Nature conservation ignored?

“Beaver affair” puts village chief in need of explanation

Beavers persistently collect branches and use them to build their dams on streams (symbolic image).

(Bild: stock.adobe.com - dpep 2019)

To prevent a flooding catastrophe, a Tyrolean mayor had a supposed stream obstruction removed. Bad luck: it was the work of a protected rodent. The "affair" ended in the Tyrolean provincial administrative court.

Am I acting within the framework of the many laws and regulations? Mayors in particular, with their numerous areas of responsibility, find themselves in a jungle of laws and regulations - and more quickly than expected, some are involved in violations and even abuse of office.

Notification due to feared flood risk
In this case, concerned citizens of a small Tyrolean community reported that material had accumulated in a stream and a dam had formed. A danger in the event of a storm? Memories of a flooding accident in the village came flooding back.

The mayor reacted and instructed the head of the building yard to remove the branches lying across, who in turn called in a company based right next door.

An initial fine of 1500 euros was imposed
A citizen promptly reported this to the police and the local authority later determined that a beaver dam had been destroyed, although the Tyrolean Nature Conservation Act prohibits any "damage to and destruction of the breeding and resting places" of beavers. Consequence: 1500 euro fine or 16 hours of alternative imprisonment for the Tyrolean village chief.

In the entire administrative area of the municipality, the existence of a beaver and a beaver dam was neither known nor suspected from earlier times.

Aus dem Einspruch des Bürgermeisters

Mayor: "Beaver never known here"
With the help of a lawyer, the mayor defended himself with an appeal to the Provincial Administrative Court (LVwG). Tenor: The existence of a beaver on this stream was neither currently nor previously known. Moreover, the Nature Conservation Act was not effective in averting a disaster.

Many relevant regulations were searched through in this case and resulted in an extensive file (symbolic image).

(Bild: APA/Roland Schlager)

Did a beaver dam make a flood more dangerous?
The court then wanted to know from the water management department whether the beaver dam had had any negative impact at all on the flooding of the stream. Answer: No, the stream would be dammed back in extreme cases even without the beaver dam - no additional danger.

An unpleasant finding for the mayor, but he is exonerated in the 21-page decision of the LVwG: A layman, it says, would have had to assume that there was an imminent risk of flooding, including affected buildings. The removal of the beaver dam was therefore an "excusable error". The BH's penalty notice was revoked.

Good news for animal lovers: according to expert findings, it was not the beaver's main dam at all and it was not rendered homeless by the "affair".