WI DNR being sued for beaver management

https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-dnr-lawsuit-against-beaver-management-superior-bio-conservancy

They say they don't want to outlaw trapping (which I'm sure is a lie) but that they want the DNR to use intelligent beaver management practices. I wonder what alternatives there are? Maybe sitting down with the beavers over some avocado toast and asking them nicely not to dam rivers and streams near roads and crops.

That should do it. lol

Don't laugh, Maryland has hosted the national BEAVERCON the last few years,and beavers have a friend in high places here.

I have mixed feelings about this one. On one hand, I normally do not support an anti's effort to curtail removal of nuisance animals, but the WI DNR/USDA policy of removing every beaver from an entire trout stream and its tributaries has always troubled me. I have seen the benefits of beaver dams on some small trout streams during low water times. Beaver dams are excellent habitat for a variety of species. It might be a good time for WI DNR to re-evaluate their beaver program.

I was just reading that article and came here to share

I disagree, beaver may benefit trout on small streams for the short term, but over the long term they will destroy the water quality, shade integrity and thus the brook trout. The once thriving brook trout habitat on tributaries of NY’s , Salmon River and East Branch of Fish Creek here on the Tug Hill Plateau support my statement.

They aren’t up early enough in the morning to know what happens to them. They probably think the coyotes and bobcats that they brought here are getting them.

Keep them where they have little affect on people and the food supply. We don’t need fields to be water front property. Which is what happens when those dams kill the trees and natural foliage between the fields and small tributaries.

Another slanted article from NPR and Wisconsin Public Radio.

Alligators are the solution. Breed a cold tolerant alligator.

30 years ago, we had lots of beaver and nutria and a few alligators. Now we have a LOT of alligators and almost no beaver or nutria

I agree…they don’t need to be eradicated, just managed. But you can bet that the anti group won’t be happy even with a legit management plan.

The part that gets me the most is USDA setting for traveling beaver during dispersal. This shows their intent is elimination and not targeting specific damage locations. Why not let them disperse and trap the newly established colonies that are in true damage prone areas like roadways, ATV trails, etc.

What makes a trout trump a beaver?

The wealthy trout fishermen.
I'm not sure on the monetary amount but I heard Trout Unlimited donates big bucks to The WDNR to keep trout streams beaver free.
Yes the USDA kills a lot of Incidental otter while killing beaver but they aren't going to waste. They are turned Into the DNR and In turn are put up by trappers and sold and the money goes Into Trapper Ed. I'm sure they all don't make It to our skinning knives but most do.
I know that the beaver are saved minus the castor and put up for bids. I'm betting most beaver don't make It to the road.

Why not catch the travelers if they're traveling from (or to for that matter) a trouble area? The only reason not to would be job security. If river section A is the problem and dispersing beaver go to river sections B and C, once established there their offspring will disperse to Section A if it's good habitat. Catch the dispersing beavers and you've prolonged the next nuisance call.

$$$$$$$$$$$$

The only reason to trap travellers leaving a problem area would be eradicate them. If the goal is so that they never move back into the area total eradication would work. I am not in favor of it, but it looks like that is the goal.

By only targeting the dispersal beaver your not dealing with the established colony. You can't eliminate the beaver that way. Only keep them In check.

Once again the Libturd Idiots just want to screw things up.

Beav, what I have seen is they are not only trapping the established colony, they are trapping the dispersal route also.

Is the USDA just targeting beaver problems on trout streams on public land?
We have a decent public land trout stream just south of me. We take a few beaver off It every year. This last spring It was dammed up and the DNR sent In the back hoe crew to remove It. But as far as I know no USDA trappers were trapping It and we took 7 beaver off It. The established colony Is about a mile or so up stream. We never trap that colony we are farming those beaver. Do you think the USDA might also be farming beaver on some of these streams.

For the record, I strenuously opposed the creation of the current program in northern meetings. We had a superb beaver population across the north and DNR management at the time was by permitting local beaver trappers to remove problem beaver under contract(at that time 25.00 per adult animal removed). The progam targeted mainly beaver blocking class 1 trout streams and was quite small with few animals killed. Fisheries was not satisfied with the program and our old buddy Olson was deeply involved and orally combatted with me in Northern hearings. This entire charade was just another DNR ploy as the decision to bring in the feds was already determined. The feds participated in the meetings and were very careful in describing the limitations of their proposed program BUT they do exactly as they are told by DNR and the DNR feedback for what, 35 years ?, has been continuously to kill more beaver. The best of the fed beaver guys may be the best beaver killers ever. I knpw several who have killed over 10.000 beaver between their seasonal APHIS jobs and their private winter trapping. If they set for your beaver it is dead.

cohunt - That was in Wisconsin?

I’ve always wondered about the very odd juxtaposition of maintaining trout populations by reducing or eliminating beaver? Did this part of the country only have beaver in the past? That doesn’t seem to be the case. Rather, I think it is another simplification that is easiest to implement. We would hate to have a more nuanced approach that considered more than one factor, the presence of trout, as a determinant of management activities.

I could say a lot here but it is not good for my health. I bucked heads with WS, the head lady of Nicolette National Forest and Olson far too many times. Even caught Olson fudging the results of their survey to get the outcome he wanted to pass more restrictions on the free trappers and give WS CartBlanche before he retired.

It’s about time WS gets nocked down a notch or two or three or more. Hope this lawsuit goes forward enough to get discovery of the actual $$$$$ WS received to do this because it is way more than what is said by WDNR.

As usual the point is not understood, it’s about water quality not about which species trumps the other. Feel free to drink water from a beaver pond if you like.

We'll want to keep an eye on this study. Looks like the timeline is up. Conclusions?

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/Research/Trout.pdf

Study was completed June of last year.

Nathan Robert’s is no longer the WDNR fur bearer biologist and no longer works for the WDNR. Too bad because he was someone I trusted a lot!

Results published?

Stupid thinking that beaver harm trout,lol.
One of the best brook trout rivers in the world,the Onakawana has lots of beaver,same with all the tributaries of the North French which is as good brook trout fishing as the Onakawana if not better.
Same in the far north.people fly in way up north to the Sutton to fish brook trout,and there is lots of beaver way up there too.
Brook trout actually benefit greatly from beavers as the small trout which are in schools and are voracious hang out in the old feed bed debris in the beaver ponds where there are tons of bugs and good cover from predators.
There are so many brook trout that even the smallest railroad ditches have brook trout in them.

Very little is better for an ecosystem than beaver dams. I’m not drinking water out of a trout stream either And it is about what species trumps another It’s trout and angling dollars and let’s face it lot more trout fishermen than people who care about trapping beaver. There is no argument than beaver dams are great for wildlife.

Beaver need to be managed, no question. My question is why is that management effort not being offered to Wisconsin trappers first rather than the Fed WS?

Unbelievable that any fur trapper would accept or support the elimination and waste of a target specie.

I have not seen any fur trapper supporting elimination of any species in this thread. I don't understand your statement.

When I pull this up, it looks like it runs until 2026. Did something change or was it always planning on going until the 2026? https://widnr.widen.net/s/bkhcxffq5n/beaver_trout_influences

I think I will see if I can get an update at the WCC Furbearer Advisory Meeting.

You trappers down there need to take ownership of the management of your fur resource.
Looks like a good opportunity to move forward.
How good is your State trapping association's working relationship with the beurocrats,and do you have good friends in gov't you can use as a hammer to help move the beurocrats along when necessary?

[/quote] Very little is better for an ecosystem than beaver dams. I’m not drinking water out of a trout stream either And it is about what species trumps another It’s trout and angling dollars and let’s face it lot more trout fishermen than people who care about trapping beaver. There is no argument than beaver dams are great for wildlife.
[/quote]

There is an argument that beaver are and can be detrimental to the ecosystem. It is not settled science, saying so equates to the same closed mindset as climate change fanatics.

I reached out to the person listed on that link I provided. He sent me to this link for some info on what they were seeing so far (page 113).

https://wildtroutsymposium.com/Proceedings_13.pdf

Every year it seems like every license you need goes up.

Don't know the research evidence the DNR/USFW will bring forth or use to defend or support their activities. The fact that beaver and native brook trout existed together before settlement shows that the species can live together. What limits beaver dams or control structures put on the trout resources is science that has a lot of variance and time lines.

Bryce

Anybody look at the link I posted with some of the updates. Any thoughts?

I found it interesting that when they removed beaver control, not all of them had beaver quickly take up residency. "As of 2022, beavers are present and have built dams on 12 of the 24 study streams designated for recolonization by removing beaver control."

By removing braver control, do they just mean beaver control done by the feds? Or did they make some areas off limits to us little guys?

Aside the beaver improving trout streams would someone /anyone tell me how beaver reduce green house gases as stated in the article? Guess I musta missed that beaver did that before graduating HS in 66.

because someone at the University of Helsinki said so.

don't be a science denier...lol