Landowner Perceptions of Beaver Damage and Control in Arkansas

Landowner perceptions of damage caused by beavers (Castor canadensis) and of beaver control programs in Arkansas were determined by mail survey. Beavers were present on lands owned by 36% of the 1,716 respondents. Girdled timber, blocked culverts and flooded timber were the first, second and third most common damages reported, respectively. Thirty-two percent of all respondents and 90% of those with beavers reported at least one form of damage. Four percent of land owned by respondents was flooded by beavers. Of landowners with beavers, 50% described damage as substantial or severe, and 46% perceived damage as unreasonable. At least one benefit was reported by 27% of landowners with beavers; aesthetic enjoyment was the benefit most often cited (14%). Of those with beavers, 64% felt beavers were a nuisance, 17% said they could enjoy a few beavers but worried about potential damage and 10% said they enjoyed beavers. Decreased beaver populations were desired by 74% of landowners with beavers, but only 47% had tried beaver removal and only 25% said they would pay for removal. Of all respondents, 26% were aware that government agencies offered beaver control programs but only 15% knew that the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission offered the control program in Arkansas. Ninety percent of respondents felt government agencies should provide assistance. Landowners most often requested information on controlling beavers (44%) and demonstration of control techniques (40%) . Coordinating assistance programs among several agencies, emphasizing education and demonstration, and loaning traps might improve landowner assistance programs in Arkansas. ^/Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Forest Resources, University of Arkansas at Monticello, Monticello, AR 71655 INTRODUCTION Beavers have greatly affected our nation's natural resources through their ability to impound water and fell trees. Trade in beaver and other furbearer pelts was important to the early commerce and settlement of Arkansas (Plaisance 1952) . Beaver pelts were among the most highly prized furs during the 17th and 18th centuries, and were used to produce fine felt hats for consumers in Europe. The influence of beavers in Arkansas is evidenced by place names such as the town of Beaver and Beaver Lake in the Ozarks region of the state. Unregulated trapping resulted in beavers being eliminated from Arkansas soon after 1900 (Sealander 1979) . Other species such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) also reached record low population densities in Arkansas and throughout the Southeast during the early 1900s because of unregulated exploitation and habitat destruction. Although many Arkansans desired restoration of these diminished wildlife populations, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission did not have the financial resources to undertake the task. Passage of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act in 1937 provided the needed funding through a 10% manufacturers' excise tax on sporting goods and ammunition. State wildlife agencies throughout the Southeast used Pittman-Robertson funds during the 1940s and 1950s to restore populations of many species to more desirable levels. Transplants of about 50 beavers between 1943 and 1945 succeeded in reestablishing a viable population in Arkansas (Sealander 1979). Beavers, however, have caused damage throughout the southeastern United States since their reintroduction. Hill (1976) estimated that beavers had flooded at least 161,877 hectares (ha) in the Southeast. Estimates of inundated land in individual states include 29,000 ha in Mississippi (Arner and DuBose 1978), 116,477 ha in