Talk:Beaver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Mammals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use mammal resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Beaver is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents 1 Beaver Diet? 2 Mascot! 3 Breath? 4 extinct giant beaver? 5 Article's state 6 dams 7 In Anatomy 8 Beaver capabilities... 9 Disputed tag in Dams section 10 Vandalism 11 Beaver Bites 12 Suggested Beaver Bites excerpts 13 Second Largest Rodent? 14 Got a use for this image? 15 LSE? 16 Lodges and Dams 17 Are they Fish? (Position of Catholic Church) 18 Better pictures 19 Pests 20 Popular culture 21 Dysphemism 22 Agriculture 23 Conscious Planning? 24 article from Beaver Control, some information able to be moved into Beaver? 24.1 Why they build the dams 24.2 What is a Beaver Deceiver 24.3 References 25 External links section

[edit] Beaver Diet?

There seems to be no information on the diet of beavers in the article.

Well, they are completely herbivorous. Dora Nichov 14:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mascot!

Vote for beavers as wikipedia's new mascot! Follow this link:[[1]]

Why should it be a mascot? Because of building? Good point. 'Cause being able to edit Wikipedia is on of Wikipedia's charcteristics! 61.230.79.242 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breath?

Question: Does anyone know how long a beaver can hold it's breath? I have heard that they can be underwater for 30 minutes...

One of my books says five minutes...61.230.79.242 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] extinct giant beaver?

does anyone know if there is an article on the extinct giant beaver, Castoroides ohioensis, fossils of which have been found in North America? If not, I would be interested in integrating some information here. a couple of quick google references: [2] [3] [4] [5] joe 134.174.153.43 20:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be under Giant beaver Dmccabe 20:02, 18 March 2006

I have a question. For reasons of completeness, would it be acceptable to include the vulgar meaning that "beaver" has? If so, I'd propose the following:

In American slang, beaver is also one of the vulgar terms for the vulva.

Since no one objected (and I asked nicely), this has been inserted as of 5 November 2002. Stormwriter

User 64.229.0.199 edited the common name of the Castor canadensis to read as "North American Beaver" rather than "American Beaver". This is not supported by any of authority including Common Names of Mammals of the World by Wilson and Cole. Castor canadensis is the only beaver native to the Americas, therefore "North" is not needed. Dsmdgold 16:11, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that beaver "houses" were actualy inside of the dams, and the entrance was underwater. Even if that isn't true, and houses are built somewhere else, it would be nice if someone could explain their living environment better in the article --Ignignot 16:53, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Good point. The beaver lodges are mound-shaped "piles" of twigs and branches that are within the impounded area, not in the dam. When the leaves are off the trees, I'll try to get a photo on one of them from around here. Shoulda thought of that.... Pollinator 20:40, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Question: How do you get rid of the damn things without spending a fortune to have them trapped? fulano

• Answer: It's called a rifle. My grandfather does it all the time. --Josh 20:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Buying the trap yourself is the cheapest method. Checkout http://sullivansline.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=5

Question: What is the heaviest beaver encountered? 103 lbs. Source: http://sullivansline.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000060

[edit] Article's state

This article seems to be in a bit of a mess, with the old Britannica text separate; as well, i just noticed (as it had not been crosslinked!) that there is an article for the American Beaver, which covers much of the same material. I'm not sure of the best course from here, but please keep this in mind... Radagast 03:57, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Also, I think that the article has very little material on the beaver life cycle until the old Britannica text.

[edit] dams

I read a page -- elsewhere -- about the accidental introduction of North American beavers to Europe. It said that not only were North American beavers able to out-compete the already endangered European beavers, because they were larger, but they were much more of a nuisance because European beavers don't make dams.

I don't know all the details, but the link here has a map showing North American beavers living in Finland. Not sure how/why they're there. http://www.scotsbeavers.org/Duncan%20Halley%20Report.html -- Funnyhat 22:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is another story about the problems related to introducing animals in foreign land (Okay, foreign to the animal in question) Apparently, Argentina's military rulers introduced 50 beavers in Argentina for far, but their are currently a pain in the neck. The article is really fun to read, with comical quotes of unhappy dwellers like these "And I want to tell people in other countries, who say what a cute animal the beaver is, to think before introducing it. Its only natural predator is the bear. So they should have brought the bear too." [6]

[edit] In Anatomy

"Beavers have webbed hind-feet, and the claw of the second hind-toe double" Say what? What does that mean?

[edit] Beaver capabilities...

Question: Does anyone know how long a beaver can hold it's breath? I have heard that they can be underwater for 30 minutes...

15 minutes is the largest observed duration. Normal diving time is 2-5 minutes normally but can extend up to 15 minutes. Citations are:

Rouland, P. ; Perraud, P. & R. Nozerand. 1984. Le Castor castor fiber L. Bull. Mens. Off. Natl. Chasse.

Richard, B. 1980. Les castors. Baland,Paris. 168pp.

Bau, L. 2001. Behavioural ecology of reintroducted beavers (Castor fiber) in Klosterheden State Forest, Denmark. MSc Thesis. Departement of Animal Behaviour, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Egberts 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed tag in Dams section

In the dams section of the article, it states that beavers will build dams in the presence of sounds of running water alone. An anonymous editor changed the content to state the opposite. Does anyone have a source for this? My current approach was to revert changes by anonymous and tag the section as disputed pending a citation. --Aranae 03:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

These sources all support the contention that the beavers are stimulated by the sound of running water to trigger damming behaviour. [7] [8] [9] [10] I couldn't find any reference to the view proposed by the anon editor, so I am removing the factual accuracy tag. AntiVan 00:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

First hand experience shows that beavers being drawn to the sound of the tinyest trickle of running water has been correlated and verified. Egberts 07:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

After a slashdot reference somebody keeps adding the "Beavers explosively attack people with their menacing teeth. [citation needed] They are the most deadly animals alive" line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.163.222.96 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 31 January 2006.

It is more than one person, I did it once, and only once, cause it was funny. Before I could revert it, somone else had deleted it. Somone did it BEFORE the slashdot article was posted, which makes me wonder, are you all SURE that beavers dont explosively attack people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.66.31 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 January 2006.

[edit] Beaver Bites

The beaver attack is a reality but it is certainly not explosive. The difficulty is in securing documented sources over the net. This is basically a call to nature enthusiastics to recall articles from various conservations, games and fish magazines.

Scores of trappers have scars reflecting trapped but live beavers and have wisen up to this. Socialite newspapers have commented on scars displayed by trappers as a badge of honor. There is no telling how many trappers have died from this because of their solitary nature of the job.

As a geneologist, there are documented references of beaver attacks resulting in deaths. These sources are witnessed by me in two family bibles (of which I do not have access to anymore).

With my grandfather as a state game warden for Oscoda County, Michigan, he witness two separate attacks against loggers in Ludington county in the 1930s, of which one resulted in a death. Ludington Daily News newspaper has that obituary documented as well.

I also lived on Beaver Island (one of the galepago of islands in northern half of Lake Michigan) and witnessed an attack against an unwitted fawn.

For recent attacks, they have been mostly against dogs and young bears and ONE wolverine.

Egberts 05:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The pigdog link has a picture of a beaver with a rocket launcher, and links to an article that is no longer available, assuming it ever was. It is not a reputable source. I have no reason to doubt your family, but those sources, as you've pointed out, are not verifiable. I don't think it's necessary to have a source right away for every single thing on Wikipedia, but this issue needs a source because 1) the beaver attack thing has been going back and forth here for a while, with no one coming up with a verifiable reference, and 2) it is not obviously true. I've already reverted the beaver attack thing once today, so I won't revert it again right away, but please try to find a verifiable source if you want this to stay in the article. Thanks. --Allen 05:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Source:Reuters 2000 June 6 WINNIPEG, June 6 (Reuters) - A Canadian farm woman is still shaking after a crazed beaver attacked her two giant Newfoundland dogs named Bonnie and Billy, pinning them against a fence and savaging them. "It pinned them. I never though beavers were capable of that," Sam Pshyshlak told Reuters from her Manitoba farm 100 kilometres (60 miles) north of Winnipeg. "I've lost all respect for beavers. I never would have imagined this from a beaver," she said of the recent incident. She said the beaver "terrorized" her dogs, which weigh nearly 90 kilograms (200 pounds) each. "There was definitely something wrong with it," Pshyshlak said. The thick pelts of beavers were once Canada's main export and the flat-tailed animal has long occupied a place of honor on the country's five-cent coin. Most Canadians see them as cute and industrious but farmers often regard them as a nuisance for the dams they build and the flooding they cause. Pshyshlak said the animal that attacked her dogs weighed about 13.5 kilograms (30 pounds) and tore at Billy's leg and face. "In the shed, the whole floor was pooled with blood," she said. Pshyshlak said conservation authorities said they would try to trap the animal, although she said she hasn't seen hide nor hair of the beaver since the attack occurred. 06:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Egberts 06:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

JAMA has scores of statistics on beaver infected with rabies each and every year since its publication inception and a scant reports of human being infected by beavers.

 http://depts.washington.edu/apecein/newsbriefs/2002/0006nb11.html
 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/287/24/3202 06:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Egberts 06:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have little doubt that a beaver could do some serious damage, and that it could even prove fatal if it hit you just right and you had no access to medical attention. I think the term "explosively attack" is really ridiculous. I'm not sure there needs to be much more then a note that beavers are sizeable mammals with a very powerful bite and have been known to injure people (if even that much). --Aranae 06:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

More sources Friday June 1 8:52 AM ETHELSINKI (Reuters) - A Finnish wildlife lover survived unscathed after a beaver tried to sink its teeth into his neck as he tracked it along a remote river.

I thought it would be nice to see the beaver jump into a river so I followed it. Suddenly the beaver disappeared and next thing I knew it was hanging on my neck, Penti Jylha said Friday.

Experts say it is rare for beavers to attack people. Usually the shy beasts just escape when disturbed, or slap their tails on the ground if they feel threatened.

Thanks to the cold Finnish summer, Jylha was wearing heavy clothes which protected him from the beaver's long teeth.

When I managed to shake off the beaver it just stayed staring at me from a few meters away, he said. Egberts 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted Egberts additions to the article just now before reading this discussion. I apologize for that. However, I think this issue is best discussed here until a consensus is reached on what content, if any, is added to the article. As Allen points out, this issue has a history. The Jama and EINet News Briefs seem to satisfy WP:RS, but do not support the added content. The Reuters citations support the content in part, but I don't know how to access Reuters. Presumably these were republished in newspapers where they might be more easily found? Unless beaver bites can be shown to be a significant public health problem, my view is the same as Aranae. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me... this is going to take some time for someone to come forward with games and fish magazine excerpts because I've seen my share but don't have them. Egberts 17:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To me, this issue has the flavor of an urban myth or bigfoot. I grew up near a beaver dam and I currently live near an urban park that contains a beaver population. I've never heard these stories before seeing them here. Moreover, I've never seen warning signs of the sort that are common in National Parks or urban areas where potentially dangerous wildlife are present.
If belief in beaver attacks is notable, it should be straightforward to find references that can be cited. The Reuters news articles are first person accounts with no indication that they were independently investigated. Such accounts are commonly cited as evidence for bigfoot. Game and fish magazines commonly publish stories that are not independently investigated, if I'm not mistaken.
However, unless references in reputable public health publications can be found, I don't think we can dignify this with more than a statement of the sort, "Some people think that Beaver attack people and other animals. No support for the view that this is a significant public health problem can be found in the public health literature. Persons should avoid any mammal exibiting aggressive or unusual behavior." The last sentence is from MMWR. 2002;51:481-482, reprinted by JAMA (citation above).
Upon reading Egberts text more closely, I find that I agree that the first paragraph of his addition is supported in part by the MMWR citation. However, the MMW article states, "rodents are not a wildlife reservoir for rabies virus and no rabies transmission from rodents to humans has been documented." Also, in 2001 in Florida, the Florida Dept. of Health found that samples from 124 racoons, 34 foxes, ... and one beaver tested positive for rabies. Unless this information is impugned, I don't think it is notable and should not be added to the article.
The MMWR article does suggest that rabies is found more often in beaver in eastern states other than Florida. That information, if reliably sourced, may be notable. My guess though is that rabies in beavers is a minor public health problem compared with rabies in racoons or foxes. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

They usually flee, but if cornered beavers can be real fierce. Who'd want to tackle an angry, heavy animal with terrifying buck teeth!?61.230.79.242 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Beaver Bites excerpts

A ferocious beaver attack may be an indication of beavers with rabies. Unlike smaller rodents who die shortly after contracting the disease, beavers can survive long enough to act as a reservoir. In its usual non-infectionous state, a beaver rarely attacks beyond the one or two defensive bites. Observed beaver attacks also have been made against dogs (Seaman_(Newfoundland_dog)), young bears, wolverines, bobcats, rats and fawns.

Human deaths from beaver bites have been recorded as far back as 1642 in geneology archives and family bibles. It is difficult to assess the death rate by beaver bites toward trappers during the wilderness days due to their solitary nature of the job. This trend is inferred by trappers' permanent absense and later a grisly discovery due to a singular but mysterious animal bite by others. Most animal attack sessions by carnivores leave multiple bites, whereas beavers are herbivores and will bite once or twice to make a defensive point.

Today, increased public awareness, medical advancements (tourniquet, rabies shots) and diminished beaver population has greatly reduced this deadly trend to the last reported death by a Ludington Daily News obituary (Ludington,_Michigan) which occurred in 1933 against one unfortunate logger.

Deaths from beaver bites usually result by uncontrolled (but now rarely uncontrollable) bleeding. Egberts 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Largest Rodent?

Or so this articler says, yet so does the article on the mara. Someone ought to check the facts.

Maybe not... Largest American beaver encountered is 103 lbs where as the Mara is maxed out at 25 lbs. http://sullivansline.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000060 Egberts 07:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Beaver is second largest...maras are 'bout the size of hares...61.230.79.242 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Got a use for this image?

I'll let the main editors here decide if they can use this image. It was taken at Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge, November 2005. The trees are 10 inches in diameter and these trees were taken down in one night...it must have been a beaver attack:) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MONGO (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 March 2006.oops, sorry about that...--MONGO 17:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good illustration of the industriousness of beavers. In the original, the greys were bluish and the contrast was low. It looks like it may have been taken very early or late in the day with very warm illuminate that perhaps the camera didn't correct properly. I used Photoshop (Image/Adjust/Levels eyedropper tools) to reset the black and white levels and to make the foreground tree bark grey. If you don't like the result, it is easy to change it back. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yours is better...the image was taken in the evening.--MONGO 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wsiegmund, did you mean to add and then remove this image from the page? Chack the edit history, it's possible you accidentally reverted your own changes somehow. --Aranae 22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Aranae; that is a new one. I think it was the consequence of having too many browser windows open at the same time. Thank you.
I created a gallery page on commons for Castor organized by species, and added a commons tag to this article. A fresh look at the illustrations and layout might be in order. I think some of the commons images may be superior to those that are currently being used. Also, it might be good to discuss breaking the article into subarticles for C. fiber and C. canadensis at some point. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The articles for C. fiber and C. canadensis already exist, but are a bit stubby (particularlt C. fiber. It could definitely prove helpful to mine some of the material on this page out to those. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aranae (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 March 2006.

Of course you are correct. I was misled by the extent of this article. I am more accustom to seeing abbreviated genus articles with most of the information in the species article. I would favor your suggestion of moving material into the species articles. Since this article is a vandal target, it would be easier to maintain if it were much shorter. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LSE?

The American beaver is the emblem of the London School of Economics? Sounds, um, kind of unlikely at first hearing. Someone please confirm. — Haeleth Talk 23:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarized from LSE website: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEAnnualFund/beaversClub.htm "The Beaver's Club The idea of the School needing its own coat of arms first came up towards the end of the 1920s. A committee of 12 members including eight students was set up to search for 'the figure of some animal which would be emblematic of the work of the School'.

The committee decided on the beaver as in its view it is known for foresight, constructiveness and industrious behaviour. In 1925 a carved wooden beaver presented by four professors was officially named 'Felix Q' and enrolled as an honorary student. Since then the beaver has been one of the most well-loved characters among students at LSE, with the student newspaper pertinently named after him."

And that would be the 'Canadian' beaver ;-) Bridesmill 00:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lodges and Dams

Beavers do not live in their dams. They build a separate lodge -- either in a dome shape, made of mud and sticks, or dug into the bank of a river. Perhaps a heading just for beaver lodges could make this clearer.

That's true. Many people think they live in their dams, but no.61.230.79.242 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are they Fish? (Position of Catholic Church)

Not a big argument with the Catholic interpretation cited; but the sources appear very similar, are anecdotal, & not 'church' sources, whihc almost make one wonder whether this is a bit of urban Myth - does anyone have an actual edict/declaration/better source? (NOT arguing to chop this bit, just really curious as to the real source).Bridesmill 16:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds like an urban legend, which is why I added the sources that I did. I just added a fourth (at the top of the list) which looks pretty reliable to me.Spikebrennan 00:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the perfect source ;-) but it certainly adds credence to the story; mind, the comments of an 18th c author who appears to be somewhat strident in his views of catholics...to me the jury is still 'somewhat' out (but not enough to suggest deleting this just quite yet) thanks.Bridesmill 03:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this section still here? There's no reliable source for it, and last I checked they have something called a burden of proof that prevents you from asserting whatever you like.

EDIT: Here's why I assert the sources are not reliable:

5) - Cites Pehr Kalm, of whom I know little, but whose Wikipedia article suggests he's a fairly unreliable source on Catholic doctrine: born in Sweden to Finnish parents, the son of a Lutheran minister and himself a minister later in life, etc., etc. In fact, later in the writing cited he goes on to call the Catholic tradition of the fast basically hypocritical. This means the most reliable source on an apparent embarassing archaicism and abuse of church power, for those keeping score, is a Protestant lay clergyman and natural scientist in the middle of grinding an axe with the Catholic Church.

6) - A Catholic source containing no reference whatsoever to beavers.

7) - A simplistic, pedagogical website about beavers passing along the idea that the Church once decided the beaver a fish. In this story, it decides such on different grounds than Kalm would have us believe!

8) - A sports publication, again written with beavers in mind rather than Catholics. It calls the scaly tail and the swimming skills properties of the beaver that lead the Church to declare it a fish - repeating the reason given by 7) and adding a third. It also asserts, intriguingly, that the Catholic church still considers beavers a fish!

In short, source 6 is irrelevant; sources 5, 7, and 8 directly contradict each other in various ways; and each presents the idea that beavers used to be considered or are currently considered fish by the Catholic Church as beaver trivia; none claim to be experts on Catholic practices or history, merely on beavers.

The source I would give the most weight is 5), and it is, again, written by someone with such a clear contempt for the Catholic Church that accepting it on its face is unreasonable.

I sincerely apologize for spending three times as many words as exists in the section deleted explaining why it ought to remain so. Full disclosure: I am not a Catholic, but was raised one, and observe there to be a serious baseline anti-Catholic bias in a lot of anglophone scholarship. The Church has a lot of things wrong with it, but I'm not about to sit back and let pass the idea that among them is something as inexplicable and stupid as considering beavers fish.

ACK-47 01:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you consider these sources not acceptable? Regardless of the fact there is some bias, one has to assume that some fact-checking took place here, unless someone can show me some evidence that this is/was a hoax. The story is just too credible & well established; ideally, I would love to see a primary sosurce, but the secondary ones there are 'aren't as bad as a lot of WP & appear to meet WP:V.Bridesmill 01:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Urban legends tend to be well-established. As for 'credible', I hardly consider it credible: which story would you have me believe, the one that somehow Church scholars were convinced by an animal's tail that the animal was a fish, or that its tendency to spend time underwater made it a fish in spite of the fact it possessed, I don't know, fur, arms, legs all of that? It's a story that requires the highest officials of a church which was still very much a destination for the best minds of half of Europe to be absolute and peerless idiots. And on whose say-so? A Lutheran minister snidely dismissing an integral Catholic practice!

In short, it's only 'credible' if you're willing to assign astounding stupidity to Catholics. I'm not, so I don't consider it credible. If you'd like, we could send an e-mail to the proper authorities and see if they do; the only problem is that the proper authorities probably take a long time responding and are fairly reticent about admitting past mistakes anyhow.

ACK-47 01:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it stupidity. 300 years ago the world was a different place. Context & worldviews change. Quebecois source: Lacoursière, Jacques. Une histoire du Québec ISBN 2894480504 cites this dating back to Bishop Francoise de Laval, who asked the question of the Sorbonne in 1600something; unfortunately, book only available in French, will see if copy held at any local U's. Telequebec also aired a piece on this, http://video.telequebec.tv/catalogue/documents/GeoHist_009.pdf if you speak french (VHS 3 doc. 29) I can find nothing referring to this story as a hoax in Quebec websites.Bridesmill 02:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd quite appreciate it if you did. I'm just worried that the primary (english) sources thus far seem to trace back to something written in the 18th century - and certainly Catholic doctrine has known friendlier periods of Protestant scholarship.

I wouldn't retain any serious objection to the inclusion of the section thus mentioned, I just want to make sure it checks out. (I'd consider a citation from de Leval a lot more illustrative than one from Kalm.)

If you don't mind, I'm also going to clear out the irrelevant citations - leaving in #5 tentatively, because of the ones there it seems the most creidble - and until we've got information on de Leval's inquiry, maybe tag the section disputed.

Thank you for your civility and cooperativeness. ACK-47 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See this site: [11]. The blogger (who does not seem to have any kind of anti-Catholic agenda at all) cites Davis's Moral & Pastoral Theology for the proposition that beavers are edible on Fridays during Lent. Davis apparently discusses the same passage from St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica that was one of the deleted footnotes. Moreover, I interpret this blogger's text (and the source he quotes) as authority that the Church still considers beavers to be other than meat for Lent purposes. I don't have a copy of Davis's book myself (it seems to be out of print). Spikebrennan 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First, Kalm has no reason to lie. To make catholics look bad and silly, yes; but one does not achieve that by spouting easily refutable bold-faced lies. Second, the Summa explains clearly the logic used in reaching this decision and is thus if not a direct citation a useful explanatory footnote. Thirdly, An incorporated Zoo and credible sporting magazine are certainly more WP:V than the opinions of a university student. Fourthly, I have provided two additional references from a groupd which if anyhting by your logic should want to supress this little fact, or expose it for the hoax you seem to believe it is; and somehow that leads to summarily deleting refs and slapping a dispute tag up. Fifthly, if this was a hoax there should be at least some evidence of such, particularly in quebecois websites. Sixthly, I find your insinuation that those who believe this are stupid somewhat insulting, and somewhat narrow-minded. People believe all manner of things which n the clarity of wisdom and hindsight appear foolish.Bridesmill 13:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume that ACK-47 isn't intentionally being insulting. I'm Catholic myself--(not that I have any particular beaver-eating plans). Sometimes religious rules can draw distinctions on grounds that might appear arbitrary or silly to outsiders, like Kashrut or Halal distinctions, or Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Even the United States Supreme Court has held that for some purposes, strict biological classifications must be set aside and other classifications adhered to. There's nothing per se silly or stupid about this.Spikebrennan 14:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I was not intentionally being insulting and I don't really grasp the need for the sudden change in tone. I deleted the references because they're poor references; a single reference is perfectly sufficient and adding more, dubious ones achieves nothing extra.

'Hoax' is entirely the wrong word. I never proposed it was a hoax; 'hoax' implies malice, something I don't think is present here. I claimed it seemed to be an urban legend to me. I certainly don't suspect Kalm would directly lie; my presumption was that, were he an unreliable source, he would be repeating something he had heard from another source and so on. Additionally, 'an incorporated Zoo and a credible sporting magazine' are just as succeptible to an (apparently common, as people who have never read the article have heard the same thing) urban legend as anyone else. Especially when it involves things outside of their actual ken (would we consider citing theologians on basketball minutiae?).

I tagged it with a dispute because pending the new evidence you mentioned I continue to contest its accuracy. I trust that you do, in fact, have evidence that will prove it accurate; I just want to see that, OK? Presenting information without substantial proof is unacceptable. Please pardon my unwillingness to accept the word of a Lutheran minister known primarily as a naturist, a zoo, or a sporting magazine on a matter of Catholic doctrine.

Frankly, the direct hostility of Wikipedians towards any kind of redaction is a little disturbing. I could come in with a dodgy reference and claim beavers and platypuses can interbreed and I doubt it'd be taken down for the better part of a month - yet I doubt the veracity of a stylistically ungainly addition (it's under its own section and is two sentences laden with half a dozen quotations) and within two days I've been reverted twice and had aspersions cast on my ability to edit Wikipedia because of my level of education.

I apologize if my tone came off as uncivil. I certainly did not intend to insult you or anyone. ACK-47 07:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're being uncivil at all, and I sincerely thank you for opening this discussion in the first place-- it is enhancing the quality of the article. I also appreciate your initiative in deleting the "fluffier" citations, which (as you've shown) tended to detract rather than add to the persuasiveness of the statements in the article.

I think that perhaps the most interesting thing that I've learned through this whole discussion is not that "the Catholic Church thinks that the beaver is a fish", but (see the blog referenced in my comments above, which I believe is written by someone who seems to be somewhat of an armchair Catholic theologian, and who cites his sources) that this is an example of how the Catholic Church is capable of drawing technical distinctions with as much subtlety as Talmudic scholars. St. Thomas Aquinas's passage in Summa Theologica provides a rationale for drawing the meat/nonmeat line with land animals on one side, and non-land animals (such as fish and beavers) on the other side, and it appears from my citation above that the Church continues to adhere to this distinction. Perhaps this discussion could benefit from inviting contributors from Talk:Meat and Talk:Thomas Aquinas.Spikebrennan 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I came across a bit crass; but please check my contribs & you will see I do not fit into the category of the direct hostility of Wikipedians towards any kind of redaction , and you must admit that it's only 'credible' if you're willing to assign astounding stupidity to Catholics makes some not-so-subtle allegations about my scholarship. Please note also that I'm the user who questioned this to begin with. I tend to fly off the handle a bit when people make assumptions and based on a flaw throw the baby out with the bathwater. Your questioning of the issue is fully within your WP rights & indeed duties; if all this accomplished is to put the issue as a cultural anecdote in rather than its own section, this is probably a good thing. Bridesmill 15:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, can someone either come up with a better link that has Rome actually saying, "Beavers aren't really mammals, they are fish," or at least reword the paragraph to indicate that beaver meat is permitted to be eaten because the dividing line between what was permitted and not permitted during Lent was between land and water animals, or whatever the reason was? The way it reads now looks like the story that told about the State legislature that wanted to declare that "pi" was 3.

And no, I don't doubt that beaver is a permitted food, for whatever reason. Seal has been permitted during Lent in Newfoundland at least since my grandfather's day. --SigPig 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better pictures

This article needs a picture of a whole beaver. The first picture has just the face and the other pictures are trees and constructions. Lapinmies 21:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Take a look at the Squirrel article--that's the way to do it. The only beaver pic here is not very good as the representative picture...you can just barely see the face. There sure are a lot of pictures of trees here... -Tenfour 05:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now some more; not the best, but... There are IMHO sufficient pics of dams - we don't really need pictures of dams from every country in the world (which is why I added one of our local lodges, but none of the dozens of local dams, cool as they may be)....An inside lodge view, as well as an underwater shot and one which clearly shows the tail would also be nice (hint, hint)Bridesmill 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A wide selection of public domain beaver photos and drawings are available in The romance of the beaver; being the history of the beaver in the western hemisphere, by A. Radclyffe Dugmore (1914). Illustrated with photographs from life and drawings by the author. The page images can be printed to file (BMP in Windows) and edited for display in any graphic format. Bkobres 15:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pests

There doesn't seem to be alot about them being pests, I think at least a small referance should be made to them knocking trees down on peoples houses and cottages and the method of prevention, a sheet of metal wrapped around the base of the trunk of nearby trees Highlandlord 05:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a line at the end of "Dams" about this, but feel free to add more, especially if you know of any sources to cite. --Allen 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For references all I got are cousins, family friends and seeing it myself, is that a problem? I Noob Highlandlord 06:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Both metal and chickenwire and their peskiness are mentioned in the 'Dams' portions; reasonably fairly IMHO (I am the victim of numerous of the little buggers; some of whom live in the pictured lodge)Bridesmill 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture

On 28 June 2006, I moved the popular culture references in the Introduction to the Popular Culture section and removed the redundancies. 128.193.0.6 restored them to the Introduction. I think this is a bad idea since it gives undue emphasis to such usage in an article that is about an animal. In any case, this information need not appear twice. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Another use of beaver in popular culture is within the phrase "split beaver", referring to the open female genitalia, especially when surrounded by pubic hair.

I corrected the meaning of the Algonquin word "amik" (the name of the Canadian Olympic mascot) to be "beaver" as opposed to "friend". I am not familiar with Algonquin, but the similarity to the Latin word for friend seemed weird, and the first couple sources I checked all said it means "beaver". Hope no one minds. Greatersam 04:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dysphemism

I understand there to be something about it in the disambiguation page, but isn't it at least somewhat noteworthy that this noble creature has developed some kind of weird association with lady-parts in the English language? ACK-47 02:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agriculture

It seems to me that this is a clear example of agriculture by this rodent, creating a habitat to grow what they eat. I have heard of ants farming fungus, but this seems to rank up with using tools. If they build their homes in a way that creates a slow wetland, where the food they eat grows, they aren't just great engineers, but also farmers.

[edit] Conscious Planning?

The article currently states: "It is both the sound of water in motion and the current that stimulates the beavers to build."

This is proposing an unconscious stimulus-reaction mechanism. Is that supportable, versus the beaver noticing there's a leak in the dam and doing something about it?

--- Yes, there have actually been studies that have shown that beavers in dry pens have begun to build dams upon hearing recordings of flowing water, in a dry pen. However as far as the leaks go, thay always leak. It does not seem that the Beavers goal is to prevent total water stoppage, just enough to create their habitat. 67.142.130.45 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)LorrinLR@aol.com

[edit] article from Beaver Control, some information able to be moved into Beaver?

Humans must continually search for effective methods to coexist in the natural environment our world presents. This is a huge concern as our population grows and our reliance on the earth to provide food and habitats for the people of the world to live in increases. There are many cultures of people and types of animals that must survive finding food and shelter. Beavers are just one example of this interaction. Beavers have to create a habitat to live in. This habitat can be found near creeks and streams or other bodies of water. Problems tends to arise when people live near these creeks and rivers where the beavers have worked to create the habitat they need to exist. When the beavers build dams, adjacent yards and fields can be effected by the altered levels of water.

[edit] Why they build the dams

Beavers build dams so they can safley travel in and out of their homes without being vulnerable to prey. These dams cause the water in the creeks and rivers to flood the surrounding area upstream from the beaver's dam. In order to prevent this flooding from happening some people take action into their own hands by killing or trapping the beavers. Others leave the beavers alone and let nature take its course.

I believe that with innovative ideas beavers and humans can coexist without conflict. Many naturalists want to attempt to restore streambeds to a condition that would naturally attract beavers. However, that change could create problems for the stream structure and the surrounding suburban areas. One idea, called a “beaver deceiver,” is described in “The Solutions to Beaver/Human Conflicts”. This method has been used for beaver-proofing parts of Vermont. This is a device that will maintain the level of water so the beaver's needs are met for its home and safety while not flooding the farmer’s crop fields or neighbor's back yards. This method permits the beaver to live in a healthy habitat while allowing crops to grow in adjacent fields.

[edit] What is a Beaver Deceiver

The Beaver Deceiver is made of cedar posts and wire fencing, consisting of 6-inch squares. These devices are intended to prevent the beavers from bringing large logs and sticks to build their dams and thus clog up waterways. Their suggestion is to put drainage pipes, better known as PVC pipes, throughout the middle of the dams so that the water keeps flowing through the dams. In addition to the PVC pipes, a fence or some sort of cover would need to be built so the beavers do not attempt to build around the drainage pipes which would clog the pipe. The one small drawback to this method is that it requires seasonal maintenance to unclog the pipes.

These devices can work for individual situations, but are not as effective on a large scale. Some people believe that the beaver deceiver is only a temporary fix and the adjacent areas will eventually be affected by beavers.

This method has been developed by researchers in an attempt to maintain the existing environment while allowing animals in nature to thrive. Each situation with beavers building dams is different which presents an opportunity for people to find other soultions to problems according to their own circumstances.

[edit] References

“Solutions of Bever/Human Conflicts”, http://www.beaversww.org/solutions.html 12/17/2004

Castor Canadensis Then Waterman and Hill-Traveller’s Companion, a Netural Events Almanac, Why Beavers Build Dams, http://naturealminac.com/archive/beaver_dams/beaver_dams.html (2003). Jim Jung

--Peregrine_^AY 06:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but it seems to me that this content is specific to C. canadensis and may better be discussed on that talk page. The second link has a typo, by the way. It should be http://naturealmanac.com/archive/beaver_dams/beaver_dams.html. It seems to be a book advertisement that may not be suitable for Wikipedia. See WP:SPAM for the guideline. It contains good low-resolution images and uncited content. Currently, it serves as a footnote in the article. It would be helpful to track down the citation to the scientific journal wherein the research that it describes was published. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

In response to Gzkn's addition of the linkfarm tag on December 6, [12] on December 7, I reviewed the external links section and removed it with the edit summary, "Per linkfarm tag, removed section. All links were specific to either C. fiber or C. canadensis. Moved one to C. canadensis article." [13] On December 13, Bkobres restored the external links. [14] In my opinion, my edits were consistent with WP:EL and WP:SPAM, but I'd like to invite the other editors of this article (and American Beaver and European Beaver) to comment. Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Walter. Every worthwhile link is now either present on the American Beaver or European Beaver page. I'm reverting their readdition. --Aranae 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)