Doc

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?

One would hope that Wayne County can learn from the Ontario County fiasco. Our problem wasn't so much about "controversy" as it was about incompetency and blundering. If the process is carried out in a careful and deliberate fashion with everything properly worded, everything should go along smoothly.

I think we are both in agreement on this. A plan is only as good as its implementation.

Well like I already said, testing is one thing, having the will to use the results properly is quite another. If a school district has the data and refuses to use it, that does not necessarily mean that as an over-all policy it doesn't work.

In industry, it works just fine, not only over the last decade, but basicly forever. In education, it's an untested concept. This is the first serious attempt that I know of where teachers would be evaluated based on measureable results of standardized testing of their "product". The other thing is that someone has to pay attention to the results and develop a plan for those teachers that are not producing the results that others are capable of. And then of course stirring in "tenure" is another ridiculous factor that has never allowed teacher evaluations of any sort to have any impact. So, the short answer to your question is: let's try it first and then evaluate how it works.

I'm waiting for this creep to step in it deep enough to warrant impeachment proceedings.

Yes, there is always a problem when one property owner's use of his land impacts others. And it is a legitimate concern. Our whole system of zoning laws deal with that sort of thing because there are real effects from one neighbor to another. Effects such as my example of a neighbor creating a dump just over the lot-line, and rats and bugs and disease and smells and filth leaching into drinking water. Should the homeowner have no recourse? I think that is the issue at stake with this fracking topic. When does a homeowner have a legitimate stake in the land uses of others? Is it determined by how much money is to be made? Is it determined by how many jobs that can be created? Is it determined by some notion of energy independence? I think it is an issue of health first, collateral property damage second, and then maybe the other considerations can be factored in. My first concern is that I don't believe that there should be any secrecy about this toxic soup that they use when the liklihood exists for accidental pollution of area resources. They want it to be a secret, then they should be denied its use ..... period. Once the nature of this stuff is disclosed it should be studied to disclose what impacts could be expected on the resources of adjoining properties. That should include casual use with no incidents, as well as with spills and other accidents. If those impacts are severe, the use should be denied. The recipe should be closely monitored to ensure that it never changes without the same extensive studies being performed. If they do tamper with the formula without re-examination, the well should be denied and the company cited. It's probably plain that I am on the side of the property owner. I think there is and always has been way too much rough-shod treatment of landowners by the wealthy trying to get wealthier. It is situations like these that make me say, whoa there, let's slow down a bit. Let's figure out the truth of all this. It's not about money or jobs or energy independence, but simply about right and wrong treatment of one neighbor by another.

The only useful info that he could provide would be names of other cell members. Did they work alone? What resources are there out there that they successfully used? Are there others that he might spill the beans on. I have a feeling that they did not work by themselves. If they had help, I hope they will sweat that info out of him and expand the numbers of captures.

From the age of 11, I trapped around and in swamps and survived to tell about it. That's not to say that you can be foolish when walking around in a swamp. There are features hidden under water. Slippery mud can put you into water over your head before you know it. When submerged creekbeds are totally under water and not all that obvious, slow things down and move with extreme caustion. Hip boots/waders can fill with water and put you into an "un-swimable" condition. Boots can get stuck in the mud so tight you can't move your legs. Snakes were never a concern for me (western NY). Beavers can make some pretty treacherous features that can't always be seen. Underwater ditches, pot-holes, etc. I have also seen under-water entrances for bank-beavers that had some rather thin ceilings on them. So a cave-in along the creekbed might all of a sudden slide you into water over your head. I have been in situations that I wasn't completely sure I was going to get out of, so some common sense and a cautious attitude can help keep you out of trouble but with no guarantees. I always had a walking stick to probe ahead of me when I wasn't sure of what was there. I also kept all my movements down to careful un-hurried and thought out progress. In our swamp, there was always a time of the year when you had to exercise a lot of extra caution. In the spring time, sudden thaws could elevate creeks and make surrounding swamp lands extra deep. There was even some parts of the swamp that actually developed a pretty severe current. Ice that was previously safe could develop soft thin spots overnight. In a race to save some of my traps that were in danger of washing out, there were a few times when I may not have used the best judgement.... lol. Just use your head and recognize that there are a few dangers there that you won't find on high and dry land, and you will probably do all right. But like I said, there are no guarantees.