BellR

So do you think that they should go back to longbow/recurve only?

From the mention of Glycophosphate, I'm assuming he means herbacides/pesticides.

You do realize that DEC is tasked with managing deer and not antlers right? If you are focused on managing the deer themselves, the numbers should be the only thing you consider. If you want to manage antlers on your property that's up to you.

http://www.electronicstakeback.com/toxics-in-electronics/ I encourage everyone to PROPERLY dispose of all electronics. There is a reason that there are recycling programs for these things, they don't belong in landfills. Just because we bury things doesn't make them go away.

No, I said that people who were repeating that claim were either lying or ignorant because it was wrong. Which is true. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. I was until I did some research about the subject. I'm sorry that your arguments don't actually address the issues presented but the fact is that every argument you have typed there is a counter for, and you have yet to answer the counter. I can read your responses just fine, but if they don't address the issue I will ignore them. So, let me restate my argument. Yes, there is no set timeline in the constitution to consider judicial appointments. If you want to argue that that means that the Senate can decide to delay based on their own whim, then you still haven't answered if you think it would be just fine if Democrats refused to consider an appointment for the whole time that there was a Republican president. It falls under the same argument that there is no clearly defined timeline to consider appointments. If the answer is you wouldn't support such obstructionism, then the only other answer is you are a hypocrite. I'm fine with the Senate considering the appointment and turning him down on his stance on gun control. What I'm not fine with is the obstructionism and simple refusal to do the job they were elected to. If you want to block me because I propose an argument based on facts to your blind fanaticism that's fine. It goes to show just how "open minded" you are and how much you drink the Kool-Aid.

...still waiting for an actual response to the argument presented instead of a petty attempt to divert attention from the lack of platform... So my question to Papist goes for you here as well... you would be okay with this? If the Democrats take control of the senate and the Republicans take control of the Presidency, would you be fine with the Democrats refusing to even consider ANY nominations until there was a Democrat president? If Republicans can delay because they don't want to consider any candidates, then logically it should be okay for the Democrats to do the same thing correct? And since as Papist has pointed out, the constitution doesn't give a time line it should be well within their rights to hold any potential nominations for 4-8 years or more, correct?

Section 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution says: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Justices can be impeached, and if they have been impeached they can be forced out. It's not an easy process (it wasn't meant to be), but it is possible. Actually getting it going is something you need to speak with your representatives about. In the past, one justice has been impeached but not forced out, and one has stepped down due to impending impeachment, so it is possible.

It also doesn't say anything about NOT having to consider appointments during lame duck years either, does it? Would you be fine with a Democratic Senate refusing to consider any supreme court nomination for the full 4 years of a republican president? It doesn't say they need to rush into a nomination at any given time and by your logic they can wait as long as they want.

The constitution lays out how justices are appointed. Either you follow it, or you don't. Tell me what I'm missing here. Just because you are scared that the justice appointed may not match your views is no reason to sabotage the process. What happens when on the next nomination cycle the democrats refuse to consider an appointment for the last 2 years of a presidency? There is as much precedent for that as for what you are supporting, yet somehow I would imagine you wouldn't support it so wholeheartedly. The Democrats and Republicans both need to stop being obstructive and DO THEIR JOB. Their job is clearly defined in the consitituion. They are to approve or reject justices nominated by the president. No where in there does it say they can just decide to not do it until they get a president they agree with. If I refused to do my job I would be fired. How come you are fine with them getting away with it? And that's a stance I can get behind. Like I said, I don't support this nomination.

So by your logic we shouldn't uphold any of the constitution or base our government on it because it was written before WW2? That's seriously your position?

Yep, definitely. Justice appointments at all are fairly rare as well, and then you throw into the loop the conditions of happening to fall on an election year and you see why there have only been a few. I don't fault you particularly, but I have heard that statement repeated so much over the last few weeks that its staggering.

Really? The 10th justice appointed from the beginning of the supreme court all the way to the 9th from the end, as well as a dozen in between? You don't see that as a long history? Show me a 14 times that the Senate refused to consider an appointment because it was an election year. I'll wait...

Well, you're wrong. There is no other way of going about that. http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/ Justices confirmed in the last year of a presidency (which isn't considered a "Lame Duck", that is when a new president is elected but hasn't taken office): Oliver Ellsworth, 1796 Samuel Chase, 1796 William Johnson, 1804 Philip Barbour, 1836 Roger Taney, 1836 Melville Fuller, 1888 Lucius Lamar, 1888 George Shiras, 1892 Mahlon Pitney, 1912 John Clarke, 1916 Louis Brandeis, 1916 Benjamin Cardozo, 1932 Frank Murphy, 1940 Anthony Kennedy, 1988 So, there actually is a LONG history of this happening. Really, try to actually look up statistics before you go saying things that are completely wrong. It makes you look like you are either ignorant or a liar. Not saying that I agree with the appointment, but the lies need to stop. Plus, aren't the hardline conservatives who are opposing this always complaining about "creative interpretation" of the Constitution and not reading more into it than was actually written? Why then are those same people making up criteria that don't exist in the constitution when it suits their needs? There's a word for that... it starts with "Hippo" and ends with "crate".

Sorry for the lack of updates. Life has gotten in the way of my knife hobby for the past few months. We have been busy getting ready to finally move back up north to the NY/Mass area! I'm hoping that after the move I'll have a little more time to finish my projects. So far, I have 2 x 90% complete kitchen knives, this one at about 5% and three fillet knives that I'm making that are basically just an idea and raw materials.

Yep, I'm all for shortening gun season, as long as bow season is shortened to the same length of time. You want gun season to be 3 days? Fine by me as long as bow season is too.

Before you dry your hunting clothes just run a load of wet towels in it until they are dry. As long as you don't add any dryer sheets or anything scented it should mostly de-scent it for your clothes.

If the land wasn't posted or fenced he didn't need permission anyways.

Leaving Wed after work for a 1500mi drive up over 24 hours straight through.

Yep, that's the place. My uncle hunts across the road at Honey Hill a LOT, but I like the landscape around Bear Swamp Better. This year, I also plan on doing a little walking on Decatur, Cherry Valley, Maple Hill and R. Milton Hick to check them out since they are in the same general area.

I'll be up at Bear Swamp for opening day. Just hoping it's not to torn up from the loggers... I hate that greasy sloppy mud that sticks to your boots and makes them weigh 10lbs each.

Good score. He is really down to earth and is an ethical hunter who is in it for the experience and meat, not the trophy.

It sounds like something from the Grudge or Predator...

Welcome. I'll also be hunting some state land up in 4F opening day of gun with my wife.

Having the scope mounted to the barrel on a cantilever mount will mean that you don't have to sight it in every time you take it off. Far better for a slug gun IMO but that may be the red dot sight that he uses for turkey/ducks.

Don't rely on google earth's lines for where the state land lies. I have seen quite a few problems with borders that I know the location of. Check the borders on the state lands interactive mapper http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/45415.html . It seems to have more accurate lines than google earth. Here is an example. Google earth on the left, state lands mapper on the right. The one on the right is where the actual state land lines lie. Shows you just how much it can be off in google earth.