Word(s) you might want to know:
Ecosystem Engineer: A species that influences its community by creating, modifying, or maintaining physical habitat for itself and other species
Keystone Species: A strong interactor that has an effect on energy flow and community structure that is disproportionate to its abundance or biomass (community as in biotic community, meaning the living part of the ecosystem)
Biomass: The mass of living organisms, usually expressed per unit of area
Biodiversity: The diversity of important ecological entities that span multiple spatial scales, from genes to species to communities
definitions provided by Ecology (2nd ed.) by Cain et.al. (2011) (<-- e.g. my ecology textbook =w=") too lazy to cite properly...
This is one question posed as of late from Nicole Elton, conservative senator. Referring to the beaver as a "dentally defective rat", she proposes that the time has come for the beaver to step aside or at least, share the honor of Canada's emblem with the polar bear, whom she hails as strong, majestic and brave. From the National Post (for link, see below):
“A country’s symbols are not constant and can change over time as long as they reflect the ethos of the people and the spirit of the nation”.
On that one, I do agree with Ms. Elton. And the beaver is very suitable for reflecting our ethos and spirit!
Before I continue with the argument, a mini background on the ecology of the beaver.
The Ecology of the Beaver
In the ecological terms, the beaver is known as an ecosystem engineer (definition above) for their damming behavior. As we all know very well, the beaver fells trees to build their dams, in which they use for their defense. However, not everyone will know of the secondary effects of this: flooding. In a human context, this obviously isn't good news, however, for the vegetation and animals that depend on marshes and wetlands for survival, this is great news. The pictures below are examples of such beaver ponds.
By increasing the number of species that can survive in the area, biodiversity of that area increases, and thus, the area has grown richer in the number of species too. A greater biodiversity is typically an indication of a healthy ecosystem. Due to the beaver's great effects on the ecosystem despite relatively small biomass, the beaver is also a keystone species.
What happens when the beaver is removed?
We can see this in Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962). During the late 1950's, insecticides and pesticides were applied to an area rich with sage, willows, beavers, moose, trout etc... The plan was to remove the sage. Unfortunately, the willow trees came within the line of fire, and were destroyed. The beaver and moose, which had depended on them, were also destroyed. With the beaver removed, the wetlands were gone, and so the trout that depended on them, the waterfowl that were attracted to the area, also disappeared. "The living world was shattered" (Carson, 1962, p. 68).
So Your Point?
You, dear reader, must be dying to know this. Okay, great, beavers are great, nice story, I get it. So what's your point?
Please see 2 pixels below =].
Why Beavers best represent Canadians
Canadians themselves couldn't deny this basic fact: in terms of land mass, we're huge, in terms of worldly population, we're close to insignificant. Mexico's capital alone practically outnumber's us.
It's no wonder that on the worldly stage, we can sometimes be overpowered by other stronger voices. On the news, I saw a woman, when interviewed about the polar bear and beaver debate, say, "well people sometimes see Canadians as wimpy... so... go polar bear!" And indeed, my parents are sometimes exasperated that Canada is so "behind" and "non-driven". How it lags behind many on the worldly stage in terms of economics, military power, success on the world market (my parents are from Hong Kong).
But I argue no.
Is success determined by power? Is success determined by our ability to overpower our enemies, turn the world upside down with the flick of a finger? Is success represented by the eagle or lion, that kills to survive? Or are there other types of success?
Should we model ourselves after animals that kill for survival (such as the polar bear), or should we model ourselves after the beaver, whose actions facilitate the survival of many species that depend on the wetlands and contribute to biodiversity, and therefore, overall health of the ecosystem? My very biased paragraph here tells you my thoughts =).
These are the Canadians I'd like to see and am already observing.
We Canadians may not be center of the world stage, we may not be very strong, we may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer either. But it doesn't matter, for our actions are not aimed at gripping the power to the world, but at seeing that the world is a better place to live. We are the peacemakers, when the world needs a hand, we will give it.
We shall be like the beaver: silently, he goes about his business, benefiting those around him, lending a helping hand. He might not get a lot of credit for it, he might still be laughed at for being a "dentally defective rat", wimpy... but our satisfaction stems not from gaining acceptance, but by doing what we know to be right and witnessing our own work toward a positive future, credit or no credit.
These are the ethos and spirit of Canada.
And of course, I couldn't help but add this one...
 |
| The Polar bear fail..."YaaaaaaAAAAHHHHhhhhhhhh!" |
Here's the News article...
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/28/polar-bear-should-replace-beaver-as-canadian-national-emblem-senator-nicole-eaton/
Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. New York. Mariner Books
And I'm a little too lazy to cite my Ecology textbook but hey it's just a blog post right =P
I really like your point on success and how it is not reliant on the act we put on for the world but rather the satisfaction in the job we do for it. Humility is certainly key in this issue. The Beaver certainly is a great animal and no one can deny that.
ReplyDeleteBut I wonder if by changing our national animal can we change the way we as a society see ourselves as well. I mean does the fact that large and (so called) strong nations have carnivores as their symbol support thier views to have a stronger patriotic reflection on themselves. And in turn, does that make them the strong nations they are today. If so, if this is the reason as to why strong nations are strong then for the benefit of Canada, would we not want that as well? I mean if we had the opportunity to be just as powerful just by the change of a national symbol would it be ethical for the well being of the nation to remain the way we are?
This is an amazing article I must say, good job :) Go beaver!
ReplyDeletebomcakes
ReplyDeleteOmgg you need a TL;DR. sooooo many words omgg. How do you even have time for this?!
ReplyDelete@ Sakoralee: Hm that's an interesting point! =] This is a bit wishful naive thinking on my part, but wouldn't it be nice if our patriotism/pride can be reflected from the helpful beaver? A powerful animal is nice too of course, but personally I'd prefer not to have an aggressive vicious animal as our emblem lol ^^;
ReplyDelete@Joanne: thanks Sis =)
@"Vivian": Steven, stop using my name for your spamming ><"
@Brandon: LOL xD Did you notice that I only make one post once every couple months now during the school year vs. 6 in a month in July? =P