• Possible Downtime Alert

    I am working to migrate THR from the current cluster to a new one. I would like to get this done before the weekend, but it's unclear what the timeframe will be, as testing is still ongoing. As I am writing this the new (rebuilt) host is doing a burn-in to ensure that everything will keep running under load.

    When the migration happens users will see a Cloudflare message indicatating it cannot connect to the server. This is expected, and depending on how the migration goes this may last from 30 minutes to 3 hours - I won't know more until testing the various migration options is complete and I have finalized the plan.

    More information is available in this thread.

    As always, thanks so much for your patience.

Keep Protecting The Wolves?

The only thing I really dislike about the possible elimination of an entire species is the loss it poses relative to us.

Once a species is gone, it's only ever going to be accessible to us by human historical records and bones/fossil records. That's it. There will be no more (insert species) for humans to actually encounter and interact with in any other way.

On a planetary scale, involving geological time frames, Mother Nature does not care one wit about any species surviving or not. Entire species disappear in the blink of her eye, sometimes on an incredibly massive scale. And yet, a short eye-blink or two later for her, more species evolve and fill every single available niche, and quite often to the detriment of species already occupying those niches.

Because that's what life does.

And mankind itself is nothing more than one of those untold billions and billions of species that have evolved on this planet, and we're only one single species out of the fraction of one percent of those billions that have evolved and currently exist today after more than 3.5 billion years.

Our time, too, will come...one way or another.
 
Last edited:
By not condemning it, you are endorsing it.
How is recognizing reality an endorsement?

Funny how everytime one of these types of threads comes up, the ol' ".22 rimfire in the gut" phase comes out. As if some get some kind of sick satisfaction thinking of the suffering of an animal. Again, how many would do the same for a deer?
Much like a wolf, I am neither satisfied or upset by the suffering and death of a wild animal. More often than not, that is their fate.

$2500, while not a comfort, is compensation. Similar to if a tornado or fire totally destroys your home and family heirlooms. It will cover the replacement, but not the memories.
I have two retrievers. They are not for sale but $2500 is not even close to the market value of either one.

I do not wish extinction on wolves. They have their place and they do what they do in that place. I am for the extinction of politicians who reintroduce wolves into areas where they aren’t wanted.
And using our taxes and license fees to do it.
 
It is a travesty that people who have no contact or interaction with certain animals develop emotional attachment to them , to the point that it takes management out of the hands of actual qualified biologist and puts it in the hands of activist judges and the votes of people who don't understand or live in the ecosystems were they exist. Wolves are in no danger of extinction , they are plentiful on the half of the continent north of the 49th parallel , not to mention most of Asia and Europe . I doubt there is a single rural county in the U.S that would vote to release them locally , if they were ever given a choice . They decimated big game populations in N.W. Wyoming , especially moose , and elk . Depredation on livestock is constant and I am afraid the damage is unstoppable now , Even if the protections on them went away and they could be shot like coyotes , we wont get rid of them now .
 
The only thing I really dislike about the possible elimination of an entire species is the loss it poses relative to us.
I would agree, but world wide the wolves are in no danger of extinction. They are alive and well in Canada, Alaska, Russia and China, and other places. The wolves they are "reintroducing" are coming from places where there are plenty of wolves. Mankind is nowhere near eliminating the species. There just isn't room for them in the lower United States. Our wilderness areas just are not big enough for them to live in balance with deer/elk/moose/etc., and people and ranchers. And we are over populated, as far as living in harmony with wolves.
 
I would agree, but world wide the wolves are in no danger of extinction.

I too agree.

There just isn't room for them in the lower United States. Our wilderness areas just are not big enough for them to live in balance with deer/elk/moose/etc., and people and ranchers. And we are over populated, as far as living in harmony with wolves.

If there is enough "wilderness" for animals like Elk, there is certainly enough "wilderness" for wolves. We have reintroduced Bison to the west, but there will never be the huge herds roaming the prairies like they used to. Yet there is enough room for them when managed properly. They are a part of America's heritage, and IMHO, should be preserved for our future generations to enjoy. Part of the issue with wolves, is what some consider "living in harmony". Around here, the rural areas are being bought up to the point where there is no "rural" anymore. Everyone wants their "little piece of heaven" and want to "live with nature" on their 20/40 acres. Then they piss and moan when "nature" takes out their house cat or eats their shrubs. They let their dogs roam and run at large, because "they are out in the country". They forever change the landscape in those 20/40 acres and then complain when someone buys the 40 next to them and builds a house on the fenceline. Right next to their house on the fenceline. Yet, they think they are living in "Harmony".

Wisconsin has reintroduced elk to the state. In all earnest, we do not have the "wilderness" to ever have a substantial amount of them and to ever open up a true "season" on them. Any season on them will always be a "lottery". This year they are proposing a total of 17 tags for the entire state. Yet, folks love to see them out in farmers fields and listen to them bugle in the fall. State pays out huge amounts of crop damage here in the central part of the state for them to be here, and farmers complain more about them than wolves. Wolves were here in the central part of the state for many years, without most folks even realizing they were here. Wasn't until their numbers got high and they lost their fear of humans, that they became a problem. This is why they need to be managed.

Folks are entitled to their opinion. Especially when it is based on being informed and from experience, and not based on emotions. Again, my opinion is that wolves need to be delisted and managed by the states. To be hunted and/or protected by those that actually live there and know the capacity. But, I will never have the opinion, that letting folks violate or poach, so that my means are achieved, is okay.
 
What are at risk is hounds that run long distances from their owners or dogs allowed to run at large.

Yes, I have a neighbor that lets his dogs go where they want to. Sometimes they never come back and the wolf is currently extirpated from Texas. We do have land owners with livestock though.
 
If there is enough "wilderness" for animals like Elk, there is certainly enough "wilderness" for wolves.
I would have to totally, and respectfully disagree with that. Where I live, we have lots of Elk, but no actual wilderness. And having enough elk and deer, to feed a wolf population, and leave some for the hunters, is another issue. As far as the buffalo, the only free ranging ones I know of is Yellowstone, all other herds are on large ranches and fenced in. (one near where I live) So agree to disagree there.
Around here, the rural areas are being bought up to the point where there is no "rural" anymore.
Yep, you just described where I live. !!! If I go South, still very rural. East-West-North...not so rural anymore. Between me and the nearest city, yep, someone dies, kids get the property, sell it to a developer, and houses magically pop up. And not even on ten-twenty acre plots, sometimes three houses close together on ten acres or less. Sharing a small chunk of a field that was a wheat field not long ago. Another trend is to build large apartment complexes, or sardine style housing complexes, in or on the outskirts of the small towns, as people are willing to commute to the nearest city for work.
But, I will never have the opinion, that letting folks violate or poach, so that my means are achieved, is okay.
Same here, I'm against the re-introduction of wolves, but I will not shoot one. As mentioned, besides the "morality" of it, or the ethics of following game laws, right or wrong, and I'm not going to risk my clean record (or "no" record?) thousands of dollars in fines and losing my hunting license. With the modern forensics the game departments are using, and license plate readers, it's pretty hard to get away with.

Okay excellent post, well said, I only disagree with the amount of wilderness area required to support the wolves. Let them live in Alaska, Canada, Russia and China, and other parts of the world. A better term for "wolf reintroduction" would be "wolf dumping"....taking them out of their environment, and dumping them in another one where they come into conflict with people, ranchers and farmers. And decimate deer and elk populations. And then gun down whole packs from a helicopter when the get out of control. I don't see the beauty in that.
 
I'm of the opinion that if you live in a zip code that doesn't have wolves, or won't get reintroduced wolves, you don't get a vote. Might be a different outcome if the folks who don't have skin in the game didn't get their way.
....and of this I too agree. No real difference between "protecting them all" and "killing them all" when those claims are made by folks who have no dog in the fight. Again, why I don't really agree with the Feds continuing to list wolves as endangered in many areas of the country, where they really aren't. While they may have at one time, and may still be in some areas, there are many areas where they far exceed the capacity of the area and need to be controlled. The ESA is similar to the MBTA, as for protecting species that need protection. Like with some species in the the MBTA, states should have some say in control of those species within their boundaries. Growing up as a kid, even with the MBTA, everyone one I knew, shot every hawk and owl they could. Both my grandparents and my great aunt had stuffed Horned Owls. Watched my grandfather shoot Kestrels and Merlins off telephone wires calling them "Sparrow" and Pigeon" hawks. He used to have steel traps on the top of the light by the barn for what he called "Chicken Hawks", which was basically any hawk that might prey on the chickens well as steel traps in the barn for owls. Hearnd many a tale from old timers talking about shooting Eagles, Ospreys and Loons up north, because of the amount of walleyes and other game fish they ate. Kinda why it was rare to spot any of these back in the late 50s and early 60s. Nowadays, with better enforcement of the MBTA, it's easy to see any of these Raptors and Pursuit Predators, most anywhere in the state. Like with the wolves, I would like to see the state being able to control the numbers of loons and comorants in the state. But, that's just me.
 
Back
Top