Got mice?!

[philo_beddoe]

That should do it, they can start with that pile!!

[Greybeard]

It just goes to show that when humans put their efforts into 'managing' nature, it always ends up a disaster. Most would not believe that the coyote and fox are the best rodent predators there are and the wolf is the best at controlling herds of ruminants (deer, elk, antelope). Nope, we know better than nature, all because we want recreation (or more money). Until that mindset changes, we will have occasional scourges of rodents, deer, and elk intrusions as well as other vermin. Unfortunately, when the over-populations of these animals intrude into 'our' spaces, they are the interlopers and must be dealt with. So what does man do in our infinite wisdom, we go out and kill more predators. Makes sense to me.   

[philo_beddoe]

Too many geese, mice, beavers, ticks and mosquitos. We need more honeybees and dragonflies. Honey taste good and dragonflies eat things that bother humans. No wolves in the northeast, but plenty of deer. Case in point, more deer more ticks!

[Greybeard]

Well, getting off topic here a bit. But you make the good point that we have screwed up the entire ecosystem whether you intended to or not. So the question is...why are there too many of these animals (and insects)? There's no wolves in the northeast because they have been hunted to extinction. The doo-doo rolls downhill, so I guess ya'll should enjoy the excesses of deer and, therefore, of ticks. A healthy, balanced, ecosystem is not possible when humans try to control it, pure and simple. As for mosquitoes, good luck with them, I don't think we have ever been able to control their populations, ticks either. 

[philo_beddoe]

Cursed earth anyway, waiting for rapture.

[Greybeard]

    Don't get me wrong, I am not a tree hugger, but I see reality. Humans have had this attitude that because we reason, we reason we are smarter than nature and it simply ain't true.

As a youngster of 22 I worked for a couple years in our nations 2nd largest national park, Yellowstone. I learned a few things while I was there, mostly about sex  but also about nature and ecosystems (or was that part about sex too? I don't remember), anyway, I worked in the Old Faithful area for two years. The hot springs and geysers there are pretty interesting since they are a micro-system all by themselves. Back in the early years of the park, after the Inn was built they reasoned they could tap into a hot spring on the side of the hill sorta behind the Inn. So they did and they used the hot water for heat and kitchen and laundry. But the hot spring's water level was lowered by doing this. As any high school kid should know the boiling point of water is dependent on two things, heat and pressure. Well, there is no lack of heat under that area of the park so pressure caused a calamity back then. By lowering the water level the weight of the water was reduced drastically down below in the 'plumbing system' of hot springs and geysers. All of those underground water systems are interconnected and -balanced-, so by changing one small parameter everything got changed somewhat. By dropping that one hot springs water level just a few feet, it altered the way Old Faithful spouted off. As we know, Old Faithful got that name because it erupted almost to the minute every hour and a half. But over the course of ten months after tapping the water off the spring, it started not being faithful. It remains unfaithful today even after they stopped pulling the water off and the water rose to it's natural level. One small blunder due to humans vast intellect over nature. In the grand scheme of things, it's rather unimportant. But the lesson it teaches is enormous, if one is willing to learn.       

[BBM3]

That is a really interesting read. RE: Yellowstone
The balance between human intervention and allowing nature to take its course is difficult.
The Yellowstone wildfire of 1988 is a case in point.
I love the park and hope we will figure out how protect it and still allow us to enjoy the natural beauty.

[Greybeard]

That was a devastating fire for us, and there is always the possibility that we caused it to be that bad by not allowing free burns prior to that. On the other hand, when I was there, the tide was changing concerning the idea of allowing naturally started fires to burn nearly unimpeded and only interfering when structures or lives where in danger. Understandable. However, after nearly a century of trying to extinguish nearly every fire that occurred, the tinder just kept accumulating. So it was a matter of too little, too late, by the time 1988 rolled around. Everything done prior, a few dry years, and it was the recipe for the perfect firestorm. It ruined the park for us, but did it ruin it for the natural residents of the park? I really don't know myself. It's almost been 28 years since that fire, the new pictures I've seen show it's growing back just fine. On another note, when I was there vast areas of the forests had died due to the pine bark beetle... our efforts to contain the bug were fruitless. I've heard however, that fire is a good de-bugger. Maybe nature had it's own plans? 

[philo_beddoe]

Whats your take on folks that build houses on beaches, side of mountains, etc and then the ocean washes them away or a mudslide or wildland fire?

[BBM3]

I understood the 1988 Yellowstone fire began with controlled burns that got out of control.

We lived on a small Caribbean island on the waterfront. 2004 category 5 hurricane Ivan destroyed or house along with most everything else on the island. We sold our house 18 months prior to Ivan. We were lucky.

We now live in a Ponderosa pine forest. June 2012 nearly 600 homes were destroyed by a massive wildfire. Fortunately the fire was stopped about 2000 feet from our house. The areas to our south that saw the majority of devastation still look like a moonscape. Again we were lucky.

There is is a risk living in these beautiful places.
We try and reduce our risk with good insurance and good forestry management.
Hurricanes not much you can do other than insurance, storm shutters, evacuate, and hope for the best.

And by the way....... We have Mice.

[Greybeard]

Whats your take on folks that build houses on beaches, side of mountains, etc and then the ocean washes them away or a mudslide or wildland fire?

Not really certain what this has to do with? However, having lived on the side of a mountain, and near rivers (I now live on top of a hill in corn country) I can say that the more I learn about people, the more I like nature. I have no problems with folks building where they want to, what I have a problem with is after they do build in some pristine wild area they want to bring their city attitude to the country. It makes no sense. Here in the farm country of Iowa there are plenty of places that are bought by city folks that want to 'live the quiet life, with clean air, in the country'. Hmph. Yeah, sure they do. They move next to a field that grows their food, after the first spring or fall they start moaning about the smell of pig crap or cow crap being used as fertilizer. They complain to the DNR that the rabbits, squirrels, coons, possum, and deer are eating their landscaping work, that the noise from the hog feeders a half mile away, or the fall noise of grain driers, is disturbing them. The list of crabass complaints never ends.

Nevertheless, you asked about the folks that build in hazard zones such as on a beach or mountainside. It really depends on what beach or mountainside I guess. Humans can continue to move into wilderness areas, I can't stop them, and I'll be dead in a decade or less so why would it concern me? however, if I answered I am against it, then I'm an , if I answered I'm all for it, then I'm too capitalistic.

What I believe is that folks need to be aware that when they pays their money, they are taking a chance. They can pay their insurance and be reimbursed for being stupid, no problem there. But after the first time of being stupid (or in some rare cases the second) why should all the rest of us paying premiums to that insurance company have to support their continued stupidity? The insurance company(s) should drop them like a hot rock. One chance for those in hazardous areas that are commonly or possibly prone to calamity. Of course, there needs to be a line drawn in the sand for some places because no place is entirely hazard free. Flooding is a point of discussion on that. If the flood prone area is 'normally' in a flood zone, the folks living there should finance their own independent insurance company's that don't use money from the general population. The same goes for hurricane zones (especially hurricane zones). Earthquakes cannot be counted on to happen in the same place year after year after year however, so they should have their own level of coverage as too with wildfire areas.

So to sum up, if folks want to live in an area that consistently or routinely sees calamity, they need to fend for themselves during the rebuilding processes by utilizing focused insurance company's dedicated to them only.

Again though, not certain what this has to do with the previous discussion? 

[philo_beddoe]

Yup, good sustainable forestry. I used to work for the U.S. Forest Service, natural resource law enforcement officer, used a 87 squarebody. Still in LE, but in a different agency, still protecting natural resources. The things i' ve seen, what people do in and to the outdoors.

[Greybeard]

I know the USFS has good intentions, but they screw it up just as bad as the Corp of Engineers do. It is, as you know, all about budgets. Gotta spend em to get the same amount the next go-round. That may not be as true these days as it once was, but it has been the bane of natural resources, and parks especially, for a score of decades. 

[Irish_Alley]

its still true. every department has a cap to reach, even if they save money one day they still have to blow it before the end of the tax year

[philo_beddoe]

You are correct, as you know i work for the us govt. and thats what we do. And when something has to get cut or take a hit, its usually the natural resources in some form or capacity. 

I wonder if Trump is going to fix all that.