Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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