Opinion

Moving live beavers too costly

 Lesley Fox, executive director of The Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals, shows Kent council members the dangers of a Conibear trap, during a presentation discussing alternatives to trapping in urban areas.   - Jessica Peters/ OBSERVER
Lesley Fox, executive director of The Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals, shows Kent council members the dangers of a Conibear trap, during a presentation discussing alternatives to trapping in urban areas.
— image credit: Jessica Peters/ OBSERVER

I would like to comment on the article "Group aims to reduce trapping," Observer, Feb. 13, 2014.

Leslie Fox claims that installing a pipe in a beaver dam will force the beavers to relocate. This is true, but if the beaver moves doesn't this essentially become someone else's problem?  And should the municipality (a.k.a taxpayer) be required to pay $300-$800 for each beaver dam pipe installation when a trapper can remove the beavers at a fraction of the cost?

Beavers are rodents and as such prolific breeders; at what point does co-habitation become unrealistic? Some propose relocation, but moving live beavers is costly and introducing them into another's beavers territory is fatal - the resident population will kill the already confused and disoriented intruder.  Is this a humane alternative?

So EXACTLY how does Ms. Fox's organization propose farmers "co-habitate" with coyotes? How much will it cost to relocate them, and who would pay for it? And is this again only moving the problem elsewhere?

R.S. Dunlop

Carleton Place, ON

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.