Beavers

[fisher39]

Has anyone come across any information about the current beaver population levels compared to pre-Columbus levels? Their current number seems ridiculous, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more now than then.

Also, does anyone know if an overpopulation of beavers, on balance, would be harmful to the environment? It's obvious that they are bad for roads, trails and trout in the immediate vicinity, but they also make a lot of new habitat, such as ponds, then openings (beaver meadows), which, in the latter case, are growing increasingly scare in the Adirondacks as logging declines. My guess is that on balance beavers increase the overall quality of habitat and diversity of species, no matter how many there are. In contrast, an overpopulation of deer definitely harms a lot of species because they eliminate the underbrush.

[chairrock]

From what I remember from the DEC Trapper Safety Course the population is at a all time high.Mostly because of the low price of pelts.You are right on with the harm and benefits , I guess it's what makes the most difference to you where you are at the time.I've had washed out roads to deal with, but I've enjoyed the ponds too..BTW, NY State ranks near the top of wild fur producers.

[redhawk]

The beavers in the Adirondacks were almost exterminated in the Adirondacks in the mid 20th Century. Not only for pelts, but because they were considered a nuisance with their dam building

Finally, someone with a little sense realized that the eco system that existed in the Adirondacks was very dependent on the beaver and steps were taken to let the populations return to what they should be.

It is possible that now the population is larger then ever, not only because of less trapping, but because most of their prey has been obliterated.

[pondhopper]

Beavers have the possibilty for damming up small, "trout spawning creeks" and disrupting the natural trout spawning locations...I know of one creek that didn't have trout in it for over 20 years, due to beavers plugging up its extreme headwater, where a well buffered spring wells up. But, the dams eroded approx. 5 years ago and trout have returned in growing numbers..

I have an unscientific theory that the booming population has dispersed into historically, "untouched" smaller tribs, due to lack of old growth forest from logging/fires and the beavers may loathe chewing through 2-4 ft trees, but they really like the "smaller, juicier" stuff.
Anyhow, the second paragraph is opinion.

[fisher39]

I'm sure the trout population in my territory is lower than it otherwise would be because of the beavers, but there are still plenty to be caught - it is not like anyone is afraid that the trout will disappear or won't quickly return after the beavers move on. The one thing I'm kind of sore about is that the beavers drowned the only stand of Grass Pinks we knew of in the area.

[dmartenvt]

I'm with Redhawk on this one -- everything I've read says that their population level seriously declined due to trapping as far back as the 1600 or 1700's. Efforts to re-introduce the population were successful. I think it is hard to know what a "natural" population for the Adirondacks is because of trapping and re-introduction, protection (till sometime in the 1900s), and re-instituting trapping, the change to the environment due to logging and later re-growth of the forests, and the fact that their main predators (wolves, mountain lions) have been eradicated.

If trapping is on the decline, and the forests are re-growing, it would be very likely that their population would and probably is growing too fast due to lack of predation.

[pondhopper]

Just to clarify: I agree with the "lack of predation", but wanted to add that new growth shoots are preferable to old growth. And I've seen where bear & "coyotes" waited to ambush beaver @ their "food slides/runways".

Also, there are rare instances, where native/heritage trout were dependant on one small (as short as 30 feet) spawning creek, which feeds a pond/lake and beaver, in conjuction with acid rain have contributed to the trout's demise. (or, so I've been told)

[chairrock]

One way to lower the beaver population, and hopefully raise the trout numbers,is to go out and buy your wife/girl friend a nice full length sheared beaver coat.That would serve many additional purposes, including supporting the rural economy, the fur industry, and your romantic life.

[redhawk]

One way to lower the beaver population, and hopefully raise the trout numbers,is to go out and buy your wife/girl friend a nice full length sheared beaver coat.That would serve many additional purposes, including supporting the rural economy, the fur industry, and your romantic life.

Ok so then what do we do about lowering the human population? That's the biggest problem that we are facing.

Coal fired energy producing sources in the midwest which cause acid rain which is killing fish and wildlife in the Adirondacks is increasing as the demand grows due to exploding populations.

Development is encroaching more and more into wilderness areas leading to the destruction and polluting of fishing streams and wildlife habitat.

Any ideas about that? I mean, lets tackle the major causes of the loss of fish. I'm quite sure that in the big picture, beavers are the least of the problems.

I also believe that in many cases, beaver activity actually helped in the creation of what eventually became fish streams. Can't say the same thing for development or energy production, can we?

[fisher39]

One way to lower the beaver population, and hopefully raise the trout numbers,is to go out and buy your wife/girl friend a nice full length sheared beaver coat.That would serve many additional purposes, including supporting the rural economy, the fur industry, and your romantic life.

Fur coats are for grandmothers and Russian ladies in Brighton Beach. I would get one of these, however, if they weren't so damn expensive: http://www.adirondackblankets.com/abb/index.php.

I'm kind of surprised that you don't hear more economically based arguments for trapping, as it was once a great supplemental source of income for some people in the Adirondacks. I don't think fur is ever coming back the way it was (for good reasons, I'll say), but I think if a group of Adirondack trappers formed a co-op type thing and did some clever marketing, they could make a killing selling blankets and pelts to the tourists during the summer, especially when it comes to beavers. Everyone sees that they are plentiful, and if you explain how they are trapped (drowned with conibear traps, not hanging out in a foot-hold trap for a day), you could address many of the public's concerns. Doing it this way, as opposed to selling it a dealer who sells it a manufacturer, would be analogous to a vegetable farmer selling his produce at a farmers market instead of to a wholesaler. People love locally produced stuff with a story, and I don't think fur would be an exception.

[fisher39]

Ok so then what do we do about lowering the human population? That's the biggest problem that we are facing.

Coal fired energy producing sources in the midwest which cause acid rain which is killing fish and wildlife in the Adirondacks is increasing as the demand grows due to exploding populations.

Development is encroaching more and more into wilderness areas leading to the destruction and polluting of fishing streams and wildlife habitat.

Any ideas about that? I mean, lets tackle the major causes of the loss of fish. I'm quite sure that in the big picture, beavers are the least of the problems.

I also believe that in many cases, beaver activity actually helped in the creation of what eventually became fish streams. Can't say the same thing for development or energy production, can we?

Senior Resident Curmudgeon,

People across the country did a hell of a lot on Tuesday!!!

And I think you know that the issues you cite, while being the most serious ones are NOT things that an individual can address, and even every other state attorney general in the East threatening a lawsuit isn't enough. If someone wanted to increase the trout population in a specific area, taking care of the beavers would be an easy and effective thing to do. Personally, I'll take fewer trout for the habitat for other animals beavers create, but that's just me.

[chairrock]

Concerning the mechanics of trapping, the conibear trap , while usually set under water, does not drown the beaver,it breaks the beavers back or
suffocates by compressing its chest.All of the beavers I have trapped using conibears had died very quickly. Foothold traps, also set under water, are set with a" drowning "cable that forces the beaver to swim to the bottom and suffocate.Beavers can't drown because of their mouth/throat anatomy.Either way the beaver is a renewable resource that should be managed to benefit wildlife,landowners, timber owners,trappers and consumers.

[chairrock]

Fisher39,
The Landries,who make those blankets, trap our lease near Long Lake, very nice guys.

[redhawk]

Senior Resident Curmudgeon,

People across the country did a hell of a lot on Tuesday!!!

And I think you know that the issues you cite, while being the most serious ones are NOT things that an individual can address, and even every other state attorney general in the East threatening a lawsuit isn't enough. If someone wanted to increase the trout population in a specific area, taking care of the beavers would be an easy and effective thing to do. Personally, I'll take fewer trout for the habitat for other animals beavers create, but that's just me.

The point I was trying to make was that it always seems "easy" to find a way to "cull", or "remove", or "manage" wildlife when it inconveniences humans, yet humans won't inconvenience themselves or take the hard steps necessary to alleviate problems.

Instead or trapping or hunting an animal to manage it, we should think more about what we do when we kill off the predators or other things that nature uses to manage it's populations and keep the balance.

As far as what was accomplished this week, I am more inclined to think that now at least the two sides will deadlock each other and thus cause no damage rather then think the shift in power will actually lead to anything constructive.

I don't have a lot of confidence in either side. When there is an "ideology" behind power, then it can never be objective and in the best interest of everyone.

We need more pragmatists and less idealists.

[Hobbitling]

I'm with redhawk on this. beavers arent the reason for fewer trout. the trout did just fine before europeans got here, despite lots of beavers. As far as historical beaver populations, they were actually exterminated in the adirondacks before the turn of the century, and had to be reintroduced in 1907. then those almost didnt make it, and reached a low in the 30's I think, before rebounding along with the rest of the forest. it was one of the first reintroduction projects, and they learned a lot, mostly about what not to do when reintroducing a species.
As far as beavers preferring smaller trees, I think that the same areas get used again and again by beavers. when a beaver builds a dam, it floods and kills the large trees. when it eventually runs out of small trees, it abandons the site, and the pond drains, leaving an open meadow which can be eventually be recolonized by small trees, providing good dam materials for the next beaver. they create their own habitat. when we disrupt that, the forest matures beyond the stage where beavers can live. old growth forest is great for some animals, even some rare animals. but lots of animals prefer younger forests. "middle aged" forests actually have greater diversity than old growth. and "patchy" forests with a mixture of ages have even more species. a certain level of natural disturbance is necessary.