How Many Animals Killed On UK Roads Each Year -it should keep you awake at night

 

National Road Death Survey The Mammal Society 2001

There have been warnings that common mammal species such as hedgehogs, badgers and hares might be declining and face local extinction in certain parts of Europe primarily due to road casualties. In Britain annual road casualties are estimated to account for 100,000 foxes, 100,000 hedgehogs, 50,000 badgers and 30,000-50,000 deer. There is also concern regarding particular bird of prey species such as the barn owl, which is dramatically over-represented in the total number of wildlife road casualties compared with other bird of prey species. For these reasons, The Mammal Society, in collaboration with the Hawk and Owl Trust, undertook a nationwide survey to identify trends in road and habitat characteristics associated with mammal and bird of prey wildlife road casualties.

For one year, in 2000/2001, 281 volunteers from across Britain recorded wild mammal and bird of prey casualties on all road categories except designated trunk roads and motorways, which were excluded on the grounds of safety. A number of habitat and road characteristic variables were recorded at each casualty location including the speed limit, proximity to a bend, presence or absence of a connecting wildlife corridor (e.g. a stream, railway line or hedgerow), and the adjacent land use, verge habitats and highway boundary features Regional differences in casualty rates were also investigated. Volunteers were also requested to record road and habitat data at non- casualty locations along their route so that characteristics occurring disproportionately more frequently at casualty locations than at non-casualty locations could be identified.

Volunteers recorded 5675 mammal casualties and 142 bird of prey casualties. Figures 1 and 2 show the principal mammal and bird of prey road casualty species as proportions of the total number of casualties. The hedgehog was the most numerous mammal casualty recorded (29% of mammal casualties), followed by badger (25%) and fox (19%). The most numerous bird of prey road casualty recorded was the tawny owl (25% of casualties), followed by kestrel (19%) and then barn owl (16%). Casualties as a proportion of British pre-breeding population size were highest for the badger, fox and barn owl.

Habitat and road features influencing the presence/absence of wildlife road casualties are shown in Table 1. The casualty locations of a number of mammal species, including fox, badger and muntjac, and also the barn owl and kestrel were associated with adjacent linear habitat features that connect with road verges and thus funnel wildlife toward traffic. High traffic speed increased the likelihood of many mammal species, including fox, badger and roe deer, and also the tawny owl, falling victim to vehicles as it reduces the time available for drivers and animals to react to danger. Adjacent land use and region were important factors influencing wildlife road casualty locations and appeared to reflect foraging activity and population density. For example, roe deer and tawny owl road casualties were associated with adjacent woodland habitat and badger casualties were disproportionately high in the south-west of England.

Due to the impact of road casualties it has been suggested that barn owls are unable to sustain viable breeding populations in close proximity to trunk roads and motorways and that road casualties may even be responsible for suppressing the populations of some of our common mammal species on a local scale. There are also a significant number of human fatalities and a considerable economic cost associated with collisions between vehicles and wildlife. There is therefore, a conservation and economic argument for substantial investment in wildlife accident prevention. This study has highlighted typical casualty hotspot locations where such mitigation measures should be implemented.

We are extremely grateful for the tremendous effort of all the volunteers who participated in the survey, all of whom will be sent a summary report in the near future.

By Lincoln Garland

Figure 1. Mammal road casualty proportions

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Bird of prey road casualty proportions

 

 

 

 The 4% between unknown and little owl pertains to sparrowhawks

Table 1. Habitat and road features influencing the presence/absence of wildlife road casualties

 

	Adjacent verge habitat	Adjacent land use	Adjacent highway boundary	Connecting Wildlife corridor	Road speed limit	Proximity to a road bend	Region
Mammals	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Hedgehog	ns	√ (urban)	√ (ditch)	ns	ns	ns	ns
Hare	ns	√ (arable)	√ (ditch)	ns	ns	√ (no bend)	√ (north England)
Grey squirrel	√ (wooded)	√ (urban and woodland)	ns	ns	ns	ns	√ (south-east)
Rat	ns	√ (urban)	ns	ns	ns	√ (on bend)	ns
Fox	ns	ns	ns	√	√	ns	ns
Stoat	ns	ns	√ (ditch)	√	√	ns	ns
Weasel	ns	ns	ns	√	ns	ns	ns
Polecat/ferret	ns	√ (pasture)	ns	√	ns	ns	ns
Mink	ns	ns	ns	√	ns	ns	ns
Badger	ns	√ (pasture)	√ (ditch & hedge)	√	√	ns	√ (south-west)
Roe deer	ns	√ (woodland)	√ (ditch)	ns	√	ns	ns
Muntjac	√ (wooded)	ns	√ (ditch and treeline)	√	√	ns	ns
Birds of prey	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Kestrel	ns	√ (arable)	ns	√	ns	ns	ns
Barn owl	ns	√ (arable)	√ (no hedge)	√	ns	ns	ns
Tawny owl	ns	√ (woodland)	ns	ns	√	ns	ns

ns – non-significant

√ - significant

Here we have to remember that these are just reports gathered through volunteers and so fox 19% and badger 25% seems to be a little off when the Society states that an estimated 100,000 foxes and 50,000badgers are killed each year on UK roads. In fact, animals killed on roads or being hit by cars are rarely reported as the attitude exists that "animals should not be on the road" and "what's the point of reporting a dead animal?" -something I hear all too often. 

For a country calling itself a "nation of animal lovers" this is literally widespread slaughter on an industrial scale when put alongside hundreds of mammals (and birds) killed each week for shooters 'sport' and the 'legal; killing of 250,000 badgers to stop supposed bovine TB spread. 

With road casualties we know that otters, foxes, badgers and deer are killed daily and in many cases along certain and very specific stretches of road. Yet, there is, unlike most wildlife conscious countries, no use or building of wildlife over or underpasses to stop the casualties. Why not? It might cause a few delays in journeys during building? That is far more preferable than having to record more and more wildlife deaths especially of protected species such as otters and badgers.

Just from the 2023 Bristol Fox and Badger Death Registers we can highlight the areas/roads where most deaths occur and when it comes to otters we know the main road where deaths happen. The UKs local and national 'policies' on environment and conservation are a joke at best and a smoke screen/lie at worse.

Firstly, it might be worth the Home Office examining the widespread use of firearms for 'sport' because on most of the shooters' online pages they brag about the wildlife (and other animals) they have killed and post photographs of themselves with their 'trophies' and yet, the law states (in the case of foxes for instance) that they may be "controlled" if a threat top livestock. So the killing of "hundreds" according to 'sportsmen' of foxes every month is illegal -what livestock are foxes able to take down (and ignore the false lamb claim) especially on the outskirts of towns and cities where foxes mainly feed on rodents and wild rabbits?

Why are fox numbers tumbling i9n the UK? Well, traffic for one and the other is the killing of breeding pairs of foxes as well as cubs.  The number of vixens we record being killed by cars alone shows that there are simply not enough to continue breeding a strong and healthy population and so many are suffering from illnesses and not recovering -the 100,000 per year is looking a tad slim compared to the probable actual number of fox deaths each year in total.

And, yes, I am aware that some shooters include off duty police officers so perhaps the blind eye of the law is blind for a reason?

We need to tackle decline in wildlife while we still can and when you also consider that Mammal Society report was from 2001 and that traffic has increased greatly since then it becomes something that should keep people concerned with wildlife and conservation up at night. It does me.

We need to construct wildlife underpasses and regulate shooting for 'sport'.  We also need to legally come down hard on estates and those who allow the killing of protected and reintroduced birds of prey etc. That or just watch as wildlife disappear.

Bristol Fox and Badger Deaths Registers 2023 Summary

 

The total reported number of dead foxes in the City of Bristol for 2023 stands at 257

I should point out that the total number of fox deaths listed herein are not all that died in 2023. There are numerous reports of “a dead fox in Bedminster not sure what road” as well as “I was driving into Bristol and saw a dead fox -not sure of the location” and when attempting to narrow locations down the usual response is silence or “I have no idea but I’ve reported it”.

The other problem are the “I’ve a dead fox in my garden and the council can’t collect it until after the weekend. It needs moving” and there is no location given once I make it clear that we record dead foxes and only certain fox deaths are of interest to the ongoing study and even all of this is politely explained I usually get the “waste of time. Thought you were interested in dead foxes” which is where things end. People have this idea that if they have to wait overnight or until after the weekend for the council street team to to collect a dead fox then we sort it out for them. We are not a waste disposal service. Now I ask what the address is and then explain the situation and even then asking for a photograph of the said dead fox (a lot can be told by these) will be met with silence.

A problem faced is that Bristol City Council refuses flatly to offer any cooperation on dead foxes and even ones that their waste management stored for us to collect on the day ‘vanished’ with the excuse “Well, anyone can turn up and remove bags” -including, it seems , bags with tags marked “Do Not Remove -Possible Evidence”. Annoyingly more than once I have read on small Bristol groups post stating: “Report it to the Council for removal. They are fast” and these are groups where I have posted regularly on both the Fox Deaths Project and the Fox and Badger Death Registers. When I read “We’ve had three die in our street this month -council came out to collect” then those are three foxes we might have been able to say “RTA” (hit by car) or something we need to look into. Lost for good.

Another problem is people who will offer up the same excuses of “I was driving my children to school” or “I was walking the dog” when it comes to checking whether what they have seen is a dead fox or badger. Three times I have seen a “dead dog” reported only to later have someone later confirm that the dead animal was a fox.

What has been another major problem is the fact that very few of the local wildlife groups cooperate. There are one or two individuals who will let me know if they have seen a post about a dead fox but the main cooperation (reporting of dead foxes) comes from lost and found pet groups. Despite five years of constantly updating Bristol wildlife groups the situation has not improved.

Looking at the death list it is clear that certain areas are hot spots for fox (and badger) deaths and the same applies to otters. Kingswood and Downend are so regular when it comes to fox and badger deaths that I often wonder how there are any left in the area. The same applies to otters in one area. Speed bumps the council object to putting in place as they get “moaned at by motorists” and the idea of installing a wildlife underpass is also unthinkable because of “the money involved in this and traffic problems caused”. So protected species such as badgers and otters will continue to die. Foxes that are declining in numbers are also going to continue dying.

If one or two or even three foxes die on a specific road over a period of 2-3 weeks then there are the claims that “someone is poisoning the foxes”. One reason the Fox Deaths Project was set up in Bristol was to see whether poisoning was a cause of fox death. We have found one -and that was secondary poisoning from eating a poisoned rat which is a far more common way for carnivores and birds of prey (and pets) to die than most realise. Loss of dead foxes due to them not being reported to us denies evidence of causality of death but so far “The Bristol fox poisoner(s)” has proven a myth.

I do not include any dead animal reported unless I have a location - even just a street name – because “Bedminster” or just “Bishopston” does not tell us much; was it near a road, what was its physical condition looking like before death? And “can you confirm it was a fox? Often resulted in no responses or “I have no idea. I assumed it was a fox at the side of the road” (no one as far as I know keeps tabs on the number of RTA pet cats in the City). It is why I always ask if a photo can be taken of the animal reported in situ -again, a photograph can tell us a lot about how a fox died or whether someone moved it out of the road. A photograph also ensures that no hoaxes get listed and it is sad to state that we do get those but after decades I usually detect hoaxes quickly. The fact that the hoax reports can only come via local wildlife groups is disturbing since the general public in Bristol is probably unaware of our work.

All of the possible but unconfirmed fox death reports added to the confirmed ones would push the number up past 300. Reporting is better now and whereas for 2022 only 50 fox deaths were recorded we have improved things though to a depressing level.

Fox deaths will continue to be recorded in 2024 and I am sure that some 2023 ones will be added lately -Christmas and New Year are points where no one really cares about reporting fox, badger or otter deaths as there are far more ‘important’ things to get on with.

The sad thing about recording badger deaths in 2023 is that we recorded 16 for 2022 and 53 for this year shows that reporting has improved. However, as with foxes there are posts from people on Bristol wildlife groups, where I post often about the Badger and Fox death registers. That “I see dead badgers regularly along that road” or “It’s quite common to see dead badgers on that point in the road”. These people can rarely recall dates or where exactly these regular deaths are seen and for that reason the ‘reports’ cannot be included but if they were then we would be looking at 70+ badger deaths for 2023.

At least two ‘badger deaths’ turned out to be (1) a muntjac deer and (2) a fox -confirmed by people who checked later. Another problem is that very often people will post that “I had no idea anyone was interested in dead foxes and badgers -I see them all the time while driving from one end of Bristol to the other” or even “Why bother reporting them when they are dead? It’s so common to see them on the roadside”.

Losses due to people reporting dead badgers to the council street clean team is a problem. The Health and Safety Executive will not allow post mortems on dead badgers over “concerns regarding bovine TB” therefore it is possible that deaths due to disease/illness or illegal killing are going unrecorded. If it were possible to launch a project on dead badgers as we have for foxes then we might learn a lot -0even if only about the overall health of the species locally.

At the moment any badger death is assigned a tag of “RTA” (meaning it was struck by a car) although we do know that in one case a badger fell from a cliff top in bad weather. All we are able

to do so far is simply list deaths and locations and here we do see the same roads accounting for fox and badger deaths -Downend and Kingswood being the two most prominent.

As a “protected” species little is done in the way of death prevention. Wildlife underpasses would certainly cut back on deaths but authorities are not willing to even contemplate such a measure. That so many die at a time when the national population is under threat is both angering and sad.

Terry Hooper-Scharf

1^st January 2024

Canid Study (f 1976)

Bristol Badger Group (f 1995)

A Pdf for each Register is available to those involved in research.

A Few Words To Remember

 

Yes, UK Wildlife IS Heading Toward More Extinctions. Sit Back And Enjoy Your Pizza

 

The Soon to be extinct mammals

 "The marten cat and the polecat, the badger and the otter. unless where the latter is strictly preserved for hunting purposes, are in many places very rare indeed, and the two former almost extinct, and were it not that the fox...happens at present, to be the petted animal which provides for rich and poor the sport of kings, healthy exercise, and employment for thousands, and puts more money in circulation, directly or indirectly, than all of the other wild animals in the world put together, he too -for, alas! he has many enemies -would in our islands, soon become a thing of the past, with nothing to remind future generations of the bygone glories, delights, and excitements of the chase, save a few antiquated volumes in our libraries, or perhaps a dusty and moth-eaten mask or brush hanging in the ancestral hall!"

Thus wrote Colonel J. S. Talbot in 1905. A true sporting psychopath. In fact, as noted before, there were extinctions of species in the UK that resulted in various species being imported into the UK to keep 'sport' alive. Talbot writes of the excitement and delight of men and women on horse back running behind large hounds all to enjoy the chase and the kill and try to snatch a foot or tail or even head (mask). The hounds themselves, described in Talbot's own words "devoured"the whole fox. The "beloved" hounds were treated despicably and starved to make them read to chase, kill and eat. Cruelty to fox hounds and horses is nothing new.

Talbot also notes how the three Old British foxes were driven to extinction or to hybridise with the newly imported foxes. The extinction of the Old foxes occurred around the 1860s and some may have clung on in remote parts of Scotland but they were said to have survi9ved in Ireland where no new foxes were introduced -one might ask why English hunts sent gift foxes to Irish hunts if the species survived there?

Talbot was a typical old duffer of the 'sport' and writes about how he and hunts would ride through crop fields in Egypt which natives did not like but, you know, bloody foreigners knew their place. In England crops and much more fell victim to riders and hounds which is why the 'hunt loving' countrymen started fencing off their land and fields with wire -so hated by the hunts.

Note also that Talbot states how the Marten cat and polecat had been driven to extinction in some areas and in others were what we would call today "critical status". All of these 'sportsmen' knew full well and wrote and spoke about hunting making species extinct and yet they carried on killing while "o woe-ing!" They could not stop themselves; they had to have the stalking, chasing and killing and souvenir taking of the true psychopath even though they knew they were wiping out species -new ones could always be purchased to continue the 'fun'.

Is it not 'funny' how the same thing is said here about how fox hunting raised and circulated more money and created more employment than any other animal hunted and killed in the world -a complete and utter nonsense and if Talbot believed this he was self deceiving on a grand scale. He was, in fact, stating that fox hunting benefitted the economy on a large scale. When government and local authorities want to push the destruction of green spaces and old woods and forestry to build offices, homes and, ooh, let's say wasting billions of GB£ on a rail network destroying habitat how often do you hear that those objecting are not thinking of the local economy, the benefits to the community and the many jobs that will be created? It is something always spouted and thankfully more people are becoming aware of this.

Yes, the "poor" (which would be anyone not rich enough to be called Middle class or afford to be a member of the local otter, hare or fox hounds) also killed these animals and not necessarily for 'sport' -many did so because they enjoyed killing the animals in question and there was a nice bounty to collect for what you killed. This was proudly and nationally known and accepted and the terms "vulpicide", "melecide" and "felicide" were used -"good work and congratulations" to those who wiped out badgers. Later it turned into a rich man and (grudgingly) woman's "bit of fun" but the British from top to bottom rungs of the social ladder all did their part.

Badgers were baited, poisoned, shot, snared and even simply clubbed while the 'sportsmen' accepted that the badgers were "simple and harmless creatures" -but, you know, "kill 'em!"

The fact that despite all of the melecide British badgers survived has always been something of a mystery (which I recently solved) and in the 1970s the species was give 'protected' status by the government and yet, in 2023 the same people who gave that protected are making a few people quite wealthy by paying for the slaughter of 250,000 badgers and that knowing full well that 60,000 plus are dying on our roads each year.

Talbot feared the badger was about to go extinct but it hung on and survived until the 21st century and over 100 years later humans are set to achieve that goal -recognised by many around the world as wrong. In A Field Guide To The Carnivores Of The World by Luke Hunter (Panthera, London, 2011) it is stated (p. 164):

"Persecuted as a pest and for illegal 'baiting' with terriers. Controversially culled as a carrier of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in the UK, despite strong evidence that culls do not reduce incidence of the disease. Red List"

Red List means that it is considered an endangered species and, of course, in the UK it is 'protected' by the same body (DEFRA/Natural England) that pays shooters a lot of money to go out and kill them. Scientifically if eradicating a supposed cause of disease has no effect then it is clear that said suspected cause is innocent.  In the UK it has been suggested t6hat infected cattle can pass bTB to badgers and vice versa but there is no proven source and some data featured in reports seems inconsistent with facts. In Bovine Tuberculosis in Britain and Ireland – A Perfect Storm? the Confluence of Potential Ecological and Epidemiological Impediments to Controlling a Chronic Infectious Disease a paper by A. R. Allen, R. A. Skuce, and A. W. Byrne (2018) it is stated that:

"Even with such heterogeneity of approach across time and national boundaries, it remains startling that particularly in Britain, which came close to achieving eradication in the 1960 and 1970s  bovine TB is resurgent "

Therefore we -I say "we" as in the British "animal loving" public- sit by and very few do anything. Well, save a species and try to help the environment or watch the latest TV soap "scandal story"....with a pizza and beer? Yes, the pizza industry is doing well.

Talbot and his kin -even as far back as the 18th century- were noting how they were wiping out any and every species for 'fun' but also to make an area better for the chosen sport whether pheasant and grouse hunting or hare coursing. They bemoan the species being lost (no sport when they went) but mass importation was there.

I am writing this knowing full well that it will be "in one eye and out the other". No one cares.  Let's believe that badgers (not bad animal husbandry) badgers spread TB -kill the lot. Foxes are on the decline -so what?  Thousands  of species are dying every year on our roads. So what? The UK does not recognise the need for wildlife overpasses and underpasses nor want to spend any money on that nonsense.

"This green and pleasant land"

"A nation of animal lovers"

The Blood red Island

Get off of your asses and do something before we have another period of extinctions -EXTINCTION IS FOREVER

Beavers: A Protected Species ...Subject To Lethal Control (killing)

 This shows the falseness of the claim that an animal is a protected species 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/beavers-how-to-manage-them-and-when-you-need-a-licence#:~:text=Eurasian%20beavers%20are%20protected%20as,burrow%2C%20lodge%20or%20associated%20dam:

Eurasian beavers are protected as a European protected species in England.

It is against the law to:

• deliberately injure, kill, capture or disturb beavers
• damage or destroy a beaver breeding site or resting place such as a burrow, lodge or associated dam
• keep a beaver or parts of a beaver you have taken from the wild
• transport a beaver
• sell or exchange, or offer a beaver for sale or exchange

You may need to manage beavers that are present on your land. Certain management activities will be possible without a licence, but some can only be carried out with a licence. This guide helps you decide if you need to apply for a beaver licence from Natural England.

Yeah, there you go with the "beaver management" and we ought to know what that means by now. In fact the page even states "lethal removal" -killing a beaver:

When you need a licence

You must have a licence if you need to:

• modify or remove a burrow or lodge
• modify or remove a dam that is associated with a burrow or lodge
• remove a food cache where it is joined to a lodge
• cause disturbance that affects a beaver’s ability to survive or breed
• transport and release a beaver
• kill, injure or capture a beaver
• possess a dead beaver or its body parts
• sell or exchange, or offer for sale or exchange, a beaver

You could get a 6-month prison sentence or an unlimited fine if you are convicted of these offences.

You do not need a licence to modify or remove a dam if it’s less than 2 weeks old or to modify or remove a day rest.

Wildlife licences for managing beaver activity

There are 3 beaver class licences that Natural England can issue for beaver management to:

• modify or remove beaver dams – for farmers, landowners, fishery managers, foresters, land or water managers, and their advisers or consultants
• modify or remove beaver burrows, lodges and dams or possess dead beavers or their body parts – for employees of public bodies or authorities, fishery managers, land and water managers, and their advisers or consultants
• capture, transport and re-release beavers, modify or remove burrows, lodges and dams or possess dead beavers or their body parts – for beaver management groups, experts and specialists

If these licences do not cover the action you need to take, such as lethal control, you can apply for an individual licence from Natural England.

What a surprise so unlike red squirrels that forestry folk can kill off (their land and they can do what they want) if a beaver is a 'nuisance to forestry or any made up 'nuisance' it can be killed -look what legal protection has done for the rapidly going extinct badger.  We also know that if someone wants a beaver subject to "lethal control" on their land they will do exactly what they have always done and that is pay a local shooter to take care of things "on the quiet" and dispose of evidence. They do this for any wandering dog (even if just wandering", badgers and foxes and it's all a nice earner for them.

Introduction and conservation when it is convenient. Absolutely no animal or bird wiped out by humans in the UKL should ever be "reintroduced" -they will still end up being killed.

We know that beaver have been introduced intro certain areas before the current 'legal' releases planned. In some cases beaver may have survived in a remote area but things get very complicated. Read this from 2017 -beavers are definitely not living safely:

Beavers Are Mysteriously Back in Britain

But the government is concerned about the mysterious return of a potentially destructive animal long thought extinct.

BY CHRISTOPHER WERTH

PUBLISHED 2 NOV 2017, 12:30 GMT

PHOTOGRAPH BY ARTERRA PICTURE LIBRARY, ALAMY

Tom Buckley was overjoyed. The retired environmental scientist proudly documented the first family of beavers living wild in England since the species was hunted to near extinction in Britain several hundred years ago—a discovery that came almost by accident.

He first noticed a few tree stumps gnawed to pencil-like points on the River Otter, a shallow watercourse near his home in the town of Ottery St. Mary. The find prompted him to place a night-vision camera on the riverbank that soon produced a grainy, black-and-white video of three beavers happily frolicking in the water. "It was marvelous to see," said Buckley, whose images made international headlines.

But if it sounds curious that beavers should suddenly reappear on an island like Britain after a centuries-long absence (in a river and in a town named after otters, no less), the government certainly isn't pleased. Following those initial news reports, it announced plans to trap and remove the beavers.

While one theory suggests they escaped from a nearby nature reserve, it's far more likely they were released illegally by what's known in the trade as "beaver bombers"—in other words, wildlife vigilantes who operate under the cover of night. And with animals of such questionable origins, Britain's environment department cites the risk of a tapeworm sometimes found in beavers in continental Europe.

That is, assuming they're Eurasian beavers (Castor fiber) and not the North American variety (Castor canadensis), a separate species that, like many things American, can grow larger than its European counterparts.

Environmental Change

More important, however, beavers cut down trees, build dams, and flood waterways. Apart from humans, no other species alters its environment more. And in its decision, the British government raises a much broader question about the animal's place and potential impact in modern Britain.

"Beavers have not been an established part of our wildlife for the past 500 years," said a department spokesman. "Our landscape and habitats have changed since then."

In truth, no one's sure exactly when the beaver went extinct in Britain. The rodent was highly valued for its fur and medicinal glands. The last written record is a bounty paid for a beaver head in Yorkshire in 1789, although the species would have vanished from other regions of the country long before then. What is certain is that the beaver is native to Britain and the River Otter is just the latest front in a contentious, decades-old battle over whether to reintroduce the species, with a cadre of ecologists on one side that touts the beaver's environmental benefits, and farmers, landowners, and fishermen on the other who fear the animal could disrupt a way of life to which the British have grown accustomed.

The beaver seen here, at night along the River Otter, is thought to be the only one of its kind living wild in England.

PHOTOGRAPH BY TOM BUCKLEY, REX FEATURES, VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS

In Ottery St. Mary, Jenny Hill, a local resident, wiped crumbs from a tablecloth after a church social event. "I think it's awful," she said of the government's intent to capture the beavers. "I really just hope they leave them alone."

To rally support, Buckley has plastered shop windows around town with signs that read "Save Our Beavers," urging people to sign a petition.

Instead of killing the animals, the government hopes to find them a new home in captivity. But even then, the decision has infuriated Buckley. "I can't think of anything more horrifying," he said as he gazed out on the River Otter. "I've spent so much time with these beavers, probably more than anyone else."

Since his initial sighting, the 61-year-old has diligently chronicled the beavers. He can identify each one by the markings on its tail, and he filmed three brand-new, baby kits. If the adult beavers weren't born wild on the river, Buckley asserts, their offspring most definitely were.

On the opposite side of the debate is Mark Owen of Angling Trust, an organisation that represents the interests of anglers in England. It has lobbied ministers in London to remove the beavers, concerned their dams will block the migration of salmon and sea trout. "All fish species need to move around the river system in order to properly complete their life cycles," Owen said.

A Country Transformed

Although beaver and fish would have coexisted in Britain for tens of thousands of years, and continue to do so in other countries, he believes the British countryside has been transformed beyond recognition since the last beaver disappeared.

"The majority of our rivers have been impacted by man, either by dredging, straightening, or widening. We also presumably, at that point, had very good and high fish stocks. Now we don't," Owen argued.

"Not enough scrutiny has been given to the effects of beaver reintroduction."

However, most pro-beaver folks will tell you the case in favour of beavers is already well established. Britain lags far behind the rest of Europe, where the beaver's comeback is widely regarded as an environmental success story. Reintroductions on the Continent began in the early 20th century, after the population sank to a mere 1,200 survivors. It now stands well above 300,000.

PHOTOGRAPH BY NG STAFF; JOEY FENING. SOURCES: SCOTTISH BEAVER TRIAL; NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH

Likewise in North America, where the fur trade decimated the species, millions of beavers are now thriving across Canada and the United States. Under European Union law, an onus is placed on member states like Britain to consider reintroducing lost species, but Scotland is the only territory to have made any real strides on behalf of the beaver (the Scottish government makes its own decisions on such matters).

Wildlife conservationists there have just completed a five-year reintroduction trial, and a public poll found 60 percent of Scots support re-establishing the beaver as a native species.

Beavers Easy to Reintroduce

"Beavers are one of the easiest extinct animals to reintroduce," said Derek Gow, an ecologist who operates a farm a short drive from the River Otter. "It's something we should have done a very long time ago."

In conservation circles, Gow is often referred to as "The Beaver Man." And with his large frame and round, bearded face, the man very much resembles the creature. He sees the beaver as an essential keystone species that's vital for creating the kind of complex wetlands that support greater biodiversity and, in response to the Angling Trust, healthier fish stocks.

To demonstrate, Gow has released dozens of beavers into large, open enclosures on his land. We made our way down into a wooded ravine where the animals have been re-engineering an ordinary stream into a cascade of small dams and shallow pools filled with amphibian eggs.

"Before we put the beavers in, there were no clumps of amphibian eggs at all," Gow said. "By the time the beavers finish manipulating this site, there will be thousands and thousands. If there are no beavers building dams, then things like amphibians simply can't exist. And of course, these amphibians are, in their own right, a very important prey base for a host of other species."

It's a habitat Gow says Britain has been missing for the past few centuries.

If Adrian Lloyd Jones had his way, beavers would already be hard at work in the Welsh countryside. For nearly a decade the 45-year-old has run the Welsh Beaver Project on a shoestring budget, working to bring the species back to Wales, which like Scotland has its own say on reintroductions. When we met, he was showing off a taxidermied beaver named Hanc to a group of children at a summer funfair on the Afon Rheidol, a small river that winds through a bucolic valley full of sheep and spindly hedgerows.

Jones plans to release beavers nearby and needs as much local support as he can get, so he had made the trip down in a beat-up old van, sleeping in the back next to Hanc to save money. He smiled as the kids prodded the stuffed animal and their parents politely asked questions.

"I haven't had one person against," he said.

Welsh Government Opposition

Elsewhere, though, Jones has run into fierce resistance, including heated town hall meetings, and his experience proves just how fraught species reintroduction can be. The Welsh Beaver Project was supposed to have released its first batch of beavers, but as Jones claims, the Welsh government scuppered those plans.

The minister for natural resources in Wales, John Griffiths, who oversees such decisions, declined a request for an interview. That's perhaps because beavers can be a political minefield in this country. While polls like the one in Scotland reveal general support for beaver reintroduction, farmers often abhor the idea, and they're an important voting block, particularly in Wales where agriculture remains a key component of the economy.

"Over 90 percent of the farmers and landowners have signed a petition against having any beavers on the river," said Gareth Daniels, a tall, 62-year-old sheep and cattle farmer who owns 190 acres along the Rheidol. His family goes back several generations in the river valley, which saw intense flooding in 2012, and he worries beaver dams would only exacerbate the problem.

Daniels drove his pick-up truck across the Rheidol's shallow gravel bed as his cows watched from the riverbank. "I call the beaver a vermin," said the Welshman, using the term applied to a number of species hunted to extinction, or very near it, under England's so-called Vermin Acts of the 16th century. "I'm not really interested in bringing species that have been extinct back. I would rather it not happen."

Dafydd Jarrett of the National Farmers' Union in Wales agrees. While Jones argues that beaver-created wetlands would actually retain water and minimise flooding, Jarrett isn't convinced farmers will have the liberty to remove problematic dams or even kill particularly troublesome beavers.

"The public outcry ... could potentially put any control programme at risk," said Jarrett, who fears beavers in Britain could earn European legal protection just as they enjoy in other countries.

He points to places like Bavaria in Germany, where farmers frequently come into conflict with beavers whose underground burrows can erode farmland next to riverbanks.

"Epidemic" Destruction

And in the U.S., growing beaver populations have been known to cause what the U.S. Department of Agriculture called "epidemic" destruction to crops and other property.

In response to such complaints, Jones has moved his proposed reintroduction off the main trunk of the Rheidol, away from farmland. He hopes the Welsh government will finally give him the go-ahead next spring.

On the River Otter, Tom Buckley says he's seen wildlife agents scouting for a place to set their beaver traps, although the environment department declined to confirm this. Rumours abound of other beaver families living up and down the river, and a local wildlife trust is pleading with the government to let the beavers stay so it can study their environmental impact.

George Eustace, the British undersecretary who announced the planned capture, did not respond to an interview request. Yet even if the government removes the animals, or if Wales never grants permission for a release, many proponents believe beavers will recolonise Britain, whether farmers and anglers like it or not.

"If we don't do an official reintroduction, it'll happen anyway," said Jones as he strapped Hanc into the back of his van with a bungee tie. He points to the Tay in Scotland, currently home to an estimated 200 to 300 beavers living wild on its banks and tributaries.

Beaver advocates claim their numbers have grown out of a handful of escapees from nearby enclosures over a decade ago. But privately, other beaver experts admit a population of that size would have to be the result of illegal releases, and the future of the Tay beavers is uncertain. Scottish ministers are expected to decide next year whether they can stay.

"There's no doubt that beaver bombers are putting pressure on the government," Jones said. "If they don't do it properly, it's going to happen by the back door, and happening by the back door wouldn't be a good thing. It's far better to do it in a planned, coordinated, and organised way."

But he warns many beaver proponents have grown increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of progress. Off the record, some express a willingness to take matters into their own hands. "You can't stop people doing this. I've heard, probably third hand, people say, 'For every one beaver they take, we're going to put ten back,' " said Jones. "There's probably, in truth, enough beavers out there that in 30 years' time, they'll start to appear on lots of rivers."