John Ferrell wrote:
> WOW! Not only are we off topic here, we are in the wrong forum.

But then you replied, and in the same topic anyway.  Duh.

Note that I changed the tag to TECH and adjusted the subject description.

> Since
> we are already here I feel obligated to point out that Beavers are
> not Eco friendly. Less than a mile from where I live is a Beaver dam
> that has killed the environment with flooding.

I seriously doubt that.  It will have changed the environment, but very
likely quite the opposite of killed it.  There are probably as many species
that are winners due to the change than loosers.  In this part of the world,
beavers and moose together alter aquatic-edge environments, opening up
opportunities for more species than there would otherwise be.  This
diversity of habitats and species makes for a more healthy and robust
environment, not a "killed" one.

As beaver ponds get created and eventually abandonded, they allow for a
whole succession of species that may otherwise have a hard time finding a
home in that area.  These include both plants and animals.

For example, the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) likes to nest in tops of
dead trees in standing water.  Those are quite rare except when beavers
flood a area.  Up to about the mid 1990s there was no evidence of beavers
here in Groton MA.  Now I can probably show you nearly a dozen beaver dams
in the area.  There are at least 3 new heron rookeries I can think of off
the top of my head, and probably another couple if I mentally checked off
all the conservation parcels (Groton has about 35% of its land area in
conservation.  That by itself is unusual.  What makes it really amazing is
that this is not due to a single large state forest or whatever, but lots of
individual parcels 100 acres or less.  There are a few larger parcels, but
several tens of little ones, quite a few now abutting forming continuous
protected corridors.)

Herons are only one easily visible species and don't mean much by
themselves.  However, the same effect is happening accross many more less
obvious species.  Humans may not like beavers because of the flooding they
cause.  Certainly they can cause economic damage.  However, that doesn't
make them ecologically bad, and they aren't if you look at the ecosystem as
a whole.

> The natural population
> has been replaced by swamp creatures.

You mean the previous natural population.  The swamp creatures are natural
too.

> A woods filled with dead trees is pretty ugly.

To a human perhaps.  Did you ask all the other creatures?  I didn't think
so.  I think a great blue heron would have a very different answer.  And so
would various insects, woodpeckers, etc, etc.  You have no right to judge a
whole ecosystem from just your narrow human perspective.

> The beavers are protected, but it is not difficult to
> find someone  who likes to play with things that "go Bang" to
> dismantle the dam.

Actually it's been shown that doesn't work well.  Beaver dams are very
resiliant structures, and the beavers generally fix them quickly.  Your
arrogance of thinking that beavers are more damaging to the ecosystem than a
bunch of yahoos with explosives is just astounding.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist