• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

This will help flooding........


Yes the Angling Trusts ideological position re beavers has been a real embarrassment to the angling sector, quite a contrast from open-minded position of the science/ research led Salmon and Trout Association.

http://www.salmon-trout.org/pdf/Briefing Paper Beavers Charity.pdf

Beaver Baiters | George Monbiot

https://anewnatureblog.wordpress.co...s-to-be-shot-defra-evicts-beavers-from-otter/
 
Have heard and read so many claims that Beavers would be a environmental plus, but I fail to understand just where they would thrive. Pre man this country was covered in trees, deforestation came
and the Beaver was wiped out. Typically we are again treated to so called experts who advocate reintroducing species the the habitat cannot support.
I would think the latest exposé that our rivers are not as clean as we were lead to believe, would concentrate minds on getting the house in order first.
 
Have heard and read so many claims that Beavers would be a environmental plus, but I fail to understand just where they would thrive. Pre man this country was covered in trees, deforestation came
and the Beaver was wiped out. Typically we are again treated to so called experts who advocate reintroducing species the the habitat cannot support.
I would think the latest exposé that our rivers are not as clean as we were lead to believe, would concentrate minds on getting the house in order first.

As far as I can see Neil, nobody, including the "so called experts" as you describe them, are calling for a mass reintroduction program, moreover the right to carry about controlled trials were the full environmental impacts can be monitored and quantified.

Given that much of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence in Europe suggests that beavers are a 'keystone' species which can provide significant benefits to the riverine environment, don't you think it's a little strange the Angling Trust doesn't want to even engage in the trial process? It's a very odd position to adopt when there is so much hard scientific evidence to suggest that Beavers 'may' well be part of the solution?

How do we know that the habitat cannot support them? The only way we will ever know is through controlled trials, which of course need to include a suitable exit strategy.

Shouldn't the Angling Trust be at the heart of these trials, playing a central role in the monitoring and evaluation, rather than just sniping from the sidelines and adopting a "it won't work because we say it won't work" closed mind mentality.

Beavers weren't wiped out because of deforestation by the way, they were hunted to extinction because of their prized fur.

Beaver reintroduction isn't something we should be jumping into blindly, clearly that would be incredibly naive and irresponsible. But given what we do know about some of benefits that they provide, then surely it would be equally naive and irresponsible to not undertake controlled trials?
 
I don't understand how dams ( beaver made or not) on a river will stop flooding, when a river is dammed doesn't it flood behind it?
 
As far as I can see Neil, nobody, including the "so called experts" as you describe them, are calling for a mass reintroduction program, moreover the right to carry about controlled trials were the full environmental impacts can be monitored and quantified.

Given that much of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence in Europe suggests that beavers are a 'keystone' species which can provide significant benefits to the riverine environment, don't you think it's a little strange the Angling Trust doesn't want to even engage in the trial process? It's a very odd position to adopt when there is so much hard scientific evidence to suggest that Beavers 'may' well be part of the solution?

How do we know that the habitat cannot support them? The only way we will ever know is through controlled trials, which of course need to include a suitable exit strategy.

Shouldn't the Angling Trust be at the heart of these trials, playing a central role in the monitoring and evaluation, rather than just sniping from the sidelines and adopting a "it won't work because we say it won't work" closed mind mentality.

Beavers weren't wiped out because of deforestation by the way, they were hunted to extinction because of their prized fur.

Beaver reintroduction isn't something we should be jumping into blindly, clearly that would be incredibly naive and irresponsible. But given what we do know about some of benefits that they provide, then surely it would be equally naive and irresponsible to not undertake controlled trials?
Not sure we have the environment at all that could support the Beaver in the wild. Remember when Beaver were plenty the British Isles had I believe something like 70% forestation , at least.
The same experts were responsible in givig the green light to the Otter, and I suppose with the acclaim they recieved for such a success has given further impetus.
However as I say I would rather they concentrate on the actual health of the rivers before embarking on such a Panda like high profile general public approving scheme.
 
Not sure we have the environment at all that could support the Beaver in the wild. Remember when Beaver were plenty the British Isles had I believe something like 70% forestation , at least.
The same experts were responsible in givig the green light to the Otter, and I suppose with the acclaim they recieved for such a success has given further impetus.
However as I say I would rather they concentrate on the actual health of the rivers before embarking on such a Panda like high profile general public approving scheme.[/QUOTE]


That'l be the day.
 
As we all know the re introduction of Otters has been less than popular with us anglers, and I don't suppose the fish are overjoyed either, however, the re introduction of beavers, even though supported by the tree hugging green loony faction who pushed for the Otter nonsense, shouldn't be blindly dismissed out of hand, in my opinion.
In the USA Beaver ponds are a major feature on a lot of rivers and very prized they are, providing sanctuary for fry and the fish that take up residence in them are usually larger than in the river generally, a bit like lochs on the Scottish river systems, or a backwater on the Lea I know of and the ponds provide good sport. They tend to be relatively temporary features, degrading over time (many years) and the Beavers eventually move on and make a new lodge and pond elsewhere.
I'm no expert, that's for sure, and my knowledge only comes from reading books by American authors, mainly John Gierach.
The other benefits are well documented in some of the papers linked to in previous posts.
With sensible controls, a lodge springing up on say the lower Itchen fishery or the Wasing estate would not be popular, I think they could be an asset to anglers in the right places.
 
Are we not missing a trick with these otters and beavers? Instead of demanding that something be done about them for ruining our fishing, which lets face it falls on deaf ears to all but ourselves, should we not be demanding that the river environment be improved to help support these creatures thus in turn improving the environment for the fish as well, which should, hopefully, improve stocks?
Considering we get nothing but derision for complaining about otters from most non anglers surely this is a more 'public friendly' alternative that stands a better chance of working?
 
I don't understand how dams ( beaver made or not) on a river will stop flooding, when a river is dammed doesn't it flood behind it?

I don't understand how dams ( beaver made or not) on a river will stop flooding, when a river is dammed doesn't it flood behind it?

That's an interesting point Graham, I do perhaps wonder if 'some' advocates of beaver reintroduction overstate the impact that beavers can have with regard to flood prevention. My understanding is that beavers or rather beaver dams, don't prevent flooding per se, but rather help to to reduce the impact of severe downstream floods by reducing the velocity of flow in the upstream headwaters. By holding water back upstream this evens out peak discharges and reduces pressure of the downstream catchment. In some river systems, beaver dams can create a series of small minor floods in the headwaters, rather than one big, potentially catastrophic one downstream.

However it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that some research suggests that there is also a risk associated with established beaver dams being washed out during very severe spate conditions - this can in some cases exacerbate flooding by releasing a pulse of potentially damaging sediment which has built up behind the dam.

I guess that's why we need extensive trials so we can develop a better understanding of the pro's and con's. All stakeholders need to be involved.
 
It's all a bit bonkers if you ask me, trying to establish beaver populations in a country as populated as ours , where almost every corner of it resided on or least farmed.
It would be great to turn back the clocks to a time when blah, blah, blah, but some just seem to be forgetting the small matter of millions of people!
 
It's all a bit bonkers if you ask me, trying to establish beaver populations in a country as populated as ours , where almost every corner of it resided on or least farmed.
It would be great to turn back the clocks to a time when blah, blah, blah, but some just seem to be forgetting the small matter of millions of people!

Exactly.
 
Back
Top