After reading Ms. Running's report of the Water Resource Management Annual Meeting on the front page of the November 1st, 2013 issue of the Observer, I am left with some concerns. Whether this is with Running's inaccuracy in reporting what actually was said, or with misinformation being disseminated at the meeting I don't know .But I am growing tired of people in positions of trust/authority who play fast and loose with the truth. If the information in the article was what was said at the meeting, does Running in her role as journalist not do any fact checking in order to present a balanced picture??? I challenge Running to make the effort to get a copy of the Sask Research Council's report of their study of the water level situation in Moose Mountains and the beaver's role, and actually read it and then report back in another write-up on some of their very interesting findings. Perhaps interview the government environment and wildlife managers relating to the Park, the Park Supervisor and other members of the community. I attended the meetings last winter and found a lot of the information shared by the researchers very interesting. I certainly have been left with a different perspective of their findings than the impression I get from the report provided in the Annual Meeting of the Water Resource Management group.
To demonstrate my point, here are just a few inaccuracies/omissions:
*The Canadian government established Moose Mountain as a forest reserve in 1908, which it remained until 1930 when the land responsibility was transferred to the Province. Moose Mountain became a Provincial Park, along with a few others as the first Parks designated in the Province. This information is readily available online. My family has a long connection with this area. I have the original cottage lease between King George the Fifth representing the Honorable Minister of the Interior of Canada and my grandfather, dated 1927, which indicates that the land was a "tract of land reserved and set apart as the Moose Mountain Forest Reserve by the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act". This lease has been passed down through the family, and now rests with me where I reside.
*The article gives the impression that the beaver was first introduced to MMPP in the 30s. However, the beaver was actually native to this area. The Hudson's Bay Co. had fur trading stations here. There are historical documents that establish this. The beaver population declined, perhaps through excess trapping, although various records contain conflicting information as to the situation. At any rate, the beaver was re-introduced to the area in the 30's. That the beaver is native is an important fact as those who speak only to the re-introduction want us to get behind eradicating the entire population with the reasoning that man made an error in the "introduction" of the species which is now thriving and in their opinion causing all kinds of damage/problems, so we should get rid of this error by killing them all. There is also no mention of the ways in which the beaver is beneficial (perhaps even essential) to the health of the eco-system. One needs to be aware of the whole picture, not just the part that backs up a specific position.
*So the beaver are blamed for blocking the water runways bringing water into the lakes. However, also lacking is any mention of the damage man did in blocking the watershed runways when exploring for gas and oil. I haven't heard anyone promoting killing all the oil field workers.
There are two mandates for Moose Mountain Provincial Park. One is to provide recreational opportunities, the other to protect the unique environment. I suggest to you that if we don't pay sufficient attention to the second one, the recreation opportunities that are left will be limited.
Dynamiting the beaver dams and killing the beavers provided more water in the lakes in the last few years. However, think about this long term. If you eradicate the beaver, they are no longer there in the uplands, collecting available water. So in a dry period, the lake levels will decrease and there will be no water reservoirs to tap into.
Dynamiting the beaver dams is not a sustainable approach. It is costly ongoing and labor intensive. Also, what environment damage is occurring with the dynamiting?
Methods to deal with water control and beavers, other than dynamiting the beaver dams and killing the beaver, have been developed elsewhere. These are cost effective with minimum labor required. They allow for management/control of the water levels while leaving the beaver alone. I have spoken of these to the researchers and I hope that someone takes the time to check it out. They seem like such a win/win solution.
The Sask Research study showed the historical records of dry and wet periods, and temperatures which
correlate to the water levels in the lakes. Also, we know the water levels have been much lower in the distant past than those experienced over the last century. The Water Resource Management group attributes the recent rise in water lake level solely to the removal of the beaver dams. They do not note that we have had high levels of precipitation during this period as well. It becomes somewhat difficult to determine the prime cause of the water level increase.
Perhaps we need to learn to live with Mother Nature and the water fluctuations, instead of trying to control/ dominate her. We certainly need to be very careful in any manipulations which may impact even minimally on the environment.
Yvonne Dobson
Kenosee Lake
