One of Canada's symbolic animals is likely to again be the target of trapping in Squamish in 2011.
On the brink of extinction in the early 1990s, the beaver population has increased dramatically in Squamish in recent years, leading to conflicts with humans and their infrastructure.
On Tuesday (Jan. 11), biologist Oliver Busby of EBB Environmental Consulting presented a detailed report to Squamish council about how to mitigate the "beaver issue.
"For me, it comes down to the priority of human health and safety first and that's where I draw the line," Busby said. "What measures need to be taken depends on the extent of the impact - is it going to adversely affect people's safety."
The biologist said beavers in Squamish are creating safety hazards - they plug infrastructure which in turn creates flooding, they gnaw into the trunks of trees and leave them teetering precariously, and often fell trees on roadways, causing accidents.
"It just comes down to health and safety issue first," he said.
Busby's report, titled "Beaver Activity and Management Plan," aims to deal with beavers before problems arise, instead of as help is needed, as has been the practice in recent years.
"Right now I don't believe the beaver population in Squamish is too high, but it's based on what the community is prepared to deal with," he said. "The answer is learning to live with them and mitigating measures."
He surveyed nine sites and is suggesting installing fish-friendly Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) beaver cones, other beaver deterrent devices and trapping.
The estimated cost of implementing the report's recommendations would be $88,000 and between $10,000 and $15,000 on a yearly basis for monitoring and trapping.
Local conservationist John Buchanan said it's the humans who need to be reined in, not the beavers, and he suggested a new title for the report - "Human Activity Assessment and Management Plan."
"We (humans) have altered our local environment to the extent that nothing wild can co-exist with us anymore," Buchanan said. "We trap the beavers,kill the cougars, run the bears and deerover, and force ourfish to run a gauntlet of dikes, culverts, sewage outfall, bridges, and barren, dredged-out waterways.
"So who is in need of the management, I ask you?"
Buchanan said the answer isn't simple, but some solutions are.
"When we build our highways, they should come with wildlife fencing and when a culvert is installed, it should have a beaver-proof device on it."
In the report, the first line of the introduction portrays beaver management as a new issue.
"Beavers have not historically been problematic within the District of Squamish watershed; however, in recent years the population level has grown, increasing conflict with urban land use priorities."
However, the same management methods recommended in Busby's report were already used and suggested in Squamish in 1989, when the municipality hired a trapper and local residents were up in arms that Conibear traps were being used.
"Locals protest beaver trapping" was the headline on Jan. 17, 1989 when John and Donna Sutcliffe approached the council of the day to denounce Conibear traps as inhumane and also dangerous to pets and other animals.
"I'm hoping that presenting them [council] with other methods will prevent them from trapping and killing the beavers," Donna Sutcliffe said at the time. "I think the district could co-exist with them."
The Sutcliffes went on to present council with an alternative, the "Beaver Stop." The galvanized reinforcing wire was installed to fit over culverts' entrances to stop beavers from entering and plugging them, but keeps water flowing freely.
Since then, culverts have continued to be installed without the beaver-proof screening.
Busby recommended different actions for the six sites where beaver colonies were found - headwalls, trash screens, wire wrapping of trees (to prevent beavers from gnawing them) and trapping.
Busby told council members they had two trapping options - live trapping for relocation or fatal trapping.
"There are two types of trapping - if there is an opportunity to live trap, then that's obviously the preferred route," he said. "There are professional traps out there that lure the beavers in and trap them alive, or you can do it by hand."
However, Busby said fatal trapping is much more feasible because every year the Province only has a between four and 12 openings for beavers to be relocated to.
"To relocate you have to contact the Province and they'll either authorize the relocation or say, 'We've already met our quota,'" he said. "It's first come, first served and with the number of beavers escalating, the spots go fast."
Busby said live trapping is also more costly because traps needs to be checked every 24 hours and there's the possibility other animals and waterfowl might be mistakenly caught.
Busby's fatal trapping suggestion was to use underwater Conibear traps, which he described as humane.
"It's typically placed deep set where the beaver swims through or migrates through and as the animal goes through the trap, it's sprung and it immediately euthanizes the animal," he said.
"The animal is struck in two places simultaneously - one on the spine and one on the neck, generally."
This same method sparked outrage just over a year ago and was the reason the district decided to have a registered biologist assess the situation.
In October 2009, when trapper Peter Alan was hired by the district, he trapped and killed 12 beavers.
Wildlife advocacy groups reacted angrily when they found out what was happening and denounced the district for endorsing such inhumane devices.
Brian Vincent of the advocacy group Big Wildlife said Conibear traps are not a humane alternative because the devices kill fewer than 15 per cent of animals instantly.
"Many animals die slow, painful deaths as their abdomens, heads, or other body parts are crushed," he said in a letter to the editor.
"It can take up to 10 minutes for a beaver to drown in a Conibear trap placed underwater."
Mayor Greg Gardner said it's unclear exactly how many beavers would need to be killed but Busby's report suggested three sites where it's necessary.
"We're trying to keep a stable population, not eliminate the population," he said. "So it would depend on reproduction by the existing beavers and also the loss of predators.
"The primary purpose here is to replace natural predation - because there's human presence here, the natural predators aren't taking these beavers because the predators have gone somewhere else. This is to replace that important part of the natural cycle."
Council members voiced some reservations about spending $75,000 in capital expenditures and still have to spend $10,000 to $15,000 annually. However, a motion was carried unanimously to refer the request to 2011 budget discussions.
