Curmudgeon

You might find this hard to believe but I have never seen her butt - even on a screen. No TV. No trashing mags. I would have to go looking on-line to find it. I don't even know why I know her name.

Okay - I thought I missed something.

But what about Jade Helm?

I haven't looked at the organic standards since they were in draft form and comments were being received. It isn't about trusting the government, it is about trusting organizations like NOFA. My brother is currently trying to get organic certification. It isn't that easy. I am not religious about buying organic products. I try to make good choices for our health and the planet. At home I don't buy any industrial meat. I care about what species of fish I buy - and where it came from. Organic is generally a better choice than non. Locally produced is often a better choice - organic or not. It keeps money in local and supports family scale farmers. Organic can be produced at an industrial scale, and transported long distances - from places like China. My wife and I grow much of our own food including more than enough fruit to make it through most years. This June we are buying fruit because last year's crop of apples ran out a couple of weeks ago. The blueberries are a couple of weeks off and there aren't enough strawberries to get by.

Whatever happened to Jade Helm? Did the Army take over Texas? I haven't been getting any updates on the regular news?

It's time for The Talk!

If there is anyone on this site who has not read The Omnivores Dilemma, I urge them to do so. Literally, the omnivores dilemma is - what am I going to eat? The author learns to hunt to provide himself with a meal he acquired by himself - without shopping.

Right - you can get organic stuff from China where they put melamine in the baby formula. However, I do know that the flour from wheat grown in the Champlain Valley that comes into the house in 25# bags has not been sprayed with glyphosate just before harvest.

Some on this site will call you a troll for your pro-science view. I heard the pope called a "closet Marxist". Prepare for noise.

I buy generic glyphosate for my invasive species control. I won't support Monsanto. Anyone who has developed gluten intolerance should read up on the stuff. Did you know they spray it directly on wheat before it is harvested? Wheat for human consumption! Good thing Mama only buys organic flour.

There is a hot controversy right now about glyphosate - the active ingredient in Roundup -being carcinogenic. As far as no residue, a study in Europe found glyphosate residue in 44% of urine samples from people from 18 countries. It is now banned in France. See - http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/21/glyphosate-probably-carcinogenic-pesticide-why-cities-use-it I do use it for invasive species control, and around young Christmas trees but would never use it on food crops - for myself - or my animals. It is now being linked to gluten intolerance - a rapidly growing problem in this country - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ Deer eating these crops could never be considered "organic". BTW - Growing any RR plants from seeds you collect can get you in big trouble.

Thinking more about Mike's post on photographing turtles, photography and bird watching are hunting without the killing and eating. I've found a very high percentage of hawk counters to be hunters, or former hunters. These people spend a full day on a mountain counting whatever raptors fly by. Often that mean none since the activity is very weather dependent. A full day outside waiting for something that never came. Sometimes it's freezing cold. Sound familiar? Bird banders are certainly hunters. I've spent time in a blind with raptor trappers. It's hunting. You see the bird. Is it coming to the bait? Why doesn't it come down out of that tree? Does it sense something different? The real trap - not the mock-up - is in place. It's at the bait. Why won't it move into position for a shot? Why won't it look away from the net launcher? Sound familiar? The primal need is still being filled.

Thanks everyone for staying on-topic. As I said earlier, the meat argument is one of many. For birds the time-spent-for-food cost-benefit equation may not be as good as deer but that is not the point. Just because my family can feed 7 or 8 families in one weekend of the southern zone doesn't mean many of the same crew don't spend days in the Dacks chasing ghosts. Beyond meat, the conservation argument is valid with some but many non/anti-hunters don't buy it. I have heard it called "self serving". The birding community worked quite hard to get a Pittman-Robertson type program in place for bird related stuff - binoculars, scopes, feeders etc.? They don't like that much of the money for conservation only comes from hunters. They feel they lack influence since they are not contributing in the same way. That effort failed. Another argument that resounds with people who like wildlife and plants is overpopulation. This is not a concern about deer starving. I'm not sure how strong an argument that is since many of those deer starve because they can't move. It is also sounds to some like "I chose to kill it because I was concerned it might die". The overpopulation concern I'm talking about is the destruction of habitat. This should be obvious to anyone with a most basic understanding of the plants. Note - unlike our native plants - most of our invasives are not palatable to deer. That is why they are so invasive Also, many bird species depend on the understory. An understory that requires native plants for shelter and food - berries/seeds and insects that eat natives but not invasives. Beyond deer, the explosion in snow geese numbers has them destroying their nesting habitat in the north. They have benefited from agriculture. When they destroy the vegetation of the tundra, they affect a host of species. The sedentary geese (those that nest in NY) are another problem. They don't belong here. Historically, Canada Geese only nested in Canada. They directly impact the lives of golfers everywhere. They foul lakes and ponds. Elmo - I liked your long post but I'm going pick nits. Calculating the amount of land required for vegetarianism is complicated. It would require converting all the land used to raise grain for livestock feed to food for humans. Feeding grain to cattle is terribly inefficient. It also requires large amounts of water - an increasingly scarce resource in some areas. An aside - Feeding grass to ungulates is much preferable to grain, resulting in meat that is much healthier (Omega 3 vs. Omega 6 fats). "Grass fed" is all the rage but the buyer needs to beware. It needs to be done right or you will be eating meat that resembles shoe leather. Any animal that was just grazed is not going to be good eating. Grass fed meat - when it is done well - is as good as grain fed. The animals need to be finished on premium pasture.

I thought the court of public opinion already determined you were the troll. However, if it gets this back on topic, blame me. I don't care. I am just one of the many ants in this hill - very insignificant and easy to ignore. BTW - It wasn't a grenade. It was a tennis ball.

The meat argument is only one of many. It works because it is easy to show the hypocrisy of meat-eaters who never think about what they are doing.

The signal to noise ratio on this one got way bad. It is an important discussion and we shouldn't let those looking for opportunities to be offended allow the discussion to terminated. I did a quick back of the envelope count. I've done at least 15 public speaking events in the past 2 years that brought up hunting. Only one of these was to a hunting organization (Otsego County Federation). I've spoken at public schools, colleges, conferences, to bird clubs, a rotary club, a village speaker series. If each talk averaged 50 people, I've addressed over 700. People often come up to me afterward to talk. I know a little bit about talking to non-hunters about hunting. I always say I am a hunter during the presentation. I have never apologized, been defensive, hostile or disrespectful. I never underestimate the intelligence of my audience. You shouldn't either. Using a religious rationale is fine in context. It cannot be the sole rationale but can be put out there for those who believe it. It is important not to offend. Not everyone is a Christian. Preaching is patronizing and off putting - even here. If you find yourself in an argument with an omnivore, you can easily point out that anyone who eats meat is responsible for the death of an animal. You do not need to be morally superior. However, make it clear you take full responsibility for that death. It is not meat from a plastic package. Make them think. If you find your self in an argument with a vegan or vegetarian, you can agree to disagree. Meat eating is common in our culture. It is a valid argument that hunters are better at taking responsibility for animal deaths than McD's customers. The animals we eat also have had a better life. Since my public talks involve hunting because I address lead poisoning of wildlife, I offer a choice of a better way of hunting. I think this softens any opposition. There are good hunters and bad hunters (anyone looking to be offended can ignore this). There are better ways to hunt, and worse. Not everyone non-hunter knows this. They hear the worst stories. They need to hear from the good guys. I always ask the audience to take my lead-free literature and give it to hunters they know. If they are non-hunters - or even anti-hunters - I have given them an opportunity to do something good.

VJP - I have to confess to a lack of imagination. When I called the biblical response to a group with beliefs unknown the the speaker the "worst" possible, it never occurred to me that hostility was an option. I need to learn that there are many more ways to skin a cat than I ever imagined. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now that this seems back on track - Thanks 4 Seasons for making the distinction between 2 different types of trophy hunters. My comment was ambiguous. Thanks Mike Rossi for a great idea which I will share. A note of clarification - the question to the writer was from a middle school girl. It shouldn't matter.

I surrender. The biblical response wasn't the "worst" possible.

Ironic too.

I see my role as persuading non-hunters to support hunting. I believe that requires a rationale that is understandable by everyone who eats meat. It is beyond religion. Thanks Virgil - I was literally laughing out loud when I read your post.

As I said in my initial post - Because it was a public audience. If it were a Christian school it would have been an acceptable response. The children of humanists, atheists, or any non-Judeo/Christian belief system will find what he said to be NO JUSTIFICATION AT ALL.

Very true. You can barely drive the residential areas on the fringes of Oneonta at night without endangering your car. Thankfully it is on 30 mph so injuries to people are few. A few miles away in the state forest, deer are hard to find.

It's a rainy morning so you get what's on my mind: I had a conversation with a friend - a middle school teacher and non-hunter. She does not object to hunting, Actually, I keep her supplied with non-lead ammo literature. She gives to the hunters in her class. She invited the local paper's outdoor columnist to address her class. After his presentation, a student asked him "Mr. Outdoor Writer, isn't it wrong to kill things?". To this simple question Mr. Outdoor Writer said "God put those creatures on the earth for us to do with as we like" - or words to that effect. Without getting into anyone's religious beliefs, this has to be about one of the worst possible justifications to give to a public audience. It certainly raised my friend's hackles. He won't be invited back. I told my friend if someone asked me the same question, I would immediately ask them if they eat meat. Looking at hunting as a way of acquiring protein - the traditional reason for hunting and still a major factor in these rural areas - hunting is clearly more moral than buying food in a store. Hunters take personal responsibility for the death of the animal instead of buying it wrapped in plastic. I feel the same way about slaughtering livestock. In these cases, the animals had good lives "and one bad day". This may not be true of livestock raised on factory farms but it is true of the animals we raise. If the student was a vegetarian, that is a different set of values. It still raises questions of whether it is okay to kill plants and whether or not non-human predators are "wrong to kill things". I have no real justification for explaining trophy hunting since I don't really understand it. Maybe someone can help me with that.

This may be true here too but the owners don't seem aware of it.