Two animals that build, which has greater value?

[ecco]

and this planet has sufficient resource for 9billion humans

almost there

and then the chaos begins

On the other hand, the way we are drastically impacting the normal pace of change, we may never get there. If AGW, or new plant diseases, destroys our ability to feed people, we may find that 5 billion is not sustainable.

Large numbers of people rely on seafood. It is quite possible that we will make all seafood inedible.

 

[Thief]

we may never get there.

actually....I might live long enough to see the beginning of the end

9billion population is likely to happen before I turn 84
I'm 63

at that point we need two things

water

and enough lead to keep it

 

[Shad]

Again you demonstrate you lack of knowledge about the affect of beavers have on the land. Fortunately a few are starting to realize our mistake as in the example of what happened in Nevada during a severe drought. The only ranch that had adequate water for its life stock was the one that promoted beavers on their land accepting some of the consequences occur but thankful for the ultimate benefit. Washington states loss of agriculture due to dropping water tables and resulting fires from the rapid run off of mountain streams from the loss of beaver activity. The fishing industry also benefits from beaver activity in creating cooler water temperatures and spawning grounds.
So you hospital comment was just a useless barb. Here I thought you believed beavers could actually build a hospital. So good to know you are aware they cannot.

There was a whole project/study in Vancouver and the UK (Devon I think) using beavers not just for restoration but pollution filtering of silts and sediments (which are not always from a natural cause). The only draw back were restoration areas too close to urban areas. Proximity to urban areas decreases wildlife and plant life density. Both of which function as a natural check to the habits of beavers. So the Beavers would consume an already decline resource supply. I think the current Vancouver project is setup for a 50km areas outside of the city for more research.

 

[Bear Wild]

There was a whole project/study in Vancouver and the UK (Devon I think) using beavers not just for restoration but pollution filtering of silts and sediments (which are not always from a natural cause). The only draw back were restoration areas too close to urban areas. Proximity to urban areas decreases wildlife and plant life density. Both of which function as a natural check to the habits of beavers. So the Beavers would consume an already decline resource supply. I think the current Vancouver project is setup for a 50km areas outside of the city for more research.

The Devon studies are newer but they have shown to decrease the problem of flooding. In England there was a misconception that beavers eat fish (thanks to the Narnia tales) and concern about temperature conditions of the water and bottom surfaces for spawning both of which were proven incorrect from studies in western untied states where beaver activity improved conditions for fish migration and survival. Not as familiar with Vancouver problem you sited but if you have a source for the issue I would like to read it. Wales is now looking at beaver introduction.

 

[Valjean]

Some humans build with respect to nature. News like people planting 66 million trees in 12 hours in India show that not all humans are disrespecting their environment.

Sounds good on its face, but did the trees survive? did they form an actual forest? were they later harvested for charcoal?
Was the choice of trees and locations optimum for the biomes in question? Are the other organisms necessary for the ecosystem under manufacture -- subterranian mycelia, for example -- in place?
A forest is a network, not just trees. Nature does it best.

Now if we can just get those pesky beavers to build a children's hospital....

Or those pesky humans to build a wetland.
Which would be the greater good for the ecosystem and biodiversity?

 

[BSM1]

Sounds good on its face, but did the trees survive? did they form an actual forest? were they later harvested for charcoal?
Was the choice of trees and locations optimum for the biomes in question? Are the other organisms necessary for the ecosystem under manufacture -- subterranian mycelia, for example -- in place?
A forest is a network, not just trees. Nature does it best.

Or those pesky humans to build a wetland.
Which would be the greater good for the ecosystem and biodiversity?

You send your sick child to a pond, I'll send mine to a hospital, thank you.

 

[Valjean]

You send your sick child to a pond, I'll send mine to a hospital, thank you.

How is this not an arrogant, elitist selfishness?

 

[BSM1]

How is this not an arrogant, elitist selfishness?

It's is, totally. If my child was dying from some disease and the cure entailed eradicating an entire species of some wild, uncaring beast, than my only question would be, 'Which one do I shoot first?". And I wouldn't loose a minute of sleep worrying about how many muddle headed bleeding hearts I offended.

 

[ecco]

Or those pesky humans to build a wetland.
Which would be the greater good for the ecosystem and biodiversity?

The truth about beavers

During the Pleistocene period, there were even giant beavers: the largest Castoroides species were roughly the height and weight of a tall man.

The two surviving beaver species are thought to have been going their separate ways for around 7.5 million years.
​

Do ya think homo sapiens will make it to 7.5 million years?

 

[ecco]

It's is, totally. If my child was dying from some disease and the cure entailed eradicating an entire species of some wild, uncaring beast, than my only question would be, 'Which one do I shoot first?". And I wouldn't loose a minute of sleep worrying about how many muddle headed bleeding hearts I offended.

Wow. Tough talk from a tough guy.

 

[BSM1]

Wow. Tough talk from a tough guy.

Somebody certainly needs to show a pair...

 

[BSM1]

The truth about beavers

During the Pleistocene period, there were even giant beavers: the largest Castoroides species were roughly the height and weight of a tall man.

The two surviving beaver species are thought to have been going their separate ways for around 7.5 million years.
​

Do ya think homo sapiens will make it to 7.5 million years?

Does it matter?

 

[Bear Wild]

You send your sick child to a pond, I'll send mine to a hospital, thank you.

So you are going to send your child to the hospital that the beavers built but you want other people to send their children who are sick to a pond? You do not seem to grasp the simple concept that if a child is not feeling well you would take them to a human doctor. Beavers and pond life do not treat humans for sickness.

 

[ecco]

Somebody certainly needs to show a pair...

I guess that makes you an exhibitionist as well as being a tough guy.

 

[BSM1]

I guess that makes you an exhibitionist as well as being a tough guy.

You should be so lucky...

 

[BSM1]

So you are going to send your child to the hospital that the beavers built but you want other people to send their children who are sick to a pond? You do not seem to grasp the simple concept that if a child is not feeling well you would take them to a human doctor. Beavers and pond life do not treat humans for sickness.

Not sure if one of us missed the point.

 

[Bear Wild]

Not sure if one of us missed the point.

I got the point its your lack of compassion for life other than your own that is missing.

 

[BSM1]

I got the point its your lack of compassion for life other than your own that is missing.

When it comes to a human child verses any other animal you're damn right I have little or no compassion for the other species...and proud of it!

 

[Bear Wild]

When it comes to a human child verses any other animal you're damn right I have little or no compassion for the other species...and proud of it!

The problem is that you create a completely unrealistic scenario of protecting beavers with the life of your child. The fact of the accumulation information especially with improving water balance is that your child will benefit from the activities of beavers and that beavers do not represent any risk to your child. Your statements just seem mean and negative to anyone or any life that is not connected to yours. You lack insight into how other living organisms support all human life and have a hostile attitude towards other life. You seem to want to shoot to kill whether of not another life form posses a risk which beavers clearly do not and willing to wipe out another species if it is you whim.

 

[BSM1]

The problem is that you create a completely unrealistic scenario of protecting beavers with the life of your child. The fact of the accumulation information especially with improving water balance is that your child will benefit from the activities of beavers and that beavers do not represent any risk to your child. Your statements just seem mean and negative to anyone or any life that is not connected to yours. You lack insight into how other living organisms support all human life and have a hostile attitude towards other life. You seem to want to shoot to kill whether of not another life form posses a risk which beavers clearly do not and willing to wipe out another species if it is you whim.

I think you gave way to much anthropomorphic credit to the beavers. If you don't think a beaver would try to kill any other species that invaded it's territory, then you've been watching too many Disney movies. If it comes to a choice between human and animal I would still choose human every time.