Beavers - benefits for your rivers and streams

Laxdale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
501
Location
Western Isles, Scotland
400 odd pairs of eagles in Scotland is not a huge number per square mile. Anyone who advocates killing them requires a long holiday courtesy of HM.
Maybe those that kill them should go to jail?
The jail would be a busy place if those that see dead eagles as a solution to the problem were stuck in jail for expressing an opinion! Not even Hamsa Useless would consider doing that!
 

Laxdale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
501
Location
Western Isles, Scotland
Sounds like a lot to me, a pair of sea eagles have a pretty vast territory, everyone seems to like them but sea eagles are lethal if food gets lean and a newborn lamb catches their eye its as good as dead, no one wants to cull eagles but I think if you could wind the clock back most living with them would rethink their reintroduction, also they must impact on golden eagles.
Three years ago the RSPB estimated 24 pairs of sea eagles plus over 60 pairs of golden eagles on Lewis and Harris, plus the juveniles. That is a lot. SNH estimate 50% of the juveniles die per anum.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
38,679
Three years ago the RSPB estimated 24 pairs of sea eagles plus over 60 pairs of golden eagles on Lewis and Harris, plus the juveniles. That is a lot. SNH estimate 50% of the juveniles die per anum.
I don't much care if they eat grouse and don't approve of poisoning them on the fly but there needs to be an opportunity for locals to deal with things that interfere with their livelihood, the geese on Islay was another.
 

stonepark

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
842
Location
Stirlingshire
Sounds like a lot to me, a pair of sea eagles have a pretty vast territory, everyone seems to like them but sea eagles are lethal if food gets lean and a newborn lamb catches their eye its as good as dead, no one wants to cull eagles but I think if you could wind the clock back most living with them would rethink their reintroduction, also they must impact on golden eagles.
Golden eagles and sea eagles operate in slightly different niches but the niches do overlap and they are competitors. Resestablishing eagle owls (and they do prey in eagles, buzzards, etc at nesting time) would help but rspb is against because of this, not liking the fact that nature is red in tooth and claw.

With regards new born lambs, farmers have removed all natural cover to maximise grazing area and therefore sheep and lambs have no where to hide, let some cover grow back and losses will not occur to same extent as no wild animal gives birth in a bowling green (which is what most modern fields are) where everything can see it but in long vegetation and in wooded areas where predators cannot see them.
 

glueman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
2,915
Location
on the banks of the A5
Are we refering to sea eagles or golden eagles. 400 or so golden eagles in Scotland divide that in area not that many. Man seems to think he owns the planet he doesn't
 

speytime

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
6,400
Location
West Lothian Scotland
No it's not a lot but if it was coming out of your pocket you'd have a very different view.
I've no time for it doesn't bother me attitude, I've never seen a beaver for example, there not a problem to me whatsoever, but I'm not the selfish sort that thinks oh it doesn't bother me, it's bothering someone that's enough, that someone should have the right to shoot absolutely anything (bar humans) that interferes with there livelihood.
Are we refering to sea eagles or golden eagles. 400 or so golden eagles in Scotland divide that in area not that many. Man seems to think he owns the planet he doesn't
 

glueman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
2,915
Location
on the banks of the A5
No it's not a lot but if it was coming out of your pocket you'd have a very different view.
I've no time for it doesn't bother me attitude, I've never seen a beaver for example, there not a problem to me whatsoever, but I'm not the selfish sort that thinks oh it doesn't bother me, it's bothering someone that's enough, that someone should have the right to shoot absolutely anything (bar humans) that interferes with there livelihood.
I used to belong to a shoot and a doctor asked an outfitter who was a member if you could shoot a man,answer if the price it right anything is possible
 

sewinbasher

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
11,660
Location
North East Wales
The Tayside beavers were released illegally by ***** Estate.
The Knapdale trial was pointless as there were no salmonid fisheries or people in the area to piss off.
In fairness to SNH, they have been very good at issuing licences to get rid of the giant rodents. The current tack by the rewilding/beaver loving bampots is to try and get killing stopped and get the beavers relocated instead, whilst ignoring all the problems that would bring.
I was deerstalking in Perthshire in 2015 and was taken up the Isla valley to see acres of woodland almost clear felled by the illegally introduced beavers. Apart from the outright deceit involved my main objection is that beavers spend their time building barriers to migration for threatened migratory fish.
 

thetrouttickler

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
2,149
Location
West Sussex
I used to belong to a shoot and a doctor asked an outfitter who was a member if you could shoot a man,answer if the price it right anything is possible
Sounds like you might have watched too many Jean-Claude van Damme movies. That's the storyline of "Hard Target".
 

speytime

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
6,400
Location
West Lothian Scotland
Is it possible for beavers to dam a stream to the point of stopping migratory fish?
There always going to be the same amount running out as in?
If they could I'm picturing a weir/spillway more than a dam.

Al
 

sewinbasher

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
11,660
Location
North East Wales
As beavers were in the UK for 100 of years why have we still got migratory fish as they should have died out centuries ago
×
It's patently obvious but clearly needs saying that there were many many more migratory fish when native beavers were last extant! Many of them will have spawned in the main streams away from beaver dams but in many rivers this is no longer an option. Millions have been spent in England & Wales tearing down man made barriers to open up spawning areas but the same agencies are apparently happy for beavers to block them again!
 
Last edited:

Laxdale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
501
Location
Western Isles, Scotland
There are plenty of videos and pictures from the Tay catchment showing beaver dams that have blocked spawning burns. Some of the dams are massive. Even if the dams are passable in a flood, the flood may not come at the right time for spawning fish. Or maybe the only decent spawning gravel on the burn is now under a foot of silt upstream of the dam.
On the main stem and tribs, the problem is beavers burrowing into the banks, which is causing huge problems.
None of the bridges, culverts, etc on the catchment have been built with any thought given to beaver detritus blocking them.
The illegal release has been a disaster.
 

thetrouttickler

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
2,149
Location
West Sussex
When I was in the West (USA) I sometimes encountered beavers and their dams. If you get too close, they slap their tails on the water! How do US migratory fish cope in that environment? (Genuine question)
 

boisker

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
2,615
Location
Devon
×
No it's not a lot but if it was coming out of your pocket you'd have a very different view.
I've no time for it doesn't bother me attitude, I've never seen a beaver for example, there not a problem to me whatsoever, but I'm not the selfish sort that thinks oh it doesn't bother me, it's bothering someone that's enough, that someone should have the right to shoot absolutely anything (bar humans) that interferes with there livelihood.
what you are talking about is removing protected species status... so you’d be equally happy for all migratory fish to have no protection?

following that logic through further... if paying for the required slurry containment systems would impact their livelihood (a few lambs in comparison is nothing compared to £200-400k for a new system in a large farming enterprise ) then it is absolutely fine for a landowner to continue to pollute a river and trash the environment?
 

speytime

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
6,400
Location
West Lothian Scotland
×


what you are talking about is removing protected species status... so you’d be equally happy for all migratory fish to have no protection?

following that logic through further... if paying for the required slurry containment systems would impact their livelihood (a few lambs in comparison is nothing compared to £200-400k for a new system in a large farming enterprise ) then it is absolutely fine for a landowner to continue to pollute a river and trash the environment?
How on earth do you arrive at that from what I said?
what I'm talking about is controlling pests that interfere with people's livelihood, wether that's cormorants at your fishery or eagles lifting your lambs you should be able to protect them, slurry is totally different subject.

Laxdale I think it was suggested putting them on a general licence that way where there's no conflict they'll do fine, I think that would be a sensible approach to control.

Al
 
Top