Conference 7.286::home_work

    Not having found any reference to deer problems in 1111.*, perhaps a new
    topic is warranted - this is both informational (I've learned some
    already) and a request for better information (if what I've learned
    isn't the best there is to know).

    Our town seems to be having an explosion in its deer population, and
    there's at least one family (flock? herd? mob?) of four deer that's been
    going through our yew bushes and hemlock trees (and is now starting in
    on the rhododendrons) at an alarming rate. I'm talking about plants
    around the yard and right at the foundation of the house (I've been
    wakened to sounds outside the bedroom window, looked down, and there are
    four deer, munching away).

    Short of solutions involving small, lead projectiles (which have safety
    and legal implications), what solutions has anyone else found for this
    problem (assuming you've got it)?

    What I've done thus far is buy a few gallons of Ro-Pel (at $37/gal!),
    which is sprayed on the leaves of the plants you don't want eaten (it
    imparts a very bitter taste - not toxic, though). It appears to work
    (detwigging has gone 'way down), but has two problems: (1) it's awfully
    expensive (I use about 1 gallon per spraying of the plants I want to
    protect), and (2) it needs to be reapplied after significant rain (not,
    so I understand, after normal light rain or snow).

    Someone suggested using Tabasco (R) sauce, but I don't know how much to
    dilute it (straight from the bottle would cost even more), and it might
    actually attract deer all the way from Louisiana (Bayou Bambi?).

    Any better ideas or products? Shooting 'em isn't practical (I don't have
    a gun, I don't know if they're in season, I don't see 'em that often -
    they tend to come in the wee hours, and I'm sure the neighbors don't
    want stray bullets spraying around), nor is trying to fence around the
    whole property (we're abutters to a 900 acre state forest, which is
    where they're coming from).

    I have been fighting this problem for years (as well as hunters they
    attract to my backyard).  The most effective solution I have found has 
    been installing a "deer netting" sold at garden centers, and many stores
    that offer garden supplies.  It may be too late this season to get some
    before further damage is done. It is a thin, black netting, transparent
    from the street that you use to surround anything that you don't want
    the deer to eat as well as anything they might eat.  It is installed on 
    poles (sticks) hammered into the ground.  It is not only the most 
    economical  solution I found but also the only truly effective solution.  
    One big plus...it requires the least labor. 
    
    There dosen't seem to be any plant that deer will not eat.  They are 
    especially found of all forms of evergreens like your rhodendrons and 
    hemlocks as well as my firebush, holly, yews and junipers.
    
    I have tried various chemical sprays, electric fence, soap chips, 
    unwashed hair from the barber's floor, wrapping plants in burlap and a 
    variety of other remedies including a slingshot.  They all worked for a 
    short time at best.  Only the netting was continuously effective throught 
    the entire late fall to early spring seasons.
    
    I suspect they pass the word among themselves when they find "easy
    pickings" as I have found as many as fifteen deer grazing on my
    landscaping.  Some of them became bold and would hiss at me in warning
    when I approached them in an effort to frighten them away.
    
    I have been using the netting now for several years and each year the
    number of deer that come for a "look see" seems to be declining.  The
    herds seem to no longer have my landscaping on their gourmet dining "A"
    list. Best of all the landscaping is recovering slowly but surely.
    
    I hope your experience is less expensive than mine.               

	My father built cages for his bushes from wood and chicken wire.
	Surely less expensive than then solution in .1 but it doesn't
	look great.  However, it is only necessary for the winter.

	Karen

      The cheapest way to repel deer could be the way it was done
    in the movie "Doc Hollywood"...
    
                                                              -Jeff

    
    Something I read recently in Field & Stream indicated that people
    have had success keeping deer out of their gardens by hanging bars
    of Irish Spring soap around the area.
    
    Rich

    
    One thing that works is a strong emetic applied to the leaves of the
    plant with a brush.  It's a process called "taste aversion" which
    biologists are exploiting now in pest control.
    
    Things which simply taste nasty will not bother animals when there is a
    stronger "drive" like from extreme hunger.  In fact, a lot of the stuff
    that they have to eat in winter already tastes awful because of the
    natural toxins.   They are pretty good at detoxifying these substances
    and just munch away.
    
    However, if they are made physically sick, then a strong aversion to
    that plant is set up instantly, and they won't eat it again. (You can
    see the survival value in this).  Not only that, but they apparently
    "learn" this aversion from each other so the effect spreads through the
    herd without all of them having to take a nibble at the plant.
    
    There's a few commercially available substances that are used to
    protect young trees in plantations - I can't remember what they are
    based on, I think it's aluminum sulphate.  However, any emetic
    that works for humans should work OK on deer.
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin
    
    

There's always the Colorado solution ... ;^)

I've heard that wearing camoflage and carrying something that looks like a gun 
is a pretty reliable means of keeping deer away.  Ask any hunter.

    Advice to hunters: skip the camouflage jackets - dress up like a yew
    bush. You won't even need a gun; the deer will just follow you back to
    your car. 

There is quite a lengthy discussion in this notes files on keeping various
varmints out of your yard/garden...

dana

    
    
    ......claymor mines???
    
    

 Put up a deer feeder out in the back yard. Buy a bail of hay and some cheap
grain or dried corn once in a while which is not expensive compared to 
replacing trees and bushes and they'll leave your bushes alone.

 A scrap lumber "V" type trough 24" long on legs about 24" high will do 
nicely.

    RE:.11
    
    	Do you keep a loaded gun by the bedroom window also?
    
    Joe

Gary,

Be careful.  I would check out the laws more carefully.  In Andover there
is a case similar to yours.  From what I read in the paper, the property
owners are screaming but the beavers can't be moved.  The beavers have
started cutting down the trees in people's backyards.  It seems to be
quite a mess.  I gather they are pretty well protected by law (the beavers).

Stan

    
    you don't mention any friut trees or other ornimental trees in the
    yard.  If you have any of these on your property, they should be
    surounded with wire mesh two to three feet high.  The beavers will 
    chop them down and haul them off before you know it.
    
    Gary

    If you don't want to destroy the beavers, your local conservation
    commision can probably refer you to someone locally who can install a
    "beaver baffle", often free of charge.  This is basically one or more
    lengths of 4" PVC piping that are pushed through the dam.  By adjusting
    the upstream end, you can set a water level that you can live with, and
    that keeps the beavers happy.  They add to their dam to patch up holes,
    and provided the two ends of the baffle are far enough away from the
    dam, the beavers don't consider it to be a hole that needs their
    attention.  One advantage of keeping the beavers there rather than
    destroying them is that, being territorial animals, they'll defend the
    area against other beavers.  If you just destroy them, more beaver may
    just move in.

>The obvious and probable solution is to destroy the beavers.  What's the 
>best way to do this, and are there professionals who can do this for us? 

Why is man always so willing to destroy what was here long before them?
Why does he feel he has the right?  Why I ask, is the obvious solution to
destroy the beavers? Why must we as a society wipe out everything that
doesn't agree with us? Inevitably that attitiude will cause the demise of 
mankind...and the beavers will probably still be here.

/james

    RE: .4
    
    Because the beavers destroy the immediate area. I had beavers dam up
    my creek. The trees and the whole wetland area was totally destroyed.
    The beavers are gone now, and the land is still trying to recover.
    That was 6 years ago.
    Our local conservation commission helped remove the beavers.
    
    Its nice to talk about nature and living in harmony....but.
    
    Marc H.

    I was thinking about the beavers/nature some more. While I was on the
    local conservation commission, similar problems occured. One problem
    that we have as a people is that nature is always working on the 
    environment. For example....the lakes that turn to swamps that turn
    to meadows represent a continues process that nature does.
    In the same way, beavers are just another part of the constant change.
    However...we...mankind, really seek to keep nature in a kind of
    "suspended state"....we try to keep the streams open, the ponds
    dredged, the beavers out.

    Marc,
    
      Your reply .5 seemed to be harshly reactionary and I was alarmed
    until I read .6.  The two replies seem to be of conflicting philosophy,
    so I am confused as to your true feelings.
    
      Re .5: Beavers (nature) do not destroy in the sense that we humans
    do.  They, like other forces of nature, change the environment.  This
    change has many shorterm ill effects.  However, the change has other
    longterm benefits.  Reply .6 seems to acknowledge this.  The earth and
    all things on it are constantly in a state of change (evolution).  The
    overt damage to human property is usually obvious and strikes to *our*
    sense of ownership.  It is easy to understand how a person could view
    beaverworks as being damaging since it it being done to *their*
    property.
    
      What we have to keep in mind is that we do not really own the earth. 
    We just live here.  What meager mark we make on it is but a scratch
    that will heal over time.  Once humankind dies off, other than large 
    scale chemical/atomic contamination, (and a few pyramids) it won't take 
    long for all traces of humankind to disappear from the surface of the 
    earth.
    
      I suggest that a way be found to live with the beavers rather than
    without them.
    
    Marv
    

    
    beavers are just large rodents with flat tails.  Nothing mysterious about
    that.  They do need to be controlled.

Let me understand, when beavers cut down trees and flood land that's nature,
but when people cut down the trees and flooded the Quabbin, that was destruction?
In my book nature gave people the intelligence to create and use tools just like
it gave beavers the teeth and tails and the intelligence to use them.  It's only
a difference of degree.

Near where I live the conservation commission has taken on the job of breaking
up the beaver dam that exists on some conservation land because it is causing the
resulting pond to encroach on the existing upstream properties.  It's a job that
must be done regularly.  

On the other hand, also near where I live, a very large gap appeared in a very
large, old beaver dam, causing the pond to drain and recede from an area that
someone was trying to develop into a subdivision.  The conservation commission in
that town went out and repaired the dam with sandbags and mud.

Harmony is nice, as long as you know how to deal with the people and the beavers
that don't want to be harmonious.

    RE: .7
    
    Marv,
     The reason for the two replies, is that I thought about the problem
    so....the first one was harsh, but, equally as true as the second.
    Why? Because its really a complex problem. Nature continues to change
    the area. The natural evolution of lakes to swamps is one good example.
    Most people support dredging of lakes.....stopping nature.
    Another good example is the beavers. Here in New England, the beaver
    ponds that were created, later became very fertile swamps, then
    meadows, then farm lands. The native indians used this rich land
    for growing....land that was lake bottoms from the early beavers.
    This is all fine, until your backyard starts to become the next
    lake! When it happened in my backyard, the position of the local
    conservation commission was that nature was to be stopped. The
    wet land was to remain a wet land. 
    
    Its a real complex problem. Most times, the role of the conservation
    commission is almost to "freeze" nature....keep the lakes deep
    by dredging/keep the streams flowing/ and keep the beavers away.
    
    Sorry about the rambling......
    
    Marc H.

>Let me understand, when beavers cut down trees and flood land that's nature,
>but when people cut down the trees and flooded the Quabbin, that was 
destruction?

Yes, but man generally does it out of greed - and nature does it out of
survival, and no more. Technology today has enabled man to totally change
the course of nature and there is nothing outside of our ability on this
earth that we cannot alter forever. 

>On the other hand, also near where I live, a very large gap appeared in a very
>large, old beaver dam, causing the pond to drain and recede from an area that
>someone was trying to develop into a subdivision.  The conservation commission in
>that town went out and repaired the dam with sandbags and mud.

Is this place in Templeton? I understand that the Blue Heron moved in and
decided that the nice pond the beavers created was a wonderful place
for nesting. Someone who didn't like the pond decided to chop a section of
the dam out. A group of concerned citizens then sandbagged the damn. Shortly
thereafter, the beavers took it upon themselves to help the humans out by
covering the bags with sticks and logs.

Sunday night on one of the home-video tv shows, this guy in Califorinia  
was renting out his home and one of the stipulations from the tenants 
was that he eliminate the nesting migratory birds that were in his trees.
There were only going to be there for a month or so but it was too long
for the tenants. You see, the birds chirping irritated them. So rather
than loose $1100/month rent, this guy decided to chain-saw his trees - birds
and all! Well, a neighbor of his across the street didn't like what he was 
doing and tried to gehim to stop but he wouldn't listen. So his neighbor 
videotaped several birds falling to their death as the tree came down.
He showed the tape to the right people and the guy was fined $5k and has
to do 300 hours community work. Great, i say!

/james

    An area with the right kind of soil (very poorly drained) and topology
    (flat) will tend towards beavers.  There is a roughly 20 year cycle -
    the beavers come and dam up the stream, creating a pond, and chewing up
    trees.  After a while, the exhaust the available resources and move on.
    The dam breaks down, the pond drains, and the cycle starts again. 
    Killing the beavers is therefore a pretty pointless exercise, unless
    you are willing to completely eradicate the local beaver population.
    
    In NH, I believe that beavers are protected.  You can't kill or
    relocate them.  If the beaver pond is contaminating ground water, you
    can control the dam by knocking it down periodically.  I don't know
    what the rules are if you are simply annoyed at losing your lawn,
    trees, and landscaping.
    
    Margaret. 

    In .12, where I mention contaminating ground water I really meant
    contaminating well water.
    
    Margaret.

    In Ma., beavers can be trapped and moved.
    
    Marc H.

    
    	re .11 re .9
    > Is this place in Templeton?
    
    	Something similar happened not too long ago in Townsend, also...
    	although I don't know which town .9 was referring to.
    
    	John

	In NH, beavers can be trapped and moved as well, at least they
	could 10 years ago.  The road I lived on was getting flooded
	by a beaver dam so the animals were trapped and relocated.

	I like the idea of the baffle!  (Pipe through the dam).  It 
	saves the animals, prevents others from moving in, and gets
	the water level down.  

	We have a couple of beavers that visit the pond behind our house
	but they haven't built a dam.  I think beavers have 3-4 ponds that
	are connected that they feed and live in.  They must just feed in
	ours.  However, we keep an eye on the outlet to the pond since it
	is narrow (6 feet) and if we saw anything being built up, we 
	would probably remove it just as fast.  I hope that would discourage
	the little guys.  I love to see them but I don't need a flood!
	If it didn't discourage them, I too would look into a baffle.
	
	Our pond is only 3 feet deep, and almost completely overgrown in
	the summer.  I don't know if beavers would even bother damming
	a pond like this... anybody else know?


	Karen

    
    it's my understaning that they raise the water level by daming to
    help conceal their hut entrance and runways from predators on land.
    Also to use the higher water level to float fallen trees and limbs
    to make more lodging or food stores.
    
    So if they exhaust the current food sources, they could start flooding
    your pond in an attempt to reach more trees and create new waterways.

It's reassuring to see that other people have heard of beaver baffles.
That may be the best solution for us, provided we can get the water level
down enough to protect the nearby trees.

re: .1

In MA, beavers get no special protection.  They get the same protection
as wildlife in general.  It's the wetlands in which they live that
get the protection.  As indicated in .6 and .10, I believe we can easily
get permission from the ConCom to "freeze" the situation, i. e., preserve
the nature of the wetlands as of last summer.

re: .2

No fruit trees.  No trees that I care about per se.  The only reason
I care about the nearby pines is that they'll die and fall on the
house.  

re: .3

Good point about preventing new beavers from moving in.  

re: .4

Sorry, we were here first.  Eliminating this particular beaver family is no 
different from trapping and killing mice or rats that have infested your
home.  Neither is going to have any effect on the overall population
of rodents, nor is it going to adverseley affect the local ecosystem.

We're not talking about wiping out beavers.  Beavers are well established, 
and in no way endangered.  They used to be, but being rodents, they were 
able to bounce back easily once the widespread trapping stopped.  There's a 
big difference between actions that affect an entire species or ecosystem, 
and actions that have well-defined, bounded effects.  (And it's not 
always easy for lay people to tell the difference, which is why the
ConCom must be involved.)

Believe me, I'm much happier finding a solution that allows the beavers
to stay, and that is both effective and cost effective at preventing
damage to our home.  I even look forward to observing the change in 
wildlife, as the area changes.  I'm just not willing to live with a flooded 
basement, or the risk of waking up with a pine tree poking me in the eye 
some morning.

re: .9, .11

The situation in Townsend was that a beaver dam was destroyed late last
year, when it seemed too late for the beavers to repair it.  This would
have killed the beavers (by opening their lodge to predators during
the winter), but that wasn't a big issue.  The big issue was that draining
the pond would have eliminated the heron habitat.  Fortunately, a 
combination of human and rodent engineering managed to repair the dam in 
time.  I think that's what you have in mind, though it's certainly possible 
that Templeton had a similar experience.  

re: .12, .14

There's a big sign at the Townsend Town Hall reminding people that
moving wildlife is illegal.  I believe that reality is a bit
more complicated, and that you need a permit from the Dept. of Fish
and Wildlife to trap and move animals.  We may also need a permit
to kill beavers; I'm sure that killing them is possible, and I'd be
real suprised if NH prohibited all killing of beavers.  

Apparently, from a conversation I had yesterday with a former Conservation
Commissioner, a neighbor of ours tried to get the Dept. of Fish&Wildlife
to move these beavers.  They originally agreed, and then changed their 
minds.  Because of the incidence of rabies in the area, including several
known cases in Townsend, they take a dim view of moving any mammals.  
Killing them is another story.  

She also told me that she thought their cycle was 7 years.  Given the
area involved, I think ours are more likely to last 7 than 20; it's not
a particularly big area.

re: .16

Don't count on being able to destroy the dam as fast as the beavers
put it up.  They're faster than you, and they have advanced degrees in
civil engineering.  

re: all

Thanks for all the hints and advice.  I appreciate the philosophical
discussion.  We try to take pretty good care of our environment -- we limit 
our use of insecticides, and use natural methods whenever possible.  But 
we're also realistic.  

   Gary

    AN article in Sundays N.H. Union leader was about giving beavers
    vasectomies to control the population. I read it quick, it basically
    said it wasn't practical, because it is hard to tell which were males
    because the sex organs are inside and even trained wildlife people
    have a hard time telling... It was a strange article...
    It wasn't a joke either, I'll have to dig it up and get more detail...
    ;^)
    Jean

    Right, no joke.  I saw a TV show that discussed the same thing.  They 
    actually showed a beaver on an operating table.  I think they capture
    the beaver and then figure out which operation they need to perform. :-)
    
    

The town was Townsend.

Also, greed is as natural as survival, it's just more noticable in man.  There is
a greedy dog down the street that has staked out much more than her owner's 
property as her's.  She used to bark and bite at my dog as we walked by.  Now
she just barks and collects a toll (dog biscuit).  If that ain't greed.

RE:  Note 4930.18 by TLE::TOKLAS::FELDMAN 

Gary, 
   I knew you knew better than to take action without talking to the 
conservation committee.  The conservation committee is more interested in the 
the preservation of the wetlands than the beavers.  Beavers are the number 1 
natural rejuvenator of wetlands.  The types, maturity and values of wetlands 
are just too complex for layman to determine the right course of action.  

   Destroying existing beaver dams is illegal without permission of the 
conservation commission(alteration of wetland), and it is highly unlikely they 
will grant permission for a mature site.

   From what I remember of your property, the wetlands there are probably 
mature enough to survive without the beaver population.  Also, expansion of 
those wetlands will place your yard within the sphere of influence of the 
wetlands and increase the possibility leaching of chemicals directly into 
the surface water.

   If you get permission to relocate the beavers, can you check into moving 
them to the pond on Rt13 at the New Hampshire boarder.  Two beavers were 
killed there 4 years ago and nobody has moved in since.

   The bad news is that with the destruction of the two beaver dams in the 
North Townsend/Peperell area last year, there are a bunch of displaced beavers 
looking for homes right now. 

Brian

    Beavers are furbearers and are protected.  It is illeagal to destroy
    a beaver dam or house.  In order to trap beaver out of season you need
    a special permit from the MA. Div of Fisheries and Wildlife.  You also
    need a Problem Animal Control license.  PAC licenses are issued by the 
    state _after_ you succesfully pass an exam which covers the rules,
    regulations and laws governing problem animal control.  Your first step
    should be to call the division and file a complaint.  They will send 
    out a biologist within a week.  If they deem your situation a "problem"
    they will issue a permit to remove "X" amount of beaver.  The state
    no longer provides this service.  You must then find PAC licensee to
    remove the animals.
    
    Jeff  (Who just got his PAC licence)
                       

>Also, greed is as natural as survival, it's just more noticable in man.  

Greed is a human trait only. Anything that appears as greed in animals is
being confused with their instinct for survival and territorial behavior.
Animals don't kill one another out of greed, man does. Greed is only
natural in humans, not in wildlife or in our domesticated friends.

/james

    
    Although this is HOME_WORK and this discussion has already gotten out
    of hand, I just couldn't resist this one.
    
> Greed is a human trait only. Anything that appears as greed in animals is
> being confused with their instinct for survival and territorial behavior.
> Animals don't kill one another out of greed, man does. Greed is only
> natural in humans, not in wildlife or in our domesticated friends.
  
    Anything that appears as greed in humans could also be explained as
    some form of survival instinct or territorial behavior.
    
    When I give both of my (well fed, well cared for, domesticated) dogs 
    a chew-bone the younger dog inevitably ignores his own bone until he
    is able to sneak up and steal the older dog's bone. He then lays on
    top of it, chewing his own bone until I straighten things out. Is it
    greed? Could be. If I were talking about humans you'd call it greed.
    
    In any event. Nobody, no one, no where understands what REALLY goes on
    inside of another species head. We can can only attempt to explain it 
    from a human perspective. Therefore, statements like "Greed is a human
    trait only" are purely assumptive.
    
                                             			-Mac
                                                                           
                                                                    

before one thinks about 'fooling' beavers with some baffles stuck through a 
dam one should research the series of debacles digital encountered in dealing 
with beavers at the winchester plant.  i think they battled for a year or 
more before finally winning but i wouldn't want to guess the cost.  -craig

    RE: .26
    
    Thats westminister.....Craig.
    
    Marc H.

    re: .26
    
    That's Westminster.
    
    Just-felt-like-picking-a-nit-today

    Thanks....
    
    Marc H.

Here's an update:

A Wildlife Manager from the Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife came out
this morning.  He put on his waders, and hiked across the pond, but
couldn't locate the lodge.  Judging by the dam, the one dune,
(which apparently the beavers use to mark their territory), and the height
of the cuttings, he concluded that the beavers were probably a young 
family, with the adults only 2-3 years old.  That's consistent
with our belief that the dam is relatively new, since the beavers don't 
leave their family and territory until they're that old.

He'll be issuing a permit to us to allow us to notch the dam 8 inches as
necessary until trapping season.  This ought to lower the water level
enough to meet our needs.  While it's true that the beavers will 
quickly repair such notches, it should only be an issue before or
after heavy rains (since there isn't enough normal runoff for the
water level to rise rapidly).  We can certainly manage that much
effort (so long as it's not a rainy summer).  We still need to determine
who owns the land on which the dam is located, and get permission from 
them.  If notching doesn't work, we can call him back to get a permit
for a beaver baffle; there's one downstream from us that they've finally 
stabilized and gotten to work well (probably relatives of our beavers).

Trapping season for beavers opens November 15.  He'll be putting us in
touch with a licensed trapper.  The goal is to keep the beaver family
small, so that they don't need to raise the water level to increase
their food territory.  He's successfully worked with trappers who are
good about leaving the right number of beavers in the area.

   Gary

    
    With all the todo about nature and all..  I'm surprised no one
    mentioned for the owner to become a 'pet owner'.  If no one in
    the family is alergic to dogs, get a good_with_kids_and_people_
    but_ruff_on_other_wildlife type dog.   I grew up with a shepard/
    collie/(?) irish setter mix that was great with us kids, and 
    still kept the wildlife (raccoons,woodchucks, porcupines, etc) at
    bay.
    

    
    I second the dog approach. The dog doesn't even have to be a great
    hunter, just his scent and presence will turn other potential pests
    away, long before he even knows they're passing through.
    
     Bob

Well, our neighbors have dogs that tend to wander the area (though I
think they're spending more time confined, due to the rabies problem).
It doesn't seem to have helped.  I imagine that in the water, a beaver
could paddle circles around a dog (except it wouldn't; it would probably
just head to the lodge).  Beavers are pretty confident in the water.

I'd considered getting a jaguar, but I think they're pretty much
surface swimmers as well, and would probably find our water too cold
for their tastes.

   Gary

    
    
    ....How about renting an aligator for a week or two...:):)
    
    

Gators are cold blooded, so they won't go in this 50 degree
water around here, and besides, they'll eat your kids. ;-)

The dog idea sounds cool, but with rabies in the racoons
and porkypines, wouldn't a beaver be susceptible too?

tim_formerly_from_florida...

>    still kept the wildlife (raccoons,woodchucks, porcupines, etc) at

Beavers can get up into the 50-70 lbs. range.  A little different from a 
woodchuck.  I've never seen or heard of a single dog killing an adult beaver.
The youngsters may be a target, but I would assume that they would stay close
to the lodge.

I don't think a dog would work.

al
    

Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 16:08:03 EST
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (Dave Barry)
Subject: The beavers are striking back, and they could land anywhere

	Today's topic -- and we wish to stress that this has
nothing whatsoever to do with the Clinton administration -- is
Beavers In The News.
	Here at the Center For Being Alarmed, we have been
monitoring the beaver situation for more than two years now, and
we feel that the time has come to alert you, the public, to what
is going on, so that you can take appropriate action in the form
of whimpering in terror.
	Let's review the sequence of events, bearing in mind that
we are not making ANY of these events up; they all were reported
in actual newspaper items sent in by many alert readers.
	We will start with 1992, when wildlife authorities in
Chelmsford, Mass., in an effort to control the burgeoning local
beaver population, decided to have a team of veterinarians give
them (the beavers) vasectomies. The New Haven Register stated:
"The beavers will be enticed with tasty bark to swim into traps.
... Female beavers will be released, but males will be held and
vasectomized."
	At this point, the question you are asking yourself is:
"How does The New Haven Register know the bark is tasty?" Trust
me, it knows. It is staffed by journalism professionals.
	Anyway, while authorities in Chelmsford were vasectomizing
male beavers, authorities in Colorado were attempting to implant
Norplant contraceptive devices in female beavers. This effort was
covered extensively in The Denver Post and The Rocky Mountain News
(which at one point ran this headline: "BEAVERS GET NORPLANT WHILE
WOMEN WAIT IN LINE").
	The highlight of this effort occurred when wildlife
authorities invited the press to a Denver veterinary hospital to
witness the first beaver implant, which was to be performed by Dr.
David Robinson. Everything was ready: The cameras were rolling,
and the sedated beaver was on the operating table, breathing
anesthetic gas through a little cone over its snout. Robinson,
wearing a rubber glove (you don't want to take any chances, not
with your modern, sexually active beaver) made one final
examination, and then announced: "It's a male."
	The News published a wonderful photograph of this event,
showing Robinson with his arms around the beaver, groping his (the
beaver's) private region, looking concerned.
	"The problem with beavers is, their sexual organs are
drawn way up inside their body cavities," explained Robinson, in
a statement that will elicit strong beaver envy from any male
human who was ever pedaling a bicycle hard when the chain broke.
	Now we move to 1993, during which the following news items
were published (we are still not making any of this up):
	The Spokane (Wash.) Spokesman-Review reported that a
beaver chewed through a 100-foot tree, which fell on a "passing
wood-chip truck," causing about $2,000 damage. The Review
reported that "The driver and police were laughing over the
incident, with jokes flying about the beaver ambushing the truck
in order to get at the tantalizing wood chips."
	The Associated Press reported on a lawsuit in Chippewa
Falls, Wis., resulting from an incident wherein "a beaver chewed
through a tree, causing it to fall on a fence, allowing Holstein
heifers to escape from a pasture and wander onto some railroad
tracks." Eight heifers were killed by a train.
	The Winnipeg (Canada) Free Press reported that a 71-year-
old outdoorsman was sitting on the tailgate of his pickup truck
when he felt a sharp pain. "He looked down," reported The Free
Press, "and realized a large beaver had sunk its teeth into his
left leg." Fortunately -- and let this be a lesson to those who
would limit the rights of citizens to keep and bear hockey sticks
-- the man had a hockey stick. "He beaned the beaver several
times until it clamped on to his hockey stick with its teeth,"
stated The Free Press.
	(We received one other extremely alarming beaver report in
1993 but we are too tasteful to mention it here, because it
involved an incident on the Brule River in Wisconsin wherein a
beaver gnawed through a tree in such a way that it landed in a
fatal manner on a canoeist.)
	So the pattern is clear: The beavers are striking back.
Perhaps you are not concerned about this. Perhaps you live in an
urban area, and think you're safe from attack. Perhaps you are a
fool. Consider the following item from the Dec. 15, 1990,
installment of the syndicated feature Ripley's Believe It Or Not:
	"In the 1950s, beavers WERE DROPPED BY PARACHUTE IN
CALIFORNIA to build dams in areas threatened by erosion!"
	That's right: Beavers can be dropped from airplanes. They
could land ANYWHERE. And please do not be so naive as to try to
tell us that the government would not do such a thing. The
government, and we say this as a loyal, taxpaying citizen, is
completely out of its mind. The government is perfectly capable of
suddenly deciding to drop mass quantities of beavers on urban
areas, especially if an economist suggests that this might create
jobs.
	So that is the situation. Nobody is safe. What can you do?
You can be on constant alert. You can refuse to sleep and
constantly dart your eyes around in a nervous manner. You can
carry a hockey stick at all times, even to work. Perhaps your co-
workers will laugh. Perhaps your boss will want to have a word
with you.
	Perhaps he will beg like a yellow dog for your help when
he feels the Chomp of Doom on his ankle.

(C) 1994 THE MIAMI HERALD
DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

    
    If only Dr. Frankinstine could see this.....
    
    

We have a new dam breach permit for this year, so I'm now
looking for suggestions on easier ways to attack the dam.  
Last year we used shovel, crowbar, and a small generic handsaw.

Any suggestions on what sort of handsaw would stand up best to
the combination of branches, mud, dirt, pebbles, and water?
Any other ideas?  Is there such a thing as a battery powered,
water resistant Sawzall?  (I don't think we'd want to use 
a backhoe, because of the damage to the woods en route to
the damn.  We also need to go gently, so that we limit 
the flooding at the culvert downstream.  Once the water level
is down, then I think some small explosives may be appropriate :-)

We're also planning on buying waders, but other suggestions
are welcome.  I suspect a wet suit would be too expensive.

   Gary

    Terrifying thought:  Go into a tangle of logs, weeds, branches,beavers,
    up to your hips in running water, with a chain saw, with the purpose of
    making more water flow down on you. 

	Some sort of shoulder-mounted light anti-tank weapon seems
	appropriate.

	Roy

Explosives?  Since the dam is under pressure from the water it is holding
back, explosives might be the best way to damage the dam.  Since the logical
placement is at the bottom of the dam, a place where beavers don't normally
have to patch things.  Also the pressure release of the water should further
weaken the dam.

    
    If you can get a truck in there, what about putting a grappling hook on
    a chain -- with either a truck-mounted winch or a come-along for
    destructive power?  Or if you're in a cowboy sort of mood, set the hook
    in the dam, tie it to the trailer hitch, and pop the clutch. 
    
    It shouldn't take too many swipes to pull it apart, and this would give
    you some control over how much water gets down to the culvert. 
    
    JP

    The beaver dam on my stream was removed....one stick at a time by
    manual labor.
    
    Me? I would have used explosives.
    
    Marc H.

We're going to start manually, just to limit any flooding
downstream.  Eventually we may go the come-along route (a
vehicle would have to pull sideways, which I don't think 
would work as well).  The question now is where does one
buy a grappling hook?

  Gary

Put a pulley on a downstream tree and run a rope through it to a grappling 
hook.  This'll allow you to pull downstream with a vehicle at right angles 
to the stream.

Of course, I have to ask, what are the beavers doing while this is
going on?  I doubt they are going to come out and attack you while
you are at work, but they can be pretty persistent about rebuilding.
If I could only get some of them to come work on my house ;-)

PeterT

You could get Ward to speak to them...

    Hehehehe.  I've got a family of beavers with delusions of grandeur. 
    The only way we've found is to do it one stick at a time.  There's a
    reason why M.I.T. has the beaver as the mascot for the school of
    engineering....
    
    Waders are an excellent idea.  As are very long crow bars.  You really
    can make quite a bit of progress is you breach the dam in a narrow
    spot.  The water releasing will automatically remove quite a bit of mud
    and small ddebris.
    
    Good luck.
    
    Dana

We picked up inexpensive ($40) waders at K-mart, along with
a short (15", allegedly twice the cutting speed) Stanley
saw.  Our permit is to notch the dam 4'6" across, and
a yard down (which is most or all the way down).  

The beavers can't be relocated, but we do have official help
in dealing with them.

I'm still interested in a source for grappling hooks.  There
are no James Bond type spy stores in our neighborhood.

   Gary

Something I've seen once to deal with beavers:

In northern NY State some beavers were building a dam right at a highway
culvert, possibly threatening the road if the water started flowing around the
dam or if it washed out suddenly.  A "tunnel" was made out of that reinforcing
mesh used for concrete, one at the entrance to the culvert and another in the
dam.  I guess the beavers can't quite figure out how to block it off and the
piece of mesh was used to establish a safe level for the beavers.

Same idea as the PVC pipe a while back.  You may be able to breach the dam
once, place a 1 turn roll of the mesh (2' diameter or so)in the breach and the
beavers won't be able to raise the water level.

-Mike

    Gary,
    A couple of places to try for a grappling hook might be at a mountain
    climbing/sports store or better yet a boating supply store. Those
    hooks might be used as anchors.
    
    Jim
    

    It would probably be easier to borrow a boat anchor, which would come
    with a fairly heavy rope attached to it. Any of your neighbors have
    a boat ?
    
    ~jeff

    
    Try E&B Discount Marine, a mail order boating supplies catalog.
    1-800-533-5007.
    
    If they don't have a grapple, and you are close to ZKO I can
    loan you a fluke anchor.  I don't think it would work as well as a
    grappling hook though.
    
    A welding shop could probably make you a hook.
    
    Colin
    

re    <<< Note 4930.53 by SALEM::JGREEN "Living beyond my emotional means" >>>
>                           -< Borrow a boat anchor >-

>    It would probably be easier to borrow a boat anchor, which would come
>    with a fairly heavy rope attached to it. Any of your neighbors have
>    a boat ?

	Dunno  - -  he live close 2U ??  (-:
    
>    ~jeff



	I wouldn't lend him mine if he lived close to me - - them thar 
nylon rodes can store a mean amount of energy - and when they break it 
has to get itself "dissipated" somewhere.. )-:

	Reg

    re -.1
    
    I had thought of that but we're talking about a beaver dam made of
    loose sticks, branches, and muck. Last time I saw a dam it wasn't
    mechanically fastened with 3" galvanized drywall screws that I could
    tell. Can't beleive a few layers of branches couldn't be easily
    removed.
    
    I'd lend him *your* anchor, what do I have to lose from this
    experiment ?  :^)
    
    Or, for those leary of nylon rope, substitute a come-along with a
    cable.
    
    ~jeff

    Cables, chains, and ropes ALL can snap back with a few hundred pounds
    of force; try to use the pulley method to pull at right angles.  That
    will limit the amount of stuff that whips back.
    
    Why would a beaver dam be easy to pull apart?  It's only holding back
    about a zillion gallons/tons of water!!   ;-)   ;-)
    
    Carl

We trimmed off about 2-3 inches today.  It seemed much
easier than last time, for two (related) reasons.  The
water level was almost to the top of the dam.  That
made all the mud wet, and hence softer.  Also, since
the water level was high, we got instant gratification.  
Last time (in the fall), we had to take off several inches
of dry dam before getting any water flow. 

We'll need to see whether there was any flooding at the
road culvert downstream before going deeper, but we'll
get there.

   Gary

    
    C'mon, Gary, tell us what your modus operandi was... Grappling hook?
    Boat anchor? Winch? Air strike? 
    
    And as long as I'm here, can anyone identify the person who said,
    "There are very few problems that cannot be solved by the application
    of an appropriate amount of high explosives."
    
    JP

    re. Last.
    Must have been John Lewicki. He likes explosives....
    
    
    TMW

    
>    And as long as I'm here, can anyone identify the person who said,
>    "There are very few problems that cannot be solved by the application
>    of an appropriate amount of high explosives."

   Wasn't it Gopher, from Winnie the Pooh?!
   
   - Tom

For only three inches by four feet of dam removed, we dragged our 
newly bought chest-high waders through the woods in back of
the house to the dam, put them on, and just did it by hand.  It
was about 50% mud, 50% sticks, and they moved relatively easily.
I cut one one-inch branch with a saw, and that was about it.  It took
longer to hike out there and get the waders on than it did to remove
the little bit of material.  

It was obviously in a very different state than it was last time we 
worked on it, in the fall.  Back then,  we could easily walk across the 
dam and stay dry; it was solid for about a foot wide and 6 inches to a 
foot above the water level.  Today it was barely above the water, and the 
solid part of the upper surface much narrower.  

We may still go with the grappling hook route in a couple of weeks,
once the level goes down.  We're being cautious because we don't
want our neighbors upset at us for flooding the road.  As it
turns out, there are still a few trees upstream of the dam to
use as pivot points, and probably some downstream that would
work, so I believe we could get a 90-degree turn for safety's
sake, as suggested in .97.  With luck, however, that won't
be necessary.

I am concerned about other safety issues.  Clearly an accidental
fall could result in some very heavy waders holding one under
water.  The increased water flow also seems risky, if we were
in the water while lowering the damn the full three feet allowed by
our permit.

   Gary