The Purge: Hunters Edition

[Weldabeast]

This^^ I've always wondered what they taste like. If they're considered sea cows, what cut would you try first? I'm on board for a couple ribeye.

Straight for the heart and then I'll try a bite of whatever piece u decided on.... We'll have to steal something to lift it out of the water first or do we quarter in the water and backstroke it out?

 

[rrogers31]

1. Heading to the refuge which holds 90% of the local waterfowl with 3 boxes of lead.
2. Throwing on some NODs and surprising any big buck that refuses to daylight.

 

[Jagger0502]

Everyone is thinking about one day… need to think bigger. I might go to one of them local deer farms with those big ol bucks and load them all up (along with all the doe) and let them go in the woods behind the house… might make for some good hunting over the next few years.

 

[Reagan H.]

Straight for the heart and then I'll try a bite of whatever piece u decided on.... We'll have to steal something to lift it out of the water first or do we quarter in the water and backstroke it out?

Quarter it first, but it should be easy. I'd reckon they would float.

 

[DB4x4]

...or do we quarter in the water and backstroke it out?

You're going to get eaten by a shark on purge day...

 

[BTaylor]

You're going to get eaten by a shark on purge day...

Just wear your Hecs suit and they wont be able to tell you are there.

 

[Weldabeast]

You're going to get eaten by a shark on purge day...

2 quick stories...1 relevant to what we talking about and the other relevant to ur comment......

One of my first jobs as a kid was washing dishes at a Italian restaurant. Next door was a fancy jewelry store. 1 night 2 guys broke into the jewelry store. A cop just so happened to pull into the parking lot while they were still inside. They went out the back, crossed the little road behind the building that the dumpsters are accessed, jumped the fence, went thru the little strip of woods, jumped in the pond and were gonna swim across. The cop found 1 guy jumping the fence yelling to help his friend. They found the friend week or 2 later killed by manatees or maybe it was an alligator..I can't remember.....instant karma moment.

And to u seagull lovers.....my wife's first job was at a restaurant on the river that had a nice dock/boardwalk that went for maybe couple hundred yards...everybody fed the gulls french fry in spite of the signs saying not to.....she went in to work 1 morning and she and her fellow workers noticed something odd at the end of the boardwalk and there was a crowd of seagulls.....curiosity got the better of them and the manager walked down and found the guy that had offed himself sometime that night or early that morning and the seagulls were enthusiasticly eatting his face

 

[Nutterbuster]

2 quick stories...1 relevant to what we talking about and the other relevant to ur comment......

One of my first jobs as a kid was washing dishes at a Italian restaurant. Next door was a fancy jewelry store. 1 night 2 guys broke into the jewelry store. A cop just so happened to pull into the parking lot while they were still inside. They went out the back, crossed the little road behind the building that the dumpsters are accessed, jumped the fence, went thru the little strip of woods, jumped in the pond and were gonna swim across. The cop found 1 guy jumping the fence yelling to help his friend. They found the friend week or 2 later killed by manatees or maybe it was an alligator..I can't remember.....instant karma moment.

And to u seagull lovers.....my wife's first job was at a restaurant on the river that had a nice dock/boardwalk that went for maybe couple hundred yards...everybody fed the gulls french fry in spite of the signs saying not to.....she went in to work 1 morning and she and her fellow workers noticed something odd at the end of the boardwalk and there was a crowd of seagulls.....curiosity got the better of them and the manager walked down and found the guy that had offed himself sometime that night or early that morning and the seagulls were enthusiasticly eatting his face

Man, the juxtaposition of two morbid stories with one of my all time favorite tunes is just...sublime

 

[raisins]

I’m always hesitant to disrupt ecosystems at scale without knowing what will happen. But man, if we could lose ticks and skeeters, I have to imagine we can cope with the consequences! Let’s do it.

I can’t quote chapter and verse anymore, but the “extremely fine-tuned ecosystem where everything is a linchpin” has been largely disproven by ecologists. But it is considered dangerous knowledge. It would be interesting to read what folks that study ticks might think of this.

 

[Nutterbuster]

I can’t quote chapter and verse anymore, but the “extremely fine-tuned ecosystem where everything is a linchpin” has been largely disproven by ecologists. But it is considered dangerous knowledge. It would be interesting to read what folks that study ticks might think of this.

This isn't combativeness, just intense curiosity. Can you point me in the general direction of a source for that.

I can see how ecology popularizers may be guilty of exaggerating and oversimplifying the effects of messing with an environment (universe, really) where literally everything is interconnected right down the the subatomic level. But my understanding is that while pulling a species from a system probably won't cause total collapse into a barren hellscape, there's no way that it can't have ripple effects throughout the ecosystem.

The change may be good, bad, or neutral to us, but it's going to occur and we have no way of knowing exactly what the end results will be. Which is extremely dangerous if you do it again, and again, and again like we do. Eventually you draw a black ball out of that hat and find out you messed with the lynch pin upon which maybe the balance of the world doesn't hang, but the security of homo sapiens.

I'm curious to read what you've read that says otherwise, because to my understanding that rule goes beyond biology and extends to physics.

 

[raisins]

This isn't combativeness, just intense curiosity. Can you point me in the general direction of a source for that.

I can see how ecology popularizers may be guilty of exaggerating and oversimplifying the effects of messing with an environment (universe, really) where literally everything is interconnected right down the the subatomic level. But my understanding is that while pulling a species from a system probably won't cause total collapse into a barren hellscape, there's no way that it can't have ripple effects throughout the ecosystem.

The change may be good, bad, or neutral to us, but it's going to occur and we have no way of knowing exactly what the end results will be. Which is extremely dangerous if you do it again, and again, and again like we do. Eventually you draw a black ball out of that hat and find out you messed with the lynch pin upon which maybe the balance of the world doesn't hang, but the security of homo sapiens.

I'm curious to read what you've read that says otherwise, because to my understanding that rule goes beyond biology and extends to physics.

here s one I had to read years ago

Amazon.com: The Balance of Nature?: Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities: 9780226561059: Pimm, Stuart L.: Books

Amazon.com: The Balance of Nature?: Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities: 9780226561059: Pimm, Stuart L.: Books

www.amazon.com

Then there are two famous ecological perspectives somewhat named after the proponents

that’s what I’m not remembering

I’ll find it and post

basically, selection is largely at the individual/species level and the ecosystem we see is largely how those species that could live there worked it out (in other words, ecosystems do not move into an area as integrous wholes)

imagine 3 different trades starting a village and working out a little economy

Sure, that little economy might be tuned to them but it isn’t the only productive one that could form

you could interchange a few and voila another seemingly finely tuned economy works itself out or another

this is not to say there are not key relationships and keystone species and the like, it’s that the idea has been over blown hugely…the tick might be a linchpin but I’m not seeing it

the idea of this extreme interconnectedness is kind of a religious impulse that is somewhat common among ecologists and is partly why I no longer consider myself one…they are the most political and least reasonable among the science community and I can’t stand being around them anymore….mostly smug highly educated hippies….I went to one of the most famous ecology programs in the US…half of the perspectives you hear are chosen because they get attention

I’ve lost several friends simply by not engaging in their group think

they need to consider an inversion of their thinking…they remind me of a lottery winner looking at the long odds of winning and assuming they were divinely chosen while not realizing that given how many people play that someone had to win (and perhaps similarly feel that it could not be just happenstance laying out what has occurred)

further evidence for ecological resilience is the natural reclamation of devastated habitats and that almost all species that have ever lived have become extinct

 

[ericabbott]

Throwing a s**t ton of bait off my porch in April and shooting the half dozen bears that feed off it.

 

[MattMan81]

22 semi auto, giant box of ammo. When you see the flocks of birds out on the water. I always wonder how many of them you could get threw before they scatter. All for scientific research of course.

 

[Nutterbuster]

here s one I had to read years ago

Amazon.com: The Balance of Nature?: Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities: 9780226561059: Pimm, Stuart L.: Books

Amazon.com: The Balance of Nature?: Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities: 9780226561059: Pimm, Stuart L.: Books

www.amazon.com

Then there are two famous ecological perspectives somewhat named after the proponents

that’s what I’m not remembering

I’ll find it and post

basically, selection is largely at the individual/species level and the ecosystem we see is largely how those species that could live there worked it out (in other words, ecosystems do not move into an area as integrous wholes)

imagine 3 different trades starting a village and working out a little economy

Sure, that little economy might be tuned to them but it isn’t the only productive one that could form

you could interchange a few and voila another seemingly finely tuned economy works itself out or another

this is not to say there are not key relationships and keystone species and the like, it’s that the idea has been over blown hugely…the tick might be a linchpin but I’m not seeing it

the idea of this extreme interconnectedness is kind of a religious impulse that is somewhat common among ecologists and is partly why I no longer consider myself one…they are the most political and least reasonable among the science community and I can’t stand being around them anymore….mostly smug highly educated hippies….I went to one of the most famous ecology programs in the US…half of the perspectives you hear are chosen because they get attention

I’ve lost several friends simply by not engaging in their group think

they need to consider an inversion of their thinking…they remind me of a lottery winner looking at the long odds of winning and assuming they were divinely chosen while not realizing that given how many people play that someone had to win (and perhaps similarly feel that it could not be just happenstance laying out what has occurred)

further evidence for ecological resilience is the natural reclamation of devastated habitats and that almost all species that have ever lived have become extinct

I don't think we're super far off base from each other here. I don't think the ecosystem is necessarily "fragile" but it's definitely reactive, volatile, and works in a scope and scale that's almost impossible for us to get a grasp on. Hence something like an estimated 99% of all species that have ever existed being extinct.

You're definitely not wrong about the connectedness of the universe having a religious undertone. That arrived here quite honestly through Eastern thought and was embraced by academia in response to many discoveries that weren't able to be squared with western cosmology. To my understanding it goes all the way back 5,000-7,000 yesrs ago...right back to the dawn of literature and the beginnings of the philosophic discourse.

But based on my limited grasp of current scientific consensus, across disciplines we're finding out that the grid we draw on the world to get a grasp on it is conceptual, and not necessarily real. Medicines for your heart have side effects on your brain. Digging stuff up out of the ground impacts the composition of the air. The ocean currents carry the Amazonian mists across the ocean and turn it into rain on the savanna. Observing a particle changes how it behaves. A change in the trajectory of one heavenly body changes the course of all of them. One stone dropped into a pond stirs all of the water in that pond.

I think some of the exaggerations about the effects we have on that system are overblown with mostly good intentions...to scare us straight. But it seems to be that lying to the general public about the world to keep them safe backfires in the same way lying to your kid to keep them safe often does...you lose trust and the party you're trying to protect throw the baby out with the bath water.

George Carlin once said, "The planet is fine. The people...the people are (rhymes with slap outta lucked).

I'm not arguing against playing in the sandbox. I just think the takeaway is to realize it's a really complicated sandbox, and you can't undo a move, and the sandbox will be just fine without you and the things you need and care about. So if you can live with the sandbox the way it is...maybe leave well enough alone.

 

[Weldabeast]

Feral cats crap in sandboxes

 

[raisins]

I don't think we're super far off base from each other here. I don't think the ecosystem is necessarily "fragile" but it's definitely reactive, volatile, and works in a scope and scale that's almost impossible for us to get a grasp on. Hence something like an estimated 99% of all species that have ever existed being extinct.

You're definitely not wrong about the connectedness of the universe having a religious undertone. That arrived here quite honestly through Eastern thought and was embraced by academia in response to many discoveries that weren't able to be squared with western cosmology. To my understanding it goes all the way back 5,000-7,000 yesrs ago...right back to the dawn of literature and the beginnings of the philosophic discourse.

But based on my limited grasp of current scientific consensus, across disciplines we're finding out that the grid we draw on the world to get a grasp on it is conceptual, and not necessarily real. Medicines for your heart have side effects on your brain. Digging stuff up out of the ground impacts the composition of the air. The ocean currents carry the Amazonian mists across the ocean and turn it into rain on the savanna. Observing a particle changes how it behaves. A change in the trajectory of one heavenly body changes the course of all of them. One stone dropped into a pond stirs all of the water in that pond.

I think some of the exaggerations about the effects we have on that system are overblown with mostly good intentions...to scare us straight. But it seems to be that lying to the general public about the world to keep them safe backfires in the same way lying to your kid to keep them safe often does...you lose trust and the party you're trying to protect throw the baby out with the bath water.

George Carlin once said, "The planet is fine. The people...the people are (rhymes with slap outta lucked).

I'm not arguing against playing in the sandbox. I just think the takeaway is to realize it's a really complicated sandbox, and you can't undo a move, and the sandbox will be just fine without you and the things you need and care about. So if you can live with the sandbox the way it is...maybe leave well enough alone.

Sure, extreme precautionary principle. I can see that. But if we hadn't been willing to make drastic changes without perfect knowledge, we might've gone extinct by now or live in a very different world.

Instead of ticks, let's turn our attention to viruses. I think the analogy is close enough to be interesting. What ecological roles do viruses play? Should we be careful trying to eradicate them?

I view these things as: what does the organism control? what does the organism help?

In the case of ticks, the existence of ticks clearly helps ticks strongly, clearly helps the disease pathogens they carry strongly, and they also move nutrients from the bloodstream of their host organisms to whatever feeds on them (like birds). I'd say that ticks exist at such low density that nothing is reliant upon them for food, they are just a happy snack.

Maybe I'll look up more about ticks this evening.

 

[Nutterbuster]

Feral cats crap in sandboxes

They do. And then kids play in the sandboxes, and next thing you know it's estimated that half the global human population has a latent toxoplasmosis infection, which leads us to this:

Effects of Toxoplasma on Human Behavior

Although latent infection with Toxoplasma gondii is among the most prevalent of human infections, it has been generally assumed that, except for congenital transmission, it is asymptomatic. The demonstration that latent Toxoplasma infections can alter ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Suddenly it's not so inconceivable that cat crap is playing a role in the decisions we make on nuclear energy, space travel, environmental policy, or whether or not bell bottoms make a come back.

 

[raisins]

They do. And then kids play in the sandboxes, and next thing you know it's estimated that half the global human population has a latent toxoplasmosis infection, which leads us to this:

Effects of Toxoplasma on Human Behavior

Although latent infection with Toxoplasma gondii is among the most prevalent of human infections, it has been generally assumed that, except for congenital transmission, it is asymptomatic. The demonstration that latent Toxoplasma infections can alter ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Suddenly it's not so inconceivable that cat crap is playing a role in the decisions we make on nuclear energy, space travel, environmental policy, or whether or not bell bottoms make a come back.

I dated a crazy cat woman with 4 cats and her house reeked. She lost her deposit due to cat smell after I steam cleaned it for her twice! What can I say, she was really cute. The break up was softened knowing that everyone smelled cat poop and pee on her. Now I wanna get checked for toxoplasmosis.

I've heard it actually makes people like cats (like one of those parasites that turn ants and caterpillars into zombies).

 

[Nutterbuster]

Sure, extreme precautionary principle. I can see that. But if we hadn't been willing to make drastic changes without perfect knowledge, we might've gone extinct by now or live in a very different world.

Instead of ticks, let's turn our attention to viruses. I think the analogy is close enough to be interesting. What ecological roles do viruses play? Should we be careful trying to eradicate them?

I view these things as: what does the organism control? what does the organism help?

In the case of ticks, the existence of ticks clearly helps ticks strongly, clearly helps the disease pathogens they carry strongly, and they also move nutrients from the bloodstream of their host organisms to whatever feeds on them (like birds). I'd say that ticks exist at such low density that nothing is reliant upon them for food, they are just a happy snack.

Maybe I'll look up more about ticks this evening.

Yep. I agree. Tick eradication could be the most serendipitous decision we ever made.

If I ran the zoo, my call would be a % decrease in the tick population and a waiting period to observe the impact that may have before we pull the plug on them entirely. Preferably a long one, since eradication doesn't seem necessary to immediate well-being for humanity. But I don't run the zoo, and since we live in a world with 2-4 year election cycles and quarterly profit reports...I'm not holding my breath for us to become patient and calculated and risk-averse in a sane way.

 

[raisins]

Yep. I agree. Tick eradication could be the most serendipitous decision we ever made.

If I ran the zoo, my call would be a % decrease in the tick population and a waiting period to observe the impact that may have before we pull the plug on them entirely. Preferably a long one, since eradication doesn't seem necessary to immediate well-being for humanity. But I don't run the zoo, and since we live in a world with 2-4 year election cycles and quarterly profit reports...I'm not holding my breath for us to become patient and calculated and risk-averse in a sane way.

Good call. It isn't all or nothing at once. We could eradicate ticks from an island or lower levels in one state, etc. and then watch as a trial.