Source?

Yeah but did a little crack baby jump out of the bushes?

It is funny that you specifically demanded citations and then try to make me appear lazy by saying that I just copypasta’d. What did you want me to do, write a little dissertation for you? Anyway: ”We also consider the relevance of spatial and TEMPORAL scales and data collection methods when evaluating the results of these studies.”, this in itself implies that the reindeer don’t ”get used to it”. If you wanted to know more, i included a link in which you’ll find the following information:

”Avoidance of an area with good pasture will evidently result in either increased animal density in alternative areas or use of areas that are otherwise abandoned and presumably of less good quality. Even if reindeer have access to seemingly (to the human eye) high quality pasture, there are large variations in nutritional quality between different plants and plant parts. White (1983) has elegantly illustrated the multiplier effect of the animals’ ability to select highly digestible forage. Using an example associated with reindeer grazing, the author demonstrates how a small increase in plant digestibility (14 %), more than doubles the projected body weight gain. High animal density, restricted availability of edible plants or a smaller portion of plants with high nutritive quality will ultimately impair animal nutrition and negatively affect future survival and reproduction.

During periods of nutritional stress, animals will be especially sensitive to disturbance. As described in Vistnes and Nellemann (2001), and Skarin et al. (2008, 2013), the calving period is a time when female reindeer are particularly sensitive to disturbance. The energy demand associated with lactation is high, and the growth of new vegetation has just started (White 1992). Any disturbance that prevents the female from using the available pasture will thus be detrimental. ”

And

”However, to date, there is little proof of increased tolerance among wild reindeer at the regional scale (Vistnes and Nellemann 2008). For example, wild reindeer in Norway were shown to avoid 10 alpine ski resorts during a 20-year period and did not come back to these areas until ski trails and associated cabins were removed (Nellemann et al. 2010). ”

These are from this study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00300-014-1499-5

Wait, like an actual Purple Heart (medal received for being wounded in military combat)? This guy was just hanging around a middle school during pick-up and murdered some guy.

And they call Denmark a Socialist country...

Don't worry Danes don't get it either, if I recall correctly 70% of Danes are against this move. Especially because it comes as a package cutting taxes...

We were intending to shred these OTHER passports, and your passports accidentally got mixed in.

“Results during construction”

[deleted]

> As I understand it, the US military has very strict rules on granting awards to protect their integrity. I am surprised that police can actually name a medal 'purple heart'.

Yes, but they can't actually stop someone else from handing out a facsimilie award as long as it's not at any point represented as being the genuine article.

The only police officer who should be wearing a purple heart is one who earned that heart wearing green instead of blue. (Well, unless he was in the Navy, or USCG or USAF I guess. Point is, it should only be worn by someone who catches some enemy fire in contact with the nation's enemies, not the nation's citizens.)

> Is there an award for "Impressive de-escalation" or "Showing basic humanity" or "Excellence in the field of NOT killing an unarmed person".

Those awards should be a badge, on your chest, that you get to keep wearing.

Well, maybe "Impressive de-escalation" should be worth something special. Talking someone with a weapon out of suicide-by-cop or out of homicide or something, that should get an award. Maybe authorization to wear a bowler hat on duty, or a shining silver neck-tie-with-sunglasses-shaped medal.

That's hot

That is a fucking disgrace.

A police officer should only ever get any award to that effect if it was inflicted by an armed enemy of the United States conducting actions intended in some way or another to bring about the downfall of the United States.

Killed or seriously wounded by a criminal's actions in the line of duty? Okay, sure, something, a blue shield perhaps. But a purple heart? No, not from criminal actions, not from the thunderfucking actions of your thunderfucked pals in blue.

That is for Americans who have met the enemy in combat and taken fire. (There's a reason soldiers refer to it as 'The Enemy Marksmanship Badge'.) Not an opportunistic or desperate criminal.

Got an award for pulling the trigger so hard he hurt his finger.

Women do not want to become housewives and the society does not provide them services to have career and children, so they skip children... and when people do not like childless marriages they skipp marriages as well.

Windmills have small footprints, and there's no claim in this article that the windmills or associated infrastructure is killing any caribou, let alone a substantial number.

And windmills work better in some areas than others, and not everywhere can support a meaningful number of turbines.

[deleted]

[deleted]

They had to scrap the scheme, as over a decade they where unable to hand out a single award.

These do not demonstrate that they don't get used. to it. Did you even read what you copypasta'd?

When I asked for citations, implicit to that was that they be studies which demonstrated your point - not random citations for studies which do not demonstrate your point. I apologise. It didn't occur to me that you would fail to understand that the studies needed to agree with, support or demonstrate your point and not be tangentially related but irrelevant. Given you missed the point entirely, I won't bother reading your irrelevant copy pasta. I overestimated you. I'm sorry.

Best old-man erection to think about since Bob Dole did those ED commercials in the nineties.

WHOOOO!

Except you are wrong, because they WILL kill off the reindeer, as the development of windmills and other large scale infrastructure reduce the reindeers grazing areas, which means more reindeer will graze in the same areas, meaning there won’t be enough lichen to sustain all of them. This in turn means that you also kill the livelyhood of many sami. Also, the NIMBY argument is especially ridiculous, since the people who actually want the windmills are putting them very far away from their own neighborhoods.

Got the purple heart for war and I ain’t never left the city

That's just funny.