<p data-start=”121″ data-end=”136″>Hey everyone,</p>
<p data-start=”138″ data-end=”724″>I just got back from the American Fisheries Society meeting where biologists, fish managers, restoration practitioners, and other fisheries professionals presented their projects and research. BDAs and beaver reintroduction came up repeatedly, and I was surprised by how polarized the views were. On one side were ecological restoration and water-storage advocates who strongly supported beavers and BDAs, and on the other were several fisheries biologists who described beaver dams as major impediments to fish migration, especially for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout.</p>
<p data-start=”726″ data-end=”1374″>I can see how dams could create passage challenges, particularly during low-flow periods or in already incised or simplified channels. At the same time, beavers historically dominated these landscapes, and native trout species evolved alongside them and were once thriving. That makes me wonder if the issue is less about beaver dams themselves and more about modern stream conditions, altered hydrology, and how or where BDAs are implemented.</p>
<p data-start=”1376″ data-end=”1576″>I’m curious how others think about the trade-off between connectivity and habitat complexity, and whether seasonal or partial passage might still support healthy fish populations in certain systems.</p>
<p data-start=”1578″ data-end=”1714″ data-is-last-node=”” data-is-only-node=””>Also, process-based restoration was featured in two major river restoration presentations, which was really cool to see highlighted at that scale.</p>