We haven't done one of those weird threads where you post pictures of yourself in awhile...

[Nicothodes]

Speaking of adorable things...

[Karoka]

Originally Posted By: Pseudorandomizer

Related: How do people here feel about wolf hunting? IMHO, as long as they aren't interfering with us they're okay, but as soon as they interfere with people's livelihoods...

I agree on using fences and technology to keep them away. Because if you interfere with nature like this, the same thing will happen that's happened in pretty much every other scenario. Everything will lose balance and thus even bigger problems as Dantius stated. Just leave them alone, they are just trying to survive like you are. I'm not saying you can't hunt, just that getting rid of most of a species in an area because they bother you will bring horrible consequences.

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Fun fact: I once knew a guy who hunted deer with knives. He only ever got one or two, but I'd image that doing so would be pretty much th best feeling in the world.

My cousin would keep his archery good by going out and shoot what it possible to be our dinner usually in a single shot. Of course, he only hunted one (maybe two if we have lots of guests or something).

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La

Originally Posted By: Pseudorandomizer

Related: How do people here feel about wolf hunting? IMHO, as long as they aren't interfering with us they're okay, but as soon as they interfere with people's livelihoods...

invest in stronger, higher fences and leave wildlife alone.

Yes, because building a massive wall around miles of cattle grazing land is economically viable.

[Karoka]

Originally Posted By: Pseudorandomizer

Yes, because building a massive wall around miles of cattle grazing land is economically viable.

Electric fences work too.

[Doctor Albert Halfmann]

Originally Posted By: Pseudorandomizer

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La

Originally Posted By: Pseudorandomizer

Related: How do people here feel about wolf hunting? IMHO, as long as they aren't interfering with us they're okay, but as soon as they interfere with people's livelihoods...

invest in stronger, higher fences and leave wildlife alone.

Yes, because building a massive wall around miles of cattle grazing land is economically viable.

Well, then, the government could help 'em out with it. Our government is already throwing loads of farmer's compensation dough at farmers as it is.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La

Well, then, the government could help 'em out with it. Our government is already throwing loads of farmer's compensation dough at farmers as it is.

Maybe we can shift some of the money away from ethanol and to this strange technology that you suggest. Electrical fences? How... revolutionary.

In all honesty, though, I live in a state where the wolf-hunting concern is a pretty big deal between the ranchers (and to a lesser extent, the hunters) and the federal government. Personally, I believe that, since wolves are a species teetering on the edge, we need to cool it with the systematic hunting for a little while. They are not the threat that many pop-cultural narratives have construed them to be.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Sylae

IMHO, as long as they aren't interfering with us they're okay, but as soon as they interfere with people's livelihoods...

My impression is that wolves don't have much of an economic impact on ranchers. Admittedly, that's not consolation when it's your cattle or dogs (wolves kill dogs too) that get killed. Compensation for dead cattle and culling of wolf packs that prove themselves cattle-killers makes sense. In the longer run, it probably makes sense to buy out the places where troublesome packs show up a lot.

I don't have a real problem with wolf hunting. It doesn't make a great deal of sense to me, since I primarily view hunting as a way of getting meat and wolves aren't a very efficient source of it. But if the pressure of hunting is low enough, it won't harm the wolf population at all; I think the pup survival rate goes up if adult wolves get removed, so it all balances out in the end. And it'll provide some money to the economy and create a constituency that cares about the continued existence of wolves, so that's a good thing. On the other hand, wolf-related also provides those benefits, so I'm sure the wolves would advocate for wolf-watching instead. In the long run, I suspect tourism will be more important economically than hunting. (And given the way things are looking, more important than ranching too.)

Dikiyoba's answer: it all depends.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La

Dikiyoba, I admit that the hyenas in that photo are kinda cute. But most every non-marsupial young mammal is adorable, and it is significant that the adult has its mouth closed. In photos where their mouths are open, hyenas invariably look quite feral and unappealing.

How is a hyena with its mouth open any worse than a lion or wild dog with its mouth open? All three have similarly shaped mouths and big teeth.

Originally Posted By: Arancaytar

Wolves? Cutest apex predator* there is.

Well, up until the point they get mange, anyway.

Dikiyoba.

[Doctor Albert Halfmann]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La

Dikiyoba, I admit that the hyenas in that photo are kinda cute. But most every non-marsupial young mammal is adorable, and it is significant that the adult has its mouth closed. In photos where their mouths are open, hyenas invariably look quite feral and unappealing.

How is a hyena with its mouth open any worse than a lion or wild dog with its mouth open? All three have similarly shaped mouths and big teeth.

Originally Posted By: Arancaytar

Wolves? Cutest apex predator* there is.

Well, up until the point they get mange, anyway.

Dikiyoba.

I don't feel that lions, wild dogs, or hyenas are at all identical in facial morphology, and they're certainly not very closely related to one another evolutionarily. Lions have such fine features that even when growling and grimacing their beauty is obvious. Wolves can make some ugly faces, but for the most part they're quite good-looking as well. Hyenas are, at best, just ordinary-looking.

Though I do like wolves, I feel that tigers and male lions are far more aesthetically appealing. As a weasel guy, though, I'm partial to wolverines.

EDIT: Ah, my mistake, you mentioned wild dogs, not wolves. I don't find wild dogs all that appealing, but they do tend to look a bit less grotesque than hyenas when growling.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La

I don't feel that lions, wild dogs, or hyenas are at all identical in facial morphology, and they're certainly not very closely related to one another evolutionarily.

I guess it all depends on how finely one looks at it. I see that all three skulls are designed to kill and eat the same sort of prey and all belong to the same order. In comparison to an elephant or a crocodile, they do have similar skulls and are closely related to each other.

But Dikiyoba saw some absolutely adorable leeches last week, so Dikiyoba's opinion probably shouldn't count for much. (At least they weren't the bloodsucking kind.)

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La

I don't feel that lions, wild dogs, or hyenas are at all identical in facial morphology, and they're certainly not very closely related to one another evolutionarily.

I guess it all depends on how finely one looks at it. I see that all three skulls are designed to kill and eat the same sort of prey and all belong to the same order. In comparison to an elephant or a crocodile, they do have similar skulls and are closely related to each other.

Lions and other big cats have far flatter snouts, which dont extend out like canids do. I think thats what Stugri means.

PS: Most everything is cute, with the exception of that really ugly dog and naked mole rats, as well as boars, I guess.

2 cents inserted.

New Game
Continue?
Stage Select
Options

[Alorael at Large]

Wolf hunting is justifiable, but not always justified. Ranchers hear that wolves endanger their animals and try to be proactively protective without bothering much about whether the local wolves are actually a substantial danger. Understandable, but not helpful.

 

—Alorael, who thinks some places could use wolves. They're more likely to go after non-domestic prey, for the most part, and deer and rabbits have become overpopulated nuisance animals in some areas. And has Australia considered importing more biological controls to keep down the rabbits? It's a sure win!

[Callie]

Australia once imported biological controls to keep down beetles and it's had terrible results.

 

And yet I still said that despite knowing you were joking.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Goldenking

Personally, I believe that, since wolves are a species teetering on the edge, we need to cool it with the systematic hunting for a little while.

Currently, the only place in the US where hunting wolves is legal is Alaska, and there are plenty of wolves there. That population isn't currently in danger. (Of course, Alaska allows hunting from the air, which is a whole different issue.) I don't know about the politics of Minnesota, but the wolf population there isn't in danger as far as I know and could withstand hunting. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming together have a population of wolves that is doing well and could withstand the hunting seasons that two of the three states want. Unfortunately, Wyoming can't get its act together and make a management plan that doesn't involve exterminating wolves from the state. That's the only reason that population of gray wolf is still on the Endangered Species List.

There are endangered wolf species (red wolf) and gray wolf subspecies (Mexican wolf), but to my knowledge no one has suggested hunting them.

Dikiyoba's information is all about a year old, so if you have newer updates, do tell.

[Doctor Albert Halfmann]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

But Dikiyoba saw some absolutely adorable leeches last week, so Dikiyoba's opinion probably shouldn't count for much. (At least they weren't the bloodsucking kind.)

Hahaha, I'm afraid that does damage your credibility a bit. Though of course a lot of non-mammals are aesthetically appealing as well. Almost all birds, with the exception of certain vultures and condors, are quite nice-looking if not beautiful. Most reptiles are cute too, especially tortoises and turtles. Amphibians aren't bad, either, for the most part, and while most fish look ugly to me, some can be very well-formed. Where invertebrates are concerned, though, I don't detect a whole lot of cuteness.

EDIT: Trenton is right where the big cats are concerned. But I find a lot of mammals that possess longer snouts to be quite appealing. It's just something about the distortion of the hyena's face when it grimaces that I find off-putting.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

Australia once imported biological controls to keep down beetles and it's had terrible results.

And yet I still said that despite knowing you were joking.

ok cane toads went pretty badly but Australia has had success stories with biological controls too. we've actually used two viruses successfully against rabbits in particular: myxomatosis in the 50s and calicivirus in the 90s. neither one eliminated rabbits totally of course but they both had a major impact on populations

the Cactoblastis moth is another example. it was introduced to control the prickly pear cactus, and turned it from a major weed to a minor nuisance

Originally Posted By: Pseudorandomizer

Yes, because building a massive wall around miles of cattle grazing land is economically viable.

for the record this is also a thing australia did to stop rabbits

except instead of being built around anything it ran all the way from north to south down the length of Australia

[Doctor Albert Halfmann]

Wasn't there also a fence implemented to keep dingoes at bay? I seem to recall hearing something to that effect from a friend's relative who hailed from Australia.

[Callie]

I don't think I've ever seen a picture of a camel-drawn buggy inspecting a rabbit fence before.

 

(But seriously, that's awesome)

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La

Wasn't there also a fence implemented to keep dingoes at bay? I seem to recall hearing something to that effect from a friend's relative who hailed from Australia.

yes that was also a thing

it was in the east instead of the west

[Dikiyoba]

Dikiyoba can't see one of those x-proof fences working in the US, at least not until the creation of the Bolt Cutter Fence.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: Goldenking

Personally, I believe that, since wolves are a species teetering on the edge, we need to cool it with the systematic hunting for a little while.

Currently, the only place in the US where hunting wolves is legal is Alaska

And Montana, although they only give out so many tags a year...

[Rowen]

All this talk of fences for rabbits made me remember reading this. Rabbit Island.

 

Edit: Idaho has hunting regulations on wolfs also.

[Dikiyoba]

*googles*

 

Oh, goody. The gray wolf is now delisted thanks to a rider on a budget bill. Woo, go Congress. That is exactly how things should be done.

 

Dikiyoba.

[The Ratt]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you aren't, throwing on riders to the budget bill is dangerous. This is a perfect chance for the unscrupulous to tag on a bill that gives their district, or them personally, money. See Pork Barrel Spending

[Alorael at Large]

Dikiyoba is being sarcastic.

 

—Alorael, whose sarcasm meter was recently recalibrated. Also set to stun, but that's neither here nor there.

[Rowen]

Originally Posted By: The (Armored) Ratt

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you aren't, throwing on riders to the budget bill is dangerous. This is a perfect chance for the unscrupulous to tag on a bill that gives their district, or them personally, money. See Pork Barrel Spending

It can also be used to pass items of business that would not stand by themselves (i.e. grey wolf hunting). It is just another tool in the political system to get things done.

[Alorael at Large]

And I question whether items that would not be passed should be passed because someone glued them to more worthwhile bills. It may be a way to get things done, but it's not necessarily a way to get good things done.

 

—Alorael, who shouldn't be complaining. At this time, getting anything done is impressive enough.

[Dintiradan]

I suppose one good thing about that absurd system the States has is that it makes all the political compromises explicit. "I'll vote for your special interest wolves issue if you support me on the upcoming budget bill."

[Slarzahl]

SCHOOLHOUSE WOK

[Lilith]

while the whole rider system is pretty awful it's basically a symptom of other even more broken things like the rules for dealing with a filibuster that make it unreasonably difficult to get any bill passed in the first place. if a bill looks like it's going to pass then naturally people tack on as many legislative barnacles to it as they can

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Six and twenty thousand years

Beg to differ. Wolves? Cutest apex predator* there is. It takes something to see the beauty in some of these pictures, but just look at this one:

Click to reveal..

Edit: *Aside from, you know, humans. But I'm affected by species bias.

Wow, good taste. I have a copy of that picture on my office wall. Handsome gent, isn't he?

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

while the whole rider system is pretty awful it's basically a symptom of other even more broken things like the rules for dealing with a filibuster that make it unreasonably difficult to get any bill passed in the first place. if a bill looks like it's going to pass then naturally people tack on as many legislative barnacles to it as they can

It was for this reason Congress passed a law allowing the President the power of a line-item veto. However, it has never been used, because it would immediately be shot down as unconstitutional.

Ear-marks do serve a purpose, but like too many other things that initially had good intentions, it has been abused to the point that there is a populist movement determined to elect representatives and senators who will resist their use.

[Slarzahl]

You know, the rest of us have political opinions too, but we don't feel the need to intertwine them with our statements of fact.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

You know, the rest of us have political opinions too, but we don't feel the need to intertwine them with our statements of fact.

I didn't see any problem with his statements. I mean, disagree with it or not, it's a fairly realistic assessment to say that the current political tack is decidedly against expansion of executive power, or even against governmental expansion in general, and it's certainly true that one of the chief targets of the Tea Party movement is the concept of "wasteful" (whatever that means) government spending of the kind earmarks usually involve.

[keira]

Whenever I think of people complaining about government spending/reducing taxes/Tea Party morons, I immediately think of this image:

Click to reveal..

 

That being said, there are a lot of budget/spending related things going on with the government that aren't exactly ideal...but seriously, you try taking away these things and people will be up in arms.

[Dintiradan]

Quote:

You know, the rest of us have political opinions too, but we don't feel the need to intertwine them with our statements of fact.

?

All of us do this all the time.

Quote:

Whenever I think of people complaining about government spending/reducing taxes/Tea Party morons, I immediately think of this image:

Click to reveal..

What does "CUT TAXES NOT DEFENSE" even mean?

(Though to give the devil his due, I thought the Tea Party crowd was for reducing federal spending, and I don't think any of the things in that image would be federally funded. But maybe things are different in the States.)

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

(Though to give the devil his due, I thought the Tea Party crowd was for reducing federal spending, and I don't think any of the things in that image would be federally funded. But maybe things are different in the States.)

Good point. I'm kinda guessing, but I'd say most of that is local funding, and there's a strong possibility of the utilities being privately owned.

But more importantly, it says "No turn on red" and that guy is turning. Shaaaaaaaame

[Callie]

I don't even know how you can say you're for limited government and advocate massive defense spending at the same time. Doublethink!

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

You know, the rest of us have political opinions too, but we don't feel the need to intertwine them with our statements of fact.

I guess you're right, Slarty. These are volatile political times we live in. It is easy to touch off a firestorm with this group. I have enjoyed the debates you and I have engaged in.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Yeah, that sign's been bugging me for a few days. Does its holder really not understand such concepts as 'plus' and 'minus?' Possibly she believes that the verb 'cut' means the same thing irrespective of its object? Poe's Law, I guess.

[Alorael at Large]

To the best of my understanding, Tea Partiers, while a varied group, tend to be against all taxation. It's also been shown that people genuinely aren't aware of many things that the government, particularly the federal government, underwrites. "Hands off my Medicaid!" isn't a joke; it's not actually obvious where the money comes from for many popular programs.

 

—Alorael, who understands the cut taxes not defense, sort of. Defense has become a kind of untouchable entitlement because the right is axiomatically opposed to reduced spending and the Democrats are too afraid of losing centrist voters to do anything. Cutting taxes is supposed to increase revenue to pay for defense, somehow. It's a self-consistent economic view; it's just not borne out by actual economic observations.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: In memory of the forgetful

To the best of my understanding, Tea Partiers, while a varied group, tend to be against all taxation. It's also been shown that people genuinely aren't aware of many things that the government, particularly the federal government, underwrites. "Hands off my Medicaid!" isn't a joke; it's not actually obvious where the money comes from for many popular programs.

Actually, not quite right by my understanding. They do know that taxes are a necessary thing for the government to have the resources to provide what the government should provide. One key part of the debate is about how much government we should have at the federal level, and how much should be left at the state and local level. Another key part is, when it is said that the 'rich' people need to be taxed more, just who are those 'rich' people. If a person earns more than $250,000, are they 'rich'? And how does taxing corporations more increase job opportunities? What does 're-distribution of wealth' mean? Does the federal government have the right to force individual citizens to purchase anything? And why did we put over half a billion dollars in a company which had already been determined that it would fail? I know the government funds a lot of 'basic' research which produces no immediate product, but without it no future breakthroughs can be achieved. I know that government subsidies are important to prop up industries that are vital, or at least of significant economic importance. But to throw such money into a hole that has no chance of producing any long term employment, that's a crying shame.

Originally Posted By: In memory of the forgetful

—Alorael, who understands the cut taxes not defense, sort of. Defense has become a kind of untouchable entitlement because the right is axiomatically opposed to reduced spending and the Democrats are too afraid of losing centrist voters to do anything. Cutting taxes is supposed to increase revenue to pay for defense, somehow. It's a self-consistent economic view; it's just not borne out by actual economic observations.

Actually, speaking strictly as a veteran, I do agree that once our military personnel have been deployed, they should be supplied with whatever resources they need to survive. I don't agree with the notion that all our current deployments were justified or necessary. I do believe that it is past time to end such deployments, which would in fact reduce the need for military funding.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Actually, not quite right by my understanding. They do know that taxes are a necessary thing for the government to have the resources to provide what the government should provide. One key part of the debate is about how much government we should have at the federal level, and how much should be left at the state and local level. Another key part is, when it is said that the 'rich' people need to be taxed more, just who are those 'rich' people. If a person earns more than $250,000, are they 'rich'?

if you make more than 97% of people in the US, then yes, you're rich

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Actually, speaking strictly as a veteran, I do agree that once our military personnel have been deployed, they should be supplied with whatever resources they need to survive. I don't agree with the notion that all our current deployments were justified or necessary. I do believe that it is past time to end such deployments, which would in fact reduce the need for military funding.

Oh absolutely. The problem is, a very good deal of "military" spending isn't actually being spent on insuring this. For instance, apparently it's more important to update our fleet of strategic bombers in order to fight the Cold War 20 years after it ended than to actually equip soldiers with effective body armor or armor for Humvees. Or that, combat aside, that it's somehow acceptable to take hundreds of billions of dollars of federal tax dollars ever year, but still pay some military servicemen wages low enough that they would qualify for food stamps if they had families.

The amount of sheer waste and ineffective use of resources in the DoD is simply mind-boggling- I'm sure that literally tens of billions of dollars, if not hundreds, could be cut with absolutely no noticeable impact on US military performance or troop welfare, and if resources could be actually reallocated to places where they were needed instead of being wasted on the pet concerns of Pentagon officials, you would probably see huge improvements in troop effectiveness.

[Alorael at Large]

Actually, everyone probably needs to be taxed more in the long term. But "rich" and "poor" aren't really helpful, nor is redistribution of wealth a goal so much as "reduction of the rate of increase in the difference between the upper percentiles and the majority" which is good for all kinds of reasons. People making more than $250,000 are paying less taxes and have more to give. Redistribution of wealth nothing; the government has to pay for itself, and it's easier to get money from those who have it and aren't paying. And, practically speaking, that's fewer affected voters to complain.

 

Taxing corporations doesn't create jobs, although the government can (and should!) create jobs with the money it takes. Not taxing corporations doesn't create jobs either, though: corporations aren't suffering under excess taxation, they're sitting on cash reserves because demand is low. Demand is low because the economy is in shambles and consumers have no money and no confidence.

 

The federal government is not in the business of making people purchase anything. It is trying to get into the business of reducing its costs, and health care is a huge one. Insuring everyone would reduce costs, but that only works if everyone is insured or the costs just shoot up again. A single-payer system would probably be cheaper, but it's unthinkable. The government therefore mandates that everyone buy coverage.

 

—Alorael, who thinks it's best to look at it as a kind of tax alternative. If insurance were not mandated, health care costs would go up, and the government would have to raise taxes to pay for it. Taxes would, in fact, go up by more than you have to pay to buy coverage. The government is trying to save everyone money.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Actually, speaking strictly as a veteran, I do agree that once our military personnel have been deployed, they should be supplied with whatever resources they need to survive. I don't agree with the notion that all our current deployments were justified or necessary. I do believe that it is past time to end such deployments, which would in fact reduce the need for military funding.

Oh absolutely. The problem is, a very good deal of "military" spending isn't actually being spent on insuring this. For instance, apparently it's more important to update our fleet of strategic bombers in order to fight the Cold War 20 years after it ended than to actually equip soldiers with effective body armor or armor for Humvees. Or that, combat aside, that it's somehow acceptable to take hundreds of billions of dollars of federal tax dollars ever year, but still pay some military servicemen wages low enough that they would qualify for food stamps if they had families.

The amount of sheer waste and ineffective use of resources in the DoD is simply mind-boggling- I'm sure that literally tens of billions of dollars, if not hundreds, could be cut with absolutely no noticeable impact on US military performance or troop welfare, and if resources could be actually reallocated to places where they were needed instead of being wasted on the pet concerns of Pentagon officials, you would probably see huge improvements in troop effectiveness.

If you're looking for an argument from me, you won't find one. Too many DOD projects are un-needed and un-wanted. And the process by which government contracts are handed out is a political boondoggle. Add to that the tremendous additional waste of money charged to the government by those contractors, money they are are required to spend in order to meet regulations. And I am not going to argue that there is not a lot of fraudulent billing done by those corporations, fraud that was supposed to be prevented by those expensive regulations.

The only benefit is that it is one of few things the federal government can do that directly produces jobs. You may freely debate over the worth of these jobs, but there they are.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: In memory of the forgetful

A single-payer system would probably be cheaper, but it's unthinkable.

it's kind of sad that the idea of an american political climate that's actually sane and pragmatic is now "unthinkable"

also what does any of this have to do with posting pictures of ourselves

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

also what does any of this have to do with posting pictures of ourselves

Originally Posted By: Lilith

while the whole rider system is pretty awful it's basically a symptom of other even more broken things like the rules for dealing with a filibuster that make it unreasonably difficult to get any bill passed in the first place. if a bill looks like it's going to pass then naturally people tack on as many legislative barnacles to it as they can

I don't know. What say we drop this topic and move back to the original subject. If any one wishes to continue further in this vein, we can start another thread.

Pax?

[keira]

There needs to be a SW group video chat at some point. Just because y'all arguing in real time would be remarkable.

 

 

also:

 

Click to reveal.. (because the more filters i stick on my face, the less hideous i'll be)

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I don't know. What say we drop this topic and move back to the original subject. If any one wishes to continue further in this vein, we can start another thread.

Pax?

you know you'd probably find this forum a less abrasive environment if you didn't get defensive every time someone made a joke that wasn't even directed specifically at you