4 ms·

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 make

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.

b112 3y ago
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)
- myshpa 3y ago
  > 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_on_the_goats_Desertification_in_the_Near_East_during_the_Holocene https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316721412_Blame_it_... https://epar.evans.uw.edu/research/environmental-implications-livestock-goats 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.
- stinos 3y ago
  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.
  - dillydogg 3y ago
    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.
  - b112 3y ago
    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.
- phkahler 3y ago
  >> 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.
- steve_adams_86 3y ago
  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.
maxerickson 3y ago
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.

b112 3y ago

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)

myshpa 3y ago
> 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_on_the_goats_Desertification_in_the_Near_East_during_the_Holocene https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316721412_Blame_it_... https://epar.evans.uw.edu/research/environmental-implications-livestock-goats 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.
stinos 3y ago
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.
- dillydogg 3y ago
  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.
- b112 3y ago
  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.
phkahler 3y ago
>> 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.
steve_adams_86 3y ago
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.

maxerickson 3y ago

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.