Beaver on the Tummel

[Stonepark]

To be clear I have nothing against beavers, it's the clueless clowns  making policy that are the issue, not the animals. On the one hand conservation organisations are telling us we need more riparian trees to improve fish habitat, something I fully agree with. Then the politicians  are introducing an animal that is felling riparian trees faster than they can grow. 

I agree with Fred on this one to an extent.

The problem with the numpties from Holyrood is that they sway with the breeze, like a butterfly on the wing, flitting from idea to idea with no overall view or strategy beyond their next thought or dream and never take the holistic view.

However UK public policy from WWII (and even before that) has been to remove species which compete with mans use of the land, (historically bear, wolves, lynx, beaver, sea eagle, etc) and more recently just about all species have had their numbers reduced by loss of habitat but this has accelerated drastically from WWII, with the area under high intensity agriculture and the removal of natural and semi natural habitats (including riparian habitats) been driven to not just produce food but to be chemically controlled areas where no alternatives are allowed, a moden ploughed field is effectively sterile, even down to the last worm in most cases.

With regards beaver supporting habitat, the removal of riparian habitat (which was more common when I was a young boy (late 70's) and even more common again in the late 50's when my father was a boy, and a similar change happened over the previous generation) has as with the removal of hedgerows been encouraged and paid for to increase "productivity", leaving these areas in often ppor condition for beavers (which still can occupy these less than ideal areas).

Unfortunately, beavers don't want a few old age, large trees which is what farmers and landowners have mainly reduced riperian habitats to and the planting schemes have also not previously been designed to take account of beaver, relying on planted specimens instead of broadcast seed or rods where appropriate of traditionally riparian species.

Beaver therfore purposely fell  large trees to give other trees the opportunity to grow (as well as eating the bark for food). They are coppicers and those species which have been left as individual trees over the last couple hundred years or so (Sycamore, Beech, Ash) will in a beaver habitat be replaced with Aspen, Alder, Willow, Birch, Rowan etc if they are present in the seedbank or will need to be planted and which can be coppiced (eaten) regulary and provide the food for the beavers which seem to prefer 1 to 2 inch diameter tree stems for eating and construction but will fell larger trees and stems where there is no alternative.

Ultimately you do end up with more trees in the form of a copse or thicket, just not the large individual long living forms we are used to, but lots of short lived (60 to 100 years old) coppiced trees (which were traditionally more accepted before coal came along and coppicing died out as a major fuel source) and as beavers rarely venture more than 10m from the water, they don't pose a large risk to more distant plantings.

However, there are added complications with deer numbers (mainly Roe) which are really good at eating young trees and the lack of area for the trees to grow as often they have been restricted to the vertical face of the river bank as the agricultural area extends to the shoulder of the river embankment in both arable and pastorial areas as noted above.

The question to ask should be, if every riparian habitat over 5m wide had a 10m buffer each bank of riparian tree species, how much better would that be for trout fishing, the shade from sun, protection from the wind, habitat for inverebrates, bank protection due to roots, trees removing fertiliser and providing screening from herbicides etc?

[Stonepark]

I do have sympathies with some aspects of re-wilding. Apart from  the plain fact that those who shout loudest in favour of it are university educated, middle class urban  types with their arses super glues to the M25 and who don't have to live with the consequences of  it.  I don't have words that can adequately express how much I despise these people. The entire thing has all the ingredients in the mix for another gigantic scam. Not perhaps a scam on the scale  next to useless "renewable energy"  has turned out to be, but a scam nonetheless.

Thank god you posted that before my post....

[Laxdale]

I agree with Fred on this one to an extent.

The problem with the numpties from Holyrood is that they sway with the breeze, like a butterfly on the wing, flitting from idea to idea with no overall view or strategy beyond their next thought or dream and never take the holistic view.

However UK public policy from WWII (and even before that) has been to remove species which compete with mans use of the land, (historically bear, wolves, lynx, beaver, sea eagle, etc) and more recently just about all species have had their numbers reduced by loss of habitat but this has accelerated drastically from WWII, with the area under high intensity agriculture and the removal of natural and semi natural habitats (including riparian habitats) been driven to not just produce food but to be chemically controlled areas where no alternatives are allowed, a moden ploughed field is effectively sterile, even down to the last worm in most cases.

With regards beaver supporting habitat, the removal of riparian habitat (which was more common when I was a young boy (late 70's) and even more common again in the late 50's when my father was a boy, and a similar change happened over the previous generation) has as with the removal of hedgerows been encouraged and paid for to increase "productivity", leaving these areas in often ppor condition for beavers (which still can occupy these less than ideal areas).

Unfortunately, beavers don't want a few old age, large trees which is what farmers and landowners have mainly reduced riperian habitats to and the planting schemes have also not previously been designed to take account of beaver, relying on planted specimens instead of broadcast seed or rods where appropriate of traditionally riparian species.

Beaver therfore purposely fell  large trees to give other trees the opportunity to grow (as well as eating the bark for food). They are coppicers and those species which have been left as individual trees over the last couple hundred years or so (Sycamore, Beech, Ash) will in a beaver habitat be replaced with Aspen, Alder, Willow, Birch, Rowan etc if they are present in the seedbank or will need to be planted and which can be coppiced (eaten) regulary and provide the food for the beavers which seem to prefer 1 to 2 inch diameter tree stems for eating and construction but will fell larger trees and stems where there is no alternative.

Ultimately you do end up with more trees in the form of a copse or thicket, just not the large individual long living forms we are used to, but lots of short lived (60 to 100 years old) coppiced trees (which were traditionally more accepted before coal came along and coppicing died out as a major fuel source) and as beavers rarely venture more than 10m from the water, they don't pose a large risk to more distant plantings.

However, there are added complications with deer numbers (mainly Roe) which are really good at eating young trees and the lack of area for the trees to grow as often they have been restricted to the vertical face of the river bank as the agricultural area extends to the shoulder of the river embankment in both arable and pastorial areas as noted above.

The question to ask should be, if every riparian habitat over 5m wide had a 10m buffer each bank of riparian tree species, how much better would that be for trout fishing, the shade from sun, protection from the wind, habitat for inverebrates, bank protection due to roots, trees removing fertiliser and providing screening from herbicides etc?

10 metres?
You need to go to the Isla with a range finder (long enough measuring tapes are not made).

[Wildfisher]

Just some consistency and joined up thinking would nice for a change. Let's also put the cart behind the horse. Perhaps some beavers might manage trees effectively, but let's have the trees first and think about the beavers in 30 or 40 years time. Sadly like "climate change"  the entire re-wilding world has been hijacked by loony politics.

[Laxdale]

Just some consistency and joined up thinking would nice for a change. Let's also put the cart behind the horse. Perhaps some beavers might manage trees effectively, but let's have the trees first and think about the beavers in 30 or 40 years time. Sadly like "climate change"  the entire re-wilding world has been hijacked by loony politics.

Do not forget the cost of compensating those affected by the rats.
200+K to a council to repair an undermined road.
ONE farmer`s compensation is on 900K and counting.
In both cases the rats are still there.
This is unaffordable now, never mind in the long term as the bloody things spread.

[Wildfisher]

This is unaffordable now

That would only be a problem if it was being paid for by the loony politicians, it's not, it's being paid for by already hard pressed taxpayers who are struggling to put food on the table and to heat their homes. The idiots who legislate for this nonsense are fleecing us and living off expenses.

We have just lost our medical centre in the village and surrounding area. 3,500 patients have had to be scattered to other practices the breadth of Angus. Heaven knows how the old and sick are going to cope. They cannot recruit GPs, yes this is a national problem  but it is far worse in Scotland because GPs don't want to move here from other parts of the UK because they have to pay £2K or more per year in income tax here due to the spiteful and punitive S.G. taxation regime policy of hammering the well paid. This is the other side of it that seems to be lost on the terminally thick. Meanwhile this extra tax revenue seems to be spent on beaver compensation  and other crap that is irrelevant to ordinary people.  Political? Angry? Yes, fecking furious, but you get what you vote for. 

[Laxdale]

Final comments on beavers -
The only problem with them is that they have been given protection.
I did solve the mystery of the dead beaver that was found in the Beauly Firth.
Someone had released them illegally in the River Ness.......

[arawa]

I did solve the mystery of the dead beaver that was found in the Beauly Firth.
Someone had released them illegally in the River Ness.......

If that was the one my brother found on the shore along from Rosemarkie, we were told its DNA did not match/link with any other known colonies.

[Wildfisher]

we were told its DNA did not match/link with any other known colonies.

We can't provide GPs for frontline medical care, but we can afford genetic testing on dead beavers.

Says it all really.

[Laxdale]

If that was the one my brother found on the shore along from Rosemarkie, we were told its DNA did not match/link with any other known colonies.

Obviously, there is more to the story thanI can write on here!