Photo: Cheryl Reynolds
Month: June 2009
I had wondered what kind of lagging news cycle had prompted last week’s story in the NY Times. Remember the poor beaver-besieged city of Lexington and its frustrated civic protectors? Why does Massachusetts get its own cover in the NYT and not Wyoming or North Carolina? Turns out the CONTROVERSIAL (read: much- whined-about) ban on conibear trapping introduced in 1996 131-80(A) is up for revision on tuesday.
Representatives Green, Atkins and Garry are going to discuss adding 131-80(B) to the provision.
to conduct a limited pilot program to determine the most effective way to achieve a healthy and balanced population of beaver. The program shall be limited to the following counties: Berkshire; Essex; Franklin; Hampshire; Middlesex; and Worcester.
A pilot program? That doesn’t sound so bad. What are they piloting? The reintroduction of Conibear traps to deal with a recovering beaver population that has become inconvenient. Well still, that’s only 6 counties, what percentage of the state is that? Nearly half.
Wait a minute, the NY Times article described some really bad problems, that need to be dealt with right away or they’ll affect public safety, and its not like 131-80(A) had an exceptions for extreme cases…
The above provision shall not apply to the use of prohibited devices by federal and state departments of health or municipal boards of health for the purpose of protection from threats to human health and safety. A threat to human health and safety may include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) beaver or muskrat occupancy of a public water supply;
(b) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of drinking water wells, well fields or water pumping stations;
(c) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of sewage beds, septic systems or sewage pumping stations;
(d) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of a public or private way, driveway, railway or airport runway or taxi-way;
(e) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of electrical or gas generation plants or transmission or distribution structures or facilities, telephone or other communications facilities or other public utilities;
(f) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding affecting the public use of hospitals, emergency clinics, nursing homes, homes for the elderly or fire stations;
(g) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding affecting hazardous waste sites or facilities, incineration or resource recovery plants or other structures or facilities whereby flooding may result in the release or escape of hazardous or noxious materials or substances;
(h) the gnawing, chewing, entering, or damage to electrical or gas generation, transmission or distribution equipment, cables, alarm systems or facilities by any beaver or muskrat;
(i) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding or structural instability on property owned by the applicant if such animal problem poses an imminent threat of substantial property damage or income loss, which shall be limited to: (1) flooding of residential, commercial, industrial or commercial buildings or facilities; (2) flooding of or access to commercial agricultural lands which prevents normal agricultural practices from being conducted on such lands; (3) reduction in the production of an agricultural crop caused by flooding or compromised structural stability of commercial agricultural lands; (4) flooding of residential lands in which the municipal board of health, its chair or agent or the state or federal department of health has determined a threat to human health and safety exists. The department of environmental protection shall make any determination of a threat to a public water supply.
Oh.
So you mean every single complaint made in the article was covered already as an exception under existing law? Which meant those beavers could have been killed by Conibear traps anyway? Gosh, it almost seems like somebody is lying to fish and wildlife and pressuring their representatives to take unnecessary action under the pretense of public safety.
Say it with me now, “I’m sure glad that never happens here!”
Drop Representatives Greene, Atkins and Garry a note to let them know what you think about the commonwealth backing out of its progressive and humane restrictions. I did.
The proud Rossmoor community (late of woodpecker-killing fame) has finally displayed their expensive contractor installed “granaries” which in no way resemble the smallest portion of the recommended measures carefully researched and proposed by the Audubon society. Clearly the idea is to pretend to follow the advice of the pesky do-gooders, and then with a shrug of wealthy senior shoulders say, “well I guess grandpa needs to get the shotgun again!” The mutuals involved resisted all advice as controlling meddlesome “audubondage” and rebuffed offers of help from people who know better to march straight for their favored contractor and throw eagerly wasted dollars on this ridiculous program which will assure happy bird killing for years to come.
Savvy Audubon member Brian Murphy offers this snark on their construction:
These are some nice looking Carpenter Bee blocks! Someone sold Rossmoor a batch of Snake Oil! Attached is what a bee block looks like and what a granaries looks like. I thought they were going to use some of the downed oak (natural material) to make artificial granaries. Part of Audubon’s recommendation was to install artificial granaries for Acorn Woodpeckers, not bee blocks for Carpenter bees.The woodpeckers like to make holes in ‘soft dead wood’ and make their own holes in ‘soft dead wood’ – that doesn’t look like ‘soft dead wood’ and the woodpeckers don’t need holes – they are ‘pretty good’ at drilling their own. So what has been installed in Rossmoor has nothing to do with what Audubon suggested as a partial solution to the mess in Rossmoor. Audubon ought to request Rossmoor not use our name in association with their Carpenter Bee Block project.
This what Brian notes it should have looked like:
This is what a bee box looks like and what Rossmoor paid top dollar for:
I was a little worried about Rossmoor encouraging a massive nesting of carpenter bees, but then I remembered that its okay since they probably don’t use actual lumber on their styrofoam facilities either.
Photo: Cheryl Reynolds June 18, 2009
Beaver colonies are discussed as Matriarchies, meaning that the oldest beaver has the central role in colony stability and management. If the female is lost the colony will relocate and start over somewhere else. Female dispersers go farther afield than males for just this reason; they understand a colony will grow around them and they want to make sure they have adequate food supplies. Certainly we observe mom with the most important work in our colony, bearing and nursing the kits and mudding the lodge for comfort and safety.
I remember back when Mary Tappel was first advising the city and the Gazette (now two editor’s ago) reported her saying female beavers produce kits “for 50 years”. I called giggling to point out the typo, and RIchard assured me that it was no typo, but that this was what he had been told by Ms. Tappel directly. Curious about my reaction, he called her back to verify, and with some hemming and hawing she was able to shorten the number to thirty-five.
!!!!!!
For the record, beavers are sexually mature enough to breed sometime after their second year, and their entire life span is about 15 years. I was able to find record of a beaver in captivity living for 19 years, but that was the Rip Van Winkle of beavers. In ideal circumstances, a female may produce kits for twelve (12) consecutive years.
Don’t feel bad, City of Martinez. Your expert was only 76% inaccurate. The other 24% was right on the money.
June 2009 Cheryl Reynolds
Remember Mom’s tail notch? How’s this for a reminder that even though things seem really bad right now they sometimes get better? Looks like mom’s tail is almost completely regrown.
June 2006 Robert Rust
I’m glad for her, but it was one of the things I selfishly appreciated most. It’s so comforting to recognize her in a beaver “crowd”, although right now her eye is so swollen you hardly need to see the tail.
As I told Cheryl, lets hope some of those white blood cells migrate to her eye and kick the crap outta that condition, whatever it is.
Contact from LB last night that water was pouring into the upper side of the dam from under the platform where we stand. She wondered if there was a pipe broken or something. Jon & I went to check this morning and saw no gushing water, but noted that the two sides of the primary day were looking more equal. Some back story. For the past months we’ve been noticing then when you are at the dam, sometimes you see a muskrat dive at the downside of the dam, and then suddenly appear at the upside of the dam, coming out of the little cove where the beavers feed under the standing area. As we’ve watched the level slipping on the main pond, we figured it was going through this “muskrat tunnel” and pouring down to the second pond. Well it looks like with the help of the tides 2 finally surpassed 1 and the water was flowing UP into the first pond last night.
I’m not complaining. They need more water and they must know what they’re doing leaving that muskrat tunnel unfilled…
BEAVER FESTIVAL XVI
DONATE
Beaver Alphabet Book
TREE PROTECTION
BAY AREA PODCAST
Beaver Interactive: Click to view
LASSIE INVENTS BDA
URBAN BEAVERS
LASSIE AND BEAVERS
Ten Years
The Beaver Cheat Sheet
Restoration
RANGER RICK
Educate & Engage
