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

som farmer

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
somerset
any action, has a reaction. Beaver introduction, is fine, but only if a 'plan' to deal with the , reaction. To many people, with the best intentions, agree with the re introduction of 'lost' animals to the UK. The first point, is, why were they hunted out, in the first place, and if, reintroduced, what will control them. A headline, that says,' reintroduction of lynx, to control the deer problem' looks sensible, but what if, they don't, and decimate the sheep, the latter, is never in the headline !
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
I'm not against it on principle, I'm against it because they are meddling with nature (and mankind has a horrendous track record of doing this) and trying to recreate something that no longer exists using a process which is not yet fully understood. Releasing what is now an alien species into an ecosystem represents an experiment on a grand scale. It's bad enough with species arriving in places they were not before by accident, much less doing it deliberately because: 'recreate history'.

The British Isle are not a museum. It's a collection of living, breathing, biomes.
No, you're picking and choosing; beaver-rich environments (great phrase) exist in many places and were here too. All of our native hardwoods evolved to cope with them, as did our fish etc., what this all amounts to is a bunch of people who don't want some partial inconvenience - at least be honest about that.

It's quite unusual for me to disagree with anything you post but I find rather a lot wrong with this.
Firstly, I believe we can learn from history but trying 'to make amends' for it is a fallacy, bourne to sooth guilt rather than achieve a positive outcome.
Obviously a new species shouldn't be given a free rein. People that wish to have them should not receive finance for doing so and those that do not want them on their property should not only not incur any cost, but incursion.
It is not an irrational dogma to be against an introduction of a species on principle. This is in fact a rather wise default position given that there must be some good reasons as to why they don't currently exist in that location and the huge difficulty in assessing all of the repercussions that any introduction has.
I don't think anyone objects to what any landowner does on their own property providing it is legal and does not adversely affect anyone else.
I would hope and expect that anyone keeping beavers to be liable for damages/ costs inflicted on anyone else as I am for my livestock.
Nothing wrong in disagreeing with each other!

Making amends is no fallacy, but it is - if you'll forgive the pun in this case - 'natural justice', which one either feels is right, or one doesn't - dependent upon one's moral compass... You're revealing a bit of dogma in your choice of words, I've emboldened the incorrect ones. This is not a 'new species' and it is not being 'introduced', it is the precise opposite of both, it was here for eons until we killed it off, and it is being returned to part of its natural range.

The 'good reasons' why all our beavers were exterminated are very easy to identify: first the desire for agricultural land in fertile valley bottoms; second, the desire for furry hats and cloak trimmings. That's the long and the short of it. (y)

All that aside, as I've made clear in this and other similar discussions, I am in agreement with you in re your last two sentences, so that's a start. Of course people should be responsible for their stock, of any kind, and of course compensation should be paid where due. Bringing back something we have needlessly destroyed is worth it to me, and I'm prepared to see some of my tax money go to that - but, then, I am against subsidies, so can see where any necessary money could come from. :)
 

Bury the Trash

Member
Mixed Farmer
I turned on countryfile a couple of months ago, and they were on a national trust farm where they had blocked a river and let it flood the entire field! Not sure why? Apparently that is better for the environment? Worse for people who want to eat food, but fine if we just want to intensify farming overseas and import everything, maybe even cut down rainforests and clap ourselves on the back for "re wilding" the river meadow. Anyway, I guess beavers do the same to river meadows. I would not be happy if I had good river meadows that became flooded because of beaver dams and the beavers were protected and my fields would halve or more in value.
Yes, that was on the Holnicote Estate , supposed to be fenced around but one day an 'escape ' will be bound to happen i guess, like it did with Mink, although Beaver would be a bigger / easier to spot target i should think :sneaky: .
 
Last edited:

Bury the Trash

Member
Mixed Farmer
Any expert advising planting trees on river banks to stabilise the bank is totally deluded, they only have to come to my garden to see the result of such stupid action 40 years later as those trees fall leaving huge holes in the bank. There are currently 5- 10 very large trees fallen across the river after last winters storms which have not been cleared thanks to CV. These trees, Now 60- 80 foot tall and trunks 4 foot + diameter , the result of a misguided plan to grow cricket bat willow on marshland opposite, have given the EA years of work clearing them .
currently the river, which has been navigable since ancient times, is completely blocked and gone stagnant
As ive written before, my house is heated by mainly Elder coppiced or clear felled ,grown on the river bank, bit of willow not much as like you say its a bit of an problem flopping and growing over and out around with poorer wood for firing. and ) others like Ash and oak as well of course for 'diversity' :rolleyes:
just got to watch the stump and root stock of Elder if it gets too big it will erode the opposite bank so a swing shovel then carefully comes in to play

If its manged correctly its great, environment for fish, trout and minnows mainly ...well here theyve come back in the last few yrs ,decade or so :unsure: actually after disapearing through the late 70's eighties , nineties, so we must being doing something right , trout like steady water not big pounds then nowt, i think im correct in saying, but im no expert :sneaky:
and if it comes down to something like the Bps, having any sort of control on us then well all the river bank area is off the claim anyway, as its fenced to keep livestock out (boundary to neighbour and when water low stock cross ))and measured off .
just ordinary mangement things really, that wouldnt make an intersting countryfile prog, or get a donation from some ecentric cat lover...
 
Last edited:

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
No, you're picking and choosing; beaver-rich environments (great phrase) exist in many places and were here too. All of our native hardwoods evolved to cope with them, as did our fish etc., what this all amounts to is a bunch of people who don't want some partial inconvenience - at least be honest about that.


Nothing wrong in disagreeing with each other!

Making amends is no fallacy, but it is - if you'll forgive the pun in this case - 'natural justice', which one either feels is right, or one doesn't - dependent upon one's moral compass... You're revealing a bit of dogma in your choice of words, I've emboldened the incorrect ones. This is not a 'new species' and it is not being 'introduced', it is the precise opposite of both, it was here for eons until we killed it off, and it is being returned to part of its natural range.

The 'good reasons' why all our beavers were exterminated are very easy to identify: first the desire for agricultural land in fertile valley bottoms; second, the desire for furry hats and cloak trimmings. That's the long and the short of it. (y)

All that aside, as I've made clear in this and other similar discussions, I am in agreement with you in re your last two sentences, so that's a start. Of course people should be responsible for their stock, of any kind, and of course compensation should be paid where due. Bringing back something we have needlessly destroyed is worth it to me, and I'm prepared to see some of my tax money go to that - but, then, I am against subsidies, so can see where any necessary money could come from. :)

I believe you are mistaken if you think it is a issue for one's moral compass. Such a matter would be best considered without regard to emotion. My moral obligation is to the flora and fauna that is present. Residing in the realms of 'Tarka the Otter', I would hate to see their recent success be affected.
The whole new species/re-introduction is worthy of a prolonged healthy debate. In a situation such as this I would consider time to be best measured in generations. Given the numbers of generations of our native species since beavers were last present it would be an introduction of a 'new' species.
This country has certainly not become more suitable for its presence in that time and the ecosystems have evolved in their absence.
Given the difficulty of eradicating a species if you try, I think your explanation of their demise is rather simplistic. It is improbable that the issues they caused then would be less significant now.
I would compare those eager to introduce new species to a young child wanting a puppy for Christmas. They promise to pay for it, to care for it and for the world to be a better place with it's presence. I guess that might happen sometimes.
These things go ahead because of the flawed cost/ benefit analysis. Those who campaign for releases accept all the benefits and leave the costs to everyone else.
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
I believe you are mistaken if you think it is a issue for one's moral compass. Such a matter would be best considered without regard to emotion. My moral obligation is to the flora and fauna that is present. Residing in the realms of 'Tarka the Otter', I would hate to see their recent success be affected.
The whole new species/re-introduction is worthy of a prolonged healthy debate. In a situation such as this I would consider time to be best measured in generations. Given the numbers of generations of our native species since beavers were last present it would be an introduction of a 'new' species.
This country has certainly not become more suitable for its presence in that time and the ecosystems have evolved in their absence.
Given the difficulty of eradicating a species if you try, I think your explanation of their demise is rather simplistic. It is improbable that the issues they caused then would be less significant now.
I would compare those eager to introduce new species to a young child wanting a puppy for Christmas. They promise to pay for it, to care for it and for the world to be a better place with it's presence. I guess that might happen sometimes.
These things go ahead because of the flawed cost/ benefit analysis. Those who campaign for releases accept all the benefits and leave the costs to everyone else.
No. Morality has to be a part of what frames current law and policy, certainly objectivity does too but, other than in a very few situations, such as in the management of emergencies, morality has to be a part as well, or we'll cease to be a society and, instead, end up as some form of drone-like collective.

Of course I agree that we all have a moral obligation to the current flora and fauna - but that's a bit odd coming from someone who just wrote that morality shouldn't be involved in such issues... :unsure: I'd not like to see otters pushed toward extinction again either, but nor would I object their being culled if they became a pest, though I'll admit it would make sad.

Debating for 'generations'? Boll*cks! That's the politicians' get-out, set up an 'enquiry' or even a Royal Commission if you want waste a huge amount of time. (y)

On the subject of 'time', you wrote '...the numbers of generations of our native species since beavers were last present...' generations of what? There are very probably living trees that were around when beavers were too, certainly there will be any number of the generation following them, and still more of that after; but that's not a convenient fact, so I guess you'd rather refer to whirligig beetles or the like, to which I can't write other than that they'll adapt perfectly well to what they were used to before.

The explanation I gave of their anthropogenic extinction - demise infers a slow and, possibly, natural decline - is the correct one, as science currently understands it, please give links to any credible paper that seeks to offer another one. We wanted the valley floors they occupied, and we wanted their skins - idiotic Christian religionists also classed them as 'fish', which meant their meat could be eaten as such, I guess that didn't help either...

Lastly, you wrote '... the issues they caused...'* :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: That's as daft as me shooting you to take your house, moving into your house, and then complaining that I don't like the way your house was decorated, so had to do something about the 'issue'. We moved in, the 'issue' was created by us, it was inconvenient for us, so we changed it. We now - the saner ones amongst us, anyway - don't think we have a 'God-given' right to everything, to despoil and ruin, and that we do have a responsibility, where it is reasonably possible to do so, to rectify past mistakes as far as we can.

That being so, it's just a question of what one thinks is 'reasonable', and then it comes down to government. If a party advocates more beavers and gets voted in, we'll get them and vice versa, i.e. none if that's the way a vote goes. Go against that and you're just another 'activist', i.e. someone who sulks and has tantrums when things don't go their own way - which I don't think you are, yet...






*my underlining
 

Exfarmer

Member
Location
Bury St Edmunds
It has always been a point of law that you should accept water from higher ground. However the wildlife trusts believe they have a god given right to impound and flood land above them with impunity. In this part of the world many small farmers have lost a lot of previously good grazing and arable land due to the activities of these groups. If we protect the beaver and knowing how these people operate , we will see them uickly spread across the country.
we saw similar with the reintroduction of the otter, when a previously rare mammal has rapidly established itself across East Anglia. The effect on fish stocks , waterfowl , water voles and many other species has been devastating.
Beavers have the capability of doing irreparable harm to waterways across the country, and uncontrolled will devastate thousands of acres of low lying land
 

Bury the Trash

Member
Mixed Farmer
images.jpg

Beaver sausage anyone ?

However...there’s some irony behind Belarus-made beaver sausage. Many remember the story of a Belarusian man who was beaten by a beaver to death in 2013.

this video filmed in Russia shows the speed of a Beaver's attack....

:eek:


The man spotted the wild animal near a lake and received a deadly bite as he was trying to film it. The animal pounced on the man and severed a major artery with its sharp teeth.

The injured guy bled to death despite his friends’ desperate attempts to save him.
 

som farmer

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
somerset
at least beavers don't kill/eat livestock/fish. I did watch a documentary on the re-introduction of beavers to the yellowstone national park, in the USA, very interesting, basically. the beavers nibbled away at the aspen and willow, which allowed a greater number of deer, which then allowed a greater number of wolves to live there, and spread out further, which they successfully did, much to the chagrin of the cattle ranchers, who were told, wolves only ate deer, or an occasional cow, if sick. But they did set up a compensation scheme !
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
No. Morality has to be a part of what frames current law and policy, certainly objectivity does too but, other than in a very few situations, such as in the management of emergencies, morality has to be a part as well, or we'll cease to be a society and, instead, end up as some form of drone-like collective.

Of course I agree that we all have a moral obligation to the current flora and fauna - but that's a bit odd coming from someone who just wrote that morality shouldn't be involved in such issues... :unsure: I'd not like to see otters pushed toward extinction again either, but nor would I object their being culled if they became a pest, though I'll admit it would make sad.

Debating for 'generations'? Boll*cks! That's the politicians' get-out, set up an 'enquiry' or even a Royal Commission if you want waste a huge amount of time. (y)

On the subject of 'time', you wrote '...the numbers of generations of our native species since beavers were last present...' generations of what? There are very probably living trees that were around when beavers were too, certainly there will be any number of the generation following them, and still more of that after; but that's not a convenient fact, so I guess you'd rather refer to whirligig beetles or the like, to which I can't write other than that they'll adapt perfectly well to what they were used to before.

The explanation I gave of their anthropogenic extinction - demise infers a slow and, possibly, natural decline - is the correct one, as science currently understands it, please give links to any credible paper that seeks to offer another one. We wanted the valley floors they occupied, and we wanted their skins - idiotic Christian religionists also classed them as 'fish', which meant their meat could be eaten as such, I guess that didn't help either...

Lastly, you wrote '... the issues they caused...'* :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: That's as daft as me shooting you to take your house, moving into your house, and then complaining that I don't like the way your house was decorated, so had to do something about the 'issue'. We moved in, the 'issue' was created by us, it was inconvenient for us, so we changed it. We now - the saner ones amongst us, anyway - don't think we have a 'God-given' right to everything, to despoil and ruin, and that we do have a responsibility, where it is reasonably possible to do so, to rectify past mistakes as far as we can.

That being so, it's just a question of what one thinks is 'reasonable', and then it comes down to government. If a party advocates more beavers and gets voted in, we'll get them and vice versa, i.e. none if that's the way a vote goes. Go against that and you're just another 'activist', i.e. someone who sulks and has tantrums when things don't go their own way - which I don't think you are, yet...






*my underlining

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.
 
talking about "experts", we have a bare hedge bank between myself and my neighbor, I wanted to apply for Glastir small works to plant a hedge, however that option is not available on that field parcel, as, NRW (Natural Resources Wales) have deemed it a red squirrel habitat area, and I guess that somehow they like to live on bare grassland, but dislike hedges and trees! I emailed RPW (Rural Payment Wales) and they said NRW put it in a red squirrel area therefore that option is not available, emailed NRW, they said due to covid we will get back to you at some point! There may allegedly be red squirrels in the forest, however that is 5 fields away, and I think that is an example of "experts" completing office based desk top evaluations.
It would be like the Scottish Power white collar man that did a desktop survey to ask me for a wayleave through our grass pasture field to a new build next door to us.
He took the nearest route , which curved , , which went past a soakaway a septic tank past the side of a bungalow through 2 drains a tarmac drive and under the mains supply pipe too . Not much mess there then !!
The alternative was a slightly longer route through the builders own plot/grass (but in a perfectly straight line from the transformer you can see to a point where we knew EXACTLY where the cable was ) which amounted to 12 meters of extra armoured and conduit ! But that was £2100 dearer
I took a screenshot off Google maps where I highlighted the two paths and distance . 12 meters extra maximum but hassle free .

I am a big beaver fan
 

7610 super q

Never Forgotten
Honorary Member
View attachment 900017
Beaver sausage anyone ?

However...there’s some irony behind Belarus-made beaver sausage. Many remember the story of a Belarusian man who was beaten by a beaver to death in 2013.

this video filmed in Russia shows the speed of a Beaver's attack....

:eek:


The man spotted the wild animal near a lake and received a deadly bite as he was trying to film it. The animal pounced on the man and severed a major artery with its sharp teeth.

The injured guy bled to death despite his friends’ desperate attempts to save him.
Oh. So beaver kill ramblers. I'm in.(y)
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.1%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 67 35.3%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,294
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top