﻿BEAVER 
  CANAL 
  — 
  BERRY. 
  307 
  

  

  grown 
  to 
  rushes 
  and 
  weeds. 
  No 
  evidence 
  whatever 
  of 
  renewal 
  of 
  

   beaver 
  activity 
  anywhere 
  along 
  the 
  canal 
  was 
  detected 
  either 
  that 
  

   summer 
  or 
  the 
  next. 
  In 
  fact 
  by 
  August 
  of 
  1920 
  the 
  unoccupied 
  canal, 
  

   still 
  nearly 
  dry, 
  had 
  been 
  washed 
  in 
  at 
  the 
  sides 
  all 
  along 
  the 
  line, 
  

   and 
  the 
  lower 
  canal 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  even 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  former 
  pond 
  were 
  

   almost 
  completely 
  smothered 
  in 
  the 
  rank 
  growth 
  of 
  rushes, 
  sedges, 
  

   arrow 
  weed, 
  marsh 
  grass, 
  and 
  similar 
  plants 
  which 
  had 
  overgrown 
  

   them. 
  

  

  Meanwhile 
  there 
  was 
  put 
  into 
  effect 
  on 
  the 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  ranch 
  

   management 
  a 
  more 
  enlightened 
  and 
  forward-looking 
  policy 
  respect- 
  

   ing 
  the 
  care 
  of 
  such 
  wild 
  creatures 
  as 
  still 
  remained 
  within 
  the 
  

   bounds 
  of 
  its 
  jurisdiction. 
  Hopeful 
  that 
  the 
  beaver 
  in 
  particular 
  

   would 
  eventually 
  respond 
  to 
  the 
  more 
  sympathetic 
  treatment, 
  I 
  

   nevertheless 
  was 
  completely 
  taken 
  by 
  surprise, 
  upon 
  revisiting 
  the 
  

   old 
  canal 
  in 
  August, 
  1921, 
  to 
  find 
  there 
  already 
  indubitable 
  evidence 
  

   of 
  their 
  resumption 
  of 
  domain. 
  The 
  pond 
  had 
  not 
  been 
  again 
  flooded, 
  

   nor 
  did 
  I 
  notice 
  any 
  fresh 
  beaver 
  work 
  near 
  the 
  road 
  crossing 
  or 
  

   in 
  visited 
  portions 
  of 
  the 
  intermediate 
  area, 
  but 
  the 
  lower 
  segment 
  

   of 
  the 
  canal 
  showed 
  a 
  narrow 
  median 
  strip 
  which 
  had 
  been 
  dredged 
  

   clear 
  of 
  weeds 
  and 
  basined 
  out, 
  and 
  had 
  evidently 
  lately 
  carried 
  a 
  

   flow 
  of 
  water, 
  although 
  for 
  the 
  time 
  being 
  it 
  contained 
  none 
  (pi. 
  5, 
  

   fig. 
  2) 
  . 
  The 
  extreme 
  lower 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  canal 
  adjacent 
  to 
  the 
  river 
  still 
  

   retained 
  approximately 
  its 
  original 
  dimensions 
  with 
  the 
  weeds 
  only 
  

   slightly 
  encroaching 
  at 
  the 
  sides. 
  The 
  mud 
  bar 
  still 
  persisted, 
  but 
  

   strangely 
  enough 
  it 
  had 
  been 
  cut 
  through 
  once 
  more 
  and 
  the 
  original 
  

   opening 
  of 
  the 
  canal 
  approximately 
  restored 
  (pi. 
  5, 
  fig. 
  1). 
  But 
  the 
  

   halcyon 
  days 
  of 
  the 
  leveed 
  portion 
  were 
  no 
  more. 
  The 
  old 
  high 
  

   banks 
  were 
  merged 
  in 
  the 
  surface 
  of 
  the 
  swale, 
  and 
  the 
  newly 
  exca- 
  

   vated 
  tract 
  in 
  the 
  middle 
  had 
  a 
  bottom 
  width 
  of 
  but 
  10 
  to 
  15 
  inches, 
  a 
  

   high 
  water 
  diameter 
  of 
  but 
  15 
  to 
  30 
  inches, 
  and 
  a 
  maximum 
  depth 
  of 
  

   not 
  exceeding 
  4 
  to 
  5 
  inches. 
  Even 
  worse, 
  across 
  the 
  canal, 
  about 
  30 
  

   feet 
  above 
  the 
  mud 
  bar, 
  had 
  been 
  thrown 
  a 
  massive 
  dam 
  of 
  well- 
  

   packed 
  mud 
  and 
  sticks, 
  so 
  inordinately 
  high 
  in 
  relation 
  to 
  the 
  usual 
  

   water 
  line 
  of 
  the 
  old 
  canal 
  as 
  to 
  suggest 
  very 
  forcibly 
  that 
  it 
  could 
  be 
  

   intended 
  not 
  so 
  much 
  to 
  keep 
  the 
  canal 
  from 
  draining 
  out, 
  as 
  to 
  keep 
  

   the 
  flood 
  of 
  the 
  river 
  (at 
  high 
  water) 
  from 
  pouring 
  in. 
  Just 
  a 
  

   little 
  down 
  river 
  the 
  steep 
  bank 
  on 
  the 
  same 
  side 
  of 
  the 
  canal 
  showed 
  

   several 
  holes 
  and 
  fresh 
  slides. 
  It 
  was 
  greatly 
  hoped 
  that 
  the 
  con- 
  

   struction 
  of 
  the 
  dam 
  did 
  not 
  signify 
  a 
  final 
  desertion 
  of 
  the 
  canal, 
  

   but 
  that 
  the 
  activity 
  of 
  this 
  colony 
  of 
  beavers 
  would 
  soon 
  be 
  pushed 
  

   to 
  the 
  accomplishment 
  of 
  perhaps 
  yet 
  more 
  interesting 
  results. 
  In 
  

   this 
  I 
  was 
  disappointed, 
  however, 
  for 
  upon 
  a 
  visit 
  to 
  the 
  canal 
  in 
  

   September, 
  1922, 
  we 
  found 
  its 
  desertion 
  apparently 
  complete; 
  this 
  

   in 
  spite 
  of 
  abundant 
  beaver 
  signs 
  in 
  the 
  neighboring 
  stretches 
  of 
  

   river. 
  

  

  