Park Board committee hears public testimony on beaver trapping

Editor’s note: This version clarifies that cabin owner Fran Buell was not speaking as a member of the Montana Trappers Association and removes a characterization of Lou Hagener as a long-time advocate of non-lethal beaver control.

The Hill County Park Board's Rules and Regulations Committee held a meeting Monday evening to hear public testimony regarding the future of the board's methods of beaver population control.

Hill County Commissioner Mark Peterson lead the meeting and said its purpose was to gather information and perspectives on the subject in preparation for eventually determining a policy for the park going forward.

The issue of beaver population control in the park has long been a controversial one, with some favoring the historical model of lethal trapping as a method of keeping the population down, while others want the board to look into non-lethal alternatives, and Monday's meeting had attendees from both groups.

Past meetings of the Hill County Park Board have been host to heated debates on the subject with proponents of non-lethal methods of beaver control arguing that trapping is inhumane and unnecessary when there are alternatives like Beaver Deceivers that, depending on the terrain, could be effective ways of mitigating damage without the need for killing the animals, and opponents questioning their efficacy compared to what they argue is known to be an effective solution.

Roger Hinckley, who lives near the park, said he's had many issues with beaver damaging his property, especially cutting down trees planted for erosion prevention and sun protection.

He said he had trappers remove beaver from his property and it solved the problem effectively.

"It's a time-tested, proven method," he said.

Cabin Owner Fran Buell, a member of the Montana Trappers Association who was speaking for herself and not for the association, also spoke and said beaver inevitably cause flooding and tree damage and went into great detail about a plan to control the population through trapping.

However, not all attendees advocated for continued trapping, Havre resident Neil Wiken, who said he has a bachelor's degree in fisheries and wildlife and has trapped before, took a neutral stance at the meeting.

"I'm not here to make a recommendation," he said, "I'm just here to tell you what you're up against."

He presented the board with a map he created of sections of the park, having marked areas with beaver dams and their size.

Wiken said beaver have an observable effect on fish populations that are not good for recreation.

"It wasn't uncommon to have a 50 fish day," he said, "It was truly a blue-ribbon stream ... 10 fish is a good day now."

Those at the meeting who argued for non-lethal alternatives said the effect of beavers on the park is not entirely or even mostly negative.

Lou Hagener, a certified professional in rangeland management, said research suggests that while beaver can have detrimental effects on areas, they can also have positive effects on water quality.

Hagener said it is true that beaver have caused damage to individual's properties, but managing the population based purely on the individual desires of the property owners is not necessarily doing what is best for the park.

He also said that population control is not necessarily the same as mitigating the damage done by beavers which can be addressed with devices that don't have any effect on the population but do discourage dam building.

While beaver do cut down trees, he said, replacing those trees is an option to address the issue.

Renelle Braaten, another long-time advocate of non-lethal alternatives, and a former member of the Hill County Park Board, said that board has been very resistant to having experts on these alternatives come to Beaver Creek Park to evaluate the area and how effective various methods might be.

Braaten said she, along with land owners around the park, plan to bring many of those experts up anyway after the pandemic is over to test non-lethal alternatives to provide first-hand demonstrations of their effectiveness for the benefit of the board.

She also said beaver can have beneficial effects and when someone from the audience asked what benefits there are for having beaver in the park, she said there were many including increased water quality.

"It's also the namesake of the park, so torturing and killing beavers doesn't make any sense to me," she said.

Margaret Standing Bear, a long-time resident of Havre and Hill County, also criticized the board for their resistance to non-lethal alternatives and accused them of attempting to eradicate beavers in the park through trapping.

Peterson said beaver on the north end of the park have hardly been bothered and that the board is interested in population control, not population elimination.

He said this was the first of two meetings that will function to gather public opinion like this. The next will be in April though a firm date has yet to be set.

He said anyone who spoke should feel welcome to speak again at the next one, but they will likely have reduced time, depending on how many new participants show up.

Peterson said after the second meeting is done he will attempt to arrange a meeting with experts of varying backgrounds to give presentations on the subject for the committee, similar to a meeting he attended in Helena a few years ago.

"Some of them will surprise you with how they lean and why," he said.

He said this meeting may take some time to set up and the larger process of establishing a population control policy will likely take well over a year.

It will not be a black-and-white issue, he said.