Rendered at 23:05:21 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
_whiteCaps_ 2 hours ago [-]
There's a really good book about a homesteader that did something similar to this in the 1930's in British Columbia, "Three Against The Wilderness". Basically he restored the dams that had been dynamited by the ranchers, and that restored all of the wetlands in the area.
Later on, the government brought him some beavers from elsewhere, and they flourished.
richiebful1 3 hours ago [-]
It was an interesting, but counterintuitive result that water temperatures went down after artificial beaver damming. Their theory is that the water is able to permeate more into the ground and exchange heat with the ambient underground temperature [1]
Maybe I missed it, why didn't they just reintroduce beavers?
petcat 4 hours ago [-]
The beavers are still there, just not in high numbers like they used to be. Right now the ecosystem can only support the population that is already there. Maybe eventually it will support more and then the number will increase naturally.
cornstalks 4 hours ago [-]
TFA implies the issue is land owners won’t allow it:
> But beavers can only thrive if landowners allow them to.
repeekad 3 hours ago [-]
Which they never will on their own, so surely conservation regulations need to be enforced, too bad the US is moving backwards right now in that regard
stouset 3 hours ago [-]
Then you get people (understandably) upset that just about any work they want to do to improve their own private land needs to involve the EPA and/or a local wildlife commission.
fodkodrasz 2 hours ago [-]
The modern phrasing of "improve" and "develop" for destroy is pretty upsetting to me.
My environment was improved to an unliveable asphalt/gravel sprawl from edge of city with woods with frog and birdsong...
cucumber3732842 2 hours ago [-]
Everything you do to waste land area by "lightly" touching it further increases sprawl because it increases the land required to do things.
Environmentalism is in direct conflict with densely packing "stuff" onto land whether that's people or industry. If you want to preserve nature embrace the "concrete jungle" and the density it brings.
Look at historical small towns vs modern build outs of the same population. Despite building maybe four stories high at most 50k people in some New England or Midwest mill town fit on a tiny fraction of the developed area of the same modern population simply because environmentalists weren't around to mandate engineered drainage ditches and green spaces and setbacks and require every podunk business have fire lanes a drunk could back a lowboy into and all planters in their parking lot and the other stuff
oatmeal1 31 minutes ago [-]
High density development leaving as much pristine nature as possible is vastly superior to sprawl for the environment, but the comment you replied to didn't seem to describe a density issue.
AngryData 2 hours ago [-]
If you don't want to deal with swampy land full of beavers, don't buy swampy land full of beavers.
They should of done a better job purchasing land.
nkrisc 3 hours ago [-]
The alternative is we drive ourselves ever closer to the brink.
It is entirely possible that our current way of living, including the idea of “private land” as it exists today, may not be conducive to our long-term survival.
The forces of nature care not for our political and philosophical debates.
mulmen 3 hours ago [-]
Ignoring externalities remains popular.
We live in a society. I can’t build a helipad on my roof in the middle of Seattle. Technically that’s a limitation on my personal liberty. We accept it because of the cost to the people around me.
2 hours ago [-]
messe 3 hours ago [-]
Good? They don't own the commons.
evan_ 1 hours ago [-]
this is basically the inciting incident of the recent movie Hoppers
cmrdporcupine 3 hours ago [-]
Beavers can be incredibly difficult to live alongside of.
My parents have 100+ acres of bush in central Alberta. When they bought the property it was logged out and mostly in a bad abused state and mostly dry. Over a few years, beavers moved in and transformed a formerly semi-marshy spot into a full pond. And then another. And another.
Eventually though, without a lot of predators around (there's some skittish bears, coyotes, that's it) they begin to overpopulate. And any efforts to keep the water level at a certain point starts to get tricky. In order to keep access to some parts of the property my dad ended up having to put in some sneaky culverts with various tricks to stop them from plugging them. (I forget, but he eventually figured out a beaverproof trick).
Even then, every few years the need to "remove" some of the beavers, because they just get to be too many, they run out of poplars near their lodge and start to cause more problems for downstream and upstream neighbours.
They've done amazing things for the property. But when my parents pass it's going to be hard to maintain this property with the beavers actively trying to transform it constantly.
xandrius 1 hours ago [-]
Throw in some wolves and create a brand new set of problems :)
throwway120385 13 minutes ago [-]
That's the beauty of it. When wintertime rolls around they simply freeze to death.
arthurbrown 48 minutes ago [-]
What are the problems actually? That they have improved water retention and soil hydration?
tosapple 42 minutes ago [-]
what's wrong with it not reverting to nature when they pass? people put flowers on loved ones graves.
cogogo 2 hours ago [-]
Busy beaver problem?
parodysbird 12 minutes ago [-]
Why are you wanting transform the beavers property?
cucumber3732842 2 hours ago [-]
Because the government makes the water that comes with them a huge liability.
Tons of vacant land owners would be happy to allow beavers and everything else if not for the fact that it destroys any prospect of doing anything on the land.
pvaldes 3 hours ago [-]
> Maybe I missed it, why didn't they just reintroduce beavers?
My guess is that trees are not there in numbers enough to support beavers. Or maybe they don't want beavers chopping the trees.
krm01 2 hours ago [-]
Whatever they eat, did that go down to an all time low. Im m curious about the chain reaction vs an isolated result.
declan_roberts 2 hours ago [-]
The temperature is cooler? That can't possibly be the only reason to explain such a dramatic change in survival rates. We definitely need more research on this topic.
oatmeal1 36 minutes ago [-]
There's more food, less energy wasted fighting excessively strong current, and more places to hide from predators. Water quality goes up downstream of a beaver(-ish) dam.
margalabargala 2 hours ago [-]
If you do even a moment of reading about salmon, you will find that they are extremely sensitive to warm temperatures. Even a couple degrees F above their "normal" will allow disease to run rampant.
declan_roberts 2 hours ago [-]
I give the salmon a little more credit because the entire river can't be a beaver dam. That's their theory and I think will more research we're going to learn more about what's happening here.
tomcam 3 hours ago [-]
I am sick of underachieving beavers. Go us! Seriously, that would require statutory change here in Washington state. I live in a rural area with salmon waterways all over. Farmers just quietly clear the way for them, because it's illegal to make any changes to the waterway even if it's trash thrown out of cars.
tolugenius 2 hours ago [-]
> I am sick of underachieving beavers. Go us!
This really made laugh for some reason, just imagining a beaver typing away at HN specifically.
pstuart 3 hours ago [-]
With freshwater increasingly being a problem, being able to slow down tributaries and allow the water to percolate and help rebuild aquifers is something that should be happening everywhere possible.
Lost cost, high reward. Not sexy enough to get the attention it deserves.
Later on, the government brought him some beavers from elsewhere, and they flourished.
1. https://www.science.org/content/article/beaver-dams-without-...
> But beavers can only thrive if landowners allow them to.
My environment was improved to an unliveable asphalt/gravel sprawl from edge of city with woods with frog and birdsong...
Environmentalism is in direct conflict with densely packing "stuff" onto land whether that's people or industry. If you want to preserve nature embrace the "concrete jungle" and the density it brings.
Look at historical small towns vs modern build outs of the same population. Despite building maybe four stories high at most 50k people in some New England or Midwest mill town fit on a tiny fraction of the developed area of the same modern population simply because environmentalists weren't around to mandate engineered drainage ditches and green spaces and setbacks and require every podunk business have fire lanes a drunk could back a lowboy into and all planters in their parking lot and the other stuff
They should of done a better job purchasing land.
It is entirely possible that our current way of living, including the idea of “private land” as it exists today, may not be conducive to our long-term survival.
The forces of nature care not for our political and philosophical debates.
We live in a society. I can’t build a helipad on my roof in the middle of Seattle. Technically that’s a limitation on my personal liberty. We accept it because of the cost to the people around me.
My parents have 100+ acres of bush in central Alberta. When they bought the property it was logged out and mostly in a bad abused state and mostly dry. Over a few years, beavers moved in and transformed a formerly semi-marshy spot into a full pond. And then another. And another.
Eventually though, without a lot of predators around (there's some skittish bears, coyotes, that's it) they begin to overpopulate. And any efforts to keep the water level at a certain point starts to get tricky. In order to keep access to some parts of the property my dad ended up having to put in some sneaky culverts with various tricks to stop them from plugging them. (I forget, but he eventually figured out a beaverproof trick).
Even then, every few years the need to "remove" some of the beavers, because they just get to be too many, they run out of poplars near their lodge and start to cause more problems for downstream and upstream neighbours.
They've done amazing things for the property. But when my parents pass it's going to be hard to maintain this property with the beavers actively trying to transform it constantly.
Tons of vacant land owners would be happy to allow beavers and everything else if not for the fact that it destroys any prospect of doing anything on the land.
My guess is that trees are not there in numbers enough to support beavers. Or maybe they don't want beavers chopping the trees.
This really made laugh for some reason, just imagining a beaver typing away at HN specifically.
Lost cost, high reward. Not sexy enough to get the attention it deserves.