If gopher burrows had windows, this burrow would have hillside views. If gophers had better eyesight, the one who lives here could enjoy the views from such windows. Of course, views are not a concern for any gopher. They just want to burrow through the soil to eat the many roots they encounter. They do not often emerge from their homes for more than the ejection of soil.
If it happens in gardens and landscapes, the consumption of roots by gophers is a serious problem. It can kill substantial plants faster than associated symptoms become apparent. Agaves and yuccas that are safe from grazing animals that might want to eat them from above have no protection from gopher who attack from below. Small perennials and annuals get taken whole.
Excavation such as that in these two pictures is a major problem too. When I see soil accumulating here, I wonder where it came from. Should I expect a sink hole to appear somewhere else? Soil displacement can enhance and promote erosion, and displace pavers. Holes and volcanoes (mounds) are tripping hazards in lawns, especially if the holes do not appear until stepped on.
The damage seen here is not yet as serious as it looks. The only roots for gophers to eat here are those of black locusts that I must eradicate anyway. Gophers will not bother the bay trees or redwood trees; and if they do somehow bother the bay trees, I would not mind. However, I don’t want gophers to eventually find and kill any of the lauristinus that I just installed nearby.
It all would be so much easier and mutually beneficial if inconsiderate gophers could be trained to be neater and discrete with their otherwise sloppy excavation, and to eat only weeds and other unwanted plants.
Tony Tomeo 
It’s a pity you can’t put a menu up for the gophers and make it clear that the lauristinus is off the menu – is that what American’s call being 86ed?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It might be what some Americans call being 86ed. I had to turn to the venerable Wiki to find out what it meant! Now, I think it would fit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Although I do not use the term, it is appropriate for gophers. Ironically, the term originally referred to people promptly leaving a situation that they should not be in. (Specifically, it originally referred to patrons fleeing the arrival of law enforcement at Chumley’s, a speakeasy during prohibition, at 86 Bedford Street in Greenwich Village.) Now, it refers to banning someone from a particular establishment for bad behavior, such as a chronically troublesome inebriant from a bar, or a gopher from a garden.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a great historical detail, re: Chumley’s. Thanks for adding it! I hope you never have to use the term in re: a troublesome, inebriated gopher!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, we have other terminology for that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It would be no more effective for gophers than it was for deer (who never read the list of species that deer do not eat). Gophers do not get 86ed.
LikeLike
I loved your term, “inconsiderate gophers”. That’s a nice way of putting it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We work with them so intimately that we tend to get acquainted with them, and get to know them by name; like Halston and Halston Junior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are creators of big headaches
LikeLiked by 1 person
and old fashioned fur coats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yuck
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that the gophers should have little round doors like hobbits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think gophers should relocate.
LikeLike