Reintroduced beavers have brought mixed views to Scotland: While some see them positive due to their impacts to ecosystem, ecosystem services and tourism income, others see them as constraint as they cause income loss in farming, forestry and fishing areas and pose a threat to safety. One population is the source of the official trial in Knapdale on the Argyll peninsula, while the other is the result of unlicensed releases or escapees in the farming intensive River Tay area.
Although both being legalized by the Scottish Government, the two populations are perceived differently: Knapdale is highlighted as successful trial and Tayside-beavers are shot by land managers due to their flooding impacts. Concisely, this goes against the reason of reintroducing animals and hinders them to become – as the goal of rewilding – a beneficial but neutral species. Through stakeholder interviews of 24 opponent organisations including farming, forestry, tourism and nature conservation, an impression of the conflict could be established. The differentiation between the “official” Knapdale-beavers and the “nuisance” Tayside-beavers seemed to delay the process of acceptance. Ideas to solve such conflicts were a) education, to help correct misconceptions of beavers, b) an agreed hierarchical protocol in combination with EPS with the inclusion of mitigation tools, relocation and lethal control, c) a rewarding-scheme similar to the German “Vertragsnaturschutz” and d) a resurrection of an advisory group as mediator and central point for information.
Introduction
Eurasian beavers (Castor fiber) have been extinct in Scotland for 400 years because of overhunting [1] and were emphasised as beneficial for Scottish ecosystems in the 1990s [2]. Now there are two established populations: Firstly, beavers of the well-studied Scottish Beaver Trail by Scottish National Heritage (SNH) in Knapdale, Argyll, that took place from 2009 to 2015 [3,4] and secondly the “unlicensed” beaver population in Tayside [5] resulting from accidental escapes or illegal releases [6]. While Knapdale-beavers are viewed as positive, Tayside-beavers seem to be problem-causers due to their negative impacts. Nogués-Bravo et al. (2016) [7] warned that rewilding could be “the new Pandora’s box in conservation”, referring to the Greek mythological figure Pandora, who opened a box that contained Evil and Hope simultaneously – establishing “Pandora’s Box” as metaphor for a combination of series of benefits and source for unexpected troubles [8]. Here, the “Hope” would be multiple benefits of the so-called “ecosystem engineers” [9] to the environment, ecosystem services and income through tourism. The “Evil” are flooding of farm and forestry land, impacts on fisheries and issues for safety and health.
Literature Review
Reintroduced beavers in Scotland are like Pandora’s box [7] as they bring “Hope” and “Evil” alike: The “Hope” would be multiple benefits of the so-called “ecosystem engineers” [9] like the increased biodiversity in terms of species richness and animal habitats for fauna [10-13] and flore [9,14], improved water quality [15], filtration of pollutants in streams [16], increased wetlands for carbon storage [17,18], flood mitigation and water retention [16,19,20], economic growth due to wildlife tourism [21,22] and environmental justice through the reversing of the animals’ extinction [23-25]. The “Evil” as the beaver-related conflicts would be farming impacts through flooding and erosion from dam building and burrowing into flood banks [26,27]; forestry impacts through dying of flooded or felled trees [27,28], fishery impacts through beaver dams as migration barriers and raising water temperatures [15], infrastructure impacts through dam failure [26,29] as well as health impacts though waterborne diseases [30]. However, an ultimate goal of rewilding would be their view as neither “Hope” nor “Evil” but as neutral [21].
In terms of their legalization, it was announced in November 2016 that “the Scottish Government is minded to allow beavers to remain in Scotland”. The Scottish Government [31] stated in May 2017 that Ministers have agreed that: “Beaver populations in Argyll and Tayside can remain, the species will receive legal protection, in accordance with the EU Habitats Directive, beavers will be allowed to expand their range naturally and beavers should be actively managed to minimise adverse impacts on farmers and other land owners”. The protection being in discussion would be under the European Protected Species (EPS), which protects species under the Annexes II and IV of the European Habitats and Species Directive (EDH) of 1992, where it is illegal to harm these unless licenses are granted. In Bavaria, Germany famrers get rewardedwith premiums for “Pufferflächen für Biber” (engl. Beaver buffer zones) [32], which gives beavers more space to expand naturally and conflict-free [33]. The question for Scotland is, how can beavers “expand their range naturally”, while they are “actively managed to minimise adverse impacts”?. Key focus will be to investigate beaver-related benefits and conflicts in Scotland and to draw a comparison of different views of stakeholders to investigate their views of impacts.
Methods
In this study, in May/June 2018 stakeholders from 24 different beaver-related organisations in Scotland were interviewed and for anonymity numbered and sorted into four groups: F: Forestry, farming and fishing; T: Tourism and education; C: Conservation and protection of nature and N: Niche organisations such as infrastructure, health etc. The transcribed interviews were coded and their content analysed in the program F4 following the guidelines of Mayring (2010) [34]. Aim is to establish a picture of the values of a beaver reintroduction to Scotland. The goal is to investigate both populations in Scotland to determine what could be learned from both reintroductions in terms of a natural spread with minimal conflicts. Focus is to find what possible terms and management options need to be negotiated for a feasible reintroduction of a once-native keystone species. The objectives will be:
to identify knowledge of benefits and beneficial outcomes as well as conflicts and constraints of the beaver reintroductions and how they are perceived by stakeholders,
to identify the perception of beavers between these benefits and conflicts and as well between the two reintroduction sites and how this perception affects beaver management and
to analyse guidance and recommendations relating to a better human-beaver-coexistence.
Results and Discussion
Interviewees identified beavers as „cute“ (N6) or “swimming teddy bears” (T5) and stressed their importance as so-called “ecosystems engineers” (F1,C1,7,T1,2,N2,5) or “keystone species” (F6,C3,5,T4). Likewise, T3,4,5 and C2,3,4 identified beavers as a tool to bring humans in contact with nature and T/C/N-interviewees as instrument for restoration providing ecosystem services. Moreover, interviewees from all groups implied that beavers generate income through tourism as “huge attraction“ (T4,5). However, there is also an alternative perception, particularly the F-group who identified beavers as a “big problem for us” (F5) and as “rogue animal” (F3), that “cause problems for the farming operations” (F4). That “if their activities spread too far into the forest, they maybe become a nuisance” (F2). Beavers, here, were perceived as source for damage (F2,3,4,5,6). F5 specified that “it is fair enough to have them back in certain areas, but not food producing areas. Their time is well done down here.” N6 explained that wildlife should not be seen as “either brilliant species or devil species”. In order to have fewer negative impacts “wildlife needs space, it needs room, but that's the one thing we are so hungry for. […] We have a zero tolerance to wildlife, we don't seem to accept that a small percentage of damage at the edge of the woodland is acceptable” (N3). T-/C-/N-group stated that a system for farmers to get advice is needed, with C5 saying “we used to have an organisation in Scotland called the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group and that got wound up as it was not financially viable. And, I think some sort of land management advice needs to be back in place that people understand both economics and the land stewardship aspects.” Another idea frequently mentioned by the T-/C-/N-group was that land managers could be financially rewarded to let beavers stay through “not farming right up to the edge of the water” (C5), creating “a sort of beaver strip” (C4) and explaining to a farmer that he is “going to be rewarded by how [he] can live with nature” (C6).
Nogués-Bravo et al.’s (2016) [7] view of rewilding being Pandora’s box is accurate, but Halley & Rosell (2002) [21] showed that perception needs to move though a set of stages from positive to negative to neutral. In Scotland, a neutral view seems currently problematic to achieve due to the different history of Knapdale and Tayside-beavers. If through education land managers and the public look past this, beavers can become part of “normal" Scottish wildlife. Tools to help this are:
education, to help correct misconceptions of beaver’s habits and prevent their spread into future generations,
an agreed hierarchical EPS protocol with the inclusion of mitigation, relocation and lethal control,
an establishment or resurrection of an advisory group as mediator and central point for information and
a rewarding-scheme (Fig.3) like the German “Vertragsnaturschutz” [32] instead of compensation
Beavers can “expand their range naturally” and be “actively managed to minimise adverse impacts” [31], but only if we assign wildlife more room, so there is less human-managed space they can “damage”. Research is needed to study the probability of rewarding-schemes to Scotland especially in the merge of Brexit. Also, as land managers are impacted and wanting to remove beavers, it needs to be reviewed under which conditions damage is un-/acceptable. Here, different methods should be communicated to land managers and tested in trials. Beavers have been returned as ecosystem engineer to create healthier ecosystems for nature and humans alike. If returned beavers are shot, how can this repay our moral guilt? We need to cohabitate with beavers rather than removing them as problems-causers or promoting them as source for income. The first step to be taken is to accept beavers as legitimate, neutral wildlife as part of the Scottish landscape.
References
Yalden, D. (2010). The history of British mammals. A&C Black
Macdonald, D. W., Tattersall, F. H., Brown, E. D., & Balharry, D. (1995). Reintroducing the European beaver to Britain: nostalgic meddling or restoring biodiversity?. Mammal Review, 25(4), 161-200;
Moore, B. D., Sim, D., & Iason, G. R. (2011). The Scottish Beaver Trial: Woodland Monitoring 2010;
Goodman, G., Unit, W., & SVS, R. (2014). The Scottish beaver trial: veterinary monitoring of the Knapdale beaver population 2009-2014. Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies Report, University of Edinburgh, UK;
TBSG - Tayside Beaver Study Group (2015). Tayside Beaver Study Group Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.snh.scot/sites/default/files/2017-07/A1608732%20-%20Tayside%20Beaver%20Study%20Group%20Final%20Report%202015%232.pdf (Accessed 07.01.2020);
Campbell, R. D., Harrington, A., Ross, A., & Harrington, L. (2012). Distribution, population assessment and activities of beavers in Tayside. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report, (540)
Nogués-Bravo, D., Simberloff, D., Rahbek, C., & Sanders, N. J. (2016). Rewilding is the new Pandora ’s Box in conservation. Current Biology, 26(3), R87-R91;
Panofsky, D., & Panofsky, E. (1957). Pandora's Box. The Changing Aspects of a Mythical Symbol.Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 16(1):137-138
Rosell, F., Bozser, O., Collen, P., & Parker, H. (2005). Ecological impact of beavers Castor fiber and Castor canadensis and their ability to modify ecosystems. Mammal review, 35(34), 248-276
Parker, H., Haugen, A., Kristensen, Ø., Myrum, E., Kolsing, R., & Rosell, F. (1999). Landscape use and economic value of Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) on large forest in southeast Norway. Conference paper. 1st Euro-American Bever Congress, Aug. 24-28, 1999. Kazan, Russia
Von Siemens, M., Hanfland, S., Binder, W., Herrmann and M., Rehklau (2005).Totholz bringt Leben in Flüsse und Bäche. Bayerisches Landesamt für Wasserwirtschaft, eine Behörde im Geschäftsbereich des Bayerischen Staatsministeriums für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz, München, Germany;
Majerova, M., Neilson, B. T., Schmadel, N. M., Wheaton, J. M., & Snow, C. J. (2015).Impacts of beaver dams on hydrologic and temperature regimes in a mountain stream. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19(8), 3541-3556
Stringer, A.P., Gaywood, M. & Blake, D. (2015). A review of beaver (Castor spp.) impacts on biodiversity, and potential impacts following a reintroduction to Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 815, Affiliation: Scottish Natural Heritage;
Fustec, J., Lodé, T., Le Jacques, D., & Cormier, J. P. (2001). Colonization, riparian habitat selection and home range size in a reintroduced population of European beavers in the Loire. Freshwater Biology, 46(10), 1361-1371;
Collen, P., & Gibson, R. J. (2000).The general ecology of beavers (Castor spp.), as related to their influence on stream ecosystems and riparian habitats, and the subsequent effects on fish–a review. Reviews in fish biology and fisheries, 10(4), 439-461;
Puttock, A., Graham, H. A., Cunliffe, A. M., Elliott, M., & Brazier, R. E. (2017).Eurasian beaver activity increases water storage, attenuates flow and mitigates diffuse pollution from intensively-managed grasslands. Science of the Total Environment, 576, 430-443;
Syphard, A. D., & Garcia, M. W. (2001). Human-and beaver-induced wetland changes in the Chickahominy River watershed from 1953 to 1994. Wetlands, 21(3), 342-353.
Wohl, E. (2013). Landscape-scale carbon storage associated with beaver dams.
Correll, D. L., Jordan, T. E., & Weller, D. E. (2000). Beaver pond biogeochemical effects in the Maryland Coastal Plain. Biogeochemistry, 49(3), 217-239;
Law, A., McLean, F., & Willby, N. J. (2016). Habitat engineering by beaver benefits aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem processes in agricultural streams. Freshwater biology, 61(4), 486-499;
Halley, D. & Rosell, F. (2002). The beaver’s reconquest of Eurasia: status, population development and management of a conservation success. Mammal Review, 32, 153–178;
Moran, D. & Lewis, A.R. 2014. The Scottish Beaver Trial: Socio-economic monitoring, final report. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 799;
Katz, E. (2009). The big lie: Human restoration of nature. Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, 443-451;
Foreman, D. (2004). Rewilding North America: a vision for conservation in the 21st century. Island Press;
Brown, C., McMorran, R., & Price, M. F. (2011). Rewilding–a new paradigm for nature conservation in Scotland?. Scottish Geographical Journal, 127(4), 288-314;
Müller-Schwarze, D. (2011). The beaver: its life and impact. Cornell University Press;
Valachovič, D. (2014). Manual of Beaver management within the Danube river basin. Danube Parks. Retrieved from http://www.danubeparks.org/files/888_beaver_manual.pdf (Accessed 10.08.18);
Härkönen, S. (1999). Forest damage caused by the Canadian beaver (Castor canadensis) in South Savo, Finland. Silva Fennica 33(4): 247–259;
Butler, D. R., & Malanson, G. P. (1994). Beaver landforms. Canadian Geographer, 38(1), 76-79;
Boden, L., & Auty, H. (2015). Public health risk of Giardia and Cryptosporidium posed by reintroduction of beavers into Scotland;
Scottish Government (2017): Access under https://news.gov.scot/news/beavers-to-remain-in-scotland (last visit 01.01.2020);
BSELF – Bayerisches Staatsministeriums für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten. (2011). Bayrisches Vertragsnaturschutzprogramm. Retrieved from http://www.stmelf.bayern.de/mam/cms01/agrarpolitik/dateien/532142.pdf (Accessed 16.01.2020);
Schwab, V. G., & Schmidbauer, M. (2003). Beaver (Castor fiber L., Castoridae) management in Bavaria.
Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; pp. 601-613.
Comments