The sight of a beaver gliding down our rivers and waterways after an absence of at least 400 years is a source of delight and hope to many people, but some farmers may have mixed feelings about their return.

After all, the last time beavers swam our waterways our countryside looked very different, with many more villages and small farms, more wetlands, lochs and lochans across our landscape. When agriculture intensified in the 18th century, many of these settlements were lost as the small farms merged into bigger farms. The wetlands and small lochans were drained and are now forgotten, with the land now used for crops and intensive grazing for generations. Even before beavers came back, the drainage ditches needed constant clearing to stop the water backing up and rewetting low-lying areas; but now the beavers have returned and can dam these ditches, an uneasy conflict has arisen.

The push to farm all available land to produce as much food as possible during World War 2 continues through the current subsidy system. Even when farmers themselves would like to leave marginal and hard-to-manage areas alone, the subsidy system drives them to keep fighting nature in these areas. In most cases, these areas of conflict between beavers and humans are small but on farms that are situated in a drained floodplain, it can be a battle that brings considerable worry and stress to the farmer – especially as climate change brings more frequent extreme weather. When beavers come back and reinstate the small wetlands or block drainage ditches, it understandably causes conflict with farmers who want to keep the land drained. Sometimes this is essential for crop growing, but sometimes it is only because they will lose subsidies if that patch of land is not actively farmed. In the past when our rivers and burns were straightened and the flood banks were built, the sole reason for doing this was to farm the valuable flood plain areas, preventing their use as nature’s water storage areas in times of flood. This pushed the water downstream as quickly as possible where it became someone else’s problem.

Now science is showing us how valuable flood plains are in slowing the water down through the river system and preventing massive downstream flooding, especially over what have now become large towns and cities. Wetlands previously thought to be of no use except for wildlife are now increasingly recognised to be of great importance in retaining water and providing a store of water in times of drought – something many farmers are able to tap into for stock or crop irrigation. Until the subsidy system is changed to one which doesn’t force farmers to produce crops from marginal land, or allow farming right up to the water’s edge (which is not allowed in many places across Europe) there is inevitably going to be a degree of conflict in some areas. This is why the Scottish Wild Beaver Group supported the right for farmers to translocate beavers from conflict zones to other locations within Scotland. But we are also aware that there are situations when removing a beaver dam, a farmer may feel they are acting in the public interest. They may feel they should do it before the beaver establishes a territory: it may not be a particular problem on the farm right now, but it could be the thin end of the wedge and cause conflict with their neighbour in future.

It is difficult to change a mindset, or let go of practices handed down for generations by highly respected fathers and grandfathers, so it is no surprise that it is difficult for some of today’s farmers to relate to ideas about “slowing the flow” to reduce the risk of downstream flooding and retain water in times of flood when speeding it away has always been their aim. The land valued for generations for growing crops is now equally valuable for wildlife and water storage. Working through this challenge isn’t helped by powerful lobbying organisations which are fighting to retain the status quo, even if that works against the small local farmer. They see the solution is to simply remove the dams and shoot the beavers. Misinformation doesn’t help either. Beavers are rodents, so it is assumed by some that they will breed like mice and rats. This is not the case with beavers – they only give birth once a year, with a litter of two or three kits. Beaver activity is always close to the water, so leaving a few metres of space for vegetation on the edges of rivers and burns means crops are further away from beaver activity. Also, beavers are highly territorial and will defend their territory (around a kilometre of waterway) against other beavers, so an “explosion of numbers” just doesn’t happen. The family group contains the previous litters up to when the young beavers are two years old, after which they disperse to find their own territory. The dispersing beavers will swim past occupied territories knowing that they will not be welcome if they try to settle and can travel many kilometres by water. If well-intentioned farmers take down beaver dams, the beavers holding that territory will normally build them again, cutting more trees. Most of our native broadleaved species will coppice or sucker, so the forest will replenish itself over time but still, no one wants the tree cutting to be speeded up when we have such little native woodland cover in the first place. The pools behind the dams are rarely more than 1.5 metres deep so you can estimate how likely they are to flood nearby land. Once a beaver family territory is established, the level of tree cutting will be fairly steady and occur mostly in the winter.

Now that beavers are here to stay, even if you don’t love them (as many people do, despite what some sensational newspapers would have you believe), you are usually better to live with the beaver family you have rather than try to intervene by taking down the dams. But if a beaver dam is really causing a significant problem, then NatureScot have a mitigation scheme to help. Every case is site-specific. In some cases, they will build a flow device to create a permanent leak in the dam, keeping the pool deep enough to satisfy the beaver, but shallow enough to prevent the water rising higher. In other situations, NatureScot will translocate the beavers. A license for dam removal is usually granted in a situation where nothing else will work. If beaver activity on trees is an issue, they can easily be wrapped with wire – it’s very effective and long lasting if it’s done properly. But shooting or translocating beavers is only ever a temporary solution. Where there is good habitat, it’s often only a matter of time before another beaver will turn up. If a farmer can work out how to coexist with the beavers on your farm, that is the basis for a permanent solution. Your own beavers will see off any others that think of settling in!

In places where mitigation won’t work, what is needed is funding (public or private or a combination of both) to enable farmers to move their crops and stock further back from the water’s edge: this not only removes up to 95% of conflict with beavers but also allows a corridor of natural vegetation to form along the banks of the burns and rivers which benefits all our wildlife including fish, and it also helps prevent the harmful agro-chemicals running into our waterways. This creation of nature restoration in wider, riparian corridors alongside farmland has been done in many other countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, and brings many benefits to wildlife and people.

As climate change bites and weather becomes more erratic and extreme with more
frequent heavy rainfall, we need to work with our land and nature for our own
protection.