September 15, 2019

Those “Dam” Beavers Be Damned

A friend today sent me a news article about how beavers are building dams near a road and a neighborhood in Farmingdale, Maine. It seems these days there is no simple solution to ridding public safety and property destruction problems caused by beavers.

In reading the article, I was reminded of the quite hilarious story of a letter written by a landowner in Michigan who was accused by the state environmental Nazis of unlawfully building dams and causing flooding and damage.

Evidently, the event is fabricated but is worthy of a good laugh – art imitating life. Below is a copy of that letter.

Dear Mr. Price:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.

First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan – I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood “debris” dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials “debris”. I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated. My first concern is – aren’t the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation – so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer.

The Department’s dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names. If you want the dam stream “restored” to a dam free-flow condition – contact the dam beavers – but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter — being unable to read English) – be sure you read them their dam Miranda first. As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers – be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this dam State – I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy – or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem; bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!)

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Sincerely,

Stephen L.Tvedten

 

Share

“Keystone Species”: The Nauseating Narrative of Convenience

In a rebuttal to an article written by George Smith, outdoor writer and activist, Karen Coker, head of Wildwatch in Maine wrote: “…aggressive beaver trapping prevents them from fulfilling their unique role as a keystone species.”

Like everything in this post-normal world, where real science has been tossed to the side swapped for Romance Biology and driven by special interest, the use of the term “keystone species” seems to have become one of convenience. In the public relations battle, it has become common place to take up the same strategies as the Vatican in determining that the end always justifies the means. In this case, say anything in order to promote your agenda. The agenda is, therefore, “keystone.”

But don’t be mistaken, this strategy is not relegated to only one political side.

To label any species “keystone” denotes that it is top shelf, that without it, serious consequences may befall an “ecosystem” (whatever that is). If you Google “keystone species” you get this: “a species on which other species in an ecosystem largely depend, such that if it were removed the ecosystem would change drastically.”

When personal and political agendas are at stake, any object can and does become a keystone species of utmost importance. Pick one, pick any. When attempting to approach any discussion or activism driven by agendas and politics, rather than an honest scientific approach (and please, enough of stating that you are the holder of real science already), invoking “keystone” tells a reader that the recipient of such a designation must be extremely important. However, what is always left out is the whole picture. It is always presented, as is written in this rebuttal, only in part. The part to supports the agenda.

The author further writes: “The rich wetlands beavers create support thousands of other wildlife species.” This is true….partly. The “rich” wetlands beavers create also destroys thousands of other wildlife species and that is not being considered. Some beavers are a good thing for our “ecosystems” (whatever those are) and more does not necessarily mean better. In fact, it becomes worse as beavers can be extremely destructive.

In Google’s definition of “keystone species” it says that if the species were removed, “the ecosystem would change drastically.” Some definition. Change, in this context, can fit anyone’s agenda. Political agendas and activist organizations are founded on the driving principle that a pet project is top shelf and will cause “drastic” changes. In one’s desire to protect beavers, or whatever the pet animal of the week is, removal of that species, to any degree, presents “drastic change,” and that change is always of the worse kind…in their minds.

One would like to think that wildlife managers understand the need to limit how many “rich wetlands” the countryside is inundated with. And that they also understand that these “rich wetlands” to some are an oasis and to others, death valley.

So enough of the “keystone” crap! For years I have listened to every Tom, Dick and Harry fall all over themselves, labeling their pet project to promote fundraising as “keystone,” “apex” and vitally essential to the salvation of the ecosystem (whatever that is).

While groups take up this strategy, void of actual and honest scientific processes, they also expose their ignorant hypocrisies and double standards. Case in point: Coker makes sure she gets in her jabs by bringing in names that are sure to rile up the masses on her left – NRA, Sportsman’s Alliance and “other powerful special interest groups.” She laments the idea that Smith and any member of these “powerful special interest groups” might “rally and unite their constituents with the message,” while she is rallying and uniting her “powerful special interest groups” with a “message” against what she claims to be Smith’s.

There’s nothing new here and it is all quite nauseating. Coker repeats, often, that her totalitarian (because it aims to force social change on others) special interest group’s appointment to life is, “giving ethical and ecological considerations a much larger role in wildlife policy and decision-making.” Golly, this sounds almost exactly like the Environmentalist-Leftist-Totalitarian purpose “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

Several years ago Environmentalism vowed that it would change the way we discuss and handle wildlife management. What they refused to tell the public that this change was void of the real scientific process. It is now all about social tolerances and the forcing of one group of totalitarian’s ideology onto others who have no interest in it.

Wildwatch Maine wants to place animals on a plane with people, giving them ethical and ecological considerations in order to be more humanlike. They want to control wildlife policy and decision-making void of science and driven by Romance Biology and ideology.

 

Share

False Worship of Natural Restoration

Natural restoration, much like natural regulation is a false god. There can never be this idealistic existence so long as man shares “nature” with….well, nature. It was never intended that nature be left alone to its own devices. The plan has always been that man would “manage” the resources within nature for sustainable uses. From this perspective, man manipulates “nature,” sometimes very well and sometimes not so well, in order to make use of the resources our Creator provided for us.

The worship of false gods and Paganism has caused man to evolve into a blinded instrument used against the very existence of man. Centuries later, out of this Paganism, came Environmentalism, a false belief that man destroys everything and the only way resources (nature) can be preserved and protected is to prohibit man access to land and the resources within that land.

This is part of the lie of natural restoration. It is often that we hear the call for “natural restoration.” The blind irony of the false idol of, so-called, natural restoration is that there is nothing natural about it. On the one hand we have man manipulating the resource to provide sustainable use of the bounty provided within the land. On the other hand, we have man manipulating the resource in order to achieve a personal perspective of how the resource should be. The only difference is the personal agendas of each person or group of persons.

One has to ask of what use is locked up land and resources? What good can actually become of it? The resources provided to us by our Creator were intended to sustain man’s existence. To deny use of these resources, while hiding behind some false claim of restoring the land to something that resembles its “natural state,” is to deny the sustainability of man on this planet, and perhaps that is the ultimate goal.

Blind idolatry at every level results in the destruction of man.

Today I read of one man’s idea of what he thinks a certain parcel of land should be and one way in which to accomplish that desire. It involves the recent land grab, by the U.S. Government and environmentalists, of land in Maine, designated by President Obama as a National Monument, and now called Katahdin Woods and Waters.

The author of the opinion piece I was reading, said that he hoped that the primary focus of the National Park Service would be “habitat restoration.” It is but this one person’s perspective that anything needs restoring – and to what should it be “restored” to?

To accomplish this restoration, he calls for the use and protection of beavers, believing that beavers only accomplish good things in the “restoration of habitat.”

If the objective of Roxanne Quimby, former owner of the land, is habitat restoration, then why did she propose turning the land into a park? Surely a park will do more to destroy the existing habitat than multi-use without a park.

The author states that beavers, “engineer bio-diverse habitats, something they are specially evolved to do.” Where is it written that bio-diverse habitats, created by beavers, is a “natural restoration?” And who gets to say that beavers “evolved” to “engineer bio-diverse habitats?” Beavers were created, by the Almighty, as a resource for His creation of man. What’s presented by this author is but one man’s perspective on how he thinks things should be.

Of the decades I have spent in the fields and forests, I have seen places where beavers have created a different habitat over the years and often simple utter destruction. From my perspective, the destruction far out-weighs any good a so-called habitat restoration as called for would be.

There is dishonesty in all this, claiming the Scientism high ground, that keeping man off the land, benefits the land due to man’s nature to destroy everything, unless it is the man holding one’s preferred science and perspective on what the land should be used for. This is part of the destruction of the idolatry of Environmentalism. Shifting the paradigm to create a belief that man should not use and have access to natural resources makes little sense and appears as nothing but a commitment in idol worship.

So we, as a people, have to decide whether we should continue to take advantage of our resources in a responsible way, or simply shut off access and let the land be what the environmentalists want it to be? Either way requires man’s manipulation to accomplish the desired feat and thus there is absolutely nothing natural about the false claim of “natural restoration/regulation.”

Share

Busy As A Beaver

On one of my journeys through the woods hunting this fall, I came upon a very sizable destruction, if you will, of where beavers had created dams and flooded several acres of forestland. The below photo depicts only a tiny portion of what was taking place here.

beaverwork
Photo by Tom Remington

Share

Beaver, Bogs and Lawyers….And Stupidity

Remember the Maine couple who are being sued by their town because beavers, that built a dam that broke, destroyed part of a road? There’s a response to that news story[scroll down a little ways for the story] of a person who has lived next to the pond who claims the pond was stocked with beavers over 20 years ago, by an “agency”.

beaver

Share

Is A Landowner Responsible for Wildlife Destruction?

It used to be a common remark is response to something unbelievable to say, “You can’t make this stuff up.” It seems these days “you can’t make this stuff up” is so regular we just pass the information on is disgust.

In Maine, a person is being sued by the town because beavers built a dam, the dam broke, causing damage to roads, railroad bed, etc. and the town want the landowner to pay the damages because the landowner didn’t do anything to stop the beavers from building dams. And if that isn’t absurd enough, the landowner’s property is listed on the town tax maps as a protected resource.

I would guess that while readers find a way to get through this story, I will refresh your memories of a similar exchange of letters between a landowner and town officials over a beaver dam incident from several years ago.

Subject: Go Figure

This is a copy of an actual letter sent to Ryan DeVries, from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan. Wait till you read this guy’s response – but read the entire letter before
you get to the response.

Mr. Ryan DeVries
2088 Dagget
Pierson, MI 49339
SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20;

Site Location: Montcalm County

Dear Mr. DeVries:

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.

A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department’s files shows that no permits have been issued.

Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994,
being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted.

The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2002.

Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.

We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative
Land and Water Management Division
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RESPONSE:

Dear Mr. Price,

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20;
Montcalm County

Reference your certified letter dated 12/17/2000 has been referred to me to respond to. First of all, Mr. Ryan De Vries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan.

I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood “debris” dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond.

While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natural building materials “debris.” I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is:
(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers? or,
(2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request?

If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.3010,1 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated. I have several concerns. My first concern is aren’t the beavers entitled to legal representation?

The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation – so the State will have to provide them with a lawyer.

The Department’s dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing flooding is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harrass them and call their dam names. If you want the stream “restored” to a dam free-flow condition – please contact the beavers – but if you are going to arrest them they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter (being unable to read English).

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I do to live
and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers’ Dams).

So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2002 The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears. Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone.

If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!)

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your answering machine, I am sending this response to your office via another government organization – the USPS. Maybe, someday, it will get there.

Sincerely,
Stephen L. Tvedten
The University of Texas at: Austin
Office Community Relations/Accounting unit
P.O. Box 7367
Austin, TX 78713

Share

Save a Tree. Eat a Beaver…..or Something

Stupidity and common sense hves run so amok that now nobody seems to know what to do with a problem beaver – kill it, trap it, trap and move it, adore it, invite it to stay and bring in more or simply marry one of the dang things. Beavers are always a problem when they decide to build a damn in the culvert that runs next to your house or along one of the roads Maine’s towns must maintain.

Beavers are a stupid creature that knows nothing but chewing up trees and stopping the sound of running water. Water runs through a culvert and often when it comes out the outlet end of the culvert, rushing water can be heard. This is like smelling Spinney’s fried clams out at the end of Fort Popham for the tourist looking to clog their arteries with some deep fried clams.

But as things go these days, people who think animals, even those that are too numerous and present too many problems, have rights and deserve to live to build a dam another day, want the creatures spared the death sentence. Makes little sense but then again what does in this day and age?


Picture editorial by Richard Paradis

I suppose being that much of today has been the focus on ignorance, idiocy and the vacancy of common sense, it is time one again to bring out the famous letter of the guy trying to deal with nuisance beavers and his inept government.

Subject: Go Figure

This is a copy of an actual letter sent to Ryan DeVries, from the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan. Wait
till you read this guy’s response – but read the entire letter before
you get to the response.

Mr. Ryan DeVries
2088 Dagget
Pierson, MI 49339
SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20;

Site Location: Montcalm County

Dear Mr. DeVries:

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality
that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced
parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner
and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet
stream of Spring Pond.

A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A
review of the Department’s files shows that no permits have been issued.

Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in
violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource
and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994,
being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws
annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially
failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at
downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently
hazardous and cannot be permitted.

The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities
at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by
removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel.
All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2002.

Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so
that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure
to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the
site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement
action.

We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter.
Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative
Land and Water Management Division
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RESPONSE:

Dear Mr. Price,

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20;
Montcalm County

Reference your certified letter dated 12/17/2000 has been referred to me
to respond to. First of all, Mr. Ryan De Vries is not the legal
landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan.

I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State
unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood “debris”
dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond.

While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I
think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of
natural building materials “debris.” I would like to challenge your
department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any
place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could
ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam
ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their
dam work ethic.

As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must
first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam
activity. My first dam question to you is:
(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers? or,
(2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said
dam request?

If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through
the Freedom of Information Act I request completed copies of all those
other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we
will see if there really is a dam violation of P! art 301, Inland Lakes
and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act,
Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.3010,1 to
324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated. I have several
concerns. My first concern is aren’t the beavers entitled to legal
representation?

The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay
for said representation – so the State will have to provide them with a
lawyer.

The Department’s dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed
during a recent rain event causing flooding is proof that this is a
natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In
other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than
harrass them and call their dam names. If you want the stream “restored”
to a dam free-flow condition – please contact the beavers – but if you
are going to arrest them they obviously did not pay any attention to
your dam letter (being unable to read English).

In my humble ! opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build
their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green
and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I do to live
and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the
natural resources
(Beavers) and the environment (Beavers’ Dams).

So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be
referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until
1/31/2002 The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and
there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them
then.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real
environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears.
Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you
should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone.

If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The
bears are not careful where they dump!)

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to
contact you on your answering machine, I am sending this response to
your office via another government organization – the USPS. Maybe,
someday, it will get there.

Sincerely,
Stephen L. Tvedten
The University of Texas at: Austin
Office Community Relations/Accounting unit
P.O. Box 7367
Austin, TX 78713

Share