[NatureNS] beaver size new gnawledge

References: <48DA75A0.6040703@glinx.com>
From: Steve Shaw <srshaw@dal.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:10:20 -0300
To: David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>,
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects


Hi Dave and others,
No Dave, your note didn't come through on NNS, only the recent one 
direct to me.  One of my earlier 2 posts came through in the wrong 
order, though, and NNS has seemed erratic or slow sometimes, recently, 
as others have noted.

Yes, you caught me with an inexcusable error when I converted 3.75 mm 
to 5/64 inch (thinking that some out there may not like millimeters) 
when it should have read approximately 5/32 inch.  Actually I missed 
this error because I didn't convert it arithmetically but stuck a ruler 
next to two lines I'd drawn, and mis-read 32ths as 64ths on the ruler.  
( No, I'm not the guy who designed the lens in Imperial for the Hubble 
telescope which was then made in metric units, or was it the other way 
round?).   However and in consequence, I'm VERY glad to find that you 
made complimentary (admittedly smaller) error:  3.75 mm is actually IS 
a little bit larger  than 1/8 inch, not smaller -- I make it 1.181 
eighths-of-an-inch if you want to get fancy.

To be serious, your reply is useful because it helps to clarify my 
original short post on this beaver size thing, which may have been 
well-intended but was a really ill-conceived as written, I've realized 
since.   The round alder branches were gnawed at a shallow angle, so 
the en face view of the cut was roughly elliptical, with the long axis 
of the ellipse in line with the branch.  The branch and the long axis 
of the cut would actually have been parallel to the axis of the 
beaver's body as it stood up in the lake to gnaw away.  But the 8 or so 
gnaw marks that I measured as 3.75 mm each, ran ACROSS the ellipse 
(i.e. parallel to the short minor axis of it).  This would have been 
orthogonal to (at right angles to) the beaver's incisors, not parallel 
with them!   It then makes no sense to ask (as I did) how wide the 
teeth are in a beaver of a certain age in relation to these cuts:  the 
marks will not be related to tooth width, but to the depth of each of 
the 8 chisel-cuts it made in lopping off the branch, as you correctly 
point out.   So the question should be reformulated to ask how long or 
deep is each of the series of chisel-cuts made by a beaver of a certain 
age or size, probably harder to assess accurately.   From Ron 
Arsenault's reply that the teeth on an adult are about 6 mm wide which 
agrees with your specimen, it sounds like you may have an adult beaver 
skull in your possession.  If your estimate of a cut-depth of 3.4 mm 
for such a beast is realistic, "ours" then could have been a pretty 
large beaver.

I also put the local observations round an e-mail list for people who 
live on Chocolate Lake here, and a few replies revealed that a muskrat 
called Charlie lives under a neighbour's dock, eats his irises and 
hostas and has even been seen swimming back home with lake vegetation 
in its mouth.  This has prompted humorous bets which so far rate the 
likely identification of the culprit as muskrats 2, beavers 1 (I'm the 
'1'), but no-one has seen the muskrat eating woody stuff including 
alders, and these are mostly townies whose opinions may not be reliable 
as those of folk who actually know about beavers, to put it mildly.  
The clincher may be a third hand report from a few days ago that a 
workman actually observed a beaver swimming towards the water inlet 
pipe for the lake with a bundle of sticks, and my bet is firmly on a 
beaver.   If correct, we may be about to experience a drop in lake 
level that has little to do with global climate change.
Steve

  *****************************************
On 24-Sep-08, at 2:15 PM, David & Alison Webster wrote:

> Hi Steve.            Sept 23. 2008
>    I sent this yesterday to Naturens but for some reason it didn't get 
> through so will send it offline to supplement your fund of gnawledge, 
> especially beaver gnawledge.
>    Also I notice that I said 3.4 mm apart when I intended to say 3.4 
> mm wide, i.e. ridges 3.4 mm wide (& ~ 4.00 mm apart).
> And that 1/8' was intended to be 1/8"
> Yt, DW
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NatureNS] beaver - size estimation
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:10:41 -0300
> From: David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>
> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> References: <BE20011C928B4CC38A2D1CEBD6F14ABF@bernard> 
> <50035.216.118.137.234.1222010582.squirrel@webmail.seaside.ns.ca> 
> <20080921185446.h82rrgkcqvusococ@my4.dal.ca>
>
> Hi Steve & All,                Sept 22, 2008
>    The incisor teeth of a beaver skull, that I happen to have, are 6 
> mm wide at the cutting edge and are spaced 1.4 mm apart. The teeth 
> have a curved face like a gouge  (1/4" #7 spoon gouge as shown in Lee 
> Valley) and to avoid torn wood, buried teeth, splinters between teeth, 
> shavings that don't curl well, damaged cutting edges etc a wise beaver 
> would never cut to the full depth of the curve (i.e. full width of the 
> cutting edge) and likely would seldom use more than 2/3 of the cutting 
> edge.
>
>    Thus this beaver would likely have left ~parallel ridges of wood at 
> least 3.4 mm apart so this fits your 3.75 mm well.
>
>      BTW 3.75 mm is less than 1/8' and 4 x 8 =32 not 64 :>).
> Yt, DW
>
> Stephen Shaw wrote:
>> Hi again Billy, or anyone else,
>> As an afterthought on a recent reply from me about this, could an 
>> experienced
>> woodsman tell the approximate size of the beast from the spacing of 
>> its gnaw
>> marks?  Somebody must have looked into this in the past.
>>
>> One of the diagonally cut alder stems had 8 fairly parallel gnaw 
>> marks. These
>> were not fully regular (each was not the exact same width), but they 
>> were
>> spaced on average 3.75 millimeters apart (a bit over 1/8 inch, more 
>> like 5/64"
>> if you prefer inches).
>> Would that be a little beaver or a big sucker?
>> Steve, Halifax
>>
>>
>> Quoting bdigout@seaside.ns.ca:
>>
>>>    Earlier, I sent a reply indicating beaver...  If Chocolate Lake 
>>> was in
>>> Cape Breton, then beaver would have been the only choice; since we
>>> have no porcupines.
>>>   Because only muskrat and beaver were mentioned, was there any
>>> indication the culprit came from the water, or was there no visible
>>> sign of directionality?
>>> Billy

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects