Tim Bonner: The hypocrisy of the ‘beaver bombers’

On the basis that naming something seems to now be a compulsory precursor to any PR campaign, activists have labelled the illegal release of beavers into UK rivers as ‘beaver bombing’. I have nothing against beavers and look forward to seeing one in the wild, but the casual attitude of many campaigners to this wildlife crime stinks of hypocrisy.

Beavers were hunted for their fur, meat, and strangely for an oily secretion that they use to mark their territory which was used in perfumery and for other purposes. As a consequence they became extinct in the UK in the 16^th century and only in recent decades have beavers returned to the British countryside as a result of approved releases, and also through unauthorised releases by activists. This activity has become increasingly blatant, probably because it works in terms of driving government policy.

The complaint from activists is that the current process for official reintroductions is too slow and in a Guardian article last week the Beaver Trust blamed the failure of recent Conservative governments to approve releases or even reject them for illegal releases. Whilst the Trust went on to say that “it’s really important releases are done responsibly, under licence,” excusing illegal release does nothing to discourage it. Nor does the reaction of governments in Scotland and England to beaver bombing. On the River Tay in Scotland and The Otter in Devon, populations of beavers that became established after illegal releases have been subsequently legitimised. Given this is exactly the result activists wanted, those decisions have only encouraged further illegal releases.

Last year, during an evening stroll past his ponds, a friend of mine in West Wales nearly jumped out of his skin when a beast “the size of an overweight labrador” launched itself into the water. Subsequent tree damage and trail cam footage revealed the animal to be a beaver and, whilst it is welcome on his ground, there are no wild beaver populations anywhere near and its presence is clearly the result of an illegal release.

As I said, I have nothing against beavers, but not even their most passionate advocates can deny that there might be some negative impacts of their release, such as building dams that block the passage of migratory fish, and that reintroductions should therefore be carefully considered. The fact that some people believe that the current process is too lengthy, or that they disagree with decisions made by government is not an excuse to carry out illegal activity. Like all of us they have the opportunity to campaign to change the law but, unfortunately, their current approach seems to be to ignore it. The fact that the same activists would be the first to, quite rightly, condemn the illegal pollution of rivers and other environmental and wildlife crime, only compounds their hypocrisy.

The Alliance is supportive of reintroduction of the right species in the right places, but these double standards and the holier than thou rhetoric of self-proclaimed environmentalists only creates division and puts back the very cause they promote.