Printable View
DNR faces conundrum as beavers get busy on Belle IsleThe article doesn't mention it but I think we should try planting more trees before restricting the beavers. Just try that first and see what happens. :)Quote:
DNR managers have to weigh how much to let beavers do what they do, versus preserving some of Belle Isle's large willow and other trees.
Leave it to beavers.
I don’t think I’d want to get one of those animals riled up if I’m nearby, after seeing their work on Willow trees I can only imagine what they could do to somebody’s arm.
Ummmmm... 1) unlike a tree, you're not likely to stand in place while being gnawed at by a beaver for a length of time... and 2) most beaver attacks against humans are by rabid beavers.Quote:
Originally Posted by softailrider
The state should catch all the beavers and relocate them to some of the forested Seaway Islands in the St. Clair River delta.
I seriously like the above post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
I've never been to Belle Isle.
But I just had a look-see on google.
Looks like way too much bland lawn for my taste.
Lots of room for more nature.
Saves $$ too.
We have beavers all over Toronto [[and deer, a ton of other wildlife)
The City here, will move to protect selected valuable trees, if activity becomes an issue [[rarely); they will simply put a wrap/cage of chicken wire and/or chain link on key trees.
The only time relocation is contemplated if if the little busy bodies set about making a dam.
Even then, the City usually just pokes holes in the dam in a way the Beaver doesn't notice [[they have special equipment to do this below the water line).
***
PS what's w/the veritable free way through the island? Isn't it suppose to be a refuge from urbanity? I can understand roads, but 3 lanes wide in one direction is a minor expressway. Odd
At least Canada uses them in tourism welcoming aspect.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sekLEG8xsOs
Would the freeway have been two lanes for cars and the third for a street car?
It was designed to be a promenade for the gentlemen and ladies [[and horses) of the pre-automobile era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
http://www.playle.com/pictures/SCVIEW415231.jpg
Central Avenue, Belle Isle, 1903
About 2/3 of Belle Isle was designed by the famous Frederick Law Olmsted [[same landscape architect as NYC Central Park). That would include the areas between the Scott Fountain and the lagoons on the eastern end of the Island. Olmsted designed it in the 1880s, long before autos, and not all of his plans were carried out.
The eastern and western parts of the island [[about 280 acres) were filled with dregging material and downtown Detroit skyscraper fill dirt.
Central Avenue was built so wide not only as a promenade for pedestrians, but also so that horse drawn carriages could parade up and down the thoroughfare. The first Belle Isle Bridge opened in 1889, and after a fire, was replaced in 1923 with the current bridge.
I’m sure you’re absolutely right about that. I remember an episode of Billy The Exterminator that was about relocating beavers that were causing problems, creating a dam in a river if I remember correctly. Not exactly highbrow television, but it was informative in that I never knew how much work beavers could do in a short amount of time. The guys trying to get them moved were very warey of getting hurt, not at all interested in getting chummy with those animals or rodents or whatever they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Hey, there's an idea ... make it Mackinaw Island South. Ban motor vehicles again. Go with foot, bicycle and horse traffic only. See the beavers by horseback.
Maybe even a faux steam powered paddle riverboat for charters/tours.
The state has a bit of history when it comes to beavers.Quote:
Originally Posted by softailrider
http://www.getipm.com/personal/dam.htm
And here is the conclusion of the above interaction:
Beaver: 2
DEQ: 0
Quote:
The DEQ later claimed they were fully aware the “debris dams” were beaver dams; the issue, they said, was that the beavers who built them had long since abandoned the dams, but Mr. Tvedten had been continuing to maintain and even build up the dams himself:The letter concerned an enforcement action directed to a tenant on property surrounding Spring Pond, which is located in Pierson Township, Montcalm County, Michigan. The tenant was observed by the downstream complainant, and has since admitted to the complainant, that he artificially built up, and maintained two abandoned beaver dams on the discharge end of the natural pond. Such an activity falls under the jurisdiction of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1194 PA 451, as amended. It is the Department’s position that in the absence of any threat to public welfare, beaver dams should be left in their natural state, that being either actively maintained or abandoned by beaver.For his part, Mr. Tvedten claimed that the dams had been “abandoned” because a neighbor had killed the beavers [[then filed a complaint with the state because he was concerned that the untended dams would break apart and enter his property) and that no one but the beavers had ever maintained them. And contemporaneous accounts of the brouhaha quoted a Michigan DEQ spokesman as saying the agency hadn’t performed an inspection before firing off their December 1997 letter to Mr. Tvedten:
The Department conducted an on-site inspection of the dams in August of 1997, accompanied by a Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologist, the Pierson Township Supervisor and the complainant. The tenant’s actions, and a threat to the welfare of the downstream complainant prompted our correspondence of December 1997, instructing the tenant to cease and desist all illegal activity and to restore the stream to its prior condition. The owner of the property took issue with our action, and responded with his own version of the situation. It was this correspondence that has been circulating in the internet.
Luis Saldivia
Grand Rapids District Supervisor
Land and Water Management Division
616-356-0208Ken Silfven, public information officer at the state Department of Environmental Quality, said that … the account was correct. He hastened to note, however, that the case was prompted by a complaint from a neighbor who was concerned about flooding caused by the dams.After some wrangling the agency ultimately dropped the issue, but not before Stephen Tvedten found an inventive way of quickly pointing out both how ludicrous and humorous the situation was. In a way dusty legal language never could, such a letter serves to drive home the silliness of Michigan DEQ’s intractable posturing. The beavers are likely still ignorant of how close they came to being fined $10,000 a day for dam living expenses.
The department dropped its investigation after an inspection by a DEQ employee.
“It probably would have been a good idea to do the inspection before we sent the notice,” Silfven said.
Non union beavers and no permit to build the dam. Damnation!