31–40 of 126 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
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. Des…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
Throw in some wolves and create a brand new set of problems :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TFA implies the issue is land owners won’t allow it: > But beavers can only thrive if landowners allow them to.
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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
What are the problems actually? That they have improved water retention and soil hydration?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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...
Building one or two small permanent structures on many acres of forest is not destroying it by a long shot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Someone, definitionally, owns all the privately held land in the US. Large landowners in rural areas are on average more politically connected and wield more political power in their communities.
Telling them that any sort of work on their own land—no matter how small—requires extensive oversight might be well-intentioned but pisses off a lot of people who will then become bitter opponents of even well-designed environmental legislation. Telling them they should have made better purchasing decisions just motivates them even further.
What actually ends up happening is these people then do it anyway with zero oversight, because the amount of land involved is too vast to enforce these things on. You also get large concerted efforts to overturn any and all environmental protection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
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. Des…