Canmore Killed Two Beavers in Spring Creek. What Were the Other Options?

When Graham Lock heard that two beavers whose activity had raised concerns around Spring Creek had been removed, he assumed he knew what that meant.

“I thought they were relocated,” said Lock, a Spring Creek resident who has watched beavers move through the neighbourhood for several years.

They weren't.

The Town of Canmore killed two beavers from the Spring Creek area on Aug. 28 and Sept. 1 after receiving reports of activity that it said was contributing to public safety concerns and damaging private property.

The Town described the action as the “humane removal” of the animals and said it followed a recommendation from a licensed wildlife damage control professional.

The decision addressed an immediate concern, but it has also raised a more complicated question for a community that has spent years developing policies around human-wildlife coexistence: What happens when the next beavers arrive?

There is no simple answer. Beavers can create valuable wetlands, store water and provide habitat for other species. They can also flood property, undermine banks, cut trees and damage infrastructure.

Non-lethal tools such as pond levellers can sometimes allow beavers to remain while reducing flooding concerns. But wildlife experts say those tools are not suitable for every location, and Alberta's own guidance recognizes lethal removal as an option when coexistence isn't feasible.

The Town is now reviewing Alberta's Beaver Beneficial Management Practices and considering whether pond levellers or so-called “beaver deceivers” could form part of its longer-term response.

The Problem Had Been Building

The Town began receiving reports Aug. 14 of beaver activity around Spring Creek that it said was contributing to public safety concerns and damaging private property.

The Town said its involvement was also tied to its responsibilities around drainage and public safety.

“Under provincial regulations, municipalities are responsible for maintaining drainage around private property and municipal infrastructure, and for addressing hazards on public pathways,” Town communications advisor Nicky Pacas said.

Residents had already been noticing activity.

Lock said beavers have appeared in the neighbourhood before. About three years ago, he recalled a family establishing itself along Spring Creek and constructing three dams.

The animals harvested what he estimated was roughly 90 percent of the willows along one section of the creek.

“We were quite worried at that time that there was going to be some erosion around the dam as the creek rose and tried to find a new way through,” Lock said.

He said portions of a couple of the dams were eventually opened to allow water to flow through, although he did not specify who carried out the work.

For the next couple of years, Lock saw little beaver activity. That changed this summer, when signs of beavers appeared again.

Trees were being cut, and residents contacted the Spring Creek Property Owners Association. Geoff Rhodes, the association’s president, confirmed that one of its directors then contacted the Town.

Lock supported intervention.

“The way the creek was being dammed, I think something had to be done,” he said. “It was a potential issue for flooding, I think, especially during a major event of some sort.”

What surprised him was how the Town dealt with the animals.

“I thought they were relocated,” he said after being told the beavers had been killed.

That assumption points to one of the complexities of beaver management in Alberta.

Why Not Just Move Them?

Relocation sounds like an obvious middle ground: remove the animals without killing them.

In practice, it is more complicated.

Alberta's Beaver Beneficial Management Practices say relocation is generally prohibited without a special provincial permit. Even with permission, an appropriate release site must be found. It needs suitable habitat, ideally without another territorial beaver family, and relocated animals may leave or face predation, disease or other mortality.

The guidance also warns that removing beavers, through relocation or lethal control, leaves suitable habitat that another family may occupy.

Bill Abercrombie, president of the Alberta Trappers Association, said relocation is often misunderstood.

“You would have to have a regional biologist sign off on that,” he said. “It’s a much more complex situation.”

Abercrombie was not involved in Canmore's decision and had not assessed the Spring Creek site. But he has extensive experience with beaver conflicts and said management depends heavily on location.

Some places can support beavers with little conflict. In others, tolerance may be lower because of nearby roads, buildings, banks or other infrastructure.

“They're tremendous tunnelers,” Abercrombie said, noting that burrowing can sometimes create bank stability problems. Tree cutting can also contribute to erosion where vegetation is limited.

For municipalities, he said, the question is whether a particular site can support beavers without creating unacceptable risks.

A Case for Coexistence

Gareth Thomson sees another possibility.

As executive director of the Biosphere Institute of the Bow Valley, Thomson has spent years taking school groups and birdwatchers to beaver ponds.

“To create a beaver pond, with a sustained water flow, is to create a biodiversity hotspot,” Thomson said.

The wetlands support insects, aquatic vegetation, fish, birds and other animals. Thomson said a pond along Spring Creek has long been a stop on Biosphere Institute birdwatching outings.

His preferred long-term approach would allow beavers to remain while controlling water levels and protecting valuable trees.

One option is a pond leveller, essentially a pipe installed through a dam with a protected intake. Water continues flowing while the beavers are prevented from simply plugging the pipe.

The goal is to maintain a manageable water level without draining the pond.

“It keeps beavers in the area,” Thomson said, while maintaining the wetland and the biodiversity it supports.

Trees can also be wrapped in wire mesh to prevent beavers from cutting them.

Thomson said he is encouraged the Town is examining future alternatives, but he doesn't believe killing the two animals ends the underlying issue.

“Beavers will just walk up waterways looking for a new home,” he said. “There's lots of beavers in the area.”

Alberta's guidance makes a similar point: vacated territory can attract new beavers, potentially leading to new dams, lodge construction and additional tree cutting.

But Pond Levellers Don't Work Everywhere

The existence of a non-lethal tool does not mean it is right for every site.

Abercrombie cautioned against treating pond levellers as an automatic solution. Some designs are ineffective, he said, and beavers can work around poorly installed systems.

More importantly, a pond leveller primarily addresses water levels. It does not stop beavers from cutting trees, digging into banks or expanding a colony.

“You still have to manage the beaver population there,” he said.

As a colony grows, Abercrombie said, the animals need more food and deeper water for winter, which can mean additional tree cutting and larger dams.

A small colony may be sustainable where enough habitat exists. In a constrained urban setting, it may not be.

“If it's in a location where there is zero tolerance for beavers due to the potential damage to infrastructure, and it's not really a flooding issue but it's more of a bank integrity issue and a minimal tree stock issue, then it's not practical,” he said of flow devices.

Alberta's guidance reflects that distinction. Pond levellers are intended to reduce flooding while maintaining suitable beaver habitat and its ecological benefits, but beavers can interfere with the devices, move elsewhere or create new conflicts. Proper site selection, design and monitoring are critical.

One Alberta Experiment Shows Both Sides

Kevin Gardiner has seen that trade-off firsthand.

Gardiner, Central Regional Manager and a biologist with the Alberta Conservation Association, was not involved in the Canmore situation. But the association has experimented with a pond leveller on land it owns near Raven River.

A beaver pond was backing water toward a road. Because the animals were not interfering with the association's primary conservation objective, Gardiner said they tried keeping them in place.

The pond leveller had “marginal success” at first. Beavers occasionally plugged parts of the system, but after adjustments, Gardiner said it worked reasonably well.

Then the animals moved.

They built another dam elsewhere, flooding a ditch along Highway 54 and potentially affecting a neighbouring acreage.

The Alberta Conservation Association ultimately hired a trapper to remove them.

“We kind of took the good neighbour approach,” Gardiner said. “If it's going to affect highway infrastructure or negatively affect the neighbours, we want to be a good neighbour.”

His conclusion was straightforward.

“It's case by case.”

Alberta's Guidance Allows Killing Beavers

Alberta's Beaver Beneficial Management Practices reflect that spectrum.

The guide is intended to help municipalities and other land managers reduce conflicts while maintaining beavers on the landscape where possible. Its options include doing nothing, protecting trees, notching dams, installing pond levellers, protecting culverts, supplemental feeding, relocation and lethal removal.

Killing beavers is not outside that framework.

The document says lethal removal may be necessary when “conditions, situational circumstances, or human tolerances do not allow for coexistence.”

That can include locations where damming threatens property, human health or safety, or where development creates so many potential conflicts that flow devices are impractical or too costly.

Abercrombie said those decisions should be based on habitat, infrastructure, carrying capacity and the likelihood of future conflict rather than assuming either intervention or non-intervention is always the right choice.

“The Town of Canmore does a darn good job of managing wildlife as best as they can,” he said.

The Town Has Already Changed the Dam

Canmore has done more than kill the two beavers.

The Town told Bow Valley Insider it has also notched the existing dam to relieve flooding pressure.

Alberta's guidelines define notching as removing a small portion from the top of a dam to lower the pond without draining it entirely. The guidance recommends disturbing as little of the structure as possible.

There is one catch: if active beavers remain, they generally repair the opening.

“Unless the beavers are removed from the area, dam breaching is almost always a short-term solution,” the provincial document says.

In Canmore's case, the two known beavers have been killed.

The Town said no final decisions have been made about further dam modifications, removal or cleanup of beaver material.

A Wildlife Coexistence Town

The episode also comes against the backdrop of Canmore's broader wildlife policies.

In 2024, council adopted a Human-Wildlife Coexistence Implementation and Action Plan intended to create a “sustainable balance” between development and wildlife.

The plan focuses heavily on bears, elk, fruit-bearing trees, off-leash dogs, fencing and education. Beavers are not among its primary species-specific action areas.

Still, its broader philosophy is relevant. The plan aims to protect residents and visitors while ensuring local wildlife populations are not adversely affected, and acknowledges that continued growth and constrained habitat are expected to increase interactions between people and wildlife.

For bears, Canmore has spent decades reducing conditions that lead to conflict, from wildlife-proof garbage bins to restrictions on fruit trees.

Beavers present a different challenge. Their conflicts with people can stem from the same behaviours that make them ecologically valuable: cutting vegetation, slowing water and transforming streams.

What Happens Next

The Town says it is now reviewing Alberta's Beaver Beneficial Management Practices to identify longer-term approaches.

“Potential measures such as pond levellers or beaver deceivers are among the options being considered as part of that review and ongoing discussions,” the Town said.

That review could eventually lead to something broader than installing a pipe at Spring Creek.

Alberta's guide recommends municipalities consider proactive beaver-management plans and designated management zones. Those zones can account for habitat, infrastructure, conservation objectives and how much beaver activity a community is willing to tolerate.

One area might be managed for coexistence, while another could be treated as a low-tolerance area where beavers are removed.

The idea is to move away from responding to individual conflicts only after they arise.

The immediate response in Spring Creek is complete. The larger question for Canmore is not.