Center, Internet, Wildlife Damage Management
Human–Wildlife Interactions
Comment on Siemer et al. (2013)
Date of this Version
Fall 2013
Document Type
Article
Citation
Human–Wildlife Interactions (Fall 2013) 7(2): article 14
doi: 10.26077/t8ty-sd35
Special topic: Sage-grouse
Abstract
As a psychologist with special concern for public attitudes toward beaver (Castor canadensis) management, I read with interest the Siemer, Jonker, Becker, and Organ article appearing in your spring issue (Siemer et al. 2013). I was surprised to see that the article was based on data >10 years old and that the report did not even mention the Needham and Morzillo (2011) survey from Oregon that looked at such parallel issues with contrasting results. I was especially disheartened to see that the study did not address in any way the successful use of flow devices that has made such a huge impact on public opinion of beaver problems. Certainly, as more stakeholders realize that there are options beyond the dichotomy of tolerance and trapping, opinions will continue to evolve.
. . .
Massachusetts truly has a remarkable opportunity to learn about the relationship between humans and wildlife, but this cannot happen if the term "beaver management" continues to be synonymous with the term "beaver trapping". Six years ago my city made the commitment to co-exist with beavers, and currently our beaver population after 18 live births remains at seven. Because of our beaver-tended wetlands, we regularly see otter, heron, wood duck, steelhead, and even mink in our tiny urban stream. As the nation faces greater drought events, we should be more interested than ever in these important “water-savers” and the biodiversity their habitat creates.