Banished to a remote Idaho valley, beavers created a lush wetland(e360.yale.edu)
e360.yale.edu
Banished to a remote Idaho valley, beavers created a lush wetland
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/idaho-beavers-stream-drought-fire
14 comments
Wetlands not only slow water, but they help to purify water by allowing it to move slowly. Plants and gravity do a wonderful job of cleaning water on its way to the sea.
On top of that, forested land is more conducive to rainfall. By allowing these areas to flourish, you not only slow and retain water but increase catchment overall as well. The chance of forest dying in drought decreases, and your chance of rainfall increases (slightly, yet meaningfully when balances are so delicate).
Beavers also produce habitat which benefits many other native species. More water is generally more life in North America.
On top of that, forested land is more conducive to rainfall. By allowing these areas to flourish, you not only slow and retain water but increase catchment overall as well. The chance of forest dying in drought decreases, and your chance of rainfall increases (slightly, yet meaningfully when balances are so delicate).
Beavers also produce habitat which benefits many other native species. More water is generally more life in North America.
Yeah, but the beavers don't consult with civil engineers on where to build the dams.
It's an issue for rural roads that get eroded and washed out.
It's an issue for rural roads that get eroded and washed out.
The counter argument is that the civil engineers didn’t consult with the beavers on where to build their roads either.
There’s going to be some give and take here. If you want the benefit from a natural solution (beavers), you’ll have to work around whatever that solution is.
There’s going to be some give and take here. If you want the benefit from a natural solution (beavers), you’ll have to work around whatever that solution is.
This. Beavers have no agenda other than the instinct to build a dam where one is needed. I'd reroute roads if necessary
Or learn to make artificial ones better
And then you have to pay someone to maintain the artificial ones. That might be a better plan in some areas but certainly not all
I don't disagree that they can cause problems. But there are a lot of ways to mitigate the problems.
Biologists can tell you what kinds of locations are good beaver spots - so we shouldn't just build a road too close without some planning. We also shouldn't remove beaver dams so that we can build human structures- the dam will be back soon enough.
And when you do need to build near one, there are lots of techniques to strengthen structures to avoid erosion. My favorite: plant trees. Willows will grow like mad near a pond and their root system will strengthen a bank very well.
Biologists can tell you what kinds of locations are good beaver spots - so we shouldn't just build a road too close without some planning. We also shouldn't remove beaver dams so that we can build human structures- the dam will be back soon enough.
And when you do need to build near one, there are lots of techniques to strengthen structures to avoid erosion. My favorite: plant trees. Willows will grow like mad near a pond and their root system will strengthen a bank very well.
Beavers build dams when they hear running water. The civil engineers can just play the sounds of running water where they want the dams built.
Is this really why some people view beavers as pests???
You should watch Post10 on YouTube. He's a guy who, for fun, cleans out clogged culverts. He'll find some washed out road and then figure out why. The why is usually "beavers."
Post10 is a gem of a person that helped me through the worst days of covid related anxieties.
We should set up a permitting office for them to use!
so youre saying we should leave it to beaver
There are thousands of reasons why beavers building dams is horrible for the environment. General rule of thumb, if humans do something they have better reasons than a wild animal, even if they don't know it or it's not immediately apparent to the naive observer.
Can you list some of the thousands of reasons?
I took this as an estimate of the number of dams.
> General rule of thumb
What is this rule based on?
What is this rule based on?
Who knew conservatives long play would be to blame climate change on beavers?
/s
/s
I feed birds. It's just amazing watching them eating and drinking water.
Everyone demands rights but not many care about the responsibilities like taking care of nature. Sad reality
Everyone demands rights but not many care about the responsibilities like taking care of nature. Sad reality
The idea is, that nature can take care of its own quite well, if left in peace and bird feeding can be actually harmful, as you bring in more nutrients artificially with the result, that an ecosystem than has more birds, than it can sustain on its own, which can lead to local collapse of that ecosystem (too much duck shit in the lake for example).
Practically speaking, it can depend on garden design; fill it with concrete / slabs or fake grass will discourage any nature, but plants and healthy soil will encourage it. We went from a green-looking (ivy walls) but ultimately desert-like back yard to a pretty lush haven for birds, bugs, bees and butterflies. And the occasional mouse or frog, but I think the cats bring those in.
Given the share of forestation, droughts and pesticide use in agri sector i do not think leaving them to their fate is not a good idea.
Well, that's why I added "if left in peace".
And if you want to do something good for birds, ideally you do something good for insects.
Otherwise it strongly depends what kinds of birds you feed.
And if you want to do something good for birds, ideally you do something good for insects.
Otherwise it strongly depends what kinds of birds you feed.
>Well, that's why I added "if left in peace".
I think a reasonable reading of the first comment understood all that.
I think a reasonable reading of the first comment understood all that.
[deleted]
Very few parts of nature have been left in peace.
Birdfeeding is a lowkey domestication of birds.
> not many care about the responsibilities like taking care of nature
Our farming practices (deforestation, pesticide/herbicide use, insect die offs ...) and diet preferences are driving many species, including birds, to extinction.
We could significantly reduce the damage by restructuring our diets; however, not many people seem to care about that.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
https://www.birdlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SOWB2022...
1 in 8 bird species is facing extinction
https://www.salon.com/2020/08/18/the-pesticide-that-caused-b...
The pesticide that caused bee colonies to collapse is killing birds now
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/april/almost-half-o...
Almost half of all UK bird species in decline
https://emagazine.com/bird-population-declines/
Bird Populations Declining Fast Across North America
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/2-out-of-3-north-american-...
2 out of 3 North American bird species face extinction
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2216573120
Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe
Our farming practices (deforestation, pesticide/herbicide use, insect die offs ...) and diet preferences are driving many species, including birds, to extinction.
We could significantly reduce the damage by restructuring our diets; however, not many people seem to care about that.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
https://www.birdlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SOWB2022...
1 in 8 bird species is facing extinction
https://www.salon.com/2020/08/18/the-pesticide-that-caused-b...
The pesticide that caused bee colonies to collapse is killing birds now
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/april/almost-half-o...
Almost half of all UK bird species in decline
https://emagazine.com/bird-population-declines/
Bird Populations Declining Fast Across North America
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/2-out-of-3-north-american-...
2 out of 3 North American bird species face extinction
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2216573120
Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe
Better than asking everyone to change their diets would be to change government subsidies and other agriculture programs to encourage regenerative agriculture practices. Sure it might impact diet via a change in prices, but the goal should be to reduce harm first, not force a particular diet.
We don't even need to do that.
We could just stop massively subsidizing things like corn and meat.
We could just stop massively subsidizing things like corn and meat.
Stopping subsidies outright could lead to a famine. We need to shift agriculture, not cut off an entire industry.
As of 2008, 2.7% of US corn is eaten by humans. More of US corn is is used to make ethanol than to feed livestock. US corn is more a subsidy heaven than a food source.
You can wean off subsidies pretty easily, if you give enough time.
The easiest way is to just freeze them and let inflation remove them; nobody will intentionally start farming corn if the subsidy remained at the original dollar amount.
The easiest way is to just freeze them and let inflation remove them; nobody will intentionally start farming corn if the subsidy remained at the original dollar amount.
The rural/urban :: Republican/Democrat split combined with our less than representative democracy means the farm lobby is pretty damn powerful. It'll be real hard to lower subsidies, more likely would be to subsidize different activities. Paying farmers to not farm is pretty common now, but God forbid someone be on welfare without looking for a job.
> Paying farmers to not farm is pretty common now
How so??
How so??
To prevent farm price collapses, the government tries to regulate the amount of certain products that are made. For example, if the USA can eat one million pounds of soybeans a year, and this year less than one million were grown, the price will skyrocket. So next year all the farmers grow soybeans, because it was a huge money maker, and three million pounds is the result - but that floods the market and the price of soybeans drops to nothing, and all the farmers go bankrupt.
To prevent that, the government tries to convince farmers NOT to grow whatever crop they think there will be too much of, and pays them to fallow fields.
It's memed as "paid not to farm" but it's much more complicated than that, and it's not a guaranteed money-maker (seen by the absolute demise of the small farm over the last 50 years).
To prevent that, the government tries to convince farmers NOT to grow whatever crop they think there will be too much of, and pays them to fallow fields.
It's memed as "paid not to farm" but it's much more complicated than that, and it's not a guaranteed money-maker (seen by the absolute demise of the small farm over the last 50 years).
I'm assuming you'd have had to at least plant the crop to get paid to not harvest it, right?
Why would we do that instead of buy the soybeans at market rates and then send them to countries as aid?
Why would we do that instead of buy the soybeans at market rates and then send them to countries as aid?
No, you just have to fallow the land (plant nothing) - as far as I know.
The latter is done for some products in various ways but that's a more fine-grained solution (which destroys poor countries agriculture entirely, which is another horror story).
Government Cheese™ literally comes from the government buying up milk and having to do SOMETHING with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_cheese
The latter is done for some products in various ways but that's a more fine-grained solution (which destroys poor countries agriculture entirely, which is another horror story).
Government Cheese™ literally comes from the government buying up milk and having to do SOMETHING with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_cheese
True, but how feasible is that without public support?
We could raise consumption while expanding the area of protected wetlands by building more nuclear power plants to power vertical farms, and expanding industry and energy harvesting outside of Earth.
This avoids having to convince people to deny themselves their preferred foods, and arguably, reduce their quality of life, to protect natural habitats. It's a better strategy for both humanity and nature.
This avoids having to convince people to deny themselves their preferred foods, and arguably, reduce their quality of life, to protect natural habitats. It's a better strategy for both humanity and nature.
> nuclear power plants to power vertical farms
You mean vertical farms like this one (or soon two)?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/25/chinas-2...
> We could raise consumption while expanding the area of protected wetlands
There are many more problems with animal ag, not just the area.
Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all symptoms of ecological overshoot. Agriculture is a key culprit in 5 out of 7 of those symptoms, and animal ag accounts for 80% of all agriculture.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471
Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable
A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.
You mean vertical farms like this one (or soon two)?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/25/chinas-2...
> We could raise consumption while expanding the area of protected wetlands
There are many more problems with animal ag, not just the area.
Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all symptoms of ecological overshoot. Agriculture is a key culprit in 5 out of 7 of those symptoms, and animal ag accounts for 80% of all agriculture.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471
Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable
A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.
>>Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all symptoms of ecological overshoot. Agriculture is a key culprit in 5 out of 7 of those symptoms, and animal ag accounts for 80% of all agriculture.
Most of those are area-related. If we didn't need to cover so much of the planet with crops grown to be feedstock for farm animals, those problems would vanish.
Most of those are area-related. If we didn't need to cover so much of the planet with crops grown to be feedstock for farm animals, those problems would vanish.
> If we didn't need to cover so much of the planet with crops grown to be feedstock for farm animals
We don't need to cover ...
We don't need to cover ...
Right, with vertical farms, we can keep current consumption patterns without covering the planet in feedstock crops.
No, we can't keep current consumption patterns, if we want our civilization to survive. Animal ag is driving us towards its collapse, and fast.
We could switch to plant based diets and free upto 80% of all agriculture lands, some 35% of habitable earth, the area a size of Africa, and reforest/rewild that.
That's probably the only feasible option we have at this moment to stop us from environmental collapse.
Your solution is technological in nature. While theoretically possible, it doesn't meet the timescale and amount required.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectare. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63657-6
Calculations show that, maintaining the actual rate of population growth and resource consumption, in particular forest consumption, we have a few decades left before an irreversible collapse of our civilisation. Making the situation even worse, we stress once again that it is unrealistic to think that the decline of the population in a situation of strong environmental degradation would be a non-chaotic and well-ordered decline. This consideration leads to an even shorter remaining time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population)
Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all symptoms of ecological overshoot.
Soil erosion -> agriculture
Pollution -> farm runoff, eutrophication, pesticides/herbicides, greenhouse gases ...
Climate change -> CO2 + methane + N20 -> 15-26% from agriculture
Overfishing -> Empty seas in 2040's -> veganism
Deforestation & biodiversity loss -> mainly driven by agriculture -> 80% of agriculture is animal ag (pastures) -> veganism
We could switch to plant based diets and free upto 80% of all agriculture lands, some 35% of habitable earth, the area a size of Africa, and reforest/rewild that.
That's probably the only feasible option we have at this moment to stop us from environmental collapse.
Your solution is technological in nature. While theoretically possible, it doesn't meet the timescale and amount required.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectare. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63657-6
Calculations show that, maintaining the actual rate of population growth and resource consumption, in particular forest consumption, we have a few decades left before an irreversible collapse of our civilisation. Making the situation even worse, we stress once again that it is unrealistic to think that the decline of the population in a situation of strong environmental degradation would be a non-chaotic and well-ordered decline. This consideration leads to an even shorter remaining time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population)
Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all symptoms of ecological overshoot.
Soil erosion -> agriculture
Pollution -> farm runoff, eutrophication, pesticides/herbicides, greenhouse gases ...
Climate change -> CO2 + methane + N20 -> 15-26% from agriculture
Overfishing -> Empty seas in 2040's -> veganism
Deforestation & biodiversity loss -> mainly driven by agriculture -> 80% of agriculture is animal ag (pastures) -> veganism
Technological solutions are far more realistic than effecting a global shift to a plant-based diet. People choose meat, and people in the developing world are consuming more meat as their incomes rise.
Mass-production is something human civilization has proven adept at, and mass-deployment of nuclear power plants and vertical farms requires only that.
Mass-production is something human civilization has proven adept at, and mass-deployment of nuclear power plants and vertical farms requires only that.
> Technological solutions are far more realistic
This could easily be solved by removing animal ag subsidies and with taxing of negative externalities.
That's one law, the market (= higher prices) will take care of the rest.
> people in the developing world are consuming more meat as their incomes rise
I'm aware :) However, that made sense when there were 1 B of humans, not when our needs overshoot the environmental capacity of our environment. If everyone ate like we westerners do (and they will want to, when we still do) then we'd need something like 4-5 earths to sustain everyone.
> mass-deployment of nuclear power plants and vertical farms requires only that
Sure, but that means a lot of resources (oil, for example) and further destruction of the environment (mining, built-up areas), and a large timescale.
Abolishment of animal ag subsidies is a piece of paper and few signatures.
This could easily be solved by removing animal ag subsidies and with taxing of negative externalities.
That's one law, the market (= higher prices) will take care of the rest.
> people in the developing world are consuming more meat as their incomes rise
I'm aware :) However, that made sense when there were 1 B of humans, not when our needs overshoot the environmental capacity of our environment. If everyone ate like we westerners do (and they will want to, when we still do) then we'd need something like 4-5 earths to sustain everyone.
> mass-deployment of nuclear power plants and vertical farms requires only that
Sure, but that means a lot of resources (oil, for example) and further destruction of the environment (mining, built-up areas), and a large timescale.
Abolishment of animal ag subsidies is a piece of paper and few signatures.
>>This could easily be solved by removing animal ag subsidies and with taxing of negative externalities.
Considering how strong people's preference for meat are, you could raise prices and inevitably demand will start growing again when incomes rise sufficiently.
>>Sure, but that means a lot of resources (oil, for example) and further destruction of the environment (mining, built-up areas), and a large timescale.
The resources needed to build those out will be more than made up for by the resources saved from switching to an abundant non-CO2/pollutant emitting energy system.
Considering how strong people's preference for meat are, you could raise prices and inevitably demand will start growing again when incomes rise sufficiently.
>>Sure, but that means a lot of resources (oil, for example) and further destruction of the environment (mining, built-up areas), and a large timescale.
The resources needed to build those out will be more than made up for by the resources saved from switching to an abundant non-CO2/pollutant emitting energy system.
This response bewilders me: the GP presents something with immense political and practical challenges, and the response is to ask us to consider an even harder set of political and practical problems?
Mass-producing nuclear power plants is very difficult, but a much more viable plan than limiting human consumption.
I don't think there's any historical basis for this claim. More strongly worded: the history of limited human consumption is literally orders of magnitude longer than the history of nuclear power, much less the history of industrial spaceflight.
Humans have always consumed at the limits of their abilities, and we're in an era of exponentially increasing ability.
There is no history of consumption being artificially restricted at a global scale. A few socialist countries have managed it, and everyone there wants to escape.
In an era of exponentially expanding abilities, we should be massively increasing clean energy output through technologies like nuclear reactors.
There is no history of consumption being artificially restricted at a global scale. A few socialist countries have managed it, and everyone there wants to escape.
In an era of exponentially expanding abilities, we should be massively increasing clean energy output through technologies like nuclear reactors.
> we're in an era of exponentially increasing ability
No, we're not. We can't increase consumption indefinitely in a finite environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Recent_Warni...
> no history of consumption being artificially restricted at a global scale
There have never been 8 billion people on the planet.
> we should be massively increasing clean energy
Agree, but that alone won't solve it.
No, we're not. We can't increase consumption indefinitely in a finite environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Recent_Warni...
> no history of consumption being artificially restricted at a global scale
There have never been 8 billion people on the planet.
> we should be massively increasing clean energy
Agree, but that alone won't solve it.
>No, we're not. We can't increase consumption indefinitely in a finite environment.
We are nowhere near the limits of the finite environnment. Once we reach those limits, growth will naturally slow and stop, with no activism required.
>There have never been 8 billion people on the planet.
With that many people, it's even harder to coordinate a unanimous reduction in meat consumption.
>Agree, but that alone won't solve it.
Why won't an increase clean energy production alone solve it?
We are nowhere near the limits of the finite environnment. Once we reach those limits, growth will naturally slow and stop, with no activism required.
>There have never been 8 billion people on the planet.
With that many people, it's even harder to coordinate a unanimous reduction in meat consumption.
>Agree, but that alone won't solve it.
Why won't an increase clean energy production alone solve it?
> We are nowhere near the limits of the finite environnment
Yes, you're true. We're so far behind them we can't see the line anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Humans (read it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#/media/File:...
> Once we reach those limits, growth will naturally slow and stop
It's already stopping. What comes next is the rapid decline of the carrying capacity of the environment and the collapse of the species dependent on that environment.
> With that many people, it's even harder to coordinate a unanimous reduction in meat consumption
No, see my previous comment. Every country on earth has animal ag subsidies, although animal ag is a leading driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss, atmospheric pollution (15-25%), eutrophication, soil erosion, and overfishing, all things that dangerously degrade our likelihood to survive. It's more bad then people usually realize.
There's already 80% less insects (in last 25 years), and 90% of sharks are missing (meaning the collapse of fishing populations is on the horizon). Animal populations experience average decline of almost 70% since 1970.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-7...
More losers than winners: investigating Anthropocene defaunation through the diversity of population trends
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.12974
> Why won't an increase clean energy production alone solve it?
The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis can't be approached separately
https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-ap...
UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/natur...
+ thousands of similar studies
Yes, you're true. We're so far behind them we can't see the line anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Humans (read it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#/media/File:...
> Once we reach those limits, growth will naturally slow and stop
It's already stopping. What comes next is the rapid decline of the carrying capacity of the environment and the collapse of the species dependent on that environment.
> With that many people, it's even harder to coordinate a unanimous reduction in meat consumption
No, see my previous comment. Every country on earth has animal ag subsidies, although animal ag is a leading driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss, atmospheric pollution (15-25%), eutrophication, soil erosion, and overfishing, all things that dangerously degrade our likelihood to survive. It's more bad then people usually realize.
There's already 80% less insects (in last 25 years), and 90% of sharks are missing (meaning the collapse of fishing populations is on the horizon). Animal populations experience average decline of almost 70% since 1970.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-7...
More losers than winners: investigating Anthropocene defaunation through the diversity of population trends
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.12974
> Why won't an increase clean energy production alone solve it?
The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis can't be approached separately
https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-ap...
UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/natur...
+ thousands of similar studies
The last 20 years witnessed the most rapid rate of economic growth in human history, amidst mass-extinction, huge reductions of natural habitats and the collapse of numerous ecosystems.
Your analysis underestimates the adaptability and technological capabilities of human civilization. We can continue to expand even as the natural ecosystem is destroyed.
So a better way to protect natural environments, than pushing for reductions and caps on consumption, is to provide an alternative path for development that protects the environment while allowing even more economic growth.
Your analysis underestimates the adaptability and technological capabilities of human civilization. We can continue to expand even as the natural ecosystem is destroyed.
So a better way to protect natural environments, than pushing for reductions and caps on consumption, is to provide an alternative path for development that protects the environment while allowing even more economic growth.
> the most rapid rate of economic growth in human history, amidst mass-extinction, huge reductions of natural habitats and the collapse of numerous ecosystems
And that's supposed to be a good thing?
> We can continue to expand even as the natural ecosystem is destroyed
No, without the ecosystem we're done. Not much of it remains.
> is to provide an alternative path for development that protects the environment while allowing even more economic growth
Not enough time before last pieces are gone.
What's about the economic growth that you find so valuable? Don't you see that money are just stupid tokens in a very stupid game? That the economy is rigged? That healthy environment is much more valuable than ... what? Tons of plastic everywhere and elevator music in a supermarket? Do you have children? How do you explain to them that we don't have forests and wild animals anymore because you've loved burgers and big cars too much? But honey look how rich I got. You'd really rather have blade runner than star trek future?
You win. This I cannot comprehend. Over and out.
And that's supposed to be a good thing?
> We can continue to expand even as the natural ecosystem is destroyed
No, without the ecosystem we're done. Not much of it remains.
> is to provide an alternative path for development that protects the environment while allowing even more economic growth
Not enough time before last pieces are gone.
What's about the economic growth that you find so valuable? Don't you see that money are just stupid tokens in a very stupid game? That the economy is rigged? That healthy environment is much more valuable than ... what? Tons of plastic everywhere and elevator music in a supermarket? Do you have children? How do you explain to them that we don't have forests and wild animals anymore because you've loved burgers and big cars too much? But honey look how rich I got. You'd really rather have blade runner than star trek future?
You win. This I cannot comprehend. Over and out.
Having both a bone to pick with socialism and using a “this time it’s different” argument in the same comment is more than a little incongruous.
Note that nobody in this conversation has disagreed about the virtues of building more nuclear power. The observation is solely that you’re asking for something that’s substantially harder than anything else humanity has ever done while handwaving everything else away. That just isn’t good argumentation.
Note that nobody in this conversation has disagreed about the virtues of building more nuclear power. The observation is solely that you’re asking for something that’s substantially harder than anything else humanity has ever done while handwaving everything else away. That just isn’t good argumentation.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by me making a "this time it's different" argument, and how it's incongruous with my criticism of socialist governments?
>The observation is solely that you’re asking for something that’s substantially harder than anything else humanity has ever done while handwaving everything else away. That just isn’t good argumentation.
I think mass-production of nuclear reactors and vertical farms (to give a couple of examples) is substantially easier and more realistic than coordinating global caps and reductions in consumptions through mandatory limits on private industries and citizens.
>The observation is solely that you’re asking for something that’s substantially harder than anything else humanity has ever done while handwaving everything else away. That just isn’t good argumentation.
I think mass-production of nuclear reactors and vertical farms (to give a couple of examples) is substantially easier and more realistic than coordinating global caps and reductions in consumptions through mandatory limits on private industries and citizens.
We would need add 20000+ of them, give or take.
A few trillion dollars and some standardization around components should do it.
At civilizational-scales, it's doable.
At civilizational-scales, it's doable.
> At civilizational-scales, it's doable
So is abolishment of animal agriculture subsidies and large scale afforestation projects.
In the end nothing will get done.
So is abolishment of animal agriculture subsidies and large scale afforestation projects.
In the end nothing will get done.
Abolishing agriculture subsidies won't cause a reduction in meat consumption, as the demand for meat is huge, and can continue to grow without the subsidies.
As for convincing governments to protect more forests: that be will be vastly easier if abundant energy and a multitude of vertical farms makes horizontal farms less competitive in the market, and results in a situation where protecting forests won't come at the expense of the income/purchasing-power of citizens.
As for convincing governments to protect more forests: that be will be vastly easier if abundant energy and a multitude of vertical farms makes horizontal farms less competitive in the market, and results in a situation where protecting forests won't come at the expense of the income/purchasing-power of citizens.
> Abolishing agriculture subsidies won't cause a reduction in meat consumption ... can continue to grow without the subsidies
Without subsidies animal ag is deeply unprofitable. Removing them and taxing the negative externalities "properly" would mean the price of such products would be a multiple of what it's now, so it would be out of reach for most of the population.
> that be will be vastly easier if abundant energy
Yes, it would. But we don't have it at the moment, and it will require a lot of fossil fuels and time to get there.
At the same time EROI of fossil fuels is falling down. It's at 5 IIRC, down from more that 100+ at the start of the previous century - meaning that previously for every 1 barrel of oil invested into extraction you'd get 100-150 barrels back, now it's about 5 barrels. Soon it could become unprofitable to extract more oil, as it would cost more energy to get it out of the ground that what would be gained, no matter how much is still in the ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain#Examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8
Without subsidies animal ag is deeply unprofitable. Removing them and taxing the negative externalities "properly" would mean the price of such products would be a multiple of what it's now, so it would be out of reach for most of the population.
> that be will be vastly easier if abundant energy
Yes, it would. But we don't have it at the moment, and it will require a lot of fossil fuels and time to get there.
At the same time EROI of fossil fuels is falling down. It's at 5 IIRC, down from more that 100+ at the start of the previous century - meaning that previously for every 1 barrel of oil invested into extraction you'd get 100-150 barrels back, now it's about 5 barrels. Soon it could become unprofitable to extract more oil, as it would cost more energy to get it out of the ground that what would be gained, no matter how much is still in the ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain#Examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8
Someone posted a research paper [1] a few months ago that says that due to energy consumption, the use of vertical farming doesn’t provide a net space savings for caloric dense foods.
I’m curious what you think of that paper and what it would change about your suggested solution.
[1] https://raghavan.usc.edu/papers/smartfarm-limits21.pdf
I’m curious what you think of that paper and what it would change about your suggested solution.
[1] https://raghavan.usc.edu/papers/smartfarm-limits21.pdf
It seems that paper is based on the assumption that energy costs the same as it does now. I'm assuming we can make energy much more abundant with nuclear power.
This is, by far, the strangest way to promote nuclear power.
Man belongs to the world, the world does not belong to man.
Taking care of nature? Are you aware that birds are able to feed themselves without assistance from humans?
Only if you leave them enough of an ecosystem to do so. That's probably the most important part of "taking care of nature", and one we're currently failing at terribly.
True, we should let them search for food, especially when there's enough food around.
When food is scarce (winter) it may be a different story, though. And water fountains in the summer are good not only for the birds, but for other wildlife as well.
When food is scarce (winter) it may be a different story, though. And water fountains in the summer are good not only for the birds, but for other wildlife as well.
What if I limit your food source and make you leave your house / apartment? There's a chance you would need some assistance.
The US has lost about 25% of its birds in the last 50 years
we’ve destroyed much of their habitats
These kinds of changes would really benefit from mosquito eradication.
It looks lovely from above, and in a remote location of Idaho there's no one to care, but I'm sure it's absolutely teaming with mosquitoes, a kind of perfect habitat. And a perfect habitat for all sorts of other creatures and plants who bother no one.
It's not just because of beaver trapping that this waterform has been so systematically eliminated; people go to great lengths to remove backwaters just because of mosquitoes. If we made mosquitoes extinct – not just the disease-carrying mosquitoes, but any that bite humans – I think we'd see attitudes change surprisingly quickly, a sudden peace in an ecological war has lasted millenia.
It looks lovely from above, and in a remote location of Idaho there's no one to care, but I'm sure it's absolutely teaming with mosquitoes, a kind of perfect habitat. And a perfect habitat for all sorts of other creatures and plants who bother no one.
It's not just because of beaver trapping that this waterform has been so systematically eliminated; people go to great lengths to remove backwaters just because of mosquitoes. If we made mosquitoes extinct – not just the disease-carrying mosquitoes, but any that bite humans – I think we'd see attitudes change surprisingly quickly, a sudden peace in an ecological war has lasted millenia.
If it isn’t mosquitos it’ll be gnats or any other biting/stinging insect.
Fact is, removing insect biomass using neonicotinide insecticides has had major negative impacts on North American biodiversity.
Fact is, removing insect biomass using neonicotinide insecticides has had major negative impacts on North American biodiversity.
It's true that getting rid of mosquitoes won't bring peace between humans and insects. But it would help, and if we could make them extinct then we could avoid all the collateral damage that occurs due to our efforts at partial suppression. Insecticides do more harm than the insects they target do good, so if we could target individual species for extinction (obviously a technological feat, but within the realm of possibility) we'd ultimately have a more diverse and healthy ecology.
Neonicotinoids aren't likely to be ingested by insects that don't eat crops (such as mosquito's), aren't they?
"At field-realistic levels of pollution, neonicotinoids and fipronil generally have negative effects on physiology and survival for a wide range of non-target invertebrates in terrestrial, aquatic, marine and benthic habitats"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284392/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284392/
* teeming
I had to reread it 3 times to work out what you meant.
teem, verb (gerund or present participle: teeming) be full of or swarming with. "every garden is teeming with wildlife"
team, verb (gerund or present participle: teaming) come together as a team to achieve a common goal. "he teamed up with the band to produce the disc"
I had to reread it 3 times to work out what you meant.
teem, verb (gerund or present participle: teeming) be full of or swarming with. "every garden is teeming with wildlife"
team, verb (gerund or present participle: teaming) come together as a team to achieve a common goal. "he teamed up with the band to produce the disc"
Make mosquitoes extinct to make the area nicer for humans? Mosquitoes aren’t all bad: https://a-z-animals.com/blog/what-would-happen-if-mosquitoes...
This blog seems to be written by AI. It repeats itself several times content-wise in an unknowing fashion.
I've lived in the mountain west much of my life, and have a fascination with 19th century US history. People nowadays would be shocked to discover how drastically we have altered the climate out here. To be clear, I'm not referring to traditional "climate change," I'm talking about human activity as a result of settling and taming this land.
The amount of grass and trees in the west used to be decent, but the grass was grazed almost to extinction and the trees stripped from nearly everywhere except mountain passes by the pioneers and early settlers. There used to be large meadows and forests around in the valleys and mountain summits, but now they are barren wastelands. For a specific example, look up the history of Mountain Meadows. It has a major stain in history from the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but think about the landscape and climate. At the time it was a lush meadow with plentiful water, grass, and trees. Now it's a barren wasteland because of overgrazing and stripping.
This activity is a sunk cost, but was also necessary to settle here (given the tech and understanding at the time), and I don't begrudge them doing what they needed to survive. Life was hard. But, we should be seriously trying to restore things to the way they were for thousands of years. Anyone who has tried to grow stuff out here understands the cycle. When trees are present, grasses and other plants fluorish underneath them. You can have a lightly forested field with grasses and other things, but when you cut the trees down it becomes a barren wasteland where even new trees can't grow because they can't get deep enough roots to survive the summer. It took nature thousands, millions of years to slowly spread the trees and grasses around because moving one tree closer to barren land takes almost a generation. Cutting them down devastates that overnight.
It would benefit everyone in many ways to restore things to the way nature had them before we got here. Doing so would make a much more beautiful place for not only our children and granchildren, but us.
The amount of grass and trees in the west used to be decent, but the grass was grazed almost to extinction and the trees stripped from nearly everywhere except mountain passes by the pioneers and early settlers. There used to be large meadows and forests around in the valleys and mountain summits, but now they are barren wastelands. For a specific example, look up the history of Mountain Meadows. It has a major stain in history from the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but think about the landscape and climate. At the time it was a lush meadow with plentiful water, grass, and trees. Now it's a barren wasteland because of overgrazing and stripping.
This activity is a sunk cost, but was also necessary to settle here (given the tech and understanding at the time), and I don't begrudge them doing what they needed to survive. Life was hard. But, we should be seriously trying to restore things to the way they were for thousands of years. Anyone who has tried to grow stuff out here understands the cycle. When trees are present, grasses and other plants fluorish underneath them. You can have a lightly forested field with grasses and other things, but when you cut the trees down it becomes a barren wasteland where even new trees can't grow because they can't get deep enough roots to survive the summer. It took nature thousands, millions of years to slowly spread the trees and grasses around because moving one tree closer to barren land takes almost a generation. Cutting them down devastates that overnight.
It would benefit everyone in many ways to restore things to the way nature had them before we got here. Doing so would make a much more beautiful place for not only our children and granchildren, but us.
One of my favorite recent games - Timberborn - is based on the concept of beaver civilization altering and improving the landscape. Recommended if you like sim/builder games.
If you think beavers can be destructive, wait until meet a Fisher.
Literal Rodents of unusual size and very ill tempered
Literal Rodents of unusual size and very ill tempered
It always dissonates with me when people talk about animals being destructive. I don't really think it is our's to judge.
I do, however, understand why it makes sense to keep some animals out of ones home.
I do, however, understand why it makes sense to keep some animals out of ones home.
I understand you, but at the same time, an individual beaver has far more environmental impact than an individual human.
For example, it is very hard to build these days, without environmental assessments. The days are long gone, at least where I am, where you can build waterfront property and clear the shoreline of reeds and such.
Which is fine!
But my point is, a beaver colony turns a river into a marsh, kills grassland, endless trees both due to flooding and feeding, prevents water from flowing downstream, stops fish from spawning, utterly changing the landscape.
If left unchallenged, they would do as goats do, destroy.
People get upset if we remove one ecosystem for another, yet that's just what beavers do.
All animals, including humans, are destructive. Some more than others.
Life, other than humans, has shaped the environment more than we ever have. We didn't used to have o2 in the air before, and its addition caused mass extinction at the time!
(note: I like living, and like my fellow humans, so want to stop large scale climate change... but I think we all need a bigger view sometimes)
For example, it is very hard to build these days, without environmental assessments. The days are long gone, at least where I am, where you can build waterfront property and clear the shoreline of reeds and such.
Which is fine!
But my point is, a beaver colony turns a river into a marsh, kills grassland, endless trees both due to flooding and feeding, prevents water from flowing downstream, stops fish from spawning, utterly changing the landscape.
If left unchallenged, they would do as goats do, destroy.
People get upset if we remove one ecosystem for another, yet that's just what beavers do.
All animals, including humans, are destructive. Some more than others.
Life, other than humans, has shaped the environment more than we ever have. We didn't used to have o2 in the air before, and its addition caused mass extinction at the time!
(note: I like living, and like my fellow humans, so want to stop large scale climate change... but I think we all need a bigger view sometimes)
an individual beaver has far more environmental impact than an individual human
I wouldn't be so sure of that, if you look at the total impact over an average human's lifespan so including what it takes for food, all the stuff people buy, cars, travel, ... (and not just the land occupied for a house which I think is what you mean)
But my point is, a beaver colony turns a river into a marsh, kills grassland, endless trees both due to flooding and feeding, prevents water from flowing downstream, stops fish from spawning, utterly changing the landscape.
This makes it sound as if this is somehow unnatural, and you're doing that by only highlighting what you consider as the negatives. It's not like these marches are dead, on the contrary. They are just a different type of ecosystem and it's not because it doesn't have trees or grassland (and I'm saying that as a huge grassland lover because in my area there's really not a lot of original grasslands left and most of its inhabitatnts are in serious decline) that it doesn't have its own, rich biodiversity of plants and insects and birds etc which thrive (or even can only survive) in such landscape. Beavers have existed for longer than the current form of humans and have their spot on earth, as do goats in their natural surrounding (not the same as a mass herd held for human food!), even though they might be perceived as doing damage on some scale.
but I think we all need a bigger view sometimes
Exactly, and then you see that beavers have always been there and just because humanity grew they started to be 'in the way' of humans and are getting a bad reputation. Whereas the bigger view would be that beavers just do as they do, but then humans start complaining because the result isn't useful or inhabitable. Which is understandable, but doesn't mean the rhetoric of 'beavers are bad, mkay' is super logical.
I wouldn't be so sure of that, if you look at the total impact over an average human's lifespan so including what it takes for food, all the stuff people buy, cars, travel, ... (and not just the land occupied for a house which I think is what you mean)
But my point is, a beaver colony turns a river into a marsh, kills grassland, endless trees both due to flooding and feeding, prevents water from flowing downstream, stops fish from spawning, utterly changing the landscape.
This makes it sound as if this is somehow unnatural, and you're doing that by only highlighting what you consider as the negatives. It's not like these marches are dead, on the contrary. They are just a different type of ecosystem and it's not because it doesn't have trees or grassland (and I'm saying that as a huge grassland lover because in my area there's really not a lot of original grasslands left and most of its inhabitatnts are in serious decline) that it doesn't have its own, rich biodiversity of plants and insects and birds etc which thrive (or even can only survive) in such landscape. Beavers have existed for longer than the current form of humans and have their spot on earth, as do goats in their natural surrounding (not the same as a mass herd held for human food!), even though they might be perceived as doing damage on some scale.
but I think we all need a bigger view sometimes
Exactly, and then you see that beavers have always been there and just because humanity grew they started to be 'in the way' of humans and are getting a bad reputation. Whereas the bigger view would be that beavers just do as they do, but then humans start complaining because the result isn't useful or inhabitable. Which is understandable, but doesn't mean the rhetoric of 'beavers are bad, mkay' is super logical.
I think your argument is even stronger when you consider that a lot of life evolved to specifically thrive in the ecosystems that beavers create. So it's hard for me to argue to limit the beavers from doing just about anything they want.
This makes it sound as if this is somehow unnatural,
No, merely that other species are capable of devastation as well.
The time of biblical reasoning is over, we tend to view the world through that historical optic. We are not separate from nature, as the bible states, we are part of nature, everything we do is natural, as well.
I find it amusing, that some of your arguments are directly counter to environmentalists arguments against hydro electric. Before "green concrete" was discussed, these arguments revolved around damaged ecosystems, blocking fish spawning, and turning forest into lake, and marsh.
All things that beavers do.
This was supposedly bad, because some species would be replaced by others, but apparently it's good, if beavers do so? Some beaver colonies change the environment so much, their impact can be seen from space.
Note that at no point did I say beavers are bad, but here's an example. Where I live, in rural Quebec, there is a mountain range. It hosts 100s of species found no where else.
Some of those species are at risk, as they occupy a small area, from beaver activity.
Beavers are not bad or good, but they are destructive by their very nature. And that means, the result may be bad.
No, merely that other species are capable of devastation as well.
The time of biblical reasoning is over, we tend to view the world through that historical optic. We are not separate from nature, as the bible states, we are part of nature, everything we do is natural, as well.
I find it amusing, that some of your arguments are directly counter to environmentalists arguments against hydro electric. Before "green concrete" was discussed, these arguments revolved around damaged ecosystems, blocking fish spawning, and turning forest into lake, and marsh.
All things that beavers do.
This was supposedly bad, because some species would be replaced by others, but apparently it's good, if beavers do so? Some beaver colonies change the environment so much, their impact can be seen from space.
Note that at no point did I say beavers are bad, but here's an example. Where I live, in rural Quebec, there is a mountain range. It hosts 100s of species found no where else.
Some of those species are at risk, as they occupy a small area, from beaver activity.
Beavers are not bad or good, but they are destructive by their very nature. And that means, the result may be bad.
you are not wrong. they can be very destructive. it is why most places keep an eye on them but mostly try to leave them alone. if they get near something like a road and flood it out they get captured and moved.
there are other parts of the US where they are basically extinct. we have literally decimated the beaver population in the US and Canada and are just starting to understand what that means. so some of those places are moving them back in to good effect. those areas have turned into basically deserts. there are no roads are farming near them because the beavers are no longer replenishing the aquifers and those guys left long ago. the fish are long gone because the rivers run dry every year now. once they put them back the fish return the banks start to grow with new growth and the rivers do not run dry every year. the best things that beavers do is what is called water linger. letting the water soak in and help the surrounding area.
in other areas like where you are from they are considered a nuisance because you have enough of them to fill the area up which is your point.
the downside to these sorts of conversations is everyone wants to do 'that one ting' but to properly fix these sorts of things is not planting some trees or dropping a beaver in. you have to have an ecosystem around them that supports that sort of thing. all the way up from the rocks, dirt, microbes, moss, bugs, small animals (birds and rodents), grasses, trees, and larger animals like beavers or foxes or bears. pluck one of those things out and the whole system hurts as there becomes an imbalance and stuff will die out or like you point out overrun the rest of the area. if your area is overrun with something there is probably some sort of imbalance.
there are other parts of the US where they are basically extinct. we have literally decimated the beaver population in the US and Canada and are just starting to understand what that means. so some of those places are moving them back in to good effect. those areas have turned into basically deserts. there are no roads are farming near them because the beavers are no longer replenishing the aquifers and those guys left long ago. the fish are long gone because the rivers run dry every year now. once they put them back the fish return the banks start to grow with new growth and the rivers do not run dry every year. the best things that beavers do is what is called water linger. letting the water soak in and help the surrounding area.
in other areas like where you are from they are considered a nuisance because you have enough of them to fill the area up which is your point.
the downside to these sorts of conversations is everyone wants to do 'that one ting' but to properly fix these sorts of things is not planting some trees or dropping a beaver in. you have to have an ecosystem around them that supports that sort of thing. all the way up from the rocks, dirt, microbes, moss, bugs, small animals (birds and rodents), grasses, trees, and larger animals like beavers or foxes or bears. pluck one of those things out and the whole system hurts as there becomes an imbalance and stuff will die out or like you point out overrun the rest of the area. if your area is overrun with something there is probably some sort of imbalance.
> If left unchallenged, they would do as goats do, destroy.
Do not equate goats and beavers, their impact is not the same.
Goat (and cattle) herds overgraze vegetation and kill the soil microbime by it, prevent afforestation and exacerbate soil erosion and desertification.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316721412_Blame_it_...
https://epar.evans.uw.edu/research/environmental-implication...
Beavers create wetlands - highly effective carbon sinks.
By slowing down the flow of water, they reduce the risk of floods during heavy rains and ensure a steady water supply during drier periods.
Diverse wetland habitats increase biodiversity, of both plant and animal species. During heavy rainfall, the dams can slow down and retain water, preventing downstream flooding.
In times of drought, the dams help maintain water levels in streams and wetlands, providing a more stable water supply for plants and wildlife.
Beaver ponds and wetlands can have a cooling effect on the surrounding landscape. The presence of water bodies can moderate local temperatures, reducing the risk of extreme heat events in the area.
Beaver activity promotes soil health by increasing organic matter in wetland areas. The accumulation of organic material can improve soil fertility and water retention, benefiting vegetation and enhancing the overall health of the ecosystem.
In areas where ecosystems have been degraded by human activities like deforestation or mining, beavers can play a role in restoring wetlands and improving the ecological conditions of the region.
> we all need a bigger view sometimes
Certainly.
Do not equate goats and beavers, their impact is not the same.
Goat (and cattle) herds overgraze vegetation and kill the soil microbime by it, prevent afforestation and exacerbate soil erosion and desertification.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316721412_Blame_it_...
https://epar.evans.uw.edu/research/environmental-implication...
Beavers create wetlands - highly effective carbon sinks.
By slowing down the flow of water, they reduce the risk of floods during heavy rains and ensure a steady water supply during drier periods.
Diverse wetland habitats increase biodiversity, of both plant and animal species. During heavy rainfall, the dams can slow down and retain water, preventing downstream flooding.
In times of drought, the dams help maintain water levels in streams and wetlands, providing a more stable water supply for plants and wildlife.
Beaver ponds and wetlands can have a cooling effect on the surrounding landscape. The presence of water bodies can moderate local temperatures, reducing the risk of extreme heat events in the area.
Beaver activity promotes soil health by increasing organic matter in wetland areas. The accumulation of organic material can improve soil fertility and water retention, benefiting vegetation and enhancing the overall health of the ecosystem.
In areas where ecosystems have been degraded by human activities like deforestation or mining, beavers can play a role in restoring wetlands and improving the ecological conditions of the region.
> we all need a bigger view sometimes
Certainly.
>> But my point is, a beaver colony turns a river into a marsh, kills grassland, endless trees both due to flooding and feeding, prevents water from flowing downstream, stops fish from spawning, utterly changing the landscape.
The linked article shows a case where those seem to be good things.
The linked article shows a case where those seem to be good things.
If beavers truly did destroy land, North America would have been a wasteland millennia ago. They may transform the landscape as we see it today, but it is very likely that they’re restoring it in a historical sense.
Saying an animal destroyed something is an expression of an aesthetic preference.
Saying you don't like it when people say that an animal destroyed something is also an expression of an aesthetic preference.
Saying you don't like it when people say that an animal destroyed something is also an expression of an aesthetic preference.
If we talk about the US native Fisher, this is a cat sized carnivore related with weasels, not a rodent.
Not particularly destructive or constructive, apart of its common environmental services as predator.
Not particularly destructive or constructive, apart of its common environmental services as predator.
> Literal Rodents of unusual size
Except they aren't literally rodents. They are mustelids.
Except they aren't literally rodents. They are mustelids.
I have no idea what fishers do, and Wikipedia doesn't help. Could you tell us more?
Looks like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_(animal)
Although I'm not sure what OP refers to, other than them being a top predator.
Although I'm not sure what OP refers to, other than them being a top predator.
As I alluded to, I'd found that page already. I'd like to know what they do that's more destructive than beavers flooding your land. Why single out the fisher like that?
I mean, wolves and foxes can wreak havoc on farm animals, but at least they don't turn your land into a swamp.
I mean, wolves and foxes can wreak havoc on farm animals, but at least they don't turn your land into a swamp.
It is cute indeed, like a big polecat, and "can be" tamed (As any other mustelid they can bite hard if they want or are treated bad).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ic7FyZV0M0
A healthy ecosystem provides enough shelter to the preys for sustaining both preys and predator. It does not modify the ecosystem in the way than a beaver does. Not even close.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ic7FyZV0M0
A healthy ecosystem provides enough shelter to the preys for sustaining both preys and predator. It does not modify the ecosystem in the way than a beaver does. Not even close.
They do look very cute, as do all long-skinny forest or river animals (pine marten, weasels, stoats, otters)
[deleted]
Is there a light novel version somewhere? That title has striking similarities…
I’m going to coin the term “beaverforming”.
Definitely a good thing, but i cannot think of any other mammal that so enrages land owners. If you have beavers on your land, you are now on thier land. There just isnt any way to prepare a house, road, field or any other area the beavers want to inundated. You jut have to give up and biuld elsewhere.
I wonder if there are under appreciated economical uses of wetlands. They are so unpopular with land owners but so important for the ecology.
Depending on location there's enough underappreciated indirect economical benefits to them ('ecosystem services' is the term used these dayss). For example a city I live nearby is largely protected from flooding because it's main river is, close to city's borders, embedded in a big wetland serving as a buffer, as it has been since the river started to exist. Last severe rainfall (which was close to an anomaly) it became like 80% full. The costs of the thing not being there would be several orders of magnitude larger than what one can make in a lifetime using it as farmland for instance, yet there are people thinking that way.
The phrase I've heard is, "Rats with chainsaws."
> There just isnt any way to prepare a house, road, field or any other area the beavers want to inundated.
Huh? Are you talking about the legal quirks of some particular place? Because there are plenty of practical measures.
For example: Trapping the beavers, for relocation or some other fate); protecting trees with fencing or a sand/paint mix they dislike; putting in some cage-protected piping that limits the water-level in their dam; and various techniques to prevent beavers from blocking culverts and drains.
Interestingly, beaver dam-building instincts are affected by the sound of rushing water (rather than a detailed understanding of flows and pressure) which means there's some acoustic engineering that can be done to prevent them from perceiving dam-opportunities.
Huh? Are you talking about the legal quirks of some particular place? Because there are plenty of practical measures.
For example: Trapping the beavers, for relocation or some other fate); protecting trees with fencing or a sand/paint mix they dislike; putting in some cage-protected piping that limits the water-level in their dam; and various techniques to prevent beavers from blocking culverts and drains.
Interestingly, beaver dam-building instincts are affected by the sound of rushing water (rather than a detailed understanding of flows and pressure) which means there's some acoustic engineering that can be done to prevent them from perceiving dam-opportunities.
I can't imagine beavers can raise water levels by more than a foot or so - would such a water level rise not also be possible in heavy rains? So would that simply just not be a great place to build anyway?
They can definitely raise things more than a foot and they can cover huge areas of land, and they breed pretty quick and then spread into neighbouring properties.
My parents let the beavers restore a low lying area on their property back to marsh. But he still had to put in a kind of escape valve pipe (with some tricks to stop the beavers from plugging it) or it would flood out a very large area near their home.
And he has to do some population control on them, too, or they just continue flooding all the surrounding areas.
My parents let the beavers restore a low lying area on their property back to marsh. But he still had to put in a kind of escape valve pipe (with some tricks to stop the beavers from plugging it) or it would flood out a very large area near their home.
And he has to do some population control on them, too, or they just continue flooding all the surrounding areas.
I applaud this approach. its partial re-wilding. It incurs costs (both sides) and its not entirely free. But, you get wildlife, and you get something closer to nature, and the upsides can include significant improvements to biodiversity and water retention in the ground, as well as downstream flood mitigation effects.
It's good people are overt "yea I like it overall but it has issues" because pretending there are no issues is silly.
People who don't want to do it will magnify the cost side issues to the expense of benefit. People who want to do it will minify.
It's good people are overt "yea I like it overall but it has issues" because pretending there are no issues is silly.
People who don't want to do it will magnify the cost side issues to the expense of benefit. People who want to do it will minify.
It's tricky though. My father is now almost 80, and it's getting too much for him to monitor and control them. What happens to the land when he can't?
There is, unfortunately a perception of nature being a naturally-balancing system. But it's really not. It's dynamic, constantly changing, and beavers can be a real chaos wildcard, creating outcomes that can modify hundreds, even thousands, of acres of land.
There is, unfortunately a perception of nature being a naturally-balancing system. But it's really not. It's dynamic, constantly changing, and beavers can be a real chaos wildcard, creating outcomes that can modify hundreds, even thousands, of acres of land.
Not to minimise your dilemma it's no different to other risky and tricky questions about succession planning in Farming.
It's no coincidence that alongside commercial fishing, farming has a horrendous accident rate.
If e.g. you have any livestock much over the size of a chicken your near 80yo parent could be at significant risk from unexpected animal behaviour. Cattle yards cause horrific crush injury.
It's no coincidence that alongside commercial fishing, farming has a horrendous accident rate.
If e.g. you have any livestock much over the size of a chicken your near 80yo parent could be at significant risk from unexpected animal behaviour. Cattle yards cause horrific crush injury.
Yes I've seen beaver dams easily a dozen feet high in not even that remote areas of Ontario.
I don't mind their dens, but they actively attack plants in strange ways.
I've had some arborvitae shrubs for years that were left completely alone... Up until this last winter, when one day they were all destroyed, practically right down to the ground. There wasn't a shortage of food, and these weren't good for den building- there's acres of forest between my house and the closest den anyway.
All of our trees along the river bank have to be wrapped in chicken wire to keep the critters away. There's thousands of others along the river banks to choose from; I can only guess they like that the trees are in open lawn rather than surrounded by taller grasses or ferns.
I've had some arborvitae shrubs for years that were left completely alone... Up until this last winter, when one day they were all destroyed, practically right down to the ground. There wasn't a shortage of food, and these weren't good for den building- there's acres of forest between my house and the closest den anyway.
All of our trees along the river bank have to be wrapped in chicken wire to keep the critters away. There's thousands of others along the river banks to choose from; I can only guess they like that the trees are in open lawn rather than surrounded by taller grasses or ferns.
Everything eats Arborvitae, especially deer. It is often planted for its speed of growth.
I would not describe this as 'strange ways'. It's herbivores eating tasty plants.
I would not describe this as 'strange ways'. It's herbivores eating tasty plants.
Deer have also left them alone for years. Not 20 feet away is the edge of the forest where there's plenty of other food.
We have many hostas and other plants deer typically go for that are left completely alone. The loss of the arborvitaes just seemed really random.
Other than that, the only problem we have had with wildlife in the past 5 years it so is remembering to not leave bird feed out over night- either the black bears or raccoons will steal it rather promptly.
We have many hostas and other plants deer typically go for that are left completely alone. The loss of the arborvitaes just seemed really random.
Other than that, the only problem we have had with wildlife in the past 5 years it so is remembering to not leave bird feed out over night- either the black bears or raccoons will steal it rather promptly.
They deemed them unnecessary, so culled their numbers.
Disney world is a great example of how people will build something regardless of how bad the land is for it. Life finds a way
"When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England."
Watch some post 10 videos on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/@post.10/videos
He goes around clearing out culverts and other drainage ways, including ones blocked by beavers.
The water level difference can easily be over a foot, with water overflowing an embankment and causing erosion damage.
Without the beaver dams, the drains would be able to handle a heavy rain.
He goes around clearing out culverts and other drainage ways, including ones blocked by beavers.
The water level difference can easily be over a foot, with water overflowing an embankment and causing erosion damage.
Without the beaver dams, the drains would be able to handle a heavy rain.
Beaver dams and ponds are generally about a meter deep. That is deep enough that your field isnt a field, your road is impassible, and your house is now an island. They actively want to create ponds. You can fight the process, you can drain the ponds even and destroy the dams, but it is an uphill struggle.
They're also a great reservoir of giardia. Apparently known as "beaver fever" in the US.
I visited the site, started reading, then got rudely interrupted by some pop up requesting donations.
I then closed the site. Too bad one can't downvote posts.
I then closed the site. Too bad one can't downvote posts.
> NASA is now supporting efforts to introduce more beavers to the landscape,
I’m not familiar with the area but wouldn’t this impact local ecosystem? In my opinion more of anything is bad
I’m not familiar with the area but wouldn’t this impact local ecosystem? In my opinion more of anything is bad
It depends. In this case, wouldn't the beavers have settled there organically if it wasn't for human intervention? Would the water level be higher or lower?
> “Prior to beaver trapping, beaver dams were just about everywhere in the West. So what we’re attempting to do is to bring beaver dam densities back to historic levels where possible”
The local ecosystem that was full of beavers until the last couple hundred years when people removed in a failed attempt to far the place? I think it will do ok.
"Less of Everything!"
-- The Battle Cry of 2023
-- The Battle Cry of 2023
[deleted]
How can beaver dams be considered good for the environment but man-made dams get so much resistance despite producing some of the cleanest energy and reducing carbon emissions?
Surely humans know how to design/divert waterways better than a beaver.
Surely humans know how to design/divert waterways better than a beaver.
"The environment" is a really big subject. It's like saying "How can chemotherapy be considered bad when it actually helps cure cancer?" You can see how in this statement things are confusing because chemotherapy is very dangerous and harmful, but in a bigger picture, it's very helpful and life-saving.
A man-made dam is good for the global environment when it offsets coal burning. A man-made dam is terrible for the local ecosystem when it completely obliterates the local ecosystem by putting it underwater. It also has much more surface area for evaporation than rivers leading to water loss. They also promote extreme anerobic bacteria compared to rivers causing dramatic increase in greenhouse gas production in the water. Dams also prevent rivers from delivering silt, nutrients, and other things that help Ocean ecosystems including reducing the oceans ability to sink carbon. They also can contribute to earthquakes. Finally, once they fall into disrepair, they become a huge dangerous hazard and most countries do not want to pay to maintain and decommission.
So is a dam good or bad? It becomes a question of the net benefit. For the chemotherapy, we say that there is a net positive benefit. For man-made dams, there is a current debate and I won't say what I think.
And finally Beaver dams are often considered good because they are not large-scale. They don't flood a whole region, they just slowly turn a small area into a wetland. They slow down fast-moving streams, reduce erosion, provide buffers against storm surges and help control flooding. Beavers can be a keystone species and a healthy beaver population has a dramatically positive effect on the local ecosystem.
A man-made dam is good for the global environment when it offsets coal burning. A man-made dam is terrible for the local ecosystem when it completely obliterates the local ecosystem by putting it underwater. It also has much more surface area for evaporation than rivers leading to water loss. They also promote extreme anerobic bacteria compared to rivers causing dramatic increase in greenhouse gas production in the water. Dams also prevent rivers from delivering silt, nutrients, and other things that help Ocean ecosystems including reducing the oceans ability to sink carbon. They also can contribute to earthquakes. Finally, once they fall into disrepair, they become a huge dangerous hazard and most countries do not want to pay to maintain and decommission.
So is a dam good or bad? It becomes a question of the net benefit. For the chemotherapy, we say that there is a net positive benefit. For man-made dams, there is a current debate and I won't say what I think.
And finally Beaver dams are often considered good because they are not large-scale. They don't flood a whole region, they just slowly turn a small area into a wetland. They slow down fast-moving streams, reduce erosion, provide buffers against storm surges and help control flooding. Beavers can be a keystone species and a healthy beaver population has a dramatically positive effect on the local ecosystem.
Good points.
Human dams are also an obstacle to migration and cause habitat fragmentation.
Human dams are also an obstacle to migration and cause habitat fragmentation.
A pond behind a small dam will swell up and hold water when it rains, slowly releasing the water downstream over time. Thousands of such dams add up, leading to a major rainstorm's water taking a longer time to fully dissipate into the rivers downstream. The same total water (almost) will go through the river, but with a lower peak load, and over a longer time.
The rivers are less likely to burst their banks. Homes, towns, cities are saved massive damage.
And as this article shows, the areas behind the dams stay wet much longer, reducing drought and fire risks.
All we have to do is, when possible, let the beavers build their dams.