Ever Fed Wood To A Beaver?

[lockhaven]

I still like beavers

 

[dave1949]

As for the pools that they make attracting dragon flies....well I think you might be missing piece of that eco-system puzzle. The pools attract and breed mosquitoes. The mosquitoes attract the dragon flies. The dragon flies cannot make a sizeable dent in the mosquitoes. Therefore: beavers = mosquitoes.

My experience is different than yours. After the dragonflies come out, the mosquito population plummets.

Yes, mosquitoes breed in water, and they find plenty of places to breed with or without a beaver pool. Dragonflies need quiet water with emerging stems - like found in a beaver pond. On balance, the dragonflies overcome the mosquitoes, at least here that is the case.

Dragonflies are good to have around. Their only downside is they will eat honey bees apparently. The larva/nymph stage can last up to four years and while in that stage, they are voracious eaters of other water-dwelling insect nymphs.
http://www.dragonfly-site.com/dragonfly-life-cycle.html

Sorry you have so many problems with beavers and vice versa :laughing: I firmly believe leaving a little space for nature is a necessity, sometimes that will cost something. If everyone who owns land controls every square foot of it, we will turn the earth into one big farm basically.

I think the conflict is clear, landowners don't want to carry the cost of providing natural habitats for everyone else. That applies to more than just beaver habitat. No easy solutions to that, and certainly no cheap solutions.

Take your situation, no one is willing to step in and compensate you for your timber losses if you allow the beavers to destroy the trees. Nobody compensates me for raising deer & turkey for the state of Maine either. I don't even get to hunt them for free in season. I think as more land is used due to higher populations, thinking will change about those things over time. Already, some states are considering 'takings' laws providing compensation in cases where restrictions are placed on land use.

Dave.

 

[zzvyb6]

Quite a few times, actually. But, that was in my younger daze !!:laughing:

 

[studor]

+1 on the "its another rodent pest" side.
If I was going to feed them wood it would be a stake!
On my property which has a small river in its center I have been encouraged by everyone from foresters to game wardens to keep the beaver in check. If not for trapping and shooting, the watercourse would not have a tree within two hundred yards of it! Even SWMBO gets annoyed when they cruise our pond looking to set up shop. Giardia, dead trees, flooded areas, spring washouts, higher taxes (from taking out dams and repairing roads) -- yep they are just naturally lovable creatures!
PS -- the reason we put them on our money was because of their former commercial value, not because we have some great affinity for them

 

[dave1949]

+1 on the "its another rodent pest" side.
If I was going to feed them wood it would be a stake!
On my property which has a small river in its center I have been encouraged by everyone from foresters to game wardens to keep the beaver in check. If not for trapping and shooting, the watercourse would not have a tree within two hundred yards of it! Even SWMBO gets annoyed when they cruise our pond looking to set up shop. Giardia, dead trees, flooded areas, spring washouts, higher taxes (from taking out dams and repairing roads) -- yep they are just naturally lovable creatures!
PS -- the reason we put them on our money was because of their former commercial value, not because we have some great affinity for them

Another beaver hater :laughing:

I can't imagine how anything survived before people were around to reduce beaver populations.

Of course beavers can make problems for man-made structures and human endeavors, no one is denying that. They also produce a lot benefits to humans in the larger scheme of things. Grasslands next to a river and dead trees are necessary parts of a diverse ecosystem. It's about balance, eh?

If everyone completely tames and controls nature in their immediate surroundings, and people spread over more and more areas that used to be uninhabited, the result is predictable. That is what is taking place now around the globe more or less on autopilot. By necessity, everyone focuses on their own immediate resources while very few focus on the over all result of that.

Except for national parks or the like, there are limited mechanisms working to preserve habitats. There are a growing number of people who sell or gift their land's development rights to organizations dedicated to preserving wild habitats, but obviously that takes a certain level of personal wealth to be affordable.

At some point, if there is to be enough wild habitat to sustain biodiversity, some people will have to voluntarily forego personal income, or, methods will be developed to compensate those who are willing to put preservation first. It is already a problem in our lifetimes and will be a growing problem for our children and grandchildren. When will we ever be smart enough to use our own intelligence?

I checked the branches I put in the pool for the beavers. They haven't eaten from them in the past 36 hours but did leave behind a couple of switches from their own efforts.
Dave.

 

[jonyyuma]

Artesian water is really a touchy subject.We have had tests come back bad, Ark has several nice sites to use for water,free-flowing and cold. Bat guana is in some of them, systems must be tested for the public to use, there will be a sign nearby.. If I ever drink anymore of it, I'm not quessing, it will have a Clearwater tablet in it...My canteen has a pouch for them...

 

[studor]

I can't imagine how anything survived before people were around to reduce beaver populations.

It must have been those wolves that you have -- oh don't have them any more? Please don't preach balance and conservation to me. I maintain 1/3 of my property as wetlands and the other two thirds as managed forest. An area overpopulated with beaver will solve the population problem by itself -- they will eat themselves out of house and home -- literally. Once we removed the natural predators the beaver were still kept in check by trapping when it was ok to have a beaver coat. When the greenies thought that was disgusting, people stopped buying and the price dropped too low to make it worthwhile. Hence too many beavers -- kinda like Canada geese and people!
Come back and talk to me when trees you have been nurturing for 10 years to replace indiscriminate cutting are girdled by a beaver in one night, or you cannot get to your property for a week because the beaver built a dam in a culvert and created a twelve foot deep ditch in the spring --Or you catch giardia trying to remove enough dam to stop areas from being flooded. Why don't you just leave bunches of McDs' fries on your lawn so you can watch the pretty seagulls :laughing::laughing:

 

[dave1949]

It must have been those wolves that you have -- oh don't have them any more? Please don't preach balance and conservation to me. I maintain 1/3 of my property as wetlands and the other two thirds as managed forest. An area overpopulated with beaver will solve the population problem by itself -- they will eat themselves out of house and home -- literally. Once we removed the natural predators the beaver were still kept in check by trapping when it was ok to have a beaver coat. When the greenies thought that was disgusting, people stopped buying and the price dropped too low to make it worthwhile. Hence too many beavers -- kinda like Canada geese and people!
Come back and talk to me when trees you have been nurturing for 10 years to replace indiscriminate cutting are girdled by a beaver in one night, or you cannot get to your property for a week because the beaver built a dam in a culvert and created a twelve foot deep ditch in the spring --Or you catch giardia trying to remove enough dam to stop areas from being flooded. Why don't you just leave bunches of McDs' fries on your lawn so you can watch the pretty seagulls :laughing::laughing:

You picked your battle ground, not the beavers. If you wish to nurture trees in an area heavy with beavers, that's your choice. If it were me, I would expect some problems. There are beaver defeater culvert protectors which you could chose to use that would be cheaper and easier than repairing a road, healing from giardia and the like.

Apparently, the beavers didn't get the memo on your land use plans. :laughing:

I am curious as to whether the beavers will use wood they don't collect themselves. I am seeing if there is something to learn, that's all. It sounds like the beavers are winning in your case, so maybe there is something worth learning about your opponent.

Dragging the wolves, flying carp, fur coats and PETA into it is neither here nor there. The situation today is what it is, and it is what we made it. The question should be, what will we make in the future?

It is time to figure out how our desires and needs can accommodate and preserve diverse wildlife habitats. I cannot speak of that without providing my reasoning as to why it is necessary, that is hardly 'preaching'. You are making conscious choices to preserve habitat, I assume you agree it is necessary.

My point is that you are 'down in the trenches' on your land, trying to do the right thing in a hard place to do it. There may be better approaches to that problem. I hope there are, because we are not pursuing a winning strategy now. In fact, we really don't have a strategy, it is just 'happening' as a result of millions of individual choices made for the benefit of an individual on relatively small patches of land. That is not a systemic understanding of the issue.

BTW, the seagull population along the Maine coast is now declining due to predation by bald eagles since their numbers have recovered.
Dave.

 

[lockhaven]

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

 

[N80]

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.

 

[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.