Never mind, that’s the price you’ll have to pay

[Top Tip.]

I am entirely aware of what they do, but a native animal doing something natural in its natural environment can't be accused of causing 'damage' to that environment. Because it isn't, since they evolved together. It is no more 'damage' than is the hole a woodpecker makes in a tree or a kingfisher or fox in bank. And it is for certain far less damage than what we have done to change the / their natural environment to suit us.

That written, there is no doubt at all that they can cause genuine and quite severe damage to what we have built in their habitat, and so inconvenience us too. And, being a fair-minded fellow, I think that and the essential importance of much of the changes we have made should be recognised and the damage either be prevented by their total exclusion from certain areas, or their removal / extermination within them. But bear in mind that what is now what we would agree as 'prime agricultural land' was once prime beaver land, before they were destroyed by us.

I've made quite a study of the beavers and their extinction in Britain; and haven't come across a single piece of primary source evidence which mentions people 'eliminating' beavers deliberately, meaning as a species rather than individuals. They were eaten as 'fish', and they were hunted for their very desirable pelts and their castoreum, and all this was done so widely for so long that it did lead to their local extinction.

Nothing you have written argues for no beavers, only for their exclusion from areas of conflict with humans. I may be wrong, but you appear to be asserting that the beavers were killed off - you write 'eliminated' - for another reason and your post as a whole infers that you think it was because of riparian damage. Please cite primary references to support this claim.

You clearly feel very strongly, sadly that strong emotion seems to have clouded your judgement and prevented an objective and rational and so fair analysis of the situation. As for your last few lines, they read as from a petulant and particularly ignorant fool, by which I mean that you do neither yourself nor your cause justice.

I can assure you that emotion has very little to do with my very rational appraisal of the problem that we face . You on the other hand have a swallowed the environmental nonsense espoused by your environmental fanatics hook line and sinker. I can only imagine that you are a body that does not depend on your land for a living but are quite happy for it to become a playground for these vermin.

 

[Danllan]

I can assure you that emotion has very little to do with my very rational appraisal of the problem that we face . You on the other hand have a swallowed the environmental nonsense espoused by your environmental fanatics hook line and sinker. I can only imagine that you are a body that does not depend on your land for a living but are quite happy for it to become a playground for these vermin.

Another example of emotive writing and no substance. My living, meaning that which my family relies on, is by a fair margin agriculturally based, but not entirely since Mrs Danllan works off farm and I have a few small outside business interests.

My agricultural background and experience is that I come from a long farming line, though I ran away from it to join the Army, only coming back to it a decade ago after a science degree and a legal career. I have been and remain in close contact with farming family in England, here in Wales and in SW Scotland. I also worked on relatives' farms and had a share in a farm in Zimbabwe, before it fell.

You can't rebut anything I wrote; and I know this because if you could you would have done so. Neither can you offer anything to support your claim that beavers were deliberately destroyed as a species in Britain because of the 'environmental damage' they did; and I know this because, again, if you could you would have done so.

With regard to the 'environmental fanatics' and their propaganda - they being quite distinct from you as an anti-environmental fanatic... I agree with a part of what they claim, because part of it can be demonstrated as factually correct. I disagree with the greater part of it because it is fallacious, meaning untrue, like what you assert. This is neither a strange nor an unusual approach to have.

Now, that is your cue to either come up to proof and offer evidence to support what you claim, or to (secretly) realise that you have put yourself in the position of stating things you simply can't back up.

And the latter will mean you either slinking off quietly, or having a tantrum and 'storming off' i.e. running away or, as with your last post, just repeating your earlier rant and pretending that assertions require no proof... I wonder which way you'll go...

For myself, if you can demonstrate through rational means and from primary sources that I am mistaken, I'll check it out and admit the error of my ways without hesitation. But that's just me...

 

[Top Tip.]

Another example of emotive writing and no substance. My living, meaning that which my family relies on, is by a fair margin agriculturally based, but not entirely since Mrs Danllan works off farm and I have a few small outside business interests.

My agricultural background and experience is that I come from a long farming line, though I ran away from it to join the Army, only coming back to it a decade ago after a science degree and a legal career. I have been and remain in close contact with farming family in England, here in Wales and in SW Scotland. I also worked on relatives' farms and had a share in a farm in Zimbabwe, before it fell.

You can't rebut anything I wrote; and I know this because if you could you would have done so. Neither can you offer anything to support your claim that beavers were deliberately destroyed as a species in Britain because of the 'environmental damage' they did; and I know this because, again, if you could you would have done so.

With regard to the 'environmental fanatics' and their propaganda - they being quite distinct from you as an anti-environmental fanatic... I agree with a part of what they claim, because part of it can be demonstrated as factually correct. I disagree with the greater part of it because it is fallacious, meaning untrue, like what you assert. This is neither a strange nor an unusual approach to have.

Now, that is your cue to either come up to proof and offer evidence to support what you claim, or to (secretly) realise that you have put yourself in the position of stating things you simply can't back up.

And the latter will mean you either slinking off quietly, or having a tantrum and 'storming off' i.e. running away or, as with your last post, just repeating your earlier rant and pretending that assertions require no proof... I wonder which way you'll go...

For myself, if you can demonstrate through rational means and from primary sources that I am mistaken, I'll check it out and admit the error of my ways without hesitation. But that's just me...

Interesting retort, there is ample evidence of the destructive capabilities of the beaver why you expect me to provide links and evidence I’m not sure, this seems to be the typical approach of the new generation of eco warriors . I thought my response was perfectly rational but you seem to want to typify my responses as rants, so be it. Personally I think you protest too much. Beavers, eagles all these reintroduced species are destroying the environment as we know it, that may be your wish but it certainly isn’t mine.

 

[essexpete]

No doubt humans hunted beaver to extinction, but that was 500 plus years ago. UK was a very different landscape with a mainland population, in pre industrial days, of between 4 and 5 million. It does not, IMHO, make much of common sense to try to replicate something that has long gone.

 

[Danllan]

Interesting retort, there is ample evidence of the destructive capabilities of the beaver why you expect me to provide links and evidence I’m not sure, this seems to be the typical approach of the new generation of eco warriors . I thought my response was perfectly rational but you seem to want to typify my responses as rants, so be it. Personally I think you protest too much. Beavers, eagles all these reintroduced species are destroying the environment as we know it, that may be your wish but it certainly isn’t mine.

Bugger, I missed two other possible styles of come back... those being either pretended obtuseness / misunderstanding, or the real thing. I wonder which this is...

I have already stated that I recognise what you term as the 'destructive capabilities' of the beavers, so there is no need for you to cite any proof for them. However, I refer you to my earlier interpretation of it.

What I have asked is for you to adduce evidence supporting your claim that the beaver was wiped out deliberately, as a species, because of the 'damage' it did rather than for the reasons I gave and which are supported by the historical record.

And I asked you to offer what you could to rebut the assertions made by me, such as that we in fact wiped the beaver out - as a species - at an individual level and for divers reasons, etc. and we have caused more destruction in the beavers' natural habitat than vice versa, and so on.

You have signally failed to do either of these things that I asked you to do to support your case; I am happy for you to attempt to do them now and will accord any the proper attention, if you do.

At last you have written something we can agree on entirely - this being that you write of 'the environment as we know it'. That is just it, it is not a natural environment, it is in great part a manufactured one, by us and to our own needs and ends and is a very recent thing in real terms, tht evidenced best by it being part of the historical record. (I make the assumption and pay you the compliment here that you aren't a loony religionist and so you do accept evolution, the fossil record and the fact that the Earth is billions of years old)

To make preposterous and unsupported claims using 'robust' language that go against objective realities regarding a given matter can perfectly well be termed ranting.

 

[Danllan]

No doubt humans hunted beaver to extinction, but that was 500 plus years ago. UK was a very different landscape with a mainland population, in pre industrial days, of between 4 and 5 million. It does not, IMHO, make much of common sense to try to replicate something that has long gone.

That is an entirely reasonable position to take, it makes no false claims and accepts the known facts.

I don't agree with it, but my judgment is based on personal preference and interpretation, like yours.

 

[Top Tip.]

Bugger, I missed two other possible styles of come back... those being either pretended obtuseness / misunderstanding, or the real thing. I wonder which this is...

I have already stated that I recognise what you term as the 'destructive capabilities' of the beavers, so there is no need for you to cite any proof for them. However, I refer you to my earlier interpretation of it.

What I have asked is for you to adduce evidence supporting your claim that the beaver was wiped out deliberately, as a species, because of the 'damage' it did rather than for the reasons I gave and which are supported by the historical record.

And I asked you to offer what you could to rebut the assertions made by me, such as that we in fact wiped the beaver out - as a species - at an individual level and for divers reasons, etc. and we have caused more destruction in the beavers' natural habitat than vice versa, and so on.

You have signally failed to do either of these things that I asked you to do to support your case; I am happy for you to attempt to do them now and will accord any the proper attention, if you do.

At last you have written something we can agree on entirely - this being that you write of 'the environment as we know it'. That is just it, it is not a natural environment, it is in great part a manufactured one, by us and to our own needs and ends and is a very recent thing in real terms, tht evidenced best by it being part of the historical record. (I make the assumption and pay you the compliment here that you aren't a loony religionist and so you do accept evolution, the fossil record and the fact that the Earth is billions of years old)

To make preposterous and unsupported claims using 'robust' language that go against objective realities regarding a given matter can perfectly well be termed ranting.

I note in your previous post that you make play of your legal background as I note you have in other threads. I take it being a member of that profession is the reason for your long and rather rambling posts . I have no reason to argue with you as I do realise that you have taken your position as I have taken my position. However I do know that I am in the rather stronger position having evidenced the destructive capabilities of the beaver you meanwhile are dependent on information trawled from the internet and a rather unfortunate wish for the environment to revert to what it was 400 years ago something even you should realise is patently ridiculous.

 

[thorpe]

beaver's = rodent's = vermin!

 

[bluebell]

Essex pete, thanks for some "common sense", these so called experts? need to go back to school and be made to study/learn the history of the UK/ europe, from the the stone/iron age, from hunter gatherers to settled cleared farming, romans etc etc etc, we are not as ive said many time a "new fronteir type country, such as alaska canada, newzealand, where "modernman" is making his mark? On virgin untouched "wilderness"? Again as ive said before, and as was illustrated last night, on the tv programme, "digging for britian", where a team was excavated a "pict" fortress, built many thousands of years ago in aberdeen, the UK and europe as a whole has been settled, farmed for thousands of years?

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I am entirely aware of what they do, but a native animal doing something natural in its natural environment can't be accused of causing 'damage' to that environment. Because it isn't, since they evolved together. It is no more 'damage' than is the hole a woodpecker makes in a tree or a kingfisher or fox in bank. And it is for certain far less damage than what we have done to change the / their natural environment to suit us.

That written, there is no doubt at all that they can cause genuine and quite severe damage to what we have built in their habitat, and so inconvenience us too. And, being a fair-minded fellow, I think that and the essential importance of much of the changes we have made should be recognised and the damage either be prevented by their total exclusion from certain areas, or their removal / extermination within them. But bear in mind that what is now what we would agree as 'prime agricultural land' was once prime beaver land, before they were destroyed by us.

I've made quite a study of the beavers and their extinction in Britain; and haven't come across a single piece of primary source evidence which mentions people 'eliminating' beavers deliberately, meaning as a species rather than individuals. They were eaten as 'fish', and they were hunted for their very desirable pelts and their castoreum, and all this was done so widely for so long that it did lead to their local extinction.

Nothing you have written argues for no beavers, only for their exclusion from areas of conflict with humans. I may be wrong, but you appear to be asserting that the beavers were killed off - you write 'eliminated' - for another reason and your post as a whole infers that you think it was because of riparian damage. Please cite primary references to support this claim.

You clearly feel very strongly, sadly that strong emotion seems to have clouded your judgement and prevented an objective and rational and so fair analysis of the situation. As for your last few lines, they read as from a petulant and particularly ignorant fool, by which I mean that you do neither yourself nor your cause justice.

We now have so many more people living in the UK, and I have read that beavers natural instinct is to block small holes of running water in a stream. I am thinking that could be a culvert. Then I have read that isn't a problem as a beaver guard is fitted to stop them blocking the culvert. How much trash is going to be washed up against the beaver guard, and then need clearing regularly. I spend quite a bit of time just keeping the small ditches and culverts clear on the farm here, and I was told replacing the culvert between Alltwalis and Gwyddgrug recently cost over £1000 000 (I have no idea if it could really have cost that much), but I can see large costs to ameliorate the damage of their reintroduction.

 

[Danllan]

I note in your previous post that you make play of your legal background as I note you have in other threads. I take it being a member of that profession is the reason for your long and rather rambling posts . I have no reason to argue with you as I do realise that you have taken your position as I have taken my position. However I do know that I am in the rather stronger position having evidenced the destructive capabilities of the beaver you meanwhile are dependent on information trawled from the internet and a rather unfortunate wish for the environment to revert to what it was 400 years ago something even you should realise is patently ridiculous.

And still nothing to back up what you claim or negate that which I have stated as fact? Poor effort.

I respond to the 'points' you make and do my best not to leave lacunae; I apologise for what seem such long words and relatively difficult sentences, I see now that you find them challenging; it may be difficult, but I'll try and simplify things for you...

So, without trying to digress, just post some things that back up your claims, or admit you can't.

 

[Top Tip.]

And still nothing to back up what you claim or negate that which I have stated as fact? Poor effort.

I respond to the 'points' you make and do my best not to leave lacunae; I apologise for what seem such long words and relatively difficult sentences, I see now that you find them challenging; it may be difficult, but I'll try and simplify things for you...

So, without trying to digress, just post some things that back up your claims, or admit you can't.

Reading back over the posts it seems to me that what you seem to be taking issue with is that I stated that beavers were eliminated from this country 400 hundred years ago that as far as I have read and been told is true. You of course may want to dispute that fact for reasons of your own.

 

[bluebell]

Why were these animals "eliminated" from this country, 400 or what ever years ago, ask your self? Common sense they either eat, preyed on farmed animals, or in the case of beavers, caused damage to the drainage network of the country that goes back to roman times? What should be "eliminated" now are one, grey squirrels, as i understand, not a native specis? On the plant front, rhododendron growth is rampent in many parts of the countryside, and himalayan balsam, that "pretty pink flower" that spreads along water courses, both of these plus others should be controlled, elimininated, before any talk of reintroducing long "extinct" animals?

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Why were these animals "eliminated" from this country, 400 or what ever years ago, ask your self? Common sense they either eat, preyed on farmed animals, or in the case of beavers, caused damage to the drainage network of the country that goes back to roman times? What should be "eliminated" now are one, grey squirrels, as i understand, not a native specis? On the plant front, rhododendron growth is rampent in many parts of the countryside, and himalayan balsam, that "pretty pink flower" that spreads along water courses, both of these plus others should be controlled, elimininated, before any talk of reintroducing long "extinct" animals?

My partner visited someone who has a wood (and it was full of Himalayan Balsam). She told me that she commented on it, and how it was an invasive species. The reply was something like "farmers would think that".

 

[Danllan]

Reading back over the posts it seems to me that what you seem to be taking issue with is that I stated that beavers were eliminated from this country 400 hundred years ago that as far as I have read and been told is true. You of course may want to dispute that fact for reasons of your own.

That is one thing, we got there at last, well done; keep reading and good luck with the rest.

 

[Top Tip.]

That is one thing, we got there at last, well done; keep reading and good luck with the rest.

Thank you, I knew if I kept it simple and explained it often enough you would get there in the end.

 

[Macsky]

Bugger, I missed two other possible styles of come back... those being either pretended obtuseness / misunderstanding, or the real thing. I wonder which this is...

I have already stated that I recognise what you term as the 'destructive capabilities' of the beavers, so there is no need for you to cite any proof for them. However, I refer you to my earlier interpretation of it.

What I have asked is for you to adduce evidence supporting your claim that the beaver was wiped out deliberately, as a species, because of the 'damage' it did rather than for the reasons I gave and which are supported by the historical record.

And I asked you to offer what you could to rebut the assertions made by me, such as that we in fact wiped the beaver out - as a species - at an individual level and for divers reasons, etc. and we have caused more destruction in the beavers' natural habitat than vice versa, and so on.

You have signally failed to do either of these things that I asked you to do to support your case; I am happy for you to attempt to do them now and will accord any the proper attention, if you do.

At last you have written something we can agree on entirely - this being that you write of 'the environment as we know it'. That is just it, it is not a natural environment, it is in great part a manufactured one, by us and to our own needs and ends and is a very recent thing in real terms, tht evidenced best by it being part of the historical record. (I make the assumption and pay you the compliment here that you aren't a loony religionist and so you do accept evolution, the fossil record and the fact that the Earth is billions of years old)

To make preposterous and unsupported claims using 'robust' language that go against objective realities regarding a given matter can perfectly well be termed ranting.

Can you categorically define for me what a ‘natural environment’ is?

 

[Danllan]

Thank you, I knew if I kept it simple and explained it often enough you would get there in the end.

Ah yes, another option I rather stupidly overlooked... repeating what I write in parrot fashion...

Can you categorically define for me what a ‘natural environment’ is?

That obviously depends upon what you mean / understand by the word 'categorically', doesn't it?

However, across every paper I have read on this and other similar matters, it is taken as meaning an environment that has evolved to the point in question. Meaning one in which post technological intervention by Homo Sapiens is not a factor, and not an environment which has evolved to cope with our actions.

And then... if you do read enough papers, one finds that the big arguments revolve around what degree of sophistication by our ancestors constitutes 'technology'. Some reckon it's anything involving a 'tool', of whatever sort; others think it requires the manufacture of something(s); and others that it requires a combination of inventions, e.g a stone point on a spear / dart, a bow and arrow, a sling and stone, a mounted stone axe, a fire-drill etc. etc.

The degree to which academics can kick the arse out of such a point is quite remarkable; but for myself although I agree with general principle, I think that it would be better defined in terms of effect than method, and would class it as doing something that will have a lasting effect. Meaning for more than e.g. a season or a year or so. And that could be on a water course, or a woodland, or a cliff, or an animal or plant population.

 

[Macsky]

Ah yes, another option I rather stupidly overlooked... repeating what I write in parrot fashion...


That obviously depends upon what you mean / understand by the word 'categorically', doesn't it?

However, across every paper I have read on this and other similar matters, it is taken as meaning an environment that has evolved to the point in question. Meaning one in which post technological intervention by Homo Sapiens is not a factor, and not an environment which has evolved to cope with our actions.

And then... if you do read enough papers, one finds that the big arguments revolve around what degree of sophistication by our ancestors constitutes 'technology'. Some reckon it's anything involving a 'tool', of whatever sort; others think it requires the manufacture of something(s); and others that it requires a combination of inventions, e.g a stone point on a spear / dart, a bow and arrow, a sling and stone, a mounted stone axe, a fire-drill etc. etc.

The degree to which academics can kick the arse out of such a point is quite remarkable; but for myself although I agree with general principle, I think that it would be better defined in terms of effect than method, and would class it as doing something that will have a lasting effect. Meaning for more than e.g. a season or a year or so. And that could be on a water course, or a woodland, or a cliff, or an animal or plant population.

I’ll take the Oxford dictionary’s Definition - “in a way that is unambiguously explicit and direct”

So you’re saying that a natural environment is one that man has had no lasting effect upon? Has such an environment ever existed in human history?

 

[Danllan]

I’ll take the Oxford dictionary’s Definition - “in a way that is unambiguously explicit and direct”

So you’re saying that a natural environment is one that man has had no lasting effect upon? Has such an environment ever existed in human history?

I think you answer your own question!

But as for pre-history, certainly, up to the point where what I mention was achieved / done.

Of course it must be borne in mind that some groups of humans generally and at different times have done far more or less damage than others.

But supposedly 'natural' people such as e.g. Australian aboriginals, have done enormous damage, wiping out entire families of mega-fauna, and are only now in 'balance' with the environment they have created.