by Fraser Shilling, Ph.D.
At 9 a.m. Thursday morning, UCDavis’ building contractor for the West Village project began entombing ground squirrels. Using a tractor-drawn plow, workers began the long grading process that will lead to yet another subdivision of single family homes, apartments, and commercial development. Standing in the way was one of the largest ground squirrel colonies UC Davis has ever had. Stretching over an area about the size of a football field, almost 100 burrow openings provided doorways to the underground homes for the over 100 squirrels who lived there. Driving or biking by Friday afternoon you would be able to see frantic adult and juvenile squirrels trying to find those doorways, possibly to reach those who remained underground out of fear, maybe to get away from the vehicles roaring by.
It didn’t have to be like this. Three years ago, neighborhood activists argued strenuously against UC Davis administration under Vanderhoef to refrain from building on prime farmland, land that incidentally supported many species of wildlife. These UC Davis faculty, school teachers, soccer moms, and others argued that housing could be built on the main campus, near classrooms and downtown, a new satellite school was not needed, empty commercial space was available in the West Davis Shopping Center. Over the many legal and ethical objections raised, many from their own faculty, Mrak Hall and the Board of Regents approved a sprawling plan to cover some of the best soil in the County.
Not just any soil, this is ground that was taken through eminent domain 50 years ago because, as the University argued, they needed prime soils such as these to carry out their progressive agricultural agenda. Now we hear that these still-prime lands are no longer needed for agriculture, but rather for the progressive agenda of building “sustainable” single family homes that would be “energy efficient and carbon neutral”.
UC Davis is one of the best funded and best known agricultural and environmental universities in the country, maybe even the world.
Yet, with all of the knowledge people like your reporter generate here on a daily basis, we still haven’t actually learned anything as an institution. Like any individual scientist or faculty member at UC Davis, I can’t claim to represent the University. But I can claim to represent my fellow environmental scientists and biologists who have repeatedly and for many years suggested alternatives to paving over farmland, plowing under wildlife habitat, and generally building on undeveloped ground.
However, during all these years of constructive criticism against the decisions of Mrak Hall, I don’t think we have ever actually seen the intentional mass-slaughter of wildlife before. This may be the very first time the University has actually buried animals alive in order to follow an agenda of sustainable housing and campus development. The irony of an environmental and agricultural research and education institution doing this may be perfect, but the reality of those animals suffocating underground as I write this is sad beyond belief.
The author is trained as an ecologist and actively engages in research on wildlife, ecosystems, and policy
-
Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.
View all posts
Categories:
Students
Fraser – is there a way the ground squirrels could have been relocated – or scared away from that area- before the ground work started?
What a ghastly thing. I remember RAMCO’s personnel plowing up and killing burrowing owls in the Mace Ranch area in 2000-01 time frame.
If the land was left as farm land wouldn’t the farm tractors also harm the ground squirrels. Also the farmers I know shoot ground squirrels.
They built faculty housing at Stanford and that frightened away the wildlife for awhile. However there was a recovery – I sort of manage a property (a residence) down there and yesterday I saw a deer, an owl near the property and I saw quail, a couple of ground squirrels and a rabbit on the property. If I take a short 30 minute walk around the area I can easily count hundreds of ground squirrels. I suppose some critters were killed during construction, but many relatives are alive and well.
These are ground squirrels, for crying out loud. They are everywhere. They are in the ground north of the bike path, and everywhere on campus. They are on the edges of the field roads. The fields where the housing is going in was regularly disked and plowed, so how is this any different? I saw not a single letter from you when they would disk each year to prep the fields for planting or to control weeds, sometimes several times a year. Yet, when your selective outrage fits your agenda, suddenly the world is ending and the rodents are in danger! And what of the nematodes?! My god, what of the poor nematodes who will dessicate in the sun as the soil is turned over?! How many millions must die at the hands of the University? Where is the outrage?
Enough already! What can we do about this?
You can’t do anything about it…it is already in progress if not completed. The fact that this property was taken by eminent domain for agricultural purposes and then turned into housing constitutes fraud. If there was enough interest in saving the squirrels or private property from the likes of the University…which BTW is nothing more than a ‘corporation for education,’ those pursuing change or mitigation would have to start with the laws that protect actions such as these, and we all know how much time, effort and dollars that takes. Not to mention that decisions by law makers inevitably favor corporations and their agendas, not nature or private citizens.
If you truly want something different, read David Korten’s “Agenda for a new Economy,” for a start.
THESE FOLKS ARE ABOVE THE RULES AND LAWS. THEY HAVE EXCESS FUNDS FROM THEIR INVESTMENTS ETC WITH NO STATE CONTROL. REMEMBER WHEN THE LEGISLATURE DENYED THEM THE FUNDS FOR THE GYM AND THE GOVERNOR TOLD THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST. THEY JUST BUILT IT.
I also want to know if there is any archaeological monitoring required for this project? The general area they are plowing through has a known prehistoric habitation site, and there are probably others that are sub-surface.
I understand the author’s points, but I don’t think they are well taken. As one commenter pointed out, field tractors plowed every year to plant crops, and “buried” ground squirrels beneath the blades. Besides, squirrels are pretty fast, and can usually get out of the way I suspect. They may have to scatter and reunite, but they are survivors.
Not only that, but ground squirrels are a rodent pest on the University grounds. At one point, they were so prolific, the university took to poisoning them, but the outrage was so massive the university stopped for a while. Ground squirrels can be incredibly destructive w their burrowing, not to mention the diseases they carry. They also get pretty brazen in approaching people for food if fed.
No matter where new housing is built, whether on or off campus, some wildlife would be dislocated/harmed. That is part of “progress”. If you are that concerned about the animals, then you should move to India, where they revere living creatures to such an extent that people are starving while cattle roam the countryside.
Mother nature is cruel and meant to be – it is survival of the fittest, and man is at the top of the food chain. We are meat eaters, we kill to survive, we destroy some wildlife to build shelters. Sharks kill to eat, seals kill to eat, even small sea life kills to eat. It is part of the food cycle, as you well know.
When a burrowing animal carves out its den, I’m sure it kills insect life to build its shelter. You’ve got to get a sense of perspective here. Would you have a problem with the damage a farm plow causes to the ground squirrels’ burrow, and say we should stop farming? I guess what I am asking is what is your proposed solution to the “wanton destruction” of wildlife, your world view? Are we all to become vegetarians? Are we not to build anything? Where do we draw the artificial line?
Some people will never be happy. Once West Village is finished I have no doubt that the ground squirrels will repopulate and plague the area like they do the entire main campus. Where I grew up farmers would pay by the head for ‘pest control’ of the jack rabbits, ground squirrels and such. This is nothing.
It is hard to believe that anyone could not feel some compassion for these poor defenseless creatures who have been victimized. It is hard to believe that we are supposed to be “mankind” when our species on a regular basis does so many unkind acts to other species. For instance our species kills for “sport” unlike other species. I agree with the author. This was totally avoidable and a pretty heartless act.
There would be an outpouring of sympathy if any person(s)had their home destroyed suddenly. Imagine the fear and terror that these poor creatures experienced when all of the machinery started plowing into them and their burrows. There seems to be a lot of talk about wildlife but then a heartless action like this happens. Unbelievable.
Is there anyway that we can help the poor animals who have survived the decimation?
Vanderhoef Acres vs. the Varmit Cong in the rodent tunnels of Chu Chi Davis?
Good Lord. Between the squirrels and the damn roof rats, there are more rodents in Davis than people. I’m sure, just like the burrowing owls in North Davis Farms did, they’ll find a place to relocate. What’s next? We can’t build somewhere because there’s a colony of ants underground?
The University should have created a giant dog park for a month or so. The dogs would have cleared the area of all squirrels in short order and the dogs would have gotten great exercise.
From my experience with squirrels, they do not just sit and wait when they detect danger. The tractor moves slow enough for them to quickly scamper away to a safe distance where they will taunt and complain loudly at the inconvenience of it all. I’m sure this happens every plowing season.
…it wouldn’t hurt ‘mankind’ to become vegetarian..they’d probably be healthier for it…and nature and the environment sure as heck would be better off.
As the person with the nematodes comment suggested, the only reason anyone would care about this is because squirrels and rabbits are “cute” and furry. Ants and nematodes are neither cute nor furry, so we don’t care about them. This argument is an appeal to emotion, not to reason.
Moreover, I don’t know where Dr. Shilling lives, but I strongly suspect that farmland was paved over and wildlife killed in order to build his house as well.
Are ground squirrels listed on the endangered species list? Are they even a species of concern?
[quote]I don’t know where Dr. Shilling lives, but I strongly suspect that farmland was paved over and wildlife killed in order to build his house as well.[/quote] The west davis neighborhoods north of West Village — Westwood, Village Homes and Stonegate — were largely an historic Davis area property called Arlington Farm, originally owned and developed by the LaRue family. (The Victorian-style home at the T of Bee Biology Road and Russell Blvd, known as the LaRue-Romani Mansion, was the farmhouse.) The LaRue’s were principally responsible (though they had help from other locals) in planting all of the black walnut trees which line Russell Blvd. The tree planting was done as part of a nationwide highway* beautification project.
That said, I don’t this it is hypocritical (if you live on former farm land, as all of us do) to want to preserve existing farmland or to prevent needless cruelty to animals.
I don’t know enough facts to know if there was a better option with regard to the squirrels. But if there was a way which did not add a great expense to the project and would have prevented inhumane cruelty to those rodents, it does not seem unreasonable to me to want that done.
Speaking of dead squirrels …. For the first time in my life (or the first time I can remember) I saw on Thursday a Swainson’s Hawk (along Road 102) flying with a captured squirrel in its talons. In that I see dozens of those hawks flying around Davis every day, it should be no surprise to know they are feasting on rodents. But I must have been watching the hawks at the wrong times.
*For those new to Davis, the old highway used to enter Davis at the Richards Blvd underpass, go up 1st Street (then called Front Street) to B Street, over to Russell, and out west to Cactus Corners (Rd 98). It then turned south to Dixon by Pedrick Road. For a very short time, that highway was part of the famous Lincoln Hwy.
correction: [i]”I don’t think it is hypocritical …”[/i]
It’s hard for me the ignore the fact that our species is crowding out all other species. We seem to want to live in a monospecies environment, which is not natural, not healthy, and simply not fair. Crows, which are among the most intelligent, amazing creatures on earth, poop, so we must get rid of them. Canadian geese poop too. Off they must go. Ground squirrels make it difficult for us mow our lawns (according to UC Intergrated Pest Management). Heavens!! How dare they!
I hope we change our attitudes regarding both preserving natural habitat, and, when we can’t, making room for as many other species as possible within our own habitat.
[i]That said, I don’t this it is hypocritical (if you live on former farm land, as all of us do) to want to preserve existing farmland or to prevent needless cruelty to animals.[/i]
It is nonsensical to ask students and UC employees to commute from places like Elk Grove for the sake of rodents in Davis. There are rodents everywhere; no matter where people live, they will displace rodents. The melodramatic title of this post is equally crazy. As the photos show and another commenter said, rodents are smart enough to get out of the way of a slow-moving tractor.
The freeways that people have to take to work and study at UC Davis really are a killing field, for both people and rodents. This post is about causing a problem in the name of preventing it.
One commenter went so far as to describe higher education as a corporate agenda. Maybe I’m old fashioned; I think of higher education as a progressive ideal.
And if there’s a species that isn’t smart enough to get out of the way of a slow moving tractor, or to find another place to live, I’d vote in favor of letting that species become extinct and letting something a little brighter take its place
Fraser,
Did you choose the title or did David? Instead of it being a cute play on words I find it demeans the Cambodian genocide of the same name. Certainly you don’t equate the two events in importance.
As you know, whether or not the ground squirrels die in the ground or not, the loss of their habitat means that at least as many will die in the end from being displaced as the consequence of a reduction in the carrying capacity of the ecosystem they live in, so, it is obvious that you are just trying to rub the university’s nose in it one more time.
You do raise a good point about placing this housing closer to the center of campus so its not as if you are not offering alternatives. You have also, in another post, rightfully raised the issue of building housing on the Cannery site as redevelopment so I know that you are not dogmatic about the issue of housing. Still you need to place this project in the broader context of housing development in Davis where people who have significant influence, such as Sue Greenwald, try to block every project of any size by whatever means necessary because of the misguided belief that human ecology is no different than that of other animals despite the importance of our adaptablility and tool making skills. As she argued in a recent post she believes that California has a human population that is over carrying capacity and by preventing housing from being built we are holding the line on populating California. Truly as radical a position as anything Earth First! ever suggested. Never mind the important role edcucation and UC Davis play in society. In her mind, and in the mind of many who share this biologically misguided view, holding the line on housing is the equivalent of keeping the locust from devouring their way of life or of building the Great Wall of China to protect us from the Mongol hoards. Just look at posts by people who think that building housing will increase crime and reduce the quality of education in our schools.
These people have had a great deal of success in stopping housing since the passage of J and a period where the oxymoronic no growth advocates had control of the council. As a result, my guess is that the university figured that no matter what they did it would be vigorouly opposed so there was no point in negotiating anymore than they had to in order to get their project approved. The City was pretty clear they wanted the university to take care of its own housing needs and they did so on land that they owned creating a master planned community. You talk about how the university took the land where West Village is being built for research but you fail to mention the thousands of acres they bought more recently where that same research will be conducted. They are simply shifting the location of the research to provide for the growth of the university and have the ability to bring students and faculty here because the lack of an adequate housing supply from years of opposition to construction has caused the prices of Davis real estate to reach a level that is unreachable for far too many. Rather than take the piecemeal approach you suggest they tried to create something new, and, while not sustainable for other species, it will hopefully be a nice place for the humans who have destroyed the ground squirrels and their habitat to create a more livable human habitat.
Sorry I confused you and a poster about the taking of the land for research.
[i]You do raise a good point about placing this housing closer to the center of campus so its not as if you are not offering alternatives.[/i]
But not really, because there is no room there. The main space left on campus has at least as many squirrels, and it has the domes too.
Greg – there is plenty of room for housing “inside the beltway”. Let’s start with Toomey Fields, the equestrian center, the intramural fields along 5Th St and I could go on and on . . . chancellors build monuments to themselves . . . why do you think Vandergoof had the recent groundbreaking for the West Ghetto prior to his departure . . . it was his swan song!
Right, “real world”, who do the students think they are to expect a track? It has nothing to do with higher education, and neither do horses or intramural fields.
There is a problem though. The equestrian center area has squirrels too. In fact, there are squirrels all over campus.
How about packing more students into the dorms that they already have? After all, that’s what California does with prisons.
Here ([url]http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7438.html[/url]) is an interesting campus web page. Are you a California homeowner who lives near an open field? Be aware that ground squirrels can carry bubonic plague. (I’m not making this up.) Keep your children safe! UC Davis recommends exterminating high populations of ground squirrels with death traps, poison gas, and hemorrhagic bait. Live traps are not recommended because you wouldn’t want their fleas if they’re carrying plague.
Also, don’t scare them away with tractors.
Where’s Thumper?… Has anyone seen Thumper?? WHERE’S THUMPER!!!
I am posting a vote of ‘no confidence’ for Fraser, aka. Dr. Squirrel, Ph. D.
To follow up on Greg Kuperberg’s comment, ground squirrels are so prolific bc there are few predators to cull their numbers. If allowed, ground squirrels will breed like rats, and will overrun the town if allowed. This is true of many species, like rodents, birds, cockroaches. Some towns along with park rangers have had to kill many animals bc their numbers were getting too large for their habitat. Is it crueler to cull the herd, than to let it get so large it starves to death for lack of forage? The entire premise of this article, though well intentioned, is just plain silly, and not based in reality.
[i]Is it crueler to cull the herd, than to let it get so large it starves to death for lack of forage?[/i]
In fact, habitat managers who believe in animal rights have proposed a way out of the dilemma, namely conctraceptive injections or bait for the animals. UC Davis has an experiment underway to test exactly this idea on tree squirrels on the core campus. The problem is that contraception is often a big hassle with mixed results even for large animals like deer. So you wouldn’t expect it to work well for squirrels.
If faced with a risk of bubonic plague, I’m not sure how many people would have the patience to wait for female squirrels to stop having babies.
But then, the whole point of this article is to reject practical thinking as heartless.
Why would anyone attack another person just for actually caring about other creatures? I completely agree with Fraser regarding the killing of the ground squirrels. It may have been unavoidable, but they are living, sentient creatures, just like you and I. They feel joy, love, fear and pain just as we do. I think it is terrible that many of them were probably buried alive and that many others lost their homes.
When Mace Ranch went in next to our home in east Davis, our yard became inundated with ground squirrels, escaping the grading and destruction of their homes. Many of them took up residence in our yard and dug holes everywhere. Eventually, the population became a bit much, but we did not resort to having them destroyed. We bought live traps, and trapped and released them elsewhere. We tried, and were often successful, in trapping an entire family and releasing them together. We trapped and released more than 150 squirrels. The numbers are now in check, and we live in harmony with the few left here. This would probably not have been practical for the University, especially considering they are under the gun to get this cutting edge sprawl-on-productive-farmland development underway, but there are alternatives to whole-scale slaughter.
We managed to escape bubonic plague too!
[quote]We bought live traps, and trapped and released them elsewhere. We tried, and were often successful, in trapping an entire family and releasing them together. We trapped and released more than 150 squirrels. [/quote]I had this same experience, though not anywhere close to 150 squirrels. Trapping them was not too hard — use unsalted peanuts in the shell (works better than anything else). We released ours all in the same place. However, I should note that after I did this, I found out it is illegal to release them ([url]http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7438.html[/url]) without a permit from the California Dept. of Fish & Game: [quote]Live-catch traps are not recommended because they present the problem of how to dispose of the live animals. Because ground squirrels carry diseases and are agricultural pests, the California Fish and Game Code specifies that it is illegal to release them elsewhere without a written permit.[/quote]
C’mon folks. If you live in a house, the same thing happened when IT was built. Yes, it stinks, but to express outrage when your own home is sitting on entombed animals of all kinds, including spiders and snakes, which many of you probably don’t care about, is just plain hypocritical.
By that logic, since we committed genocide against the Indians to gain our lands, it is okay for us to not raise a voice in protest at genocide elsewhere?
“They feel joy, love, fear and pain just as we do. I think it is terrible that many of them were probably buried alive and that many others lost their homes.”
Makes me wonder: how many people posting here are vegetarians?
“We bought live traps, and trapped and released them elsewhere.”
Since I live out in the country, I’m curious as to where that “elsewhere” was.
Of course releasing them elsewhere is only practicle if you found a place that could absorb the increase in population. Otherwise you were just making yourself feel better and perhaps transfering the suffering from some squirrels to others.
Rich:
Yes, we found out later that it is illegal to trap and release them, but when we appealed to the county to do something, they suggested poison, and I just could not do that. They said ground squirrels were too hard to trap, so they did not recommend that. We did find that the squirrels did begin to recognize the traps for what they were, and we would often find the traps tossed or batted off to the side somewhere, sprung, but with no squirrel. It did become harder and harder to trap them as time went on. We finally gave up, but they seem to under control now.
[quote]Since I live out in the country, I’m curious as to where that “elsewhere” was.[/quote]Somewhere outside of Dixon, perhaps?
[i]Why would anyone attack another person just for actually caring about other creatures?[/i]
Because in this case, it’s a cloying argument for a greater injustice. It’s incredibly inconsiderate to demand that students commute from out of town, just for the sake of a few squirrels. It won’t even save squirrels in the long run, because they get killed on the roads.
The line about building on the core campus is nonsense. If there actually were enough room to build on the core campus, then growth opponents would be just as angry with it. After all, the core campus has its own squirrels.
[i]We finally gave up[/i]
Aha.
[i]but they seem to under control now.[/i]
Well, if the land around you is fumigated for squirrels, then your squirrels might disappear too. And the beauty of it is, you don’t even have to know how it happened.
I would say this is a strawman argument:
[quote]It’s incredibly inconsiderate to demand that students commute from out of town, just for the sake of a few squirrels.[/quote]
He suggests there were alternatives to demanding students commute from out of town. While you may disagree with those, it seems to disingenuous to imply that was his argument.
[quote]Three years ago, neighborhood activists argued strenuously against UC Davis administration under Vanderhoef to refrain from building on prime farmland, land that incidentally supported many species of wildlife. These UC Davis faculty, school teachers, soccer moms, and others argued that housing could be built on the main campus, near classrooms and downtown, a new satellite school was not needed, empty commercial space was available in the West Davis Shopping Center. Over the many legal and ethical objections raised, many from their own faculty, Mrak Hall and the Board of Regents approved a sprawling plan to cover some of the best soil in the County.[/quote]
[i]He suggests there were alternatives to demanding students commute from out of town.[/i]
It’s very easy to offer alternatives, if you don’t actually care if they’re any good.
Then shouldn’t that have been your argument, rather than creating a false strawman argument that you tore down?
[i]Then shouldn’t that have been your argument, rather than creating a false strawman argument that you tore down?[/i]
It was my argument, and in any case it comes to the same thing. If you don’t like West Village, then the only reason to like the idea of building on the core campus is that it doesn’t work.
” If you don’t like West Village, then the only reason to like the idea of building on the core campus is that it doesn’t work.”
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here?
[i]I’m not sure what you are trying to say here?[/i]
Let’s say that there actually was space on campus for as much housing as is planned for West Village. Then it wouldn’t make any difference to any arguments against West Village. It would have squirrels, and it would be the same “sprawl”, just in a slightly different location. Those who oppose West Village would hate “Near East” village just as much.
The simple reason that it’s comforting to propose housing on the core campus is that it isn’t practical. It’s like asking your roommate to cook in the garage because you don’t want to share the kitchen. Of course, what you’re really asking him to do is eat out.
Last fall David had a piece on an interesting housing development at Cal Poly. One of the appealing aspects was that it as very dense with a relatively small footprint. I think there are several locations toward the south end of campus that could work for that. I’m not necessarily opposed to West Village, I think that’s a separate issue for the care the care that could have been taken to protect wildlife, even wildlife that isn’t sexy. And squirrels and rabbits may not be nematodes but they aren’t burrowing owls either.
[i]One of the appealing aspects was that it as very dense with a relatively small footprint.[/i]
More power to Cal Poly for building “Poly Canyon Village”. It isn’t all that different in density or footprint from the student housing part of West Village. In that post, David said off the cuff that Poly Canyon is one-tenth of the size of West Village. But that is sloppy accounting. The West Village site map includes parks, employee housing, and buffer space, not just student dorms and dorm plazas.
Maybe what really steams people is that West Village will provide ordinary houses for employees of the same type that current residents of Davis enjoy. It will be higher density than the houses north of Russell, but not that much higher density.
[i]I think that’s a separate issue for the care the care that could have been taken to protect wildlife[/i]
This cloying passion for the squirrels would not have been on people’s minds if not for other resistance to West Village. By itself, it makes no sense. Fraser called it the “best soil in the county”, but you can’t have modern crops and ground squirrels on the same land. What farmers do is poison ground squirrels with hemorrhagic bait.
Of course San Luis Obispo has the least affordable housing in the state so by using what they are doing as a template we are using a flawed model.
You have the causation reversed–Cal Poly was attempting to deal with the same problem as we are–insufficient student housing in a city with strong growth control measures in place and came up with an innovative means to do so. Isn’t that exactly what UC Davis should be looking at? One of my problems with WV is that it doesn’t have nearly enough student housing.
[i]Isn’t that exactly what UC Davis should be looking at? One of my problems with WV is that it doesn’t have nearly enough student housing.[/i]
It also doesn’t have enough employee housing. So hey, if you want the university to build another West-West Village after this one, that’s fine by me.
Greg, your responses have been perfect. Fraser’s manufactured outrage needed to be called out, and you’ve done the best job of anyone here to point out the weakness of his argument.
You folks are killing me (not in a literal bury me alive sense).
Do any of you have exterminators come to your house? That is the killing of living creatures. Probably hundreds of them.
We have non-profits in Yolo County that actually use glue traps to prevent rodents from eating the food. I assume this is bad too.
Ever hit a bunch of butterflies while driving? Guess we should stop all vehicle traffic during this time of year too.
The horror……I am going to go upstairs and eat some Yolo County Beef Jerkey. You can order your own at http://www.yololandandcattle.com/
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
Don’t worry Matt I don’t think there is a ground swell for ground squirrels.
Matt- I’ve lived in rentals here in Davis for quite some time. Dealt with roaches, mice, rats, ants, termites. You name it. Exterminators are a waste of money. The key is prevention, don’t give them a place to live, and natural predators. In fact, the houses I’ve lived in with the most concrete around them have the most roaches, as opposed to the houses with more dirt. My theory is less natural predators.
As far as glue traps, I actually think they are inhumane. As opposed to something like snap traps. Also- from a more utilitarian perspective, glue traps can increase risk of Hantavirus since the animal defecates before dying. Nice.
As far as butterflies, we all know the car is a fairly violent means of transport- just look at all the roadkill, drunk driving, etc. That problem is a lot more difficult to solve, obviously.
I realize you were trying to make a point about how ridiculous it is to care about killing of animals since we do it so much, but your examples aren’t that convincing.
Except for the beef jerkey / local food source example. That one is more interesting since there are more issues at play. If I choose not to eat beef, for instance, am I putting the cattle ranchers livelihood at stake? Am I therefore making the land more available for paving over? Or perhaps even considering the implications of my food decisions has already put me in the category of bleeding heart liberal? Who knows….
“By that logic, since we committed genocide against the Indians to gain our lands, it is okay for us to not raise a voice in protest at genocide elsewhere?”
If you participated in genocide against the Indians, you should be in jail or hung.
And you seem to be admitting it above.
Please turn yourself in.
The author claims there are over 100 squirrels that lived within a particular parcel that measures about one acre.
Was that an actual ground squirrel research site? When was this data collected? Who counted them? Were all the burrows occupied? How many were abandoned? Pertaining to the captions, what is the ratio of juveniles to adults? How many were newborns? Were the animals sexed? What might be the survival rate of each subgroup upon the encroachment of a tractor plow? What is the historic loss of these animals due to agricultural cultivation of that parcel? How fast do ground squirrels run? How fast did the tractor travel? What is the likelihood that squirrels will dig themselves out after burrows are destroyed? How many burrow systems connect to locations outside the parcel? How many squirrels were away from their home burrow at the time of the plowing? What is the approximate number of squirrels that were actually “buried alive” or “entombed” as the caption states?
Considering all the above, what is the actual death toll of this “ironic” and “intentional” act of mass-slaughter? Judging by the photos, I would guess a couple of the squirrels survived. Hopefully the two survivors are male and female so that reproduction might occur… this, of course, is dependent on them meeting and that they are both still fertile after having the bejesus scared out of them. There is always the possibility that they are opposite genders, but one or both are homosexual. If that’s the case, perhaps the heterosexual individual might meet a fertile partner from a different population. This might not be the most desirable outcome however, since the two with the innate sense to escape a plow might procreate super-squirrels that will have the flight trait to avoid future plowings. So really… the plowing might be beneficial for the ground squirrel in the long run.
I can’t wait for the next installment about the mass-slaughter of snakes, gophers, mice, toads, rats, beetles, worms, butterflies, grasshoppers, and ladybugs that are sliced alive by the evil talons of the tomato harvester. At least those animals don’t die in vain since we can consume them as part of our favorite ketchups and soups. And since agricultural land is not paved over after a tomato harvest, I suppose it’s okay to repeat the mass-killing next year.
Fascinating exchange, unfortunately I was away from my electronic ball and chain and missed it. Hopefully the number of words here is a reasonable indication of the number of thoughts held. Some short answers:
1) Yes, a crude census was conducted over 2 years of colony development, which I watched closely.
2) Regularly plowed fields are not homes to GS colonies (except at the margins), these UCD fallow fields were.
3) A well-known regional architect and I used a combination of urban design principles and GIS to demonstrate the feasibility of locating all of the “needed” student and staff/new faculty housing on the main campus. This approach was rejected without significant comment and is obviously more difficult than just using farmland to build. The inevitable consequence of continuing to locate new housing on farmland or more natural lands should be fairly obvious.
4) Yes, my house is probably on entombed vertebrate and invertebrate fauna, however, one point of cultural and organismal evolution is that we presumably grow smarter and better adapted, not remain stupid and mal-adapted.
5) One observation — the gender divide here between the animal lovers and “don’t care so much” crowd, wow.
6) Hopefully finally, I chose “Killing Fields” because of the historic reference to a Hollywood film about genocide, not to the genocide itself. However, I do think we humans and maybe especialy Americans, commit “biocide” against our fellow animals (and plants, etc.) without much thought. I think this is wrong because of my moral system and suspect that it will ultimately reduce our fitness as a species.
[i]Regularly plowed fields are not homes to GS colonies[/i]
I assume that you are aware that farmers poison the squirrels with bait that makes them bleed to death after five days.
[i]A well-known regional architect and I[/i]
Who, by an amazing coincidence, both live in Village Homes.
Village Homes has 245 housing units on 70 acres. West Village will have 1500 units on 220 acres. If the goal is high-density housing, then 90% higher density than in Village Homes ought to be good enough.
It is … interesting … when residents of Village Homes ask the university to first tear down Orchard Park and Solano Park in order to build anything new. I live in West Davis too, but I’m not that type of progressive.
“It will ultimately reduce our fitness as a species.”
Really, our species seems quite fit with a rapidly growing population but your point is still well taken. We are at risk of planting the seeds of our own demise. But ground squirrels are not at risk for extinction, nor do they seem to be a key species in the ecosystem, with their loss the native natural habitat is hardly impacted. In fact we are talking about building houses for people, human habitat, not monoculture agriculture, nor nuclear or coal power plants, not destroying fairy shrimp bearing vernal pools, not old growth forest with its dependent species, not putting pressure on delta smelt or salmon. There are so many other places that that have a more compelling story that need protection. Housing for people in Davis is hardly the place we should be drawing the line.
“Judging by the photos, I would guess a couple of the squirrels survived. Hopefully the two survivors are male and female so that reproduction might occur… this, of course, is dependent on them meeting and that they are both still fertile after having the bejesus scared out of them. There is always the possibility that they are opposite genders, but one or both are homosexual. If that’s the case, perhaps the heterosexual individual might meet a fertile partner from a different population. This might not be the most desirable outcome however, since the two with the innate sense to escape a plow might procreate super-squirrels that will have the flight trait to avoid future plowings. So really… the plowing might be beneficial for the ground squirrel in the long run.”
Are you suggesting natural selection the way Darwin described it?
I stand corrected on the density calculation that I gave. Actually, phase 1 of West Village will have 1400 units equivalent on 130 acres. This is three times as dense as Village Homes.
The Zanetto-Shilling proposal was to have 1135 to 1535 residential units plus 4350-5800 student beds on 62 acres. (Attachment 2, Proposed Housing Summary.) If this is the right way to plan growth, why not replace Village Homes with it?
“If this is the right way to plan growth, why not replace Village Homes with it?”
If you had said Wildhorse or Mace Race, you might have had a deal. Village Homes at this point is not dense enough but that deficiency is overcome by the other things that make it attractive. Wildhorse and Mace Ranch could have just as easily have been plopped down in Elk Grove or Natomas.
Vincente, I’m left wondering whether you live in Village Homes, which would one obvious thing to make it attractive to you.
In any case the people who now live in Wildhorse and Mace Ranch are presumably against having it torn up and replaced with 140 people per acre.
But not all is lost. We could still have 40% of the Zanetto-Shilling plan on Wildhorse Ranch, which has 40% of the area that they marked on the core campus. 530 family units plus 2000 student beds on Wildhorse Ranch. Or if you wanted to make it all family units, you could make a condominium complex with 1200 homes. How is that for a plan?
Greg does raise a good point on the density issue, that those who support densification support it for others but not for themselves. What is good for the goose is not, it seems, good for the gander.
Greg: I like Village Homes, I’m a fan of Village Homes, but I don’t live in Village Homes. I don’t like most of the newer subdivisions in town, I think they were hastily built, poorly designed, and for the most part could have been put anywhere in California.
Fortuna: I have no problem moving to a higher density housing, in fact, I have lived in very high density housing in the past and live in moderate density now.
Vicente you are an exceptional intellect and lead by example. Most no growth advocates in Davis do not.
Hilarious…this guy should be interviewed on the Daily Show too just like that one former mayor of ours so he can see just how silly this is!
Fraser’s latest screed is ripe with hyperbole and delicious scrote-wankery. He is what you would refer to as a Wannabe Professorbag, who’s righteous indignation is only surpassed by his proclivity to pontificate.
Well done, Professorbag! Well done! May your shining silver locks provide a beacon of hope to those who seek to follow your wisdom!