Beavers could be reintroduced to Wales...

[no-one in particular]

The Great Bustard reintroduction project has been a success. I live very close to the society's reservation and can say that they are thriving there and this year have reproduced well.

The birds are also quite free to fly off anywhere they chose and yet have remained in this area for several years now.

Bustard Breakthrough | The Great Bustard Group

I am reading 7 nests, which is great, don't get me wrong but given the machinations these people have gone through to get there and the harm they may have done in some ways and may even do in the future, is it worth it? I just gut feel we are interfering too much sometimes to achieve what? A lovely sight and one I would enjoy however, do I need it that much-If these birds had found their way back naturally and started breeding, so much better.

---------- Post added at 11:58 ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 ----------

You are almost certainly correct Mark, the NFU have it seems been representing the interests of their members this paragraph is just part of an interesting article by the NFU on beavers in Scotland.



Rob Livesey, NFU Scotland’s Vice President commented: “The Union is adamant that beavers must be appropriately managed to minimise the risk of unacceptable impacts on agriculture and other land uses – a view that is shared by many within the conservation community.

What happens if beavers start a colony on a club water, would someone step in and ban angling in the area. Does the riparian owner or the club have legal precedence over the EA or some wildlife organization who may want to do this?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I am reading 7 nests, which is great, don't get me wrong but given the machinations these people have gone through to get there and the harm they may have done in some ways, is it worth it? I just gut feel we are interfering too much sometimes to achieve what? If these birds had found their way naturally and started breeding, so much better.

I would say, having seen these magnificent birds that the effort has been well worth the time and conservation and damned hard work that so many people have put into this project.

You ought to go and see these terrific birds that were once so plentiful on the Salisbury Plain at the right time of the year.

Unlike the reintroduction of the Otters the Great Bustard does no damage whatsoever to the local environment and I am so glad that my children and grandchildren will be able to see them once again.

 

[thecrow]

What happens if beavers start a colony on a club water, would someone step in and ban angling in the area. Does the riparian owner or the club have legal precedence over the EA or some wildlife organization who may want to do this?

Not a clue Mark I would imagine that anglers would be pushed out, there would be some PR statements released by the Angling Trust which they have already done in the past but taken no action. I can see the only time any action would be taken against beavers is when someone is bitten by one or a pet dog is killed by one of them because cuddly they aint.

 

[no-one in particular]

Not a clue Mark I would imagine that anglers would be pushed out, there would be some PR statements released by the Angling Trust which they have already done in the past but taken no action. I can see the only time any action would be taken against beavers is when someone is bitten by one or a pet dog is killed by one of them because cuddly they aint.

I can see trouble ahead with anglers down the line if beavers start to flourish across the country. That is the thing with these introductions, great until someone or something is adversely affected by them. A bite on the bum, grannies little TitsuWitso disappearing and more bloody fences with no angling signs on them, could be the future..

---------- Post added at 15:34 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------

I would say, having seen these magnificent birds that the effort has been well worth the time and conservation and damned hard work that so many people have put into this project.

You ought to go and see these terrific birds that were once so plentiful on the Salisbury Plain at the right time of the year.

Unlike the reintroduction of the Otters the Great Bustard does no damage whatsoever to the local environment and I am so glad that my children and grandchildren will be able to see them once again.

Not sentiments I don't share, I would enjoy seeing them and I might do that one day however, I still just wonder if it would be better to let nature take its own course sometimes.

 

[The bad one]

I still just wonder if it would be better to let nature take its own course sometimes.

Yes Mark had nature taken it course then we wouldn't be having this discussion as neither the Gt. Bustard or the Beaver would never have become extinct as both were hunted by man to extinction in the UK. Nothing natural or nature taking it course there at all! Much the same as what's happening in Africa to the rhino, elephant and many other species. Man because of his greed imposing his nature taking its course. It's wrong now and it was wrong then.
Therefore if we have the means to right that wrong now (and we do) then Man has a duty to do it as the higher species of the planet, we share with those other creatures.

 

[cg74]

While we're righting mankind's many wrongs, maybe we should bring back mammoths

 

[The bad one]

What with the ivory poaching that's happening to elephants? Last time I checked the mammoth isn't alive anywhere on the planet for a reintroduction. Whereas beavers and bustards are.

It's a debatable point in paleontology whether mammoths died out naturally or as result of stone age mans hunting of them.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

Another vote for the beavers from me. Redressing past mistakes is good and there must be enough spaces to fit in a few beaver colonies here and there (as long as they dont do a signal crayfish on us). Pity about the mammoths though - they would be impressive and good for the local economy if they attract tourists! Perhaps we can develop some artificial mechanical ones so that american tourists wouldnt notice the difference.

 

[no-one in particular]

Yes Mark had nature taken it course then we wouldn't be having this discussion as neither the Gt. Bustard or the Beaver would never have become extinct as both were hunted by man to extinction in the UK. Nothing natural or nature taking it course there at all! Much the same as what's happening in Africa to the rhino, elephant and many other species. Man because of his greed imposing his nature taking its course. It's wrong now and it was wrong then.
Therefore if we have the means to right that wrong now (and we do) then Man has a duty to do it as the higher species of the planet, we share with those other creatures.

Its true man made mistakes, they did not have the knowledge and they did not know what they were doing, when the man who shot the last Dodo he probably did not know it was the last one. These days we have more knowledge, world wide collation of populations, the internet, protection programs when a species becomes endangered etc.
Should we right those mistakes? I really don't know. Would an extinct animal from 5000 or 500 years ago be genetically disposed to cope with conditions now or an animal taken from another country miles away be genetically disposed to cope with a new environment in Britain just like that? They have evolved specialist genetics for their environment not a different one. The record shows they are often not. Should we just plonk them here or let them evolve there way back naturally?

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 ----------

Another vote for the beavers from me. Redressing past mistakes is good and there must be enough spaces to fit in a few beaver colonies here and there (as long as they dont do a signal crayfish on us). Pity about the mammoths though - they would be impressive and good for the local economy if they attract tourists! Perhaps we can develop some artificial mechanical ones so that american tourists wouldnt notice the difference.

What happens when a colony sets up on a bit of your club water and a protection blanket is thrown up around it.? I don't know if this will happen but I think it possible.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

What happens when a colony sets up on a bit of your club water and a protection blanket is thrown up around it.? I don't know if this will happen but I think it possible.

Fishing rights get lost for a myriad of reasons - littering and anti social behaviour by anglers themselves or the whim of a new landowner when he/she inherits an estate. Presence of a beaver colony would be a better reason than most. But I cant see them being allowed anywhere near the populated lowlands where i fish.

 

[no-one in particular]

Fishing rights get lost for a myriad of reasons - littering and anti social behaviour by anglers themselves or the whim of a new landowner when he/she inherits an estate. Presence of a beaver colony would be a better reason than most. But I cant see them being allowed anywhere near the populated lowlands where i fish.

I cannot see how they would be stopped, they are active at night, they spread along the rivers find a bit they like and set up home. Along come the EA or the conservationists and ban angling for a thousand yards around them, you wont be able to shoot them. What about the less populated areas where there are club waters, whats happens if this occurs on a few prime salmon or trout beats. I dunno, I can just see some conflicts of interests coming out of this. Its not going to be so popular then.

 

[tigger]

Its true man made mistakes, they did not have the knowledge and they did not know what they were doing

mg: Mans has the knowlage now ffs and is still making those very same mistakes but on a grander scale than ever before and without remorse or any real concern for the ramifications of his stupidity, selfishness and greed...the human race will without doubt be the demise of themselves and most likely take all other forms of life, including the planet out with 'em!
Even reading these few posts on this thread shows "imo" the selfishness of people....sad in'it!

 

[no-one in particular]

mg: Mans has the knowlage now ffs and is still making those very same mistakes but on a grander scale than ever before and without remorse or any real concern for the ramifications of his stupidity, selfishness and greed...the human race will without doubt be the demise of themselves and most likely take all other forms of life, including the planet out with 'em!
Even reading these few posts on this thread shows "imo" the selfishness of people....sad in'it!

I understand your sentiment but its different thing. I guess your talking about pollution, nuclear proliferation etc; modern day mistakes/problems to overcome but in the context of re introducing extinct species caused by mans ignorance of the facts in the past, we have more knowledge and better means now to prevent that happening than just shooting a species to extinction. Monitoring and laws are in place, not that it does not happen with poaching etc.. We are trying to do the same with modern day problems, whether they will succeed who knows. We could end up overwhelmed by it all. We could be just a virus destroying the cell it lives on like all viruses do in the end but we have no choice other than to keep going.
I am just not so sure putting the mistakes of the past right by reintroducing species into counties where they have been extinct for hundreds of years is right, was it too long ago, is it necessary, do we understand all the ramifications, is it selfish, is it good for the animals or just us, are we going about it in the right way?

 

[cg74]

mg: Mans has the knowlage now ffs and is still making those very same mistakes but on a grander scale than ever before and without remorse or any real concern for the ramifications of his stupidity, selfishness and greed...the human race will without doubt be the demise of themselves and most likely take all other forms of life, including the planet out with 'em!
Even reading these few posts on this thread shows "imo" the selfishness of people....sad in'it!

"Even reading these few posts on this thread shows "imo" the selfishness of people....sad in'it!"
So who are the selfish ones in this discussion; pro or anti beaver and why?

 

[The bad one]

Sorry you’re not getting it Mark are you? Man made those species extinct by hunting them to that point of extinction. Dismissing this fact as man not knowing what he was doing, etc doesn’t wash. Simple equation even then for the people who didn’t know better (your inference,} the Law of Diminishing Returns. The less of something there is, the harder it is to find it/them and kill it.

Worth noting here you don’t have to kill everyone, you just have to take the total population down to the point where it’s not viable any longer. Through fragmentation of less mobile species, habitat destruction, inbreeding within the species, leading to die out, etc, etc.

You band genetics about as some form of death sword in your contention, whilst a tantalising though, it’s just wrong. There is genetically no difference between the beavers that once inhabited the UK and those across Europe including Norway. They are Castor fiber! They are not a sub-species of any kind, sort, make, model, etc. Just Castor fiber!

You go on to invoke evolution as a way of making them a possible difference.
Tantalising again, but again wrong! If only Evolution work so fast, it doesn’t, it take many tens of thousands, if not hundreds thousands of years for a species to evolve into a sub-species and/or a new closely related species.

So yes you’re dammed right we have a duty to reintroduce native species, we MAN, have made extinct where and if we can. Nationally we signed up on the dotted line, to international agreements, to protect, maintain and enhance the native biodiversity of our nation.

 

[no-one in particular]

Sorry you’re not getting it Mark are you? Man made those species extinct by hunting them to that point of extinction. Dismissing this fact as man not knowing what he was doing, etc doesn’t wash. Simple equation even then for the people who didn’t know better (your inference,} the Law of Diminishing Returns. The less of something there is, the harder it is to find it/them and kill it.

Worth noting here you don’t have to kill everyone, you just have to take the total population down to the point where it’s not viable any longer. Through fragmentation of less mobile species, habitat destruction, inbreeding within the species, leading to die out, etc, etc.

You band genetics about as some form of death sword in your contention, whilst a tantalising though, it’s just wrong. There is genetically no difference between the beavers that once inhabited the UK and those across Europe including Norway. They are Castor fiber! They are not a sub-species of any kind, sort, make, model, etc. Just Castor fiber!

You go on to invoke evolution as a way of making them a possible difference.
Tantalising again, but again wrong! If only Evolution work so fast, it doesn’t, it take many tens of thousands, if not hundreds thousands of years for a species to evolve into a sub-species and/or a new closely related species.

So yes you’re dammed right we have a duty to reintroduce native species, we MAN, have made extinct where and if we can. Nationally we signed up on the dotted line, to international agreements, to protect, maintain and enhance the native biodiversity of our nation.

I came to these conclusions based on the great Busted introduction on Salisbury Plain., a ten year plan. For 8 years they introduced Russian birds that did not survive well, they flew back, infertile eggs or did not breed altogether. They are having better luck with birds from Spain. Are these genetically different to the Russian birds and more suited to the conditions?
I think birds although the same species would have evolved a different genetics depending on which environment they exist. Different digestive systems to accommodate a different diet, feather configurations/densities for a different climate. slight color variations for evading different types of predator, moullting patterns and more that I cannot imagine.
These might only be subtle, not enough to classify them as a different sub species but enough to mean they will not survive well when plonked in a different country with a different environment and given the time to adjust/evolve naturally to the one they have already evolved into.
I bet if the genetic code was studied of the Busted that became extinct on the Salisbury Plain, the Russian and the Spanish ones, it would be found there were differences between them;. and probably between most animals of the same species taken from different environments/countries. Personally I think I do get it, slight variations in the genetic code occur every generation and independently of any other population elsewhere randomly. The environment will decide which are kept and which are lost and they will differ depending on which environment even for the same species and there wont be genetically no differences as you claim..
So, I am just asking myself is it fair to expect an animal jump a few hundred years of evolution in an instance on our own desire to put right mistakes of our own past and making. Possibly but more work and care should be taken, are these genetically unsuited birds suffering? Will they impact on the Skylark, any rare orchid growing, will they increase the fox population, better food for them, are all the impacts considered,. Will we indeed find ourselves with less fishing because of the Beavers. You just cannot find out if these things have been considered which makes me think they have not..

Regarding your first point, how would man have known he was creating an extinction 500 years ago? Diminishing returns locally but how would he have known that was occurring nationally or internationally.?

 

[The bad one]

Again wrong in every respect mark, bluntly a flight of fancy in you're mind. There's no evidence to support any of it, it's a theory in your head with no validation to back it up.
Yet again you are confusing genetics, evolution and adadption with one another.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

I think we are getting into the realm of phenotypic genetic variation.

So far as the beavers are concerned, if the beavers are the same species (as they are) and inhabit similar environments (as they do) i doubt an imported colony would have a survivorship/survival rate any different to a native colony if imported by time capsule from a few hundred years back.

European populations were probably interconnected to UK landmass until the most recent post glacial period (8-10,000 years ago) when English Channel and adjacent North Sea was formed. Doubtful that any significant evolution could have occurred since then in a large mammal.

 

[no-one in particular]

Again wrong in every respect mark, bluntly a flight of fancy in you're mind. There's no evidence to support any of it, it's a theory in your head with no validation to back it up.
Yet again you are confusing genetics, evolution and adadption with one another.

They are all closely linked. You don't have evolution without adaptation, you don't have adaptation without genetic variety, you don't have evolution without genetic variety. . Not confused at all.

validation-plenty of studies done where the same species vary in ways from different environments, look at the dessert sparrow and the house sparrow, they are both sparrows! There's loads of stuff to validate my "theories". perhaps you will believe Darwin if not me.

 

[The bad one]

They are all closely linked. You don't have evolution without adaptation, you don't have adaptation without genetic variety, you don't have evolution without genetic variety. . Not confused at all.

validation-plenty of studies done where the same species vary in ways from different environments, look at the dessert sparrow and the house sparrow, they are both sparrows! There's loads of stuff to validate my "theories". perhaps you will believe Darwin if not me.

In your head Mark may be, but alas in science they are distinctly different, as no doubt Darwin would concede 158 years on from publication of The Origins of Species