That is a good question.

You might know that there are two dwarfs (black and red). It has been the assumption that the black dwarfs are the bad guys and the red dwarfs are the good guys.

Now Nikkibrik may have been exaggerating a bit when he said that the White Witch stamped out the beavers. But of course, beavers aren't mentioned anywhere else in the series. So I don't think we can know for sure what happened to the other beavers.

Then in LB, the dwarfs didn't want to be on other side. Poggin mentions that he overheard a conversation between Rishda and Ginger about their secret plan, "Oh, we're going to rally up those who care for neither Aslan nor Tash but have an eye for their own profit", whatever that profit could be. Could that be what caused the dwarfs to support only themselves (except for Poggin, who sided with King Tirian)?

So I never really thought on this. But it is something to think about.

How about this as a plausible but entirely made-up explanation:

• Dwarfs live inside trees (Nikabrik at least appears to do so with Trufflehunter the badger), and find work by mining the ground.

• Beavers have a tendency to chop down the trees in order to build dams on the river which cause the surrounding areas of woodland to flood.

• As a result, the Dwarfs would frequently get annoyed by the Beaver's chopping down their houses and flooding their underground tunnels.

@icarus I don't think Trufflehunter and his two dwarf friends actually lived IN the tree. I think it was an underground home dug out under the tree. Badgers, even the dumb ones, burrow a decent space out for their homes. Cute idea though.

Lewis didn't base his dwarf race on Tolkien's, but made them more fairy-tale in size, and less warlike. These people are not humans, but were created by Aslan distinct from animals and the tree or water spirits. 

Perhaps they are more vulnerable from their size, so have an ethos of protecting themselves above any other alliance. 

Posted by: @king-nain

In Prince Caspian Nikabrik defends the White Witch by saying a) She was good to dwarves, and b) She got rid of all the beavers. I've always wondered whence comes his enmity towards beavers.

I've never read Nikabrik's comment about the Beavers as meaning that he personally has any enmity towards them, as such. Here it is in context, directly after Caspian's objection to the idea of bringing back the White Witch:

"... Wasn't she a tyrant ten times worse than Miraz?"

"Perhaps," said Nikabrik in a cold voice. "Perhaps she was for you humans, if there were any of you in those days. Perhaps she was for some of the beasts. She stamped out the Beavers, I dare say; at least there are none of them in Narnia now. But she got on all right with us Dwarfs...."

Going by the whole paragraph there, Nikabrik isn't suggesting that the Witch "stamp[ing] out the Beavers" was a good thing in and of itself. He's simply admitting that what she did to the Beavers is evidence that "perhaps" the Witch was a tyrant for "some of the beasts". But as she "got on all right with us Dwarfs", it's clear he really doesn't care what she did to any other sentient race in Narnia.

I can't see any evidence there that he specifically hates Beavers or is defending the Witch's elimination of them. He's just showing his complete indifference to whatever atrocities she committed against other Narnians, so long as he can assure himself that she was on his people's side before and so she will be again if they can bring her back.

@courtenay Fair point. Given the tone, I've just read it as also hostility to beavers.

@king-nain Well, I certainly don't get the impression that Nikabrik likes Beavers either — or anyone else apart from his own kind. Actually, since he admits that the Witch's treatment of the Beavers may make her a "tyrant" to some species, that could imply he also admits that getting rid of the Beavers wasn't a very nice or noble thing for her to do. But as far as I can see, the overriding message here is his total "ends justify the means" mentality: as long as the Witch helps "us Dwarfs", it doesn't matter what she has done or may do to any other creatures. He's definitely a direct ancestor of the Dwarfs in The Last Battle, in spirit if not literally!

Posted by: @courtenay

He's definitely a direct ancestor of the Dwarfs in The Last Battle, in spirit if not literally!

I don't think CS Lewis specified that. It could be possible that Griffle was in descent from Nikkibrik and Poggin was in descent from Trumpkin, but that's kind of besides the point.

Anyhow. I don't think we can know for sure what happened to the other beavers, since they're not mentioned in any of the other books. The White Witch could have stamped them out, as Nikkibrik suggested. He could have been exaggerating, though. Besides of that, Nikkibrik let bitterness filled him up.

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

I don't think CS Lewis specified that. It could be possible that Griffle was in descent from Nikkibrik and Poggin was in descent from Trumpkin, but that's kind of besides the point.

No, he didn't specify that at all and I'm not suggesting it's true. That's why I said "in spirit if not literally" — meaning that Nikabrik shows pretty much exactly the same kind of mentality as Griffle and most of his companions do a few centuries later in The Last Battle, and therefore he's an "ancestor" to them figuratively, whether or not they are actually related to him. (I doubt it, since there's no indication anywhere that Nikabrik had children.)

There is no information given about when the Beavers disappeared from Narnia. Perhaps they thrived better in the winter under the White Witch? At least Mr & Mrs Beaver were there after she was killed in LWW, so "She got rid of all the beavers" is inaccurate.

I think there was a little reflection in Lewis's mind when he wrote this, that there were no beavers left in England. (I looked this up and found that they became extinct in the 16th century, due to over-hunting them for their fur; the comment in Walden's LWW is rather dark humour for Peter, and I wouldn't like to see it repeated in another production).

@king-nain did you know that in Narnia (and in real life) the plural of dwarf is 'dwarfs'? Dwarves was a plural invented by Tolkien when he wrote The Hobbit.

I should also point out that not all the dwarfs were on the White Witch's side. So Nikkabrik was probably exaggerating a bit when he said that the White Witch defended the dwarfs.

Trumpkin sided with Caspian to help bring back the old days and later became Lord Regent.

Poggin was the only one to side with Tirian when he and the other dwarfs were freed from the Calormenes.

Some might assume that the black dwarfs are the bad guys and the red dwarfs are the good guys. However, in The Last Battle, most of them didn't want to be either side. "The dwarfs are for the dwarfs!" And they shot their arrows at the Battle of Stable Hill on both sides (Narnian Horses and Calormene soldiers).

Plus Dwarfs were at the creation of Narnia. Aslan called in the chief dwarf as part of the council. The dwarfs made the crowns for Frank and Helen, the first king and queen of Narnia, given that they're best known for mining and crafting. So it might be safe to say that it was not until the start of the 100 year winter that a dwarf started to drive the White Witch's sleigh.

Posted by: @coracle

the comment in Walden's LWW is rather dark humour for Peter, and I wouldn't like to see it repeated in another production)

I'm with you there. History may have a way to repeat itself, but I would not want that to be one of them.

@coracle Maybe they all moved here to Canada 🇨🇦 😆

Posted by: @king-nain

Maybe they all moved here to Canada 🇨🇦 😆

Interesting thought. Did they somehow found a portal somewhere? Or maybe they've moved to Oregon as well (Oregon is known as the Beaver State). So maybe beavers did find a portal.

@jasmine_tarkheena They found the wardrobe portal to Medicine Hat, Alberta...

Since I always interpreted the line along the same lines as Courtenay, I think the question is more of what did the White Witch have against beavers? It's true that the only beavers we meet in the books were actively opposed to her but that could be more as a response to her persecution of them rather than vice versa.