On Wed, 8 Nov 1995 JLRosso at aol.com wrote:
> work. I can=92t believe that the tunnels had any chance of working. I wou=
ld
> certainly like to hear from anybody who would know if there is any preced=
ent
> for Pocket Gophers using tunnels! The farmer spends 6000.00 of his own
> money, the damn republicans get great publicity and I would bet it would =
be
> hard to find too many people who would say that the gophers would use
> tunnels. I saw the tunnels and they look pretty absurd. I don=92t think w=
e can
> afford lose-lose situations. You say it was worth a try. But it cost the
> farmer $6000. I don=92t consider that worth a try. Its hard enough being=
a
> farmer without building stuff at his expense that isn=92t going to work.=
=20
> I just don't see building tunnels as qualifying as "maintaining habitat".=
=20


Jim - RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT! How is constructing artificial burrows any part=
=20
of maintaining pocket gopher habitat? Real habitat=20
protection/conservation/maintenance is so much more easily done at=20
landscape levels. This high-maintenance, intensive management of days=20
gone by (should be of days gone by anyway) is preposterously expensive=20
when compared to the preventitive measure of managing landscapes. If the=
=20
farmer had just left some land available to pocket gophers, and farmed=20
some other, the pocket gophers would do fine. Digging their own tunnels,=
=20
eating seeds, etc. And BTW, isn't burrowing a principal part of pocket=20
gopher foraging strategy? Why on earth would they utilize artificial=20
burrows then? They know what they're doing, or they would have been=20
extinct millenia ago. It just seems like some people make conservation=20
solutions so complicated (such as constructing artificial burrows), when=20
the real solution seems so obvious (and somewhat simpler).

-------------
Michael R. Smith
Univ. of Washington, Seattle
whimbrel at u.washington.edu
http://salmo.cqs.washington.edu/~wagap/mike.html