Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:29 am
This is an *extremely* complicated issue and really can only be judged with extensive knowledge of the local ecosystem. *But*, several interesting things have been said here; so I'll talk about the bits I know something about (a first for me? 
).
In my experience, reintroductions are often sentimental and focused on predators that capture the public fancy. Sometimes the main point is simply to get public attention focused on environmental preservation. In other cases, it's an important attempt to stabilize an ecosystem.
The whole idea of urban vs. wild and human vs. nature needs to be done away with in these discussions, because it overshadows the complexities. I noticed mentions here of white-tailed deer, which are often viewed as encroaching on or forced into the modern suburbs. In fact, the deer thrive in the suburban ecosystem with big lawns, etc.; so do many other animals, like coyotes here in the states. In many cases, there are lots of animals because there are lots of people. Everything we do has major ecosystem impact like that, so it seems important to remember "the wild" is always right around us.
Beavers can definitely be "destructive" (that being a loaded term, obviously). I have personally hiked a mile-long valley that was completely deforested by beavers. It looked almost insane--almost human, frankly, in its manic nibbled destructiveness. But more to the point, beaver dams can flood people out of their homes. That's a big issue in my area, where they're talking about reintroducing trapping. I have little sympathy with such homeowners, personally, but the "destructive" issue is certainly a valid consideration. As far as the disease issue, that's a red herring for sure. We have lots of beavers around here and no health plagues. Drinking the water downstream from a beaver dam is certainly not a good idea, but that's no different from drinking any other unpurified water.
).In my experience, reintroductions are often sentimental and focused on predators that capture the public fancy. Sometimes the main point is simply to get public attention focused on environmental preservation. In other cases, it's an important attempt to stabilize an ecosystem.
The whole idea of urban vs. wild and human vs. nature needs to be done away with in these discussions, because it overshadows the complexities. I noticed mentions here of white-tailed deer, which are often viewed as encroaching on or forced into the modern suburbs. In fact, the deer thrive in the suburban ecosystem with big lawns, etc.; so do many other animals, like coyotes here in the states. In many cases, there are lots of animals because there are lots of people. Everything we do has major ecosystem impact like that, so it seems important to remember "the wild" is always right around us.
Beavers can definitely be "destructive" (that being a loaded term, obviously). I have personally hiked a mile-long valley that was completely deforested by beavers. It looked almost insane--almost human, frankly, in its manic nibbled destructiveness. But more to the point, beaver dams can flood people out of their homes. That's a big issue in my area, where they're talking about reintroducing trapping. I have little sympathy with such homeowners, personally, but the "destructive" issue is certainly a valid consideration. As far as the disease issue, that's a red herring for sure. We have lots of beavers around here and no health plagues. Drinking the water downstream from a beaver dam is certainly not a good idea, but that's no different from drinking any other unpurified water.