
12. How do you plan to deal with damage or disruption to land or property.
13. How can you assure the public that the information we are given through the press and in presentations about the beaver is impartial and objective?
14. What were the ‘technical issues’ raised in the previous application which you believe can be resolved?
Why Re introduce Beavers to Scotland? Letter written by Jane Allan Knapdale resident
This letter was written in response to a leaflet sent out by SWT & RZSS, hence the quotes.
'Beavers were once widespread in Scotland'. There is no evidence that they were in Knapdale. Without this evidence, the project is an introduction of an alien species. 'As a keystone species they would bring many benefits to a range of other native species and habitats'. Habitats in Knapdale already provide all of the possible benefits we are told will result from the introduction of beavers. There is already a rich diversity of habitat and wildlife which is threatened by mink, rhododendron and Japanese Knotweed – all non-native species which are invasive and costly to control. If, as we are told, the beaver has not been here for 400 years it can no longer be considered native.
'. . and have already been successfully re-established in 24 other European countries' The beaver is clearly not an endangered species and anecdotal evidence from Norway would indicate that the beaver has become a pest when living in close proximity to humans. This would be the case in Knapdale, which cannot be described as a wilderness area.
'64%of the public is in favour of the beaver returning' Who are these public? Do they live in areas which could potentially be affected by the beavers? The earlier consultation which informed the response from the public contained misinformation on the habits and effects of beavers and cannot be accepted as a credible vote for the ‘re-introduction’. SNH were unable to provide a credible argument for the re-introduction and statistics used in their presentation are outdated and should not be used in arguments for the proposed 2009 introduction. There is a level of ignorance about the beaver and it’s habits among local people which could produce an uninformed vote in favour of introduction. The bodies promoting the introduction are unlikely to highlight any possible negative effects.
What do Beavers Need?
'Beavers are about the same size as a large otter'. Beavers may be about the same length as an otter but at around 20kg, they are approximately twice the weight.
'They inhabit slow moving freshwater streams or small lochs and sometimes build dams'.
The beaver’s habit is to build dams to create large bodies of water around which they can feed. There are few areas in the vicinity of the release site which provide flat enough areas of land to create such bodies of water and flooding these areas would alter existing habitats of the native flora and fauna. There is also potential for flooding forest roads which apart from being part of the infrastructure of a working forest, are also used by the public for walking, cycling and other leisure pursuits. There are very few slow moving freshwater streams in the vicinity of the release site. Runs of water to the north and south of Seafield Loch do look suitable. One of these areas has been proposed as a venue for the local clay pigeon shoot and the loch is leased to Lochgilphead Angling Club. We are told that the Beaver is a keystone species which indicates that they have a considerable impact on the environment. If they are simply going to inhabit the existing lochs then there is no environmental argument for introducing them. We are told that the beaver will create wetland habitats suitable for creatures such as dragonflies, newts, frogs and herons. Knapdale already has all of these in abundance.
Why Knapdale?
'Knapdale is the right kind of countryside for beavers'. Knapdale is far from ideal for beavers. Television documentaries on the beaver in Eastern Europe, show a very different topography to that seen in Knapdale. We believe that the choice of release site has little to do with suitability and everything to do with the willingness of the Forestry Commission to allow the trial to take place on publicly owned land. Knapdale cannot be described as a wilderness area and this is easily demonstrated by drawing a 3 mile radius from the proposed release site. The map of ‘areas potentially suitable for occupation by European beavers’ produced by SNH shows areas along the Crinan Canal and North of Knapdale as being suitable. It does not show areas south of the Crinan Canal as being suitable apart from one place in Kintyre.
Previous presentations did not state the terms by which the introduction would be evaluated as a success or a failure. Neither did it give a clear and definitive exit strategy should the re-introduction be considered a failure. Having promoted the beaver in anthropomorphic terms as a ‘charismatic character’ which will enhance tourism in the area, it would be difficult in PR terms to remove the beaver. It is irresponsible to release alien creatures into a landscape with no boundaries. Previous information stated that dams built in inconvenient places would be destroyed and beavers straying from the release site would be trapped and returned. This can hardly be in the beaver’s interest. Neither can it be in the interest of the beavers involved in the trial to be trapped, transported, quarantined and released. The proposed release site is within three miles of our land and there are three water courses running from the release site and adjacent lochs through ground which we own. These burns all have sea trout runs. It is highly likely that beavers will travel along these burns and onto our land.
Despite being involved in tourism and aware that the publicity surrounding the proposed trial re-introduction will generate interest in the area and possibly increase our income, we remain strongly opposed to the project. Living and working in the area gives us a great appreciation of the native flora and fauna and a suspicion of agencies who have no connection with the area imposing potentially disruptive changes on the landscape around us. The proposers of the project are always keen to emphasise that it is a trial but unless the beavers are contained by fences within a specific area, there can be no guarantee that the creatures could be removed were the trial to be deemed a failure. if the beaver is not re-introduced, the landscape will not be impoverished in any way. Biodiversity in the area will be enhanced greatly by the removal of mink, Japanese Knot weed and rhododendron.
'Beavers were once widespread in Scotland'. There is no evidence that they were in Knapdale. Without this evidence, the project is an introduction of an alien species. 'As a keystone species they would bring many benefits to a range of other native species and habitats'. Habitats in Knapdale already provide all of the possible benefits we are told will result from the introduction of beavers. There is already a rich diversity of habitat and wildlife which is threatened by mink, rhododendron and Japanese Knotweed – all non-native species which are invasive and costly to control. If, as we are told, the beaver has not been here for 400 years it can no longer be considered native.
'. . and have already been successfully re-established in 24 other European countries' The beaver is clearly not an endangered species and anecdotal evidence from Norway would indicate that the beaver has become a pest when living in close proximity to humans. This would be the case in Knapdale, which cannot be described as a wilderness area.
'64%of the public is in favour of the beaver returning' Who are these public? Do they live in areas which could potentially be affected by the beavers? The earlier consultation which informed the response from the public contained misinformation on the habits and effects of beavers and cannot be accepted as a credible vote for the ‘re-introduction’. SNH were unable to provide a credible argument for the re-introduction and statistics used in their presentation are outdated and should not be used in arguments for the proposed 2009 introduction. There is a level of ignorance about the beaver and it’s habits among local people which could produce an uninformed vote in favour of introduction. The bodies promoting the introduction are unlikely to highlight any possible negative effects.
What do Beavers Need?
'Beavers are about the same size as a large otter'. Beavers may be about the same length as an otter but at around 20kg, they are approximately twice the weight.
'They inhabit slow moving freshwater streams or small lochs and sometimes build dams'.
The beaver’s habit is to build dams to create large bodies of water around which they can feed. There are few areas in the vicinity of the release site which provide flat enough areas of land to create such bodies of water and flooding these areas would alter existing habitats of the native flora and fauna. There is also potential for flooding forest roads which apart from being part of the infrastructure of a working forest, are also used by the public for walking, cycling and other leisure pursuits. There are very few slow moving freshwater streams in the vicinity of the release site. Runs of water to the north and south of Seafield Loch do look suitable. One of these areas has been proposed as a venue for the local clay pigeon shoot and the loch is leased to Lochgilphead Angling Club. We are told that the Beaver is a keystone species which indicates that they have a considerable impact on the environment. If they are simply going to inhabit the existing lochs then there is no environmental argument for introducing them. We are told that the beaver will create wetland habitats suitable for creatures such as dragonflies, newts, frogs and herons. Knapdale already has all of these in abundance.
Why Knapdale?
'Knapdale is the right kind of countryside for beavers'. Knapdale is far from ideal for beavers. Television documentaries on the beaver in Eastern Europe, show a very different topography to that seen in Knapdale. We believe that the choice of release site has little to do with suitability and everything to do with the willingness of the Forestry Commission to allow the trial to take place on publicly owned land. Knapdale cannot be described as a wilderness area and this is easily demonstrated by drawing a 3 mile radius from the proposed release site. The map of ‘areas potentially suitable for occupation by European beavers’ produced by SNH shows areas along the Crinan Canal and North of Knapdale as being suitable. It does not show areas south of the Crinan Canal as being suitable apart from one place in Kintyre.
Previous presentations did not state the terms by which the introduction would be evaluated as a success or a failure. Neither did it give a clear and definitive exit strategy should the re-introduction be considered a failure. Having promoted the beaver in anthropomorphic terms as a ‘charismatic character’ which will enhance tourism in the area, it would be difficult in PR terms to remove the beaver. It is irresponsible to release alien creatures into a landscape with no boundaries. Previous information stated that dams built in inconvenient places would be destroyed and beavers straying from the release site would be trapped and returned. This can hardly be in the beaver’s interest. Neither can it be in the interest of the beavers involved in the trial to be trapped, transported, quarantined and released. The proposed release site is within three miles of our land and there are three water courses running from the release site and adjacent lochs through ground which we own. These burns all have sea trout runs. It is highly likely that beavers will travel along these burns and onto our land.
Despite being involved in tourism and aware that the publicity surrounding the proposed trial re-introduction will generate interest in the area and possibly increase our income, we remain strongly opposed to the project. Living and working in the area gives us a great appreciation of the native flora and fauna and a suspicion of agencies who have no connection with the area imposing potentially disruptive changes on the landscape around us. The proposers of the project are always keen to emphasise that it is a trial but unless the beavers are contained by fences within a specific area, there can be no guarantee that the creatures could be removed were the trial to be deemed a failure. if the beaver is not re-introduced, the landscape will not be impoverished in any way. Biodiversity in the area will be enhanced greatly by the removal of mink, Japanese Knot weed and rhododendron.
KNAPDALE – Proposed Beaver Reintroduction by Leif Brag, Argyll resident
As a Wildlife manager and lover of all sorts of wildlife and nature it would only be natural of me to welcome the proposed reintroduction of European beavers in Scotland.
However, as I am convinced that the reintroduction will cause conflicts with other interests, I will have to be against the proposals, as it wouldn’t be right to put beavers through the stress of capture, transport, and radio tagging for the purpose of a trial which surely will cause problems.
SNH have tried this proposal before and it was, in my mind, rightly turned down. SNH stated in their earlier application, that the beavers would be monitored and that any beavers straying outside the trial area would be recaptured and brought back to the trial area.
SNH stated that beavers are very easy to trap. This is only true where beavers have established territories and runs, and the focus is on trapping a beaver out of a bigger population. Where beavers are roaming because of the lack of an established territory or because of being displaced by other beavers, it becomes much harder to trap individual beavers.
The fact that the beaver is known to be in the area, by radio tracking it assuming that the radio tracking works, only makes it marginally easier to trap it, as it could easily have moved on again the next day. In any case, radio transmitters can only be fitted onto the original beavers and not necessarily to their young ones.
Roy Dennis an independent ecologist has on numerous occasions stated that a forest without beavers is like running a car without oil! – Lets be serious, - Scotland has been running forestry successfully for many years without beavers, however Roy, try to run your car without oil for half an hour.
SNH has publicly requested that the Deer Commission for Scotland get their act together to control Scotland’s deer herd or they will themselves start to use their powers.
Yes, - deer cause damage to both commercial and natural woodlands and vegetation but this damage is mostly in the form of browsing, which only reduces the growth rate the trees, whereas the beaver kills every single tree that it is feeding on.
Each beaver will fell up to 2000 trees per year, in sizes varying from saplings to old mature trees. I have personally, during a trip to Norway, seen several oak trees, approximately 1’ thick, felled by beavers as well as an Aspen, which was 20” in diameter.
SNH also stated that beavers do not build dams like their American cousins. This has been taken by many to mean that European beavers do not build dams, which is incorrect. The European beavers do build dams, however not quite as big as the American beavers, but still big enough to cause problems. A former local SNH employee admitted that she was surprised to see the size of dams and the problems with the beavers, when she witnessed it for herself on a visit abroad.
Norwegian forest owners accepted the beavers for a number of years, as most trees felled by beavers are broad-leaved, which were regarded as weeds in the commercial conifer forest. However new markets for oak, birch and aspen changed the perception of the beaver and bounties were paid for killing beavers. The payment of bounties stopped after the Norwegians realised that they could get, especially Danish and German, hunters to pay for the right to shoot beavers. Ordinary people living in areas populated with beavers are still having to protect their ornamental garden trees and fruit trees with steel sheeting to a height of 4-5’, to avoid them being felled by beavers.
Swedish forest owners are having the same problems as the Norwegians. One report tells of a culvert being dammed by beaver in one knight, resulting in flooding that washed away 100 meters of the road, leading to a repair cost of SKr 600,000.00 (£40,000.00).
Denmark recently reintroduced the beaver and within one month of the reintroduction one of the beavers had travelled 20 miles and had, in one night, gone in to a garden, where it had felled all the garden owners’ fruit trees and all his Brussels sprouts. Danish authorities denied any liability, as it was a wild animal!
Germany also reintroduced the beaver and I have personally seen some of the problems in Bavaria, where the beavers have populated drainage canals in an arable area. This has led to farmers having to remove dams on a regular basis to avoid flooding. Additionally the beavers are burrowing in to the banks of the canals, causing the ground to subside when the farmer drives over the burrows with heavy machinery. I have been told that this has led to expensive repairs on at least one combine harvester.
In Germany, the owner of the hunting rights must pay compensation to farmers and forest owners for any damage caused by animals that can be hunted. This is to ensure that the hunters keep populations under control. In the case of the beaver, the German hunters have said that they do not want an open season for beavers, as they didn’t ask for the reintroduction and they don’t want the beavers to become their problem.
The idea of the reintroduction is now being aired again, this time by the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Royal Zoological Society for Scotland; however the only change since the last application is that we now have a different minister in charge.
It beggars belief that wildlife organisations are so keen to spend vast sums on the reintroduction of beavers, which will be controversial and yet at the same time stand by and watch the decline of the Black grouse, and the spread of the Grey squirrel, without any real intervention other than just monitoring.
If the reintroduction was to go ahead, will the same bodies pushing for the reintroduction be prepared to pay compensation for any damage caused by the beavers?
It is not unthinkable that the beavers will find their way into the Crinan Canal, where burrows in the canal bank would be a serious issue. Likewise it is not unthinkable that flood damage akin to the Swedish example above would occur, and the beavers could easily travel further a field and cause damage in some of the wonderful botanical gardens that we have on the West coast of Scotland.
I do not have much knowledge of beaver fever, but with so much of the West coast Scotland’s drinking water being sourced from surface water, any risk, however slight, must not be allowed.
However, as I am convinced that the reintroduction will cause conflicts with other interests, I will have to be against the proposals, as it wouldn’t be right to put beavers through the stress of capture, transport, and radio tagging for the purpose of a trial which surely will cause problems.
SNH have tried this proposal before and it was, in my mind, rightly turned down. SNH stated in their earlier application, that the beavers would be monitored and that any beavers straying outside the trial area would be recaptured and brought back to the trial area.
SNH stated that beavers are very easy to trap. This is only true where beavers have established territories and runs, and the focus is on trapping a beaver out of a bigger population. Where beavers are roaming because of the lack of an established territory or because of being displaced by other beavers, it becomes much harder to trap individual beavers.
The fact that the beaver is known to be in the area, by radio tracking it assuming that the radio tracking works, only makes it marginally easier to trap it, as it could easily have moved on again the next day. In any case, radio transmitters can only be fitted onto the original beavers and not necessarily to their young ones.
Roy Dennis an independent ecologist has on numerous occasions stated that a forest without beavers is like running a car without oil! – Lets be serious, - Scotland has been running forestry successfully for many years without beavers, however Roy, try to run your car without oil for half an hour.
SNH has publicly requested that the Deer Commission for Scotland get their act together to control Scotland’s deer herd or they will themselves start to use their powers.
Yes, - deer cause damage to both commercial and natural woodlands and vegetation but this damage is mostly in the form of browsing, which only reduces the growth rate the trees, whereas the beaver kills every single tree that it is feeding on.
Each beaver will fell up to 2000 trees per year, in sizes varying from saplings to old mature trees. I have personally, during a trip to Norway, seen several oak trees, approximately 1’ thick, felled by beavers as well as an Aspen, which was 20” in diameter.
SNH also stated that beavers do not build dams like their American cousins. This has been taken by many to mean that European beavers do not build dams, which is incorrect. The European beavers do build dams, however not quite as big as the American beavers, but still big enough to cause problems. A former local SNH employee admitted that she was surprised to see the size of dams and the problems with the beavers, when she witnessed it for herself on a visit abroad.
Norwegian forest owners accepted the beavers for a number of years, as most trees felled by beavers are broad-leaved, which were regarded as weeds in the commercial conifer forest. However new markets for oak, birch and aspen changed the perception of the beaver and bounties were paid for killing beavers. The payment of bounties stopped after the Norwegians realised that they could get, especially Danish and German, hunters to pay for the right to shoot beavers. Ordinary people living in areas populated with beavers are still having to protect their ornamental garden trees and fruit trees with steel sheeting to a height of 4-5’, to avoid them being felled by beavers.
Swedish forest owners are having the same problems as the Norwegians. One report tells of a culvert being dammed by beaver in one knight, resulting in flooding that washed away 100 meters of the road, leading to a repair cost of SKr 600,000.00 (£40,000.00).
Denmark recently reintroduced the beaver and within one month of the reintroduction one of the beavers had travelled 20 miles and had, in one night, gone in to a garden, where it had felled all the garden owners’ fruit trees and all his Brussels sprouts. Danish authorities denied any liability, as it was a wild animal!
Germany also reintroduced the beaver and I have personally seen some of the problems in Bavaria, where the beavers have populated drainage canals in an arable area. This has led to farmers having to remove dams on a regular basis to avoid flooding. Additionally the beavers are burrowing in to the banks of the canals, causing the ground to subside when the farmer drives over the burrows with heavy machinery. I have been told that this has led to expensive repairs on at least one combine harvester.
In Germany, the owner of the hunting rights must pay compensation to farmers and forest owners for any damage caused by animals that can be hunted. This is to ensure that the hunters keep populations under control. In the case of the beaver, the German hunters have said that they do not want an open season for beavers, as they didn’t ask for the reintroduction and they don’t want the beavers to become their problem.
The idea of the reintroduction is now being aired again, this time by the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Royal Zoological Society for Scotland; however the only change since the last application is that we now have a different minister in charge.
It beggars belief that wildlife organisations are so keen to spend vast sums on the reintroduction of beavers, which will be controversial and yet at the same time stand by and watch the decline of the Black grouse, and the spread of the Grey squirrel, without any real intervention other than just monitoring.
If the reintroduction was to go ahead, will the same bodies pushing for the reintroduction be prepared to pay compensation for any damage caused by the beavers?
It is not unthinkable that the beavers will find their way into the Crinan Canal, where burrows in the canal bank would be a serious issue. Likewise it is not unthinkable that flood damage akin to the Swedish example above would occur, and the beavers could easily travel further a field and cause damage in some of the wonderful botanical gardens that we have on the West coast of Scotland.
I do not have much knowledge of beaver fever, but with so much of the West coast Scotland’s drinking water being sourced from surface water, any risk, however slight, must not be allowed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
