11 replies to this topic

[Still Waters]

A thriving beaver population is threatening the stability of the Netherlands' sea defences, a group of experts has warned.

The Mammal Society has brought together other wildlife groups to work out how to protect these important water-blocking dykes from the small but potentially destructive semi-aquatic rodents.

Beavers play an important ecological role in the Netherlands and were initially brought in to increase biodiversity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-20315417

[redhen]

Introduced in 1988? You would have thought that the Dutch would have learned from previous failures. I watched a documentary the other day on the exploding population of racoons in Germany. They were "introduced" in the 1930's for the same reason, to increase biodiversity. Hmm, there's no bears in Holland either, maybe they "introduce" them too? I'll have to do some digging to find out the brilliant reasons for turning beavers loose in Holland.

Well, hopefully they won't have the scale of the crisis they have in Australia after they "introduced" rabbits to the country. Hmm, "lets bring over some furry mammals that reproduce like you know what, into a country where they have no natural predators. What could go wrong?"

[Abramelin]

I don't understand why the word 'threaten' is between quotation marks.

It is known that if a sea dike at the coast of the province of Zuidholland breaches in the middle of the night, many millions will drown in their sleep.

So, we already had muskrats, and now we have beavers (again).

Well, I hope they taste as good as muskrat (in restaurants here they are called 'water rabbit').

.

[Hasina]

Animals are changing things in nature which will have a catastrophic effect on things? Quick! Move them or kill them! They're learning from us! That's our thing!

[Abramelin]

Hasina, on 14 November 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

Animals are changing things in nature which will have a catastrophic effect on things? Quick! Move them or kill them! They're learning from us! That's our thing!

The problem is not that they change things in nature, they 'change' the things we built to protect ourselves from drowning.

[Abramelin]

redhen, on 14 November 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Introduced in 1988? You would have thought that the Dutch would have learned from previous failures. I watched a documentary the other day on the exploding population of racoons in Germany. They were "introduced" in the 1930's for the same reason, to increase biodiversity. Hmm, there's no bears in Holland either, maybe they "introduce" them too? I'll have to do some digging to find out the brilliant reasons for turning beavers loose in Holland.

Well, hopefully they won't have the scale of the crisis they have in Australia after they "introduced" rabbits to the country. Hmm, "lets bring over some furry mammals that reproduce like you know what, into a country where they have no natural predators. What could go wrong?"

Actually, there have been plans to reintroduce bears and wolves, but only in what we call Flevoland, reclaimed land in the center of the Netherlands (part of the IJsselmeer), and specifically, in the Oostvaardersplassen. After the land was reclaimed, that area was given the chance to develop undisturbed by human hand, and is now a protected area.

But as far as I know, they dropped those plans.

[Mnemonix]

redhen, on 14 November 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Well, hopefully they won't have the scale of the crisis they have in Australia after they "introduced" rabbits to the country. Hmm, "lets bring over some furry mammals that reproduce like you know what, into a country where they have no natural predators. What could go wrong?"

And the cane toad.

[Hasina]

Abramelin, on 14 November 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

The problem is not that they change things in nature, they 'change' the things we built to protect ourselves from drowning.

You're right, my sarcasm should've been: An invasive animal that we introduced ourselves is threatening to change something that we also changed which could kill us if they change it?! Quick! Move them or kill them!

[Abramelin]

Hasina, on 14 November 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

You're right, my sarcasm should've been: An invasive animal that we introduced ourselves is threatening to change something that we also changed which could kill us if they change it?! Quick! Move them or kill them!

The beavers were reintroduced - like the artcle said - to increase biodiversity. The problem is, however, that when they were still common ages ago, we didn't have all these dikes and so on, and a lot less people.

Yep, sorry for the beavers, but I'd rather feel sorry for them then for us.

[Hasina]

Abramelin, on 14 November 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

The beavers were reintroduced - like the artcle said - to increase biodiversity. The problem is, however, that when they were still common ages ago, we didn't have all these dikes and so on, and a lot less people.

Yep, sorry for the beavers, but I'd rather feel sorry for them then for us.

Oh I agree, human life over beaver life, and no, this time I'm not being sarcastic. Sometimes though I do like to be devil's advocate on some issues, usually through a joking manner so I don't offend people when I am. Though this time I was merely pointing out the irony. We change the environment, then they change what we've changed, and we flip.

[Abramelin]

Hasina, on 14 November 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Oh I agree, human life over beaver life, and no, this time I'm not being sarcastic. Sometimes though I do like to be devil's advocate on some issues, usually through a joking manner so I don't offend people when I am. Though this time I was merely pointing out the irony. We change the environment, then they change what we've changed, and we flip.

No, we won't flip, we will die.

[Hasina]

Abramelin, on 14 November 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

No, we won't flip, we will die.

You know what I meant, I was being facetious.