Beaver Population Analysis

And
An Assessment of 1995-2004 Harvest Trends

Prepared by
Paul Saunders
Wildlife Division
Corner Brook
Newfoundland and Labrador
Canada

1
 Beaver Population Analysis

Issue:

Concerns about current and historical beaver populations has been raised in previous
Furbearer Management plans. These concerns were brought forth primarily by trappers
on the Northern Peninsula, Zone 11, and indicated that populations in this area had
declined to a point where it became uneconomical to pursue further trapping activities.
An investigation as to the causes for observed declines has been initiated.

Review of Existing Beaver Data:

To facilitate the evaluation of beaver populations and the identification of possible

reasons for declines a review of existing beaver data was conducted. The initial review
of this data set revealed that the period from 1995 – 2004 included sufficient information
for the analysis of trends for all beaver management zones on the island of
Newfoundland. Data for the period prior to this period currently exists but was in a form
that did not allow for inclusion in subsequent analysis.

Analysis of Existing Beaver Data:

Existing data for the period of 1995-2004 was collected and organized using Microsoft
Excel. This information consisted of the average price for beavers by year, the number of
beavers captured by zone per year and the number of active traplines. To standardize the
data, due to the size difference in beaver management zones, harvest data was converted
to the catch rate per square kilometer for each zone by year. This was accomplished by
accessing data from the WIMS system, identifying active traplines by zone per year and
calculating associated areas of active traplines by zone using acrgis.

This data was then plotted using excel and the result can be seen in figure 1. To make it
easier to see any trends apparent in the data, trendlines using forth order polynomials for
best fit, were constructed and plotted using excel. The result of this exercise can be seen
in figure 2.

It was hypothesized that the observed trends in catch rates could be explained by changes
in the average beaver price paid by year. To evaluate this possibility a regression
analysis was conducted comparing observed catch rates to changes in the average price
paid for beaver pelts for the period 1995 - 2004. The results of this analysis can be seen
in Table 1. The average price for a beaver pelt by year can be seen in figure 3. For
reference purposes the historical annual harvest of beavers can be seen in figure 4.

2
Fig. 1 Catch Rate of Beaver per km2 of Active Traplines by Zone
Catch /KM2 Active Traplines
Zone 11 Active KM2 Zone 10 Active KM2 Zone 9 Active KM2 Zone 8 Active KM2
Zone 7 Active KM2 Zone 6 Active KM2 Zone 5 Active KM2 Zone 4 Active KM@
Zone 3 Active KM2 Zone 2 Active KM2 Zone 1 Active KM2
0.25

0.2
Catch Rate/KM2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Year

Fig. 2 Trendlines for the Catch Rate per km2 of Active Traplines by Zone.

Catch /KM2 Active Trendlines

Poly. (Zone 11 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 10 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 9 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 8 Active KM2)
Poly. (Zone 7 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 6 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 5 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 4 Active KM@)
Poly. (Zone 3 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 2 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 1 Active KM2)
0.25

0.2

0.15
Catch Rate/KM2

0.1 R2 = 0.9119

0.05 R2 = 0.9557
2
R22 = 0.2119
0.5321
0.8168
R2 = 0.6421
R = 0.7229
0.5814
R22 = 0.8504
R = 0.7054

R2 = 0.8844
0
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Year

3
Fig. 3 Average Beaver Pelt Price for the Period 1995-2004

Average Price Beaver

Average Price
Poly. (Average Price)
35

30

R2 = 0.7375
25

20
Price

15

10

0
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Year

Fig. 4 Beaver Harvest 1963 – 2004

Beaver Harvest 1963 - 2004

5000

4500

4000

3500
Number Harvested

3000

2500 Series1

2000

1500

1000

500

0
19 4

19 6

19 8

19 0

19 2

19 4

19 6

19 8

19 0

19 2

19 4

19 6

19 8

19 0

19 2

19 4

19 6

19 8

20 0

20 2

4
-6

-6

-6

-7

-7

-7

-7

-7

-8

-8

-8

-8

-8

-9

-9

-9

-9

-9

-0

-0

-0
63

65

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

01

03
19

Year

4
Table 1 Regression Analysis Catch Rate km2 and Annual Beaver Pelt Price

Regression Analysis
1995-2002 1995-2004
R
Zone R Square P-Value Square P-Value
1 0.13856 0.363847 0.003244 0.875788
2 0.459559 0.064656 0.129894 0.306279
3 0.192984 0.276149 0.220607 0.170792
4 0.404221 0.090195 0.392131 0.052748
5 0.241301 0.216394 0.069794 0.460766
6 0.332128 0.134846 0.112165 0.344172
7 0.531048 0.040302 0.185927 0.213441
8 0.440591 0.072675 0.064902 0.477497
9 0.6712 0.012831 0.285175 0.111836
10 0.573787 0.029486 0.182625 0.218006
11 0.650475 0.015581 0.188432 0.210038
AllNF 0.574724 0.029275 0.192732 0.204326

Discussion of Results:

It is apparent from figure 2 that all beaver management zones on the island of
Newfoundland have experienced a decline in catch rates since 1995. The trends for all
zones also show that the pattern of decline was the same throughout the island. From this
the conclusion can be reached that the factor driving this decline must be of the same
magnitude and widespread.

To evaluate the impact of average beaver pelt price on catch rates per km2 a regression
analysis was completed. For the period of 1995 – 2004 catch rate was positively related
to price (r2 = 0.19, P = 0.20) but the analysis did not show a significant relationship.
When the period 1995 -2002 is considered a strong positive relationship becomes
apparent (r2 = 0.57, P = 0.029). This is similar to results obtain for beaver in Alberta (r2 =
0.66, P < 0.001) (Poole, et al, 2001). The reason for the breakdown in relationship
between price and catch rate after 2002 could be explained if existing populations
declined to the point where harvest could not be increased even with a substantial
increase in price. This seems to have occurred on the island since the average price for
beaver was the highest in 2003, $32.33, than for any other year for the period being
considered. Even though we did see a slight increase in catch rates for 2003 (Fig. 2) it
did not approach the catch rates seen in 1995 and 1996 when the average price was
lower.

When harvest is considered by zone, all zones on the island showed a positive
relationship to price. This relationship was significant for 8 zones for the period 1995 -
2002 but for only 1 zone when data for 2003 and 2004 was added (Table 1).

5
Another factor that supports the hypothesis that current catch rates are being influence by
population size is the fact that the total area trapped on the island has increased since
1995 (r2 = 0.63, P = 0.005) (Fig. 5). This increase in area did not translate into a
corresponding increase in the total number of beaver caught, which would be expected if
population numbers had remained constant during this period. The corresponding catch
rate per km2 for this period declined, (r2 = 0.61, P = 0.007), as can be seen in figure 6.

The underlying reason for the decline in catch rates for the period 1995 -2002 is in part
related to the average price for beaver. The continuation of low catch rates into 2003 and
2004 suggests that some other factor have an influence which overrides the impact
caused by pelt price. Two factors that may cause this continued decline could be low
population numbers or a reduction in effort of trappers. The rise in the total area trap
from 1995 -2004 does not seem to support the conclusion that trapping effort declined
enough to account for the observed declines in catch rates. At this point in time we do
not have sufficient data on beaver densities to state that low catch rates are be controlled
by low populations in all zones. The rate of decline in all areas does suggest that
increased trapping effort may have had a negative impact on beaver densities and may
have pushed population to a point where recovery is not possible at the current level of
trapping effort. Further research is proposed below which is designed to answer this
question.

Fig. 5 Total Area of Beaver Taplines Trapped on the Island 1995 – 2004
Total Area Trapped km2
All Zones
Total Area Trapped km2
Linear (Total Area Trapped km2)
56000

55000 R2 = 0.6389

54000

53000

52000
km2

51000

50000

49000

48000

47000
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Year

6
Fig. 6 Catch Rate per km2 Island of Newfoundland, 1995 -2004
Catch Rate per km2 Catch Rate km2
Island of Newfoundland Linear (Catch Rate km2)
0.1

0.09

0.08

0.07
Number Caught per km2

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03 R2 = 0.6188

0.02

0.01

0
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Year

Proposed Research:

To answer questions concerning current beaver population densities on its relationship to

observed catch rates basic research on beaver abundance and distribution needs to be
conducted. Due to the large area involved funding required for a complete census would
be prohibitive. This creates the need for the development of a protocol that could be
supported with limited funds and utilizes the input of trappers to estimate current beaver
densities for all zones in the province. To achieve this it is proposed that a combination
of individual trapline surveys coupled with personal interviews with associated trappers
be conducted. Since this process was initiated by complaints from trappers in zone 11 in
is suggested that this area be include in upcoming field activities. The following research
is proposed as a trial to determine if population parameters can be estimated using this
approach.

2 traplines from 2 zones will be surveyed using helicopter.

Zone 11
Trapline # 568 (80.9 km2) and 334 (101.1 km2)

Zone 10
Trapline# 598 (88.8 km2) and 287 (80.2 km2)

7
A complete survey of all 4 traplines is to be conducted. All activite lodges are to be
identified and gps locations recorded in UTM’s (NAD 83). This information is then to be
transferred to arcgis. Density maps for all traplines are to be created and the density of
beavers lodges per square km calculated.

To determine if trapper interviews can be used to provide a similar estimate of beaver

lodge densities it is proposed that the trappers from the 4 traplines surveyed be
interviewed. The following information to be obtained:

- a plot of area trapped

- a plot of all activitive lodges

From this information the percentage of the trapline covered by the trapper can be
calculated and the density of beaver lodges in that area estimated. This number will be
extrapolated to the complete trapline giving an overall density estimate for each trapline.
A comparison between this estimate will then be conducted to determine its accuracy and
develop a correction factor if deemed necessary.

The cost for this phase of the study is as follows:

Helicopter flying time (12 hrs @ $1500.00/hr) $18000.00

Trapper Interviews $ 1000.00

Total $19000.00

If it is determined that trapper interviews provide a reasonable estimate of beaver

population densities this program will be expanded to all zones in the province with
helicopter surveys to be completed only as needed to verify the accuracy of data.

To translate the density of beaver lodges into the actual density of beavers an evaluation
of the number of beavers per active lodge is proposed for the coming year. This work
will be coupled with an evaluation of associated habitat parameters.

8
Beaver survey flights and analysis of data:

The study area in both zone 11 (181 km2) and zone 10 (168.89 km2) was conducted on
November14 and 16, 2005. Conditions during the flights were clear with no
precipitation. Some of the smaller ponds were covered with ice, and snow cover was nil
or trace amounts. Due to travel time, the zone 11 study area required 7.5 hours to
complete and the zone 10 study area required 5.5 hours. The total cost of survey
activities was $17,618.48. Flight lines and lodge locations can be seen in figures 7, 8 and
9.

Figure 7:

9
Figure 8:

Figure 9:

10
Survey Results:

Population Status for each trapline was derived according to Bergerud et. al., 1961.

– <1 inactive lodge/active lodge – Increasing

– 1-2 inactive lodges/active lodge – Stable
– >2 inactive lodges/active lodges – declining

Population density for each trapline was derived according to Bergerud et. al., 1961.

– Low <.2 active lodges Km2

– Medium .2-.4 active lodges Km2
– High >.4 active lodges Km2

The results for both study zones have been summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Survey Results and Associated Population Parameters.

Zone Trapline Area Active Active/km2 Inactive Ratio inactive/active Density Status
11 568 80.9 2 0.02 11 5.50 low declining
11 334 101.1 9 0.09 21 2.33 low declining
11 Total 182 11 0.06 32 2.91 low declining
10 598 88.8 17 0.19 57 3.35 low declining
10 287 80.2 18 0.22 22 1.22 medium stable
10 Total 169 35 0.21 79 2.26 medium declining

Results obtained were compared to historical data which is shown in Table 3 (Bergerud
et. al., 1961, Miller 1961, Payne 1970).

Table 3: Historical Beaver Population Data for Study Areas in Zone 11 and 10.

Zone Year Location Active/Km2 Ratio inactive/active Density Status

11 1961 Salmon River 1.16 1.70 High Stable
11 1969 Ten Mile Lake 0.08 1.90 Low Stable
11 1969 Main Brook 0.23 1.30 Medium Stable
10 1961 Deer Lake 0.08 1.60 Low Stable
10 1969 Silver Mountain 0.04 1.00 Low Stable
10 1969 Sandy Lake 0.08 1.00 Low Stable

As can be seen in tables 2 and 3 the status of beaver in both study areas has changed from
stable in all areas surveyed in the 1960’s to declining, except for a portion of zone 10
covered by trapline #287. When this area is combined with trapline #598, zone 10, the
overall total indicates a declining population. When density is considered we see that the
zone 11 study area has experienced a decline ranging from 25 – 95 %. For the zone 10
study area density has increased by 60 – 80 %.

11
The change in beaver density over time can be seen in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Historical and Current Beaver Densities for Zone 10 and 11.

Beaver Km2
Zone 10 and Zone 11

1.4

1.2

1938
Beaver Km2

0.8 1940
1941
1961
0.6 1969
2005

0.4

0.2

0
10 11
Fur Zone

Habitat Characteristics:

During the beaver survey flights the general habitat characteristics within 50 m of the
lodge was recorded. Species composition was divided in five broad categories;
coniferous, deciduous, cutover, shrub, and grasses. Observers were required to estimate
the percentage coverage of each category which was then recorded on data sheets. The
results of this exercise can be seen in Figure 11.

12
Figure 11: Species Composition Within 50m of All Lodges

Beaver Survry 2005

70

60

50
Percent Coverage

Zone 11 334
40 Zone 11 568
Zone 10 598
Zone 10 287
30 Total Zone 11
Total Zone 10

20

10

0
coniferous deciduous cutover shrub grass
Species Composition

A review of figure 11 shows an apparent difference between species coverage in both of

the study areas. For the total area surveyed in both zones the coverage of coniferous
forest was about the same (t = .197, df = 155, p = .844). The coverage of deciduous tree
differed between study areas (z = -4.335, p = .000). The absence of deciduous cover was
especially notable in the Zone 11 study area where most riparian zones have reverted to
grassland. Cutovers within 50m of beaver lodges did not constitute a large coverage ara
and were only found in the zone 11 study area. Although difference between area were
indicated a larger habitat evaluation would have to be conducted to determine overall
significance (z = -1.628, p = .103). The occurrence of shrubs did not vary significantly
between the two study areas ( t = 1.117, df = 155, p = .266). Grass coverage was much
more noticeable in the zone 11 study area than in the zone 10 study areas and their
occurrence was significantly different in each of these areas (z = -3.149, p = .002). Most
grass coverage was associated with riparian areas and evidence of passed flooding by
beaver was apparent at most sites.

During survey flights the predominant tree species within 50m of the lodge site was
recorded. The results of this component of the study can be seen in Figure 12. The type
of aquatic habitat in which lodges were located was also recorded (Figure 13).

13
Figure 12: Available Browse Species on Surveyed Traplines
Beaver Survey 2005

60

50

40
Number of Lodges

Zone 11 334
Zone 11 568
30
Zone 10 598
Zone 10 287

20

10

0
fir spruce alder birch aspen popular other
Main Browse Species

Figure 13: Aquatic Habitat Associated with Individual Lodge Locations

Beaver Survey 2005

50

45

40

35
Number of Lodges

30
Zone 11 334
Zone 11 568
25
Zone 10 598
Zone 10 287
20

15

10

0
stream pond bog barren
Lodge Locaion

14
Figure 14: Historical Beaver Harvest for Surveyed Trapline

Beaver Catch by Trapline

40

35

30

25
Number of Beavers

Zone 11 334
Zone 11 568
20
Zone 10 287
Zone 10 598
15

10

0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year

The historical catch of beaver on the traplines surveyed can be se in Figure 14.

Discussion:

The objective of this exercise was to determine if there was actually a reduction in beaver
abundance in Zone 11 as compared to Zone 10 and the identification of possible causes
for any differences found. Our preliminary analysis does show a difference between
beaver densities between zones and has documented a decline in Zone 11 when compared
to historical data.

When possible causes are considered, the observed differences in habitat between the
traplines surveyed in Zone 10 and 11 may provide a possible explanation. The absence
of a deciduous component in the riparian areas in Zone 11 was evident throughout all
areas flown. This conclusion was supported by our preliminary analysis (Figure 11).
The absence of a deciduous component was also brought forth by trappers in the area as
the cause for the observed beaver decline and they claim that browsing by moose was
responsible. Such a scenario could be possible in Zone 11, since this area now has some
of the highest densities of moose on the island.

15
Historical evidence of beaver habitat utilization was found throughout the two traplines
surveyed in Zone 11. Old dams and beaver meadows were dispersed throughout both
traplines and provided evidence that beaver densities were much higher in the past. The
lack of forest regeneration was also apparent in existing beaver meadows and supports
claims made by local trappers that high moose populations are inhibiting normal forest
succession of these areas. This would be similar to the situation observed by Northcott,
1963, in central Newfoundland where it was discovered that moose browsing had
restricted the growth of birch seedling to such an extent that 8-13 year old trees were less
than 30 cm in height.

In Zone 11 we have beaver lodges in small ponds located in the center of bogs: whereas a
large number of lodges in Zone 10 are located on streams (Figure13). This would not be
possible in Zone 11 where most stream banks have become meadows. The movement of
beaver into bogs in Zone 11 could be related to the lack of deciduous vegetation,
requiring beavers to access the limited supply of aquatic vegetation available in
unutilized bogs.

The number of beaver taken in on Zone 10 traplines are does not reflex lodge density:
whereas, the number of beaver taken on Zone 11 traplines appears to be a function of
lodge density (Figure 14).

Conclusions:

To verify observed differences in habitat characteristics between Zones 10 and 11 an, on

the ground habitat survey, should be conducted on the traplines surveyed. The lack of
deciduous trees in Zone 11 should also be quantified and a determination made as to
whether there absence is related to lack normal forest succession patterns or the activities
of large herbivores such as moose and caribou.

An evaluation of beaver parturition rates in both Zones should be conducted and links to
available foods resources evaluated.

References:

Bergerud, A. T. and Manuel, F. 1961, Beaver Management Report. Wildlife

Division, Nfld. Dept. of Mines, Agric. and Resources, 40pp.

Miller, D., 1960, Beaver Research in Newfoundland. Unpubl. Report, Dept. Mines,
Agric. and Res. 209pp.

Northcott, T. H. A., 1963, An Evaluation of the Factors Affecting Carrying Capacity

of Selected Areas in Newfoundland for the Beaver, Castor canadensis caecator
(Bangs), MSc. Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 133pp.

Payne, N. F., 1970, Newfoundland Aerial Beaver Census, Fall 1969. Internal Report,
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Wildlife Division, 19pp.

16