GWCT News & Advisory
The photos below were taken in Scotland at the weekend and show a beaver dam before and after heavy rain fell overnight. The top photo shows the dam before the rain fell when it was already full, whilst the bottom photo was taken after the rain and shows water pouring through and over the dam.
Looks like it's back to the drawing board for now. In the meantime, why not read this article from our website: 'Beaver re-introduction plans - Does it really make sense in our countryside?'
 |
| Dam face before rain |
 |
| Dam face after rain |
Of course the point is to slow the water down, not prevent it flowing altogether. In other words, ironically, you have evidenced that beavers could be part of the solution!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. Not enough scientific research has been done and the potential damage to woodland and fish populations is a serious concern. Certainly has been the case in some European countries.
ReplyDeleteThe aspect you raised, without science to back it, was around flood management and, as I pointed out, your argument supported rather than argued against beaver reintroduction. However, like you, let's wait for science aka SWT beaver trial in Knapdale.
ReplyDeleteCan you name the European countries? were their have been negative effects to woodland and fish please. If Beavers effected fish and trees, am sure one or the other would of died out many moons ago. You might want to check all your facts before claiming to have evidence that beavers are not good for the environment. We don't need the science from a badly run Beaver trial in Knapdale, all the science is all ready out there, it's just UK conservation is 20 years behind the rest of Europe.
ReplyDeleteAs has already been said Im not sure what point you are trying to prove here. Beavers slow down the flow of a river not damm it completely. A more valid comparison would be showing that area of water before and after damming. If you really are 'the leading UK charity conducting scientific research' we should be despairing seeing your idea of of scientific research is taking a picture of one damm, in one river, after one night of rainfall which actually proves nothing.
ReplyDeletePlenty of research has been done regarding the effects on forests and fisheries. Define 'damaging' the forest? By felling trees and eating saplings the beavers allow a myriad of other plant species to grow and the scrub it creates produces shelter for birds and mammals. Both in Sweden and Poland it has been found that trout in beaver ponds are on average larger than those found in other parts of the stream.
The point we were trying to make is that serious scientific research needs to be conducted before we leap to conclusions about introducing wild beavers. Potential impacts need to be assessed in order to avoid situations like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7764347/Beavers-responsible-for-Polands-flooding.html
ReplyDeleteThen don't make erroneous, unscientific statements on flood control, especially as you must now admit when what you state evidences counter to the argument you put forward. A science led organisation should appreciate how harmful to facts such off the cuff speculation is to the debate.
ReplyDeleteBeavers have been introduced to over 20 EU countries, The scientific research is there. You only have one bad example of Beavers? Surly this evidence alone must tell you they are good for the environment. All the papers out there point and say how good they are for creating better environments for all kinds of species including fish. Yet this organisation, that has both wildlife and conservation in it's name. Your conservation team and wildlife team should all know this and will have at some point studied this, (Keystone) Yet they seem to be against Beavers. I think you might need to change your ideas of conservation or maybe drop that from your logo. You can spend a lifetime looking for negatives on a species, but when it comes to Beavers you are wasting your time and money. Just take a look at all the best places to go fly fishing and look how many of these countries have Beavers.
ReplyDeleteSome very interesting thoughts, thanks for your contribution.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you want Beavers or why do you fear them?
ReplyDeleteWe were trying to demonstrate that before people rush to clamour for one course of action the impacts need to be assessed through good, sound scientific research.
ReplyDeleteI agree we should not rush in, yet it took over 10 years to get a licences so they could do the beaver trial, so how long do we wait? The research is there, Beavers will make a huge difference to are waterways and all for the better. Yes we will get problems, but like all big mammals in the UK they will be managed and problems can be fixed. They will help reduce flooding, they will change are waterways for the better. It is a keystone species for a reason. In your photo's you are showing water coming over the dam, this is how salmon get over them and get to breeding grounds in some countries, some of these countries have the best fly fishing and stronger fish, as only the strongest fish can reach the breeding grounds, this went on in the Uk before we killed off the Beavers.
ReplyDeleteWe've been contacted by Tayside Beaver Study Group who are keen to hear from any landowners or land managers who have beaver activity on their land. They have a questionnaire they would like to issue and can also undertake site visits. More info here http://gamewildlife.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/have-you-had-any-experience-with-beavers.html
ReplyDeleteIf you read the article to the link you posted GWCT you will of noticed it had nothing to do with Beaver Dams. It only mentioned Beavers burrowing into flood defences. It is my opinion that you are twisting facts to follow your own agenda.
ReplyDeleteI know the article regarding problems in Poland doesn't mention dams. The point I was trying to make was that there is a potentially negative impact regarding the introduction of beavers and this has to be considered when the subject is being proposed.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to get my head around why any organisation to do with wildlife and conservation would be against beavers? I don't understand how you can claim to be a wildlife and conservation trust, when your knowledge of Beavers is so limited. Looking for negatives in a Keystone species, and don't come back saying we need research on this and that. It's all there from all the introductions across Europe. Beavers should of been put back years ago, it's just all the red tape and negativity spread by people like your self, that holds conservation back in the UK,
ReplyDelete