England's first wild beavers for 400 years allowed to live on River Otter

[Jackov Altraids]

Mary had a little lamb
She also had a beaver

Jack caught a glimpse
while she was 'on'
and thought she'd been attacked with a cleaver.

 

[Bald Rick]

Jack caught a glimpse
while she was 'on'
and thought she'd been attacked with a cleaver.

Very good

I’ve often seen her little lamb

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Mary had a little lamb
She also had a beaver

The question was which
should be in a UK ditch
and the answer, of course, is neither

 

[Bald Rick]

The question was which
should be in a UK ditch
and the answer, of course, is neither

On fire here @Jackov Altraids

There once was a released beaver called Chuck

 

[Doing it for the kids]

On fire here @Jackov Altraids

There once was a released beaver called Chuck

Who wanted to live the life of a duck

 

[melted welly]

Who wanted to live the life of a duck

So he blocked all the ditches for swimming in,

He couldn’t give a f.............

 

[Oscar]

Those of you who watched Countryfile a couple months ago re National Trust Holnicote estate reintroducing two pairs of beavers, well word on the street is that all four are either dead or escaped ! You heard anything @exmoor dave ?

 

[Katarina]

Experts and Government bodies will do studies in what is possible.

Typical enviromentalist answer. And when it all goes pear shaped , you walk away and think of something else to meddle with and let the local communities to have to deal with the mess caused.

 

[Katarina]

Important question to George C or is it actually George Monbiot undercover .
What happens if the Beavers catch TB from Badgers ? How this be addressed? Who will compensate damage to private property and deal with rogue Beavers?
Answer on postcard please George.
Any new introductions of species will always have a detrimental effect on the wildlife that already living in that eco system
The decline in ground nesting birds and Hedgehogs in areas of high Badger population shows that unless you manage animals that are at the top of the pecking order you will have a massive decline in other species. It's usually the farmer that gets the blame when this happens due to our management practice allegedly .

 

[neilo]

Important question to George C or is it actually George Monbiot undercover .
What happens if the Beavers catch TB from Badgers ? How this be addressed? Who will compensate damage to private property and deal with rogue Beavers?
Answer on postcard please George.
Any new introductions of species will always have a detrimental effect on the wildlife that already living in that eco system
The decline in ground nesting birds and Hedgehogs in areas of high Badger population shows that unless you manage animals that are at the top of the pecking order you will have a massive decline in other species. It's usually the farmer that gets the blame when this happens due to our management practice allegedly .

I suspect we already have the answer to that one:

Experts and Government bodies will do studies in what is possible.

 

[Bury the Trash]

 

[neilo]

Releasing a few alligators would keep on top of them perhaps?

 

[Bury the Trash]

Releasing a few alligators would keep on top of them perhaps?

Yeah and perhaps like also releasing wolfs on Salisbury plain, for balance

 

[Danllan]

Morality has to be part of what frames current law and policy. Law also stipulates that one cannot be held responsible for the acts of our forebears. One should not and cannot apologise for what one is not responsible for despite the current fashion for it. One can only express regret.
I would be guided by morals in most situations but when considering introducing a species into an ecosystem, emotions should be set aside.
If your principle consideration in arguing for the reintroduction of Beavers is of moral obligation, that amounts to little or no argument at all.

I did not suggest that this subject be discussed for generations to waste time, in fact I was doing the opposite in saying that it could be argued extensively as to what constitutes an introduction or a re-introduction. I consider this to be a largely irrelevant case of semantics as the whole issue of the introduction/ re-introduction should be based on its merit.

My idea of using the number of generations as a guide could / would be applicable to any species in the ecosystem. As you suggest, this would vary hugely from insects to trees and all would be worthy of consideration. As an easy assessment, it would probably best applied to the Beaver. It would have missed about 50 generations.

I maybe should have referred to the contention between man and beaver rather than " the issues they caused", but the point is relevant. The human population has increased 15 fold with much change in land use and man's particular desire to live waterside means considerable more problems and conflict points. The ecosystems and even geography has changed considerably in 400 years. An anthropogenic extinction suggests that this had been happening for many centuries previously and points towards natural selection working on their unsuitability.

I have not seen any information to suggest that the countryside of the UK will benefit from the introduction of Beavers.
I do know that those doing it are benefiting. I fear I am confident in thinking that landowners/ farmers will face all the costs.
Most importantly, there is a complete lack of any way of putting things back when it all goes tits up.

Sorry for a slow reply, life...

You'll have to point me to the law you mention, I'm not familiar with it. And, anyway, I've not claimed we have a legal obligation to right past wrongs (although there is good jurisprudence to the effect that we - collectively, as a state / country - do), my reference to policy and law was to its current incarnation, and that morality should be a part of it where possible. But I disagree with your premise that we can 'only express regret' for wrongs from the past, we can often do much more, if we choose to...

The 'moral' aspect of my argument for the beavers is but a small part, but it only seems 'little' to you - if your claim of that is factual - because you don't want it to happen, and so label it as that which you would have it appear - this is a tactic often used by the left, you'll be familiar with them calling anything they don't like 'extreme', and hoping it will stick.

So no, I don't think morality a small thing, although as I stated it is in this instance a small part of the overall case; far greater in part, is the argument for the ecological health of our environment. Now, you have already dismissed this and stated that beavers are destructive etc., and so they are, but this is a natural process and, as such, everything else natural has evolved to cope with and prosper within it. You clearly have no problem with 'destruction' per se, not when it suits you, but only when it doesn't further your ends. Well, that's a view, a wholly anthropocentric one, but a view nonetheless.

You really haven't done your homework on this subject, the beaver's extinctions was one of periodic rapidity which, rather unsurprisingly, coincided with human action, and 'fashions' in the latter stages; please cite any credible paper claiming otherwise, I've just done a quick search and nothing has come up. You're not being aware of anything beneficial coming form the return of beavers just demonstrates my previous point, there is a lot of data to demonstrate the positive case, and some to support your point of view too; I've read a fair amount of both and come to my conclusion.

Perhaps you just have a plain bias against bringing them back, they'll inconvenience you and / or others and that's an end to it as far as you're concerned, and you are using pseudo-environmental arguments to support your case, such things have been known... your statement about it all going 'tits up' indicates that. Yet, if you do have that - literal - prejudice, where can discussion take us?

Or is the part of your post that I've emboldened the most honest bit, the 'crux', and is it all really down to cash in this matter? If so, you've no need to worry, if money is the real issue, you and others can be bought off. As I wrote earlier, once sub's have gone there will be more cash around for good causes. Problem solved.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Sorry for a slow reply, life...

You'll have to point me to the law you mention, I'm not familiar with it. And, anyway, I've not claimed we have a legal obligation to right past wrongs (although there is good jurisprudence to the effect that we - collectively, as a state / country - do), my reference to policy and law was to its current incarnation, and that morality should be a part of it where possible. But I disagree with your premise that we can 'only express regret' for wrongs from the past, we can often do much more, if we choose to...

The 'moral' aspect of my argument for the beavers is but a small part, but it only seems 'little' to you - if your claim of that is factual - because you don't want it to happen, and so label it as that which you would have it appear - this is a tactic often used by the left, you'll be familiar with them calling anything they don't like 'extreme', and hoping it will stick.

So no, I don't think morality a small thing, although as I stated it is in this instance a small part of the overall case; far greater in part, is the argument for the ecological health of our environment. Now, you have already dismissed this and stated that beavers are destructive etc., and so they are, but this is a natural process and, as such, everything else natural has evolved to cope with and prosper within it. You clearly have no problem with 'destruction' per se, not when it suits you, but only when it doesn't further your ends. Well, that's a view, a wholly anthropocentric one, but a view nonetheless.

You really haven't done your homework on this subject, the beaver's extinctions was one of periodic rapidity which, rather unsurprisingly, coincided with human action, and 'fashions' in the latter stages; please cite any credible paper claiming otherwise, I've just done a quick search and nothing has come up. You're not being aware of anything beneficial coming form the return of beavers just demonstrates my previous point, there is a lot of data to demonstrate the positive case, and some to support your point of view too; I've read a fair amount of both and come to my conclusion.

Perhaps you just have a plain bias against bringing them back, they'll inconvenience you and / or others and that's an end to it as far as you're concerned, and you are using pseudo-environmental arguments to support your case, such things have been known... your statement about it all going 'tits up' indicates that. Yet, if you do have that - literal - prejudice, where can discussion take us?

Or is the part of your post that I've emboldened the most honest bit, the 'crux', and is it all really down to cash in this matter? If so, you've no need to worry, if money is the real issue, you and others can be bought off. As I wrote earlier, once sub's have gone there will be more cash around for good causes. Problem solved.

I find that a rather poor retort. Attempting to find fault with me and the way I've framed the argument rather than the argument itself.

I am not 'from the left'. I am an old school pragmatic liberal who is rather tired of neo-liberal gesture politics/virtue signalling, especially when it involves them writing cheques that others have to cash.

I have done very little reading on the introduction of Beavers and only posted to make the very simple points;

1) It should be a fact based decision [emotion/ morals are not relevant]

2) To decide to introduce a species there needs to be a very good chance of positive outcomes given the costs and risks of the unnecessary action having serious and unpredictable repercussions.


I am offended and object strongly to the suggestion that I'm interested in cash and can be 'bought off'. You have merely highlighted the motive of many involved in such schemes with "As I wrote earlier, once sub's have gone there will be more cash around for good causes".
The costs I refer to are for society, habitats and native species that have evolved with centuries of absence.

You accuse me of bias while I've never explicitly stated that I oppose introducing Beavers.
Given the countless examples of ecological and environmental disasters from introducing fresh species in to an ecosystem, it would be foolhardy to not think the bar should be set quite high for it to be considered.

 

[ollie989898]

It is extremely foolish to deliberately block or impede a river, or to allow it to happen through mismanagement. Such a move undoubtedly has dire long-term consequences for the area that becomes flooded by it, and from the downstream area which will in turn accept a slower rate of flow from what must be stagnant and horrible.

Historical records are full of examples where humans meddled with nature in ways that had profoundly deleterious and far-ranging effects that may not have been initially anticipated.

The introduction of a long-lost species into any habitat should be prohibited by law. We have enough issues to contend with that arise from the existence of non-indigenous species as it is. The British countryside is comprised of many delicate habitats many of which are already having to contest with mankind's activities and it should not be a place where experimentation is carried out. People supporting such ideas must be mental. This is not North America, where there are thousands of uninhabited wilderness but the British Isle where many millions of people live and the environment will have to cope with many more in the coming decades as well.

 

[GeorgeC1]

It is extremely foolish to deliberately block or impede a river, or to allow it to happen through mismanagement. Such a move undoubtedly has dire long-term consequences for the area that becomes flooded by it, and from the downstream area which will in turn accept a slower rate of flow from what must be stagnant and horrible.

Historical records are full of examples where humans meddled with nature in ways that had profoundly deleterious and far-ranging effects that may not have been initially anticipated.

The introduction of a long-lost species into any habitat should be prohibited by law. We have enough issues to contend with that arise from the existence of non-indigenous species as it is. The British countryside is comprised of many delicate habitats many of which are already having to contest with mankind's activities and it should not be a place where experimentation is carried out. People supporting such ideas must be mental. This is not North America, where there are thousands of uninhabited wilderness but the British Isle where many millions of people live and the environment will have to cope with many more in the coming decades as well.

It's working well in scotland

 

[melted welly]

It's working well in scotland

These ones?

Beaver deceivers will tackle dams on loch

Flow devices known as “beaver deceivers” are to be installed in a Scottish loch in a battle of wits with the animals.Beavers have been determined to dam outflows from the Loch of Kinnordy in Angus, preventing water from escaping via burns and causing flooding over surrounding farmland and paths. Ef

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[Muddyroads]

I haven’t had chance to read all of the thread, but though this might be of interest. Took a stroll down the Otter this evening south of Otterton and spotted this one. Bigger than I expected and at 6.30 PM didn’t seem at all bothered about walkers, dogs etc. It spent a while eating Himalayan Balsam which will please some.
It was noticeable how many small trees on the footpath side of the river had been gnawed, 3-4’ above the water level.

For info, I built a beaver deceiver upstream of Otterton on Bicton College ground a few years ago when they were first being monitored. It seemed quite effective, but not cheap if you have to do a lot of them.

 

[Bury the Trash]

I haven’t had chance to read all of the thread, but though this might be of interest. Took a stroll down the Otter this evening south of Otterton and spotted this one. Bigger than I expected and at 6.30 PM didn’t seem at all bothered about walkers, dogs etc. It spent a while eating Himalayan Balsam which will please some.
It was noticeable how many small trees on the footpath side of the river had been gnawed, 3-4’ above the water level.

View attachment 900777

For info, I built a beaver deceiver upstream of Otterton on Bicton College ground a few years ago when they were first being monitored. It seemed quite effective, but not cheap if you have to do a lot of them.

The things you see when you dont have yer gun


but Seriously tho, what actually is a beaver deceiver?