Water companies versus beavers. Regional environmental authority permits the culling of 20 individuals

The Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection in Warsaw has issued a decision permitting the culling of up to 20 European beavers (Castor fiber) across 12 municipalities in Siedlce County. The application was submitted by the Association of Water Companies in Siedlce, which pointed to problems related to the operation of drainage infrastructure and the use of agricultural land. The decision is being challenged by the Our Beaver Association, which has announced that it has filed an appeal.

The editorial team of Wodne Sprawy asked the Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection in Warsaw to explain the grounds for issuing the decision and to respond to allegations concerning the failure to apply alternative solutions.

Beavers – is their presence really that costly?

The application for a permit to cull beavers was submitted by the Association of Water Companies in Siedlce. The applicant argued that the animals’ activity causes damage to water drainage infrastructure and hampers the outflow of water from flooded fields as a result of water impoundment by beavers.

When analysing the application, the Regional Director for Environmental Protection in Warsaw also took into account the amount of compensation paid. In 2025, 35 claims for compensation for losses caused by beavers were submitted from the area of Siedlce County. The total amount of compensation paid reached PLN 1,123,036.77, accounting for approximately 8 per cent of all compensation for beaver-related damage paid in 2025 by the Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection in Warsaw within the Mazovian Voivodeship.

The decision permits the intentional killing of up to 10 individuals between 1 October and 31 December 2026 and up to 10 individuals between 1 January and 15 March 2027. The cull may be carried out in locations specified in an annex to the decision within the municipalities of Paprotnia, Siedlce, Wiśniew, Przesmyki, Suchożebry, Mordy, Wodynie, Skórzec, Domanice, Mokobody, Kotuń and Zbuczyn.

According to the terms of the permit, culling may only be carried out in places where, according to the authority, there is a clear overpopulation of beavers and where dam removal alone is insufficient to reduce damage or ensure safety.

Environmentalists protest

Representatives of the Our Beaver Association disagree with the decision of the Warsaw authorities. The association participated in the proceedings as a party and has announced that it has filed an appeal.

In a letter dated 20 April 2026, the association pointed to the lack of a wildlife inventory, population analysis, hydrological assessment, evaluation of the impact of the planned cull on the conservation status of the species, and an adequate analysis of alternative solutions. The organisation also argued that, at that stage of the proceedings, the documentation lacked photographs of damage or results of field inspections.

After receiving the association’s comments, the Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection requested that the applicant supplement the documentation, including by identifying locations, providing supporting records and estimating the number of individuals at specific sites. The Association of Water Companies responded on 12 May 2026 and attached photographic documentation. However, the decision does not indicate that a separate beaver population inventory or an expert assessment of the hydrological consequences of the cull was prepared.

The association also points to the possibility of using alternative methods that have proven effective in other locations in Poland and abroad. On its Facebook profile, the Our Beaver Association stated that the Association of Water Companies in Siedlce described the proposed alternative solutions as an obvious waste of time.

The organisation disagrees with this approach, arguing that in conditions of drought and the need to protect water resources, cooperation based on knowledge is needed rather than a hasty resort to lethal methods.

Regional environmental authority defends its position

The editorial team of Wodne Sprawy asked the Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection in Warsaw to explain the circumstances behind the decision to permit the cull. According to the authority’s response, beaver activity in Siedlce County causes recurring damage and previous permits for dam removal failed to effectively resolve the problem.

The authority states that:

• according to information provided by the Association of Water Companies, there has been a noticeable increase in the beaver population and the applicant considered culling necessary;

• trapping and relocating beavers to other areas has, according to specialist literature cited by the authority, low effectiveness and is associated with difficulties in finding suitable habitats;

• the possibility of using flow devices was considered when issuing permits for dam removal, but in the authority’s view this solution does not fulfil its function in some shallow and narrow drainage ditches.

The Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection therefore concluded that there are no effective alternative solutions in this case that would achieve the intended objective of maintaining ditch capacity, reducing damage and ensuring the safety of people and property.

According to the Regional Director for Environmental Protection, eliminating up to 20 individuals will not have a negative impact on the species population, which is subject to partial protection in Poland. The authority referred, among other things, to its own field observations, the growing number of compensation claims and the occupation by beavers of habitats considered suboptimal.

This does not mean, however, that a comprehensive inventory of the beaver population in Siedlce County was conducted for the purposes of the proceedings. The absence of such an analysis is one of the main objections raised by the association.

The permit may only be implemented in locations specified in the decision where, in the authority’s assessment, beavers occur in large numbers and dam removal remains insufficient. At the same time, the Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection refused to authorise culling within the Natura 2000 site Ostoja Nadliwiecka PLH140032 and in the buffer zones of the Stawy Siedleckie and Gołobórz nature reserves.

Can both people and beavers benefit?

To conclude the discussion on the Siedlce beavers, we would like to recall the recently published article by Agnieszka Hobot, The Solska Forest Is Burning. Could Beavers Have Saved It?. The text highlights the role of beaver activity in shaping local water conditions and increasing landscape water retention.

This particular fire should not be treated as evidence that the presence of beavers or leaving their dams intact would have prevented the spread of the blaze. It does, however, show that decisions concerning interference with beaver habitats and structures should take into account not only direct damage to infrastructure but, above all, hydrological consequences.

Can beavers, once viewed as enemies of farmers and drainage infrastructure, become an important element of water resource protection in Poland? Perhaps, instead of limiting the discussion to the number of animals designated for culling, efforts should focus on developing solutions that allow technical, organisational and nature-based methods to be applied according to local conditions.