DustyTrails wrote:Multiply eight acre feet times five million
I can't find it right now.... of course.
rockguy wrote:ceog~ Please go over your numbers again before you apply them to any practical application. Your "gallons per ac/ft" figure is less than the square ft per ac.
1) The Hudson Bay watershed takes 30% of Canadian water, and sends it out to the arctic, so none of this affects flooding to the South.
Erica Wisner wrote:
I don't think I've seen beaver-felled trees much over 1 foot diameter. Usually, they're more in the 1" to 5" diameter range. To make use of them for dams, the beaver generally has to be able to drag them. Most of the trees they chew are small branches for food. They can clear out brush quite a lot, tho.
Erica Wisner wrote:I've seen a lot of 600+ year old stumps that got chewed by chainsaw or 2-man saw, though. Don't be pointing the finger at the beaver for our own mess.
Trying to read between the numbers, it seemed like somebody was trying to evaluate some kind of beavers vs. trees benefit analysis.
Erica Wisner wrote:That equation seems to rest on a false assumption. No point using logic if you don't have an axiom to stand it on.
It's very difficult to apply simple numbers accurately to ecological interactions; they are notoriously complex, and hidden, compensating factors keep emerging layer after layer. Simple relationships are the exception rather than the rule.
Erica Wisner wrote:It looks to me like both beavers and big trees have declined with industrial expansion, and other landscape-eroding and groundwater-reducing factors have increased with that same expansion. You can chart the decline of life-supporting environmental quality factors on a very macro scale. Some is due to geologic climate shifts, or introduced species, but much more to industrial effects.
Erica Wisner wrote:
What interested me in this thread was the perspective: a 'minor' creature like a butterfly or beaver, can have major effects that are visible in hindsight.
Erica Wisner wrote:
With current rates of extinctions, when the crap hits the fan we probably won't even know the name of the lost creature that tipped the balance.
We are lucky in the case of the beaver: its numbers are recovering.
I agree - at which point, the trees will go as the choice of individuals will be suffer now or later, or indeed suffer now and allow your neighbour to not suffer now. And then eventually later arrives.... but now I seem to be going OT ops:
Erica Wisner wrote:And in the case of industrial expansion: it is fueled by a resource glut, and unlikely to last forever.
Emerson White wrote:
1) The flooding problem is not that too much water goes down the river, but rather that too much goes down at one time. What would come down in a matter of weeks is now spaced out over a matter of months. Now if you like the flooding you are SOL but if not then beavers are useful.
I cannot prove it but I believe that the aspen and the beaver have coexisted for a long time and I don't think the beaver could ever really get ahead of the trees for very long anyway. So I vote for the beaver.
I would love to have the beaver back.
ceog Hatfield wrote:
However if I thought I would lose my big trees, I would likely abandon my laissez faire approach.
Most big ag, logging, and mining are pretty much the same.....the bottom line is most easily achieved by extracting and not regenerating. Throughout time, it's been more popular just to abandon and take up a new extractive occupation than to consider a regenerative path.
Bryant RedHawk wrote:I doubt that it is a matter of them not being able to mulch but rather a matter of them not wanting to spend the money necessary to mulch.
Farmers are not all about saving the land, they have been fooled into thinking you have to till the soil for things to grow.
Big Ag is all about money, pure and simple and they have convinced farmers for decades that tillage is the way to profits.
Loggers are all about killing trees so they can make money from lumber, where would they get the idea that they should mulch or otherwise cover the soil they just laid bare?
Ben Zukisian wrote:I was flummoxed by seeing tractors plowing up dust on unmulched ground, [...] so why [...] can't they mulch?
Tinknal McCoy wrote:Beavers allow trees to grow where they otherwise would not. In more arid prairie zones the water that is pooled encourages the growth of trees that otherwise couldn't exist.