Doc

Sounds like utopia doesn't it? Cheap fuel ..... damn the consequences.

When somebody speaks of "Big Woods" hunting, I am assuming they are talking about mature forests with no agricultural influences at all. A lot of NYS is starting to move into that habitat phase. What you find is that deer are a lot more widely dispersed and sign can only be found with a lot of walking and close inspection. Trails through the woods are a lot tougher to find because movements are so random and scattered. It's not like the deer always predictably bedding in dense thickets and always heading for the nearest corn field or hay lot with heavy muddy trails in between. The easiest sign to spot is still the fall rut sign. Those rubs and scrapes stick out well in the deep woods and while heavy defined trails may be tough to find in the woods, the rut signs are not. And there are faint deer trails through the woods in certain spots, but you have to look a little harder to see them. The other thing to look for is food sources. Oaks can be a great magnet at the right time of the year. I have seen deer munching on fresh fallen maple leaves (heavy sugar content). Water sources are good spots to look for sign, and any steep areas where deer have established easy ways up or down will occasionally hold a trail. Log roads can sometimes turn into deer highways and are always worth a check. The big woods will test your hunting ability and it is likely that just spending a lot of time out there will teach you the most about what the deer are doing and why.

I carry three arrows in my quiver. That way if I ever get into any trouble, I have enough for that universal distress signal of firing off three shots into the air. No, seriously I do carry three arrows. No particular reason other than I need the extra two in case something strange and wacky occurs that I get more than just the usual 1 shot. More than that just seems like I'm carrying extra weight and bulk for no reason. It's a judgement call.

So, I guess all this hub-bub is more about the content of the tests rather than the idea of testing itself. That makes a whole lot more sense to me now. I have always been a believer in standardized testing of students to ensure that what is being taught is what we think is being taught. And if they want to use that system to check out teachers as well .... why not? After all, student results are a good measure of teacher abilities. But of course the testing has to match the mandated curriculum or it isn't measuring anything. I have to admit that the examples of questions that were given seem like complete nonsense to me. Again, I go back to the system of regents curriculum and tests as what I would consider a good and useful teaching process which includes a yardstick to measure effectiveness of assimilation. I always thought that it should have been expanded to include all students. The info being taught was not just for college-bound students. That may have been the way it was used, but what was being taught was a thorough complement of educational material. And the regents testing was a curriculum based measure of learning achievement. To me that is an excellent process. What this other thing is trying to be, is still a mystery to me.

Yes, another pipe-dream that we have been sold as the salvation of our energy future. You know, if all the costs were to be taken into account including the ripple effects in our food costs, I would not be surprised if the most expensive petro isn't a damned sight cheaper. But all that has been justified also and even crammed down our throats by the government. And let's not forget those giant whirly-gigs that they have plopped all over the hills. Those came with a whole lot of stories and promises also. Results that only come by way of very hefty government subsidies (code for our tax dollars). There's a lot of people getting very wealthy off our gas afflictions. They have all learned how to work the system with various schemes and gimmicks.

And by golly that rhymes too .... lol.

Yes, I did my time with the McCullochs, Poulans, and such. They all turned out to be basically disposable saws. So finally I bit the bullet and bought a Stihl and I haven't looked back. It's hard to believe that anyone could have a love affair with a chainsaw but after decades of trying to slide by with lowest bidder, I finally have a saw that actually starts without pulling tendons in my arm and clutching my chest due to the impending heart attack, and the obligatory trip over to the neighbors to apologize for the language. I always thought that was all just part of cutting trees and firewood. So, I hope I haven't jinxed it all with all this praise, but just this afternoon I had a pretty big tree to hack up, and it was actually a pleasure to work with a piece of equipment that was designed with quality and the consumer in mind. Oh and by the way, I'm quite sure that it was not really all that expensive. certainly less than a couple of those "throw-away saws that I have bought in the past.

People ..... I have to back up a little here because I don't have any kids going to school (haven't for a heck of a long time). So I need a little coaching as to the details of these tests. These are subject related questions ... right? Would it be fair to compare them to the old regents tests that we old-timers used to take in highschool? I remember that we spent a whole lot more than just a month preparing for those Regents tests, basicly the whole year was devoted toward learning the basic material that NYS deemed essential for educating the students so that they mastered the material. And then we were tested to see if we learned it. That always seemed like a reasonable way to handle education and to check back through an unbiased source to see that no students were being short-changed by the system or giving false measures of success. Like I say, I haven't got a clue what these tests are like, but if they are curriculum based, it sounds like the old tried and true system of the past. It's just that now it would appear that it is being tried in grade school now .... again, maybe not really all that bad an idea. It really does sound a whole lot less intense than those regents tests that I used to sweat over. And, I and a whole lot of other folks survived it with only a minor amount of trauma.... lol. And if as a side benefit, the test results are being analyzed to see which teachers are pulling their weight and being effective in the classroom, I say that's a good thing. So anyway, if I have the wrong idea of what these test are, and they have nothing to do with expected scholastic learning, I'd like to be straightened out. I truly am out of the loop. Am I even close?

I would like to see that statement documented. I am sitting here trying to figure out just who is paying people to lie about their experiences and eye-witness observations. It doesn't sound likely. It could be that he is as curious as I am about how anyone can so casually accept the use of toxins in a wide-spread public fashion without trying to drag every bit of the truth out of the situation first. But the even bigger question is exactly who is it that is paying money to keep people from enjoying all these supposed benefits? What does anyone gain if they are not genuinely convinced that this is a catastrophe waiting to happen? Do we have a plot by the oil cartels .... lol. Where is the motive? And yet those enlightened people who support fracking are experts on the subject.....lol. The fact is that neither side has an adequate understanding of what is really being talked about here, or the potential consequences that may be at stake. And that's precisely why both sides have to be listened to .... carefully. So far you have the gas companies feeding all the carefully filtered info on the science involved, and you have a group of people who have heard or experienced some anomolies that seem to run counter to what the gas companies are feeding us. You also have some large quantities of admitted toxic elements involved in the process which should always raise red flags. It sounds to me like what is needed is as much data and info as possible on the subject because being wrong on this issue has the potential for permanent and severe damage to the environment and even people's lives. And yes, anecdotal evidence is just as credible as theoretical calculations and Madison Avenue razzle-dazzle. Perhaps other states may feel that their environment is for sale. They may find financial benefit in rushing headlong into all of this without adequate investigation. Perhaps they will provide the labratory that demonstrates that our prudent path was the right path. I don't know, we obviously have little common ground on this discussion. I am still more willing to err on the side of caution until I am convinced that there is no risk. You are more willing to accept the gas company's hype. And the truth of the issue is probably somewhere between.

We have a swamp just north of Naples that has some very thick cattails that are well over your head. When you get a ways out into it, getting turned around and disoriented is a very real possibility. Then to make matters worse, there are several sets of canals and ponds that were dug by the DEC out in the middle that can force you to detour and switch-back. And then if you really get messed up, there is a river that will stop you cold. I was out there one time and spent a few hours that I really didn't want to. I never did go back out there again.

Yes and those are all good reasons to watch them like a hawk, and not blindly and automatically buy into any encouragements and sweet talk that they and their Madison Avenue associates may slick up and send your way. That is exactly what I meant when I said that I can understand where their motives lie for shading the truth a bit. They need public buy-in and will say or do whatever it takes to get that. It is known as the profit motive, a very positive driver for successful business growth. It is a needed incentive, but requires careful scrutiny by those individuals or societies that are affected by their actions. We understand corporate motives, and while it gets to sound like a broken record, since it hasn't yet been answered, I will once again ask what the suspected motives are for those that are opposed. I know, it is an inconvenient question, but before we call all those people liars, I have to ask about why we suspect that they are lying about what they claim they see, smell, and have experienced. What motive do they have to be dishonest?

Damned fine-looking cake, by golly! Somebody put a lot of work into that. Happy birthday, and welcome to geezer-hood.

I still have some areas of the lawn where a lawn mower will sink out of sight if I drive it there. Besides, the deer are still fattening up on it. But I think it will not be long before I will have to mow what I can. It's starting to look a little shaggy. I'm not looking forward to it.

Well folks, that's what makes the world go around .... right. We don't all like the same things. As landtracdeerhunter said, we have a jillion channels to watch, and an easy ability to change those channels. But let's not make like this program is the end of hunting as we know it .... lol. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, and maybe you have a thin skin that can't take a funny look at ourselves, but sometimes it is good to just lighten up a bit and stop looking for a boogey-man in everything we see or hear.

You're welcome.

I understand the frustrations of having a deer hunt busted by human interuptions. In fact where I hunt you can add in mountain bikers and hikers into the possible interuptions. It's not a happy event for sure but unless you have complete control of your hunting lands (lease, ownership, or family/friend owned), it is something that just happens. It's not a question of anybody being disrespectful of each other. It's more of a situation where we have all kinds of land uses competing for the same piece of land. It hasn't always been that way. Years ago before the bloom of posted signs and infinite property divisions, you could have all these people and never know they were out there. they were all dispersed into a thin almost transparent group of people. However, leasing and posting have concentrated a lot of people onto state lands, and I have seen situations that could actually be termed "crowded" hunting conditions. Yes, that does lead to busted hunts, broken deer patterns and some severe frustrations. It has nothing to do with dis-respect, it is just an unfortunate evolution of land use and hunter concentrations. There are ways to position yourself where these problems aren't as likely to happen and where the day-light deer patterns are still relatively un-disturbed. That really is the only solution, and even then there will occasionally be a busted hunt. It has all simply become part of the game. It's unlikely to ever improve, so the only real solution is to adapt. Sure, you can complain about it (probably a natural reaction), but the reality is that it won't really do any good because the situation is not going to get better and in fact is far more likely to get worse as the years go on.

It's alright .... I don't really get the facebook crap anyway. Never had an account with them, and never will.

I guess if one is determined to criticize, perhaps their sense of humor gets a bit impaired. Frankly, I see it as a comical, no-win situation that this guy has gotten himself into. If you feel the need to make more of it than that, I guess you can feel free to do so.

I am happy that you can see this issue in such a black and white fashion. I am envious that you have the scientific knowledge and background to be able to understand all the intricacies of pumping hazardous waste into the ground and apparently the exact knowledge of what happens when those accidental mishaps occur. As for myself, I am not blessed with that kind of boundless knowledge, and if there are people in this world that want to share their little pieces of knowledge with me about potential dangers of this corporate process, I guess I have no problem with them doing that no matter where they are from. Frankly, I do have to rely on a variety of opinions and facts from a variety of different people. No, I really don't see it quite as black and white as you do. Unlike you, I do have trouble making up my my own mind with most of the more pertanent and crucial facts being deliberately hidden from the public. This idea of using a secret sauce is fine when dealing with a can of soup. I can either buy it or not. But when someone is using a "secret sauce" in huge amounts with the potential of area wide contamination, then I hold them to a little more open and public disclosure before I can decide if I'm really for it. They don't want to be forthcoming with all of the facts, then I guess I am within my rights to withold my support and perhaps even dig in my heels a bit. I do have a problem with blindly issueing a blanket endorsement of the process when they refuse to disclose what the ingredients of the process are. So if someone from Ithaca or wherever wants to try to fill in some of the blanks I'll thank them rather than damning them for trying to help. I guess I am a bit of a hard-sell, and when it comes to corporate profit motives, I do expect more than just a little openess. I look at the opposition and continually ask the question (without answer), "What are their motives for lying"? It's a simple question, and yet there never is any answer. Motives abound for the gas companies who stand to make huge profits from the process. But when I ask what the motives are for opposing people to lie about what they see, experience or reason out, there is only dead silence. To me that all goes to credibility. The gas companies are not making themselves any more credible when they cloak the process in secrecy. If they are forced to use toxins in their process, I would expect as a bare minimum, some explanation of what those toxins are and why such stuff does the job better than more inert and harmless ingredients. I think its a discussion that needs to take place before level headed people of the community should be expected to give a go ahead. Really .... I need something more than a simple, "Trust me". I mean it's not like we have not been environmentally burnt before in the name of corporate profits.

Damn, some of us that are getting older forget just what great times that can be had with some of the simple adventures of kids in scouting. Thanks for the pictures and the reminder of good times.

My gosh people ..... the damn show is humor. That stuff is funny. It's not a world commentary on what hunting is or what hunting means or what hunters do ..... it's not a documentary for crying out loud. My take is that if there are people out there that are going to use this show as some kind of negative evidence of what hunters do, chances are pretty good that they have already made up their minds that hunting is an evil activity. I think most people recognize tongue-in-cheek programming when they see it.

Lol ...... Free enterprise at it's finest. Hunters screwing hunters. Of course I never really expected that all this hoarding and greedy behavior would result in unchanged prices. I'll bet they go up even farther before all this nonsense is done .......... that is if it ever is "done". We are successfully doing the work of the anti's for them.

Oh good .... so the piece of crap got to suffer a little bit. That's good news, I hope he was some pretty good agony.

I always thought "lock-down" was a prison term that involved super-securing inmates. Maybe this use of the term is just a psychological look into the future as they keep treating law abiding citizens as a bunch of law-breaking felons.

So far, I haven't heard a lot of accurate detail on the capture. Most likely it has been on but I just keep missing it. Was this guy shot? They are talking about how he isn't fit for answering any questions yet because he is still recovering to a point where he can be questioned? Also, who actually discovered him? They are talking about heat imaging which would make you think the cops were the ones that found him, but I also heard that the boat owner was the one that discovered him. Was there gunfire exchanged at the site of the boat?