Partially as a result of successful reintroductions on the Continent, various efforts have been made to allow the release of the rodents into the British Isles. While no such licence has been granted to date it is not through lack of trying. The most recent of these projects aims to see the animals once more eagerly beavering around the woods and waterways of Mid Argyll.

The animal’s new-found champions, the Scottish Wildlife trust (SWT), seek to release 16 Norwegian beavers into a site in northern Knapdale, in order to carry out a 5-year study that ‘aims to show that the re-introduction of beavers in Scotland is both feasible and beneficial’.

While the feasibility of the project appears to be largely accepted – suitable wetland conditions for beavers clearly exist in Knapdale – whether the animals would be ‘beneficial’ to Britain is harder to assess. The SWT, however, hails the beaver as a ‘keystone species’ in the wetland ecology, whose activity would lead to ‘the expansion and diversification of species such as otters, shrews, voles, dragonflies, amphibians and wading birds around the water’s edge.’

Alongside these ecological advantages, SWT believe that the arrival of beavers will be accompanied by the influx of another mammal, the tourist, whose pursuit of the beaver should bring economic advantages too. Indeed a study undertaken by Oxford University estimated that the financial benefits of having these aquatic mammals in Scotland should be ‘approximately 100 times greater’ than the costs of setting up the project. If true the beaver could act as a real boost to the struggling rural economy.

Yet, despite SWT’s claims, there is considerable evidence that the creatures aren’t merely buck-toothed crowd-pleasers whose appearance will suddenly spark a flurry of biodiversification and create considerable rural wealth. Perhaps the most interesting dispute concerns whether the beaver was in fact ever a native of Scotland. If not, then SWT’s claim to have ‘a moral obligation to restore’ the animals to our wetlands sounds somewhat hollow.

The organisation states that archaeological and entomological evidence supports their theory – beaver bones were discovered in Ayrshire and a Gaelic word exists for ‘the flat-tailed otter’. Yet Robin Malcolm, who lives at Duntrune in Knapdale, is less than convinced.

Malcolm, who refuses to use the word ‘re-introduction’ relating to the project, believes that no evidence exists of beavers inhabiting either Knapdale or the vast majority of Scotland. According to him, if anyone in Britain wants a genuine reintroduction, ‘they’d have to release the animals into the Thames valley and East Anglia’ – areas where evidence of beavers is both more abundant and closer to the present day.

Malcolm likens the Trust’s argument of ‘moral obligation’ to opinions concerning the Highland Clearances – he believes they see releasing beavers ‘as a way of atoning for the sins of our forefathers’. Yet, as another Knapdale resident, Peter Slan, points out, there is no evidence of our ancestors exterminating the animals, even though ‘the area is essentially one large peat bog, so any remains of the creatures should have been perfectly preserved’.

Even if beavers were once in the area, however, there are other reasons for doubting how welcome they’d be in contemporary Argyll.

Organisations representing farming, fishing and forestry have all raised objections to the proposal. These objections include adverse effects on the broadleaved trees which make up the bulk of the beaver’s diets; the fact that their dams might prevent fish such as salmon and trout reaching their spawning grounds; that the beaver’s burrowing might do considerable damage to the banks of the nearby Crinan Canal; and that they have long been associated with the spread of giardia, a disease known as ‘beaver fever’ in the USA.

Many of these fears are supported by the examples of other beaver release sites. In Belarus, for example, the animals’ burrows have undermined roads and railways and flooded hundreds of square kilometres of previously excellent arable land. As a result the state has had to promote the manufacture of beaver-skin hats in order to encourage its citizens to limit the damage caused by these chainsaw-toothed critters.

As Peter Slan points out, looking at the example of badgers in Britain, it is hard to imagine the government sanctioning a beaver cull in the future, let alone encouraging one as the Belarusians have.

Despite this list of grievances perhaps the most common concern is directed not at the beavers themselves so much as against the SWT. For many people feel that the methods employed by the Trust to gather data, present information and, in particular, engage in debate with the local community have been fundamentally flawed. In the words of the forestry group Con For, thanks to the one-sided nature of the consultation process, ‘there are fears that the outcome of the proposed ‘trial’ has already been decided and that it will not therefore be a trial at all, but merely the precursor to a general release of the beaver into Scotland’.

Whether you think beavers are web-footed wonders or buck-toothed bandits, it is clear that the case for their release should rest on scientific evidence, not on the romantic ideal of trying to recapture an era that may never have existed in Scotland at all.

While the Trust’s purported aim of increasing our biodiversity is admirable, perhaps they should do so by focusing on helping the species that are undoubtedly native and unquestionably struggling to survive. While more time and money is spent on beavers, species such as the wildcat continue to suffer and decline.

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend