philoshop

May your light shine brightly upon us.

A lot better than the fake tree stuff the cell companies are using.

Welcome to HNY surmn8r! You got 1 and put meat in the freezer. That's a long way from a 'very poor season' in my book. I hope things work out better for you next year.

Sorry Lawd, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek. My apologies if I've offended or misled anyone.

The airport is a special case Lawd. It's just slightly within the official no-snow zone that includes Amherst and Clarence. Snow comes off the lake and dumps on Kenmore and N Buffalo, moves over the no-snow zone where it mixes with lots of hot air, then dumps again on Batavia. I thought everyone knew this.

If you're still watching Belo: A number of people on this forum have been around long enough to see the changes the government has gone through over the past decade or so with regard to regulation, and compare them to the previous 2, 3, 4 or 5 decades of regulatory practice at the federal level. The change in underlying intent is what concerns many of us. The intent has become less benevolent. I admire anyone who speaks with conviction, but that conviction always needs to be tempered with a firm foothold in the reality of the situation. The intent may indeed be honorable, but sometimes it's only on the surface, when the reality of the cause/effect relationship has been completely overlooked. During my post-graduate studies (in architecture BTW) I was often asked to defend my position from several different points of view, often diametrically opposed, and often in the same sitting, and it was mentally and emotionally exhausting and terrifying. But I learned a lot from it because I had to see every position pretty much at the same time.

Like I said, a little reasonable regulation is a good thing and it's helped to clean up the waters of this country in a huge way, and we're all better off for it. No one here is likely to argue that point. The small businesses that were 'crushed' along the way were simply bought up by bigger businesses, then even bigger businesses that now have the political power to do what they want regardless of what anyone says anyway. Forget about traveling to India and China, there are plenty of examples right here. Densely populated areas in this country have dirty air, dirty water, dirty streets and dirty people that the EPA doesn't care about. It's a lot easier for them to go after somebody with a wood stove in Geneva NY or Pocahantas IA than it is to go after the millions of car owners in Los Angeles. I don't dump my oil in the woods, and I only burn properly seasoned wood in my stove. I'm not sure what being a hunter has to do with pointing out dysfunctions in government. Since you have an education in the environmental sciences let me ask directly: How much air pollution do you think will be prevented by these regulations? How many people will benefit compared to those whose lifestyles are negatively impacted?

This article is focused around the looming regulatory overreach regarding e-cigarettes, but it gets to the core of overreach in general. An interesting read: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397504/lifestyle-so-good-its-mandatory-kevin-d-williamson

A little regulatory oversight has been, and still is, a good thing in many respects. What's currently happening within the sphere of government-imposed regulation is not oversight for the public good. In the case of the EPA, it's the furtherance of certain lifestyle choices and belief systems held by a few, at the expense of the well-being of many.

In theory, yes. In practice, not so much. The new, soon-to-be-mandated stoves tend to be very fussy with regard to airflow under normal operating conditions. If the wood is kiln-dried, and it's burned under laboratory conditions, you'll get amazing efficiency with very little particulate emission. These were the conditions under which the new reg's were tested. Using normal, air-dried firewood in a cold climate environment requires almost constant air-flow adjustments to get anywhere near the same amount of heat that would be produced by an 'older' stove. To compensate for this, many new stoves have electronic damping systems so they don't require babysitting. These don't work well at all if the electricity goes out. In short, the new-design stoves are made to burn the smoke rather than the wood. Burning the smoke is fine for the atmosphere but it doesn't produce much heat for your house. A well-maintained old-school stove being fed properly air-dried wood produces very little visible smoke, and plenty of heat, even when I'm gone for the day or if the power goes out. As far as the overall environment, I can't imagine there's any less impact from any other power source when all is said and done. My neighbors actually like the smell of my stove in the morning when I throw a couple of cherry splits in to get it going for the day. In other places the smoke is definitely an issue, and that should be dealt with in those parts of the country through local legislation.

Just wanted to add that the proposed regs aren't official yet, AFAIK. No one has much say in them anymore unless they have an office in DC, but as of now the legislation is still pending.

A truly textbook definition of regulatory overreach, sponsored by environmental terrorists and condoned by the federal government. A national solution to a regional problem. If there's a problem in your area, deal with it in your area. It amounts to a tourniquet around the neck to stop a nose bleed. In-home wood-burning appliances will be grandfathered for the existing homeowner. (I don't know about outdoor wood burners. In many places they will be banned completely). When a residence is sold, a non-EPA-compliant appliance must be removed and destroyed. The new compliant stoves can be nice, if you don't need much heat and you can afford them. 4 to 5 times the cost of the stove I currently have and will eventually have to replace. It will be cheaper for me to burn NG, basically. Can't imagine that's part of the motivation though. I haven't looked into what the proposed punishments will be for illegally keeping warm. Guantanamo maybe? I really wish Steve Forbes would run for president. He gives voice to the sane in this country.

Maybe invalid as far as legalities go, but when he stands up to address the politburo people have to listen. There is no act of defiance too small to be heard.

I know those VOICES in my head aren't real, but they sure have some great ideas!

Thanks for the heads-up. Consider it done.

Post deleted. Sorry for the interruption.

I don't have any way to post the actual legislation here right now. It says, in summary, that if a licensing official or a mental health official declares you unfit to hold a pistol license, you are required to surrender all firearms to the state. Page 32 of the SAFE act legislation. The reasoning behind such declarations is essentially left open to the discretion of the officials making the charge, although I don't happen to have the 'mental hygiene health code for the state of NY' in front of me. I don't know what might be in place to restrain the 'discretion' of these officials, especially a mental health professional, in these actions. Could be they just don't like your pants or something and maybe that's enough. So, don't get on the bad side of your government and don't tell your doctor anything and you'll probably be fine. See how this works? It's basically a form of low-level terrorism and it's very effective.

In NY he'd be known as, "That guy who just moved out of NY"

If it makes you rest any easier Philo will try not to see his shadow. If anybody tries to drag me out of my house, though, all bets are off.

So much of the US Constitution was stepped on in the passing of the SAFE Act that it's hard to even begin to describe it. The right to due process is certainly one of them. It's almost easier to compile a list of basic Amercans' rights that weren't affected. Yet our elected officials take an oath to uphold those rights whenever they're sworn into office. Apparently they're 'just so many words' in a lot of cases. I worked for a boat builder years ago who also did some restoration work. After spending a few hours inspecting one of the restoration projects he said that the boat couldn't be fixed and that he would ask the owner if he wanted a new one built. The guys in the shop asked why the old one couldn't be fixed, and the reply was that the rot was just too deep.

You're right, the sky is not falling. But it's slowly being obscured from view by a cloud of oppression.

What time should I be there for the SB party tomorrow? That sounds mighty tasty!

I've found dryer sheets to work pretty well at keeping them away. The cheap ones from the dollar store are fine. Just tie them around various wires and hoses and change them every couple of months. I also stuff a few into my rope bags and other gear duffels. Of course my tractor shed now smells like a laundromat, but it seems to work.

The wood stove is crankin' away, keeping me nice and toasty.

I'm a little guy myself. 5'6 and about 130ish. A walk through the typical hunting store would have you think that every hunter is 6'6 and 300 lbs. Weird how that works. Kids clothes don't hold up and don't have real pockets. They're cheap but not anything near serious when it comes to clothing. Coveralls are not a good choice for anything but icefishing IMO. Stick with quality gear: bibs and a good jacket, and take them to a tailor if you need help with fitting. Money well spent in the long run. Wet weather gear gets tricky as far as custom fitting and leaking seams. Mine is wool so that I stay warm even if it leaks, although it does get damned heavy at times. Good clothing is critical and worth every penny you spend on it. Buy once, cry once.