Download March 2009 Fur Bearer Specialist Con Christianson Beaver vs. Trout

March 2009
Fur Bearer Specialist
Con Christianson
Beaver vs. Trout, an Old and Enduring Controversy
When I first came to work for the DNR in 1968, Wildlife and Fisheries managers were at odds
over the removal of beaver and their dams. Wildlifers cited the value of beaver, both as fur
bearers and as providers of habitat for woodland game animals, including, among others, wood
ducks, mink, muskrat and a host of non-game animals such as shore birds, reptiles and
amphibians and, of course, certain rare plants. Fisheries staff countered that ponded water on
some stream courses becomes heated by the sun and when mixed into the stream flow, raises
average water temperatures enough to become detrimental to trout. It wasn’t that fisheries
managers didn’t like to hunt ducks or trap beaver for fur and it wasn’t that wildlife managers
didn’t like to fish trout. The disagreement arose from the fact that each often had different
management objectives for the same piece of real estate.
Well, about that time, a fellow by the name of Mel Haugstad, a state fisheries manager in Pine
County, started a one-man campaign to remove marginal waters from the official list of
designated trout streams. He did so by single handedly wrestling a fish shocker (and it wasn’t a
lightweight modern unit like you see today) through many of the marginal streams in his work
area. He shortened the list substantially by documenting numbers of stunned fish and then
delisting poorly stocked or fishless stream segments, one at a time. I don’t think most of the
wildlife managers gave him enough credit; maybe because any beaver removal was considered
by them to be a violation of Mother Nature’s glorious scheme. We have to remember that beaver
at that time were a very scarce commodity.
Since Mel’s days in Pine County, fisheries and wildlife folks have come to better understand
each others’ problems and responsibilities and now practice much closer coordination during
planning stages of their respective projects. Mel deserves a lot of the credit for nudging that
improved process along by serving as a good example of independent thinking and for shaking
up the status quo of his day.
This brings us to a recent controversy which is brewing over trout management policies,
including beaver trapping, in some Northern Minnesota trout waters, especially, the Dark River
and its tributaries. At the urging of some of the District One members, Russ Sikkila, District
One Co-Director, and I met with fisheries, wildlife and ecological resources staff in Grand
Rapids on Friday, January 30th. John Hart, biologist with the USDA Wildlife Services Section
(WS), was also there. John is an MTA member and an experienced trapper.
The specific complaint discussed was that WS has been contracted by the Fisheries Section to
remove beaver and beaver dams from the Dark River and its tributaries; in direct competition
with local private trappers and possibly to the detriment of the area’s beaver population. That
the cost of WS’s trapping is borne almost exclusively (Trout Unlimited has contributed at times
in the past) by the Fisheries Section, is another sore spot identified in the complaint.
Our meeting lasted for over an hour and the discussion was very open and direct. Russ and I
were furnished with trapping summaries, internal memos and other reports. John Hart gave us a
copy of a two page letter written to the MTA membership in May of 2006 which clearly reported
his agency’s activities in the state.
We were assured that consideration for local trapping interests is part of the program. There is
evidence for this in an exchange of emails in late January this year. John Hart, in replying to
DNR staff regarding a trapping contract for the Lost River, that the onset of their (WS) trapping
should be delayed enough to allow local trappers to work the area first. He also states that their
work on the Lost River should be done at same time as their work on the Gilmore River
(apparently under a separate contract). He notes that running those trapping efforts at the same
time would save travel costs. Kevin Peterson’s request to WS for trapping on the Lost and
Gilmore Rivers stated that he had already put the word out to local trappers to, “Catch as many
as they can before we begin removal on Lost River” and that “We would like to have them to
have a chance to trap in the spring”.
Wildlife Service’s average annual Dark River beaver catch over the last 10 years comes to 14.
This is a very small percentage of the total catch in the area and when considering that it begins
in late spring and seeks to target the more remote areas, it doesn’t appear to create much
competition with local interests. We must recognize that, “Exceptions may exist to prove that
rule”. Rest assured that contract trapping by WS does not, in any way, preclude private parties
from also trapping anywhere on those streams.
In the past, Fisheries did sometimes pay an incentive to local trappers for working key stretches
of the watershed. This was done on a trust basis with trappers reporting their catch. Today’s
contracting procedures are more stringent than in the past and now make it more difficult for
Fisheries to pay local trappers a subsidy. Nonetheless, it seems like an idea worth exploring. It
seems Fisheries could save money by offering local trappers some kind of incentive in order to
enlist their participation in addition to contracting with WS. A side benefit would be gaining a
more accurate picture of the total number of beaver being removed from key areas. It is unlikely
that Fisheries could rely on local trappers alone to get the results they want, but managers did
state that they would be happy to furnish trappers with any pertinent information gathered during
routine field work.
It seems prudent at this point, to report that MTA has been contacted by a group having a stated
disagreement with Fisheries’ trout management in the Dark River drainage area. This group
cites beaver removal costs as one area of contention. They are seeking to collaborate with MTA
at some point in the near future. This will most likely be discussed at the March Board meeting
in Chisholm. But, since there has been no action by the board at this point, any additional
discussion on the subject in this article would be premature.
Spring is just around the corner folks. Until then, as Red Green says, “Keep your stick on the
ice”.
Con