Ever Fed Wood To A Beaver?

[lockhaven]

George...................:thumbsup:

 

[tungularafishcamp]

giardia can't only be blamed on the beaver, it is spread by deer, people and other mammels too!
Rick

 

[lockhaven]

giardia can't only be blamed on the beaver, it is spread by deer, people and other mammels too!
Rick

I also read that but was afraid to mention it:ashamed:

 

[dave1949]

The problem here is that too many people try to see nature as something separate from us and something that is good and perfect when left alone. Both of these notions are silly when you get down to it.

We are part of nature and even when we are removed from the process nature can be brutal, ugly, and wasteful.

Someone might argue that "brutal, ugly and wasteful" are subjective human perspectives regarding nature. They are correct, but we cannot look at nature in any other way. We are humans. We can think (not that we all do, but we can). And we make value judgements. There is nothing wrong with that.

We stomp on a roach or poison millions of ants, but we are horrified when someone clubs a creature with soft fur and big eyes. We protect whales but we eat giant cod fish by the train load. We protect redwoods but plant and harvest pines.

All of these are value judgements and making them is not wrong or unnatural.

In this regard, we can see things in nature that are abhorrent and wasteful. Claiming that every aspect of nature is somehow good and beautiful is more of a religious viewpoint than a logical one.

In that regard, it is easy and quite logical to see beavers as among the most wasteful creatures on the planet. It does not make them evil, but their moral innocence doesn't make what they do any more okay.

If I value trees and moving water and proper watershed and clean water it will be all too obvious to anyone that the beaver does immense harm to these valued things. And they do it for no other reason except that they are genetically programmed to do so. Beavers do not need large expanses of still water to survive and procreate. They do not need to kill whole stands of trees for the 6 inches of bark they eat from them.

And this value judgement is warranted. From our perspective, which is the only perspective we have, what is the value of a den full of beavers compared to an entire hardwood draw of massive 100+ year old trees (and all their benefits to an eco-system) killed for no reason other than innate habit?

Bottom line: It is okay for people to love beavers. It is just as okay for people to wish them removed, by whatever means, from any property they have a desire to protect.

One might claim that all I'm protecting is my vision of what a natural place should look and be like....and that is exactly right. But so are they.

George,

You make good points that speak to man's place in, or relationship, with nature. Humans will always exert an overwhelming influence on the natural world, so of course we are an integral and inseparable part of nature in that sense.

We really don't understand much that we need to about nature. We don't even know all of nature's components let alone how they work. We do understand how to grow trees, food, control water and reduce insects for our own benefit as a species.

There will always be a separating line between humans and nature. Where ever we go, there is an existing natural world in place and functioning before our arrival. That natural world functions quite well without us, but we are reliant upon it for our survival. In that regard, we are not one and the same with nature; we are an invasive species.

If humans disappeared from the face of the earth, very few undomesticated species would miss us one bit, in fact, their existence would be improved. I can think of some birds and human-specific parasites like rats that would suffer, but on the whole, life would go on and flourish. The obverse is not true. We can survive the loss of many species, but not all. We do not know where the tipping point is for that calculation either.

But, my question, and that is what it is really, is about diminishing habitats. The beaver just makes a good foil for that, it could be other animals, plants, insects, etc. When you say you value a draw full of 100-year-old trees for example, of course beavers are your enemy. You are saying there is a place for beavers, but not in my draw. Beaver NIMBY

When will human habitation and control over the earth reach a saturation point where virtually every draw is someone's to control? Or, so much of the earth is altered and controlled, that the inter-relationships and dependencies of flora and fauna break down or are disrupted to the point that nature fails. What happens then? There is no more 'over there' as a good place for beavers. I believe we are on the threshold, within two to four generations, of being in that situation.

Given that we are clueless as to how much we can safely alter the natural world around us and still survive, it makes sense to preserve some of that. Beyond survival, there are the aesthetics of nature to consider. What sort of world are we passing on to future generations? I think it is time to figure out the hows and whats of that.

We can do as we wish with nature, but should realize we cannot escape its bounds and maintain any sort of human existence we would recognize.
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

giardia can't only be blamed on the beaver, it is spread by deer, people and other mammels too!
Rick

One of our dogs had giardia, probably from eating deer poops. She also had whipworm at the same time. She suffered and the cleanup wasn't fun either
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

I guess it is where you are that makes your opinions on wildlife.
A lot of those on the coasts think wolfs in the rocky mountains and northern state are a good thing, those ranchers living there disagree
Some think mute swans are so beautiful they should be protected those that appreciate shore birds disagree
White tail deer when I was a young lad were a sight most wanted to see now around here they are a pest eating everything in sight.
At my Maryland home if a wondering black bear is sighted the police respond along with the news people calling the DNR to trap it and return it to its "home" at my Pennsylvania home we hardly even take notice till one comes up on the porch
so you see beavers in certain areas are considered pests and vermin in others they are a pleasure to have around.
My most hated wildlife is grey squirrels I kill them at every opportunity by any means at my disposal. (they chewed my house and my truck)
I LIKE BEAVERS

There is a common element to your observations: in each case wildlife is only a problem when or where it interferes with human values or needs. What you are saying is true, but it also begs the question; what happens when humans are everywhere? Will we have the luxury of deciding what lives and what dies?

We have coyotes because we don't have wolves. Coyotes spread eastward from the southwest of the US after settlers spread westward eliminating the native wolves as they went. Who, back in the 1800's, would have predicted that as the wolves were exterminated? What are we doing in present day times that will have unpredictable consequences 100 years later? We don't know what we don't know - Rumsfeld; everybody laughed but he had a point.

The deer issue here is the opposite of yours, there are too few to keep the hunters and the state of Maine hunting revenues happy. The primary reason the northern deer herd is small is because the timber companies clear cut the wintering areas (critical habitat) deer need to survive the winters here back in the 1980's. You cannot replace 60-80 year old spruce and fir stands in less than 60-80 years.

Even though native wolves did not eat the deer into extinction, the obvious target has become those killer coyotes as a solution to the lack of deer. Yes, coyotes prey upon deer, but deer will have a high winter mortality rate here until they have the winter cover they require--with or without coyotes. The Fish and Game people know that, otherwise it would make more sense to put a moratorium on, or greatly reduce, the number of deer permits.

The southern end of Maine where winter is 4-6 weeks shorter and warmer in general, is well populated with deer and coyotes, more evidence that coyotes will not decimate a deer herd.

When you add it all up, it is one human-induced natural FUBAR based upon extermination of wolves, invasive coyotes and destruction of critical habitat.

Even if we thought it was a good idea to replace predator coyotes with predator humans we should ask how well will humans perform the predator role? Will a hunter pass on a chance to harvest a fine deer specimen in hopes of being able to cull an old, weak or sick deer? Does fleetness of foot and stamina matter when being chased by bullet at 2000 fps? Ask yourself what a farmers cow herd would become if he breeds the worst specimens.

Now, gray squirrels, they can be a pest. I've never had problems with them but I have with chipmunks digging up a flower bed. Hav-a-hart trap followed by a heartless BB shot to the head.
Dave.

 

[tungularafishcamp]

There is a common element to your observations: in each case wildlife is only a problem when or where it interferes with human values or needs. What you are saying is true, but it also begs the question; what happens when humans are everywhere? Will we have the luxury of deciding what lives and what dies?

We have coyotes because we don't have wolves. Coyotes spread eastward from the southwest of the US after settlers spread westward eliminating the native wolves as they went. Who, back in the 1800's, would have predicted that as the wolves were exterminated? What are we doing in present day times that will have unpredictable consequences 100 years later? We don't know what we don't know - Rumsfeld; everybody laughed but he had a point.

The deer issue here is the opposite of yours, there are too few to keep the hunters and the state of Maine hunting revenues happy. The primary reason the northern deer herd is small is because the timber companies clear cut the wintering areas (critical habitat) deer need to survive the winters here back in the 1980's. You cannot replace 60-80 year old spruce and fir stands in less than 60-80 years.

Even though native wolves did not eat the deer into extinction, the obvious target has become those killer coyotes as a solution to the lack of deer. Yes, coyotes prey upon deer, but deer will have a high winter mortality rate here until they have the winter cover they require--with or without coyotes. The Fish and Game people know that, otherwise it would make more sense to put a moratorium on, or greatly reduce, the number of deer permits.

The southern end of Maine where winter is 4-6 weeks shorter and warmer in general, is well populated with deer and coyotes, more evidence that coyotes will not decimate a deer herd.

When you add it all up, it is one human-induced natural FUBAR based upon extermination of wolves, invasive coyotes and destruction of critical habitat.

Even if we thought it was a good idea to replace predator coyotes with predator humans we should ask how well will humans perform the predator role? Will a hunter pass on a chance to harvest a fine deer specimen in hopes of being able to cull an old, weak or sick deer? Does fleetness of foot and stamina matter when being chased by bullet at 2000 fps? Ask yourself what a farmers cow herd would become if he breeds the worst specimens.

Now, gray squirrels, they can be a pest. I've never had problems with them but I have with chipmunks digging up a flower bed. Hav-a-hart trap followed by a heartless BB shot to the head.
Dave.

All the deer on Kodiak Island came originally from a couple of dozen deer. As a result or maybe because of diet quite a few of our bucks have become what we call no nutters or steer deer. They stay in velvet and have funky mishappen horns although they have very large bodies and carry lotsa extra fat from not chasing the ladies. Many of us, myself included, pass up prime big bucks with nice horns for these no nutters so there are some hunters that will pass up prime deer for ones that don't contribute to the herd.

Rick

 

[dave1949]

All the deer on Kodiak Island came originally from a couple of dozen deer. As a result or maybe because of diet quite a few of our bucks have become what we call no nutters or steer deer. They stay in velvet and have funky mishappen horns although they have very large bodies and carry lotsa extra fat from not chasing the ladies. Many of us, myself included, pass up prime big bucks with nice horns for these no nutters so there are some hunters that will pass up prime deer for ones that don't contribute to the herd.

Rick

That's good. You have the most interesting anecdotes about life in your area. I really enjoy them. 'No nutters'

I only made it to Alaska once, about 12 years ago. I would like to go back someday and see more although I am not sure how well I would fare with the long, dark winters if I lived there.

We flew to Anchorage then rented a car and wandered around ending up in Haines. Took the Alaska State ferry from Haines to Bellingham, WA. Saw a sunset that was beyond incredible, and of course lasted forever in summer.
Dave.

 

[lockhaven]

a few things about the coyotes, the Pennsylvania Game Commission has posted DNA studies done on the eastern coyote. It is actually a hybrid mix of the smaller western coyote and the gray wolf, they hunt and live in packs like wolfs and therefor are more of a threat to deer then the western "pure" coyote.
The deer on the east coast were near extinction not from any natural causes but because of market hunting. In reading a history of hunting in Pennsylvania if a deer track was discovered the towns people would collect the hounds and hunt it down. That to me is hard to understand the mind set at the time, the deer were close to extinction yet they would still try and kill everyone. That is what happened to Pennsylvania's native elk. I once saw a picture of a bunch of people standing around what was believed to be the last elk killed in the state. Today land animals for the most part are protected from such practices but sorry to say that is not true for the oceans fish.

 

[tcreeley]

George,

You make good points that speak to man's place in, or relationship, with nature. Humans will always exert an overwhelming influence on the natural world, so of course we are an integral and inseparable part of nature in that sense.

We really don't understand much that we need to about nature. We don't even know all of nature's components let alone how they work. We do understand how to grow trees, food, control water and reduce insects for our own benefit as a species.

There will always be a separating line between humans and nature. Where ever we go, there is an existing natural world in place and functioning before our arrival. That natural world functions quite well without us, but we are reliant upon it for our survival. In that regard, we are not one and the same with nature; we are an invasive species.

If humans disappeared from the face of the earth, very few undomesticated species would miss us one bit, in fact, their existence would be improved. I can think of some birds and human-specific parasites like rats that would suffer, but on the whole, life would go on and flourish. The obverse is not true. We can survive the loss of many species, but not all. We do not know where the tipping point is for that calculation either.

But, my question, and that is what it is really, is about diminishing habitats. The beaver just makes a good foil for that, it could be other animals, plants, insects, etc. When you say you value a draw full of 100-year-old trees for example, of course beavers are your enemy. You are saying there is a place for beavers, but not in my draw. Beaver NIMBY

When will human habitation and control over the earth reach a saturation point where virtually every draw is someone's to control? Or, so much of the earth is altered and controlled, that the inter-relationships and dependencies of flora and fauna break down or are disrupted to the point that nature fails. What happens then? There is no more 'over there' as a good place for beavers. I believe we are on the threshold, within two to four generations, of being in that situation.

Given that we are clueless as to how much we can safely alter the natural world around us and still survive, it makes sense to preserve some of that. Beyond survival, there are the aesthetics of nature to consider. What sort of world are we passing on to future generations? I think it is time to figure out the hows and whats of that.

We can do as we wish with nature, but should realize we cannot escape its bounds and maintain any sort of human existence we would recognize.
Dave.

Well said- look at cities that stand where farms once stood, and the forests before that. Man always wants something for less. That denominator decimates the environment.
Locally in the Bangor area, I see fewer kids interested in hunting.