Rattler

Seems you and your friends are the exception to the rule. I'm not surprised by that either. Do you have anything resembling credibility to add to the debate, or are you retreating with your ad hominem attacks?

Hawk, most are smokers but not too many are big drinkers. It seems they prefer to spend their money on drugs instead of booze. I find few of them are not intelligent and they make informed decisions. They just make the wrong ones. That's why I believe it's about choices. Many also admit they're not victims when you counsel them, but they willingly accept the victim status when it benefits them in society.

Moog, I work as a rehabilitation counselor for a large NY not for profit. Years of experience in this filed has taught me these addicts deserve compassion, but they are not blameless. Any type of program directed at these folks has to be coldly analyzed on a cost/benefit analysis. If taxpayers are being asked to fund these things, they have a right to demand they be effective. Giving free NARCAN to addicts is not effective by any measure of the imagination. It keeps them alive without any requirements on their part to do anything positive towards rehabilitating themselves. IMHO, it encourages more heroin use by addicts who now have less fear it will kill them. At the very least they should be under a court's direction to pay the cost of the NARCAN that saved their life. If they don't have the money, they can do community service. Nothing handed to someone ever has any value to that person. Only things you earn have value to you. Part of curing their addiction is admitting they are at fault and only they can cure their addiction. They must reject the victim mentality and adopt a winner's mentality. They must be made to understand the task is tough, but the rewards are immense. As long as society tells them they are poor victims of somebody else's malice, they will wallow in self pity and look for more heroin to escape reality. They use the victim mantra as an excuse for their behavior. The state's coddling of addicts and the move to give them free NARCAN is making rehabilitating these folks much harder, if not impossible. Life is tough for everyone, but it's a lot tougher for those who make poor choices.

Belo, don't look know but you're making my point for me. It's a choice. To avoid pain, they choose addictive pain killers. If used properly they don't become addicts. If not, which is a choice, they do. I never said all doctors are good. I understand some are pushers. Patients have a responsibility to themselves to avoid those doctors. Some seek them out. The ignorance is on the side professing this is not true. They're selling victimhood, and from personal experience with this issue I can wholeheartedly say, nobody with an analytical, factual mind is buying it. I'm not surprised a Marine would make the right choice. That's not to say people don't need help. It's saying society is not responsible for paying for it.

I speak from experience my friend. Doctors are cracking down now because they have come to realize the addictive aspects of these drugs when their patients choose to abuse them. Abuse is the point. Many doctors were selling opioids for profit to addicts. Both made poor choices. Both deserve prison. Society should not be expected to pay for it. Don't call me ignorant when you have nothing to rebut the facts with. I stand by my post and cannot be insulted by someone when I don't value their opinion to begin with.

It's never healthy to suppress bodily functions.

That's a fact. In my dept, many times overdosed addicts become violent when they are given NARCAN. Seems they feel pain when it is working and attack who they believe is attacking them. To say MOST people on heroin have been victims of legally prescribed opiates is a falsehood. The majority of heroin addicts have never had a major injury or been under any doctor's care for pain. Many have, but they also did not take the prescription drugs as prescribed, or else they wouldn't have become addicted to them. Once they were taken off the pain killers, (many are taken off when the Doc realizes they are taking too many of them) they could've sought other prescription drugs to stop the pain, but that costs money and they don't give the same "high". Heroin also costs money. Making a decision to start taking heroin when you know it will kill you is still a choice. It's a bad choice. Regardless of how you look at the issue, it's the personal responsibility of those who become addicted. Playing the victim and claiming victim status is simply the course to choose when seeking the most personal benefit for bad choices. This is another case of liberal society claiming nobody is responsible for what happens to them, and ALL of society must be burdened with the costs of fixing everyone's bad choices. It's proven by the fact nothing is required of the addict after they are given NARCAN. BTW, it the pusher gives an addict a lethal heroin dose and the addict goes into an overdose state, as long as he calls 911, he can not be arrested or prosecuted for selling, or administering the heroin. That's the law. We let them go free because they called to save a life they will continue to sell heroin to in the future. Liberalism created that scenario too. BTW, the OP got banned from the local community forum because he said something that challenges the prevailing myths of the victim class and it's supporters. All opposition must be silenced. They can do it legally, but it's not going to do anything to solve the problem.

Absolutely

Trying heroin, and becoming addicted to heroin, are two vastly different subjects my friend. Is there anyone out there today that does not know that heroin is addictive and can kill you? If you know that, and you try it, how smart are you? If you keep on doing it after you've tried it, you're not ignorant, because you know where it's taking you. I just can't bring myself to have sympathy for anyone who's misery is self inflicted. I'll console the survivors, but will not excuse the addict.

It is, if you live in a community that refuses to accept the reality of self imposed misery and poor choices. Heron addiction doesn't start with the first dose. That poor choice has to be a conscious choice made many times. IMHO, providing NARCAN to addicts is like paying a player of Russian Roulette his winnings after he loses. They are not being held accountable with an arrest and are not being forced to go the hospital either. So we are just saving them and saying "Good Luck". It's just enabling, nothing more. For those who think I'm insensitive because I haven't lost anyone to heroin, my only reply is, there is a good reason for that.

I assume you don't do any bow hunting then?

It may be a young one that has yet to develop the rattle and distinct markings. A garters head isn't shaped like that one and they don't get aggressive.

Not a garter. Notice the triangle shaped head in his photo. That's a sign of a venomous snake.

On 2nd thought I think it is a young Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake as well. They are here in NY.

Looks like a young timber rattler to me. They don't have a rattle until they get older.

I shot a 4 point years ago with my .30 Carbine that was 30 yards away standing broadside. The bullet was a 110 grain soft point. The shot took out both lungs. It ran 50 yards and fell over.

If friends of the wolves put up 1.5 million for compensation, that amounts to about 1% of the money the ranchers have lost. I never suggested the ranchers get to decide how many wolves are acceptable. I said the government, which created this problem, must decide what level is required to fix the problem, and the ranchers get to act when wolves attack their cattle, sheep and pets. Nobody got to decide if reintroducing wolves out west was a good idea or not. The government just did it in deference to the wolf's special interest groups, ignoring the warnings and protests from the people who knew they would suffer from it. What ever the cost of reestablishment might be, anyone wishing to pay their "fair share", is welcome to do so, but they have no right to demand everyone else do so as well.

For all of my waterfowl and turkey hunting I shoot a camo Mossberg 835 pump. It's 3.5 inch magnum chamber and back bored barrel really puts the smack on everything it shoots. I added weight to the hollow synthetic stock to cut the recoil. It's too heavy for upland game, but I have others for that. Can't beat the reliability and use you can get out of a pump gun. Mine is 30 years old.

I'm on my 4th Ford now. 1st was a 2001 Crown Vic when the kids were with me a lot. Icy road took it out one January morning at 75,000 miles. It had lots of issues, so I didn't cry about it. Went to a 2005 Ford Escape with the V6 and my son has that now with 150,000 or so on it. He just drove it to Texas to live. That one has been good. Got a 2009 Escape with a 4 banger and had issues with lots of things that weren't drive train related. Traded it with 70,000 on it for a 2012 escape with a 4 banger that has 85,000 on it now. Issues with brakes, hubs, shocks and A/C, but it's paid for and starts every day. All that being said, my next ride will be a Toyota Tacoma 4x4. It will fit my needs better and from what I've researched, you can't beat their resale and infallible reliability.

Dismount when you shoot and slide the rifle over the saddle. Make sure the horse isn't gun shy first though.

This is insane? Why are they not deported? And leftists claim they don't get any benefits when they're here. What a crime this is.

Ranchers have always accepted losses. They just want to be able to control their losses. I don't know why you keep saying it's a complicated issue. It isn't. It's a political issue where one side has the law protecting it's interests in opposition to the side losing money. The law is also fleecing the taxpayers for the cost of avoiding the resolution. It could be fixed overnight if the law was actually working for the people instead of the wolves. But, some people love animals and hate people. They're complicated. (Not referring to you here)

Why not just saddle up and hunt from a horse? I always wanted to give that a try. Rode 14 miles back into the ADK on a horse once during the deer/bear ML week in October, but didn't have the gun on the horse when riding. The outfitter packed them on a mule drawn cart behind us. Didn't see any deer while mounted either, or else I would have tested the theory and see if they would spook.

It would work for everyone if the wolf supporters were willing to allow the reduction in wolf numbers, but they aren't willing. That is where the problem comes in. They refuse to accept there are too many wolves in some areas. They feel wolves are endangered still, and it's true they are rare, but when they are extremely concentrated in a small area, they are the one's who create danger. Perhaps the wolf supporters should be trapping and relocating them to other less populated historical wolf habitat, at their own expense of course. (The idea of trapping and relocating is acceptable to them, but paying for it seems to be something else they are not willing to do)